[Senate Hearing 108-485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-485
CALIFORNIA MISSIONS PRESERVATION ACT; BARANOV
MUSEUM STUDY ACT; MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK STUDY ACT;
AND JOHNSTOWN FLOOD NATIONAL MEMORIAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1306 H.R. 1446
S. 1430 H.R. 1521
S. 1687
__________
MARCH 9, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
94-203 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 6
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California................ 6
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 15
Costlow, Walter, Founder and Chairman, The 1889 South Fork
Hunting and Fishing Club Preservation Society.................. 32
Farr, Hon. Sam, U.S. Representative from California.............. 11
Floyd, Carolyn, Mayor of Kodiak, AK.............................. 3
Hearst, Stephen T., Founding Chairman of the Board, California
Missions Foundation............................................ 43
Kelly, Cynthia C., President, Atomic Heritage Foundation......... 34
Lynn, Reverend Barry W., Executive Director, Americans United for
Seperation of Church and State................................. 37
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 2
Smith, P. Daniel, Special Assistant, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 17
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 49
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 55
CALIFORNIA MISSIONS ACT; BARANOV MUSEUM STUDY ACT; MANHATTAN PROJECT
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK STUDY ACT; AND JOHNSTOWN FLOOD NATIONAL
MEMORIAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. We will call this meeting to order. We had
a little confusion on the time here because of voting, but we
will get on with it here very soon.
In that some of the participants are still over voting, we
are going to go ahead and open the hearing with a statement
from Senator Murkowski, and I think there is one witness on
that bill, and then we will move to the others. So, Senator?
[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator
From California, on S. 1306
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding a hearing on this
bill, S. 1306, the California Missions Preservations Act, which is so
important to me and to the people of California. This bill will support
the efforts of the California Missions Foundation as they work to
rehabilitate the 21 California Missions. Because these Missions house
valuable Spanish colonial artifacts and represent the pioneering spirit
of the Old West.
I am pleased to join Senator Boxer in cosponsoring this bill and
applaud her leadership in introducing this legislation. I would also
like to recognize the California delegation in the House, particularly
Congressman Sam Farr, for introducing the House version of this bill
and seeing to it that it passed the other Chamber.
Built over 225 years ago by Spanish settlers and Native Americans,
the California Missions and their artifacts represent the rich cultural
and architectural history of our country. The chain of 21 missions
along California's El Camino Real (``The Royal Highway'') represents
the first arrival of non-Native Americans to California. Every one of
the California missions tells a story about the history of California.
And yet, many of the missions are in states of serious disrepair.
They are, in some cases, termite infested, and experiencing
structural deterioration and water damage--their artifacts cracked,
broken or lacking their original luster.
Last October, for instance, at Mission San Gabriel Arcangel a
wooden beam fell from the ceiling and crushed some of the 197 year old
artifacts--thankfully, injuring no one.
And in December, after an earthquake hit central California,
Mission San Miguel Arcangel experienced a one-inch crack on one wall
from floor to ceiling. It also suffered major cracks on five pillars,
and lost an original American Indian mural.
Because of the extent of the damage, the decision was made to close
the Mission indefinitely and some now question whether the building
will ever be reopened. This is particularly disheartening knowing that
it is the only mission in California that had all its original interior
paint.
Mr. Chairman, this is just one example of the state of the
Missions. I don't want to stand by and watch more California treasures
deteriorate beyond repair.
This bill authorizes the Interior Secretary to provide $10 million
in matching grants over five years to the California Missions
Foundation, a non-profit organization charged with raising money to
restore the missions. The Foundation will use the grants to restore the
buildings, artwork, and artifacts associated with the Missions.
To ensure that the vast amount of state support is reflected, the
bill requires a state, private or local match. The Foundation has been
working overtime to raise private funds to match the $2 million per
year over the 5 years so that the Missions can be saved. They have been
leading a statewide fundraising drive to solicit local money and it is
my understanding that they are well on their way to reaching their
goals.
The California missions are the most visited historic attractions
in the State, drawing more than 5 million tourists a year. They serve
an important role in educating children and adults alike about the
history and the early settlements in California.
The California Missions are state treasures and they are on the
verge of being lost to us forever. We must make restoration and
protection of the missions a priority.
We do not believe that time is our side. And I look forward to
working with Senator Boxer and this Committee to get this done.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the accommodation this afternoon. And thank you for allowing me
to offer an opening statement on my bill, S. 1430, pertaining
to the Erskine House, which is an important historic structure
in Kodiak, Alaska.
I would like to take a moment to recognize my constituent,
the Honorable Carolyn Floyd, who is the mayor of the city of
Kodiak, and who will be testifying shortly.
In addition, we have got Judith Bitner, Alaska's State
Historic Preservation Officer, with us today. Judy is also the
immediate past president of the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers and I am pleased to welcome her
to Capitol Hill.
S. 1430 resolves a piece of unfinished business from the
107th Congress. In the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2002, the 107th
Congress earmarked $250,000 for the Baranov Museum and the
Erskine House. A portion of this money was intended to be used
for a special resource study to determine whether the Erskine
House would be a fitting addition to the National Park System.
The money was earmarked in response to a recommendation by the
Interior Department on February 11, 2000, that the Erskine
House be studied for potential inclusion in the National Park
System.
Even though funds for the study have been available since
fiscal year 2002, work on the study has not yet commenced. This
is because the National Park System New Area Studies Act states
that no study of an area for potential inclusion in the
National Park System may be initiated without specific
authorization of Congress.
S. 1430 provides the special authorization required to
undertake the study.
I want to extend my appreciation to the National Park
Service, the city of Kodiak, and the Kodiak Historical Society
for working with my office on this legislation.
Now, the Kodiak Historical Society asks that I clear up a
bit of confusion about the relationship of the Baranov Museum
to the Erskine House. The Erskine House, which is the historic
structure, is owned by the city of Kodiak. It presently houses
the Baranov Museum. Museum collections are owned by the Kodiak
Historical Society. And although S. 1430 speaks to the
potential inclusion of the Baranov Museum in the National Park
System, it is the Erskine House which is to be the focal point
of the proposed special resource study.
I would, therefore, suggest that the subcommittee amend S.
1430 to state that it is the Erskine House, or the historic
property itself, that is the subject of the study.
The city and the historical society have agreed that the
special resource study should examine whether the Erskine House
would merit inclusion in the National Park System with the
Baranov Museum collections coming along, but also address the
value of the historic structure to the National Park System if
the historical society decided to relocate the collections to
another location.
I understand that the National Park Service is agreeable to
this, and at markup, I would ask that the subcommittee consider
either an amendment to S. 1430 or appropriate legislative
history to effect this intent.
But with these technicalities aside, the city, the
historical society, and that National Park Service all agree
that the special resource study authorized by S. 1430 will
focus attention on the importance of preserving the Erskine
House.
I want to thank the historical society and the city of
Kodiak for allowing me to sponsor this legislation and would
urge its swift passage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. If I could ask the other witnesses to wait
just a second, we will get Ms. Floyd here to make her
statement. Welcome. Ms. Floyd is the mayor of the city of
Kodiak, Alaska.
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN FLOYD, MAYOR OF KODIAK, AK
Ms. Floyd. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and
thank you for letting me testify early to discuss our support
for Senator Murkowski's bill, S. 1430, to conduct a special
resources study of the Erskine House. I am Carolyn Floyd, mayor
of the city of Kodiak, Alaska for the past decade. I am a 48-
year resident of Kodiak Island and have come to know the
Erskine House both in my official capacity and as a member of
the community.
The city of Kodiak appreciates Senator Murkowski's efforts
to move the Erskine House study forward, and we thank the
National Park Service for their support and cooperation in this
regard as well. Kodiak enjoys a fine working relationship with
the Park Service in our region, and we look forward to
continuing the collaborative effort.
The Erskine House is one of Kodiak Island's and, indeed,
America's historic jewels. Designated a National Historic
Landmark in 1962, it is one of only four remaining western
hemisphere Russian period structures. Built by the Russians in
1808, the structure houses a unique collection of Native
Alaskan and Russian artifacts, representing the historical
continuity between the Russian American and the Alaska
commercial trading companies.
The city of Kodiak believes such a unique structure
deserves full consideration for potential inclusion in the
National Park System. Completion of the special resources
study, initially funded in 2002, will enable the National Park
Service to thoroughly determine the feasibility and suitability
of designating the building as a unit of the park system.
It is important to note here that the Park Service
previously recommended the Erskine House study in the fiscal
year 2002 budget and that Congress provided the necessary funds
to conduct the study in Public Law 105-391. All that remains
now is for Congress to authorize the study, for Kodiak to
complete the study with the Park Service technical support, and
then for the Park Service to review the study and provide final
recommendations to Congress. Senator Murkowski's legislation
will finally allow this process to start to take place.
The Erskine House collections are owned and managed with
care by the Kodiak Historical Society. Together with the
historical society, the city of Kodiak has done its very best
to maintain the integrity of the overall structure since the
building was saved from destruction after the 1964 earthquake
and tidal wave. Unfortunately, neither the historical society
nor the city is well equipped to adequately maintain such a
fragile building, and there are genuine concerns for the long-
term future of the structure and adequate protection of the
artifacts.
We believe the only way to ensure survival of this historic
structure is to conduct a thorough review of the facility with
support from the most appropriate agency and staff members that
do this type of specialized work. And we believe the National
Park Service is the organization best suited to examine this
structure and hopefully preserve its long-term future as a
national treasure. The special resources study is the first
critical step in this process.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to comment on Senator Murkowski's bill, S.
1403, and for your consideration of helping the city of Kodiak
and the Nation preserve this treasure, the Erskine House. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Floyd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carolyn Floyd, Mayor of Kodiak, AK, on S. 1430
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide written testimony in support of Senator
Murkowski's bill S. 1430, to authorize a Special Resources Study of the
Erskine House, located on Kodiak Island, Alaska. We truly appreciate
Senator Murkowski's efforts to move this study forward and we thank the
Members of this Subcommittee for taking the time to hear from the City
of Kodiak.
I am Carolyn Floyd, Mayor of the City of Kodiak, currently serving
my 11th year as mayor of the City. I have called Kodiak Island home for
48 years. I have come to know the Erskine House in both my official
capacity and as a resident of Kodiak.
The Erskine House is one of Kodiak Island's, and indeed America's,
historic jewels. Designated a National Historic Landmark in 1962, it is
one of only 4 remaining Western hemisphere Russian period structures.
Built by the Russians in 1808, the structure houses a unique collection
of Native Alaskan and Russian artifacts, representing the historical
continuity between the Russian American and Alaska Commercial trading
companies.
Together with the Kodiak Historical Society, the City of Kodiak has
done it's very best to maintain the integrity of the overall structure
since the building was saved from destruction after the 1964
earthquake. Unfortunately, neither the City of Kodiak nor the
Historical Society is well equipped to adequately maintain such a
fragile building and there are genuine concerns for the long-term
future of the structure, and protection of the artifacts.
A Federal Architectural Conservation Assessment was made of the
Erskine House and surrounding grounds in 1993 by historical
architectural engineer, James R. McDonald Architects. The report
identified many needs, including but not limited to: installation of a
new porch and upgrade stairs for adequate safety; replace dilapidated
concrete and replace portions of the rock retaining wall; upgrade
restrooms; replace windows on all three floors and porch; wiring and
circuit box must be replaced to ensure safety of building and visitors;
install a fireproof door on the furnace room; and upgrade to a fire
suppression system recommended for historic structures. An updated
assessment was conducted in 2002 and reached similar conclusions
regarding required repairs and maintenance.
Despite the deficiencies highlighted in the 1993 and 2002 site
assessments, much work has actually been accomplished on the Erskine
House. Since 1967, over $500,000 has been spent on building
improvements by the City of Kodiak. The foundation was repaired in
1978, the second floor strengthened in 1985, and in 1997 the second and
third floors were insulated. The City of Kodiak recently replaced the
roof but there is much work yet to be done and neither one of these
entities are especially well suited to this type of historical
preservation.
The City of Kodiak believes the only way to ensure survival of this
historic structure is to conduct a thorough review of the facility with
support from the most appropriate agency and staff members that do this
type of specialized work. And we believe the National Park Service is
the organization best suited to provide technical assistant to help the
City examine this structure and hopefully, preserve its long-term
future as a National historic site. The Special Resources Study is the
first critical step in this process.
With these concerns in mind and working with the Alaska
Congressional Delegation, the City requested a Special Resources Study
(SRS) in 2000 to determine the suitability and feasibility of
designating the structure as a unit of the National Park Service. The
National Park Service fully recommended the Erskine House for a SRS in
the fiscal year 2001 budget and Congress provided the necessary funds
(i.e. $250,000) to conduct the study in Public Law 105-391.
Unfortunately, the budget/appropriations processes preceded the
authorization process and as a result, the City was unable to move
forward with the SRS in 2001.
S. 1430 will finally provide the necessary authorization for
completion of the study using existing funds. Furthermore, the
legislation calls for the NPS to submit a report within one year
describing the findings of the study and any conclusions and
recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior. We fully support
those components of S. 1430.
The City of Kodiak enjoys a fine working relationship with both the
NPS and the Kodiak Historical Society. We look forward to continuing
this collaborative effort to complete the SRS as soon as feasible and
ultimately determine what is best for the Erskine House and its
associated collections.
We believe such a unique structure deserves full consideration for
potential inclusion in the National Park System. Completion of the SRS,
initially funded in 2000, will enable the National Park Service to
thoroughly determine the suitability of designating the building as a
unit of the Park system.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to submit written testimony in support of Senator
Murkowski's S. 1430 and for your consideration of helping the City of
Kodiak and the Nation preserve the beloved Erskine House.
Senator Thomas. Fine. Thank you for being here. What is the
population of Kodiak?
Ms. Floyd. Of the city of Kodiak, it is about 6,800 right
now.
Senator Thomas. Well, thank you so much for being here.
Ms. Floyd. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Let me go back then and say good afternoon,
welcome representatives from the Park Service and other
witnesses at today's National Parks Subcommittee hearing.
Our purpose is to hear testimony on three Senate bills and
two bills from the House.
S. 1306 and House companion H.R. 1446, to support the
efforts of the California Mission Foundation to restore and
repair the Spanish colonial and mission-era missions in the
State of California and to preserve artworks and artifacts of
these missions, and for other purposes.
S. 1430 we have just heard with respect to the museum in
Kodiak, Alaska.
S. 1687, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a study on the preservation and interpretation of
historic sites of the Manhattan Project for potential inclusion
in the National Park System.
And finally, H.R. 1521, a bill to provide for additional
lands to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown Flood
National Memorial in the State of Pennsylvania and for other
purposes.
So, let me thank the witnesses for being here today and we
look forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator, do you have any comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having the hearing.
I am here, of course, to support, in particular, S. 1687,
which is this bill to authorize the National Park Service to do
a study of the Manhattan Project or sites that could be
preserved and interpreted for the public with relation to the
Manhattan Project. It is an important piece of legislation for
my State, particularly, because of the prominence of Los Alamos
National Laboratory and the city of Los Alamos in northern New
Mexico.
Also, the issue of the Trinity Site is one that we have
discussed and may or may not be included.
I do have a letter of strong support for this legislation
from the Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Pete
Nanos, and I would ask that it be included in the record.
Senator Thomas. It shall be included.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
We are very pleased to have Senator Barbara Boxer here and
Congressman Sam Farr. Would you like to proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator Thomas and Mr.
Chairman. It means a lot to me personally that you are holding
this hearing. We have been working with your staff. They have
been very helpful in arranging it. The last time we had it set
up, there was ricin in the building somewhere, and we had to
cancel it. We had a lot of disappointed folks in California,
but this happened here today. Of course, Congressman Farr will
explain to you the broad bipartisan support that he represents
today in the House for this bill.
I am going to ask you if I could put my whole statement in
the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record.
Senator Boxer. And I would like to summarize it and try to
do this in 5 minutes or less.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. So I will speak quickly.
We all know that to understand the present, we have to
understand the past. That is obvious. Mr. Chairman, we are in
danger of losing our past, losing our history in California
today, and that is why we are here.
I wanted to say a big thank you to Stephen Hearst for being
here. It is very critical to us that he is here because he is
going to give you the view from California as to why this is so
very, very important.
If you look at this book, Mr. Chairman, this is a beautiful
textbook. It is our textbook in California. It is a fourth
grade book. You just see right here Life in the Missions. This
is our history and it is a very interesting history. It is a
very beautiful history. It is also a very painful history, but
it is our history. The missions are such a piece of that
history and contain irreplaceable artifacts made by Native
Americans and others.
Some of the mission settlements grew into the major cities
of today, cities I know that you have been in: San Diego, Santa
Barbara, San Francisco. Mr. Chairman, even when you hear the
term ``missions revival'' that essentially is reflected in the
architecture of the buildings throughout our State and I am
sure throughout yours as well.
All 21 missions are California registered historical
landmarks and 7 of the missions are National Historical
Landmarks. These missions contain rich resources that are
important to understanding Hispanic colonial experience, Native
Americans, and California. Thousands of treasures can be found
in California missions--I am just going to show you a chart
here--including Native American artifacts, paintings, statues,
textiles, and tools.
There you see a mural made in 1791 that was just recently
found at Mission Dolores in San Francisco. This is what they
found, this exquisite work that they unearthed by working in
that mission. All of this is threatened. We may never see it
again if we do not act. So hidden from public view for 208
years, this mural was discovered in January under a trap door.
The opportunities to discover such significant artwork will be
lost if we are not able to preserve our missions and their
artifacts.
I am before you today because I feel this is a mission of
enormous proportion and it is sort of an emergency mission
because when you see later the status of our missions and what
is happening. 18 of the 21 are made of adobe or dried mud. The
forces of nature, such as water, winds, insects have
destabilized the structures, caused deterioration and damaged
the artifacts. Insufficient foundations combined with
earthquakes have undermined the stability of mission buildings,
and all need seismic retrofitting. As a result, collapse of
some structures is imminent without immediate repair.
We will show you Mission Soledad. You can see where
weathering, exposure, and neglect have taken their toll on this
mission.
And now, post-quake, I want to show you about the Mission
San Miguel in San Miguel, California. This is the most
endangered California mission. It has been closed entirely
since the December earthquake. Even before the earthquake, the
walls were badly cracked, and then afterwards--this is the one
after. You can see what is happening. The cracks are formed
when water percolates into the adobe.
Many missions are losing precious Native American
artifacts. I will show you the Mission Santa Barbara photo.
This gargoyle, when you find it, was carved by the Chumash
Indians at Mission Santa Barbara. It is called a lavanderia, or
a wash basin. Unfortunately, it has experienced years of
erosion and weathering.
Mr. Chairman, the California Missions Foundation, whose
executive director is here today, is leading a statewide
campaign to raise $50 million to repair the missions and
preserve their historical and cultural treasures. You can see
from our bill we are asking, ``Can the Federal Government help
with $10 million of the $50 million because we feel that would
give them a huge boost?'' We believe that only by working
together will we succeed. Again, the need is absolutely urgent.
The bill before us today, the California Missions
Preservation Act, again would authorize $10 million in matching
grants--matching grants. It is not a giveaway--over the next 5
years for the California Missions Foundation to repair,
restore, and preserve the artworks and the artifacts and the
missions.
