[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 107, H.R. 400, AND H.R. 452
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 8, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
---------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-123 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Louisiana Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Joel Hefley, Colorado Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Richard W. Pombo, California Adam Smith, Washington
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
George Radanovich, California Islands
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Carolina Jay Inslee, Washington
Mac Thornberry, Texas Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Jim Gibbons, Nevada James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho VACANCY
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
VACANCY
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Samoa
George Radanovich, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 8, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 7
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 452........................... 6
Hastert, Speaker J. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois, Prepared statement on H.R. 400...... 3
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 107, H.R. 400, and H.R. 452.. 4
Kildee, Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan................................................ 27
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia....................................... 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 452........................... 30
Letter submitted for the record.......................... 32
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 26
Statement of Witnesses:
Brody, Carolyn, Member, Commission of Fine Arts, Washington,
DC......................................................... 47
Prepared statement on H.R. 452........................... 49
Craig, Dr. Bruce, Director, National Coordinating Committee
for the Promotion of History, Washington, DC............... 86
Prepared statement on H.R. 107........................... 87
Dishner, Jimmy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Installations), The Pentagon, Arlington, VA............... 51
Prepared statement on H.R. 107........................... 52
Norquist, Grover, Chairman, Ronald Reagan Legacy Foundation,
Washington, DC............................................. 64
Prepared statement on H.R. 452........................... 65
Powers, Francis Gary, Jr., Founder, Cold War Museum, Fairfax,
VA......................................................... 68
Prepared statement on H.R. 107........................... 72
Ring, Richard G., Associate Director, Park Operations and
Education, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC................................... 35
Prepared statement on H.R. 107........................... 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 400........................... 38
Prepared statement on H.R. 452........................... 38
Responses to questions submitted for the record.......... 41
Wymbs, Norm, Chairman, Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation,
Del Ray, FL................................................ 58
Prepared statement on H.R.400............................ 61
Additional materials supplied:
Text of H.R. 107............................................. 8
Text of H.R. 400............................................. 13
Text of H.R. 452............................................. 18
Map of Commemorative Works Area 1 on National Mall in
Washington, DC............................................. 25
List of Area 1 Memorials submitted for the record............ 56
HEARING ON H.R. 107, TO REQUIRE THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
CONDUCT A STUDY TO IDENTIFY SITES AND RESOURCES, TO RECOMMEND
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMEMORATING AND INTERPRETING THE COLD WAR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 400, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
ESTABLISH A RONALD REAGAN BOYHOOD HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 452, TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
MEMORIAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN WITHIN THE AREA OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REFERRED TO IN THE COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT AS
"AREA 1", TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH MEMORIAL,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
Thursday, March 8, 2001
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m. in
Room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Hefley. This is my first time to chair this Committee
as Chairman of the Committee. I have chaired it in my esteemed
colleague from Utah's absence from time to time but this is my
first time to chair it and I think I would be remiss if I did
not point out the fact that I sat for many years on this
Committee under the tutelage of Bruce Vento.
Now Bruce, as you know, we lost last year. He could be very
partisan at times. He was very liberal, very different
philosophically from me, but if you wanted to challenge Bruce
on a public lands issue you had better pack your lunch and come
prepared.
And Bruce was a gentleman. If you had a good idea and you
were in the minority, in those days it was the practice that
any minority good idea would be stolen by someone in the
majority. I mean that is just the way things were done. Bruce,
if you had a good idea and you were in the minority, he would
cosponsor that idea with you.
And I learned a great deal about public lands issues from
Bruce Vento and I wonder if at the start of this hearing if we
might just take a moment of silence in remembrance of Bruce and
his contribution to this Congress and to the United States of
America.
[Pause.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing today. The
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands
will come to order.
I would like to congratulate and welcome my colleague, the
Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, as the new
ranking member of the Committee and I look forward to working
with her.
The Subcommittee staff and I will do everything we can to
see that this Committee is run in a fair, evenhanded manner and
hopefully it is--I started to say bipartisan but as nonpartisan
a way as possible. Most of the issues we deal with are not or
should not be partisan issues in here and some of them will be
but mostly they should not be. We will try to operate in as
congenial a fashion as possible.
I would also like to point out that the name of the
Subcommittee has changed. The Subcommittee name now includes
recreation in its title and with good reason. Chairman Hansen
and I, along with many other members of the Committee, believe
that for the last eight years our nation's premier park system
and vast public lands have become more synonymous with
unnecessary restrictions on access and a predominant bias
toward preservation, rather than the opportunities for
recreation and family enjoyment.
Today, and for the foreseeable future, the Subcommittee
will add a new focus on recreation and multiple use on our
publics lands.
Concerning today's hearing, the Subcommittee will consider
three important bills: H.R. 400 sponsored by Speaker Hastert
that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish
the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site in Dixon,
Illinois; H.R. 452 sponsored by Chairman Hansen that would
authorize the establishment of a memorial to former President
Ronald Reagan on the National Mall; and H.R. 107 sponsored by
me that would require the Secretary of Interior to conduct a
study to identify sites and resources for commemorating and
interpreting the Cold War.
I especially look forward to hearing the witnesses'
comments on the proposed memorial for former President Reagan.
I suspect that this will be an unusual hearing as the new
Administration has come out in opposition to not only my bill
and Chairman Hansen's bill but to Speaker Hastert's bill, as
well.
[The prepared statement of Speaker Hastert follows:]
STATEMENT OF SPEAKER J. DENNIS HASTERT (IL-14), ON H.R. 400
Chairman Hefley, Ranking Member Christensen:
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today in support of
H.R. 400 which would establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National
Historic Site in Dixon, Illinois. As you are well aware, this bill
would allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Reagan boyhood
home from the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation to ensure that this
important historical structure is protected and maintained in
perpetuity.
At this time, I would like to take a moment to recognize Norm and
Harriet Wymbs--without their selfless dedication--and the dedication of
the folks of Dixon, Illinois--to preserving the legacy of Ronald
Reagan, we would not be here today. We all owe them a debt of
gratitude.
Ronald Reagan occupies a special place in the heart of all of us
from Northern Illinois. We take great pride in the record of our native
son. As our 40th President, Ronald Reagan steered this country through
some very difficult times. I am sure many of us here today can recall
the atmosphere in America when he took office in 1981. We were mired in
recession, in the midst of a cold war with the Soviet Union, and there
was a real sense that America had seen its better days. By the time
Reagan left office, we were in the middle of unprecedented economic
growth, peace and freedom were on the rise in every corner of the
globe, and we had experienced a re-birth of the American spirit.
Reagan's belief in limited government, lower taxes, and individual
freedom had transformed American politics and re-ignited our spirit of
optimism.
Many of us believe that Reagan's success as President stems in no
small part from his upbringing in Illinois. And, while his path to
greatness took him to many places, I believe what he learned growing up
in Illinois never left him.
Although born in Tampico, Illinois, Reagan has always considered
Dixon his hometown. In Reagan's youth, as it is today, Dixon represents
a traditional, rural, Midwestern town. In Dixon, Reagan attended
school, played football, worked as a lifeguard, and developed the
values that would shape his future life in politics. In fact, many of
the images of Reagan in his youth, which we are all familiar with, were
taken in Dixon and the surrounding area.
The history of Ronald Reagan's life in Dixon is typical of most
raised in small Midwestern towns. Reagan's parents, Nelle and Jack,
instilled in him a sense of fair play, duty to others, and a respect
for hard work. They taught young Ronald that religious or racial
prejudice is wrong. And, Jack and Nelle were determined that their
children would have every opportunity to excel and saw to it that the
Reagan children obtained a college education. These are ideals we must
share and pass on to future generations of young Americans.
Ronald was thirteen when he entered Dixon's Northside High School.
At Northside,``Dutch" Reagan played football and basketball, ran track,
and acted in school plays. Athletic achievement and theatrical
performances in school plays increased his popularity at Northside. In
his senior year, Reagan was elected student body president. As was the
custom of the time, yearbooks generally included mottoes written by the
student to describe attributes or perspective outlooks. Ronald Reagan's
reads: ``life is just one grand sweet song, so start the music''
Ambitious, full of life, and ready to take on the world, Reagan
graduated from Northside High School in 1928.
After High School, Reagan was admitted to Eureka College on a
partial football scholarship-he lettered in football all 4 years.
Reagan washed dishes at his fraternity house and at the girls dormitory
on campus for spending money. Reagan worked as a lifeguard and swimming
coach in the summer months as well. As a freshman, Ronald Reagan was
already a proven leader-he organized and led a student strike in
protest of the decision by college administrators to reduce the array
of courses offered. The demonstration resulted in the resignation of
the college president and a return to the old curriculum. While at
Eureka he also made it possible for his older brother Neil, who was
then working at a cement plant, to go to college by getting him a job,
a partial scholarship, and a deal deferring his tuition until after
graduation.
The Depression hit Dixon, Illinois especially hard. The Reagan's
were forced to sublet their home and live in one room. Jack and Nelle's
next door neighbor at times cooked for them, and handed meals through
the window. The Depression had an enormous impact on Reagan-he often
recalled the uncertainty of the times by re-telling the story of his
father expecting a bonus check and instead being fired on Christmas Eve
1931. The trying times of the Great Depression touched the lives of
every American and the Reagans were no exception. The charitable
kindness received and practiced by the Reagan's helped them to survive
and thrive when hard times came.
After college, Ronald Reagan borrowed his father's beat up
Oldsmobile and set out on a 1-day swing of nearby small-town radio
stations. Reagan was offered five dollars and round trip bus fare to
broadcast a University of Iowa football game. He did so well that the
station manager gave him a raise to ten dollars for the remaining
games. Early in 1933 World of Chiropractic radio (WOC), a subsidiary of
WHO radio in Des Moines, hired Dutch as a full time announcer for $100
a month--a lot of money at the time. He had enough money to help his
parents and send $10 a month spending money to his brother Nell while
he finished college at Eureka. At first, Reagan's oratory was neither
polished, nor very professional but he learned to rehearse and sound
spontaneous. As we all know, Reagan's weakness became one of his
trademark virtues. In the future, Reagan's speeches gave hope to
millions around the world who suffered under the oppression of
Communism.
From his job at a small radio station in Iowa, Reagan went on to
serve in the Army during World War II, become a movie star, president
of the Screen Actors Guild, a traveling spokesman for General Electric,
Governor of the State of California, and, ultimately, President of the
United States. Wherever he went, however, lie carried the lessons lie
learned growing up in Dixon, Illinois, with him.
I believe that, as a Nation, we must preserve and protect places of
historical interest for future generations. The affection we, as a
Nation, have for the 40``' President of the United States is
demonstrated by the fact that so many important things now bear his
name-from the airport which serves the Nation's Capital and a Federal
building, to the Navy's newest aircraft carrier.
In my mind, however, there is another important piece of Reagan's
life that deserves preservation. I believe that Reagan's life in Dixon,
Illinois, is critical to understanding the man and the presidency. But
don't take my word for it. Take the word of the tens of thousands of
visitors who tour his boyhood home every year.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to represent President Reagan's boyhood
home of Dixon, Illinois, in Congress and I am proud to sponsor
legislation that will ensure that the opportunity to experience the
place where he was raised will be available to all Americans for years
to come. I look forward to working with you, and Ranking Member
Christensen, to make this a reality as soon as possible.
______
Mr. Hefley. I want to thank our panel of witnesses,
especially Speaker Hastert and Chairman Hansen, for being here
today to testify on these bills.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing today. The
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will come
to order. I would like to congratulate and welcome my colleague, the
Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, as the new Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee staff and I look forward
to working with all of you in what I hope will be a very productive,
bipartisan, and congenial session for this Subcommittee.
