[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MANAGEMENT OF THE
STATUE OF LIBERTY
NATIONAL MONUMENT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-847 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Louie Gohmert, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Tom Cole, Oklahoma
George Miller, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Dean Heller, Nevada
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Kevin McCarthy, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Carolina
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Louie Gohmert, Texas
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Dean Heller, Nevada
Lois Capps, California Bill Sali, Idaho
Jay Inslee, Washington Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Mark Udall, Colorado Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Kevin McCarthy, California
Dakota Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 18, 2007...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Moyer, Monique, Executive Director, Port of San Francisco.... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Salerno, Marie, President and Co-Founder, National Parks of
New York Harbor Conservancy................................ 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Sires, Hon. Albio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 2
Weiner, Hon. Anthony D., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York...................................... 4
Wenk, Daniel N., Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Additional materials supplied:
Giraudo, Louis, Statement submitted for the record on behalf
of the San Francisco Fishermen's Wharf Restaurant
Association................................................ 29
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MANAGEMENT OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY NATIONAL
MONUMENT
----------
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Christensen,
Hinchey, Inslee, Brown, Gohmert, Cole, and McCarthy.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Let me call the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands to order. Our agenda today is
an oversight hearing on the management of the Statue of Liberty
Monument, and let me begin with an opening statement, and then
our Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, as well.
The Statue of Liberty, as we all know, is a powerful symbol
of America. The values it represents, the international
cooperation, freedom, and our heritage as a nation of
immigrants, are as relevant today as they ever were. The
Congress and this Subcommittee in particular are eager to work
with the National Park Service to ensure that icon of American
freedom is protected, preserved and interpreted for future
generations of Americans as well as those who may visit our
shores.
Concerns have been raised regarding two management issues
at the monument. The first is the decision by the National Park
Service to close the crown of the statue to the public. There
appears to be some confusion as to whether this decision is
based on security concerns in the wake of the 9/11 attacks or
on more standard health and safety concerns, such as the lack
of emergency exit. Hopefully today's hearing will provide
further information on this issue.
In addition, some have raised concerns regarding the
recently awarded concessions contract for ferry service to the
monument. We look forward to hearing from our witnesses
regarding not only the new contract at the Statue of Liberty
but also regarding the track record of the new concessionaire
on all NPS sites.
We would like to welcome our witnesses to this hearing and
thank them for their time and effort in joining us. Your input
would be invaluable as we consider the future of this national
treasure.
With that, let me turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop,
for any comments he may have.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
The Statue of Liberty is a powerful symbol of America. The values
it represents--international cooperation, freedom and our heritage as a
nation of immigrants--are as relevant today as ever.
The Congress, and this Subcommittee in particular, are eager to
work with the National Park Service to insure that this icon of
American freedom is protected, preserved and interpreted for future
generations of Americans as well as those who may visit our shores.
Concerns have been raised regarding two management issues at the
Monument. The first is the decision by the National Park Service to
close the crown of the Statue to the public. There appears to be some
confusion as to whether this decision is based on security concerns in
the wake of the September 11 attacks, or on more standard health and
safety concerns such as the lack of emergency exits. Hopefully, today's
hearing will provide further information on this issue.
In addition, some have raised concerns regarding the recently-
awarded concessions contract for ferry service to the Monument. We look
forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding not only the new
contract at the Statue of Liberty but also regarding the track record
of the new concessioner at other NPS sites.
We would like to welcome our witnesses to the hearing and thank
them for their time and effort in joining us. Your input will be
invaluable as we consider the future of this national treasure.
With that, let me turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, for any
comments he may have.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. I am happy to be here with the Chairman to talk
about why the A PLUS Act should replace No Child Left Behind.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Wrong hearing? That is what I want to talk
about.
No, we welcome you here. This is going to be an informative
hearing on these issues, and I look forward to the testimony
that is going to be provided.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me welcome our colleagues,
distinguished colleagues. Congressman Sires from New Jersey,
welcome, sir. Thank you for coming and your time. Congressman
Weiner from New York. Thank you for your time. Let me begin
with the gentleman from New Jersey for his opening comments.
Mr. Sires.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBIO SIRES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Sires. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank
you for having me here today to talk about an issue that is
very near to my heart. I appreciate your willingness to examine
issues affecting the Statue of Liberty. I also want to thank
Congressman Weiner for championing this issue.
As you may know, I proudly represent the 13th District of
New Jersey, which includes the Statue of Liberty. I know Mr.
Weiner claims it is a New York landmark, but in truth, it
belongs to New Jersey. Actually, I believe that the Statue of
Liberty belongs to all Americans. It is a true symbol of our
nation and it represents our freedoms and liberties.
So, like so many of us, I vividly remember watching the
Twin Towers burn on September 11. I will never forget that
vision in my mind and how our nation grieved for those who had
lost their lives. It was a symbolic blow to our nation's
spirit. Today, six years since those attacks, we have recovered
our spirit and America stands strong and proud again.
An important part of the recovery is due to the fact that
we are able to get back our lives. As then Secretary of the
Interior, Ms. Gail Norton, said on September 12, 2001, at the
Hoover Dam, and I quote, ``Even though atrocities such as those
of September 11 can affect us, they cannot close us down.''
However, former Secretary Norton was wrong about one of our
national treasures. Today, the Statue of Liberty's crown is not
yet open to the public. The statue is a symbol of freedom and
democracy, and her crown should be reopened for all to visit.
Why does the crown remain closed? I expect the National
Park Service to argue it is a national security threat. I
disagree. Congress has allocated more than $90 million for
security upgrades. More than $6 million was raised by private
sources to make improvement to the statue. Additionally, the
Park Service has reopened the Washington Monument and the White
House, other national treasures that are considered targets.
By using the devices that the Park Service has already
acquired for screening visitors to the Statue of Liberty, like
bomb-sniffing dogs and bomb-detecting devices that blow air
into the clothing and then check for particles of explosive
residue, they can reopen the Statue of Liberty's crown to the
public.
The Park Service might also respond that the crown remains
closed because it is not up to modern fire or building codes.
If this is true, you might ask them what are they doing to
repair the building. You might also ask what Congress can do to
help rehabilitate the crown so it can be reopened. What can we
do to provide the needed resources to reopen this national
symbol?
All visitors should have the opportunity to fully
experience the statue when visiting this great symbol of
freedom and be able to climb up those memorable stairs to the
crown and stand on their tiptoes to enjoy the views of this
country that she looks over and protects.
We have not forgotten the tragic events that occurred six
years ago, and we will never forget, but it is time to get back
to enjoying the freedom we have here in America. It is time to
fully reopen the symbol of liberty and do all we can to address
any outstanding issue. I ask for your assistance in this
endeavor.
Let me add one last point. I invite all of you to my
district to see the statue and to see what it means to the
visitors. I am happy to help organize a field hearing at
Liberty State Park so we can experience this great symbol.
Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.
I will end this by saying I am an immigrant. I came here at
the age of 11, and I still remember those days when my mother
and father and my brother went to the Statue of Liberty and we
went all the way to the top of the crown. It was probably one
of the most emotional and memorable experiences I have had
being a young immigrant in this country and being able to go to
the Statue of Liberty and visit and see what the statue
represents. It is one of those sites that you, as an immigrant,
look forward to seeing, especially in our area, and the other
one, I may say, is the Empire State Building in Mr. Weiner's
district.
So I thank you for your time and I hope you consider this
request. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir, and thank you for
your comments and your testimony.
Let me now turn to the gentleman from New York, whose
persistence is admired by myself very much. Congressman,
please.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTHONY D. WEINER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Weiner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, Members of the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, you and the Committee have a great deal of
work to do in taking a look at some of the issues that affect
the Statue of Liberty. Recently, a few days ago, shortly before
September 11, I did what no American has been able to do since
September 11, 2001. I went up the cramped helix stairwell going
up into the Statue of Liberty. It was tight, it was sweaty, it
was cramped and it was thrilling. It was thrilling the same way
a lot of us remember it was when we were kids, when our parents
or our grandparents or older brother or sister gave us a boost
up so you can see out of Lady Liberty's crown.
Since September 11, every single one of the national parks
that was closed on that fateful day has reopened, every single
one except the one that overlooks Ground Zero. Every single
monument is reopened. Every single park is reopened except the
one that has ``Liberty'' in her name.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a scandal that it remains true
to this day. It is not the fault of Congress. Congress has on
at least two occasions said to the National Park Service, ``You
need additional money? We will give it to you.'' At one point,
this House in a bipartisan fashion said, ``We will put an
additional $1 million in, even if you didn't ask for it, for
security concerns.'' But this is not about a failure of money.
This is about a failure of creativity and courage on the part
of the National Park Service. But more than that, it is a bit
of scandal.
First, let us lay on the table and let us stipulate to the
idea that the Statue of Liberty is closed today. Could you hand
me that, Jonathan?
This is open. You can walk into the park that was made and
manufactured by the United States of America. This, Lady
Liberty, and the gift from France that we all know so
iconically is closed. If the National Park Service comes to you
and says, ``Oh, but the Statue of Liberty is open; it is open
exactly the way we said we would open it,'' they are not
telling the truth.
If you or I or any other American citizen would go in, this
is about as high as we would be able to get. And if you think
that that is not bad enough, let us remember the days, weeks
and months immediately after September 11. We all remember the
full-throated fundraising campaign that was waged to raise
money to reopen Lady Liberty. We were all looking for things to
do in those days, and one of the things we were told was that
if you save your lids of your Folgers cans, if you buy
something with your American Express card, you are going to
give money that is going to reopen the Statue of Liberty.
The Statue of Liberty Ellis Island Foundation lined up
celebrities, lined up Robert DeNiro, lined up all kinds of
folks to help them raise money, and raise money they did. In
fact, the Statue of Liberty Foundation in 2004 raised $7
million in contributions in dimes and nickels and dollars and
cents; 2005, another $2.7 million; 2006, $1.7 million. And on
the website, it didn't show the base of Lady Liberty. It showed
her crown and her torch.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Subcommittee, you have to find
out where that money went. Someone collected that money, and
where has it gone? Well, to some degree, the Inspector General
of the Park Services answered that question. It went to bloated
salaries for the Director. It went to expenses that had nothing
to do with reopening the Statue of Liberty. It went to $45,000
a year to hire a dog to chase away geese off the grounds of the
Statue of Liberty.
Putting aside the money that was raised for this purpose
and not used for the purpose, putting aside the absence of
creativity on the part of the National Park Service, this comes
down to a question of whether we in Congress are going to
finally ask the National Park Service to start to plan to
reopen Lady Liberty's crown.
They are not wrong that it is cramped in there. They are
not wrong that I probably wouldn't go in there if I was
overweight. They are not wrong that you should probably limit
the number of people, or say you can't bring bags, so you have
to register in advance and buy a special ticket, and we are
only going to let 30 people go up, and we are only going to
allow them to go in off-hours. But tell us something. Tell us
why it is that here we are all these years later and there is
one iconic park that remains closed since September 11.
Now I have to tell you something. The National Park Service
is an amazing institution, but I am not sure they are up to the
task of figuring out how to solve this basic problem. We are
never going to make that park 100 percent safe for 100 percent
of visitors. But if you ask them when they sit here, ``Tell us
how many evacuations you have had to do from Lady Liberty's
crown in the last generations,'' they will have a tough time
counting any more than their fingers on their hand.
Is it safe for everyone to climb Devils Tower? Probably
not. There are some crowded corners of this building here, but
to keep Lady Liberty closed defies the will of the American
people and in a way, we use this a great deal, it really does
bow to the desires of the terrorists. If it had to be one park
to keep closed, it should not be the Statue of Liberty.
But if you are not animated by the psychic and spiritual
reasons to reopen Lady Liberty, if you are not animated by the
fact of what Congress said, if you are not animated by the fact
that millions of people gave dollars to it, I am going to tell
you there is a real economic impact as well.
Tourism and therefore tax dollars from people visiting Lady
Liberty is down. This is what it was in 2000. This is what it
is in 2006. Now this is tourism in the rest of New York City.
When the Park Service says, ``Oh, we find that our visitors
love the experience,'' they probably do enjoy the experience.
But this is the impact that we have seen since September 11--a
rise in tourism in New York City, a surge of patriotism in our
country, more people wanting to experience this iconic thing,
and fewer and fewer are.
So if you are not animated by the other things, we should
be concerned about the visitor experience and making sure when
they go there they have the experience they want.
Now, before I yield, and I appreciate the Chairman letting
me go over time, one of the things that the Park Service and my
colleague mentions is say, well, we are not sure how to
evacuate people from this narrow stairwell. Putting aside there
is an emergency elevator, putting aside there are some landings
that you can use, it is. It is cramped; it is tight. They have
never asked anyone, ``Tell us how.'' All they have gone is to
consultants to say, ``Tell us why not,'' and we all know that
if you ask someone, ``Well, is it safe,'' the answer is
probably going to be ``No, it is not 100 percent safe.'' We
would probably like A, B or C.
Perhaps what this committee should do is say to the Park
Service, ``Come back to us with a plan on how you would make it
as safe as possible.'' Is it you want a limit on the number
that you sell? I am sure that all of us can agree that there is
probably some reason.
You want to have a sign like they have at the amusement
parks? You have to be shorter than this and narrower than this,
and you have to be one of the first 30 that sign up online so
we can do a full security screen, whatever it takes. The
security going into the island is the same, if not better, than
we have at most airports. As my colleague mentioned, it has
bomb detection and the like. But do not allow us to simply say
we can't do it. We can't figure it out. I guess we are going to
leave this park closed.
Let me conclude with this thought. We should not be the
last generation of Americans that gets to experience this park.
We shouldn't be. It is just not right, and it should certainly
not be September 11, 2001, as the excuse, as lame as it is, to
be used by the Park Service to keep it closed. That should not
be the hook that they use to do what they might have wanted to
do for years and years and years, which is to close this park.
We should not let this happen. We should all have the
chance that our kids' kids and our kids' grandkids get to
experience that walk to Lady Liberty's crown. Only then, and
only when all the parks are reopened since September 11, will
we truly be back on our feet, will we truly be expressing the
ideals of the country and will we truly be doing the type of
oversight and governance that this Congress should do, and I
thank the Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Congressman. I have no questions
for our colleagues. Let me turn to our Ranking Member, Mr.