Now, I want to just take a minute to express my frustration
that the administration today, Mr. Chairman, is going to be
opposing this legislation. We had a little discussion here,
which was a pretty feisty discussion, but that is OK because
that is what democracy is. We disagree. They are basically
saying you do not need this. Mr. Chairman, they are telling you
we do not need this. You can take this money from existing
funds.
Well, the reason that we are here today and the reason the
House acted so quickly and Chairman Pombo acted so quickly with
Congressman Farr is because we know there is not enough funding
in these other accounts. This is not part of the Historic
Preservation Fund. This is a separate authorization and
appropriation specifically for this project because we do not
want to take away from all the other needs of the country, and
yet we have an emergency circumstance.
We got a little bit into a discussion here because
apparently the administration just does not see it this way,
and that is their right. But I am hoping the testimony today
will put you on our side here. We will see what happens.
The earthquake that forced Mission San Miguel to close just
shows you how precarious this whole things is. And once these
are gone, they are gone. It is not like a marshland. You could
restore a marshland if somebody illegally filled it. You just
take out the fill. You work on it. You cannot in any way put
these things back together again. No way.
Let me tell you about the bipartisan support because, Mr.
Chairman, I know it is important to you. Sam Farr and David
Dreier with 47 bipartisan cosponsors, the two Senators from
California support this. The House bill passed last October.
I have received 40 endorsement letters and I am not going
to go through any but one, and I would ask if they could put up
the chart of the letter from my Governor. Would you read it,
Sam? Because it is too far away from me.
Mr. Farr. Do you want me to read the whole letter?
Senator Boxer. Yes, I do.
Mr. Farr. It's to Honorable Barbara Boxer.
Dear Senator Boxer, some of the most significant and identifiable
historical features of the Spanish and Mexican periods in California
are the 21 missions built along El Camino Real between San Diego and
Sonoma. The most important sites have left a durable architectural,
social and spiritual imprint on the State and deserve a higher level of
support than has been available in the past.
I strongly support your bill, S. 1306, the California Missions
Preservation Act, to aid the efforts of the California Missions
Foundation to restore and repair the missions and their historical
collections.
Thank you for your efforts to care for an irreplaceable part of
California's heritage. We cannot lose these treasures of our past.
Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Congressman, for reading that.
I am just going to finish here. You are going to have some
testimony on separation of church and state. I find it
interesting because I am a believer in separation of church and
state. That is why when this legislation was put together, it
was put together in a very careful way, that the funding goes
to a foundation, not to a religious entity. We think that is
the proper way to do this. We believe we are taking kind of a
moderate approach because you have got one side saying get
money from the church and do this with the church, which we
think will open it up to delays and problems because of church-
state issues. The other side says do not give any money that
has anything to do with the missions because somehow it is
affiliated with the church.
We stand in the middle here. We are saying we have a way to
do it that accomplishes our goal, and avoids the church-state
issue. This is another issue. The administration is suggesting
that we work with the church on this, and we know that will
raise all kinds of questions. We do not have time to debate the
nuances of any of this because we are losing our missions.
That is why I am so happy that you held this hearing today.
I am so happy Steve Hearst is here and Sam is here.
I will stop at this point, telling you that there is ample
precedent for this in Texas. There is a separate piece of
legislation creating a park in Texas that is involved with the
missions and they hold services there. We have never had any
problems with it. So we have the precedents.
We have the matching funds 4 to 1. We put up a dollar. They
give us 4. We have an emergency. We have history and I think
this is an exciting way to move forward and really help not
only California because if you ask people of California, they
will tell you the most visited spots in our State are our
missions and people come from all over the country, indeed, all
over the world.
We thank you so much for patience and for your help.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator
From California, on H.R. 1446/S. 1306
First of all, I want to express my gratitude for the help and
cooperation that you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff have provided in
bringing the California Missions Preservation Act before the
Subcommittee today. Thank you.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, to understand the present, you must
first understand the past. Our society values the preservation of
historic and cultural artifacts, as well as symbols of our nation's
history. That is why we must preserve the California missions. They are
an important piece of our nation's history--the European settlement and
colonization of the Western United States--and contain irreplaceable
cultural artifacts made by Native Americans.
Mr. Chairman, the story of the California missions could be
recounted by every fourth grader in the State of California. The
history of the California missions is a required part of the statewide
fourth-grade history curriculum. In this fourth-grade history book, Mr.
Chairman, there is an entire section dedicated to the history of the
California missions, and their significance in Spanish colonial
settlement of the Western United States. Some of these settlements grew
into the major cities of today, including San Diego, Santa Barbara and
San Francisco. Even the architectural style of the missions, referred
to as ``Missions Revival,'' is reflected in the architecture of
buildings throughout California.
Today, all 21 missions are California Registered Historical
Landmarks and seven of the missions are National Historical Landmarks.
These missions all contain rich archaeological resources that are
important to understanding the Native American and Hispanic colonial
experience. Thousands of treasures can be found in the California
missions, including Native American artifacts, paintings, statues,
textiles and tools. A mural made in 1791 by Native Americans was just
recently found at the Mission San Francisco de Asis, referred to as
Mission Dolores.
Hidden from public view for 208 years, the mural was discovered in
January under a trap door--Native people of San Francisco, Ohlone and
other tribes that lived at the mission made this beautiful mural. The
opportunities to discover such historically significant artworks will
be lost if we are not able to preserve our missions and their
artifacts.
And we need to preserve the missions. They are in dire need of
structural repairs, restoration, and major rehabilitation. Eighteen of
the twenty-one missions are made of adobe, or dried mud. The forces of
nature, such as water, wind, and insects, have destabilized these
structures, caused deterioration, and damaged artifacts. Insufficient
foundations combined with earthquakes have undermined the structural
stability of mission buildings, and nearly all need seismic
retrofitting. As a result, collapse of some structures is imminent
without immediate repair.
Mr. Chairman, let me show you a photograph of Mission Soledad in
Soledad, California. You can see where weathering, exposure and neglect
have taken their toll.
Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to tell you about Mission San Miguel in
San Miguel, California. This is the most endangered California mission
and has been closed entirely since the December earthquake. Even before
the earthquake, the walls were badly cracked. This photograph, taken
before the recent earthquake, shows the massive cracks in the walls.
Approximately two years ago, the wood beam was put in to reinforce the
window. Within months, the wall above the window collapsed. After the
earthquake, further damage was done, as shown by this exterior view of
the window of the mission. These cracks are formed when water
percolates into the adobe.
Many missions are also losing precious Native American artifacts.
This gargoyle was carved by the Chumash Indians at Mission Santa
Barbara. It is called a lavanderia, or a washbasin. Unfortunately, it
has experienced years of erosion and weathering.
Mr. Chairman, the California Missions Foundation is leading a
statewide campaign to raise $50 million to repair the missions and
preserve their historical and cultural treasures. However, only the
collaboration of federal, state and private efforts will save these
resources.
And, the need for resources is critical and urgent.
The bill before us today, the California Missions Preservation Act,
would authorize $10 million in matching grants over the next five years
for the California Missions Foundation. The funds would be used to help
restore and repair the California missions and to preserve the artworks
and artifacts associated with the missions.
The Administration will say that funding for the preservation of
the missions should come from other sources of funding, such as the
Save America's Treasures program. Mr. Chairman, the need to save these
missions and their artifacts is urgent. This is a special case. While I
strongly support the Save America's Treasures program, I do not believe
it is sufficient to deal with this situation. The earthquake that
forced Mission San Miguel to close only exacerbated the critical need
for dedicated resources to save these missions.
Additionally, there is broad, bipartisan support for the California
Missions Preservation Act. In the House, this bill was introduced by
Representatives Sam Farr and David Drier with 47 other bipartisan
cosponsors. I introduced this legislation, along with Senator
Feinstein, in the Senate.
As you know, the House bill passed last October. I have received
over 40 endorsement letters for this legislation, which I would like to
submit for the record. I would like to read just one, from Governor
Schwarzenegger.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to the main criticism of
this legislation. As someone who strongly believes in the separation of
church and state, I believe that federal funding should not be used for
the promotion of religion. This is not what the legislation before this
Subcommittee does.
The funding would be used for preservation of mission buildings and
artifacts because of their historical value. Funding would be
distributed to the California Missions Foundation--no religious entity
would receive any federal funds under this legislation.
I believe that my approach is the right one on this issue. Some on
the left say that repairing these historic treasures should not happen
simply because religious services happen to be held there. Some on the
right and the Administration say they oppose the bill because there is
not enough involvement in preservation of the missions by the Catholic
Church. This would in effect mean giving control of the money to the
Church, which threatens our efforts by jeopardizing passage and
implementation of the legislation. I think we've got it about right in
this legislation.
And this is not unprecedented. This would not be the first time
that federal funding has been used for the preservation of missions
that are used for religious services. For example, the four Spanish
frontier missions in San Antonio, Texas were established as the San
Antonio National Historical Park in 1978 and receive federal funding
each year. The purpose of establishing the park, according to the Act,
was ``In order to provide for the preservation, restoration, and
interpretation of the Spanish missions of San Antonio, Texas.'' To this
day, these missions still hold regular religious services.
Mr. Chairman, to lose our missions, is to lose our history. The
bill before us is critical if we are going to preserve the California
missions and their artifacts for future generations to enjoy. I
strongly urge the Subcommittee to recommend that action be taken on
this legislation immediately.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
Congressman?
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted
to be here and am very proud of this bill that we have sent
over from the House on a voice vote of Congress, unanimous
voice vote.
The bill in itself is no small feat for the State of
California to get our delegation of 53 members, 48 of whom are
cosponsors of this bill, including both our Senators on one
bill is unheard of. We were able to do it.
I would like to submit for the record a letter from David
Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee, who is the
principal cosponsor with myself on this piece of legislation.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record.
Mr. Farr. I think that growing up on the west coast and
learning so much history of the United States of the east
coast, that people forget that even before the Boston Tea
Party, the first California mission was established in San
Diego in 1769. The last mission in the chain was established in
1823. California did not become a State until 1850, and frankly
was under Mexican rule until the 1840's. So this is really a
significant history of the West, indeed.
All 21 missions are California registered historical
landmarks and 7 of the missions already have a Federal nexus
because they are National Historical Landmarks.
I might point out that in the National Park Service, in the
San Antonio old town, the mission is still under operation of
the Catholic order, but the surrounding of the mission and the
outer walls is under the jurisdiction and ownership of the
Federal Government and the Park Service.
I am fortunate. Of these 21 missions, 5 of them are in my
district, so I have lived a lot with the issues that Senator
Boxer talked about.
The California missions represent an historic vein running
up and down our State, from south to north, and they also
symbolize the east-west exploration that expanded our Nation to
its four corners. Of all the institutions that define
California heritage, none has the historic significance and
emotional impact of the chain of Spanish missions that stretch
from San Diego to Sonoma. The missions are a part of our
cultural fabric and must be preserved as priceless historical
monuments.
They are a living link to our past. They impact every
Californian because I know when I was in the fourth grade and
certainly when my daughter was in the fourth grade in both
private and public schools, they study the missions because it
is our link with history and with the native peoples that lived
there. Normally what happens is a child draws one of the 21
missions and then has to write a report on it and often build a
model. It is a science model and every family remembers it
because the parents all get involved in usually visiting the
mission and then trying to help the child build the model to
hand in as a class assignment.
They also drive tourism. It is the State's third largest
industry. Of all the sites in California that are most visited,
California has over 5.5 million visitors a year that go to the
missions. They account for a sizable contribution to each of
the local communities that have them. We have a large number of
international visitors. They have become synonymous with the
State, as I said, in our education and history. For 230 years
the missions have stood as symbols of western exploration and
settlement.
And some of them, as Senator Boxer pointed out, are
crumbling or at risk of full destruction. The need is there,
particularly since the 1989 earthquake in northern California.
We have a lot of cracking tiles, crumbling adobe, a backlog of
needed repairs.
The price tag is really high. It is not something that the
church can do on their own, and the message is clear that the
California missions need help.
The bill provides an important step toward addressing some
of the most severe problems the missions are facing. The
legislation provides for an authorization of funding of up to
$10 million over the next 5 years, in partnership with the
State of California and the California Missions Foundation. So
it is a three-pronged stool. Of the $50 million campaign, only
one-fifth of it would come from the Federal Government.
The legislation that we have sent over here requires that
each mission submit a list to the foundation of its most urgent
preservation needs. All mission repairs and restoration
projects are reviewed, approved, and supervised by
professionals qualified in the discipline of history and
history archaeology, archaeological history planning,
architecture folklore, cultural anthropology, curation,
conservation, landscape architecture or related fields.
The projects must be accomplished in accordance with the
applicable Secretary of the Interior standards for treatment of
historical properties. And although the Department is here and
argues that this bill is essentially taking money out of the
National Historic Preservation Act, this bill specifically does
not allow that to be done. It says that as provided in section
101(e)(4), which is just one section of that act, that the
Secretary shall use that to ensure that the purpose for the
grant under this section is secular, does not promote religion,
and seeks to protect those qualities that are historically
significant. So they cite that act as a model for making sure
that this is not the money given to the church.
It goes on to say in the last part of the bill, there is
authorized to be appropriated a total of $10 million during the
5 fiscal year period. To make grants under this section, this
new section we are adding, funds appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in this section shall be in
addition to any funds made available for the preservation
efforts in the State of California under the National Historic
Preservation Act. So it does not compete with existing funds.
I just think that this bill and the Senate companion bill
provides us with an opportunity to address the needs of the
missions which are an integral part of California history and a
part of our curriculum and culture. And we would appreciate
your support. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Farr, U.S. Representative From
California, on H.R. 1446 and S. 1306
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing today and for
inviting me to testify on behalf of H.R. 1446 and its companion bill S.
1306, the California Missions Preservation Act.
This bipartisan bicameral legislation that I introduced is
cosponsored by 48 of my House California colleagues and both Senator
Feinstein and Senator Boxer. It was no small feat in itself getting
this much support by the California delegation and voice passage in the
House of Representatives on October 20th, 2003.
Mr. Chairman, even before the fuse that led to the explosion of
American independence was lit at the Boston Tea Party, the first
California mission was established in San Diego in 1769. The last
mission in the chain was established in Sonoma in 1823.
All 21 missions are California Registered Historical Landmarks;
seven of the missions have the federal status of National Historical
Landmarks.
I am fortunate to have 5 of the 21 Missions in my district,
extending along the coast of California on the El Camino Real: Santa
Cruz, San Juan Bautista, La Soledad, San Antonio de Padua, and in my
hometown of Carmel, San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmelo.
The California missions represent an historic vein running through
our state, from south to north. And, they also symbolize the east to
west exploration that expanded our nation to its four corners.
Of all the institutions that define California's heritage, none has
the historic significance and emotional impact of the chain of Spanish
missions that stretch from San Diego to Sonoma.
The missions are an important part of the state's cultural fabric
and must be preserved as priceless historic monuments; they are a
living link to our past.
The missions stand as landmarks of more than two centuries and are
recognized for their important impact they have had on the development
of California including art, architecture, agriculture, food, music,
language, apparel and recreation.
The missions help drive tourism--the state's third largest
industry. These iconic symbols of California are the most visited
historic attractions in the state, attracting over 5.5 million visitors
a year. They account for a sizeable contribution to the state economy
from millions of tourists, including a large number of international
visitors.
And they have become synonymous with the state's fourth grade
curriculum: Students build mission models and write research reports as
part of California history lessons. This serves as an important
education function in teaching young students about the role of the
missions in the history of our state and our nation.
For 230 years, the missions have stood as symbols of Western
exploration and settlement. Time, natural deterioration and neglect
have taken a heavy toll on the missions. Some are crumbling and are at
risk of full destruction. Most need preservation and seismic work to
restore their antique beauty and bring them up to modern safety
standards. Without immediate repairs, these centuries-old structures
could be lost. The need is urgent and near crisis proportions.
Rotting roofs. Cracking tiles. Crumbling adobe. The backlog of
needed repairs is long. The price tag is high. And the message is
clear. The California missions need our help. Now.
H.R. 1446 will provide an important step toward addressing some of
the most severe problems the missions are facing. This legislation
provides authorization for funding of $10 million over five years, in
partnership with the State of California and the California Missions
Foundation's statewide funding campaign.
Under this legislation, the process requires that each mission
submit a list to the Foundation of its most urgent preservation needs.
All mission repairs and restoration projects are reviewed, approved and
supervised by professionals qualified in the disciplines of history,
history archaeology, architectural history, planning, architecture,
folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, landscape
architecture or related fields.
Projects must be accomplished in accordance with the applicable
Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historical
Properties.
All repairs and capital improvements must have competitive bids
which the Foundation's Funding Review Committee reviews. The Foundation
Board of Directors assesses the proposals and has final approval of all
restoration projects funded. The missions are required to submit timely
progress reports and accounting to the Foundation on all projects
funded.
Since the Spanish friars and native peoples joined together in the
building of these settlements, the land we call California has been
shaped and influenced by what they accomplished in that most ambitious
undertaking.
From the vineyards of Sonoma to the ranches of Santa Barbara to the
adobe arcades and red tile roofs of San Diego, the California missions
have left their mark on who we are and what we have become.
H.R. 1446 presents us with the opportunity to address the needs of
the missions and to preserve an integral part of our nation's history
and the heritage of the west that combines with the east to make these
truly united states.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Farr. May I add, Mr. Chairman? The National League of
Cities is here. We are also fortunate to have David Gutierrez
who is the mayor of the city of San Gabriel, which is where one
of the missions is. In fact, he told me that this is how
southern California was born, under his mission. So you can
thank the city of San Gabriel for southern California.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. May I sit in during the administration's
testimony? Would that be all right?
Senator Thomas. We will get right to that. First let me ask
if Senator Cantwell has something she would like to say.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to
address S. 1687 if that is appropriate to do now.
Senator Thomas. Well, we are ready to get the witnesses to
come up here.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Then let me go ahead. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I am particularly
pleased that S. 1687 is on the agenda, the Manhattan Project
National Historic Park Study Act, which I am proud to be a
cosponsor, along with Senators Bingaman, Domenici, and Murray.
This bill authorizes a special resource study to determine
the suitability and feasibility of designating one or more of
our facilities that have played a role in the Manhattan Project
as a unit of the National Park System. As you know, the
Manhattan Project was the Federal Government's top secret
effort during World War II to develop nuclear weapons as an
initiative that changed the course of history, and I believe it
is of tremendous importance for the citizens of our Nation to
learn more about the important functions of the various
Manhattan Project sites in defending our Nation from World War
II through the cold war, including the Hanford Reservation in
my home State.
We must further recognize and understand the complicated
and weighty issues arising from production of nuclear weapons,
their impact on world history, as well as their human and
environmental costs.
In recent years, Congress has taken a number of steps to
ensure we are preserving and interpreting the site and stories
of World War II from the industrial mobilization efforts
commemorated at California's Rosy the Riveter National Park to
the internment of the Japanese Americans who departed from
Eagledale Ferry Dock on Bainbridge Island, to the World War II
memorial on the National Mall. This story is compelling and one
that deserves to be told.