I would also like to point out that the name of the Subcommittee
has changed. The Subcommittee name now includes Recreation in its title
and with good reason. Chairman Hansen and I along with many other
Members of the Committee believe that for the last 8 years our Nation's
premier park system and vast public lands have become more synonymous
with unnecessary restrictions on access and a predominate bias toward
preservation, rather than with opportunities for recreation and family
enjoyment. Today, and for the foreseeable future, the Subcommittee will
add a new focus on recreation and multiple use on our public lands.
Concerning today's hearing, the Subcommittee will consider three
important bills: H.R. 400, sponsored by Speaker Hastert, that would
authorize the Secretary of Interior to establish the Ronald Reagan
Boyhood Home National Historic Site in Dixon, Illinois; H.R. 452,
sponsored by Chairman Hansen, that would authorize the establishment of
a memorial to former President Reagan on the National Mall; and H.R.
107, sponsored by me, that would require the Secretary of Interior to
conduct a study to identify sites and resources for commemorating and
interpreting the cold war. I especially look forward to hearing the
witnesses comments on the proposed memorial for former President Ronald
Reagan. [I suspect this will be an unusual hearing as the new
Administration has come out in opposition to not only my bill and
Chairman Hansen's bill, but Speaker Hastert's as well.]
I want to thank our panel of witnesses, especially Speaker Hastert
and Chairman Hansen, for being here today to testify on these bills. I
now turn the time over to the Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen.
______
Mr. Hefley. I wonder if the gentlelady, Mrs. Christensen,
would suspend her comments just a moment in deference to
Chairman Hansen, who is going to have to leave and would like
to give his comments on his bill. I would ask unanimous consent
that we do that, get that out of the way before we go vote.
Would that be all right?
Mrs. Christensen. Fine with me. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. All right, Chairman Hansen, we turn it over to
you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
ranking member for her courtesy. I have another meeting to get
to but if I could just quickly give an opening statement on
H.R. 452, which establishes a presidential memorial for one of
the most influential men of the 20th century.
As one of our most notable Presidents, Ronald Wilson Reagan
initiated policies, such as peace through strength that helped
win the Cold War, contained the economic stagnation of the
early '80's by cutting taxes and increasing funding for the
national defense and helped to restore the United States as a
leader on the world front. In doing so, President Reagan
restored America's faith in itself and our system of
government. In short, he restored pride in our nation.
Specifically, this bill creates and then directs the Ronald
Reagan Memorial Commission to cooperate with the Secretary of
the Interior and the National Capital Memorial Commission to
identify and then recommend to Congress an appropriate site for
the construction of a memorial honoring the former President
Ronald Reagan. The bill specifies that the memorial site be
situated in Area 1 as identified in the Commemorative Works Act
and that it be placed between the Lincoln Memorial and the U.S.
Capitol Building. The Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission would
also select the memorial design and raise the necessary funds
to complete the memorial.
Furthermore, the commission will have the responsibility to
raise the necessary funds from the private sector for the
design, construction and maintenance of the memorial and to
issue a report to Congress and the President on its activities
every 6 months from its first meeting, along with a final
report on its findings.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to address some of the
criticism regarding my legislation. First, the 25-year waiting
period established by the CWA is more of an arbitrary time
period than representing a particular formula. Quite frankly,
it could be five or 50 years. There really is no right time
period. I believe that Mr. Reagan is a very special case.
Because of the nature of his battle with Alzheimer's disease,
sadly it means Mr. Reagan's public life is and has been coming
to an end since he left office in 1989.
Secondly, the National Mall has come to represent so much
in terms of who we are as a people. It represents our
struggles, our achievements and our appreciation for those
Americans who led our country in time of crisis. I find it hard
to believe that a memorial to President Reagan so negatively
impacts the integrity of the beauty of the National Mall.
According to the National Park Service, there are 1,791
acres in Area 1. This includes 608 acres covered by the Potomac
River and the Tidal Basin, 344 acres occupied by Federal
buildings and museums and 315 acres occupied by existing or
planned memorials. That leaves approximately 525 acres of open
space. I think if everyone would keep their perspective on this
issue another memorial is certainly not going to destroy the
vistas of the Mall. In fact, I believe most Americans walking
the National Mall to better understand our history would not
object to a memorial honoring one of the most influential and
historical figures of the 20th century.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 452 is similar to the bill that former
Resource Chairman Don Young introduced last Congress. If you
recall, that bill was favorably reported by the Resource
Committee.
Mr. Chairman, this bill honors a great American who
deserves a national tribute in a place of prominence and
recognition on the National Mall alongside the other great
leaders of our nation's history.
And with that, thank you so very much for allowing me to do
that.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Chairman Hansen. Rest assured this
Committee will take care of your bill in due time.
Mr. Hansen. That is what I am worried about.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hansen follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, ON
H.R. 452
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 452 establishes a Presidential memorial for one of the most
influential men of the 20th Century. As one of our most notable
Presidents, Ronald Wilson Reagan initiated policies such as peace
through strength that helped win the cold war, tamed the economic
stagnation of the early 1980's by cutting taxes and increasing funding
for the national defense, and helped to restore the United States as
leader on the world front. In doing so, President Reagan restored
America's faith in itself and our system of government. In short, he
restored pride to our Nation.
Specifically, this bill creates and then directs the Ronald Reagan
Memorial Commission to cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and
the National Capitol Memorial Commission to identify, and then
recommend to Congress, an appropriate site for the construction of a
memorial honoring former President Ronald Reagan. The bill specifies
that the memorial site be situated in Area 1'' as identified in the
Commemorative Works Act, and that it be placed between the Lincoln
Memorial and the U.S. Capitol Building. The Ronald Reagan Memorial
Commission would also select the memorial design and raise the
necessary funds to complete the memorial.
Furthermore, the Commission will have the responsibility to raise
the necessary funds from the private sector for the design,
construction, and maintenance of the memorial, and to issue a report to
Congress and the President on its activities every 6 months from its
first meeting, along with a final report on its findings.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I wanted to address some of the
criticism regarding my legislation. First, the 25 year waiting period
established by the CWA is more of an arbitrary time period than
representing a particular formula. Quite frankly, it could be five or
50 years. There really is no right time period. I believe that Mr.
Reagan's is a very special case. Because of the nature of his battle
with Alzheimer's disease, sadly it means Mr. Reagan's public life is,
and has been coming to an end since he left office in 1989.
Second, the National Mall has come to represent so much in terms of
who we are as a people. It represents our struggles, our achievements,
and our appreciation for those American's who led our country in times
of crisis. I find it hard to believe that a memorial to President
Reagan will so negatively impact the integrity or the beauty of the
National Mall.
According to the National Park Service, there are 1,791 acres in
Area 1. This includes 608 acres covered by the Potomac River and the
Tidal Basin, 344 acres occupied by Federal buildings and museums, and
315 acres occupied by existing or planned memorials. That leaves
approximately 524 acres of open space. I think if everyone would keep
their perspective on this issue, another memorial is certainly not
going to destroy the vistas of the Mall. In fact, I believe most
Americans walking the National Mall to better understand our history
would not object to a memorial honoring one of the most influential and
historical figures of the 20th Century.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 452 is similar to the bill that former Resources
Chairman Don Young introduced last Congress. If you recall, that bill
was favorably reported by the Resources Committee.
Mr. Chairman, this bill honors a great American who deserves a
national tribute in a place of prominence and recognition on the
National Mall along side the other great leaders in our Nation's
history.
______
Mr. Hefley. The Committee stands in recess while we vote
and we will be back as quickly as we can and we will pick up
with Mrs. Christensen's statement.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hefley. The Committee will come back to order and we
will go now to Mrs. Christensen.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
to be here today at the first meeting of the renamed National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Subcommittee of this
Congress.
On behalf of the Democratic members of the Subcommittee,
let me congratulate you on your new role as Subcommittee
Chairman and we look forward to working with you to address the
many issues that will come before this Subcommittee during the
107th Congress.
Today, whether by accident or design, it appears there is a
theme to our hearing. Former President Reagan played a
significant role in the latter stages of the Cold War and all
three measures we will consider today deal with this theme.
Mrs. Christensen. Our first bill, H.R. 107, of which you
are the sponsor, Mr. Chairman, directs the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a study regarding the sites and resources
associated with the Cold War. The tension between the United
States and the former Soviet Union that marked the Cold War era
had a significant impact on U.S. policy both at home and
abroad. As such it is an important element of our recent
history.
[The text of H.R. 107 follows:]
Mrs. Christensen. Our second bill today, H.R. 400, would
require the Secretary to purchase a facility in Speaker
Hastert's district in Dixon, Illinois known as the Ronald
Reagan Boyhood Home complex and designated as a new national
historic site. Apparently former President Reagan lived in this
home for a brief period in the mid-1920's. The complex gained
some recent attention with an Associated Press story
identifying the home as a site of a life-sized portrait of the
former President done in jelly beans.
Certainly any site which plays a significant role in the
life of a U.S. President and which retains historically
significant resources relating to that period is deserving of
consideration for addition to our National Park System. In this
instance, however, it is unclear what role this property played
in former President Reagan's life; nor is much known about its
current condition and the condition of the resources located at
this site. It is our understanding that no resource study of
the home has been completed, as would normally be the case and
the bill fails to authorize one.
Thanks to legislation you authored and we in the minority
supported, Mr. Chairman, current law directs that a resource
study should be done before any new unit is added to the
National Park System. In this instance such a study would
provide critical information regarding this facility. We look
forward to learning more about this particular site from the
witnesses before us this morning.
[ The text of H.R. 400 follows:]
Mrs. Christensen. Our third bill, H.R. 452 introduced by
Chairman Hansen, would authorize a memorial to former President
Reagan on the National Mall here in Washington, D.C. President
Reagan's term in office was significant and a significant
period in American history and there are many who believe that
he deserves a memorial on our National Mall. As the Committee
is well aware, however, H.R. 452 violates several critical
provisions of the Commemorative Works Act or CWA authored by
our former colleague Bruce Vento and others and signed into law
by President Reagan himself. In our view, the CWA framework,
including the 25-year waiting period, has served the Mall, the
public and those memorialized on the Mall very well. The fact
that H.R. 452 would exempt this proposed memorial from the
sound public policy requirements which apply to all other
proposed additions to our National Mall is troubling.
Furthermore, we are puzzled by the apparent haste to place
this memorial on the Mall, given that significant honors have
already been bestowed on our 40th President. The second largest
Federal building in the country, as well as National Airport
are named in his honor. In addition, just this past Sunday the
$4 billion aircraft carrier RONALD REAGAN was christened, the
first carrier ever named for a living President. There is
little chance that the American public will forget Ronald
Reagan even if the statutory waiting period for a memorial to
him on the Mall is respected.
[The text of H.R. 452 follows:]
[Map of Commemorative Works Area 1 submitted for the record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.001
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Chairman, we join you in welcoming
our witnesses to the hearing. We look forward to their input on
the measures before the Subcommittee today and it is a special
pleasure to welcome our colleague from the District,
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, to the Subcommittee this
morning.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
Any other opening statements? None on this side?
Mr. Duncan. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I
just want to congratulate you and Mrs. Christensen on your new
positions. I also say that I agree with your philosophy as
expressed in your opening statement and I know you will provide
great leadership for this Subcommittee.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rahall?
STATEMENT OF HON. NICK J. RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I likewise
congratulate you as the new Chairman and Mrs. Christensen as
the new ranking member of the Subcommittee and associate
myself, Mr. Chairman, with your words in commemoration of our
late colleague, Bruce Vento, made during the beginning of
today's hearing.