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. No. I appreciate the testimony of both of our
colleagues that are here. I thank you very much. I have no
questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, if I might make a statement. I had
the opportunity to walk up to the crown on September 8, 2001. I
was in New York with my grandson. We were going to West Point
for a visit, and we had dinner at the Windows on the World that
Friday night and that Saturday, but the Windows of the World,
you have such a great view of the statue. And so we took him
over to Ellis Island, and he was 16 at the time, and it was a
great experience. I know it is pretty cramped. It is a lot of
people walking up those narrow steps. But the view from the
crown is pretty exciting. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Weiner. Let me just respond that I just got chills when
you told me about that day because you were one of the last to
go into Windows on the World. Let us hope you are not one of
the last to go into the Statue of Liberty's crown.
Mr. Grijalva. Ms. Christensen, any questions?
Ms. Christensen. No, I have no questions. I just want to
welcome our colleagues here and look forward to the rest of the
testimony.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Sir, questions?
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate
your efforts, and especially my friend from New York. We have
been on the opposite side of some things in Judiciary, but I
really appreciate your efforts here. I have not had that
opportunity to go up before, and I am still hoping that because
of your efforts and others, and hopefully what we will do, I
will have that chance.
I am curious. You brought up the $45,000 a year for a dog
to chase geese. I am unfamiliar with the going rate in New
York. Is that too much for a dog to chase geese in New York? I
am not familiar with the going rate.
Mr. Weiner. I would say to the gentleman from Texas, I
would do it for much less. But there was an Inspector General's
report that looked at the wasting of money and looked at a lot
of other things about the management of the Statue of Liberty
and found it wanting. But I think the biggest problem is just
that the money was raised under false pretenses. The money was
not raised to hire dogs to chase geese.
Mr. Brown. Do you know what money is left?
Mr. Weiner. Well, here is what the foundation has now, and
the Park Service has backed them up and said, well, we needed
the money for other elements of upkeep of the Statue of
Liberty, so it was diverted to other things. It might have been
very valuable, but American Express, for example, was so
frustrated with the characterization of this as reopening the
Statue of Liberty that they withdrew their support from the
organization. They could not have been happy with the six-
figure salaries of the Executive Director of the organization.
But the argument that is made by the Park Service and this
foundation is, ``We never said we would open every inch of the
crown. We said we would open Lady Liberty.'' And that is why I
made the point at the beginning that none of it has yet been
opened.
Mr. Brown. Well, I appreciate those comments, and I do
think it would behoove us to find out because I remember, like
you said, when people poured out their hearts and their pockets
under the context or ruse that we are going to open up the
statue, and it was the crown that was the emphasis. So I hope
we are able to help Mr. Weiner's efforts. Thank you all very
much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sires. Can I just add, even when the crown was open,
not everybody chose to go all the way up to the crown? So it is
not a question that everybody is going to go up to the crown.
It is tight, it is hot, but the moment when you get up to this
crown and you see what the Statue of Liberty stands for is
beyond description. So I hope you consider this. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Can I have unanimous consent to ask a
question? I don't know. Do we ever have waivers in a place like
this for people to sign before they undertake something that
may be risky? Does the Chairman know?
Mr. Grijalva. We are going to have the witness from the
Park Service coming up.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you know?
Mr. Grijalva. We will be in a position to ask them.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Weiner. If I can speak out of order for one moment to
say this, is that the ticket sales that go on and security that
is done is all offsite at this point. I shouldn't say all
offsite. But there is a system to allow people to purchase
tickets online and to get them in advance of them getting
there. And there is nothing stopping the Park Service from
saying, ``If you choose ticket B rather than ticket A, here are
the limitations, and you have to affirm that you are prepared
to live up to them.''
I can tell you something. If I wanted to strap on a harness
and climb Devils Tower tomorrow, I doubt very much the Park
Service would say, go ahead, knock yourself out. I mean, they
probably have limitations.
Mr. Grijalva. Perhaps after your testimony today they might
say OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I really appreciate you fellows'
leadership on this, and the reason to me is a symbolic one.
This is a great symbol for the country, and it does remind me a
little bit of Franklin's quote, those who sacrificed a little
liberty to get a little security deserve neither and will lose
both, and I think that that applies to this situation. So I
really appreciate your trying to prod a solution here.
What I hear the Park Service, through you, saying is that
there is risk associated. Maybe there is a little more risk
going up these stairs than most stairs that we have in our
Federal system. But I went up a ladder, I remember, up to go
see a Kiva at the national park at, I think it is, is it
Bandelier National Park in New Mexico, and it was kind of an
old--it looked like kind of a Native American ladder. Maybe
there was a little more risk going up that, but I think in our
park system, risk is part of the experience, and in certain
circumstances, the Devils Tower, when you go up Mount Rainier,
you go up that ladder, there might be a little higher risk.
Tell us, there has got to be a way to get a person down
those stairs if you are going up. We do a lot of mountain
rescue in Washington State, and we bring people down off
cliffs, and there has just got to be a way to be able to do
that. Isn't there some way to do that?
Mr. Weiner. Well, look, I mean, the Park Service is going
to be here. I can tell you what my experience is just having
been there. It ain't easy. The fire department from New York
City would be called, and they do difficult rescues all the
time. It is basically a one-person-wide stairwell. There is a
YouTube video that is up now with me doing it, and you can see
how cramped it is. There are landings from place to place that
if someone needs to you can sit someone down. There is an
emergency elevator that is small but for a person to get them
up and down. It is not easy. It is not going to be easy to do
it.
Now, if you ask the Park Service how frequently they have
had to do that, how frequently they have had a bomb scare or
how frequently they have had to bring someone down, the
Superintendent with whom I took the tour said that she couldn't
recall if there was ever a time, maybe one or two.
I am sure it happens. I think we have to be careful not to
let the hypothetical deter the everyday experience. This is not
for everyone. It is very cramped and that is part of the thing.
It is about 10 degrees warmer in there easily than it is
outside, but every so often on the helix, it is a double helix,
every so often on the helix there is a landing that if you
needed to just go and sit, it is cramped, you could do it, but
it probably would be difficult. And I know the fire department
was invited here, and I think they made the decision it is not
really their fight. They will rescue whoever needs to be
rescued. But I think that should be the question the
Subcommittee asks.
Mr. Inslee. We will do that. The people who answered Lady
Liberty's call took a little risk coming to this country, and I
think taking a little risk here is appropriate, and I am going
to be encouraging the Park Service to find a solution to this,
and thanks for prodding us. Thank you.
Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Jay.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, gentlemen. Any questions, sir?
Mr. Cole. No.
Mr. Grijalva. No. Thank you very much. You are more than
welcome to join us on this committee hearing and participate,
and thank you very much.
Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. If we could ask Deputy Director Wenk from the
National Park Service, and then we will begin that part of the
testimony.
Mr. Wenk. Good morning.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir, and welcome, Mr. Deputy
Director. Just for the ground rules, your testimony in its
entirety will be made part of the record, and we look forward
to the five minutes of your summation, and then we will have an
opportunity for questions and answers. Thank you, sir. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide
an update on the management issues at the Statue of Liberty
National Monument and Ellis Island. In particular, my testimony
will focus on two critical and timely issues facing the park--
public access to the Statue of Liberty's crown and the award of
the ferry concession contract. Accompanying me today is the
Superintendent of the Statue of Liberty National Monument and
Ellis Island, Cynthia Garrett, and the Chief of the National
Park Service Concession Program, Joe Pendry.
A gift from the people of France commemorating friendship,
the abolition of slavery and a democratic government, the
Statue of Liberty enlightening the world is one of the world's
most recognizable icons. The Statue of Liberty is a symbol, a
work of art set on a pedestal that was designed to be viewed
from the harbor where it served as a visible symbol of the new
world and new opportunities for people arriving in America.
Our primary concerns about public access to the Statue of
Liberty's crown are safety and health concerns, not terrorism.
While we can never completely eliminate all security risk, we
are satisfied that the measures and operations put into place
at this international icon address the security concerns raised
by the events of September 11, 2001.
The Statue of Liberty's architect never intended or
designed the Statue of Liberty as something to enter or climb.
The interior of the statue structure is accessible only by a
very narrow, double-helix spiral staircase originally installed
for periodic use by maintenance workers, not for sightseeing or
for daily use by the general public.
Over the past seven years, the National Park Service has
worked with architectural and engineering firms and has had
them perform numerous fire protection and emergency management
assessments. These assessments determined that the interior of
the Statue of Liberty did not meet minimum health and safety
standards required by applicable building codes. The experts
have been unable to identify any feasible options that would
allow the area between the statue's observation deck and her
crown to meet code requirements. Therefore, based on health and
safety issues, the public is no longer allowed access to the
interior of the statue, including the crown.
The Federal government must be held to the highest
standards for public safety. As the stewards of the 391 park
units across the nation, NPS policies require us to enforce as
minimum standards the most current version of fire prevention
and life safety codes.
In addition to the concern about fire, we must also
consider and provide access so emergency personnel can respond
to medical emergencies within the statue. Today, visitors have
full access to Liberty Island and the interior of the pedestal,
all the way up to and including the observation deck. There are
now more options for visitors, including ranger-led programs, a
museum and a new glass ceiling viewing area at the top of the
statue's pedestal. We are working hard to improve the quality
of the entire visit to the Statue of Liberty from the moment
someone begins planning their visit on the ferry ride over and
their entire time at Liberty Island.
I will now turn to the issue of the new ferry service
concession contract for the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.
Before visitors ever set foot on Liberty Island, their park
experience begins with our ferry concessionaire as they plan
their trip and purchase ferry tickets. Concessionaires at this
historic park provide critical commercial visitor services.
They provide visitors with food, beverage and merchandise
services as well as transportation to and from Liberty and
Ellis Islands.
The National Park Service recently announced the selection
of a new concessionaire, Hornblower Yachts, Inc., to provide
ferry services using the business name Statue Cruises under a
10-year contract. Statue Cruises will serve as the first point
of contact for many visitors to the park. This new
concessionaire is very capable and excited to provide our
visitors not only safe transport but also a high-quality,
informative visit to the park. The new contract will be awarded
following the congressional review and is scheduled to take
effect on January 1, 2008.
The National Park Service worked diligently on the
prospectus development and the proposal evaluation under an
accelerated timeframe. Our commitment to these processes ensure
that the solicitation for the ferry service concession contract
was top-notch and incorporated lessons learned from other
prospectuses and newly awarded contracts.
We received six comprehensive competitive offers from
highly experienced and credible ferry operators. All proposals
were responsive and contained innovative and creative
approaches to addressing our objectives for the new concession
contract.
We believe the new contract will provide the American
public and all visitors to this historic site a better
experience and that this contract will demonstrate the great
strides the National Park Service has made in concession
contracting to meet the improvements sought by Congress when
the Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998 was passed.
It enhances visitor services, improves environmental
responsibility, protects the park resources, ensures assets are
properly maintained and affords the concessionaire a fair
opportunity for a profit while providing a franchise fee to the
park for use on high-priority visitor services.
In conclusion, the National Park Service is dedicated to
providing the highest level of visitor services to the public
who visit the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. We are also
committed to protecting visitors from documented health and
safety risks. The current management policy of limiting public
access to the statue's crown is in our opinion the best way to
provide an enjoyable and enriching experience while not
exposing visitors to unnecessary risk.
The award of a new ferry concession contract shows that we
have made a great deal of progress toward improving our
concessions program and toward helping ensure these contracts
protect park resources, provide quality visitor services to
visitors and offer fair business opportunities.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wenk follows:]
Statement of Daniel N. Wenk, Deputy Director,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide an update on
management issues at the Statue of Liberty National Monument and Ellis
Island. In particular, my testimony will focus on two critical and
timely issues facing the park--public access to the Statue of Liberty's
crown and the award of the ferry concession contract.
Accompanying me today is the Superintendent of the Statue of
Liberty National Monument and Ellis Island, Cynthia Garrett, and the
chief of the National Park Service Concessions Program, Jo Pendry.
A gift from the people of France commemorating friendship, the
abolition of slavery, and democratic government, the statue ``Liberty
Enlightening the World'' is one of the world's most recognized icons.
She endures as a powerful symbol, inspiring contemplation, debate, and
protest, of such ideas as liberty, freedom, human rights, democracy,
and opportunity.
The Statue of Liberty is a symbol, a work of art set on a pedestal,
that was designed to be viewed from the harbor where it served as the
visible symbol of a new world and new opportunities for people arriving
in America. Her design was a great technological achievement of its
time and continues to represent a bridge between art and engineering.
The Statue of Liberty's architect, Fredric Bartholdi, never
intended or designed the Statue of Liberty as something to enter or
climb. Only later did the War Department caretakers begin to take some
curiosity seekers inside the sculpture. By the time the National Park
Service (NPS) began administering the site in 1933--when there were
less than two hundred thousand visitors--the NPS had inherited a public
expectation of access to the Statue's crown. They managed access in
keeping with the level of awareness of dangers and understanding of
public safety at the time. Even so, the limited capacity of the Statue
meant that a relatively small percentage of visitors to Liberty Island
could be accommodated inside the Statue and that many were disappointed
in not being able to visit inside.
Visitation to the Statue has grown tremendously over the past half
century. In 1950, there were only about half a million visitors to the
Statue of Liberty annually. In 2006, however, more than 2.5 million
people visited Liberty Island. With this increase in visitation came
additional challenges for public health and safety.
Visitors used to be able to climb to the Statue of Liberty's torch.
In 1916, the torch was closed for safety reasons. Visitors used to be
able to climb to the Statue's crown. It too, is closed now because of
visitor health and safety issues.
Horrendous tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in
New York, the Coconut Grove fire in Boston, and the recent Station
nightclub fire in Rhode Island have focused attention on the continual
need to strengthen and enforce fire and building safety codes in order
to protect the public in cases of fires and other emergencies. Over
time, state and local fire and building safety codes that have the
potential to save countless lives have been developed and improved.