We owe it to the future generations to preserve the history
of the Manhattan Project noteworthy for the awe-inspiring
achievements of science and engineering. The Manhattan Project
must also be understood within the context of the sweeping
ramifications for U.S. defense policy and American military
strength, as well as the sacrifice of our Nation's atomic
weapons workers and the staggering mission of nuclear
production and now cleanup.
In January 1943, Hanford, Washington was selected by the
War Department to serve as part of President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's Manhattan Project. The history of this area is a
complicated one. Farmers and tribes were displaced, given 30
days to move from their homes in central Washington, and at the
time the primary mission of the Hanford Reservation was to
build the B reactor. As American scientists and their allies
engaged in what was then perceived as a race with the Germans
to develop nuclear capacity, the B reactor was built in 11
months as the world's first large scale plutonium production
reactor. Quite simply, it was stunning feat of engineering
which made significant contribution to U.S. national security
during its production run from 1944 through 1968.
Mr. Chairman, the B reactor was first of an eventual nine
nuclear reactors that remain on the banks of the Columbia
River, a potent reminder of both the war effort and the costs
Americans bore in this effort. The people of Washington State,
especially the tri-city residents, are proud of this
contribution, and we believe that the relics of the Manhattan
Project such as the B reactor, which are incredibly important
in understanding achievements that propelled this country and,
along with their complicated moral issues, deserve to be
preserved.
As the Department of Energy continues work at Hanford on
cleanup, the country's most contaminated nuclear reservation,
it is important that we also honor the achievements and
important work done here today, as well as commemorating the
tremendous sacrifices by workers, displaced families, and
others.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record
testimony from Del Ballard, president of the B Reactor Museum
Association, as well as Congressman Doc Hastings, in support of
S. 1687. I look forward to working with my colleagues in
ensuring the passage of this legislation as it is a study
authorized for determining what are the best options for
preserving this piece of American history.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. We will include the statements
that you have.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator
From Washington, on S. 1687
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I am
particularly pleased that you have included on the agenda S. 1687, the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act, which I am proud
to cosponsor along with my colleagues Sens. Bingaman, Domenici and
Murray.
This bill authorizes a special resource study to determine the
suitability and feasibility of designating one or more of the
facilities that played a major role in the Manhattan Project as a unit
of the National Park System.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to work with my
colleague in the House, Congressman Doc Hastings, who represents this
area in Congress. He has introduced a very similar bill in the House.
As you know, the Manhattan Project was the federal government's
top-secret effort during World War II to develop nuclear weapons, an
initiative that changed the course of world history. I believe it is
tremendously important for the citizens of our nation to learn about
the important functions the various Manhattan Project sites served in
defending our nation, from World War II through the Cold War--including
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, in my home state of Washington.
Further, we must recognize and understand the complicated and
weighty issues arising from the production and use of nuclear weapons,
their impact on world history as well as their human and environmental
costs.
In recent years, Congress has taken a number of steps to ensure we
are preserving and interpreting the sites and stories from World War
II. From the industrial mobilization effort, to the internment of
Japanese Americans, to the World War II memorial on the National Mall,
the story of World War II is a compelling one and deserves to be told.
With the leadership of my colleague Sen. Feinstein, Congress in 2000
established the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Park
in California, commemorating the contributions of American industry to
the war effort.
In 2002, President Bush signed into law the Bainbridge Island
Japanese-American Memorial Study Act, authored by Sen. Murray and
myself, along with Rep. Inslee. That legislation directs the Secretary
of the Interior to evaluate for designation as a National Historic Site
the Eagledale Ferry Dock on Bainbridge Island, Washington. Eagledale
served as a point of departure for members of the Japanese-American
community, on their way to internment camps during World War II.
While we cannot undue the injustices suffered by these citizens,
certainly this nation must recognize their sacrifice and preserve the
lessons we have learned.
I look forward to the opening of the World War II memorial on the
Mall to commemorate our veterans.
And just as we must commemorate the contributions of our World War
II veterans, we owe it to future generations to preserve the history of
the Manhattan Project. Noteworthy for its awe-inspiring achievements of
science and engineering, the Manhattan Project must also be understood
within the context of its sweeping ramifications for U.S. defense
policy and American military strength, as well as the sacrifice of our
nation's atomic weapons workers, and the staggering mission of nuclear
production and cleanup.
In January of 1943, Hanford, Washington was selected by the War
Department to serve as a part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
Manhattan Project plan. The site was selected for several reasons: it
was remotely located from populations center, which fostered security
and safety. The Columbia River provided plenty of water to cool the
reactors; and cheap and abundant electricity was available from nearby
federal dams.
The history of this era is a complicated one--farmers and tribes
were displaced, given 30 days to move from their homes in central
Washington. By March 1943, construction had started on the site, which
covers about 625 square miles. At the time, the primary mission of the
Hanford reservation was to build the B Reactor. As American scientists
and their allies engaged in what was then perceived as a race with the
Germans to develop nuclear capability, the B Reactor was built in 11
months as the world's first large-scale plutonium production reactor.
Quite simply, it was a stunning feat of engineering, which made
significant contributions to U.S. national security during its
production run, from 1944 through 1968. Plutonium from the B Reactor
was used in the world's first nuclear explosion, called the Trinity
test, in New Mexico on July 16, 1945; it was used in the ``Fat Man''
bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945; and it aided Cold
War efforts until 1968.
Mr. Chairman, the B Reactor was the first of an eventual nine
nuclear reactors that remain on the banks of the Columbia River-a
potent reminder of both the war effort and the costs of that Americans
bore in the name of freedom.
The people of Washington state, and especially the residents of the
TriCities, are proud of their contributions to the World War II and
Cold War efforts. We are left with these irreplaceable relics of the
Manhattan Project--such as the B Reactor--which are incredibly
important in understanding the engineering achievements that propelled
this country into the nuclear age, with all of the complicated moral
issues it poses for the possessors of such technology.
As the Department of Energy continues its work to clean up the
Hanford Site, the country's most contaminated nuclear reservation, it
is important that-we also honor the achievements of the important work
done here, as well as commemorate the tremendous sacrifices made by
workers, displaced families and tribes, and this era's environmental
legacy.
There is already strong support in the communities that surround
Hanford for preserving the history of the Manhattan Project, and I
would like to commend the B Reactor Museum Association and Bechtel
Hanford, Inc. for all their work to date. In recent years, they have
worked hard to decontaminate, clean, inventory, and spruce up B
Reactor's interior so that people can walk in to see three chambers.
But more work needs to be done.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record testimony from
Del Ballard, President of the B Reactor Museum Association, in support
of S. 1687. 1 look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure
passage of this bill, as the study it authorizes is a much-needed first
step in determining the best options for preserving this important
piece of American history.
Senator Thomas. We are ready for panel one then, please.
That would be Mr. Daniel Smith, Special Assistant, National
Park Service, Department of the Interior.
STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Smith. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Good afternoon. Welcome. You can go right
ahead, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I will try to summarize the four bills, Senator.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1306 and
H.R. 1446 which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to make matching historic preservation grants to the California
Missions Foundation to restore and repair California's
historically significant Spanish mission buildings.
The Department opposes S. 1306 and H.R. 1446. We cannot
support this new Federal funding commitment at a time when we
are trying to focus our available resources on taking care of
existing National Park Service responsibilities. Nor can we
support legislative earmarks that would effectively take
limited and critically needed historic preservation operations
funding away and divert it these specific purposes under the
National Historic Preservation Act.
The Department strongly supports the principle that States,
tribes, and local governments, not the Federal Government, are
best suited to determine the highest priorities for awarding
grants in each jurisdiction under the Historic Preservation
Fund. This has been the guiding idea of the National Historic
Preservation Act since its passage in the mid-1960's. There are
many very worthy projects everywhere, including other
individual and classes of historic buildings that are
regrettably in need of assistance from the Historic
Preservation Fund.
We believe, however, that there are other sources of
funding available for the restoration of the California
missions. One national example is the Save America's Treasures
program that awards grants for preservation and conservation
work on nationally significant intellectual and cultural
artifacts and nationally significant historic structures and
sites. Each California mission is a national class property and
would, we believe, compete favorably in the Save America's
Treasures program. The Department would be more than happy to
work with the California Missions Foundation to develop Save
America's Treasures applications, as well as fund-raising
strategies to accomplish this important work.
Mr. Chairman, I will make a note for the record here. The
Save America's Treasures grants are $33 million of the $77
million that is part of the National Historic Preservation
Grant program. Congress currently earmarks $15 million of that
$30-something million each year, and that is why we say these
significant missions in California could certainly qualify for
that congressional earmarking.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for the opportunity to testify on this
bill.
The second bill, Mr. Chairman, is H.R. 1521, Johnstown
Flood National Memorial.
Mr. Chairman, this bill would provide for additional lands
to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown Flood
National Memorial in the State of Pennsylvania. The amended
bill, as passed by the House, would add six parcels of land to
the boundary of the park to provide permanent protection for
resources that are integral to the historic events that the
park was established to commemorate.
The Department supports the President's initiative to
address the deferred maintenance backlog and taking care of our
current responsibilities. However, in this instance, Mr.
Chairman, we are faced with a unique situation concerning this
boundary adjustment. The historic structures central to this
acquisition have always been considered key components of the
park, but were to be protected, maintained, and interpreted
through a public/private partnership. However, that partnership
can no longer perform this function based on financial
problems. For this reason, the Department believes it is
appropriate to move forward with this bill at this time.
In 1986, the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historic
District was listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. In 1989 the Park Service and residents of Saint Michael
undertook a joint planning effort. As a result of that plan,
there developed a structured partnership between the village
and the Park Service designed to protect these buildings.
Unfortunately, the Society now lacks the resources to
continue to maintain the properties on their own. In 2000, the
Society worked with a private nonprofit historic property
development company to try to obtain private sector interest in
purchasing the properties, but was unsuccessful.
In 2001, the Park Service completed a special resource
study and environmental assessment to evaluate options for
protection and interpretation of the additional parcels of
land. Based upon that report, Mr. Chairman, the Park Service
proposed to add these parcels of land to the boundary of the
park and to acquire these parcels in fee simple.
If the Park Service were to acquire these buildings, we
would explore the option of a public-private partnership to
lease the buildings to the private sector for commercial and
residential use under our historic leasing program.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my remarks on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the third bill is S. 1430, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special
resource study on the Baranov Museum in Alaska.
The Department supports S. 1430 with the minor
modifications explained in this testimony.
We believe this study would provide an opportunity to
explore partnerships with a wide range of State, local,
private, and other Federal entities for the purpose of
protecting and interpreting important national and
international cultural resources in the area the study would
encompass.
It is our understanding that the city of Kodiak and not the
National Park Service will conduct and fund this study from
statutory aid already received for preservation of the
building. The National Park Service will provide technical
assistance to apply the criteria for suitability and
feasibility to designate the museum or the house as a unit of
the National Park System.
The Baranov Museum was designated a National Historic
Landmark in 1962. The city of Kodiak owns the museum with
management services provided by the Kodiak Historical Society.
The society saved the building from the threat of demolition
after the 1964 earthquake, and through their efforts there has
been a lease since 1967 on the building.
In 1963, the National Park Service first conducted a
suitability and feasibility study of the house and grounds as a
new area and prepared a master plan for a proposed Old Kodiak
National Historic Memorial. At that time there were
considerations of use around the property that precluded that
moving forward.
The National Park Service supports the opportunity to work
with the city of Kodiak on this special resource study to
ensure that all possibilities and alternatives for the future
preservation of this National Historic Landmark are developed
in full collaboration, consultation, and partnership with the
community and its entities.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks on S. 1430, and we
have attached that small technical amendment to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, finally, my testimony on S. 1687, to direct
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the
preservation and interpretation of the historic sites of the
Manhattan Project for potential inclusion in the National Park
System.
The Department does not oppose S. 1687 if amended as
described in this testimony. While we agree that it is wholly
appropriate to study ways to preserve these sites where the
nuclear age began, we are concerned about the feasibility for
management of these sites by the National Park Service, as the
sites involved extremely large facilities with tremendous
potential costs of maintenance and possible issues about safety
in some of the buildings.
In light of the President's commitment to devote more
resources to addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance in
existing units of the National Park System, we have made an
effort to curtail taking on new responsibilities. For this
reason, we believe that the study should focus on evaluating
alternatives for preservation and interpretation including
what, if any, role might best be played by the National Park
Service or other parties. We would suggest that S. 1687 be
amended to specify that the study concentrate on those options,
and we would be happy to work with the committee to develop an
amendment for that purpose.
If directed by Congress and if funds are made available, an
NPS special resource study would build upon the efforts of the
Department of Energy and its preservation partners, including
the Atomic Heritage Foundation and the President's Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, which have already identified
the most significant sites associated with the Manhattan
Project.
In 1999, recognizing the significance of the Manhattan
Project, DOE prepared a study that identified eight
``signature'' facilities as being the most important places for
understanding the development of nuclear weapons at the end of
World War II.
In 2001, DOE partnered with the President's Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation to conduct a survey of these
eight facilities--all but two of these are under DOE
ownership--and to make recommendations regarding their
preservation.
In 2001, through Public Law 107-66, Congress directed DOE
to prepare a preservation plan for the Manhattan Project. Last
fall DOE awarded the Atomic Heritage Foundation a grant to
produce a report on how best to preserve the history of the
Manhattan Project so that the public and future generations can
better understand what the Manhattan Project was, its legacy,
and lessons for today.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I look forward
to answering questions the committee may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Smith follow:]
Prepared Statement of P. Daniel Smith, Special Assistant, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1306 AND S. 1446
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 1306 and H.R. 1446 authorizing the Secretary of
the Interior to make matching, historic preservation grants to the
California Missions Foundation to restore and repair California's
historically significant Spanish mission buildings and their associated
historic artworks and artifacts. Under this bill, grants up to $10
million over a 5-year period would be made through the authority of
Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
While the goal of this legislation is admirable, the Department
opposes S. 1306 and H.R. 1446. We cannot support this new Federal
funding commitment at a time when we are trying to focus our available
resources on taking care of existing National Park Service
responsibilities. Nor can we support legislative earmarks that would
effectively take limited and critically needed historic preservation
operations funding away and divert it to these specific purposes under
the National Historic Preservation Act. The Department strongly
supports the principle that States, tribes, and local governments not
the Federal government are best suited to determine the highest
priorities for awarding grants in each jurisdiction under the Historic
Preservation Fund. This has been the guiding idea of the National
Historic Preservation Act since its passage in the mid-1960s. Under the
current process, the Department allocates blocks of funds to States and
to Indian tribes who then, in turn, award funding to properties and
projects that meet the most urgent needs within the individual
jurisdiction. There are many and very worthy projects everywhere,
including other individual and classes of historic building that are
regrettably in need of assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund.
The Department of the Interior does support efforts to preserve for
this and future generations the story of Father Junipero Serra and the
founding of California's incomparable chain of colonial-era missions.
Over a 54-year period beginning in 1769, Serra, and his fellow Jesuits,
followed later by the Franciscans, built with native Indian labor a
chain of mission complexes that today stretch along the coast for 600
miles from San Diego to Sonoma north of San Francisco. It is a rich
story of tenacity, bravery, cultural conflict, greed, mistrust, and,
ultimately, hope. As a nation, we are richer for Serra and his
compatriot's struggles and for the labors of California's native
peoples. We also are fortunate that so many of these remarkable
historic places survive in California today. The Department recognizes
that these missions are powerful tangible evidence of our nation's
remarkable story and worthy of our care and attention.
We believe, however, that there are other sources of funding
available for the restoration at the California missions. One national
example is the Save America's Treasures program that awards grants for
preservation and conservation work on nationally significant
intellectual and cultural artifacts and nationally significant historic
structures and sites. Each California Mission is a ``national class
property'' and would, we believe, compete favorably in the Save
America's Treasures program as well in any other fundraising campaign.
The Department would be more than happy to work with the California
Missions Foundation to develop Save America's Treasures applications as
well as fundraising strategies to accomplish this important work.
We note that Section 3(c) of S. 1306 and H.R. 1446 requires
detailed professional condition assessments and scopes of work to
ensure that preservation and conservation needs are fully assessed,
that the highest priority and most critical work is undertaken, and
that any work supported by these grants meets the highest professional
standards. The California missions are historic properties significant
to every American citizen and we must ensure that any work done there
is of the highest caliber.
Should S. 1306 or H.R. 1446 move to a committee markup, we would
suggest requiring a formal partnership role for the appropriate
Catholic Church archdioceses where the missions remain active churches
and in church ownership. Without the full partnership and support of
the Church, the most effective and best long-term preservation of these
national treasures cannot be assured.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments
S. 1306 and H.R. 1446. This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be
glad to answer any questions that you or the members of the committee
may have.
______
On H.R. 1521
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1521, a bill to provide for
additional lands to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown
Flood National Memorial in the State of Pennsylvania.
The amended bill, as passed by the House, would add six parcels of
land to the boundary of the park to provide permanent protection for
resources that are integral to the historic events that the park was
established to commemorate. Five of the parcels, totaling 2.33 acres,
are approximately three miles from the park in the village of Saint
Michael where the former South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club was
located. The sixth parcel, comprising approximately 12 acres, is
adjacent to the current boundary. Land acquisition costs for these six
parcels are approximately $805,000. All parcels are for sale by willing
sellers.
The Department supports the President's Initiative to address the
deferred maintenance backlog and taking care of our current
responsibilities. In this instance, we are faced with a unique
situation concerning this boundary adjustment. The historic structures
central to this acquisition have always been considered key components
of the park, but were to be protected, maintained, and interpreted
through a public-private partnership. However, the partner can no
longer perform this function, based on financial problems. For this
reason, the Department believes it is appropriate to move forward with
this bill at this time.
Johnstown Flood National Memorial comprises nearly 165 acres in
western Pennsylvania. The park's mission is to tell the stories of the
events leading up to the Johnstown flood, of the flood itself, and of
its effects on Johnstown and the nation. The addition of the South Fork
Fishing and Hunting Club properties would significantly increase the
park's capability to interpret the important events surrounding the
Johnstown flood and the individuals associated with it.
On May 31, 1889, a poorly maintained earthen dam breached, sending
20 million tons of water down the Little Conemaugh Valley into
Johnstown and other surrounding communities. A 36-foot wall of water
rolled over the town at 40 miles per hour, flattening houses, trees,
locomotives, and everything else in its path. By the disaster's end,
2,209 people had perished in the flood, another 40 died in the weeks
after from typhoid, and property damage was estimated at $17 million.
It was the worst inland flood in the nation's history and the first
test of the newly formed American Red Cross, headed up by Clara Barton.
A pivotal part of the story revolves around the South Fork Fishing
and Hunting Club, located in Saint Michael, which in 1879 had purchased
an abandoned reservoir, repaired the old dam, and created a private
lake and recreational area for its members. Because the dam was not
properly constructed or maintained, it gave way after heavy rains
pounded the area, overtaxing the Lake Conemaugh dam spillway and
eventually causing the dam to fail.
In 1986, the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historic District
was listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the state
level of significance.