There are a number of concerns already expressed by the
ranking member, that I have as well, with the pending
legislation, H.R. 452. To be perfectly clear, these concerns
have nothing to do with Ronald Reagan. For that matter, this
bill could be about putting a monument on the Mall to one of
America's most loved characters, Mickey Mouse. Or it could be
about a monument to Bill Clinton or any other individual that
does not meet the statutory requirements; my concerns would be
the same.
The Mall is indeed America's front yard. It is a very
special place to Americans and for that reason there are
stringent procedures governing whether additional monuments
will be located in the area, there is a vetting process, if you
will, that has to be followed before such monuments are put on
the Mall. These procedures to which I refer and which have
already been referred to by others on the Committee, are
embodied in the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, so ably and
effectively ushered through the Congress by our late colleague
Bruce Vento and signed into law, as it so happens, signed into
law by President Ronald Reagan.
So I guess I feel a sense of bemusement today, perhaps
amusement. The pending legislation seeks to run roughshod over
this important statute to achieve the goal of forcing a
memorial to Ronald Reagan onto the Mall. For instance, the 1986
law prohibits memorials on the Mall until after the 25th
anniversary of the honoree's death. The purpose of that
provision is to allow for enough time to allow a person to be
judged within the proper historical perspective, not the
emotions of the moment, and that simply is not what is being
done here. On the other hand, now that I think about it, it
perhaps is applicable as there are those who hold that
President Reagan's policies in many respects were fatal to the
country.
But simply put, a memorial to one of our greatest
Presidents, FDR, for example, was only recently constructed on
the Mall. Veterans of World War II have had to wait 55 years
and we are only now moving forward with a memorial to their
great achievements. So why should the process be any different
for Ronald Reagan, regardless of how one views his
contributions to our nation? There is a vetting process in
place. Our veterans have had to go through that process before
they can have their monument on the Mall. The FDR Memorial went
through that process and now why throw that process out the
window?
Another bill that is the subject of today's hearing would
establish a Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home. Now that is certainly
less objectionable. Certainly Congress has the right to
determine whether it is in the public interest to designate
national historic sites and in this regard there are many such
designations relating to former Presidents, such as the Truman
National Historic Site in Independence, Missouri or the
Garfield National Historic Park in Mentor, Ohio.
So I would urge the supporters of the Reagan memorial bill
to perhaps do some self-reflection and find some other means of
displaying their additional, and well placed admiration for
this former President. After all, as the ranking member has
already said, we do have an airport, and we have a Federal
building named after Ronald Reagan here in the nation's
capital. And certainly the Mall is no place with which to play
politics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Kildee?
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Just briefly, I look forward to working with
you, Mr. Chairman. You and I have been friends since you first
arrived in Congress and you have never needed to attend a
conference on civility; you came here with civility and I look
forward to working with you.
I want to associate myself with your remarks on my
classmate and seatmate, Bruce Vento.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. Let us proceed with our
first panel. I do not believe that the Speaker is going to be
able to get back over here. There are some activities occurring
on the Floor we did not expect. But we do have our delegate
from Washington, D.C., the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton. If
you would join us? Welcome this morning and we will turn the
time over to you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. I appreciate the opportunity to make a few
comments on the proposed memorial. I want to be clear that I do
not appear this morning as a representative of my party. I am
here as a fourth generation Washingtonian and as the member who
represents the people of the nation's capital who for 200 years
have been the keepers of the history of this city and the
guardians of its precious monuments. Official Washington comes
and goes and the framers meant there to be permanent residents
here so that the continuity of history would not be lost.
We particularly value the L'Enfant plan and all that the
Congress and the National Capital Planning Commission have done
to respect that plan. That plan assures that the nation's
capital will remain what the founders intended and that is a
planned city, making the city one of the great capitals in the
world and one of the few truly planned cities.
I want also to be clear that I have no quarrel and indeed
very much appreciate the desire of Chairman Hansen to have a
memorial for a President that is much beloved by many Americans
on the Mall and in this city. Indeed Representative Hansen and
I have worked together on a number of local projects affecting
the capital city and he has always shown great respect for me
and for the city and has always worked very amicably with me. I
have a real fondness for the Chairman of this Committee.
I do not come simply to ask you to respect the
Commemorative Works Act. I also ask you to allow me to work
with you to find an alternative site and to remind you that the
25-year waiting period applies only to the Mall and that there
are many, many sites that are off the Mall that might be even
more attractive.
There are a number of reasons why the Commemorative Works
Act require special treatment for the Mall. Before the 25-year
waiting period was enacted the Mall was in danger of being
quite overwhelmed with memorials. As we speak, this small
centrally located patch of land would already be filled with
memorials if the rules were not observed.
The problem continues such that the National Capital
Planning Commission has submitted a bill for a no-build area on
the Mall itself and the reason for that is that while prior
generations were restrained, had a special feeling for the Mall
and were restrained, almost self-restrained, in coming forward
to ask for memorials, our generation is gobbling up all the
space on the Mall, a space meant for eternity. In one
generation the Mall has become no longer a green space but
already a series of memorials.
The Senate passed the bill for a no-build area reserving
space so that if there is a great American 200 years from now
you will not find what you are now finding in some
authoritarian countries. They have to tear down memorials in
order to build memorials because of overbuilding. We are trying
to avoid that.
I have no reason to doubt that a memorial to President
Reagan would not be prejudiced if the proponents waited out the
25-year time frame and I want to submit to you a compelling
precedent.
In 1987 proponents came forward to ask for a memorial for
one of the great martyrs of American history, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. The Democrats controlled the House then and the
Senate and during all the 8 years afterwards that proponents of
a King memorial came forward with great emotion to ask that an
exception be made for this slain hero of American history but
though the House was controlled by the Democrats, at no time
was this bill passed until the 25th year had been reached.
I want to serve notice to all in my party who see the House
now almost controlled by Democrats and could become controlled
by Democrats, who see 50/50 in the Senate and who see this
precedent, I want to serve notice that I will lead the fight
against any from my own party who say that if the Republicans
can come forward, there's no reason why the Democrats should
not.
The Mall must have our respect. It must have the respect of
history and for future generations. What will they think of us
when they look around and say that within a period of 30 years
those folks used it all up. They thought their wars and their
Presidents and their history were all there would ever be to
American history.
This memorial is proposed out of love and out of respect
for former President Reagan. He was one of the most loved
Presidents and is already among the most memorialized. We
should be careful to respect Ronald Reagan's considerable
legacy by demonstrating confidence in the durability of his
contributions, that they deserve respect for the rule of law
that he showed and modesty, one of his notable characteristics,
suggesting that like our greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan
would want to wait his time. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.004
Mr. Hefley. Ms. Norton, I think this Committee should give
special deference to people whose district the Federal
Government is trying to place something and so we very much
appreciate your comments today.
I think you might in the future accompany your comments
with simply a picture of the Gettysburg battlefield, which has
been overmemorialized until the first time I went there I was
very disappointed to see how many memorials were there. So I
think your argument that we need to be very, very careful about
how many memorials we have on the Mall is well placed.
I have no questions. Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. I have no questions, either. I think the
testimony was not only very sensitive and insightful, as usual;
it was very complete. No questions. Thanks.
Mr. Hefley. Does anyone have questions?
Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Let us go to panel number two: Mr. Richard
Ring, associate director of Park Operations and Education, the
National Park Service; Ms. Carolyn Brody, member of the
Commission of Fine Arts for Washington; and Mr. Jimmy Dishner,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations.
Jimmy, I have to say you and I have faced each other across
these ways many times but not in this setting, so we are
delighted to have you here today.
We will be on the 5-minute rule. Your statements without
objection will be placed in their entirety in the record but if
you could hold your comments to five minutes and then we will
have questions.
So do you have an order you would like to go in? If not, we
will start with you.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. RING, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK
OPERATIONS AND EDUCATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY SALLY BLUMENTHAL,
DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Ring and I am the
Associate Director for Operations and Education of the National
Park Service. I am pleased to appear before you for the first
time. This is my first hearing in this position. I spent the
last eight and a half years as the Superintendent of Everglades
National Park working on the ecosystem restoration efforts
there.
I am here to speak to you on all three bills this morning.
I appreciate the opportunity to present the Department of the
Interior's position. I will summarize the testimony on each of
the bills.
On H.R. 107, while we believe that it is wholly appropriate
for the National Park Service to undertake a study of this
nature, the Administration recommends that the Committee defer
action on H.R. 107 until they have been able to begin making
progress on the President's initiative to eliminate the
National Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog within
five years. In most cases we would be seeking a temporary
moratorium on new park unit designations or authorization of
new studies so that we can focus on our existing resources, on
taking care of what we now own.
We also want to make sure that when completing previously
authorized studies, we closely examine the costs of acquiring,
restoring, and operating a new unit of the National Park
System.
With regard to H.R. 400, which would authorize the
Secretary of Interior to establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood
Home and National Historic Site in Dixon, Illinois, in 1998 the
Congress passed Public Law 105-391, the National Park Omnibus
Management Act, which requires congressional authorization of
areas to be studied for potential new units of the National
Park System. The law also designates the criteria to be
followed by the National Park Service in determining whether to
recommend an area as a unit of the National Park System.
We recognize the importance of the boyhood home of
President Ronald Reagan and therefore appreciate the goal of
H.R. 400. We suggest however that the Committee ensure that the
intent of Congress as expressed in Public Law 105-391 is
carried out by amending the bill to authorize a study of the
site to determine whether it conforms with the criteria of that
law. Such a review will ensure that the continued expansion of
the National Park System does not increase the backlog of
deferred maintenance needs, among other things. We would be
pleased to work with the Committee on further consideration of
the bill.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to H.R.
452, to authorize the establishment of a memorial for former
President Ronald Reagan within the area referred to as
Commemorative Works Area 1 and provide for the design and
construction of the memorial.
While the department wholeheartedly supports recognizing
former President Reagan's significant contributions to the
history of the United States, we believe that it is important
that the establishment of a memorial follow the well
established process for authorizing memorials that is contained
in the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. Following this process
will provide the best opportunity for soliciting public input
and resolving any concerns regarding the location or nature of
the memorial. We therefore recommend that Congress defer action
on H.R. 452 until we have an opportunity to examine options
that are consistent with the Commemorative Works Act.
That concludes the summary of my statement on the three
bills and I would be pleased to take any questions. I would
also like to introduce Sally Blumenthal, who is the Deputy
Regional Director of the National Capital Region for Land Use
and Land Use Coordination and ask her to join me at the table
to assist with any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring on H.R. 107 follows:]
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. RING ON H.R. 107
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 107. This bill would require
that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a study to identify sites
and resources associated with the cold war and to recommend
alternatives for commemorating and interpreting that period of our
nation's history.
While we believe that it is wholly appropriate for the National
Park Service to undertake a study of this nature, the Administration
recommends that the Committee defer action on H.R. 107 until we are
able to begin making progress on the President's Initiative to
eliminate the National Park Service (NPS) deferred maintenance backlog
within five years. We are generally seeking a temporary moratorium on
new park unit designations or authorization of new studies so that we
can focus existing resources on taking care of what we now own. We also
want to make sure that, when completing previously authorized studies,
we closely examine the costs of acquiring, restoring, and operating a
potential new park unit.
H.R. 107 would require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a
National Historic Landmark theme study to identify sites and resources
in the United States that are significant to the cold war. The bill
specifically provides that the study consider the inventory of cold war
resources that has been compiled by the Department of Defense and other
historical studies and research on various types of military resources.
H.R. 107 requires the study to include recommendations for
commemorating these resources and for establishing cooperative
arrangements with other entities.