The Federal Government must be held to the highest standards for
public safety. As stewards of 391 park units across the Nation with an
overall annual visitation of 273 million, National Park Service
policies require us to enforce, as minimum standards, the most current
version of the National Fire Protection Association's Fire Prevention
and Life Safety Codes.
Our primary concerns about public access to the Statue of Liberty's
crown are safety and health concerns, not terrorism. While we can never
completely eliminate all security risks, we are satisfied that the
measures and operations put into place at this international icon
address the security concerns raised by the events of September 11,
2001.
Today, visitors have full access to Liberty Island, to the star-
shaped historic Fort Wood, and the interior of the pedestal all the way
up to and including the observation deck that affords visitors with
wonderful, 360 degree panoramic views of New York Harbor.
The interior of the Statue structure is accessible only by a very
narrow, double-helix spiral staircase with a low guardrail. This
staircase was originally installed for periodic use by maintenance
workers, not for sightseeing or for heavy, daily use by the general
public. This staircase does not meet national, state or local fire and
building codes for headroom clearance, riser height, tread width, or
the requirements for guardrails. Therefore, the public is no longer
allowed access to the interior of the statue including her crown.
Climbing the steep, spiral staircase that rises 12 stories up
through the Statue's interior is a difficult feat even for people in
excellent health and under ideal conditions. The narrow spiral
staircase barely fits within the superstructure that supports the
Statue and is at best, one person wide. A key danger is that once a
visitor begins the climb, turning back before reaching the crown is
nearly impossible. Each person is blocked by hundreds of people in
front and behind. There is only one way out.
In 2000, the NPS was criticized in the media for disregarding fire
and safety code violations at the Statue of Liberty. The Bergen Record
wrote:
Despite warnings that even a small fire in the Statue of
Liberty could be deadly, the U.S. government has failed to take
some safety precautions that would protect the throngs who make
the long pilgrimage to the statue's crown each day. (October
29, 2000)
We knew that the public had grown to expect to be able to visit the
Statue's crown, and we also realized the validity and the seriousness
of the warnings. To guide the efforts to improve health, safety, and
emergency management at the Statue of Liberty, the NPS began working
with several well-respected architectural and engineering firms
specializing in life safety. Over the past 7 years we have had them
perform numerous fire protection and emergency management assessments.
In addition, numerous site reviews were conducted by the New York City
Fire Department.
These evaluations all agreed on several key points and identified
significant concerns. They determined that the interior of the Statue
of Liberty did not meet minimum health and safety standards required by
applicable building codes. The most serious issues related to: (a)
egress, (b) visitor circulation and movement inside, and (c) lack of
fire separations.
Before allowing visitors back inside the pedestal in August 2004,
the NPS reduced life and safety risks by aggressively addressing the
majority of fire, safety, and evacuation deficiencies that had been
identified for the lower levels of the monument (e.g., pedestal). For
example, exterior staircases were added to Fort Wood to increase the
number of egress routes and decrease egress time from the interior of
the pedestal.
In June 2006, the NPS asked John B. Waite Associates, Architects to
review the Statue's 2004 renovations. This review concluded that the
NPS has made reasonable modifications to allow visitor access to the
lower portions of the national monument up to and including the
observation deck. In his letter to NPS accompanying the report, Mr.
Waite stated: ``These modifications allow a meaningful and rewarding
experience for visitors, while greatly improving life safety and
security.'' However, the letter goes on to say that ``...the interior
spaces within the statue above the observation deck continue to be
unsafe for visitors when evaluated against minimum safety standards
established by prescriptive building codes including the International
Building Code (IBC), the Building Code of the City of New York (BCCNY),
and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 101''.
According to all three of these codes, the interior of the Statue
of Liberty above the pedestal is unsafe for public use because of three
main reasons. First, the stair width, height, and depth are well out of
compliance with established standards. Safe evacuation of people during
an emergency would be difficult, and carrying an incapacitated person
down the stairway would be an arduous task. Second, the stairs are not
enclosed and do not provide safe passage to an exit. Although the 2004
renovations improved fire detection and suppression systems throughout
the monument to reduce the risk of fire, the potential for a fire still
exists. Should a fire occur, there is no way for people trying to leave
the Statue to safely escape smoke or heat. Finally, according to code,
people should be able to reach safe conditions in about 2 1/2 minutes.
At the Statue of Liberty, under the most ideal conditions, climbing
down the narrow, winding stairway inside the Statue and then down the
pedestal to safe conditions outside on Fort Wood would take about 5 to
8 minutes--up to 3 times the minimum standard. In emergency conditions,
it could take even longer.
Back in 2004 and continuing to today, the structural fire and
safety experts have been unable to identify any feasible options that
would allow the area between the Statue's observation deck and her
crown to meet code requirements or even the intent of those
requirements. There is no room for construction of an alternative
staircase. An alternative such as constructing a 22-story tower for a
new staircase next to the Statue, and cutting through the Statue of
Liberty's copper skin to build a bridge connecting the Statue of
Liberty and the tower in order to allow safe egress is an unacceptable
option.
In addition to the concerns about fire, we must also consider and
provide access so emergency personnel can respond to medical
emergencies. Health threats and incidents significantly increased
during warm weather--coinciding with our busiest seasons--when
temperatures inside the Statue register about 20 or more degrees higher
than outside air temperatures. These incidents happened regularly and
included heat exhaustion, claustrophobia, fear of heights, vertigo, and
panic attacks. Whether a medical incident was minor or serious, the
logistics presented serious challenges. To reach an injured or ill
person on the staircase, everyone on the staircase must turn around,
and come down the stairs to allow emergency responders to re-climb the
stairs with appropriate medical gear. This results in a delay to reach
people with potential, life-threatening medical problems.
We have also realized that while our visitors knew of the Statue of
Liberty, they didn't know about her. We have shifted our focus to
improve the overall visitor experience and to increase programming to
tell the stories of the Statue of Liberty and share her meaning. Prior
to 2001, less than 3 percent of visitors participated in park programs.
Today, about 22 percent of our visitors take advantage of these
programs.
There are now more options for visitors. They can go on a variety
of ranger-led programs, tour a museum, see views of all of New York
Harbor from the observation deck, and see inside the Statue through a
new glass-ceiling viewing area at the top of the Statue's pedestal. We
have enhanced the lighting that highlights her architectural and
engineering elements and we show video images of the Statue's interior
so that visitors have an enhanced opportunity to appreciate her as both
a work of art and as an engineering marvel.
We are working on other ways to ensure visitors have an outstanding
experience and to offer those experiences to more people. Our goal is
to increase by 50% or more the number of visitors who can go inside the
monument and we aim to double the number of visitors who take part in
interpretation programs on Liberty Island outside the Statue. We are
also developing a new ``Discovery Liberty!'' project for visitors who
for whatever reason cannot go inside the monument. This program creates
opportunities for visitors to uncover and experience the stories and
symbolism of Liberty Island and the Statue of Liberty.
The Statue of Liberty is being experienced as intended, from the
waters of the harbor and from viewpoints on Liberty Island. Even
without access to the crown, thousands of visitors every day enter the
base and travel up the pedestal to observe the inside of the statue
from a safe vantage point, then walk outside to the top of the pedestal
to enjoy a spectacular view of New York City and its boroughs, New
Jersey, and the harbor.
We recognize that closing access to the crown, even for very good
reasons, is a deeply emotional issue and one that conflicts with the
expectations that many people hold. We are working hard to improve the
quality of the entire visit to the Statue of Liberty--from the moment
someone begins planning their visit, on the ferry ride over and their
entire time on Liberty Island. I invite you to visit the Statue of
Liberty to experience these opportunities, and to come away inspired by
everything that Lady Liberty represents and offers.
I will now turn to the issue of the new ferry services concession
contract for the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.
Before visitors ever set foot on Liberty Island, their park
experience begins with our ferry concessioner as they plan their trip
and purchase ferry tickets for the exciting ride from either the
Battery in Lower Manhattan or Liberty State Park in New Jersey. A trip
to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island is more than a boat ride. It
is a journey along the path taken by millions of Americans as they
began a new life of freedom and opportunity. And it is a way to enjoy
the scenic beauty of New York Harbor with its magnificent skyline and
towering buildings.
Concessioners at this historic park provide critical commercial
visitor services. They provide visitors with food, beverage and
merchandise services, as well as transportation to and from Liberty and
Ellis Islands. The NPS recently announced the selection of a new
concessioner, Hornblower Yachts, Inc., to provide ferry services using
the business name of Statue Cruises, LLC, under a 10-year contract. The
previous contract generated $36 million revenue in 2006. Statue Cruises
will serve as the first point of contact for many visitors to the park.
This new concessioner is very capable and excited to provide our
visitors not only safe transport, but also a high-quality, informative
visit to the park.
The NPS released a prospectus for the operation of interpretative
ferry services on December 28, 2006. This prospectus provided
information for potential offerors to develop a proposal for providing
ferry services. It also emphasized and sought answers to important
improvements needed in the visitor services at the Statue of Liberty
and Ellis Island. For example, we asked offerors to tell us how they
would improve visitor experiences from trip planning all the way
through the completion of the visit to the park. We asked them to
describe the reservation and ticketing system they would use to better
manage the high volume of visitors to this park. We also asked them how
they would more effectively use both embarkation locations and
alleviate long wait times.
The NPS worked diligently on the prospectus development and
proposal evaluation under an accelerated timeline. We welcomed and
cooperated with the Department of the Interior Inspector General's
Office who monitored the entire process. Our commitment to these
processes ensured that the solicitation for the ferry service
concession contract was top-notch and incorporated lessons learned from
other prospectuses and newly awarded contracts.
Proposals were due to the NPS by April 27, 2007. We received six
comprehensive competitive offers from highly experienced and credible
ferry operators. All proposals were responsive and contained innovative
and creative approaches to addressing our objectives for the new
concession contract. The NPS convened a panel of qualified NPS
employees that evaluated all proposals and recommended that Statue
Cruises be awarded the contract. Based on this recommendation, the
Regional Director selected Statute Cruises for the award of the new
contract. The contract was sent to Congress on July 25, 2007 for the
required 60-day notice period. The new contract will be awarded
following the congressional review and is scheduled to take effect on
January 1, 2008.
To allow for a seamless transition for our visitors to the new
concessioner's operations, the current concessioner agreed to a short
continuation of services. The current concessioner has also agreed to
work with the park and Statue Cruises to ensure a smooth changeover and
no negative impacts to the public.
Our experience with the prospectus development, proposal
evaluation, and selection process is an exceptional example of how
visitor services in national parks are being improved under the
provisions of the Concession Management Improvement Act of 1998. The
NPS embraces the Act's goal of increasing competition while protecting
park resources and providing necessary and appropriate visitor services
at reasonable rates.
The new contract will make trip planning and the ferry ride to and
from these international icons convenient, educational, customer-
service oriented, and environmentally conscious.
Some of the highlights of the new concession contract with Statue
Cruises include:
A focus on visitor convenience, experience and customer
service, to include improved visitor embarkation facilities; greeting
and offering assistance to visitors at ticketing, embarkation and
disembarkation sites; new educational and orientation signage; an
opportunity for visitors to record their impressions; a narrated
multimedia presentation on the island cruises; and online chat
capability with customer service representatives.
A new multi-lingual reservation and ticketing system for
dated and timed ferry tickets, sales of the park audio tour, and
distribution of monument passes. System features include ticket sales
via the phone or Internet; ability to print tickets from personal
computers; a multi-lingual call center, remote kiosks, and walk-up
sales; a ``concierge hot line'' for hotels; and no-cost exchange of
ferry tickets for island cruise tickets to reduce waiting times.
An improvement to the visitor experience by incorporating
park stories into the ferry services through approved media, to include
new signs, exhibits and educational panels; on-board audio tours in
combination with ferry tickets; podcasts and video-on-demand casts
available from the web site; and new exhibits and educational programs
at embarkation and docking facilities. By utilizing newer technology
such as podcasts, we hope to attract younger visitors who are more
interested in interactive media at park units.
An extensive upgrade to the existing fleet of seven
vessels, to include an environmentally progressive plan to retrofit the
ferries to meet stricter emissions standards. Additionally, the new
island cruises will be provided using a new reduced-emission battery-
powered solar and plug-in ``Trybrid'' vessel to be available at the end
of the second year of the contract.
New island cruises where passengers remain on the vessel
and view the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island from the water within
park boundaries while listening to or watching on-board interpretative
media. The tour will be a welcome alternative for visitors wanting to
avoid long lines during peak season, who have limited time for their
visit, or have limited mobility that prevents them from walking around
the two islands.
We believe the new contract at the Statue of Liberty National
Monument and Ellis Island will provide the American public and all
visitors to this historic site a better experience, and that this
contract will demonstrate the great strides the NPS has made in
concession contracting to meet the improvements sought by Congress when
the 1998 law was passed. It enhances visitor services, improves
environmental responsibility, protects the park resources, ensures
assets are properly maintained, and affords the concessioner a fair
opportunity for a profit while providing a franchise fee to the park
for use on high priority visitor services. We will now transition from
the old concession operation to the new operation, implement the
contract with Statue Cruises as written, and enforce its provisions in
a manner consistent with the law and regulations.
We will work with our new concessioner as we do with all our
concessioners--in a mutually beneficial relationship to ensure all
parties are successful and achieve the goal of outstanding visitor
services.
In conclusion, the NPS is dedicated to providing the highest level
of visitor services to the public who visit the Statue of Liberty and
Ellis Island. We also are committed to protecting visitors from
documented health and safety risks. The current management policy of
limiting public access to the Statue's crown is, in our opinion, the
best way to provide an enjoyable and enriching experience while not
exposing visitors to unnecessary risks. The award of the new ferry
concessions contract shows that we have made a great deal of progress
toward improving our concession program, and toward helping ensure
these contracts protect park resources, provide quality service to
visitors, and offer fair business opportunities.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and I am going to begin just
focusing on the discussion, the first part of your testimony
having to do with the statue and then when we get another turn
to ask questions relative to the concessionaire contract.
Let me go to the point that Congressman Weiner brought up
having to do with the fundraising campaign. Did that money as
it was raised become Federal money, by that I mean controlled
by the National Park Service, or was it controlled by the
private entity, the foundation that was doing the fundraising?