In 1989, the Park Service and residents of Saint Michael undertook
a joint planning effort, which produced the Preservation and
Interpretation Plan for the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club
Historic District. This plan outlined concepts and guidance for basic
visitor services, interpretation, cultural resource preservation and
maintenance. As a result of the plan, there developed a structured
partnership between the village of Saint Michael and the Park Service,
designed to protect, maintain and manage the South Fork Fishing and
Hunting Club clubhouse and other significant cottages in the historic
district. The 1889 South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historical
Preservation Society was formed to be the principal community body
working with the Park Service in the implementation of the plan. Since
the original planning efforts, the Society has obtained ownership of
the Clubhouse, the Annex, the Moorehead Cottage, and the Brown Cottage.
These properties were not originally included within the boundary of
the park because it was understood that a local entity could adequately
provide for their protection and interpretation.
Unfortunately, the Society lacks the resources to continue to
maintain the properties they own, let alone preserve and develop them
according to approved plans. The Society is struggling to make mortgage
payments, and while they are desperately seeking a solution, the
properties are deteriorating and losing historic integrity. In 2000,
the Society worked with a private, non-profit historic property
development company to try and obtain private sector interest in
purchasing the properties, but was not successful. There is an imminent
threat to the protection of these resources. The private owner has
already listed these historic structures and properties for sale on the
open market.
In 2001, the National Park Service completed a special resource
study and environmental assessment to evaluate options for protection
and interpretation of the additional parcels of land. Based upon the
report, the Park Service proposed to add these parcels of land to the
boundary of the park and to acquire the parcels in fee simple. Within
the village of Saint Michael, four historically significant properties
would be acquired. These structures include the former clubhouse of the
South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, the Clubhouse Annex, and two
cottages built by club members. One undeveloped parcel, the Clubhouse
Side-yard that sits between the Clubhouse and the Clubhouse Annex,
would also be added. The final parcel would protect the historic
viewshed of the park, preserving the rural character of the Unger House
property (Elias Unger was president of the South Fork Fishing and
Hunting Club), owned by the National Park Service.
If the Park Service acquired the historic buildings, we would
explore the option of a public-private partnership to lease the
buildings to the private sector for commercial and residential use.
Through our historic leasing program, the private sector could sign a
long-term lease with the Park Service that would cover a portion of the
operations and maintenance costs of the properties, which ranges from
$75,000 to $310,000. In addition, the private sector could rehabilitate
the buildings, estimated to cost upwards of $2.9 million, using private
funds in return for federal historic preservation tax credits. This
would decrease the financial burden placed on the Park Service by the
addition of these properties to the park. There has already been
interest expressed by local businesses in this proposal.
The proposal to add these properties to the boundary of the park
has widespread support among the property owners, state and local
governments, and the public who attended a public meeting in July 2001
in Saint Michael. Public comments received were unanimous in support of
the proposal.
We look forward to working with the local communities in Saint
Michael and Johnstown to acquire these historically significant
properties that will help tell the entire story of the events of the
1889 Johnstown Flood, from the actions leading up to the flood through
its devastating aftermath.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my
prepared remarks. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or
the members of the committee may have.
______
On S. 1430
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 1430, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the
Baranov Museum. The Department supports H.R. 1430 with the minor
modifications explained in this testimony. We believe that this study
would provide an opportunity to explore partnerships with a wide range
of state, local, private, and other federal entities for the purpose of
protecting and interpreting important national and international
cultural resources in the area the study would encompass. Therefore, we
recommend including language in the bill that makes it clear that the
study is meant to evaluate a range of alternatives (for the building
and its collections), in addition to potential inclusion in the
National Park System.
It is our understanding that the City of Kodiak and not the
National Park Service will conduct and fund this study from statutory
aid already received for preservation of the building. The National
Park Service will provide technical assistance to apply the criteria
for suitability and feasibility to designate the museum as a unit of
the National Park System.
The Baranov Museum on Kodiak Island is the only surviving Russian
building known to have been associated with both the Russian America
Company and the Alaska Commercial Company. These companies were the
pillars of the Russian and early American administration of Alaska, and
shaped the face of northwestern America through commerce,
administration, law enforcement and exploration. Preserved in
tradition, the history of Russian America is nationally and
internationally monumental to the legacy of Alaska. A hundred years
before the purchase of Alaska and the investment of William Seward's
folly in 1867, the northern reaches of this country were managed by the
Russian American Company, a corporation set up by the Russian
government to regulate the fur trade and other commercial enterprises.
It operated as a colonial charter company similar to the English and
Dutch East Indies Companies, which founded the colonies on our
country's eastern seaboard.
Around 1808, Alexander Baranov, manager of the Russian America
Company, built the large two-story log warehouse overlooking the
harbor. A shrewd manager, Baranov moved the corporation towards greater
international collaboration, while at the same time integrating Alaska
Natives into positions of power and equality. One hundred years later,
leading merchant W.J. Erskine made the building his home. In addition,
the building is one of only three remaining Russian period buildings
extant in the Western Hemisphere. The Baranov Museum was designated a
National Historic Landmark on June 2, 1962. The City of Kodiak owns the
Baranov Museum, with management services provided by the Kodiak
Historical Society. The Society saved the building from the threat of
demolition after the 1964 earthquake and tsunami. Through their efforts
it was leased in 1967 for use as a museum.
In 1963, the National Park Service first conducted a suitability
and feasibility study of the house and grounds as a new area and
prepared a master plan for ``Proposed Old Kodiak National Historic
Memorial.'' The proposal was not passed because of concern that the
preservation of the building would conflict with industrial development
and fuel storage near the dock on its boundaries. During the past 40
years, the National Park Service has consistently provided technical
assistance in the fields of historic preservation, maintenance, and
interpretation to both the city and historical society through the
National Historic Landmark program.
The National Park Service supports the opportunity to work with the
City of Kodiak on this special resource study to ensure that all
possibilities and alternatives for the future preservation of this
National Historic Landmark are developed in full collaboration,
consultation, and partnership with the community and its entities. This
special resource study will consider the criteria for suitability and
feasibility as a new unit as one of several planning alternatives and
desired futures for this building and its resources.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions the committee may have.
Proposed Amendment to S. 1430: On page 2, at the end of line 2,
delete the period and add: ``as well as a range of other viable
preservation and management alternatives.''
______
On S. 1687
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department's views on S. 1687, to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a study on the preservation and interpretation of the
historic sites of the Manhattan Project for potential inclusion in the
National Park System.
The Department does not oppose S. 1687, if amended as described in
this testimony. This study would provide an opportunity to determine
appropriate ways to preserve and interpret resources associated with
the Manhattan Project, through which the United States developed the
atomic bomb during World War II. While we agree that it is wholly
appropriate to study ways to preserve the sites where the nuclear age
began, we are concerned about the feasibility for management of these
sites by the National Park Service (NPS), as the sites involve
extremely large facilities with tremendous potential costs of
maintenance and possible issues about safety in some of the buildings.
In light of the President's commitment to devote more resources to
addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance in existing units of the
National Park System, we have made an effort to curtail taking on new
responsibilities. For this reason, we believe that the study should
focus on evaluating alternatives for preservation and interpretation
including what, if any, role might best be played by the NPS or other
partners. We would suggest that S. 1687 be amended to specify that the
study concentrate on those options, and we would be happy to work with
the committee to develop an amendment for that purpose.
The NPS is in various stages of progress on 34 studies previously
authorized by Congress, 23 of which are being funded through the
special resource study budget. We completed five studies in FY 2003,
and we expect to complete about nine in FY 2004. Our highest priority
is to complete these pending studies, though we expect to start newly
authorized studies as soon as funds are made available. Given the type
of facilities involved, the study authorized by S. 1687 is anticipated
to cost more than most studies, which average around $250,000. We
estimate that this study would cost between $500,000 and $750,000
assuming that we could rely on available data, including environmental
evaluations, to make initial determinations about the structural
condition of the facilities and the status of potential hazardous
materials.
S. 1687 directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special
resource study on the Manhattan Project sites in accordance with the
law governing these studies, section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383, except
for the provision that calls for the study to be completed in three
years after funding is made available. Section 4(b) of S. 1687 requires
the study to be completed in one year. We would recommend that this
section be amended to provide the usual three years for completing the
study.
The study area designated by S. 1687 includes: (1) Los Alamos
National Laboratory and the town of Los Alamos in New Mexico; (2) the
Trinity Site on the White Sands Missile Range, also in New Mexico; (3)
the Hanford Site in Washington; (4) Oak Ridge Laboratory in Tennessee;
and (5) other significant sites relating to the Manhattan Project
determined by the Secretary. The four sites named in the bill are
generally viewed as the most important sites related to the Manhattan
Project and are the areas in which the National Park Service would
focus the study, but we think it is appropriate to include the
flexibility to study other areas as well.
Operating from December, 1942 until September, 1945, the Manhattan
Project was a $2.2 billion effort that employed 130,000 workers at its
peak, but was kept largely out of public view. Like so many of the
national mobilization efforts of American industry and agriculture that
led to the Allied victory in World War II, the Manhattan Project
illustrates how the federal government worked with the private sector
to carry out basic and applied scientific research at a scale unheard
of before the war. This nationwide project had significant results
shortening the war and averting an invasion of Japanese home islands.
The introduction of nuclear weaponry to our nation's arsenal changed
forever world history and has been recognized as one of the most
important events of the twentieth century.
If directed by Congress and if funds are made available, a NPS
special resource study would build upon the efforts of the Department
of Energy (DOE) and its preservation partners, including the Atomic
Heritage Foundation and the President's Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, which have already identified the most significant sites
associated with the Manhattan Project.
In 1999, recognizing the significance of the Manhattan Project
sites, DOE prepared a study that identified eight ``Signature
Facilities'' as being the most important places for understanding the
development of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. Seven of the
eight facilities are within the four study areas specifically named in
S. 1687. The eight facilities are:
Metallurgical Laboratory, University of Chicago (Chemistry
Building and CP-1 site). In August 1942, ``Met Lab'' isolated
the first weighable amount of plutonium. The Chemistry Building
is now a National Historic Landmark. On December 2, 1942, CP-1
(Fermi's ``pile'' at Stagg Field) produced the first self-
sustaining nuclear reaction.
X-10 Graphite Reactor, Oak Ridge. Built in 1943, this
facility was designed as the pilot for the Hanford production
reactors. It produced the first significant amounts of
plutonium. It is a National Historic Landmark.
K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Process Building, Oak Ridge.
Completed in 1945, this U-shaped building measures half a mile
by 1,000 feet. Gaseous diffusion was one of three isotope
separations processes that provided uranium-235 for the
Hiroshima weapon (``Little Boy''). Gaseous diffusion was the
only uranium enrichment process used during the Cold War.
Y-12 Beta-3 Racetracks, Oak Ridge. This facility produced
uranium-235 for the Hiroshima weapon. It is the only surviving
production-level electromagnetic isotope separations facility
in United States.
B Reactor, Hanford. Completed in 1944, this was the world's
first large-scale plutonium production reactor. It produced
plutonium for the Trinity device, the Nagasaki weapon (``Fat
Man''), and Cold War weapons. It is a National Historic
Mechanical Engineering Landmark.
Chemical Separations Building (T Plant), Hanford. Completed
in 1944-45, this plant separated plutonium out of production
reactor fuel rods. It is a massive canyon-like structure that
stands 800 feet long, 65 feet wide, and 80 feet high.
V-Site Assembly Building, Los Alamos. This building is among
the last remaining Manhattan Project buildings at Los Alamos.
The trinity device and later weapons were assembled here. Other
buildings at this site were destroyed by the Cerro Grande fire
in 2000.
Trinity Site, Alamogordo. The July 16, 1945 test at this
site began the atomic age. The site is now part of White Sands
Missile Range, owned by the Department of Defense. It is a
National Historic Landmark.
In 2001, DOE partnered with the President's Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation to conduct a survey of these eight facilities
(all but two are under DOE ownership) and to make recommendations
regarding their preservation. The panel of experts who participated in
the study determined that each of the sites qualify not only for
National Historic Landmark status, but also as World Heritage sites. In
2001, through Public Law 107-66, Congress directed DOE to prepare a
preservation plan for the Manhattan Project. The FY 2004 Energy and
Water Appropriations Act provided $1 million to DOE to support
preservation of the Manhattan Project sites. Last fall, DOE awarded the
Atomic Heritage Foundation a grant to produce a report on how to best
preserve the history of the Manhattan Project so that the public and
future generations can better understand what the Manhattan Project
was, its legacy, and lessons for today. The report will address: 1) the
Manhattan Project buildings, artifacts, and other aspects of the
history that should be preserved; 2) the estimated costs of
restoration, preservation and long-term stewardship of these
properties, and 3) what roles federal, state, and local government
agencies, nonprofits, the private sector and others might play in
preservation and stewardship. An interim report was presented to
Congress in September 2003.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Who manages the Save America's Treasures fund?
Mr. Smith. The National Park Service. Our cultural
resources portion of the Park Service manages that, and it is a
fund that provides money to the States on an apportioned basis,
to Indian tribes, to historically black colleges, and I believe
there is one other small component of it, but right now escapes
me. But that fund is coordinated by the National Park Service.
The Save America's Treasures is part of that, Senator, and
that has other agencies of Government that make determinations
of how those grants will be done. Because it involves libraries
and museums, we defer to other Federal panels to make those
decisions and then we act on their recommendations.
NOTE: The Department of the Interior would like to revise its
answer to the following question:
Question. Who Manages the Save America's Treasures Fund?
Answer. To clarify, the National Park Service manages it on behalf
of the Secretary of the Interior. Save America's Treasures grants are
one part of the larger annual appropriations to the Historic
Preservation Fund--derived from Outer Continental Shelf receipts and
authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470).
The Fund provides assistance to States, tribal and local governments,
colleges and universities, not-for profit organizations, and individual
property owners to preserve this nation's significant historic places.
While the Save America's Treasures appropriations law requires the
National Park Service to consult in grant selection and administration
with a wide variety of organizations such as the National Endowment for
the Arts and the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities,
overall administration, management, and accountability for the program
rests with the National Park Service.
Senator Thomas. I presume there are missions in other
States in addition to California. What is the role of the Park
Service in the management and the operation of historic
missions?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, there are missions in other
States, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Twenty-six
missions or mission related structures or ruins are in the
National Park System. Congressman Farr alluded to the San
Antonio missions in Texas which came into the system through
act of Congress in 1978. The other is in New Mexico, a site--I
am blanking on the name right now, but it is a site that has
three missions and three Indian pueblos. That came into the
system in 1909 from having been a National Monument designated.
Other than that, we provide technical assistance on these
issues. We have a historic trail that certainly involves
interpreting these, but we do not have any other sites within
the National Park System.
NOTE: The Department of the Interior would like to revise its
answer to the following question:
Question. I presume there are missions in other States in addition
to California. What is the Role of the National Park Service in the
Management and the operation of Historic Missions?
Answer. I would like to clarify my remarks during the hearing. The
National Park Service manages a total of 26 historic, Spanish Colonial-
era missions or mission-related structures or ruins within 4 National
Park units in 3 States (4 missions, buildings, or ruins in Arizona, 12
in New Mexico, and 10 in Texas):
Tumacacori National Historic Park, Arizona
1 standing, restored mission church--not in use--San Jose' de
Tumacacori
2 mission church ruins--Los Santos Angeles de Guevavi and San
Cayetano de Calabasas
1 mission church--archeological remains only--San Jose' de
Tumacacori (earlier mission church)
Pecos National Historical Park, New Mexico
4 mission churches--ruins and archaeological remains--all
called Nuestra Senora de los Angeles de Porciu'ncula de Pecos
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, New Mexico
5 mission churches in ruins located at 3 pueblos (Abo',
Quarai, and Las Humanas (Gran Quivira))--the mission churches
are: San Gregorio de Abo (2 mission churches), Purisima
Concepcion de Quarai, and San Buenaventura de las Humanas (2
mission churches). In addition, 3 other ruined structures that
were historically used as interim mission churches (Abo',
Quarai, and Las Humanan (Gran Quivira)
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, Texas
4 standing mission churches still in use by the Catholic
archdiocese (Purisima Concepcion de Acuna, San Jose y San
Miquel de Aguayo, San Francisco de las Espada, and San Juan
Capistrano. In addition there are 6 mission church ruins used
as earlier versions of the extant mission churches--1 at
Concepcion, 1 at San Jose, 1 at Espada, and 2 at San Juan.
And while the National Park Service often provides technical
assistance and advice to owners of properties listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or designated as National Historic
Landmarks, we have no other management or operational responsibilities
for any other Spanish Colonial era missions.
Senator Thomas. This Johnstown Flood Memorial. If you
manage those properties through a historic leasing program,
does that ensure the public has access to them?
Mr. Smith. Senator, it does. We are having a lot of success
with this historic leasing program. The committee may have
heard testimony in the past years on the Hot Springs site in
Arkansas where we out-lease their facilities. We are looking at
this leasing authority in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, for some
rather unique structures that are in that unit of the system.
Yes, it provides for public access, but it allows a wide
range of uses. It could be a bed and breakfast. It could be a
restaurant, but the Park Service would interpret the building.
The facades would all be preserved and you would be able to
interpret the structures from outside.
In Johnstown, there is one of these buildings that
currently has apartments in it. So the upstairs would probably
be for residents, but the downstairs and the exterior would
still be interpreted.
Senator Thomas. What would this be part of then? What is
the Johnstown Flood? It is a memorial?
Mr. Smith. It is a National Historic Site. I'm sorry.
National Memorial.
Senator Thomas. I looked at a map of it. It was kind of
unclear to me. Is this in the same area, I mean, the same land
as the other?
Mr. Smith. I actually have a map that we can provide to the
committee, if we have not already. It actually is where the dam
was for this private clubhouse and lodge. It was a fishing
lake, and when that dam gave way, then of course, the flood
happened many miles downstream in Johnstown. One parcel is
immediately adjacent to the current boundary that we have for
the memorial, the other five parcels are nearby.
NOTE: The Department of the Interior would like to revise its
answer to the following question:
Question. I looked at a map of it. It was kind of unclear to me. Is
this in the same area, I mean, the same land as the other?
Answer. To clarify, there are six parcels that the bill proposes to
add to the boundary of the park. Five of the parcels, totaling 2.33
acres, are approximately three miles from the park in the village of
Saint Michael where the former South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club was
located. The sixth parcel, comprising approximately 12 acres, is
adjacent to the current boundary.
Senator Thomas. I see, OK.
And then these others, the Kodiak one and the Manhattan,
are both studies.
Mr. Smith. Yes. The Alaska study is rather straightforward.
The building is significant. It is already a National Historic
Landmark. And the study already has funds appropriated. Funds
were appropriated for it in fiscal year 2002. So it is a matter
of moving forward to coordinate with the city and other
interested parties and conduct the study to see what is most
feasible for that location.
Senator Thomas. Do you have any idea how many sites could
potentially be associated with this Manhattan Project?
Mr. Smith. As the testimony said, Senator, we would
probably follow the very excellent work that DOE has
coordinated both as a Department and with the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. The bill lends itself toward these
eight, of which four are already National Historic Landmark
properties.
I am not here today at all to say that these are not
historically significant, just as the missions in California
are very historically significant. A study would not be really
trying to figure out their suitability. It would really lean
toward the feasibility of how we would open and interpret and
maintain these sites in future years if they moved from out of
the DOE type of needs for those areas and moved into the
National Park System.