In addition to authorizing the theme study, H.R. 107 would require
the Secretary to prepare and publish an interpretive handbook on the
cold war and to disseminate information gathered through the study in
other ways. The bill would also require the Secretary to establish a
cold war Advisory Committee to consult on the study. H.R. 107
authorizes appropriations of $200,000 for these activities.
The National Historic Landmarks program was established by the Act
of August 21, 1935, commonly known as the Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C.
461 et. seq.) and is implemented according to 36 CFR Part 65. The
program's mission is to identify those places that best illustrate the
themes, events, or persons that are nationally significant to the
history of the United States and that retain a high degree of
integrity. Potential national historic landmarks are often identified
through "theme studies" such as the one that would be authorized by
H.R. 107.
For example, last year the National Park Service completed and
transmitted to Congress a National Historic Landmark theme study on the
history of racial desegregation of public schools, which was authorized
by Public Law 105-356, the Act that established the Little Rock Central
High School National Historic Site. Federal, state, and local officials
across the country are now using this study to identify and evaluate
the significance of numerous properties. So far, properties in nine
states and the District of Columbia have been recommended for
consideration as national historic landmarks. Currently the National
Park Service is conducting several other theme studies, including one
related to the history of the labor movement, another on the earliest
inhabitants of North America, and another on sites associated with
Japanese Americans.
At the moment, the history of the cold war has some presence in the
National Park System and on the two lists of historic sites maintained
by the National Park Service. The National Park System includes one
unit related to the cold war, the Minuteman Missile National Historic
Site in South Dakota, which Congress established two years ago to
preserve and interpret the role of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
in our nation's defense system.
Out of 2,329 designated national historic landmarks, five recognize
civilian or military aspects of cold war history, and out of more than
72,000 listings on the National Register of Historic Places, 17
(including the five landmarks) are related to the cold war. The
relatively small number of recognized sites is due in large part to the
fact that the cold war has only recently been viewed as history. With
or without a theme study, these numbers would likely increase over
time, and the Department of Defense could take steps on its own to
identify these sites.
In addition to our general concern that a new study is not
appropriate at this time, we have a technical concern with Section 3,
which provides for the establishment of an advisory committee to
consult with on the study. In our view, such a committee is unnecessary
and, because of the legal requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), would add greatly to the cost of a study
and time required to complete it.
National Historic Landmark program regulations already require
consultation with Federal, state, and local governments; national and
statewide associations; and a variety of other interested parties.
Through partnering with a national historical organization, using a
peer-review process, and consulting with appropriate subject experts as
well as the general public, the National Park Service would ensure that
the broadest historical perspectives are represented in any study it
undertakes.
In addition, we have been informed by the Department of Justice
that the provisions of the bill that would require the Secretary of the
Interior to make recommendations to Congress concerning Federal
protection for cold war sites appear to violate the Recommendations
Clause of the Constitution, which reserves to the President the power
to decide whether it is necessary or expedient for the executive branch
to make legislative policy recommendations to the Congress. At such
time when further consideration of the bill is appropriate, the
Administration will be pleased to provide language to remedy the bill's
constitutional defects.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring on H.R.400 follows:]
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. RING ON H.R. 400
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 400,
a bill to authorize the Secretary to establish the Ronald Reagan
Boyhood Home National Historic Site in Dixon, Illinois. The Department
supports the effort to honor the boyhood home of former President
Reagan.
H.R. 400 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish
the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site in Dixon,
Illinois. It also would require the Secretary to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation
for the purpose of operating, maintaining, and using the Historic Site.
In 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105-391, the National Parks
Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which requires congressional
authorization of areas to be studied for potential new units of the
National Park System. The law also designates the criteria to be
followed by the National Park Service in determining whether to
recommend an area as a unit of the National Park System. We recognize
the importance of the boyhood home of President Ronald Reagan and
therefore appreciate the goals of H.R. 400. We suggest, however, that
the Committee ensure that the intent of Congress, as expressed in
Public Law 105-391, is carried out by amending the bill to authorize a
study of the site to determine whether it conforms to the criteria of
Public Law 105-391. Such a review will ensure that the continued
expansion of the National Park System does not increase the backlog of
deferred maintenance needs.
With respect to historical sites, the studies do not only look at
whether the event or person associated with the site was historically
significant. They also look at the integrity of the buildings, and
other factors, such as whether there are other sites that might more
appropriately tell the story associated with a particular site.
The National Park system consists of many previous residences of
former Presidents. However, there are also many residences of former
Presidents that are not part of the system. A study would look at
whether the Federal Government is the most appropriate entity to manage
the site. Some sites are managed by other entities, such as state
governments and private foundations. Conducting a professional study
also allows Congress to be sure it is protecting an area that meets the
criteria of the National Park System.
A study also would look at the management structure contemplated by
the bill. As written, the bill calls for the site to be managed through
a partnership between the Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation and the
National Park Service. If this is the best management structure for the
park unit, it should be endorsed by a study.
Finally, a study will enable the Park Service and the Congress to
identify the costs in acquiring, restoring, and operating a potential
site. Such a review is important if we are to gain control of the
deferred maintenance backlog and eliminate it within five years, as the
President's Initiative seeks to do. In most cases, we are seeking a
temporary moratorium on new park unit designations or new studies on
potential designations, so that we can focus existing resources on
taking care of what we now own. In this case, however, we recognize the
potential significance of this site and would support an authorization
of a new study.
We would be pleased to work with the committee on further
consideration of this bill. This concludes my testimony. I would be
happy to answer any of your questions.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring on H.R. 452 follows:]
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. RING ON H.R. 452
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 452, to authorize the
establishment of a memorial to former President Ronald Reagan within
the area referred to in the Commemorative Works Act as Area I and to
provide for the design and construction of the memorial.
While the Department wholeheartedly supports recognizing former
President Ronald Reagan's significant contributions to the history of
the United States, we believe that it is important that the
establishment of a memorial follow the well-established process for
authorizing memorials that is contained in the Commemorative Works Act
of 1986. Following this process will provide the best opportunity for
soliciting public input and resolving any concerns regarding the
location or nature of the memorial. We therefore recommend that
Congress defer action on H.R. 452 until we have an opportunity to
examine options that are consistent with the Commemorative Works Act.
H.R. 452 would establish the Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission to
plan for a memorial to former President Reagan on the Mall, somewhere
between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial. The Commission, which
would consist of the Chairman of the National Capital Memorial
Commission, a member appointed by the Speaker of the House, and a
member appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate, would receive
assistance from the National Capital Memorial Commission and the
Secretary of the Interior, including staff from the Department who
would be detailed to the Commission.
The Commission would be required to recommend to Congress a
location and final design for the memorial no later than February 6,
2003. This panel would also be responsible for raising funds from the
private sector for the design, construction and maintenance of the
memorial. Three sections of the Commemorative Works Act would be waived
by this bill.
The Commemorative Works Act of 1986, which guides the process for
establishing monuments in the Nation's Capital, was enacted during the
Reagan Administration following what some characterized as monumental
chaos over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which was dedicated in 1982.
At that time, Congress was frustrated by the lack of guidelines for the
subject matter, siting, and design of memorials, and the lack of a
public process. Congress and the Department worked together to study
the process, delineate responsibilities and define procedures. Through
passage of the Commemorative Works Act, Congress established the
process that, today, ensures memorials in the Capital are erected on
the most appropriate sites in the Federal City and are of a caliber in
design that is worthy of their historically significant subjects.
The Commemorative Works Act envisions a two-step legislative
process for establishing a memorial in Area I: first, enactment of
legislation that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to plan for a
memorial without naming a specific site; and if, through that process,
the Secretary recommends siting the memorial in Area I, enactment of a
second piece of legislation that authorizes construction of the
memorial. The idea of the two-step process was to protect the Mall the
heart of the commemorative landscape of the Nation's Capital by
ensuring that a decision to construct a new memorial there would not be
made until the Executive branch had conducted an orderly, deliberate
process on siting and design. However, H.R. 452, the initial bill for
the Reagan memorial, would require this memorial to be sited on the
Mall. The Department supports the process established in the
Commemorative Works Act. We believe it is appropriate to apply a
similar process to the selection of a site for a Ronald Reagan memorial
and for design of the memorial.
Under the process established by the Commemorative Works Act, the
National Capital Planning Commission, as the planning entity for all
Federal projects in the Nation's Capital, and the Commission of Fine
Arts, as an advisor on public improvements, location, and execution of
public sculptures, play critical roles in the site selection and design
processes. We believe that the expertise offered and the approvals
required by those entities as well as the process for gaining approval
of the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of the General
Services Administration, as provided for in the Commemorative Works
Act, has resulted in one of the most beautiful cities in the world.
We also support the provisions of the Commemorative Works Act that
enable us to gain a historical perspective on memorial subjects before
a memorial is designed. The Act prohibits the authorization of a
memorial to an event, individual, or group before the 25th anniversary
of the event or the death of the individual or the death of the last
surviving member of the group. The premise behind the 25-year
stipulation is that succeeding generations can often provide a more
objective viewpoint when evaluating the most appropriate way to honor
people of historical significance or historical events. Notable among
the many bills introduced in Congress since the formulation of
standards set by the Commemorative Works Act were several to
memorialize Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The first such bill, introduced
in 1987, exempted this 25-year period, and the legislation lapsed.
Although successive measures were introduced for the next 8 years,
Congress intentionally withheld action on a memorial for Dr. King until
the 104th Congress, 25 years after the tragic occurrence of his death.
Former President Reagan is a man who follows the rules, and we believe
that he is better honored by following the processes set forth in the
Commemorative Works Act, which he signed into law as President.
In addition, the Commemorative Works Act provides the American
people with the opportunity to be involved in decisions about how
historical events and persons will be honored in the Nation's Capital
by providing for public involvement in the siting and design of the
memorials. H.R. 452 does not contain provisions for any such public
involvement in the Ronald Reagan memorial, and it specifically exempts
the three-member Commission from the public involvement processes
required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
By requiring a recommendation to Congress on siting and design of
the memorial by February 6, 2003, H.R. 452 also places a far more
difficult deadline on the Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission than under
the Commemorative Works Act, which provides 7 years to reach a decision
on siting and design of a memorial. The average amount of time for site
selection and design process for a major Capital memorial is 4-6 years
after authorizing legislation is enacted.
Moreover, we have been informed by the Department of Justice that
section 3(a)(2) of H.R. 452 raises certain constitutional concerns and
appears to be inconsistent with other provisions of the bill. At such
time when further consideration of the bill is appropriate, the
Administration will be pleased to provide language to remedy the bill's
constitutional defects.
In addition to our concerns that, under H.R. 452, the Ronald Reagan
memorial would not have the advantage of going through the well-
thought-out process established by the Commemorative Works Act, we also
are concerned about the requirement that the Ronald Reagan Memorial
Commission raise all of the necessary funds from private sector sources
to design, construct, and maintain the memorial. Other Presidential
memorials, such as the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, the Washington
Monument, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, have all been constructed and
maintained at least partly with Federal funds.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
[Responses to questions submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.032
Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Brody?
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN BRODY, MEMBER, COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Brody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Commission of Fine Arts has submitted its written
testimony. What I would like to do here is to highlight our
major areas of concern on H.R. 452 and then speak briefly about
several specific provisions of the legislation.
The Commission of Fine Arts is charged by Congress with the
responsibility to review and approve the site and design of
memorials proposed for the nation's capital and it is one of
our most serious responsibilities. In our work we are guided by
another act of Congress, the Commemorative Works Act enacted in
1986 precisely to establish a structure and process to govern
decisions about the siting and design of memorials. This Act
mandates not only that expertise in planning, design and
architecture is brought to bear but equally important, that
there is a full participation in deliberation.