Mr. Wenk. I believe the money was actually controlled by
the partner organization that raised the money and directed to
projects that were mutually agreed on between the National Park
Service and the partner.
Mr. Grijalva. So the coordination of the expenditure of
that money was between the National Park Service and the
foundation?
Mr. Wenk. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. And let me ask an interpretation question. If
the fundraising campaign as described by the Congressman was
such that the effort was to open in the full sense of the word
the Statue of Liberty, some of the decisions I could surmise
for myself were not consistent with that campaign. Am I
misreading that?
Mr. Wenk. I believe that of the monies that were raised,
approximately $6 million was spent within the pedestal area of
the statue and also providing the visible access into the
statue herself. So those monies were expended in order to make
possible access, once again dealing with current life, health,
safety and fire codes for the pedestal area.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. But as I understand it, the premise of
the campaign was to open the statue after 9/11 for full public
access, and that included the crown at the time. There was the
perception that was the case. And you redefined ``open.'' There
was a great deal of disappointment on the part of the donors
and the campaign, people that were giving money, and that is
the impression I had.
Mr. Wenk. I think it certainly does not appear to be that
there was any kind of distinction made in terms of that it was
only going to be to the pedestal. I think there was still
active debate within the National Park Service whether or not
we could in fact open the statue all the way to the crown at
that time or not. I think there was no intention to mislead the
public with the campaign.
Mr. Grijalva. But you can appreciate the disappointment.
OK. Prior to 9/11, the National Park Service commissioned a
fire protection and egress study for the Statue of Liberty
which concluded, and I quote from it, ``Although significant,
the fire protection concerns at the Statue of Liberty are not
necessarily of such magnitude that access to the statue
interior and crown viewing area should be positively deemed off
limits to the general public.''
My question is, what has changed since that report prior to
9/11 when it was released that no longer makes that conclusion
applicable or relevant?
Mr. Wenk. I believe it is a greater appreciation for the
risks with which we are putting the visiting public. At the
time that the statue was closed in 2001, we have had the
opportunity not only with that study but subsequent studies to
fully understand and comprehend the situation with life,
health, safety codes within the statue herself, also the
improvements that were necessary in the pedestal area.
I believe that we now know that it does not meet any
international, national, local or fire protection codes to put
visitors inside the pedestal because of the steepness of the
stairway, the clearances, the width of the treads on the stairs
themselves as well as compartmentalizations that is necessary
in terms of smoke and fire. And we have in fact looked at other
opportunities or options, and we believe none of them can be
achieved without having a negative impact on the structure
itself.
Mr. Grijalva. The Park Service has its own regulatory
authority over the park sites.
Mr. Wenk. Our regulatory authority, we defer to national
and local building codes, and it is our position that we will
follow those codes by policy as a minimum standard.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Wenk. It is our policy that we will follow those codes
as a minimum standard.
Mr. Grijalva. Consistent with that policy, sir, and this
will be my last question, the arch in St. Louis, the Washington
Monument have very tight spaces that are accessible to the
public. Do you consider those sites to be safe for the public
and the crown at the statue not?
Mr. Wenk. Actually, I will use the example of the
Washington Monument. The interior stairways, those, for
example, have the width, they have the treads that it is
considered within the life, health, safety codes for access. It
is a different situation than the Statue of Liberty in terms of
the amount of space, the steepness, tread width, handrail
height, clearances for head clearance, et cetera, that do not
exist, for example, at the Washington Monument.
Mr. Grijalva. At the discretion of this committee to ask
for and insist upon some alternative plans to promote access by
the public to the crown, at least in your testimony, you don't
eliminate that possibility entirely, do you, or do you?
Mr. Wenk. I believe certainly we would look at any requests
that our committee will direct us to do or Congress would
direct us to do. We believe that we have made inquiries in
terms of what could we do to make it accessible. We would
continue to look if so directed by the Committee.
Mr. Grijalva. With that, my time is up. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Wenk. I appreciate you being
here. Let me see if I understand this correctly. What you are
saying, there is a difference in the Park Service estimation
between national security issues and safety issues?
Mr. Wenk. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. And what you are talking about here is this is
a safety issue, not a national security issue?
Mr. Wenk. We believe that we have put the security measures
in place that provide adequate security for the memorial both
at the debarkation points and also at the island itself, and so
we are dealing with a safety issue for access to the crown
itself.
Mr. Bishop. That was a yes?
Mr. Wenk. Yes. I am sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Is the second Floor on Independence Hall open?
Mr. Wenk. I am sorry. I can't answer that question.
Mr. Bishop. Last time I went there that was closed to the
public as well. Well, OK. If you are going to open stuff, I
would like that added to the list of stuff that you need to
open.
So what you are basically telling me is the French did a
lousy design on the interior of the statue and they are to
blame because they screwed it up again.
Mr. Wenk. I am not saying that.
Mr. Bishop. Oh.
Mr. Wenk. I am saying that it was never intended for public
access, only maintenance activities when they used to go to the
crown, for example, or excuse me, to the torch.
Mr. Bishop. The Park Service has looked at possibilities of
improving the staircase in the past, I am assuming?
Mr. Wenk. Yes, we have.
Mr. Bishop. One of the contentions that was made is that
the premise upon which you looked at those improvements was not
how to make it happen but how to justify not making it happen.
Do you deny that premise?
Mr. Wenk. Yes, I deny it. We have asked the question of the
architects and engineers who have looked at what might be
possible.
Mr. Bishop. Can I also ask you, in the chart that the
Congressman from New York presented, there was a spike in 2005
of about half a million new visitors. That went down about a
million visitors in 2006. Does the Park Service have a reason
for that tourist visitation spike in 2005 that stands out in
the five-year run?
Mr. Wenk. I am not familiar with the chart that was shown.
I am looking at the park visitation numbers that I have. I show
total visits to Liberty as 2,531,000 in 2005 and 2,515,000 in
2006. Total visits to both Liberty and Ellis only decreased
about 50,000 people during those two years. So I don't have
that same spike in our visitation statistics.
Mr. Bishop. Have your staff check your website. That is
where we got these from.
Mr. Wenk. I will do that.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask one other thing as well. They have
talked about the money that was raised in the private campaign.
How long did that private campaign to open up the Statue of
Liberty last?
Mr. Wenk. I would have to ask Superintendent Garrett if she
has the answer to that. Do you know?
About 16 months, sir. Six to eight months, sir. I am sorry.
Mr. Bishop. I think the consensus has been at least the
impression for what purpose the money was used is different
than how it was used. Did the Park Service do anything to
remedy that, to change, especially after the audit came
through? Did the Park Service do anything about those reports
that came back?
Mr. Wenk. I guess I would, sir, with your permission ask
Cynthia Garrett to come up and answer that question. I do not
know the answer to that.
Mr. Bishop. Please. Can you just give your name for the
record as well?
Ms. Garrett. Sure. Good morning. My name is Cynthia
Garrett, and I am the Superintendent of the Statue of Liberty
and Ellis Island. Thank you.
The money as we understand it, and we looked at the records
of the foundation and the money that they spent, that they
raised on the campaign, the money was used all for improvements
to help reopen the monument to visitors.
Mr. Bishop. So you are satisfied with the way the money was
expended?
Ms. Garrett. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. Wenk. Some of the expenses, sir, that were mentioned
earlier that were paid out of the endowment from the foundation
were not part of the fundraising campaign itself. I do know
that.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I am assuming there will probably be some
other questions about that for both of you. And Mr. Wenk, after
we have our third panel, I am sure there are going to be some
other questions that deal with the contract itself, and I would
hope that you would make yourself available to answer those
questions if they are submitted to you in writing.
Mr. Wenk. I would be pleased to do so.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I will yield.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Hinchey, any questions?
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Wenk, thank you for being here. It is very nice to have this
opportunity to listen to you about this very important subject.
I am a citizen of the State of New York and former resident
of Manhattan, so I have a deep appreciation for the Statue of
Liberty and a deep sense of frustration over the fact that it
is still not fully reopened after it closed down as a result of
the attack of September 11, 2001. And as far as I know, this is
the only national monument in the country that remains closed.
So I am wondering if you can give us the explicit reasons why
it is still closed, why appropriate action is not being taken
to open it fully and completely and what exactly you are going
to do to bring that about.
Already there has been something in the neighborhood of
$500 million that has been contributed by people all across the
country to the reopening of the monument. Nevertheless that
hasn't seemed to have any effect on the ability of the National
Park Service to really address this issue the way it needs to
be addressed. So if you could just tell us that, what your
intentions are. What are the Park Service intentions? When are
you going to open the Statue of Liberty?
As far as I know, the only part that is open now is the
part that is constructed here in our own country. The entire
French part, to follow up on Mr. Bishop's question, the entire
French part of the statue is still closed. That doesn't make
any sense. So I am interested in what your plans are and how
soon you think that the monument will be completely open.
Mr. Wenk. The present plans of the National Park Service
are not to open the statue itself to the public, and we will
not open it because it does not meet life, health, safety codes
and fire codes, whether those are international, national,
local life, health, safety codes.
Mr. Hinchey. What are you going to do to address those
safety and fire codes? How are you going to correct them? How
are you going to bring them about to a position where you will
start feeling comfortable in reopening it?
Mr. Wenk. We have discussed the potential to reopen it with
the architectural and engineering firms. We do not believe that
we can provide access.
Mr. Hinchey. Why not? Why don't you discuss that?
Mr. Wenk. We have discussed it, sir.
Mr. Hinchey. Oh. Well, what is the result of those
discussions?
Mr. Wenk. Without considerable modifications to the statue
itself, without some kind of exterior access in and out of the
statue, we cannot make it safe according to the international,
national, local, and fire codes.
Mr. Hinchey. So you are saying that based upon your
analysis and the cooperation that you have with this
architectural firm that there is no way of making that safe and
secure? There is no way of opening it?
Mr. Wenk. What I said, sir, in using just the interior
without modifying the actual structure of Lady Liberty herself
I am told that we cannot provide access and meet the code
requirements.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, that seems very odd to me. I have been
in that statue, and the statue was open for a long, long time,
only closed down around the middle of September of 2001. So if
it was safe for people prior to September 11, 2001, and it was
safe for many, many years for people to go in there, why isn't
it safe anymore, and why was it closed on the basis of the
attack of September 11? And now you are saying it remains
closed not because of anything to do with that attack but
because your assertion is that it is just not safe to have it
open. Why was it safe then and not safe now?
Mr. Wenk. First of all, I do not know what the exact codes
were at the time that the public was allowed access to it
initially. That may have met the codes at that time. Life,
health, safety codes do evolve. However, I can say that it was
closed after September 11 because of the security concern
initially. We used that opportunity to evaluate the life,
health, safety codes, the fire codes, and it does not meet
those codes and has probably not met those codes, sir, for a
number of years, so it probably was not safe for a number of
years.
Mr. Hinchey. Will you give us a written statement showing
in detail what it is specifically about those codes that you
reference that are not being met and what it would take to get
us to a situation where those needs would be fully and
completely met and why in the interim that statue cannot be
reopened simply on the basis of the way it was prior to the
attack of September 11?
Mr. Wenk. Yes, I can. We can provide that.
Mr. Hinchey. We know there is no place in the country, no
park, including the Washington Monument, that is absolutely
risk-free. So we don't anticipate that the Statue of Liberty is
ever going to be completely risk-free. People walking up those
stairs might slip, someone might have a minor accident, all of
those things are possible. But that is possible in the
Washington Monument. It is possible in many ways in virtually
any national monument all across the country.
So it is very difficult for us to understand why the Statue
of Liberty has been isolated among all the national monuments
and not open to the public in spite of the fact that huge
amounts of money have been contributed and this Congress is in
the position to provide the financial resources to deal with
the needs of that monument to open it up.
So if you would kindly give us all of that information,
what the problems are and what it would take to realize the
full potential of reopening the monument, we would be deeply
appreciative.
Mr. Wenk. We will do that.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
Mr. Wenk. If I could add one thing to further answer a
question. As you may know, we made some modifications to the
pedestal itself in terms of two more exterior egress points so
that we could in fact bring people into the pedestal area, take
them to the observation deck.
There are just a couple other points I would like to make.
There is only a limited number of people who visit Liberty
Island today who are able to go to the statue. Even prior to 9/
11, approximately only 1,500 of the 15-to-18,000 visitors who
visited the island on a daily basis were able to make the trek
to the top and to the crown. It was limited to the two first
ferry boats that went to the island. So it is never going to be
a situation where if we could meet life, health, safety codes
that all visitors to the island would be able to go to the
crown. That wasn't possible then, and it is not now.
Mr. Hinchey. If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me just give you
the information I have and see what your response is to that.
The annual visitors to the Statue of Liberty have now dropped
44 percent since she was closed. That drop has been from 3.6
million in the year 2000 to 2.5 million in 2006. The number of
people coming into New York City has gone up dramatically, but
the number now who have access to the island and the statue has
dropped off significantly, 44 percent, and the reason for that
is the fact that it is not accessible. That is why we want to
open it up. We want to get the statue reopened, and we would
very much like to have your cooperation and assistance and
direction as to how to do that as soon as possible.
Mr. Wenk. We will provide the information you requested.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Gohmert, any questions?
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To come back to your assistant that stepped up to provide
testimony, if I could ask one more question with the Chairman's
indulgence since that is her area of expertise. If you wouldn't
mind coming back to the microphone.
You had mentioned that all the money was used for
reopening, which gratified me. So you have done an audit of the
money that was spent by this as I understand partner
organization, is that correct?
Ms. Garrett. Yes, and we worked very closely with them
while the work was being done.
Mr. Gohmert. And who actually does the audit?
Ms. Garrett. We didn't do an audit per se.
Mr. Gohmert. Oh. Well, that was my question actually. You
misunderstood.
Ms. Garrett. No, not an audit.
Mr. Gohmert. That is what gratified me is to hear that you
had done an audit so you knew that all the money was spent for
reopening. And please understand even though you weren't sworn
in, when people provide testimony at a hearing, there is a
crime aspect in not being truthful. I am sure you understand
that. So let me ask you, do you have personal firsthand
knowledge of how the money was spent by this so-called partner
organization?