NOTE: The Department of the interior would like to revise its
answer to the following question:
Question. Do you have any idea how many sites could potentially be
associated with this Manhattan Project?
Answer. I would also like to clarify my response to your question
about how many sites could be potentially associated with the study of
the Manhattan Project sites under S. 1687. The study would focus on the
four areas specifically named in the bill: Los Alamos National
Laboratory and the town of Los Alamos; the Trinity Site on the White
Sands Missile Range; the Hartford Site; and the Oak Ridge Laboratory.
Within those areas are seven of the eight ``Signature Facilities''
already identified by the Department of Energy as being the most
significant to the development of nuclear weapons at the end of World
War II. While S. 1687 would authorize the study to look at ``other
significant sites relating to the Manhattan Project determined by the
Secretary,'' we know that, based on the work done the Department of
Energy and the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
that it is unlikely that the scope of the study would go beyond the
areas listed in S. 1687.
The study would examine the national significance, suitability and
feasibility for these bites to determine whether they merit inclusion
in the National Park System. Even if they met the National Park
Service's criteria in those three areas, the study would evaluate other
options for management besides direct management by the National Park
Service. Because of the size, complexity of these sites, and the
potential costs of managing them, this study would likely focus on
alternatives other than direct National Park Service management, but
might include options where the National Park Service would have a role
in assisting with interpretation.
Senator Thomas. Well, as you know, some of us--and I am one
who has been urging the Park Service to try and identify and
describe a little more clearly what qualifies, what really
should be set aside as a historic site. We are beginning to get
more of them than we might be able to handle. Obviously, there
are some that are very important, but we need to begin to
identify what the criteria is for one, I believe.
Mr. Smith. I am aware of those discussions you have had
with our director, Senator.
Senator Thomas. It may be a little out of line, but if you
two have any questions, short questions. Please do not take too
long, but if you have one, why----
Senator Boxer. Actually just a couple of comments. Sam will
go first.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, I want to take issue because I
think there was a misstatement of fact here to the committee.
We worked hard in drafting this bill. As you see in the bill,
on page 5, line 25, it says that the Secretary may make grants
to the California Missions Foundation. It is permissive, not
mandatory.
It also said that the Secretary shall ensure, as provided
in section 101(e)(4), that it shall remain secular. There is no
mention of the National Historic Preservation Act as the
funding source. In fact, the bill goes on to say on page 7 that
the money in this is in addition to any funds that are made
available for preservation efforts to the State of California
under the existing fund. So this is in addition to. It is no
part of. It is a separate authorization to allow the Federal
Government, when the grants have been requested, when the
applications have been submitted by this nonprofit entity in
California, who have to outline exactly how the money is going
to be spent through this professional review board. It does not
require the Federal Government to own the asset or to have to
manage it or worry about it forever. This is an ability to try
to keep these precious monuments from falling down.
I might say that the Department submitted a letter to the
House 3 days before we passed it on the floor. We did have a
floor discussion on it, and the Department's letter was wrong
because it said it has to make the money available through the
Historic Preservation Act.
And it went on to say that the bill grants up to $10
million over a 5-year period made through the authority of
section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and
therefore the Department opposes this legislation. That is just
an incorrect statement. It is not in the legislation, and I
have asked the Department to show me where they found that, and
they have not been able to find it because it is not there.
So for the record, I want to point out for sure that this
is not competing with existing limited funds.
Senator Boxer. And I would just conclude in very quick
order here. I am very concerned with this testimony because I
know people make mistakes, but I tried to talk to my friend
here about this. This is just plain wrong. It says, grants up
to $10 million would be made through the authority of section
101 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The fact is the
only reference to that in the bill, as Sam said, is to make
sure we avoid church-state issues. This is an extra amount of
money that is in fact just for these missions that are falling
down at a very rapid rate, and we are losing our history of
this country and of California. So it is wrong here. It was
wrong.
The original letter that I am holding up here, that was
doubly wrong. They had other things wrong. They said in this
letter, the Secretary is authorized to make matching Historic
Preservation grants to the California Missions Foundation to
restore and repair historically significant missions. In
addition, grants of up to $10 million over a 5-year period.
This is like you looked at different legislation.
Last, they say in the beginning, we cannot support this. It
is taking money from other places. And then they say, oh, in
the next page, go to Save America's Treasures. By the way, the
average grant there is $268,000. We do not want to take money
away from these other things.
And then last, they talk about in the end if this does
pass, you should not pass it the way it is. You should do a
partnership with the Catholic church. As well they know, if we
do that, this legislation will not pass because it will be so
controversial.
Anyway, I hope you will be with us on this, Mr. Chairman.
This has so much strong support and I am disappointed. I know
that the administration loves the missions. They have told me
we love your missions. That is good. But it does not help to
have love and no support.
Senator Thomas. Well, they are entitled to an opinion, of
course.
Senator Boxer. Yes, right. They are.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Did you want to say anything, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. I would like to just rebut or at least discuss
that. I would like to submit into the record the letter that
went to Mr. Pombo on October 17th so that you will have that
since it was referred to.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
[The letter to Mr. Pombo follows:]
U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service,
Washington, DC, October 17, 2003.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing to express the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 1446, a bill to support the efforts
of the California Missions Foundation to restore and repair the Spanish
colonial and mission-era missions in the State of California and to
preserve the artworks and artifacts of these missions. I have been
advised that the bill will be brought to the House floor without an
opportunity for the Department to testify and present our position on
this bill.
Under this bill, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
make matching, historic preservation grants to the California Missions
Foundation to restore and repair California's historically significant
Spanish mission buildings and their associated historic artworks and
artifacts. In addition, grants up to $10 million over a 5-year period
would be made through the authority of Section 101 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. The Department opposes this legislation.
The Department is wholly supportive of any efforts to preserve for
this and future generations the story of Father Junipero Serra and the
founding of California's incomparable chain of colonial-era missions.
However, because budgetary constraints so limit appropriations from the
Historic Preservation Fund, we cannot support legislative earmarks that
would effectively take needed historic preservation operations funding
away from state, tribal, and local governments and divert it to these
specific (albeit laudable) purposes under the National Historic
Preservation Act.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the
standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the
presentation of this report for the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
A. Durand Jones
Deputy Director
______
U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service,
Washington, DC, October 17, 2003.
P. Daniel Smith,
National Park Service, Washington, DC.
Subject: Stuff for Hearing
Info Requested at our briefing today:
Save America's Treasures Grants to Churches (there are more than I
thought):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old North Church............. Boston, MA..... 2003 317,000
Touro Synagogue.............. Newport, RI.... 2003 375,000
Mission Concepion............ San Antonio, TX 2003 215,000
Eldridge Street Synagogue.... NYC............ 2003 300,000
Old Dutch Church............. Kingston, NY... 1999 98,768
San Juan Capistrano.......... SJC, CA........ 2000 320,000
San Jose de Tumacacori....... Tumacacori, AZ. 1999 85,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last 3 were earmarks
As you can see, we have three missions here as well, 1 in CA, 1 in
AZ, and 1 in TX.
As far as Save America's Treasures grant levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collections..................... min = 50,000...... max = 1 million
Buildings....................... min = 250,000..... max = 1 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I remember everything? That it?
de Teel Patterson Tiller,
Deputy Associate Director, Cultural Resources.
Mr. Smith. I will not speak for our legislative counsel who
reviews these bills, but there is no specific site in the bill
creating anything outside the National Historic Preservation
Fund. And Senator, that is the only mechanism which the Park
Service has in all of our programs to fund non-Federal
properties through a grant program.
The reference made at the end of the bill goes back and
refers to this fund, and what it says is that these additional
funds, if they were appropriated, would not take away from what
California receives under the apportionment it gets now. Out of
the $34 million that goes to the States, California gets just a
little bit under $1 million. So the interpretation there is
that whatever amount they would get under this act that was
earmarked, it would not then subtract from California getting
its normal apportionment under the act.
The Senator and I were sort of having that discussion
before the hearing, and I hope she did not take any of my
remarks to be anything except a little bit feisty. I certainly
did not mean to be rude to her at all.
Senator Boxer. No. I was feisty. You were very sweet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. OK, thank you. We are going to call up the
next panel now. Thank you very much.
Panel two then is Walter Costlow, founder and chairman of
the South Fork Hunting and Fishing Club, Lakeland, Florida; Mr.
Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United in
Support of Separation of Church and State; Cynthia Kelly,
president of the Atomic Heritage Foundation; Stephen Hearst,
vice president and general manager, Sunical Realties, San
Francisco, California. I guess that is it.
Thank you all for being here. We will put your complete
statements in the record. So if you are inclined to summarize
fairly briefly, why, we would all, I think, appreciate that.
Why do we not start with Mr. Costlow.
STATEMENT OF WALTER COSTLOW, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, THE 1889
SOUTH FORK HUNTING AND FISHING CLUB PRESERVATION SOCIETY
Mr. Costlow. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity
to present the views of The 1889 South Fork Fishing and Hunting
Club Historical Preservation Society on H.R. 1521, a bill to
provide for additional lands to be included within the boundary
of the Johnstown Flood National Memorial in the State of
Pennsylvania.
The Johnstown Flood National Memorial comprises nearly 165
acres in western Pennsylvania. The park's mission is to tell
the stories of events leading up to the great Johnstown Flood
of May 31, 1889, and of the flood itself and the impact on
Johnstown and the Nation. The addition of The 1889 South Fork
Fishing and Hunting Club Historical Preservation Society
properties would significantly increase the park's capability
to interpret the important events surrounding the Johnstown
Flood and the individuals associated with it.
In 1989 the National Park Service and the Historical
Society undertook a joint planning effort that produced the
preservation and interpretation plan for the South Fork Fishing
and Hunting Club Historic District. As a result of this plan,
there developed a structured partnership between the National
Park Service and the Historical Society designed to protect and
maintain the historic properties by entering into a cooperative
agreement that is still in force. It is very, very important to
understand that all the properties were privately owned at this
time. Over the years, through the wonderful generosity of the
Winston Corporation of Johnstown, we were able to acquire the
four properties in question. The most important document of the
support package is The 1889 South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club
Historical Preservation Society's 2020 strategic plan. I
developed it to enumerate the important accomplishments in
order to create the foundation to inspire the society to face
the future with confidence toward achieving greater success by
year 2020.
The proposal to add these properties to the boundary of the
park has widespread support among the owners, State and local
governments, and the public who attended our last public
meeting in July 2001. Public comments received in support were
unanimous in support of the proposal. This is the second time
that public approval was in support. In May 1989, I wrote the
Historic District ordinance and conducted a large public
meeting to explain and answer questions. I then held a secret
ballot vote and had only one vote against. That individual
wanted the whole town included in the ordinance. The Historic
District Ordinance Number 69 was approved by the Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission.
On November 9, 1995, I was asked by the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission to provide my
views on the ability to sustain heritage development in
southwestern Pennsylvania for the long-term future, which is
really what this hearing is all about. My comments then are
valid today. It is no secret that the heritage preservation
effort in southwestern Pennsylvania would not have been
possible without the direct involvement of the U.S. Government
and the power and resources it represents. I personally would
not have undertaken the National Register Historic District
Project in St. Michael without this support. I am positive that
most, if not all, of the other site managers shared the same
opinion. We were all able to identify with the support
resources that would make our projects achievable with a
reasonable chance of success.
In addition, we could focus on the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission because the
commission staff had absolute control of development resources,
plain and simple. Not only was this fact known to those
directly involved, but it also enabled the heritage project to
be accepted and reasonably supported by the general public and
local officials of the various communities.
Unfortunately, even with the knowledge of the U.S.
Government's direct support, only a very small percentage of
the total population was interested. I know our program in St.
Michael was one of the best supported programs in the heritage
project, if not the best. I was disappointed in the lack of
interest of our citizens to the importance of the project to
community pride and to the economic potential it represented.
Now that the congressional time limit for the South Fork
Fishing and Hunting Club Historical Preservation Society is
expiring, the future is uncertain. As we transition to a
nonprofit corporation without direct Federal management, our
biggest concern is the attitude and willingness of everyone to
continue believing in the overall and individual projects as
achievable. Whether we like it or not, the transition will
create a dramatic change from one of assured resources and
power to one completely dependent on volunteer cooperation and
support.
The Historic District project in St. Michael would not have
been possible without U.S. Representative John Murtha's
support. I was one of the six individuals, including
Congressman Murtha, who met in The 1889 Clubhouse in December
1986 to launch this project. When he asked me form the local
historic society, I told him I would give him my total effort
and support if he would do the same. I must take this occasion
to say for the record that we both carried out that commitment.
Finally, The 1889 South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club
Historical Preservation Society's dedicated volunteers and the
National Park Service have done a tremendous job over the years
in preserving this vital piece of our history.
The approval of H.R. 1521 is the only way--is the only
way--that will ensure that these historic structures will
survive for the enjoyment of future generations.
Failure to approve H.R. 1521 would be a devastating blow to
the entire Johnstown area.
This completes my oral presentation. I welcome any
questions the committee might have. Thank you, sir.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
I think, if I might, I am going to go to Ms. Kelly. Please.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA C. KELLY, PRESIDENT, ATOMIC HERITAGE
FOUNDATION
Ms. Kelly. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be
before the committee. I am president and founder of the Atomic
Heritage Foundation, which was mentioned earlier. We have been
very involved in studying the Manhattan Project, the properties
that remain and strategies for trying to preserve them for the
future.
This legislation by the committee is very timely. We are
very appreciative of the support that we have had from Senators
Bingaman and Cantwell of the committee, as well Senators
Murray, Domenici, and in the House, Doc Hastings who are all
sponsors of this legislation.
I want to talk about the importance of the study briefly,
its urgency, in light of the Department of Energy's cleanup
program, local and national support, and some practical
considerations.
Action is urgently needed to ensure that some of these
original properties are preserved. As you know, the Manhattan
Project was the effort to produce the world's first atomic
bombs in World War II that brought an end to that war and, some
would say, to all successive wars of that scale. From first of
a kind industrial facilities to the alphabet houses built for
families in the secret cities of the Manhattan Project, the
study bill provides an opportunity to explore alternative
strategies to ensure that the American people and future
generations have some tangible evidence of this monumental
undertaking that changed the course of world history. There is
no question of the national and international significance of
this and the facilities.
But why is it so urgent? The Department of Energy has a
very ambitious, accelerated cleanup program for the nuclear
weapons complex sites. It is funded on the order of $6 billion
to $8 billion a year. As a result, there is tremendous pressure
on the Department's managers to decommission and demolish
properties that are not essential to the current mission. Most
of the Manhattan Project properties fall in this category. Many
officials at the Department of Energy responsible for
environmental management explain they are not in the museum
business. In their view other entities must take responsibility
for the long-term stewardship of these properties if they are
to survive.
For example, the manager of the Richland office has
challenged the community to find an alternative to managing the
B reactor that Senator Cantwell just mentioned, the first
plutonium production reactor built by DuPont in September 1944.
If not, the Department plans to cocoon it or strip it down to
the reactor core and clad it in aluminum sheeting while it
awaits disposition. The cost of just the first step, the
cladding, is a $15 million project and tens of millions more.
Meanwhile, over the last couple of years, the Department
has put a lot of money to make this B reactor meet the code for
the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA for use as a
museum and there is a memorandum of agreement that it can be
used as a museum until the year 2012. It seems to me that we
need to look now before, in the next couple of years, this
valuable historic research is derailed into the wasteland of a
scrap heap where, alternatively, for far less cost we can make
sure that it is a museum for posterity.
The legislation has enthusiastic support from many
quarters. Last spring the Atomic Heritage Foundation, in the
process of putting this report together that has been mentioned
several times, had meetings at Hanford, that is, in Richland,
Washington, and at Oak Ridge with the public, with the
Department of Energy, with National Park Service
representatives to begin to explore these questions. What
should we do about these properties? What alternatives are
there?
The primary cost-cutting recommendation that emerged from
this meeting was to seek legislation like S. 1687. The bill
responds to a significant constituency for those who are proud
of this past and also see opportunities for heritage tourism
and economic development in their communities, their regions,
and their States.
As the legislation recognizes, the Department of Energy
will play an important role in the study by clarifying the
integrity and the contributions of its Manhattan Project
properties, as well as addressing environmental contamination,
national security, and other issues.
Secretary Abraham recently charged his staff with coming up
with a strategic plan for managing all of the Department's
historic resources. This plan should complement and inform the
study. The long-term strategy needs to be flexible and
anticipate changing roles by the Department of Energy as it
completes its cleanup and access to the sites may be opened up.
A 1-year deadline or a quick deadline for the study ensures
that it reasonably meshes with the Department of Energy's
decisionmaking schedule for its cleanup.
Senator Thomas. Could you wind up please?
Ms. Kelly. I am sorry. Is that the end?
Senator Thomas. Well, see if you can come to the end. That
is what this little light means here.
Ms. Kelly. The bill calls for the role of the Department of
Energy to be a significant one.
It seems to me in looking at how is this to be funded, that
one thing the committee might consider is whether
appropriations from the energy and water development bill might
be an alternative to looking at resources within the National
Park Service which have a long line of other studies waiting
for them. And it is in the Department's interest to get this
study funded and underway.
So that concludes my remarks. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cynthia C. Kelly, President,
Atomic Heritage Foundation
It is a pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee on National
Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to testify in
support of S. 1687, ``The Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Study Act of 2003.'' My name is Cynthia C. Kelly and I am the President
and founder of the Atomic Heritage Foundation, a nonprofit organization
in Washington, DC dedicated to the preservation of the history of the
Manhattan Project and the Atomic Age.
Let me begin by commending the Committee for its timely
consideration of this bill. ``The Manhattan Project National Historic
Park Study Act of 2003'' is urgently needed to ensure that some of the
original Manhattan Project properties built to produce the world's
first atomic bombs in World War II are considered for possible
preservation as part of the National Park System. From laboratories and
first-of-a-kind industrial facilities to ``Alphabet'' houses and other
community properties, we have an opportunity to ensure that the
American people and future generations have some tangible evidence of
this monumental undertaking that changed the course of world history.
One criterion for inclusion in the National Park System is that the
resources must be ``nationally significant.'' There is no question of
the significance of the Manhattan Project, the top-secret effort to
make an atomic bomb in World War II. The Manhattan Project profoundly
influenced American and world history and left an indelible legacy for
the 21st century. With an unprecedented alliance of industry, academia
and government, the Manhattan Project brought an end to World War II,
established America as a global super power, and laid the foundation
for twenty-first century science and technology.
In a February 2001 report, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation stated, ``It is imperative that our memory and recognition
of the Manhattan Project as a watershed in the history of the nation
and the world be preserved for future generations.'' \1\ Specifically,
the Council recommended that the sites be considered ``as a collective
unit administered for preservation, commemoration, and public
interpretation in cooperation with the National Park Service.'' \2\
This bill gives the Secretary of Interior the opportunity, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to pursue this potential and
examine whether and how to preserve this extraordinarily important
chapter in American history as part of the National Park System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Recommendations and
Preservation Options for Manhattan Project Signature Afacilities at Oak
Ridge and Hanford Reservations, Washington, DC, February 2001.