The bill before you today, H.R. 452, contains three
exemptions to the Commemorative Works Act which are of great
concern to the Commission of Fine Arts. The bill mandates the
site location in Area 1, which is also known as the monumental
core. As you have heard, it is the area that is most sensitive
to the location of memorials. We share the concern of many
about the continuing pressure to erect memorials on the Mall.
The Commemorative Works Act, in fact, mandates a two-step
legislative process for any Area 1 memorial and allows an Area
1 location only if the subject is of preeminent historical and
lasting significance to the nation. This bill does not follow
the two-step legislative process.
The second exemption of concern to us relates to the
Commemorative Works Act provision that allows commemorative
work to be authorized only after the 25th anniversary of the
event or the death of the individual. This moratorium has
ensured that the passage of time confirms the lasting and
historical significance of the event or individual and it is
this provision in the face of an increasing number of memorial
requests that helps to ensure that the reason for the memorial
does stand the test of time.
The standard, as you have heard, was most recently put to a
test in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial when Congress,
after several entreaties in various Congresses, held to the
25th anniversary.
The third exemption in H.R. 452 of concern to us relates to
process. Congress has put into place through the Commemorative
Works Act a process for approving the site and design of
memorials. The Commission of Fine Arts, along with the National
Capital Planning Commission, play key roles in this approval
process. We are specifically required to approve the design and
the site. This is a process which has been thoughtfully laid
out by Congress and has proven a most effective way to guide
memorializations. H.R. 452 removes the Commission of Fine Arts
and NCPC from this approval process.
I would like to just quickly call your attention to several
specific provisions in the proposed legislation which have also
raised concerns with us. Section 4 establishes the Ronald
Reagan Memorial Commission to be comprised of only three
members. It charges them with enormous amounts of work--raising
funds and selecting a design--that even with a strong staff
would be especially onerous. The commission is required to
produce a report on the site and design selection by February
2003, which is an extremely abbreviated time frame, as we have
all seen, given our experience with other memorials, and
probably unlikely to be achieved.
And lastly, Section 4(a) goes on to exempt the commission
from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which means that it
would allow deliberations out of the public eye if the
commission so chooses. We have learned that in the end, open
sessions and full public participation are important to any
memorialization process and given President Reagan's
extraordinarily public appeal, it seems especially at odds to
exclude the public in this memorialization.
I would like to conclude finally by saying that Congress
has taken great care in giving life to the Commemorative Works
Act to guide the memorialization process. The Commission of
Fine Arts feels privileged to have the responsibility that
Congress has placed in us and it is our strongest
recommendation to restore to H.R. 452 the provisions of the
Commemorative Works Act and its participating agencies in this
worthy endeavor to honor President Reagan. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brody follows:]
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN BRODY, MEMBER, COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.026
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Ms. Brody.
Mr. Dishner?
STATEMENT OF JIMMY DISHNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS), THE PENTAGON, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Mr. Dishner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I start off by
saying congratulations to you on this Chairmanship.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
Mr. Dishner. It was an honor for the Air Force and for me
personally to testify many years before you in the House Armed
Services Committee and we look forward to working with you on
anything in the Resource, National Parks, Recreation and Public
Lands, Mr. Chairman.
As far as H.R. 107, the Air Force would defer to the
Administration's position as articulated by the Department of
Interior. I would like to share with you, however, some of the
things that the Air Force has done starting in late 1989, 1990,
1991 through the Legacy program, which was funded to begin to
look at those Cold War structures, events, memorializations of
things that mean so much to all of us, a majority of which have
been created from the Cold War for 11 years. Here we are
talking about history in the short period of 11 years, but we
should be and we should be looking at those things because, as
you and I worked on the other Committee, the maintenance of
those needs to be done on a timely basis; otherwise the
significance would lose their value quite rapidly.
We have done over 100, 103 I believe the number is, of what
we call Legacy studies, starting in 1991. These Legacy studies
looked at a variety of Cold War relics and Cold War buildings,
airfields, pave paws up in the dew line, Alice White. Those
terms I know are familiar to you, Mr. Chairman. And those
studies were completed, looked at. Some were discarded as not
being of significance, of not actually adding to the story that
we think America would want to have told to our great-
grandchildren and their great-grandchildren as to what was this
period of time that our nation went through.
The Air Force has currently 12 national historical
landmarks already. Some, and I will just mention a few of
them--Huffman Field, which is that dirt strip out at Wright
Patterson, very, very significant in the Cold War, to Hickham
in Hawaii, to Hanger 9 at Brooks Air Force Base, which is a
wonderful facility. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, which is
obviously being used even as we speak today. And Wheeler Field
over in Hawaii.
One of the other ones that we looked at that may be closer
to you, Mr. Chairman, is we also looked at the Cheyenne
Mountain Air Force Station in Colorado, a very significant
structure. It is still in use today. It is not a Cold War
relic; it is a Cold War-constructed facility, 1961 if you
recall, and was done with great speed and great expertise and
engineering expertise. We have looked at that and have done the
first step in determination of eligibility of that building for
the National Register of Historic Places, as it should be. It
is the only one that we know of in America and we think if
another nation has one of those that we do not know about, we
still think that Cheyenne probably has a leg up on it because
of the capability.
Of late, one of the things that we have done in trying to
add to those Cold War legacies and how we could designate
facilities to be honored as such, just in the past 30 days we
have transferred $5 million that was appropriated by the Air
Force to the Department of Interior for the maintenance of the
DO-9 and DO-9 launch control facilities near Ellsworth, the
missile launch facilities. Very significant. Those are not all
needed now but at least one of those should be kept for
historical purposes and I think it is well that we do one of
those.
There are a number of studies that we have done, Mr.
Chairman, some of which I think you are familiar with, or
members of the Committee are familiar with. Coming in from the
Cold, Military Heritage in the Cold War--this was done back in
1991, a good start on looking at things like that, a study that
the Air Force, by the way, helped do this but it was a
Department of Defense effort. And the Air Force is now doing
Cold War Assessments, a Legacy project, and that is September
2000, still under draft. And I just show you these that the Air
Force, again as I mentioned earlier, did not want too much
water to flow under the bridge before we started capturing some
of these facilities and the need that maybe one of those as
illustrative of all of them should be designated for Cold War.
And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, other than the comment I
made on H.R. 107, I notice in the Committee set-up of that,
that I would think, since although the Secretary of the Air
Force has mentioned would be conferred with, that it would be
to the benefit, I think, if, in fact, the Committee is
established, to have someone that knows the military history--
it could be a retired military person or something of that
nature--I think it would add to that to have that connectivity
and the symbiotic relationship with the Department of Defense.
And again, sir, it is our pleasure to be here today and I
stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dishner follows:]
STATEMENT OF MR. JIMMY G. DISHNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS)
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Air Force's perspectives on house bill (H.R.) 107, introduced by
Congressman Hefley, concerning the proposal for the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a study to identify sites and resources, to
recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the Cold War,
and for other purposes.
For the purposes of my testimony today we have used the years 1946
to 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down as the Cold War period. During
the period of 1946 to 1989 the Air Force constructed approximately
145,000 facilities at our active, guard, and reserve installations
worldwide. The Cold War has only recently been recognized in a historic
context. Indeed, current architectural references do not list Cold War
along with such styles as classic revival, Jeffersonian, and the
Chicago School. As a licensed professional engineer with some forty
years of service to the Air Force helping to build many of these
facilities, I can tell you that some are truly engineering marvels such
as Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, Colorado, where construction
began in 1961. However, not all Cold War associated facilities were key
to the Air Force mission during the Cold War nor are of historic
significance. Therefore, the Air Force feels that there should be care
in evaluating for eligibility properties of the Cold War era. Some
facilities, such as early warning defense radar systems, air defense,
and strategic missile facilities, truly were mission essential.
Numerous examples of many of these facilities can be found at
installations throughout the United States and are also documented in
specific state or service efforts. For example, in 1988 the Air Force
completed a study of the White Alice Communications System. When the
former Alaskan Air Command scheduled the White Alice sites for
demolition, the Air Force determined that they might be eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Consequently, the
Air Force and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer signed an
agreement to produce a historic overview of the system, an inventory of
the 19 White Alice sites, a statement of significance of the system, a
map locating the sites and a biography of non-classified material
relating to the system. Most sites were demolished after this
documentation was complete.
As many members of this committee are aware, many military
facilities are constructed using standardized designs and can be found
on our installations worldwide. The Air Defense Command (ADC) mission
was carried out at approximately fifty installations in the United
States and Canada. An excellent example of this is the ADC's Semi-
Automated Ground Environment (SAGE) building at the former K.I. Sawyer
Air Force Base in Michigan. There is no evidence that the ADC activity
at this SAGE facility contributed more to the Cold War effort than
those activities performed at many other SAGE facilities throughout the
country.
Application of the criteria of eligibility and consideration, as
specified in the National Historic Preservation Act, without more
detailed guidance from the National Park Service often results in
inconsistent determinations of eligibility among State Historic
Preservation Officers and disagreement by the Air Force with the
determination. Additionally, there is a lack of an overall cohesive
synthesis of all of the many studies that have been completed at the
installation and major command levels within each service and among the
various military services. The tension between what constitutes
exceptional importance for properties less than 50 years old, including
Cold War properties and those properties that may be of interest at the
state and local level have proven problematic, and at times,
conflicting. Studies such as the 1994 Coming in From the Cold--Report
of Military Heritage in the Cold War were completed through the DOD's
Legacy Resource Management Program, an effort established by congress
in November 1990 under Public Law 101-511 to help conserve natural and
cultural resources on DOD lands. The Air Force has in the past and
continues to use Legacy Funding to address Cold War studies at our
installations. Our major commands report that most of these studies are
either underway or complete. We have also done specific focus studies
such as the Searching the Sky Project, an excellent historic overview
of the development of US Air Force Cold War defensive radar systems.
However, issues such as classification of materials, proprietary
information on systems still owned by the weapons manufacturers, and
treaty compliance mandates regarding static displays also make proper
Cold War determinations for significance difficult.
In our efforts to assess and catalogue our Cold War facilities we
have found that different standards in the evaluation process may lead
to some properties being incorrectly determined as eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places. Our view is that there are
many methods of protecting resources. These include preparing
comprehensive and oral histories, non- textual literary property such
as maps, educational websites, videos, brochures, books, the
preparation of Historic American Engineering Records and Historic
American Building Records for proper recordation of facilities deemed
significant to the Cold War mission.
The Air Force defers to the Department of the Interior for the
Administrations position on H.R. 107, but recommends that, at such time
when further consideration of the bill is more appropriate, this
Committee consider adding a member to the Cold War Advisory Committee
who is specifically trained in military history. We also recommend that
the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the State
Historic Preservation Officers work with the military services to come
to establish standards of eligibility for Cold War era facilities, and
recommend how many of each type of facility should be retained. In
other words, we recommend that not every base be required to maintain a
missile or bomber alert facility if others exist elsewhere. The focus
should be on operational missions and equipment of unmistakable
national importance and that has a direct, not merely temporal, Cold
War relationship.