Ms. Garrett. I have not audited their records directly.
From the material that I have seen, I am satisfied that the
money was spent as it was intended, but I do not have firsthand
knowledge of what you are asking.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. And does anyone who is a part of the
National Park Service do an audit of such a partnership
organization?
Ms. Garrett. The foundation and all of our partners do
audits or have audits done.
Mr. Gohmert. So that is a ``no'' then because the
foundation is not part of the National Park Service?
Ms. Garrett. The National Park Service has not audited this
that I am aware of.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Thank you.
With regard to partner organizations, who decides what will
be a partner organization and what will not be?
Ms. Garrett. The National Park Service works with an
interested partner to determine whether they are meeting a need
of ours and whether we should go into an agreement with them.
Mr. Gohmert. But I am presupposing that they are not
partners yet. I am asking who determines who should be a
partner? And perhaps Director Wenk can answer if you know, who
decides who will be a partner organization?
Mr. Wenk. The National Park Service makes that decision
based on our management policies. Many parks have more than one
partner. They may be partners to meet different needs of the
National Park Service and the particular park area, and we sign
agreements with them formalizing that arrangement.
Mr. Gohmert. And the agreements do not have any provision
for an audit by the NPS, is that correct?
Mr. Wenk. We require independent audits of many of the
partner organizations that are fundraising.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. Has an independent audit been required of
the Statue of Liberty group, that organization?
Mr. Wenk. I am going to tell you that I need to check. I
assume that it is, but I am going to check.
Mr. Gohmert. You are going to tell me that, but is that
the----
Mr. Wenk. I am going to check and get back to you to make
sure.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Wenk. I will get you the last independent audits that
have been done. We can get you those audits.
Mr. Gohmert. So there have been independent audits done?
Mr. Wenk. That is the typical case with partner
organizations.
Mr. Gohmert. So you don't know for sure whether there have
been?
Mr. Wenk. I do not know for sure that this one has.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. Because it would be real hard to get them
if they hadn't been done.
Mr. Wenk. It would be very hard.
Mr. Gohmert. Now you had mentioned concern as I understood
Mr. Hinchey's question about the exterior access and that that
is a concern, is that correct?
Mr. Wenk. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert. That there is a safety problem to get people
out of the statue, is that correct?
Mr. Wenk. Correct.
Mr. Gohmert. Have you ever hiked in wilderness areas run by
the National Park Service?
Mr. Wenk. Absolutely.
Mr. Gohmert. And you are aware that if you get into an
emergency situation in some wilderness areas, we don't allow
machines to go in, nothing mechanical? You are just, as we used
to say in the Army, kind of SOL. We will get you out the best
way we can. Are you familiar with that concept?
Mr. Wenk. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert. I asked a question earlier about waivers, and
it dawned on me there are a handful of people that get to go to
the top of the dome of the United States Capitol but not until
they sign a full-page waiver saying they are giving up all
rights to make any claim just for the opportunity to take that
risk and get to a height that just stirs men's and women's
souls. So I am wondering if that still wouldn't be a
possibility.
Do you know of any area in which other than, and I
understand the dome is not run by the Park Service, but where
the Park Service uses waivers in areas that may not be that
safe, may have people have heart attacks, may have people slip
and hurt themselves, but they sign a waiver because the
potential gain is so much greater than the risk? Do you know of
waivers like that you use?
Mr. Wenk. I know of no waivers that the National Park
Service has in place for our own facilities. However, there are
waivers that are offered by the concessionaire for high risk
recreational opportunities.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. Could I have indulgence to ask--OK.
Also, there were safety code violations that you had
mentioned, and I want to know specifically whose safety codes
are we talking about. Are they Federal? Are they state?
Mr. Wenk. If you will give me a moment, I can look up the
codes.
Mr. Gohmert. Because I am wondering if we maketh the law,
then perhaps we could changeth the law from this standpoint.
Mr. Wenk. I am just making sure I know which one this is.
Public Law 100-678, codified in 4 U.S.C. Sec. 3312[b],
basically deals with building codes for the General Services
Administration, which we comply with.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. So we make it, we can change it to allow
for waivers, I would think.
Mr. Wenk. And there are other things out there, for
example, the International Building Code, Building Code of New
York City and the National Fire Protection Association Code
101.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. And just in conclusion, I would just
submit if we want Americans once again to fly with the eagles,
the Park Service shouldn't force them to walk with the turkeys.
Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I just want to get into a problem-
solving mode here and figure out how to solve this problem. I
think it is real clear Americans want to get access to this
treasured place. Right now what you are telling us is there are
some codes that are preventing them from getting access to this
treasured place. We don't want the terrorists to have won here,
and it seems to me we have to find a way to solve this problem.
What I hear you saying listening is that there are two
things we need to do: [1] we need to empower the Park Service
to figure out how to provide the best access and the safest
means possible given the constraints of that architecture,
number one, and [2] obtain for you a waiver of any code that
you think you are violating now, which you have violated for 50
years apparently before you took this step, so that you can
allow access.
Now, if those are the two things we need to get done to
solve this problem, what do we need to do to get that done?
Mr. Wenk. I am not sure how to answer the question, sir. I
am sorry. It is the policies and procedures of the National
Park Service to adhere to the building codes, whether they be
building codes or fire codes. As long as those fire codes and
building codes pertain to the National Park Service in places
that we administer, we are obligated to follow those codes, not
to put people at risk.
Granted, there has not been a fire in the history, but we
do have, and you should be aware that when I spoke with staff
over the last few days, we have probably four or five incidents
a day during the summer season where we have to provide some
kind of assistance to visitors who have problems within the
access to the crown.
Mr. Inslee. By the way, you have to understand I am a big
fan of your service. I am a real fan of what you are doing, and
I feel that these are such treasured places that sometimes we
make exceptions for things we might do at the mall. We do
things differently in a national park than we do at a shopping
mall. We take experiences on Mount Rainier and fire lookouts
and ladders to get access that are different than we do at the
mall because they are just such special places.
What I would like to ask you to do is get into a problem-
solving mode psychologically and think, how are we going to
solve this problem? If we tell you it should be the national
policy that Americans should get access to that place, and we
are not going to build a structure around it for a fire escape
because that is just untenable and unacceptable, to get into a
problem-solving strategy how to solve this.
Now, to me, the way we solve this is if we have to pass a
law directing you to provide Congress a study of how to provide
the safest access and the safest fire suppression or detection
that we can under the circumstances, and second, if it requires
a statutory change to actually relieve you of some code
obligation that may exist somewhere else.
Now are those two things, the two things if we did that
could we get people back into the thing?
Mr. Wenk. I do not know the answer to whether or not we
could because we have asked the question of what we would have
to do, and we were told that modifications cannot be made
within the limited space to meet the codes. So that is the
first thing.
Mr. Inslee. If we relieve you of this code, if we said
there is a special unique thing about this place in America to
suggest these codes shouldn't be the place to keep Americans
out of this treasured place, and that one unique circumstance--
by the way, you have thousands of places in your parks that
don't meet code with all due respect because of the
circumstances that are involved. The structure up at Paradise
in Mount Rainier doesn't meet code, but you have to hike up
5,000 feet to get there, and if we didn't have it there, it
would be much more difficult to climb Mount Rainier.
So there are some circumstances in the parks where we adopt
just a little higher level of risk to celebrate America. You
know what I am saying here?
Mr. Wenk. I understand.
Mr. Inslee. And I am saying here we want to solve the
problem so you can allow Americans to make an independent
judgment to have that experience. So let me just ask you again.
If we gave you a special appropriation or a statute that said,
``Go figure out how to make this as safe as possible,'' and we
are going to relieve you of this code obligation, could you do
that?
Mr. Wenk. We could respond and tell you exactly what we can
do, the safest way we could make it, and I would hope that in
the problem-solving manner you are talking about we could work
together to determine whether or not that was appropriate
action to take to provide the access you are asking for.
Mr. Inslee. Well, what I would ask you to do without having
to go through an act of Congress literally is to provide this
committee with a report of the best way you can get Americans
to get access there in the safest way with some approximation
of the cost involved to do that. Maybe that is additional
handrails, maybe it is additional lighting, maybe it is
additional fire suppression equipment in there, what it would
take to do it as safe as we can.
Then ask us if necessary to relieve you, to give a special
code, we will call it the ``Liberty Code.'' It will be a code
that applies to this circumstance to make it as safe as
possible. Can you do that?
Mr. Wenk. Yes, we can do that.
Mr. Inslee. I appreciate that, and let us work together to
get this job done. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. We have been called for three votes. Mr.
Weiner, would you prefer to wait until after the votes?
Mr. Weiner. I just need one minute to make a few quick
points to clarify.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Weiner.
Mr. Weiner. I just want to ask the question. First, I thank
very much the Chair.
There is no law of the United States of America, New York
State, New York City or New Jersey that binds you to any
specific building code for the monument, is there?
Mr. Wenk. We have exclusive jurisdiction on the memorial.
Mr. Weiner. Correct.
Mr. Wenk. So that is correct.
Mr. Weiner. I just wanted to make sure that was clear,
because there was some misconception I think that might have
been left that you are required to.
Are you aware that the National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, has a special waiver that is
required at the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River that people
have to sign acknowledging the risk of participating in the
activities? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Wenk. I am not aware. Is that a National Park Service
or concession waiver, sir?
Mr. Weiner. Let us see. I don't know. It is ``Rio Grande
Wild and Scenic River Assumption of Risk, An Agreement of
Release and Indemnity.'' It is something that visitors to the
National Park Service have to sign to participate in certain
activities on that river.
Again, an impression might have been left that there is
somehow not the use of waivers in the National Park Service.
There clearly are, and this is available on the Internet. I
would give you the URL, but I don't have it here.
Finally, by way of clarification, another point that I
think might have been, and the gentleman from Texas asked, are
you aware that in November of 2005, the Inspector General of
the Interior Department did indeed do an audit of the
activities of the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Foundation?
Mr. Wenk. I believe I knew that happened, yes.
Mr. Weiner. OK. I just want to make sure the impression was
not left that that hadn't been done.
And are you aware that it was very, very critical of the
improper relationship between the National Park Service and the
Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Foundation?
Mr. Wenk. I am not aware of the contents of it.
Mr. Weiner. Well, I would be glad since you are providing
us with some problem-solving at the request of Mr. Inslee, I
will provide you with a copy of that, albeit it was very
heavily redacted for reasons that are still puzzling to me. But
the conclusions basically were that there were improper
relationships that had gone on there, and I believe to say that
the money was raised to open the pedestal is incorrect.
Finally, in response to the Ranking Member's question where
he asked why was there a spike from 2004 to 2005, Secretary
Norton I believe at around the time of the Republican
Convention made a big announcement--Lady Liberty was being
opened. What did she mean? The pedestal was being reopened, and
there was additional visitorship. But if you want to get back
to that peak and go beyond and take advantage of all the
tourism and giving people the fullest experience they can, you
have to open the crown to be able to do it.
Don't misunderstand. This committee does not want you to
put people in unnecessary danger, but this is something that we
are not asking. The test is not 100 percent safety. This is not
climbing into your mother's arms. This is going into part of
the National Park Service that all Americans would want to have
open I would dare say even if they don't participate in that
adventure, to know that it is available.
I thank the Chairman for permitting.
Mr. Inslee. Would you yield for a minute?
Mr. Weiner. Certainly.
Mr. Inslee. We understand the challenges of this for the
National Park Service, and we appreciate their diligence. I
have seen 100 times the Park Service doing great things at
their own risk sometimes. We just want to express that
appreciation to your people. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Inslee.
We are going to recess for the three votes, and Mr. Deputy
Director, we will continue with the questions on the other
portion of it when we come back.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Grijalva. Allow me to reconvene the meeting, and thank
you, Mr. Deputy Director, for your patience.
One more round of questions. One question before turning
over to the ferry concession. Did the National Park Service
engage in any sort of formal process where various alternatives
for allowing access to the statue were examined, and if there
was a process, was there a public comment period during that?
Mr. Wenk. We had the access issues evaluated by
architectural/engineering firms under contract to us. I am not
aware that there was any public process used to engage the
public in the discussion about access to the crown at all, but
we do have the reports from architectural and engineering firms
on the access situation.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And let me go over to the
concession issue. In selecting Hornblower Yachts as the new
concessionaire for the ferry service to the statue, did the
agency consider, did the department consider Hornblower's
records so far as providing that ongoing service to Alcatraz?
Mr. Wenk. We considered the experience and the proposals
and experience of Hornblower, Inc. Certainly one of their
experiences is Alcatraz, so I think it was considered as part
of the whole, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. One of the things that I have heard and had
information provided is having to do with the dissatisfaction
of the Port of San Francisco. The port owns many of the
facilities Hornblower says it plans to use in its concession.
Yet the port repeatedly informs my office that they haven't
been provided with any information regarding those plans, and
so let me ask you about the environmental record, because I
believe one of the salient points in awarding the contract to
Hornblower was the installation of pollution controls on its
boats, the development of hybrid boats using wind and solar
energy. Have those been satisfied?
More importantly, is NPS fully satisfied with the
information and with the service that the concessionaire is
offering in San Francisco, because that will lead me to if that
was, as you said earlier, if that was the determining factor in
awarding the contract at New York.
Mr. Wenk. First of all, in terms of the boats, I believe
there was an immediate improvement to the emissions of boats,
an improvement of 80 percent, by 80 percent. That was done
immediately by Hornblower when they took the contract. They are
under contract for the construction of the new boat, for the
design and construction of the new boat that they were required
to provide.
I believe that the visitor satisfaction levels are high for
the experience that is being provided by Hornblower in terms of
their transportation to Alcatraz.
Mr. Grijalva. I have read those responses that you provided
to the Speaker and to questions that came from officials in the
port and some of the business interests around the port, and it
leads back to the question about how fully satisfied the Park
Service is with the services that is being provided there, and
at least my visit there the whole discussion was the high level
of dissatisfaction with that contract, the fact that there was
not a lot of transparency to it and that the benchmarks in that
contract are not being met, and yet not only do we continue to
do business, we continue to extend opportunities to that
company in other places.