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2002, the Department of Energy awarded the Atomic
Heritage Foundation a grant to develop a report to Congress analyzing
how best to preserve the historic properties of the Manhattan Project.
Last spring, the Foundation held public meetings at Oak Ridge, TN and
Richland, WA with representatives of the Department of Energy, the
National Park Service, other Federal agencies, State, tribal and local
governments, historic preservation groups and other interested parties.
From these discussions and similar ones in New Mexico, the primary
cross-cutting recommendation that emerged was to seek a Special
Resource Study to determine the potential inclusion of these Manhattan
Project sites in the National Park System.\3\ Needless to say, this
bill fulfills that recommendation and responds to a significant
constituency of Manhattan Project communities, historians, educators,
museum directors, and others across the country who are concerned to
preserve significant properties from the Manhattan Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Atomic Heritage Foundation, ``Preserving America: A Strategy
for the Manhattan Project,'' September 4, 2003, at
www.atomicheritage.org, page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it urgent to authorize the Manhattan Project National
Historical Park Study Act? The remaining Manhattan Project properties
owned by the Department of Energy are threatened by the pace of a very
ambitious multibillion dollar ``accelerated clean-up program'' for the
nuclear weapons complex sites. In fact, the Department's clean-up
schedule slates the vast majority of the remaining Manhattan Project
properties for decommissioning and demolition over the next five years
or so. Even the properties on the Department's short list of eight
``Signature Facilities of the Manhattan Project'' \4\ are not exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Energy, The Signature Facilities of the
Manhattan Project, 2001. These properties include the Metallurgical
Laboratory, University of Chicago, IL; X-10 Graphite Reactor, K-25
Gaseous Diffusion Process Building, and Y-12 Beta-3 Racetracks at Oak
Ridge, TN; B Reactor and T Plant at Hanford; V-Site Assembly Building
and Gun Site, Los Alamos, NM; and Trinity Site, Alamogordo, NM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because most of the Manhattan Project properties are ``behind the
fence'' where the public has little access, few are aware of the
potential loss of these properties. In fact, the most recent Chairman
of the Los Alamos County Council, whose father was the chef at the
popular ``S Site'' cafeteria during the Manhattan Project, said that
she had never seen the properties ``behind the fence.'' Located on
remote mesas, dozens of Manhattan Project properties were abandoned in
place in the 1950s. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is now
considering preserving not only the two signature properties, but also
about a dozen other buildings that eventually could be part of a
National Park System.
However, senior managers have made it clear that the Department of
Energy is ``not in the museum business'' and some other agency must
serve as the long-term steward for its Manhattan Project resources. For
example, the Manager for the Hanford Site has challenged the community
to find an alternative organization to manage the ``B Reactor,'' the
first plutonium production reactor at Hanford, by September 2005. If
not, the Department intends to ``cocoon'' it or strip the reactor down
to its shielding wall and wrap it in cladding, at a cost of $15 million
or more. This study will provide an opportunity to meet the
Department's demands to explore alternative management solutions for
the B Reactor, one of its designated ``Signature Facilities,'' and
other important Manhattan Project resources.
As the legislation recognizes, the Department of Energy will play
an important role in the study by clarifying the integrity of its
Manhattan Project properties as well as environmental contamination,
national security and other issues. The Secretary of Interior will
consult with the Secretary of Energy as the study weighs alternative
management, ownership, liability, public access and other provisions.
Such provisions will need to be revisited periodically as clean-up
progresses, security perimeters are redrawn to allow greater public
access, and other developments. As the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation has counseled, it is important to take a long-term
approach to the preservation of historic resources. Any examination of
potential Manhattan Project sites will have to look at a variety of
management options including changing roles by the Department of Energy
and other organizations over time.
The Department of Energy has an important mission to clean-up the
former nuclear weapons complex. To accommodate the clean-up schedules
as much as possible, we agree that the study should be done as
expeditiously as possible. The bill provides a deadline of one year
from the time that funds are made available. Given the number of other
studies competing for the National Park Services resources, we
recommend that $850,000 be included as part of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill for FY 2006. This would help ensure
that the study can be conducted on a schedule that reasonably meshes
with the Department of Energy's clean-up schedule.
The legislation authorizing a Special Resource Study for the
Manhattan Project sites will ensure that some of the most significant
properties of America's heritage are evaluated for possible inclusion
in the National Park System. Seeing first-hand the humble asbestos-
shingled building at Los Alamos where the ``Trinity device'' was
assembled or the monumental chemical separation plants nicknamed
``Queen Marys'' at Hanford are unforgettable experiences. The
legislation is an important step towards preserving these and other
tangible remains of an effort that continues to shape the course of
history.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Reverend Lynn.
STATEMENT OF REV. BARRY W. LYNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS
UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Rev. Lynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the executive
director of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.
The history of religion in America is a story of voluntary
giving. It is not a chronicle of government subsidy. In no
small measure, the vitality and diversity of religious
discourse in this country should be credited to the rigorously
hands-off approach government has historically taken toward
religion. Governments do not choose favorite faiths for
assistance. They do not bail our religious groups like some
ailing corporation. In America, religions literally make it or
break it by themselves.
This session Congress is being asked to make a change in
course, to spend $10 million to maintain, repair, and preserve
the structure and contents of 21 missions in California.
Although there is no doubt that these buildings and artifacts
have a rich historical significance, which we have heard a
great deal about today already, but 19 of the missions are
owned by the Catholic Church and operate as active parishes
with regularly scheduled religious services. These buildings
are the principal places of worship for thousands of
churchgoers. Indeed, the mission, Basilica San Diego, is
California's oldest Roman Catholic Church and currently has
2,500 members in its parish.
Now, admittedly this bill, S. 1306, contains language that
the Secretary of the Interior is to ``ensure that the purpose
of a grant is secular, does not promote religion, and seeks to
protect those qualities that are historically significant.''
Frankly, though, it is impossible to segregate the historical
from the spiritual and expect that government funds will only
go to the former. Can a person in a pew observing a government-
funded restored painting of the Virgin Mary be expected to
ignore the religious impulse it was meant to convey and just
think of it as some historically significant cultural
manifestation? I do not think so.
Any funds that end up maintaining or restoring religious
icons associated with devotion and worship will be viewed as an
endorsement of religion at taxpayer expense. Any funds that
restore a site of central religious observance will be
similarly seen as the promotion of religion at a cost to the
taxpayers. And all of this is true even if the earmarked funds
are passed through a California foundation.
Early American history is replete with examples of how
clear the Framers of our Constitution were about the immorality
of compelling citizens to pay taxes for the advancement of
religion. James Madison argued that if a person could be
compelled to contribute even 3 pence to support a religion,
government could enforce him to conform to any other
establishment of faith. And the President put that principle
into practice by vetoing a bill to give a Baptist church in
Mississippi even a small parcel of government land. Madison was
not hostile to religion, but he was faithful to his original
understanding that religious groups had to rely on voluntary
giving, not tax funding coerced by the State.
Indeed, this was the reasoning followed by the Supreme
Court in a series of important cases. In 1971, the Court
unanimously held that when construction grants went to
religious institutions of higher learning, it was
constitutionally required that those institutions could not use
any funds for a building in which worship or other sectarian
activities would ever occur.
Similarly the Court held in the context of private
secondary schools, that if the State may not erect buildings in
which religious activities are to take place, it may not
maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into
disrepair. That seminal line of cases is unaffected by any
subsequent church-State decisions, which is why from 1981 to
2002 a consistent policy in both Republican and Democratic
administrations forbade the use of Federal funds to build,
repair, or maintain facilities used for religious services.
Supporters of these mission grants would be skating on
constitutional thin ice to believe that this longstanding
principle has been altered, much less nullified. And indeed,
notwithstanding one Department of Justice memo to the contrary,
even this administration's own final regulations for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development state unequivocally
that Federal funds ''may not be used for the acquisition,
construction, or rehabilitation of sanctuaries, chapels, or any
other rooms that a religious congregation uses as its principal
place of worship.`` The California missions are quintessential
examples of such structures with active worshiping
congregations.
Preservation of historic buildings is important, but the
preservation of the constitutional right to religious liberty
is vital. These missions are houses of worship. They are not
simply museums. Funds to fix the ceilings and the windows, to
revitalize the religious icons on the walls must come from
congregants or from the millions of yearly visitors and from
America's charitable foundations. I believe that the people of
California and tourists from around the United States can
preserve these mission buildings without having to pass the
collection plate to Uncle Sam at the same time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Reverend Lynn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reverend Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, on S. 1306
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Akaka, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on
behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on S.
1306, the ``California Missions Preservation Act.'' Americans United is
a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., with over
70,000 members. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans
about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding genuine
religious freedom. I am both an ordained minister in the United Church
of Christ and a member of the District of Columbia and U.S. Supreme
Court bars.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you today on the serious
constitutional ramifications of the California Missions Preservation
Act, particularly because our organization is extremely active in
California. Americans United has over 8,000 members in California, as
well as five major local chapters in San Francisco, the Bay Area, Los
Angeles, San Diego, and the San Fernando Valley. Frankly, though, all
Americans who wish to advance religious liberty should be seriously
concerned about the California Missions Preservation Act because it
would have dramatic church-state implications.
There is no doubt that California's 21 missions, which run along a
600-mile stretch of highway from San Diego to Sonoma are historically
significant and contribute greatly to the rich historical, cultural and
architectural heritage of California and the American West. Although we
recognize that preservation of these historic buildings is important,
we strongly believe that the preservation of America's constitutional
rights is vital. In short, the California Missions Preservation Act
would violate the First Amendment by forcing taxpayers nationwide to
pay for church repairs, even repairs and restoration of facilities with
active congregations. I urge you today, for the sake of preserving
religious liberty, to ensure that federal funds are not used to build
or repair houses of worship. Instead, it is up to religious
organizations and individuals to voluntarily support preservation of
the California missions.
BACKGROUND
The 21 missions comprising California's historic mission trail were
founded between 1769 and 1823. Largely reconstructed after the tests of
time, weather, and earthquakes, 19 of the 21 missions are owned by the
Roman Catholic Church, operate as active parishes, and have regularly
scheduled religious services.
Under S. 1306, federal funds would be provided to pay for ``efforts
to restore and repair the California missions, and to preserve
associated artworks and artifacts.'' The bill would authorize the
Secretary of the Interior, under section 101(e)(4) of the National
Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470a(e)(4), to grant
$10,000,000 in federal funds over a five-year period to support the
California Missions Foundation, a charitable corporation dedicated to
funding the restoration and repair of the California missions and the
preservation of the Spanish colonial and mission-era artworks and
artifacts of the California missions. It also would require the
California Missions Foundation to match federal grant funds and to
provide annual reports to the Secretary regarding the preservation
efforts taken with funds provided under the bill.
Americans United recognizes that the bill includes some language
purportedly protective of religious liberty. Specifically, the bill
states that the Secretary of the Interior ``shall ensure that the
purpose of a grant under this section is secular, does not promote
religion, and seeks to protect those qualities that are historically
significant.'' Similarly, the National Historic Preservation Act, to
which the bill refers, provides that ``[g]rants may be made . . . for
the preservation, stabilization, restoration or rehabilitation of
religious properties . . . provided that the purpose of the grant is
secular, does not promote religion, and seeks to protect those
qualities that are historically significant.'' 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 470a(e)(4).
These protections are steps in the right direction, but they are
insufficient as a practical matter to meet the requirements of the
Constitution. Time after time, the Supreme Court has required that no
government funds be used to maintain, restore, or make capital
improvements to physical structures that are used as houses of worship,
even if religious services are infrequent. Because most, if not all, of
the missions remain active houses of worship, in addition to serving as
cultural and historic institutions, it is impossible for the government
to fund the California missions without violating the Constitution.
The illegality of the proposal to fund the California missions is
exacerbated when one considers the issue of government directly funding
religious icons. Because one of the objectives of the California
Missions Foundation is to preserve the ``Spanish colonial and mission-
era artworks and artifacts of the California missions,'' and because
the bill specifically authorizes federal funds to be used to ``preserve
the artworks and artifacts associated with the California missions,''
the Secretary would be empowered to provide government money
specifically to maintain or restore religious artifacts and icons
associated with devotional and worship activities at the missions, a
result that would be clearly unconstitutional.
PROVIDING FEDERAL FUNDS TO THE CALIFORNIA MISSIONS WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Three Supreme Court decisions make clear that it is
unconstitutional to allow federal grants for the repair of preservation
of structures devoted to worship or religious instruction, and all
three of these decisions remain binding law on the federal government.
In Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971), the Court laid the
framework for the current constitutional requirements regarding
construction, upkeep, and maintenance of religious institutions''
physical facilities. Tilton involved a challenge to the
constitutionality of a federal law under which federal funds were used
by secular and religious institutions of higher education for the
construction of libraries and other campus buildings. Although the law
allowed money to go to religious institutions, it also contained a
proviso that expressly forbade funds from being spent on buildings that
would be used for worship or sectarian instruction. The Court upheld
the program, but it unanimously held that the proviso was
constitutionally necessary and unanimously invalidated part of the
statute that would have allowed religious schools to convert the
federally-funded facilities for worship or sectarian instruction after
twenty years had passed. No building that was built with federal funds
can ever be used for worship or sectarian instruction--that is Tilton's
clear holding. 403 U.S. at 692.
In two subsequent cases decided two years later, the Supreme Court
clearly reaffirmed the principle that the First Amendment prohibits the
government from subsidizing the construction or repair of buildings
used as houses of worship. In Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973), the
Supreme Court upheld the South Carolina Educational Facilities
Authority Act, which established an ``Educational Facilities
Authority,'' through which educational facilities could borrow money
for use in their facilities at favorable interest rates. However, the
Act required each lease agreement to contain a clauses forbidding
religious use in such facilities and allowing inspections to enforce
that requirement. 413 U.S. at 744. The Court upheld the Act, including
the condition that government-funded physical structures could never be
used for religious worship or instruction.
Finally, in Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756
(1973), the Supreme Court struck down New York's program of providing
grants to nonpublic schools for use of maintenance and repair of
``school facilities and equipment to ensure health, welfare, and safety
of enrolled students.'' 413 U.S. at 762. The Court summarized its
previous holdings as ``simply recogniz[ing] that sectarian schools
perform secular, educational functions as well as religious functions,
and that some forms of aid may be channeled to the secular without
providing direct aid to the sectarian. But the channel is a narrow
one.'' Id. at 775. The Court then held that ``[i]f the State may not
erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place, it may
not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into
disrepair.'' Id. at 777. In other words, government funding for either
the construction or maintenance and repair of physical structures is
unconstitutional unless there is no possibility that the structures
will be used for sectarian worship or instruction. Otherwise the
government would be subsidizing religious activity.
All three of these cases firmly establish that it is
constitutionally impermissible for the government to provide aid for
the construction, repair, or maintenance of any buildings that are, or
might be, used for religious purposes. The rule set down by the Supreme
Court in these three cases--which requires that publicly financed
buildings be used only for purely secular purposes--remains controlling
law and has never been undermined or seriously questioned in any
subsequent Supreme Court decision regarding direct governmental aid to
religious institutions. Thus, under Tilton, McNair, and Nyquist, it
would be unconstitutional for the federal government to provide funds
to any of the California missions in which religious services take
place. These decisions are in keeping with a lengthy and valuable
tradition in America: the idea that maintenance of houses of worship
belongs to congregants, not to taxpayers. The idea of compelled support
for religion was repellent to our Founding Fathers. Time and again one
sees in their writings and public pronouncements a concern that support
for religion come through voluntary channels.
Founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not hold this
view because they were hostile to religion. Rather, they believed that
it was morally wrong to force anyone to support religious worship,
religious education, or houses of worship against his or her will. As
Madison observed in his famous ``Memorial and Remonstrance Against
Religious Assessments,'' ``The same authority which can force a citizen
to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any
one [religious] establishment may force him to conform to any other
establishment in all cases whatsoever.''
Madison, widely considered the Father of the Constitution, believed
the federal government should stay out of the business of funding
religion. As president, he vetoed a bill giving a Baptist church a
small amount of federal land in Mississippi, asserting in his veto
message to Congress that the measure ``comprises a principle and
precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the
use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the
Constitution which declares that `Congress shall make no law respecting
a religious establishment.' ''
Denying taxpayer aid for the rebuilding, refurbishing and
maintenance of the California missions is neither a radical step nor is
it an example of animus toward religion. Instead, it is wholly in line
with our nation's past practices and our wise tradition of requiring
religious groups to rely on voluntary support given by willing donors,
not tax funds coerced by the state.
Indeed, from 1981 until 2002, through both Republican and
Democratic administrations, it was the consistent policy of the federal
government to forbid the use of federal grants for the construction,
repair, or maintenance of any facility used for religious services.
This policy was committed in writing in an October 31, 1995, legal
memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC), in which that office concluded that a reviewing court,
applying binding precedent, would ``likely hold that making historic
preservation grants to churches and other pervasively sectarian
properties is inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.''
However, on April 30, 2003, OLC issued an opinion reversing its
1995 memorandum. The new OLC opinion concluded that the ``Establishment
Clause does not bar the award of historic preservation grants to . . .
active houses of worship that qualify for such assistance, and that the
section of the National Historic Preservation Act that authorizes the
provision of historic preservation assistance to religious properties
is constitutional.'' As has been widely reported in the media, it is
under this opinion that the Secretary of the Interior proceeded amidst
considerable controversy to award historic preservation funds to the
Old North Church in Boston and the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode
Island--efforts strongly criticized as unconstitutional by Americans
United and other organizations committed to safeguarding religious
liberty.
The new OLC memorandum, issued with no deference to prior,
longstanding federal policy, is highly controversial and reflects
nothing more than a highly politicized judgment from the Department of
Justice. It essentially reflects wishful thinking on the part of the
Department of Justice that the Supreme Court will, sometime in the
future, overturn the above-cited cases. As Professors Ira C. Lupu and
Robert Tuttle of George Washington University Law School stated in a
recent article analyzing the Administration's proposals on the faith-
based initiative, ``The Bush Administration's recent announcements . .
. venture into constitutionally questionable territory.'' The 2003 OLC
opinion directly conflicts with the holdings of Tilton and Nyquist. I
urge the Subcommittee to review and apply these Supreme Court cases to
the issue of supplying governmental aid to the 19 California missions
in which religious services currently take place.
THE BILL AND THE NEW OLC MEMORANDUM ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION'S OWN RECENT POSITION ON FUNDING OF HOUSING PROGRAMS RUN
BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS
In determining whether to provide federal funds to the California
missions, the Subcommittee should follow the Administration's own
position stated in recent regulations finalized by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as part of the Bush
Administration's faith-based initiative. The HUD regulations on
religious organizations participating in federal housing programs
provide, ``HUD funds may not be used for acquisition, construction, or
rehabilitation of sanctuaries, chapels, or any other rooms that a
religious congregation that is a recipient or subrecipient of HUD
assistance uses as its principal place of worship.'' 68 Fed. Reg. 56397
(emphasis added).
As an example of the intended application of the final rule, HUD
stated:
A one-room church applies for CDBG funds to make several
necessary repairs. On Sunday morning, the church serves as a
place for congregational worship. During weekdays, the church
is used to operate a ``soup kitchen'' for homeless individuals.