As I stated earlier in my testimony we constructed approximately
145,000 facilities during the Cold War. A potential determination of
eligibility of even 10% of these facilities for Cold War significance
would substantially increase our management and oversight
responsibilities. Further, we recommend the Department of the Interior
and the National Park Service work with the some 400 aerospace museums
across the country. Many of these museums have Cold War era pictures,
maps, artifacts, and aircraft such as Inert Atlas, Titan I & Titan II
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, B-36, B-47 and early model B-52
aircraft. Many of you may also be aware that the Air Force museum
located on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio, the oldest and the
largest aviation museum in the world, is building a 32 million-dollar
addition called the Cold War gallery to provide subject matter coverage
of this important period in the history of our nation and the Air
Force. This project will be built with private donations and not with
military construction funds. We have also recently been in discussion
with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to garner their input
into public and private partnerships for historic properties including
those that are determined to be of exceptional importance to the Cold
War. Many of you may also be aware that the Smithsonian Air Museum
Annex near Dulles Airport will also display many aircraft, space, and
Cold War era artifacts.
We appreciate the tremendous support Congressman Hefley provides
the Air Force, and look forward to working with members this Committee,
and the leadership of the Department of the Interior.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I stand ready
to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Jimmy. The Air Force, I think, has
an excellent running start on what we want to do. We do not
want to overlook and lose this part of our history.
I am not going to ask all the questions that I had for this
panel because I want us to get to the next panel and finish up
before I think we are going to have a series of votes but I do
not want to discourage anyone from asking questions. We may
submit questions to you to be returned to us in writing.
Questions?
Mr. Souder. Mr. Ring, it is good to see you here and talk
to you. The position in each of your statements is that
basically we need to take care of the backlog first. We all
know we are in transition in the new Administration.
Do you sense in the preparation of today's testimony that
that is going to be a hard and fast position or is this kind of
an initial position as we start into the new Administration?
Mr. Ring. Sir, I think it is an initial position. There are
a number of new people coming into the Administration and they
are trying to get their hands around a wide range of topics and
they are still very few. So I think they are trying to
understand the nature and the relationship of these studies and
these efforts in the context of what is a very important
initiative for them, which is to deal with the backlog of the
National Park System. So I think it is an initial position.
Mr. Souder. Because there is going to be a great deal of
sympathy on our side to slowing down the process but not
necessarily stopping the process and trying to figure out how
we are going to do at least studies and advisory-type positions
and I encourage you to take that message back, that a complete
stoppage probably is not going to work; there needs to be some
sort of an accommodation as to the processes we are going to go
through, although I think that the Subcommittee Chairman and
most people on our side of the aisle certainly feel a slower
pace is a minimal goal. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Rahall?
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend all of you on your testimony and thank
you for your service to our country and your service in
protecting our historical heritage and your dedication to the
good stewardship of our public lands and monuments.
Just to follow up on the question just asked though, your
testimony for the National Park Service was approved by
Secretary Norton before being here today; is that correct?
Mr. Ring. The testimony that I presented today was approved
by the Department of Interior and the Office of Management and
Budget.
Mr. Rahall. And by the Secretary of Interior, Miss Norton,
who is not going anywhere anytime soon, is she?
Mr. Ring. No.
Mr. Rahall. So you have said it is the initial position but
I do appreciate the concerns that you have expressed,
especially with the implementation of the current statute on
the books and your desire to see that the historical
perspective be maintained before establishing monuments just
here and there on the Mall. So I do appreciate that, and the
concerns you have expressed in opposition to H.R. 452.
Mr. Ring. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Any other questions? Yes.
Ms. Solis. I have one question, if I might. I appreciate
the testimony that was given, also, and I would ask that if you
could provide the Committee with information regarding the
current monuments that are there in place in that area
regarding the proposed H.R. 452 and we could kind of get a
better assessment of what is actually there in that particular
area. And I appreciate the fact that you are going to take an
initial review and move a little slower on this.
I, too, have some concerns regarding breaking the mold, so
to speak, and moving fast and not honoring what has been done
traditionally. I cannot think of any other monument that has
been put in place within a span of 25 years or less and I would
ask you that question, if there has been any.
Mr. Ring. We would be pleased to submit that for the
record.
[The list of memorials in Area 1 submitted for the record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.034
Ms. Solis. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Well, thank you very much. It was excellent
testimony and certainly I think the Committee is sympathetic
with the idea of taking care of the backlog and we will work
with you on that and see if we cannot do that. At the same time
we do need to establish some kind of a priority for things that
once the backlog is taken care of, that we can begin to move on
so maybe you can work with us on that, as well.
Mr. Ring. We would be pleased to do so, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hefley. We will go to our third panel: Mr. Grover
Norquist, Chairman, Ronald Reagan Legacy Foundation; Mr. Norm
Wymbs, Chairman, Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation; Mr.
Francis Gary Powers, Jr., Founder, Cold War Museum, Fairfax,
Virginia; and Dr. Bruce Craig, Director, National Coordinating
Committee for the Promotion of History, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Wymbs, did you come here from Florida to testify?
Mr. Wymbs. No, Mr. Chairman. We came from Dixon, which is
almost as tough.
Mr. Hefley. Came from where?
Mr. Wymbs. From Dixon.
Mr. Hefley. Dixon, Illinois? Well, I am going to call on
you first because in case we do get interrupted, these that are
local, we could probably entice to come back again but you have
come quite a distance so I want to, if I might, I will call on
you first.
STATEMENT OF NORM WYMBS, CHAIRMAN, RONALD REAGAN BOYHOOD HOME
FOUNDATION, DEL RAY, FL
Mr. Wymbs. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I submitted a
report which I presume you all have, the so-called initial
remarks. I do not want to particularly elaborate on those. I
was trying very much to impress you folks with the volunteer
work that has been done in this community to preserve Ronald
Reagan's boyhood home.
And just as a matter off the track--maybe I am a little bit
out of order here but the prior testimony from the Department
of Interior made reference to something that concerned us at
the Reagan Foundation apparently as much as it has concerned
them so I think we are both on the same track.
We have been in somewhat informal discussions with Mr.
Hastert and others concerning this for over two years. It is
not something that has just been suddenly brought forth. But
during that time the foundation itself and those of us who are
active in it expressed a great deal of concern about whether or
not the Department of Interior would maintain or whichever
department of the Federal Government took over the home would
maintain it as well as we have maintained it.
Now I note that their concern is that they might be picking
up a pig in a poke because it might require a great deal of
maintenance that they would not have the funds for. I can
assure them that they will find the maintenance of this project
far in excess of many of the historic sites that we have seen
that do come under the Federal jurisdiction. So our greatest
concern was that they start out and that they maintain a very
strong interest in keeping this property in the condition that
we have kept it in up to this point.
Just as another point since one of your members raised a
question earlier or did not raise a question but was quoting
unfortunately from some news reports and news reports are not--
excuse me, folks--not too accurate, there is no jelly bean
portrait in this complex. The Federal Government will not be
buying a bunch of Jelly Bellies. There was a Jelly Belly
portrait made by the Goetz Candy Company. Mr. Kelly has been a
strong supporter of many of the things we are doing.
That portrait has been placed in the Dixon Historic Center,
which is another project of the Reagan Home Foundation
considerably larger than the home itself and it will have
memorials to many distinguished citizens of Dixon. It is
dedicated to Ronald Reagan because that is where he attended
the sixth and seventh grades and his brother attended there, as
well. We will restore the classrooms and the other things there
for another memorial to Ronald Reagan, which is only three
blocks away from the home complex but we have put the Jelly
Belly portrait in there, which will be part of the Reagan
Historic Museum part of this entire set-up.
All we wanted to do in expressing this is that concern that
this be memorialized to Ronald Reagan. When some local citizens
in the community decided to purchase this property right after
the President was nominated for his first term by the
Republican Party, they thought that this home should be saved
and checked with the President after his election to find out
whether he would consider helping out.
His immediate reaction, which was the same as the reaction
from Neil Reagan, his older brother, was that they considered
this particular house as their home in Dixon. And you have to
know a little bit about Ronald Reagan's history prior to the
time the family moved there in 1920. When they moved there in
1920 Jack Reagan for the first time in his life had his own
business. He had found an angel that helped support him, a man
that he had been working for some time, who put up the
financing to build his own store. He opened a shoe store there.
Dixon became then a permanent residence for the Reagan family.
Up to that point Ronald Reagan in his years in school and
years in the family had never spent as much as one whole year
in any single town in Illinois. The family moved quite
frequently. When they got to Dixon and he was 10 years old at
the time, that became the permanent home. That became his home
from then on. This house was the first one they lived in and
the one they had the strongest memories of.
Now Ronald Reagan and Neil Reagan both during the time we
did this, during his two terms, spent a great deal of time with
us, our historian, our architects, making sure that what we
restored and turned into a memorial to his early life was
exactly the way they recalled it. And it is absolutely
historically the way it was when the Reagans lived there.
It is quite a complex now. It covers approximately three-
quarters of a square city block. We bought the home next door
which the President used to refer to as ``Those are the rich
folks next door.'' It is a house about twice the size of the
Reagan home. We have turned that into a reception center and
the office for the Reagan Foundation, as well. We had to build
public facilities, of course, to take care of the normal
requirements of public visitors. We bought a number of
buildings around it. We razed one next door to the Reagan home
to create a mini-park. This was where Ronald and Neil and their
friends used to play football in the off-hours after school. It
was a vacant lot then. We turned it back into a vacant lot but
since that time we have placed a bronze statue of Ronald Reagan
in the center and turned it into a mini-park.
We also had to purchase a number of lots adjoining this
property so we would have public parking. So it is a completely
self-contained unit. It is not just the home; it is a complete
complex and all of these buildings date back to the turn of the
last century and just before. We figure that the Reagan home
was built about 1890 or thereabouts. We have no accurate
records on it.
We are pretty accurate though in that this building, plus
the adjoining building, were what we used to refer to as mail
order homes. In those days when you wanted to build a home of
your own and you wanted to get it designed properly you bought
it from mail order houses. Sears Roebuck used to be the largest
provider of single family homes in the United States. These
were mail order homes. They were made entirely of hardwood.
They last forever. You cannot knock them down. The entire house
is oak and other hardwoods. The homes were cut to size, the
pieces were cut to size before the buyer got them. The order
started out by telling them to get a shovel and start digging
the basement and they went from there on. At the end they sent
them a catalogue and said, ``Here's the kind of furniture you
should put in.''
There are literally hundreds of thousands of these homes
throughout the country today and this section that Ronald
Reagan's home is in is a beautiful memorial in itself to that
early turn of the century. The entire neighborhood has become a
memorial to the turn of the century because the citizens of
Dixon are so wrapped up and so in love with Ronald Reagan and
his family and his history that they themselves, at their own
expenses, have been restoring their own homes to where this is
a truly historic landmark in itself and it is about one-quarter
of the city of Dixon, Illinois.
So I would assure you folks on the panel, plus the Interior
people, you are not going to be getting a pig in a poke here if
they go ahead with this. They are going to get a high quality
memorial and the one that Ronald Reagan declared was his home.
And, just as an aside, Ronald Reagan at one point expressed an
interest in having his museum and library in Dixon but the
prevailing money folks in California convinced him otherwise.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wymbs follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.023
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. That is excellent
testimony.
Just very briefly, you all have done an excellent job with
this from everything I can learn. This is not in any danger of
having a Walmart built on it or it being destroyed in some way
if we took the time to go through the normal vetting process
through the Park Service, is it?
Mr. Wymbs. No, there is no problem of it going away as long
as those of us who are presently on the board, and we consider
ourselves Dixonites, as well, because the city declared us
honorary citizens when we got into this. But the board is, as a
matter of policy, only Dixon residents. All the work of viewing
and showing of the home is done by volunteers, as I pointed out
in the opening letter.
We maintain it and we make sure that it is maintained. We
do not let even a loose board on the porch go unattended
because we are very hard-nosed about that sort of thing.
Our biggest concern is that there are a few of us that are
getting a little bit older and we can never be too sure with a
private foundation who might be coming later that might have
different ideas on it. So we wanted to make sure that it was
put in a place where you folks have a longer life span than we
have and therefore it would be maintained for a longer period
of time than we could. But as far as it deteriorating, you have
no fear about that.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Norquist?