Mr. Wenk. I am not sure who you met with, Mr. Chairman, but
my understanding is that the National Park Service and
Hornblower are working very cooperatively to put together the
required applications and approvals that we need to have in
place with the Port Authority to get that in place as soon as
we can.
As part of the proposal process and the offers by all
offerors, we did not have specific approvals for locations or
places on the port because we knew that offerors may each have
their own opportunities. In fact, we are moving right now from
I think Pier 41 to Pier 31.5 to 33 in that area, and we are
working with Hornblower to get those designs and approvals into
all the authorities as quickly as we can.
Mr. Grijalva. The Alcatraz landing is not part of the Park
Service jurisdiction, right?
Mr. Wenk. I believe that it is a lease arrangement.
Mr. Grijalva. With the port?
Mr. Wenk. With the port and the concessionaire.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me before my last question, and I don't
have any more follow-ups, let me just if there is no objection,
without objection, enter into the record the statement of Mr.
Louis Giraudo on behalf of the San Francisco Fishermen's Wharf
Restaurant Association. He forwarded this to be part of the
record.
Hearing none. Thank you.
[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Giraudo
follows:]
Statement of Mr. Louis Giraudo, on Behalf of the
San Francisco Fisherman's Wharf Restaurant Association
The Fisherman's Wharf Restaurant Association (``FWRA'') is
compromised of twenty restaurants located on San Francisco's
Fisherman's Wharf, all of which have been affected by the relocation of
the Alcatraz Ferry Service. The FWRA has been and remains opposed to
the National Park Service (``NPS'') allowing the relocation of the
Alcatraz Ferry service from San Francisco Fisherman's Wharf to Pier
31--approximately one mile away, The environmental and economic impact
on the immediate area has been and continues to be significant.
Approximately 1.4 million people who used to spend time on the
Wharf while waiting to board the Ferry or after returning from Alcatraz
no longer do so. They are now a mile away. If they come to the Wharf
area, it is now, after disembarking and eating elsewhere, and then
wandering to the Wharf for a look, but not a meal. Retail businesses in
the Wharf area have also been detrimentally affected. The economic
impact on the individual restaurants as well as other businesses is
substantial and therefore the rent paid to the Port of San Francisco by
those restaurant tenants is also affected. This move has created a
substantial environmental and economic impact on the Wharf area.
It is important to recognize that the Alcatraz Landing is not
within a National Park where the NPS has exclusive jurisdiction. This
facility is part of the Port of San Francisco where new development
requires the cooperation of local authorities. The Association was
never engaged in dialogue as to what if any effect such a move would
have on the restaurants and the thousands of people that are dependent
upon them for their livelihood.
Hornblower Dining Yachts, the owner of Alcatraz Cruises, has had
and still has the opportunity to take over the original site for the
ferry service with the ability to fulfill its contractual obligations
to the NPS. The Association has attempted for well over a year to
mediate such a compromise but came to the realization that the contract
granted by the NPS truly gives Hornblower the right to sit at Pier 31
,provide a poor visitor experience, as tourists board tour boats from
an empty parking lot layered with portable toilets. The contract allows
for unlimited delay if there is local opposition to proposed plans for
the new location. The NPS did not do its homework or perhaps it knew
that the move would be detrimental to the area and therefore granted
contract terms that allowed Hornblower to make millions of dollars
while not performing the terms of the contract that made them the
winners in the bid process. They are allowed to provide far less than
the Wharf site provides and could provide while spending a minimal
amount of money. The NPS allowed for such contractual terms knowing
full well that Hornblower did not have the power or control to perform
under the terms that made their proposal supposedly better than their
competitors.
In addition to the economic impact on the area, the environment has
changed as well. Traffic patterns have changed and congestion has
ensued.
The Park Director told members of the Association that he was not
opposed to relocating the service back to the Wharf. Fisherman's Wharfs
rich history and tradition, has been and is an integral part of the
Alcatraz experience. Relocating to Fisherman's Wharf, provides the
space for the visitor center, and an enhanced visitor experience by
virtue of the fact that the space would allow Hornblower the ability to
fulfill all requirements of the underlying contract while not causing
damage to the surrounding economic area or environmental surroundings.
The Wharf was and is an appropriate window for the visitor experience.
______
Mr. Grijalva. And last, is the Park Service satisfied with
Hornblower's labor policies record?
Mr. Wenk. Hornblower is required by contract to pay wages
under the Service Contract Act. We are confident they are doing
that. We are working with the Department of Labor to ensure
compliance with that requirement of their contract.
Mr. Grijalva. And the certainty about compliance is
awaiting some response from the Department of Labor as I
understand it.
Mr. Wenk. We work with the Department of Labor, but
Department of Labor has the enforcement responsibility on that.
Mr. Grijalva. I don't have any additional questions other
than the material that is submitted for the record.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Wenk, thank you. Let me ask you a couple
more questions. Let me go back to the visitation of the Statue
of Liberty one more time.
We have talked about I think some of the basic issues that
are here. This is a safety, not a national security issue. Am I
also right in assuming this is a safety issue and not a
financial issue? It is not about the amount of money you are
appropriated, but it is simply about the safety?
Mr. Wenk. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. OK. And am I also right in saying that you have
talked about external structures going up to the statue, but
the external structure to provide extra kinds of emergency
egress opportunities, it would destroy the visibility of the
statue itself if you were to try that?
Mr. Wenk. We believe it is an unacceptable solution in
terms of the visibility, the historic nature of the statue
itself.
Mr. Bishop. And we talked a long time here about waivers
for allowing people to go up at their own risk. Once again, I
am not an attorney in this situation, but to be honest, I just
remember in the school system where we would have parents sign
waivers for students to do this or that and they simply were
not held up in court, that a waiver didn't mean squat actually.
If somebody wanted to sue in our judicial system, they could
sue right away whether there was a waiver or not. Is that a
legitimate problem?
Mr. Wenk. We believe the waivers that we have for our
concessionaires are an acknowledgement of risk, not a waiver of
rights.
Mr. Bishop. All right. So it doesn't really solve your
problem in some particular way.
Do people coming to Liberty Island today feel cheated in
their visit by not being able to go up, especially in contrast
to prior 9/11 where people who were not able to be one of those
first two boats expressed any kind of reservation and
disappointment being cheated? Were they complaining about that
prior to the closure?
Mr. Wenk. I think the complaints by visitors today are the
same as they were in 1999 or 2000, prior to the time that it
was closed. Many visitors have historically heard about that
opportunity. They would like to have that opportunity. But I
believe, as I said previously, about 10 to 15 percent of the
visitors to the island actually went to the crown prior to
2001. Currently, only about 2,600 visitors who come to the
island actually even have the ability to get into the pedestal.
One of the things that we are going to work on is
increasing the number of visitors that can get into the
pedestal to have a richer experience while they are at Liberty
Island.
Mr. Bishop. I recognize the problem that you are facing in
the situation that people will complain if they don't have
access. People will complain if they get injured while they do
have access. Maybe if we had a good liability lawsuit
limitation law passed, we could work something out with you
guys.
Let me go back to the contract if I could. The contract
process for the Liberty Island Ferry was somewhat drawn out.
Was local congressional input sought and accepted during the
negotiation process or the concession contract processing?
Mr. Wenk. We have a process as prescribed pursuant to the
1998 Concessions Act. That process is the process that we
followed that evaluates the primary and secondary selection
factors. Certainly in putting together the prospectus for this
opportunity, we did hear from many members of the public,
including Congress, in terms of what should be included in the
contract.
Mr. Bishop. So Hornblower getting the contract in the
Liberty Island Ferry, you looked obviously at what happened in
San Francisco, but that was not the sole criteria upon which
you based your decision?
Mr. Wenk. Absolutely not. They had demonstrated experience
to operate these kind of facilities, and they scored highest on
the five criteria, the five primary and I believe two secondary
factors that we evaluated the contract on.
Mr. Bishop. Maybe I could ask you or maybe Mr. Pendry, one
or the other. Do you have any data as far as customer
satisfaction in either place with Hornblower?
Mr. Wenk. Actually, we do have customer satisfaction
surveys that were done in San Francisco. I can get you the
specific numbers, but my understanding is that it is a higher
level of satisfaction today than it was with the previous
contract at Alcatraz.
Mr. Bishop. And this may be an unfair question to ask of
you, but the Port of San Francisco, have they been cooperative
or somewhat obstructionist in the ability of actually moving
along with the Hornblower decision?
Mr. Wenk. We will continue to work with the Port of San
Francisco to make sure that we can implement the provisions of
our contract, and we expect that we will be able to do that.
Mr. Bishop. I thank you for your patience and being with us
today. I don't think I have--I am out of time anyway.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Just, if I may, and certainly
offer the opportunity to Mr. Bishop, one additional. The Golden
Gate Recreation Area asked for additional time in order to
complete a review of the modifications and the changes to the
contract. Can you at this point give us a date certain when we
can have the information regarding the modifications and the
review, they wanted to extend the schedule?
Mr. Wenk. At this time, I cannot give you the date certain,
but I can certainly try to provide that for the record. I can
provide a schedule that we currently believe that we can
achieve for you for the record in terms of getting all the
contract implemented.
Mr. Grijalva. That would be appreciated. That is just a
simple question for my own information. As we are talking about
the modifications and the negotiations, the concessionaire, the
Park Service, at what point is the port--we are talking about
San Francisco--is the port involved in those negotiations since
we are dealing primarily with much of their property?
Mr. Wenk. I am not sure that I can answer that question. I
don't believe Joe Pendry can answer that question specifically.
It is our intention to work directly with the Port Authority
and with Hornblower to make sure that we receive timely reviews
and approval, well, timely submission on our part, reviews and
approvals to get this in place as soon as we can.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Well, we will ask the same question to
the representative of the port that is going to be with us
next.
If there are any other questions? Mr. Bishop? Mr. Weiner,
any other questions for the gentleman?
Sir, very appreciative. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me welcome our third panel and begin with
Ms. Moyer, Executive Director, Port of San Francisco. Welcome,
and thank you for being here. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MONIQUE MOYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF SAN
FRANCISCO
Ms. Moyer. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Grijalva,
and Ranking Member Bishop and Honorable Members.
My name is Monique Moyer. I am the Director of the Port of
San Francisco. The port last appeared before Congress over a
decade ago, and I have traveled a very long way to be here with
you today. In fact, I note that my colleagues at both the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area and at Hornblower are not
present here today, which I find rather remarkable.
But I have come here because there are issues in San
Francisco. We need to prevail upon Congress to take another
look at the 1998 Concessionaires Act to protect the interests
of the stakeholders, as the Park Service refers to us, and
there are policy questions that entail or require your
consideration, and you have already mentioned some of the other
testimony that has been presented in writing. I just want to
note that the testimony comes not only from the Fishermen's
Wharf Restaurant Association but also from the Inland Boatmen's
Union, the Master, Mates and Pilots, and the Friends of the
Earth, all related to the concession with Alcatraz.
The Port of San Francisco has been honored to be the
beginning and the end of the Alcatraz service for 34 years now.
We control 7.5 miles of bayfront property. It is held in trust
for the State of California, for the people of California.
The contractor for the Alcatraz service does everything.
They do the transportation, the maintenance, sewage and garbage
removal, security and visitor-serving amenities. In return, the
contractor collects almost 90 percent of the ticket revenues.
As follows on some of your questions, the process for award
and implementation has proved to be exclusionary and secretive,
which seems to be contrary to what the 1998 Concessionaire Act
required.
The Alcatraz award has resulted in the Federal government
choosing not only a new provider, which we support their
ability to do so, but the selection of a new San Francisco
landing site, the rejection of its cherished workers and ticket
increase for diminished passenger experience.
The Port of San Francisco, like New York, had great hopes
when the Alcatraz service concession was awarded. That
concession contract was two years in the making, so we thought
it was going to be an exemplary contract and solicitation. We
have an alignment of interests with the National Park Service
and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Our mandate is to
provide open space and visitor-serving amenities, just like the
National Park Service.
We are very excited that a homeboy made good in the case of
Hornblower being selected. There was a bright future for
environmental stewardship, and a skilled workforce with
institutional knowledge was promised to be retained. We
received great assurances of cooperation and inclusion from
both the Park Service and the concessionaire.
The Port of San Francisco also had grave concerns. The
award is centered upon the development of our property, our
proprietary interest. No due diligence was performed during the
solicitation or after the award was made or in the negotiation
of the contract. No discussions were held with the Port of San
Francisco until one month following the signing of the
contract.
We also have concerns about the passenger experience from
the launching point in San Francisco and the impacts to our
neighbors and our merchants. The contract was negotiated and
awarded in secrecy. The written testimony that the Port of San
Francisco provided illustrates the schedule of decisions and
exclusion of the port's proprietary interest.
The policy decision to forego local freedoms with respect
to property, the port's property, is of grave concern to us.
I am running out of time, so I am going to circumvent to
the end of my testimony, which is I urge you to implore upon
the Park Service to show leadership. In San Francisco, there is
a question of who is on first. When the port seeks advice,
counsel and direction from the Park Service, we are pointed to
the concessionaire, and when we seek the advice, counsel and
ideas of the concessionaire, we are pointed to the Park
Service.
In return, the Superintendent continuously waives
deadlines, and the implementation schedule is due to be long
and protracted. I sincerely hope in the concession contract
that is executed in New York the Superintendent will be
empowered and obligated to adhere to all of the qualities of
the award and, most importantly, to work with the Park
Service's local partners, i.e. the local and state governments
in which you operate. Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moyer follows:]
Statement of Monique Moyer, Executive Director,
Port of San Francisco
Chairman Grijalva and Honorable Subcommittee Members,
Thank you for your invitation to address the Subcommittee today.
The Port of San Francisco (``Port'') is a self-supporting agency of the
City and County of San Francisco. It manages 7.5 miles of the San
Francisco Bay waterfront in trust for the People of California. Our
Port is home to our city's major tourism destinations at Fisherman's
Wharf which attract more than 14-15 million visitors to the area from
around our country and the world each year.