Accordingly, except for the few hours on Sunday morning when
the church holds worship services, the one-room church is used
for the purpose of providing meals to homeless individuals--a
purpose that is eligible for HUD assistance. The one-room
church is ineligible for CDBG-funded improvements because it is
the congregation's principal place of worship.
Id. (emphasis added).
These rules prohibiting funds for construction, maintenance, or
repair of a principal place of worship were finalized on September 30,
2003. This represents the Administration's most recent determination of
the constitutionality of federal funding of the bricks and mortar of
houses of worship.\1\ The Subcommittee should apply the same principle
here and deny federal funding to the California missions because they
are undoubtedly principal places of worship for their congregations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Indeed, as recently as March 3, 2004, HUD issued new proposed
regulations applicable to ``HUD programs and activities,'' 69 Fed. Reg.
10126, in which HUD has, once again, proposed that ``Sanctuaries,
chapels, and other rooms that a HUD-funded religious congregation uses
as its principal place of worship . . . are ineligible for HUD-funded
improvements.'' Id. at 10127. Americans United will submit comments on
these proposed regulations.
\2\ Americans United took the position before HUD that the
constitutional prohibition against federal assistance for the bricks
and mortar of religious organizations is more sweeping than the final
HUD regulations provide. See attachment. But even the final HUD
regulations would prevent federal funding of any of the California
missions in which religious services are conducted. Note.--Attachments
have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
To conclude, Americans United is fully aware of the historical and
cultural significance of the California missions. However, it is
essential for Congress to maintain our nation's commitment to
safeguarding religious liberty for all Americans. Nineteen of the 21
California missions are churches, not just museums, and are still used
for religious services. The repair and upkeep of the missions,
therefore, must be paid for by those who worship there or by other
interested individuals or private organizations through voluntary
contributions. Under the mandates of our Constitution, the Subcommittee
should deny funding to the California missions.
Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
address the Subcommittee on this important religious liberty issue, and
I look forward to answering any questions you or your colleagues may
have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stephen Hearst.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN T. HEARST, FOUNDING CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
CALIFORNIA MISSIONS FOUNDATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Mr. Hearst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of legislation to restore, repair, and preserve
California's 21 historic missions.
The good news is that going third, I have been able to edit
my comments down. The bad news is they started out at 6
minutes. So I will try to get through them.
I am the founding chairman of the board of the California
Missions Foundation and my family has a fairly rich legacy in
contributing toward the restoration of the California missions.
Over the years, the Hearst Foundation has contributed toward
the mission preservation projects as well.
The foundation was created in 1998 to inform the public of
the historical importance of the California missions, focusing
attention on their preservation and ensuring the rich legacy of
the mission history is preserved for future generations.
I want to thank Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and
others like Congressman Farr who have helped and supported this
urgent piece of legislation, the California Missions
Preservation Act. They recognize the need to attend to the
deterioration of our Nation's historic icons and also the
necessity to bring the Federal Government into partnership with
State and private efforts for the purpose of restoring these
meaningful California symbols. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
making the hearing possible.
All of the missions have helped shape California history,
the locations of cities, transportation routes, as well the
cultural fabric.
This foundation was formed in 1998. It is an organized
corporation operated exclusively under section 501(c)(3) of the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code for charitable purposes. The
foundation is comprised of a volunteer board of directors,
which establishes the governing policies that outline the
foundation's purposes and objectives, having general charge of
the business affairs and activities for the foundation.
It was said earlier that this is a major component in the
curriculum in fourth grade classrooms. 750,000 California
children every year experience the missions through their
studies and site visits. In 2000, the Missions Foundation
designed an educational guide called the Missions of Alta,
California that is available statewide as a companion research
tool for fourth graders in their annual mission projects.
Many of these missions are experiencing structural
problems. The projects include seismic retrofitting which is
the largest component of financial need. The restoration and
preservation of mission artifacts are crucial not only in
restoring their beauty and their antiquity, but also in
bringing them up to modern-day safety standards.
$39 million was our estimate on the structural repairs and
seismic work that needed to be done. That was prior to the
December 22 earthquake in San Simeon that closed San Miguel.
$5.8 million is needed for the conservation of all Spanish
colonial and mission era arts, paintings, statuary, sculptures,
and manuscripts.
$5.2 million is required for overdue visitor-related
improvements like ADA rest rooms.
19 of the 21 missions are not funded by any government
agency. Through the help of individuals, foundations,
corporations, the foundation has raised $3 million and has a
long way to go to meet the original estimate of $50 million.
Our request for assistance is to help us preserve these
living landmarks. I am here today to ask for the financial
assistance to help us save the California treasures so integral
to our fabric and landscape.
As the Mission Foundation, we will also continue to pursue
both State and private sources of financial aid as well.
The Federal support is crucial to our foundation's charge
to preserve, protect, and maintain our California treasures for
generations.
This funding would provide a strong impetus for our ongoing
efforts and by authorizing a grants program under the Secretary
of the Interior. Remember, these are matching funds. It is not
just a gift.
The legislation also includes structured accountability
requirements for the foundation with regard to reporting on the
following: the missions' current conditions, the program of
needed repairs, and then an annual report on all the followup.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
conclude by reiterating that this is a crucial need to uphold
the historical value of these great monuments to our Western
culture by investing in their future. It would be a great loss
to our society and to our national legacy if we failed to save
this historic treasures.
With regard to the separation of church and State, the
buildings, art, and artifacts, while they may be religious in
their history and theme, are very much worthy from a historical
and artistic standpoint of restoration and care. I might add
that probably in the neighborhood of the 10 or 20 percent of
the function of the missions is focused on the religious aspect
and the balance of it is tourism and visitations from local
communities and so forth. The church aspect of the missions,
while it is getting all the focus, seems to be the smallest
component of what they do in serving all of their communities.
That is my testimony, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hearst follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen T. Hearst, Chairman of the Board,
California Missions Foundation
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity today to testify in support of H.R. 1446 and S. 1306,
legislation to restore, repair and preserve California's 21 historic
missions.
My name is Stephen Hearst. I am the founding Chairman of the Board
of the California Missions Foundation. William Randolph Hearst, my
great-grandfather and his mother, Phoebe Apperson, personally
contributed to the restoration of the missions. Over the years, the
Hearst Foundation has significantly funded mission preservation
projects. The California Missions Foundation was created in 1998 to
inform the public of the historical importance of the California
Missions, focusing attention on their preservation and insuring that
the rich legacy of mission history is preserved for future generations.
The Foundation is charged specifically with managing the restoration
and preservation of the missions.
I want to thank Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein and all those who
supported this urgent legislation introducing H.R. 1446 and S. 1306.
They recognized the need to attend to the deterioration of our nation's
historic icons and also the necessity to bring the federal government
into the partnership of state and private efforts for the purpose of
restoring these meaningful, California symbols. Thank you Mr. Chairman,
for making this hearing possible today.
Missions' History:
The California missions represent an historic vein running
through our state, symbolizing exploration that expanded our
nation to its four corners
July 16, 1769--First mission, San Diego de Alcala was
established in San Diego
July 4, 1823--Last mission, San Francisco Solano was
established in Sonoma
All of the missions have helped shape California's history,
transportation routes as well as its cultural fabric
All 21 missions have been designated as California
historical landmarks
7 missions have national historical landmark status
Foundation's History:
Founded in 1998, the California Missions Foundation is an
organized corporation operated exclusively under Section 501
(c)(3) of the US Internal Revenue Code for charitable purposes
The Foundation is comprised of a volunteer Board of
Directors which establishes the governing policies that outline
the Foundation's purposes and objectives, having general charge
of business affairs and activities of the Foundation
Primary funding entities: Our top donors range from $1 mil.-
$25k
State-wide Significance:
Nearly 5.3 million people visit the missions each year,
making them the most popular, historic, tourist attractions in
California
The financial contributions these 5 million+ visitors bring
to California translate into great sources of state-wide
revenue (hotels, restaurants, car rentals, the visitation of
other local attractions, etc.)
Educational Significance:
The missions also serve as an integral component of our
statewide curriculum for 4th grade students every year, nearly
750,000 school children experience the missions through their
studies and site visits
In 2000, The Missions Foundation designed an educational
guide, ``The Missions of Alta California'' that is available
statewide as a companion research tool for 4th graders'' annual
school ``Mission's Project
Mission Needs:
For 230 years, the missions have stood as symbols of Western
exploration and settlement. Time, natural deterioration and
under-funded maintenance have taken a heavy toll on the
missions
Many of the missions are experiencing structural problems
and other deteriorating conditions. Projects including seismic
retrofitting, and the restoration and preservation of mission
artifacts are crucial not only in restoring their antique
beauty, but also in bringing then up to modern safety standards
$39 million is needed to fund structural repairs, seismic
work and deferred maintenance at all (21) missions
$5.8 million is needed for conservation of all Spanish
colonial and mission-era paintings, statuary, sculptures,
furniture, manuscripts, textiles and other irreplaceable
mission artifacts
$5.2 million is required for overdue visitor-related
improvements including ADA restrooms, upgrades of historical
displays and expanded educational programs for schools and the
visiting public
Mission San Miguel:
The mission was already deteriorating due to age and decay.
Deep cracks run from the rooflines to the doorways some large
enough to fit your hand in. Walls in the sacristy are pulling
apart; 200 year old frescoes are fading and chipping off.
The 6.2 December 22nd San Simeon earthquake a few weeks ago
caused further damage to the mission resulting in its closure
to the public. Restoration work and repairs could now cost up
to $15 million.
Missions Funding:
19 of the 21 missions are not funded by any governmental
agency
Through the help of individuals, foundations and
corporations, the California Missions Foundation has raised $3
million and has a long way to go to meet the missions' needs
Request for Assistance:
The missions stand as living landmarks of more than two
centuries, recognized for their contributions to California's
rich history and development especially in the area of art,
architecture, agriculture, food, music, language, apparel and
recreation
I am here today to ask for financial assistance to help us
save these California treasures so integral to our cultural
fabric and landscape
As the Missions Foundation, we will also continue to pursue
State and private sources of financial support as well
This Federal support is crucial to our Foundation's charge
to preserve, protect and maintain all of the California
missions for future generations
H.R. 1446/S. 1306:
Would provide a strong impetus to our ongoing efforts by
authorizing a grants program under the Secretary of the
Interior
Match federal funding
The legislation also includes structured accountability
requirements for the Foundation with regards to reporting on
the following:
Missions' current conditions
Providing a program for repairs
Annual progress updates on the preservation work
Conclusion:
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I conclude by
reiterating that there is a crucial need to uphold the historical value
of these great monuments to our Western culture by investing in their
continuity. It would be of great loss to our society and to our
national legacy if we failed to save these historic treasures.
With regard to concerns of maintaining a separation of church and
state:
The buildings, art and artifacts while they may be religious
in their history and theme, are very much worthy, from an
historical and artistic standpoint of restoration and care.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for your
time today and for your interest in reviewing H.R. 1446 and S. 1306 for
the purpose of preserving the history and heritage of our California
Missions, keeping the doors open for generations to come. Your support
is greatly appreciated.
Please feel free to explore our website
www.missionsofcalifornia.org. There you'll find information about our
preservation and educational outreach endeavors.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. You did well in your timing.
Thank you.
Mr. Hearst. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Costlow, your address on here--you are
in Florida. Is that right?
Mr. Costlow. Yes. I have a house up in Pennsylvania and I
had to move down to Florida a couple years ago, but I have been
staying very active with the historical society. In fact, I am
officially in the State of Pennsylvania still the president and
chairman of the society.
If the bill is approved, one of the things I am going to
have to do is to redo our articles of incorporation with the
State of Pennsylvania to change our role. So everything that we
need to do we are doing. I do not see any surprises.
The supporting documents I gave may seem strange to people,
but every one of those pages played an important role in
getting to where we are.
Senator Thomas. I am just going to ask a couple of quick
questions, if you can give me a quick answer.
Has your club tried to get a private investor to do this?
Mr. Costlow. Yes, we have.
Senator Thomas. And why did they not?
Mr. Costlow. In fact, I have the complete document. We had
to----
Senator Thomas. Just tell me why they did not----
Mr. Costlow. The Mellon Foundation donated $17,500. We did
a complete professional screening of the entire Nation. I have
a complete folder right here on it. And we did not get any
hits. The progress fund which was set up initially by the
Department of the Interior was responsible for the nationwide
part of it.
One of the problems we run into in this program is that the
historic nature of the funding was previously provided by the
Federal Government. That historic thing turns people off. We
have a difficult time trying to get anybody to do it.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Ms. Kelly, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a study of the sites. I understand that has been
going on for some time. Do you know how much left there is to
the study?
Ms. Kelly. What the special resource study would do is look
at the management--well, the national significance, and I think
that has been well documented. The suitability and the
feasibility are questions that the National Park Service raised
as to public access, the degree of contamination of the
properties and its function as a museum where the public would
be going in and out.
Senator Thomas. How long do you think this will take?
Ms. Kelly. Well, I am thinking if we can have a
concentrated effort--I am anxious to get the study done in the
shortest possible time. It could be a year, would be probably
the fastest anyone could do it, but that would be consistent
with the kind of schedule we are----
Senator Thomas. How many potential sites are there?
Ms. Kelly. Well, I think the legislation wants to focus on
the three major sites. There are others. Trinity Site is one
which has been discussed but it has been deliberately not
included in this as a principal target of a special resource
study.
Senator Thomas. Reverend Lynn, are you aware of any
instances where Federal funds are used in the maintenance of
historic buildings of this type that are used by religious
organizations?
Rev. Lynn. There are very few instances where any grants
have gone to active congregations. There is an ongoing
controversy regarding Old North Church in Massachusetts which
was the recipient of a fairly modest grant earlier this year.
In general and up till 1992, no one in any kind of
administration honestly believed you could give money to
organizations that had an active congregation because
notwithstanding what Mr. Hearst recently said, the truth is
these were established for religious purposes. They are still
active congregations. They are still on a weekly basis every
weekend and through the week an active, ongoing religious
institution. And I think there is no suggestion in any of the
Supreme Court decisions since the 1970's to suggest that direct
funding for the construction of religious buildings is
constitutionally acceptable.
Senator Thomas. So you do not think you could reasonably
separate religious activity from the maintenance of a historic
structure.
Rev. Lynn. I do not believe that that is literally
possible, and I think in the real world in which that would be
done, it would have to be done with such extraordinary scrutiny
by some government official as to entangle the church and the
state in ways that would violate other of the standard tests
for determining unconstitutionality of funding.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Hearst, who owns these buildings?
Mr. Hearst. The Archdiocese owns 19 of them and 2 are in
the hands of State Park and Rec.
Senator Thomas. Do you ever charge admission for this, you
know, like a demonstration fee project or anything?
Mr. Hearst. Well, the individual missions charge admission
for different components of their tours of the yards and
gardens. Also many of them have gift shops. But it is literally
nickels and dimes when you are talking about trying to support
these structures, which again are very much out-of-date and
being weathered by a couple of centuries.
There are instances where FEMA money has gone to missions.
Both San Gabriel and San Fernando received $1.3 million and $1
million, respectively, after earthquake damage. It has been
done and it can be done. It is an issue that is going to
continue to be debated forever I imagine.
Senator Thomas. Yes, I suppose.
Mr. Hearst. But it is our personal goal and our mission to
make sure that we keep these structures functional for not only
their communities but also for the fourth graders and for 5.3
million visitors every year.
Senator Thomas. I understand.
Well, let me thank you all for taking time to be here. I
know that from time to time there is disagreement. That is
legitimate. But we are glad that you are here.
I think we will try and keep the record open for a couple
days so if there are other members who would like to ask you
written questions, why, they will be able to do that.
Otherwise, thank you so very much. The committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Americans United for Separation of Church and State would like to
take this opportunity to respond to Senator Domenici's questions
regarding S. 1306/H.R. 1446, the ``California Missions Preservation
Act.''
Responses to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Are you aware of any other instances where federal
funds are being used for maintenance of houses of worship?
Answer. It has been the policy of the federal government for
decades to forbid the use of federal grants for the construction,
repair, or maintenance of any facility used for religious services.
This policy was committed in writing in an October 31, 1995, legal
memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC), in which that office concluded that a reviewing court,
applying binding precedent, would ``likely hold that making historic
preservation grants to churches and other pervasively sectarian
properties is inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.''
However, on April 30, 2003, OLC issued an opinion reversing its
1995 memorandum. The new OLC opinion concluded that the ``Establishment
Clause does not bar the award of historic preservation grants to . . .
active houses of worship that qualify for such assistance, and that the
section of the National Historic Preservation Act that authorizes the
provision of historic preservation assistance to religious properties
is constitutional.'' As has been widely reported in the media, it is
under this opinion that the Secretary of the Interior proceeded amidst
considerable controversy to award historic preservation funds to the
Old North Church in Boston and the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode
Island--efforts strongly criticized as unconstitutional by Americans
United and other organizations committed to safeguarding religious
liberty.
The new OLC memorandum, issued with no deference to prior,
longstanding federal policy, is highly controversial and reflects
nothing more than a highly politicized judgment from the Department of
Justice. It essentially reflects wishful thinking on the part of the
Department of Justice that the Supreme Court will, sometime in the
future, overturn Supreme Court cases. As Professors Ira C. Lupu and
Robert Tuttle of George Washington University Law School stated in a
recent article, ``The Bush Administration's recent announcements . . .
venture into constitutionally questionable territory.'' The 2003 OLC
opinion directly conflicts with the holdings of Tilton and Nyquist,
which I discussed in my written testimony.
We are also aware that the Seattle Hebrew Academy recently received
Federal Emergency Management Agency funds after the Administration
reversed, by executive order, the long standing policy of FEMA to not
fund religious institutions with active congregations. It is still
unclear if the Hebrew Academy contains an active house of worship.
There may be other instances of government funding for maintenance of
houses of worship as well. Thus, even though we are aware that federal
funds have been used in certain cases for the maintenance of houses of
worship, all of these grants were unconstitutional. We are considering
litigation on several of these matters.
Question 2. Can you think of any circumstances where it would be
appropriate for Federal funds to be associated with religious activity
in the United States?
Answer. Americans United strongly believes that direct government
funding of religious organizations or activities and other funding
schemes, such as vouchers, raise serious constitutional issues. It has
long been official policy of the United States that the government does
not pay for proselytization and the spread of sectarian views.
Although the United States Supreme Court has repudiated the
``pervasively sectarian'' standard for in-kind provisions to religious
institutions, a majority of the Court has noted the continued viability
of the prohibition on the provision of monetary funds to pervasively
sectarian institutions. See Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 848, 855-
56 (2000) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (noting, in upholding program,
that no public ``funds ever reach the coffers of a religious
[institution] and that there are ``special dangers associated with
direct money grants to religious institutions'' because such ``aid
falls precariously close to the original object of the Establishment
Clause's prohibition'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because there was no majority opinion in Mitchell and Justice
O'Connor joined the judgment on the narrowest grounds, federal
appellate courts have agreed that the holdings of Mitchell are set
forth in Justice O'Connor's opinion. See Columbia Union College v.