STATEMENT OF GROVER NORQUIST, CHAIRMAN, RONALD REAGAN LEGACY
FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Norquist. Thank you very much. I serve as Chairman of
the Ronald Reagan Legacy project and our goal is to honor
Reagan's legacy and his place in history specifically by naming
things and building things in his honor in the United States.
Our goal is to get something significant in each of the 50
states and something in each of the 3,067 counties in the
United States. We were very active working with members of the
House and Senate on the effort to name Reagan National Airport
and I point out that the next major project will be in honor
also of Senator Coverdell and his legislation to put Reagan on
the $10 bill. We will be continuing Senator Coverdell's efforts
in that direction.
I am delighted that there is a consensus in the United
States that we should do something to honor President Reagan
and the greatness of his presidency. Questions have been raised
about should you build a memorial for a man or begin to build a
memorial for a man who is still alive? And what about the
traditional 25-year waiting period for parts of the Mall? And I
think it is very important to address both of those questions.
As Congressman Hansen said, the difference with the case of
President Reagan is given the nature of the disease he has, his
public life is over. It is not as if he is going to do or say
something that would change history's view of his role in
history and therefore I think the question of doing something,
naming things after him while he is still alive is not the
question that it would be for a President who is wandering
around doing and saying things that might change your view of
what they had accomplished or who they were as people.
The question of waiting 25 years I think is a very
important statement that we want to be very clear, that if we
are going to put a memorial on the Mall that we do not do it
hurriedly, and that is why I think we should have a very high
test, a very strict test of who we honor and what we do and I
would answer that Ronald Reagan meets that test. I think that
in the 10 years since the end of the Cold War we have seen the
greatness of his decision to embark and lead the United States
in a policy of peace through strength. I think the people of
Poland and East Germany would be very clear that they
appreciate his leadership on that.
This is unlikely to change. People talk about waiting a
while. We are not going to want to go back to high taxes. We
are not going to want to go back to inflation. People of East
Germany are not going to want to go back to being under the
Soviet empire and the peoples of the former Soviet empire do
not want a Soviet empire returned, either.
So on each of those questions, and it is important also to
think back to when Reagan came here--the double-digit
inflation, the collapsing economy, the Soviet Union on the
march in every continent in the world, the United States in
self-doubt--and Reagan was a Churchillian figure in that he
stood up against the traditional establishment view of what was
happening and he said, ``Guys, you have it wrong,'' just as
Churchill did. And history has made it very clear that
Churchill was right about the nature of National Socialism in
Germany and history has shown that Ronald Reagan was right
about the nature of the Soviet Union and the Socialist
government there.
So he not only turned the country around and brought us
through to victory but he did so under the criticism of some of
the people who thought of themselves as the best and the
brightest around, who have been wrong about history and we now
know were wrong about what was going on.
If you look at the last 20 years we see it as the extension
of what Reagan brought into this town. We are now talking about
reforming Social Security, about building the strategic defense
initiative, about continuing to reduce taxes, about continuing
to follow the policy of peace through strength. I think history
has shown that Ronald Reagan's greatness continues. I think the
tribute to him on the Mall is very appropriate and I look
forward to working with you to that end.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norquist follows:]
STATEMENT OF GROVER G. NORQUIST, CHAIRMAN, RONALD REAGAN LEGACY
PROJECT, CONCERNING H.R. 452
MR. Chairman, and members of the committee and invited guests, my
name is Grover Norquist and I am Chairman of the Ronald Reagan Legacy
Project. The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project was formed in 1997 and is the
most influential organization aimed at promoting the legacy of the 40th
President. I am here this morning to testify in favor of H.R. 452, the
Ronald Reagan Memorial Act of 2001.
The Act specifies that a committee be established to choose a
location on the National Mall for a memorial to Ronald Reagan. He
deserves this memorial on America's Mall because he represented
America.
Reagan's upbringing represents a wide cross-section of American
culture. He was a man born in a small Midwest town of humble background
and later moved to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career. Aside from
being President of the United States he also served as an entertainer,
Union leader, corporate spokesman, Governor of California.
When Congress places a memorial on the National Mall in honor of
Reagan it will recognize the will of the people who elected him
overwhelmingly twice to the Presidency. In 1984, he earned the
confidence of 3/5 of the electorate and was victorious in 49 of the 50
states in the general election a record unsurpassed in the history of
American Presidential elections We can all be proud of Reagan's legacy.
He worked in a bipartisan manner to enact his bold agenda of restoring
accountability and common sense to Government which led to
unprecedented economic expansion and opportunity for millions of
Americans. Mr. Reagan's commitment to an active social policy agenda
for the Nation's children helped lower crime and drug use in our
neighborhoods.
In addition to major domestic accomplishments Reagan authorized
several National Security Decision Directives (NSDD) that helped end a
truly evil empire. Too often Reagan is not given credit for his success
in actively working toward the fall of the Soviet Union. Allow me to
explain a few of them here.
NSDD 32 had the objective of supporting movement working to throw
off communist rule and intensified Radio Free Europe and Voice of
America as well as reducing Eastern Europe's reliance on the USSR.
NSDD 66 set policies aimed at: getting European allies to stop
extending credit at better than market rates, blocking Soviet access to
the high technologies of Western countries, and developing alternatives
to Europe becoming dependent on the Soviet Union for natural gas.
NSDD 75 declared a policy of exacerbating Soviet economic problems
by working to decrease its export revenues and forcing it to increase
spending. In fact, we later learned that Gorbachev increased military
spending to 45 percent of GDP on an economy that was already
floundering.
NSDD 78 stated that the US would not accept the existing Soviet
sphere of influence, but would work to roll it back, restricting
technologies that might help its economy and exploiting its
vulnerabilities.
All of these actions reversed Soviet expansion into countries such
as Afghanistan, Angola and Mozambique and encouraged freedom
publications in Poland and encouraged strikes in Poland which spread
even into Siberia.
The National Security information concerning the fall of the Soviet
Union was discussed in detail in the book Victory: The Reagan
Administration's Secret Strategy that hastened the collapse of the
Soviet Union by Peter Schweizer (1994: Atlantic Monthly Press).
Schweizer interviewed dozens of top-ranking Reagan White House and
National Security officials for his book and concluded that Reagan's
actions weren't luck but skillful policy which resulted in the end of
Soviet Communism thus guaranteeing basic human rights for millions of
persecuted people.
Recognizing Reagan with this memorial will also pay tribute to our
armed forces. His commitment to our armed forces contributed to the
restoration of pride in America, her values and those cherished by the
free world, and prepared America to win the Gulf War.
So, when Congress passes this bill it will recognize Reagan's
achievements of domestic prosperity and promoting international peace.
Having outlined briefly his legacy, it is clear that it needs to be
preserved because we can all be proud of his accomplishments.
It is our goal at the Reagan Legacy Project to preserve his legacy
by encouraging Governors, state legislators and the general public to
become involved in the process of naming at least one significant
landmark or institution after Reagan in all 50 states and 3067 counties
as well as in former communist countries.
Currently there are 45 dedications; 42 in the United States and 3
internationally.
We have most recently completed a campaign to have Governors and
State Legislatures honor Reagan on his birthday. The campaign ended
with 12 Governors and 28 State legislatures honoring the former
President.
Nationally, we have also begun work on placing Ronald Reagan's
portrait on the ten-dollar bill. In the states we have a variety
projects such as in South Carolina where Reagan's portrait will be hung
in the State House chamber and in South Dakota where the highway that
leads to Mt. Rushmore will soon bear the name of the Gipper.
Clearly, America loved Ronald Reagan and the Congress should
recognize the will of the people by passing this bill.
I thank the Chairman for recognizing me and I yield the floor to
any questions.
The following is a list of current dedications in honor of President
Reagan
INTERNATIONAL
Grenada
LGrenada Salutes Ronald Reagan, Leader of Freedom
(commemorative stamp collection), Grenada [1996]. Proceeds from sales
go to the Ronald Reagan Scholarship Fund
LRonald Reagan Scholarship Fund, Grenada [1996]. The fund
is used to send students from Grenada to the United States for study
Marshall Islands
LRonald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site,
Kwajalein Atoll [October, 2000]
IN THE UNITED STATES
Arizona
LRonald Reagan Fundamental School [1984], 3200 West 16th
St., Yuma, AZ 85364
California
LReagan Center, Los Angeles, CA
LReagan Ranch Leadership Program [1998]. 812-B Anacapa
Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. Affiliated with the Young America's
Foundation, current owners of Rancho del Cielo (formerly the Reagan's'
ranch) near Santa Barbara
LRonald Reagan Federal Courthouse--[February 1999]. 411
West 4th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701----
LRonald Reagan Freeway, CA [December 7, 1994]. State Route
118 runs close to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Formerly
named the Simi Valley-San Fernando Valley Freeway
LRonald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum [1991], 40
Presidential Drive Simi Valley, CA 93065
LRonald Reagan Professor, School of Public Policy
(Pepperdine University), Malibu, CA [1999]
LRonald Reagan Elementary School [1998, 10800 Rosslyn Lane
Bakersfield, CA 93311
LRonald Reagan California Republican Center [renamed in
1996], 1903 S. Magnolia Blvd., Burbank, CA. 91506. Headquarters of the
California State Republican Party. Its former name was simply
``California Republican Party Headquarters''
LRonald Reagan State Office Building,--[1990], 300 South
Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013.
LRonald Reagan Suite, [1999], Century Plaza Hotel, 2025
Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067. This suite, which occupies
the entire 30th floor of the hotel, was often used by Ronald Reagan
when he visited Los Angeles during his Presidency. Was formerly called
the Plaza Suite
LRonald Reagan UCLA Medical Center [to open in 2004]
LRonald W. Reagan Educational Center, Fresno, CA
District of Columbia
LRonald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
[named in 1995, dedicated May 5, 1998], 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20004
LRonald Reagan Chair in Public Policy (Heritage
Foundation), Washington, D.C.
LRonald Wilson Reagan Communications Center (National
Republican Congressional Committee), Washington, D.C.
LRonald Reagan Institute of Emergency Medicine [1991],
George Washington University Hospital, Washington, D.C. 20037. Located
at the hospital where Ronald Reagan was taken immediately after the
march 30, 1981 assassination attempt. Dedicated by Reagan at the tenth
anniversary of the assassination attempt.,
LRonald Wilson Reagan Republican Center National
Republican Senatorial Committee 425 Second Street, NE, Washington, D.C.
20002-4914
Florida
LRonald Reagan Avenue, Miami, FL. Formerly named Southwest
Avenue,
LRonald Reagan Turnpike, FL [1998]. 1Formerly named
Florida's Turnpike.--Runs 312 miles, from north-central Florida to
south of Miami
LRonald W. Reagan Post Office Building, 2305 Minton Road,
West Melbourne, Florida [October 27, 2000]
Georgia
LRonald Reagan Drive, Columbia County, Augusta, GA
[December 1, 2000]
LRonald Reagan Parkway, Gwinett County Lawrenceville, GA
Illinois
LReagan Physical Education Center [1970], Eureka College
300 E. College Avenue Eureka, IL 61530 Originally dedicated in 1961 as
``The Reagan Center,'' in honor of both Ronald Reagan and his brother
Neil.--Constructed to house all of Eureka College's athletic
facilities.--Acquired its present name in 1970.