Since 1973, our Port has been the gateway to Alcatraz Island
National Park. The Port owns ferry and excursion berths that have been
the launching point for 1.6 million visitors per year to Alcatraz
Island. We control the property for the waterside and landing
facilities used for this service by both the prior and the new
concessionaires. Since 1997, the new concessionaire, Hornblower
Cruises, has leased facilities for dining and charter boats at Pier 31
1/2, a half mile south of Fisherman's Wharf.
For the past 34 years, the Port of San Francisco has had
significant property and economic interest in the Alcatraz Island ferry
contract. Regrettably, the Port found itself on the sidelines as a
spectator in the most recent competitive selection process conducted by
the National Park Service (``NPS''). The solicitation request was
issued in July 2004, without any discussion between NPS and the Port.
In September 2005, the NPS announced selection of Hornblower Cruises
(dba Alcatraz Cruises) as the new concessionaire and, by extension, the
Port's Pier 31 1/2 as the new San Francisco launch point. In May 2006,
the NPS and Hornblower executed the concession contract. Despite the
reliance on Port property to launch the Alcatraz Island service, the
first time the Port was shown the plans and aggressive implementation
schedule was on June 12, 2006, one month after the contract became
final.
According to the conceptual designs presented at the June 12, 2006
Port Commission meeting, Alcatraz Cruises proposed major physical
alterations to Port property and new activities not authorized under
its existing lease with the Port. Yet the concession contract had
already been executed by the NPS without notice or consultation to the
property owner, the Port of San Francisco.
Specifically, the NPS contract with Alcatraz Cruises requires the
following improvements to occur that are subject to Port approval:
A covered waiting area for ticketed passengers;
Periodic change out of interpretative exhibits;
An educational bookstore and auditorium for special
events; and
Adequate restrooms for passengers, including ADA
improvements.
Such alterations are subject to Port approval, City Board of
Supervisors' approval and, environmental review pursuant to state law.
The San Francisco Port Commission acts in both a proprietary and
regulatory capacity with respect to the public trust lands granted by
California to the City and County of San Francisco. The Port has
authority to enter into lease agreements for certain uses of these
lands, subject to public hearings and action of the Port Commission
and, for some issues, the Board of Supervisors.
The Port's lease for Pier 31 1/2, the new Alcatraz Island departure
point, is executed with Hornblower Cruises. It requires: 1) that new
improvements or alterations to Port premises are approved by the Port
Commission, 2) that this approval occur in advance of any required
regulatory approval by any agency for such uses or improvements, and 3)
that the lease is amended by the parties to authorize such new uses.
Notably, the lease does not limit the tenant's obligation to obtain any
required approvals from City departments, boards or commissions which
have jurisdiction over the property, including, but not limited to,
Port building permits, City Department of Planning environmental
approvals and certain City Board of Supervisors approvals.
As indicated by the limited information provided to date, some of
the proposed visitor improvements require the use of additional Port
property in an adjacent facility at Pier 33 that is leased and occupied
by other Port tenants. Any acquisition of those leaseholds by
Hornblower requires prior Port approval.
Thus, Hornblower Cruises' ability to perform as proposed under the
Alcatraz Island Concession Contract is predicated upon prior approvals
by the Port of San Francisco and other public agencies. Incredibly, 16
months after award of the contract, the Port's approval and permission
for such alteration and use to its properties has still not been
formally sought by either the NPS or Hornblower Cruises.
After the selection was announced in September 2005, the Port and
City of San Francisco informed Hornblower and the National Park Service
of its leasing and permitting requirements.
In December 2005, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urged the
NPS to commence an analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed
relocation of the service to a different area of the San Francisco
waterfront, resulting in 5,000 Alcatraz Island visitors per day (on
peak days) commingling with activities such as cruise ship loading and
unloading at an adjacent facility along the City's congested
Embarcadero Roadway.
In March 2006 and again in May 2006, the City and County of San
Francisco requested that the NPS and Hornblower conduct environmental
review before the commencement of the contract.
In June, August and September of 2006, the Port and the City again
requested environmental review, prior to the commencement of
operations. Despite repeated requests to comply with local and state
rules and regulations, in September 2006 the NPS launched interim
Alcatraz Island ferry operations from Pier 31 1/2 under the contract
without environmental review.
Despite our attempts to get the NPS to understand the complexity of
delivering the project as proposed in the solicitation process, the NPS
proceeded to award the contract on May 9, 2006. The contract set forth
an aggressive schedule for delivery of facilities that does not reflect
the realities of the public review and lease approval process that the
San Francisco Port Commission is required to adhere to. Under the
contract, implementation of the plan for permanent facilities at our
property at Pier 31 1/2 was required to start in February 2007.
This deadline was missed. Hornblower finally provided the Port with
a draft Landing Plan for the permanent facilities on September 7, 2007,
16 months after the contract was executed. However, the Landing Plan is
still only in draft form and is not significantly more developed than
the prior conceptual plans presented to the Port Commission in June
2006. Given the length of time required to complete environmental
review, the Port believes it is unlikely that Hornblower will succeed
in meeting the contract's April 2008 deadline for the required
improvements. The NPS has repeatedly waived deadlines which have
hampered the full implementation of service at this new location.
In closing, the failure to properly consult with the Port prior to
contract award, the refusal to perform environmental review after
contract award and the unwillingness of the NPS to enforce contract
deadlines has resulted in a diminished quality of service to Alcatraz
Island visitors and strained relations with the City and County of San
Francisco.
As a public agency with its own open space and visitor-serving
mandates, the Port of San Francisco has a natural affinity with the NPS
and has always been delighted to partner with the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area. We want to afford visitors to the City with the best
experience possible and, to that end, should enjoy a partnership with
the NPS.
The National Park Service's procurement process for the Alcatraz
Ferry Service in San Francisco shows that there are weaknesses in the
process that need correction. On behalf of the Port and City of San
Francisco, I respectfully urge Congress to encourage the NPS to make
the following changes to its competitive solicitation process:
1. In instances where NPS does not fully own the underlying
property pertaining to delivery of the concession, the NPS should
institute formal procedures to consult with local government, other
public agencies or private owners prior to launching the solicitation.
Through this consultation, the NPS can identify issues that could
affect the ability of the bidders to deliver the project within the
time requirements. If this consultation had occurred in the Alcatraz
Island Ferry Service Contract, the NPS could have avoided the delays
they are facing and the NPS would not need to repeatedly exercise the
``excusable delay'' clause of their contracts.
2. Prior to initiating contract solicitations, the NPS should
conduct local workshops and invite local, regional or state agencies
that may play a proprietary or regulatory role in approving contracts
or related permits to comment on the contracting opportunity.
3. During contract review, selection and implementation, the NPS
should maintain open lines of communication with affected local,
regional and state agencies.
4. During the selection process, the NPS panel should conduct an
independent evaluation of whether the bidder can deliver the proposed
project under its lease and conform with environmental requirements.
For example, in transportation grants, the Federal Highways and Transit
Agency requires proof of right-of-way clearance and compliance with
environmental review before federal monies are awarded.
5. To ensure greater control of excursion landings that are not on
federal property, the NPS should evaluate maintaining leases directly
with local or state agencies or private property owners, rather than
relying on private operators, who may or may not have good
relationships with public or private landlords, to secure those rights.
In our case, if the Alcatraz Island departure point was leased by NPS,
it could (1) ensure that the term of the lease is concurrent with the
term of the concession and (2) offer the concession to qualified
operators who do not control landing facilities. As it currently
stands, the NPS was only able to accept bids from operators who leased
property from the Port. Furthermore, Hornblower's lease with the Port
of San Francisco has a shorter term than the concession contract. Such
direct leasing between the NPS and land owners will help avert this
scenario.
I hope these experiences and suggestions provide some guidance to
the Subcommittee. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
The Port and City of San Francisco value our relationship with our
federal partners and we look forward to a renewed accord.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now turn to Ms. Salerno,
President and Co-Founder, National Parks of New York Harbor
Conservancy. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MARIE SALERNO, PRESIDENT AND CO-FOUNDER, NATIONAL
PARKS OF NEW YORK HARBOR CONSERVANCY
Ms. Salerno. Thank you, sir, and good morning, and thank
you for inviting me to attend this morning's session.
We are the partner of the National Park Service in New
York, similar to the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Foundation
that you mentioned before. We have a contract with the National
Park Service.
New York Harbor is a remarkable 771 miles of coastline
dotted with city, state, national park lands full of rich
history, cultural and natural splendor, a place that is ranked
among the great wonders of the world. Today, it is poised for
the first time in a generation to realize its potential as a
national park.
In the 19th Century, Herman Melville wrote in the opening
pages of Moby Dick, ``All Manhattan streets led waterward and
the shore was filled with dreamers staring out to the sea.''
Later, New York turned its back on its harbor, ringing it with
highways, parking lots and housing projects. Ordinary New
Yorkers lost their access to the water and even the sense that
the water was there.
The concept of an urban national park on this harbor first
emerged 30 years ago when Marian S. Heiskell, our Chairman, and
other farsighted New Yorkers secured the transfer of a unique
amalgam of sandy beaches, secluded inlets and grasslands,
historic forts, military bases and airfields on New York Harbor
to the National Park Service, saving them from development.
In 1972, Congress ratified the transfer by creating Gateway
National Recreation Area, America's first urban national park.
Gateway's founders wisely wanted just one more thing--Federal
funds to finance public transportation links to these places.
That was where Congress, however, drew the line. It was not
until this decade that the National Park Service integrated
Gateway with the 22 other national park lands in and around the
harbor, including the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island,
designating this new constellation as the National Parks of New
York Harbor.
In 2001, the private sector, led again by Mrs. Heiskell and
joined by David Rockefeller, Jr., the National Park Foundation
and me were invited by the National Park Service to harness the
energy of the community and provide a collective vision for
these disparate places. We ultimately founded the National
Parks of New York Harbor Conservancy, a 501[c][3].
The prospect was daunting, but the potential was awesome.
Most do not know that the National Park Service is the largest
landholder, public or private, on the waterfront. Last year
Mayor Bloomberg envisioned a Harbor District, a new tourist
destination on the inner harbor, a consortium of nonexisting
parks and new parks in development in both New York and New
Jersey. But there is one big problem. You can't get from one to
the other.
What does this mean for today's hearing? These national
parks host 20 million visitors annually, 2.5 million of whom
visit the Statue of Liberty. For Gateway National Recreation
Area to realize its potential, its full potential, and Harbor
District to realize its full potential, these 4 million
visitors should be afforded the opportunity to make the Statue
of Liberty not merely a final destination but their gateway to
the other harbor parks and destinations.
We are pleased that a new contract between the National
Park Service and Hornblower Yachts finally calls for looking at
additional ferry routes on the harbor. Hornblower wisely
included Governor's Island as a stop on their new island tour.
So for the first time, the visitor would be able to experience
two jewels on the harbor in the course of one trip. Hornblower
is to be commended for their progressive vision, and we are
hopeful that new ferry routes will follow this all-important
step.
In the two harbor tours that our conservancy has launched,
we have already demonstrated an untapped market for tourism
that goes well beyond the harbor's signature destinations.
Today, beyond tours to the statue, another 1 million visitors
are going on our tours and on other harbor excursions. However,
only one of the national park sites actually has a dock to
welcome these potential visitors.
Today, with the leadership of the National Park Service and
other partners, we are working to restore the harbor to the
people and create the finest urban waterfront park system in
the world and more importantly, with the support of our elected
officials and this committee, to create a transportation
network to help you get there. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Salerno follows:]
Statement of Marie Salerno, President & Co-Founder,
National Parks of New York Harbor Conservancy
The Once and Future New York Harbor
New York Harbor is a remarkable 771 miles of coastline dotted with
city, state and national parklands full of rich history, culture and
natural splendor, a place that is ranked among the great wonders of the
world. Today, it is poised for the first time in a generation, to
realize its potential as a national park.
America begins in New York and New York begins on the Harbor. From
the time of the first explorers, to successive waves of immigrants, to
shipmasters and pleasure-boaters, it is the link that first attracted
settlers to the new world and propelled the city's growth into the
nation's most populous, most vibrant city.
In the 19th century, Herman Melville wrote in the opening pages of
Moby Dick, all Manhattan streets led water ward, and the shore was
filled with dreamers staring out to sea on a Sunday afternoon. Later,
New York turned its back on the harbor, ringing it with highways,
parking lots and housing projects, as Broadway eclipsed Riverside
Drive. Ordinary New Yorkers lost their access to the water and even the
sense that the water was there. They hardly knew they lived on an
archipelago.
But there remained people--visionaries--who saw that New York
Harbor was still one of the world's great natural seaports. Marian S.
Heiskell, the chairman of the National Parks of New York Harbor
Conservancy, was an early pioneer.
The concept of an urban national park first emerged thirty years
ago when Mrs. Heiskell and other farsighted New Yorkers, including
Mayor John V. Lindsay and New York Congressman William Fitts Ryan,
secured the transfer of a unique amalgam of sandy beaches, secluded
inlets and grasslands, wildlife refuges and forests, camping and
playing fields, historic forts, military bases and airfields on New
York Harbor to the National Park Service, saving them from development
and placing them under the protection of the federal government. In
1972, Congress ratified the transfer by creating Gateway National
Recreation Area.
The vision for Gateway was to bring a national park experience to
city dwellers, to those who were not afforded the opportunity to go
camping in Yosemite or Yellowstone or snorkel in the great coral reefs
of the Virgin Islands.
Gateway's founders wisely wanted just one thing more: federal funds
to finance public transportation links to the park. That was where
Congress drew the line, however. And perhaps that is why, in part,
Gateway has still not realized its full potential.
It was not until this decade that other visionaries stepped forward
invited by the National Park Service, which integrated Gateway with
other 22 other national parklands in and around the harbor, including
landmarks like the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, designating this
new constellation as the ``National Parks of New York Harbor.'' The
National Park Service invested $3.0 million towards its launch
including imaginative new icons to unite its family of parks. [See
attached.]
In 2001, the private sector, led again by Mrs. Heiskell and joined
by me, David Rockefeller Jr., whose family for more than 100 years has
been in the forefront of preserving public land for the American
people, and the Congressionally-chartered National Park Foundation,
were asked to harness the energy of the community and provide a
collective vision for these disparate places. We ultimately founded a
new non-profit entity, the National Parks of New York Harbor
Conservancy.