Oliver, 254 F.3d 496, 504 & n.l (4th Cir. 2001); DeStefano v. Emergency
Hous. Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 397, 419 (2d Cir. 2001); Johnson v.
Economic Dev. Corp.T1, 241 F.3d 501, 510 n.2 (6th Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of federal funds being used for maintenance of
houses of worship, three Supreme Court decisions make clear that it is
unconstitutional to allow federal grants for the repair of preservation
of structures devoted to worship or religious instruction, and all
three of these decisions remain binding law on the federal government.
In Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971), the Court laid the
framework for the current constitutional requirements regarding
construction, upkeep, and maintenance of religious institutions'
physical facilities. Tilton involved a challenge to the
constitutionality of a federal law under which federal funds were used
by secular and religious institutions of higher education for the
construction of libraries and other campus buildings. While the law
allowed money to go to religious institutions, it also contained a
proviso that expressly forbid funds from being used on buildings that
would be used for worship or sectarian instruction. The Court upheld
the program, but it unanimously held that the provision was
constitutionally necessary and unanimously invalidated part of the
statute that would have allowed religious schools to convert the
federally funded facilities for worship or sectarian instruction after
twenty years had passed. No building that was built with federal funds
can ever be used for worship or sectarian instruction--that is Tilton's
clear holding. 403 U.S. at 692.
In two subsequent cases decided two years later, the Supreme Court
clearly reaffirmed the principle that the First Amendment prohibits the
government from subsidizing the construction or repair of buildings
used as houses of worship. In Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973), the
Supreme Court upheld the South Carolina Educational Facilities
Authority Act, which established an ``Educational Facilities
Authority,'' through which educational facilities could borrow money
for use in their facilities at favorable interest rates. However, the
Act required each lease agreement to contain a clauses forbidding
religious use in such facilities and allowing inspections to enforce
that requirement. 413 U.S. at 744. The Court upheld the Act, including
the condition that government-funded bond financed physical structures
could never be used for religious worship or instruction.
Finally, in Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756
(1973), the Supreme Court struck down New York's program of providing
grants to nonpublic schools for use of maintenance and repair of
``school facilities and equipment to ensure health, welfare, and safety
of enrolled students.'' 413 U.S. at 762. The Court summarized its
previous holdings as ``simply recogniz[ing] that sectarian schools
perform secular, educational functions as well as religious functions,
and that some forms of aid may be channeled to the secular without
providing direct aid to the sectarian. But the channel is a narrow
one.'' Id. at 775. The Court then held that ``[i]f the State may not
erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place, it may
not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into
disrepair.'' Id. at 777. In other words, government funding for either
the construction or maintenance and repair of physical structures is
unconstitutional unless there is no possibility that the structures
will be used for sectarian worship or instruction. Otherwise the
government would be subsidizing religious activity. Notwithstanding
these comments, there may be circumstances where government reimburses
houses of worship, say, for taking in hurricane victims just as the
local Holiday Inn may be reimbursed. It is also conceivable that
property owned by a religious group but that has essentially been given
over to public use (as in picnic grounds) and which is not the site of
religious activities could be subsidized if that property met
qualifications for preservation grants as purely historical or natural
sites.
Question 3. Are you aware of any instances where churches or other
houses of worship have received Federal funds for maintenance,
restoration, or historic preservation efforts?
Answer. Please see answer to question #1.
______
Steve Hearst,
California Missions Foundation,
San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2004.
Steve Hearst, Chairman of the California Missions Foundation was
asked by Sen. Domenici to respond to the following (4) questions:
Question 1. Are visitors charged an admission fee at any of the
California Missions?
Answer. Twelve (12) California missions requested a donation for
admission. Nine (9) missions charge an admission fee. Paid admissions
range from $1.00 to $5.00.
Question 2. How much does the Roman Catholic Church contribute
annually to the preservation and maintenance of the California
Missions?
Answer. Two California mission owned by the Stare of California,
Department of Parks and Recreation receive funds for preservation and
maintenance when available. All other missions receive no funding from
the Church for preservation, repairs and maintenance. Each mission
relies on admissions, donations, gift stores and fund raising events to
keep their doors open to the 5.3 million annual visitors.
Question 3. Does the Roman Catholic Church own the California
Missions? If not, who does and for how long?
Answer. After the American occupation of Alta California, the
property rights of the missions were reviewed by the federal land
Commission, and some of the lands and buildings were returned to the
Church by acts of Congress in the 1850's and 1860's. California
missions are under the following jurisdictions:
DIOCESE OF SAN DIEGO
Mission San Luis Rey (Oceanside)
Mission Basilica San Diego de Alcala
DIOCESE OF ORANGE
Mission San Juan Capistrano (San Juan Capistrano)
ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES
Mission San Buenaventura (Ventura)
Mission Santa Inez (Solvang)
Mission San Fernando (Mission Hills)
Mission San Gabriel (San Gabriel)
Mission Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara)
DIOCESE OF MONTEREY
Mission San Luis Obispo (San Luis Obispo)
Mission San Miguel (San Miguel)
Mission San Antonio de Padua (Jolon)
Mission Soledad (Soledad)
Mission Basilica San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmelo (Carmel)
Mission Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz)
Mission San Juan Bautista (San Juan Bautista)
DIOCESE OF OAKLAND
Mission San Jose (Fremont)
JESUITS AND SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY
Mission Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO
Mission San Francisco de Asis (San Francisco)
Mission San Rafael (San Rafael)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTS OF PARKS
Mission La Purisima State Historic Park (Lompoc)
Mission San Francisco Solano State Historic Park (Sonoma)
Mission Santa Cruz State Historic Park (Santa Cruz)
TITLE FOR CALIFORNIA MISSIONS
The Church has held title to most of the California missions since
some of the lands and buildings were returned to the Church by acts of
Congress in the 1850's and 1860's. The State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation has title to two missions: Mission La Purisima
and Mission San Francisco Solano.
Mission San Diego property was returned to the church in 1862.
Mission Carmel property was returned to the Church in 1856.
Mission San Antonio de Padua property was returned to the Church in
1862.
Mission San Gabriel property was returned to the Church in 1859.
Mission San Luis Obispo property was returned to the Church in 1859.
Mission San Francisco de Asis property was returned to the Church in
1857.
Mission San Juan Capistrano property was returned to the Church in
1860.
Mission Santa Clara property was acquired by the Jesuits in 1851.
Mission San Buenaventura property was returned to the Church in 1862.
Mission Santa Barbara property was returned to the Church in 1865. The
Franciscans now own the mission.
Mission La Purisima State Historic Park was acquired by the State of
California in 1935. It became a state park in 1940.
Mission Santa Cruz was completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1857.
The Church rebuilt replica of the mission in 1931.
Mission Soledad property was returned to the Church in 1859
Mission San Juan Bautista property was returned to the Church in 1865.
Mission San Miguel property was returned to the Church in 1859.
Mission San Fernando property was returned to the Church in 1861.
Mission San Luis Rey property was returned to the Church in 1865. The
Francisco now own the mission.
Mission Santa Ines property was returned to the Church in 1862.
Mission San Rafael property was returned to the Church in 1855.
Mission San Francisco Solana State Historic Park was acquired by the
State of California in 1906.
Question 4. Have any of the California Missions ever received
federal funding for maintenance, restoration or any other activities?
Answer. Several California missions have received federal, state
and/or local government funding for preservation projects including:
Mission San Gabriel received 5350,000 from the State of
California after the 1987 earthquake. The mission received
S1,400,000 from the federal government (FEMA) after the 1994
San Gabriel earthquake. The federal funds were given directly
to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Mission San Fernando received $1,000,000 from the federal
government (FEMA) after the 1994 earthquake as well as a grant
from the State of California, Office of Historic Preservation.
The federal grant was given directly to the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles.
Mission San Juan Capistrano received a $140,000 grant from
the federal government as well as federal highway funds to
restore historic ruins.
Mission San Luis Rey has received approximately $14,000 from
the county government
Mission San Jose received 5900,000 from the State of
California for seismic retrofitting the mission in 2000.
In 2003 federal grants to be used to renovate churches and
religious sites that are designated historic landmarks were awarded to
the Old North Church its Boston ($317,000) and the Touro Synagogue in
Rhode Island ($375,000).
Please contact our office if you need any clarification or
additional information regarding these questions and the California
Missions.
Have a good evening.
Toyia Wortham,
Assistant to Steve Hearst.
______
Steve Hearst,
California Missions Foundation,
San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2004.
Please note the correction to #3.
Question 3. Does the Roman Catholic Church own the California
Missions? If not, who does and for how long?
JESUITS AND SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY
Mission Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO
Mission San Francisco de Asis (San Francisco)
Mission San Rafael (San Rafael)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTS OF PARKS
Mission La Purisima State Historic Park (Lompoc)
Mission San Francisco Solano State Historic Park (Sonoma)
Mission Santa Cruz State Historic Park (Santa Cruz)
TITLE FOR CALIFORNIA MISSIONS
The Church has held title to most of the California missions since
some of the lands and buildings were returned to the Church by acts of
Congress in the 1850's and 1860's. The State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation has title to two missions: Mission La Purisima
and Mission San Francisco Solano.
Mission San Diego property was returned to the church in 1862.
Mission Carmel property was returned to the Church in 1856.
Mission San Antonio de Padua property was returned to the Church in
1862.
Mission San Gabriel property was returned to the Church in 1859.
Mission San Luis Obispo property was returned to the Church in 1859.
Mission San Francisco de Asis property was returned to the Church in
1857.
Mission San Juan Capistrano property was returned to the Church in
1860. The Jesuits acquired Mission Santa Clara property in 1851.
Mission San Buenaventura property was returned to the Church in 1862.
Mission Santa Barbara property was returned to the Church in 1865. The
Franciscans now own the mission.
Mission La Purisima was acquired by the State of California in 1935. It
became a state historic park in 1940.
Mission Santa Cruz was completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1857.
The Church rebuilt replica of the mission in 1931.
Mission Soledad property was returned to the Church in 1859.
Mission San Juan Bautista property was returned to the Church in 1865.
Mission San Miguel property was returned to the Church in 1859.
Mission San Fernando property was returned to the Church in 1861.
Mission San Luis Rey property was returned to the Church in 1865. The
Franciscans now own the mission.
Mission Santa Ines property was returned to the Church in 1862.
Mission San Rafael property was returned to the Church in 1855.
Mission San Francisco Solano was deeded to the State of California
Division of Parks and beaches by the Historic Landmarks League in 1926.
it became a state historic park in 1927.
Please contact our office if you need any clarification or
additional information regarding these questions and the California
Missions.
Have a good evening.
Toyia Wortham,
Assistant to Steve Hearst.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, March 9, 2004.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman, I have reviewed S. 1687, the Manhattan
Project National Historic Park Study Act of 2003, with great interest
and strongly support all efforts to pass thus important historic
preservation,legislation.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory has been the Site of many of the
most significant events in science and engineering of the 20th century.
The Laboratory's 60-year history is replete with individuals such as
Robert Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, and Nicholas Metropolis who were
instrumental in leading America's march into the nuclear age. In
addition to its people, the Laboratory complex still contains many of
the key installations built during the early days of the Manhattan
Project.
It is the preservation of these sites, both on and outside of
Laboratory property, which makes this legislation critical to
maintaining an understanding of the country's role in the nuclear age.
Although several of the key Manhattan Project sites and structures are
situated behind our security perimeter, I am committed to working with
the National Nuclear Security Administration to provide public access
to these areas, including the old gun site at Technical Area 8 where
the first nuclear weapon was designed.
The involvement of the National Park Service as a sponsoring
government agency will increase the likelihood of allowing limited
uncleared access into restricted areas like those containing the gun
site. This government-to-government partnership is crucial from a
security aspect because tours conducted by another government agency
are more easily coordinated. 1 also believe that this legislation will
foster extensive collaboration between the National Park Service and
the Laboratory's Bradbury Science Museum, which is located in downtown
Los Alamos.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory, through our workforce and
community, has and will continue to play a pivotal role in our
country's national security. Having a stronger historical perspective
and interpretation of the Manhattan Project as provided through this
legislation will help increase employee morale and provide the
Laboratory with an additional resource in recruiting the next
generation of scientists and engineers.
In closing, I would again like to offer my strongest support for
this legislation and urge its swift enactment.
Sincerely,
G. Peter Nanos,
Laboratory Director.
______
Prepared Statement of Del Ballard, President, B Reactor Museum
Association, on H.R. 3207 and S. 1687
This statement is in support of Senate Bill S. 1687, and its
companion Bill H.R. 3207, ``The Manhattan Project Historic Park Study
Act of 2003''.
The Manhattan Project, the top-secret effort in World War II to
develop an atomic weapon ahead of the Nazis, was one of the most
significant undertakings in American and world history. Yet the history
of this huge endeavor has been ``largely invisible'' to the American
public because of the secrecy and security applied.
The sites that were selected for the development and production
facilities needed for producing the atomic bomb included Oak Ridge, TN;
Hanford; WA; and Los Alamos, NM. Hanford was selected for the location
of facilities to produce plutonium. Plutonium was the newly discovered
element that could be produced in relative abundance from natural
uranium, by the fission process, in an atomic reactor.
Three reactors--at that time called ``piles''--were constructed at
Hanford under the Manhattan Project. The first and therefore the most
historic was the B Reactor. The historical significance of this
facility is unquestionable. It was the worlds full scale production
reactor, produced the material for the first ever atomic explosion, and
the plutonium used for the weapon released over Nagasaki, Japan on
August 9, 1945, bringing a conclusive end to W.W. II a few days later.
Preserving the history generated by the Manhattan Project should be
of paramount interest for our government. Executive Order #13287,
``Preserve America'', issued in 2003 calls for the Federal government
to ``provide leadership in preserving America's heritage by actively
advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the
historic properties owned by the Federal government. In Addition, the
Order directs the Federal government to ``promote local economic
development and vitality through the use of historic properties in a
manner that contributes to the long-term preservation and productive
use of those properties.''
As recently quoted by Senator Cantwell: The B Reactor at Hanford
made significant contributions to the United States' defense policy
from World War II through the Cold War. I believe it is tremendously
important that future generations know the history and impact of the B
Reactor as well as the other various Manhattan Project sites. It is
critical that our nation reflect on both the Manhattan Project's
unprecedented engineering achievements, such as B Reactor, as well as
the human and environmental costs of such initiative, which changed the
course of world history.
The Park Service Study to be authorized by S. 1678 is vitally
important for the long term preservation of Manhattan Project resources
and specifically the B Reactor.
The Department of Energy has indicated they consider it quite
commendable that the B Reactor be considered for use as a museum or
monument to commemorate the notable engineering achievement, but they
cannot utilize clean-up funds to support long-term public use. Their
position is that if a long term operating partner is not identified the
facility will not be preserved.
The-study to be authorized by this bill does not prejudge what role
the National Park Service might play but will assess management
alternatives. Consideration will be given to the roles of state and
local governments, Indian tribes, private sector and other federal
agencies and various cooperative management arrangements.
The Department of Energy is committed to a timely and cost
effective cleanup of Hanford production facilities. They are asking
that a decision by reached by September 2005 for the final disposition
of the B Reactor. In order to avoid delaying the accelerated clean-up
of the Department of Energy sites, to the extent possible the requested
study should be done on an accelerated schedule. To ensure adequate
funding, we recommend that funds in the amount of $850,000 be included
in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for FY 2006 for this
purpose and that the Secretary of Interior consult with the Secretary
of Energy throughout the process.
The B Reactor Museum Association strongly supports legislation to
authorize this study.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Doc Hastings, U.S. Representative From the
State of Washington
Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity to offer my support for
the legislation before the committee today. I also would like to thank
my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell for requesting this
hearing and for her work on this issue. Passage of the ``Manhattan
Project National Historical Park Study Act of 2003'' would be an
important step forward in preserving important aspects of our nation's
past. The historic B-Reactor, located at the Hanford site in Central
Washington, is one of the most significant aspects of the legislation.
I have been working hand-in-hand with Senator Cantwell on preservation
of the B-Reactor. With bipartisan support for this project, I am
hopeful that legislation can be enacted this year.
Hanford's nuclear history began in the 1940's and nuclear
production at Hanford played a pivotal role in our nation's defense for
more than 40 years. An integral part of the Manhattan Project, the
World War II effort to develop and construct the first atomic bomb, the
work done at Hanford helped win World War II. Later, nuclear production
at Hanford helped provide the nuclear deterrence that helped defeat
communism and win the Cold War.
One of the key components to Hanford's nuclear production success
was the B Reactor. In 1943, only months after Enrico Fermi first
demonstrated that controlled nuclear reaction was possible, ground was
broken on the B Reactor--which became the world's first full-scale
plutonium production reactor. The B Reactor produced the plutonium for
the first ever manmade nuclear explosion and for the bomb dropped on
Nagasaki that helped win World War II.
I've toured B Reactor and seen first-hand that it is an amazing
feat of engineering and a site of national historical significance. The
B Reactor is largely maintained in its original state and provides
visitors with a true feeling of the 1940's era and the Manhattan
Project.
I believe preservation of the B Reactor would help tell the story
of the Manhattan Project and serve as a useful education tool--
especially for those generations who didn't live through World War II
or the Cold War. It represents a unique part of Central Washington's
history and our nation's history that should not be forgotten.
I want to offer my full support fro legislation to preserve the
historical legacy of the Manhattan project sites. I hope legislation
can be adopted by both the House and the Senate yet this year to start
the process moving forward. Mr. Chairman--Thank you for the opportunity
to share my views with the committee. I look forward to continuing to
work on this issue with the Committee and my colleague from Washington.
______
Committee on Rules,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 8, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas, Thank you for holding this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation for H.R.
1446, the California Missions Preservation Act. As you know, this
legislation would authorize $10 million over five fiscal years to
support the efforts of the California Missions Foundation in restoring
and repairing our 21 historic missions, and preserving their artwork
and artifacts. This federal funding would supplement State funding, and
a statewide private campaign dedicated to ensuring the future of the
missions.
The missions have evolved to become bases for community-wide events
such as concerts and art exhibitions as well. They are also an
important part of California's booming travel and tourism industry. As
you know, California is the number one travel destination in the United
States, and its missions are the most visited historic attractions in
the state, drawing more than five and a half million tourists a year.
In addition, because of their significance to California's rich
history, the historic missions are a subject of study for elementary
school students. The state's fourth grade school children have the
opportunity to study the missions and often visit them as part of their
western history curricula. This serves an important education function
in teaching young students about the role of the missions in
California's development from a vast wilderness in the mid-18th Century
to a civilization ripe for statehood in the 1840's.
I am pleased to support my colleague, Sam Farr, in his efforts to
see this legislation enacted. I also commend Senator Barbara Boxer for
her partnership in this moving this bill through the Senate, and
encourage the Subcommittee's support in preserving the history of
California's missions for future generations.
Sincerely,
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of The Friends of Historic San Antonio Mission
on S. 1306 & H.R. 1446
Dear committee members, the Friends of Historic San Antonio Mission
wishes to go on record as being fully supportive of the above named
bills which propose funds to the CA Missions Foundation for the
restoration and repair of the Spanish colonial missions here in
California.
We encourage you to vote favorably for these measures when they
come before your committee on March 9. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sue Watson,
President, Friends of Historic San Antonio Mission.