In New York, there had been no private citizen voice to speak for
these unheralded parklands. There had been no outreach to connect these
parklands, or, for that matter, those administered by other
jurisdictions. There had been no unified, powerful, accessible and
attainable vision for the future of all our parklands to inspire and
guide a new era of stewardship, conservation, respect and understanding
of our heritage.
The prospect was indeed daunting. But, the potential was awe-
inspiring. We accepted the challenge. With initial funding from the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund and The New York Times Company Foundation, we
began to spearhead an innovative portfolio of programs, projects and
activities to help these parks shine and to make them more accessible.
With 26,000 acres, the National Park Service is the largest
landholder, public or private, on the waterfront, hosting approximately
20 million visitors annually--four million of whom visit the Statue of
Liberty and Ellis Island.
Lower Manhattan is the epicenter of its network of harbor parks,
historic sites and recreation areas that arc across three other
boroughs of the city--Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island--and across to
New Jersey on both the Upper and Lower Bays of the harbor. [See
attached map.]
Last year, Mayor Bloomberg envisioned ``Harbor District,'' a new
tourist destination on the inner harbor. Our Harbor Conservancy is a
member of the Harbor District Advisory Board. It is consortium of
existing parks such as Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, Liberty State
Park and Battery Park, and new parks in development, including Hudson
River Park, Brooklyn Bridge Park, and Governors Island, for 200 years-
off limits to the public and recently transferred to the State and City
of New York with the National Park Service having jurisdiction over 26
acres.
But, you can't get from one to the other. Beyond the National Park
Service trip to the Statue or Ellis, the natural asset that touches
each park--the harbor itself--has been a barrier rather than a seamless
transportation artery.
What does this mean for today's hearing on the ``Management of the
Statue of Liberty?''
For all the National Parks of New York Harbor, especially Gateway
and the city's new proposed Harbor District to realize their full
potential, the four million annual visitors should be afforded the
opportunity to make the Statue of Liberty not merely a final
destination but their gateway to the other harbor parks and
destinations.
With private funding and in partnership with Gateway, our Harbor
Conservancy has commissioned an actionable transportation plan. There
is no doubt it will propose specific routes via the expansion of
transportation services to Statue of Liberty, especially from there to
Gateway, and will further define the Statue's vital role in any overall
vision for harbor transportation.
We are very pleased that the new contract between the National Park
Service and Hornblower Yachts finally calls for looking at additional
ferry routes in the Harbor. Hornblower also included Governors Island
as a stop on their new island tour to Statue and Ellis Islands. So, for
the first time, a visitor will experience two jewels on the harbor in
the course of one trip.
For the first time in a generation, a ferry operator stands ready--
in all ways possible--to help link national parks into a seamless
necklace, a viable harbor-wide transportation system including
neighboring parks in all five boroughs. He does so as a new New Yorker
and as a good citizen involved in the life of our great international
city and its harbor for the future benefit and enjoyment of residents
and visitors alike.
With the National Parks of New York Harbor, the Harbor Conservancy
inaugurated a harbor visitor center at Federal Hall and since last year
thousands have visited the site. In two harbor tours that the Harbor
Conservancy itself launched, we've already demonstrated that there is a
market for tourism that goes well beyond the harbor's signature
destinations. For three years, our Gateway to America harbor tour has
run seven times daily telling the stories of the historic, cultural and
urban estuary. Our military history tour relates the complete and
untold story of harbor defense, from the Battery where the Dutch
originated homeland security nearly 400 years ago, to a New York
attacked and held hostage until the end of the Revolutionary War, to a
city that was never attacked again until September 11.
We can already measure our success, not just by revenue to the
ferry operator and to the Harbor Conservancy, but also by our ability
to interpret these places and share their stories, stories that help
visitors to experience the history of our great nation where it began.
Beyond tourists to the Statue, another one million visitors are
going on our tours and on other harbor excursions. A generous gift of
$1.0 million from Tiffany & Co. Foundation will enable us to produce,
among other programs, two new harbor tour excursions.
However, only one of the National Park sites has docks to welcome
these potential visitors.
Last weekend I traveled by ferry past the Statue of Liberty and
Ellis Island and to sites that may be less well known to the members of
this committee, but equally steeped in history.
Experiencing the majesty of the harbor from the Lower Bay, passing
under the Verrazano Bridge past the parks of Gateway National
Recreation Area in Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island and New Jersey, we
strain for adjectives to describe the natural history of New York
Harbor that ordained its destiny.
With ferries shuttling back and forth, we now are now afforded a
rare opportunity, to finally access these places and at the same time
help reconcile the yearnings for a national park experience that will
enrich the lives of all Americans, reminding them that these parks
belong to them and illuminate and celebrate human achievement.
Our promise is to make the Arrowhead--the symbol for the greatest
and most enduring conservation movement the modern world has known--and
the National Park Service Ranger as recognized on the harbor as they
are on the trails of Yosemite.
Today, with the leadership of the National Park Service, and other
harbor partners, we are working to restore the harbor to the people to
create the finest urban waterfront park system in the world and then to
help get you there.
National Parks of New York Harbor Icons
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
If I may, Ms. Salerno, the organization, the conservancy,
was there involvement on the part of the organization,
yourself, in the process of selecting the new concessionaire
that we are speaking about today?
Ms. Salerno. No.
Mr. Grijalva. Pardon?
Ms. Salerno. No, there was not.
Mr. Grijalva. Do you feel that that would have been an
appropriate input for the organization or not?
Ms. Salerno. The regulations and the rules of the National
Park Service you probably know much better than I do. I think
it was inappropriate for them legally to ask our counsel. We
did weigh in with the City of New York with many suggestions
and recommendations.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Ms. Moyer, going back to a point I didn't make well when
the Deputy Director was here, and that had to do with in
correspondence to the Speaker, National Park Service stated--
that was in June--stated that they expected Hornblower to start
doing a much better job in working with the port regarding its
plans, modifications of those plans. It is mid-September now,
and has that cooperation improved or occurred?
Ms. Moyer. Mr. Chair, I would characterize the level of
cooperation as consistent with what it has been since the
announcement was made in September of 2005. Tidbits of
information are being distributed to the port in what I would
not characterize as a timely manner.
On September 6, presumably in anticipation of this hearing,
the port was finally given a document called ``The San
Francisco Landing Plan,'' which is nothing more than an outline
over seven pages saying things like what the schedule would be
and who the stakeholders are. There are some maps attached to
it that are illegible, and we cannot tell from that what the
intent is with our property.
Again, I think it is difficult for the port and our tenant,
Hornblower has been a tenant of the port, a very good tenant of
the port for some time, and there is this third party between
us now, the Park Service, and again, there doesn't seem to be
leadership or direction coming from either of those entities on
how to close a deal with the port or any of the other
stakeholders for that matter.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. And I have referenced a question to the
other witness. As Hornblower is going through the process of
being awarded the contract in New York for the Statue of
Liberty and the other stops along the way, to your knowledge,
the port or the City of San Francisco, did you receive any
inquiries by the Park Service regarding what track record or
lack of track record you might have with that concessionaire?
Ms. Moyer. We did not. The only information that we have to
this date is the actual contract itself despite our repeated
requests for information with respect to the other proposals.
To my knowledge, there were four proposals from three
respondents. All three respondents controlled, had a leasehold
interest at different locations at the San Francisco
Waterfront. That is one of the problems, I think, of the Park
Service process that I would look to Congress to rectify.
In discussions with the Park Service subsequent to the
process, they acknowledged that their process does not allow
for the situation in which there is a third party property
owner or private property owner.
In response to a question about cooperation, we have
offered to lease directly to the Park Service because right now
the lease of any of the respondents is shorter than the
concession, and this would allow there to be continuity of the
service. We could write a long-term lease with the Park Service
or the GSA, and then the process when it is next bid could be
open to all providers, which seems to be in the spirit of the
1998 Act.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. The question is, in reviewing and
awarding the contract in New York, were there any inquiries to
the City of San Francisco or the port regarding your experience
and track record with Hornblower?
Ms. Moyer. I apologize. I thought you were talking about
the Alcatraz award. None to my knowledge, to either the mayor
or myself or the Congresswoman's office.
Mr. Grijalva. In some of the correspondence I received, one
of the great selling points in San Francisco was the
environmental agenda for the concessionaire. Can you briefly
talk about compliance with those points that were such a big
part of the award and touted as really being cutting-edge kind
of commitments on the part of the concessionaire? Can you
comment on the compliance to that environmental agenda or
points that were made in that contract?
Ms. Moyer. Well, again, no hard and fast information has
been made available to us. It appears that the compliance has
been delayed. The Park Service and the concessionaire have said
that they are in contract for a solar ferry, but no evidence of
that has been provided. And there was some testimony from
Deputy Director Wenk with respect to the enhancements to the
existing ferries, and those enhancements have not been fully
activated. In fact, the concessionaire purchased some of the
prior operator's boats and are operating those as well, and to
my knowledge, they have not been cleaned, if you will.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I don't have any more questions.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you both for coming here. Ms. Salerno, I
appreciate your efforts to be here and your testimony. What
would you recommend be the first additional ferry site added in
New York Harbor if there was an expansion of the site travel?
Ms. Salerno. For us, it would be Gateway National
Recreation Area. For the City of New York, it would certainly
be Governor's Island or any of the eight other new sites that
they are putting onto the water.
Mr. Bishop. OK. We have talked before about Statue of
Liberty receiving 2 million fewer visitors than it did prior to
9/11, or as the city visitorship was up, which I still think
was because of the Yankees, but that is beside the point, what
action----
Ms. Salerno. I would say the Mets.
Mr. Bishop. OK. You just lost anything else you wanted in
this hearing. What action is your organization taking with the
Park Service to invite those visitors back?
Ms. Salerno. We have embarked on an enormous campaign to do
public projects, programs and activities to encourage folks to
get onto New York Harbor. We envision that New York Harbor is
our stage. It is a stage the folks have not visited in a very
long while. The Statue of Liberty of course is one of the
premier sites in the world, if not in New York, and a top
tourist destination.
However, most New Yorkers will say to you, ``I haven't been
there since I was a child.'' So one of the things that we would
like to do through the collective of all of the parks of the
national parks of New York Harbor is to create experiences that
link these parks together, and we have invested at this point
close to $5 million in programs to support the parks. Next year
we will be putting rangers, National Park Service rangers on
the water for the first time in the history of these parks, and
we have received funds from private donors to work with us to
create other programs that will help New York Harbor and these
parks shine.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I am excited about those kind of
opportunities you are expanding. In your verbal testimony, you
called the new concessionaire Hornblower, they had a
progressive vision. How will this new concession contract
benefit visitors to New York, especially to these harbor sites?
Ms. Salerno. We are hopeful that this is a new day for New
York Harbor, and Hornblower as a new citizen to the City of New
York has a responsibility to the city and to our national parks
to make sure that they are accessible. We are hopeful that he
will take every opportunity to make sure that from the Statue
of Liberty and Ellis Island there will be other places that you
can embark from those places to get to new sites on the water.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony and your
time with us here.
Ms. Salerno. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. No, one more question, Ms. Salerno. Apparently
the Speaker's office was involved in the San Francisco decision
in some way or at least had contact. Has your organization done
any contact with the Speaker's office here about the awarding
of this concession?
Ms. Salerno. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Ms. Moyer, once again, I appreciate you
coming back all this distance to be here as well. I agree with
your comments that the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and
Hornblower should be here represented. Unfortunately, unlike
legislative bodies where private citizens get a chance to
actually come in and talk to people, this is one by invitation
only, and that invitation was not extended to them. Perhaps at
some other time we could actually do that particular thing.
The Park Service talked about their customer satisfaction,
which they said had been positive. Do you dispute that
testimony at all?
Ms. Moyer. I have not been privy to any of the satisfaction
reports and/or surveys. I don't frankly know what the questions
are. I do get comments from local people who are not as
satisfied. They find the fact that there are very few amenities
at the location to be disillusioning. For instance, you are
required to use a port-a-potty. You can get coffee and a bagel,
but that is about it.
Mr. Bishop. We don't blame you or actually staff or even
the Chairman. One of the problems we have in the hearing
process just the way we do things in Congress is the inability
of having a good dialogue, and I think if we had Mr. Wenk back
here again, coming back after your presentation, it would be a
wonderful opportunity to try and increase that type of
dialogue. That goes for the two of us that are actually here.
You mentioned in your testimony the retention of cherished
employees. Who are those cherished employees?
Ms. Moyer. It was our understanding that when the contract
was awarded to Hornblower, the employees that had been
servicing the island for a decade or two would transfer over to
Hornblower and that the best efforts would be made to retain
those employees with the knowledge not only of the island but
certainly of the conditions in the bay. And we are particularly
concerned with the removal of sewage from the island and its
disposal upon our property.
Mr. Bishop. Is that why they are considered cherished
employees?
Ms. Moyer. I don't think I put such an emphasis on
``cherished,'' but I certainly----
Mr. Bishop. It is your adjective.
Ms. Moyer. My apologies then. As you may know, the ferry
boats are operated by skeletal crews, and we certainly want to
know that they are experienced.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I don't really have any other
questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and thank you to the
witnesses.
We will be forwarding some questions to the National Park
Service relative to the contract, and primarily dealing with
the aspect of the ongoing issue in San Francisco. And the
reason for those questions, as you mentioned, you are hopeful,
Ms. Salerno, that it is a new day and that this concessionaire
will live up to its commitments. Given the experience in San
Francisco, we want to make sure that that does occur.
One of the questions that I think will be important
concerns some of the contractual issues with the National Park
Service. Basically, some of the terms almost give noncompliance
to parts of the contract for an indefinite period. There is no
end to when that noncompliance is remedied or not. We need to
look a little bit into the revenues and the profits of the
concessionaire, and other questions that this hearing has
provoked. We will forward that and certainly have the Committee
review the same information. So we will be forwarding
additional questions.
I appreciate your being here. Thank you very much. The
meeting is adjourned.
Ms. Salerno. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]