LReagan Drive, Eureka, IL [1979], Runs along the southern
edge of Eureka College, Reagan's alma mater
LRonald W. Reagan Exhibit [1994], Eureka College Eureka,
IL. 61520----, A permanent exhibit covering Ronald Reagan's entire life
LRonald W. Reagan Leadership Program Eureka College
Eureka, IL. 61530 Established in 1982; began with students in the Fall
of 1983.
LRonald & Nancy Reagan Research Center (Alzheimer's
Association) [1995], 919 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611
LRonald Reagan Birthplace [1980], 111 S, Main Street
Tampico, IL. 61283. Locally operated, includes a museum and a gift
shop, which are located next door to the building in which Reagan was
born
LReagan Park [1985], Tampico, IL. Formerly Railroad Park
LRonald Reagan Boyhood Home [1984], 816 S. Hennepin Ave.,
Dixon, IL. 61202 Ronald Reagan lived in this house during part of his
teenage years (1924-1928).--It is now locally operated as a Museum.
LRonald Reagan Bridge, Dixon, IL
LRonald Reagan Highway U.S. Highway 14; runs from Chicago
north to the Wisconsin State line.
LRonald W. Reagan Middle School [1996], 620 Division
Street Dixon, IL. 61021 Formerly named Madison School
Iowa
LRonald Reagan Historical Marker, Des Moines, IA [November
9, 1999]
Mississippi
LThe Reagan Hope Home Located on a ranch that is part of
the Mississippi Sheriffs Boys and Girls Ranches
New York
LRonald Reagan Boulevard, Warwick, NY
Ohio
LRonald Reagan Highway Cincinnati, OH, Runs across the
northern suburbs of Cincinnati.
Oklahoma
LStatue at the National Cowboy Hall of Fame, Oklahoma
City, OK
Texas
LReagan Leadership Society [1997], 389 MSC Student Finance
Center Texas A&M University College Station, TX. 77843. A society
dedicated to building student leadership for the Texas A&M campus and
the community at large. Its student founder named the society in
recognition of Reagan's ``ability to communicate, his ability to
inspire confidence, and his kind personality.''
Virginia
LRonald Reagan Washington National Airport, Arlington, VA.
[1998]. Formerly named Washington National Airport
LUSS Ronald Reagan nuclear aircraft carrier [to be
completed by 2002].
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Powers?
STATEMENT OF FRANCIS GARY POWERS, JR., FOUNDER, COLD WAR
MUSEUM, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA
Mr. Powers. My name is Francis Gary Powers, Jr. from
Fairfax, Virginia. I am the founder of the Cold War Museum. I
am pleased to have this special opportunity today to testify
before the Subcommittee. I would like to express my gratitude
to Congressman Hefley for inviting me here and for sponsoring a
bill so significant to our country.
This bill means much to me personally. As the son of a
famous Cold War figure, I grew up with the Cold War. The Cold
War Museum began for me as a way to honor my father but soon
took on a much greater life and purpose. I am working toward a
museum that will honor all the men and women who worked for
democracy and freedom during the Cold War.
The museum is not about reviving old hatreds. Rather, it is
about promoting lessons learned. It is about teaching democracy
in the pursuit of world peace. The Cold War Museum will
dedicate resources to commemorating those whose deeds and
sacrifices furthered democracy but the museum strives for an
international and objective understanding of the Cold War, one
of the most intense periods of conflict and most dangerous
years in human history.
The purposes of the Cold War Museum are to preserve the
artifacts important to that period, to interpret the Cold War
through research and information-gathering, and to serve as the
focal point for information and preservation activities related
to the Cold War era. The museum's distinguished board of
directors are experts in museum management, nonprofit
management, and various aspects of Cold War history. We also
have an advisory board which includes Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita
Khrushchev's son, Eisenhower aide Ambassador Vernon Walters,
and renowned photographic interpreter Dino Brugioni.
Recently the Cold War Museum developed a list of important
Cold War sites, which is the focal point of your bill, with the
eventual goal of recognizing a Cold War site in every state. I
have included this list in our collateral material.
The museum does not have a permanent home but we do sponsor
traveling exhibits that have been on display throughout the
United States, including at the CIA in Virginia and
internationally in Germany, Norway and Russia.
America has honored men and women from many wars who died
for freedom but whatever the reason, there has been almost no
recognition of the Cold War, an era that lasted almost 50
years, cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, changed
the course of history and left America the only superpower in
the world.
However, the Cold War is virtually unknown to the current
generation. This is a great disservice to those who gave their
lives during the Cold War.
James Billington, Librarian of Congress, said in a foreign
policy speech, ``The Cold War was the central conflict of the
second half of the 20th century, the longest and most
unconventional war of the entire modern era and an
unprecedented experience for Americans. We were faced for the
first time in our history with an opponent who was both
ideologically committed to overthrowing our system and was
equipped to destroy us physically.''
Journalist Charles Krauthammer in an op-ed piece in the
Washington Post entitled ``Build a Cold War Memorial'' had this
to say. ``The Cold War did not have the dramatic intensity of
World War II but it was just as real and just as dangerous.
Though often clandestine and subtle, it ranged worldwide, cost
many lives, evoked much heroism and lasted what seemed like
forever. Considering the stakes, the scope and the suffering,
this was a struggle that deserves commemoration.''
Although the Cold War periodically resurfaces in the news
as is evident by the Hanssen spy case, many people really do
not understand the background or the history. The Cold War
Museum's website testifies to the public's need for
information. Over the past 23 months 250,000 visitors have
visited our website at Coldwar.org. Those who have tested their
knowledge on our Cold War trivia and history quizzes help make
the case for passage of H.R. 107. Ten percent of the
respondents believe that John F. Kennedy was President of the
United States when the Soviet Union was dissolved. The need for
the passage of H.R. 107, the construction of a Cold War Museum
and related educational programs, is clear.
Charles Krauthammer went on to say about a proposed Cold
War Monument, ``It needn't be grandiose but it must have a
small museum for instruction. A gallery of heroes: Truman,
Marshall, Churchill, Reagan. A hall for the fallen: the secret
agents who died anonymously. A tribute to allies and
friends...and a gulag display so that our children will learn
the nature of evil.''
Congressman Hefley, we would like to suggest that the
Department of the Interior conduct a study to establish the
value of a permanent Cold War Museum and Memorial as the
central repository for Cold War artifacts and information. Our
plans include the following: display Cold War photos, art work
and artifacts, establish an endowed research chair at the Cold
War Museum, collect biographies on key Cold War figures, record
oral and written histories to capture the human side of the
conflict, create an inventory of key technologies that resulted
from the Cold War research and development, and finally,
develop a comprehensive inventory of significant Cold War sites
and resources that need to be preserved, such as military
bases, homes of key figures, laboratories, test sites and
historic places.
Congressman Hefley, we believe that it is vital to begin
now to preserve these historic resources. Sites are being lost
to developers and information gets lost every day.
I am proud to say that the Cold War Museum has recently
become an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. They have
agreed to conduct a feasibility study with us to determine what
artifacts from the national collection can be used in our
displays and exhibits. We have also received offers of support
from a variety of sources, including the Holocaust Museum,
Voice of America and the embassies of Hungary, Lithuania,
Latvia, Estonia and Slovakia.
In the coming weeks and months Congress will consider a
number of issues. H.R. 107 should certainly be included in this
agenda to preserve American history and significant Cold War
sites. We believe the interest and support of James Billington,
Charles Krauthammer, the Smithsonian Institution, the Voice of
America, the Holocaust Museum and various embassies and schools
are obvious proof that this bill and the Cold War Museum would
be of considerable value to our country.
Congressman Hefley, the directors of the Cold War Museum
and I would like to express our strongest possible support for
your bill. H.R. 107 will help educate future generations about
the Cold War, honor Cold War veterans and preserve Cold War
history. The mission and goals of the Cold War Museum further
the objectives of H.R. 107. We hope to continue to be involved
with helping you and the commission when it is established.
Please feel free to call upon us at any time. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powers follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1123.018
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Powers. You have obviously done
a lot of thinking and work on this and we appreciate your
knowledge.
Dr. Craig?
STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE CRAIG, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COORDINATING
COMMITTEE FOR THE PROMOTION OF HISTORY
Mr. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bruce Craig. I am
the Director of the National Coordinating Committee for the
Promotion of History, which is a consortium of 59 historical or
archival organizations. The NCC serves as the national advocacy
office for the historical and archival professions. My
education--I am a specialist in the Cold War and the history of
espionage. As of today I consider myself also an expert on
colds in general so please tolerate my husky voice.
I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee today in
support of H.R. 107, your legislation, Mr. Congressman, to
conduct a national landmark theme study to identify sites and
resources that are related to the Cold War. We support the
enactment of this legislation even as presently drafted.
However, I would like to present for your consideration a
couple of ideas that might actually strengthen the bill.
Certainly for much of the second half of the 20th century
the contest between two nuclear superpowers, the former Soviet
Union and the United States, has defined the character of
global and domestic politics. The threat of mass destruction
that carried with it the very real possibility of annihilation
of not only the citizens of both nations but nearly everyone
else on earth also left a permanent mark on American life and
politics.
In international politics, the contest between the
superpowers shaped American foreign policy worldwide. In the
realm of domestic politics, it was the culture of the Cold War
that completely transformed aspects of American life.
Clearly, there is a need to identify, to document and to
preserve sites and resources that illustrate Cold War history.
There already are some Cold War-related sites that are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. There are also
some sites that are established as national historic landmarks.
For example, the Westminster College Gymnasium in Fulton,
Missouri where Winston Churchill delivered his famous March
1946 "Iron Curtain" speech that has long held as a seminal
event and marks the beginnings of the Cold War, has been a
national landmark for some number of years.
However, the National Park System is woefully inadequate in
interpreting and preserving resources relating to the Cold War.
This theme study should serve as the catalyst for the creation
of a Cold War National Historical Park.
In terms of some specific suggestions for strengthening
this legislation, Section 1 of this section presently focuses
largely on sites associated with American military strategy and
technology. We believe that the legislation needs to be
broadened to include perhaps a more diverse collection of
sites, some of which Gary Powers has mentioned and some
specific recommendations are in my written testimony, as well.
Also, we believe that the study should take a look at sites
that are associated with the domestic war; for example, sites
associated with intelligence-gathering and I might note
espionage, as well, and certainly some associated personalities
with the Cold War.
So that the study does not degenerate into simply an
assessment of a motley collection of historic sites, some type
of framework for assessment seems to be necessary, as well. We
believe the theme study should concentrate on people, events
and sites that are associated with a number of Cold War
hallmarks, which are itemized in my testimony.
In terms of Section 3, the advisory committee, we certainly
believe that there is a necessity for some type of outside
review and assistance from the historical organizations and
institutions in crafting this theme study--but it need not be
an advisory committee. This Committee might want to consider
directing the Park Service to conduct a series of workshops
comprised of academic scholars, knowledgeable preservationists
and NPS professionals. The Park Service has certainly had
previous experience in conducting this type of information-
gathering workshops. The history of the National Park Service
themes and concepts, in essence, the overall theme study
framework that was adopted by the Park Service in 1994 followed
this type of framework, and, more recently, the painting and
sculpture theme study that was put together in 1991 also made
use of this model. We think that these workshops perhaps might
be a little bit better in terms of getting the advice that the
Park Service needs in terms of the establishment of a Cold War
National Park and the production of a Cold War theme study.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this legislation
with you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly welcome any questions that
you or the other members of the Subcommittee might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Craig follows:]
STATEMENT OF BRUCE CRAIG, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR
THE PROMOTION OF HISTORY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
I am Bruce Craig, Director of the National Coordinating Committee
for the Promotion of History (NCC), a national consortium of 59
historical and archival organizations. Since 1982, the NCC has served
as the national advocacy office for the historical and archival
professions. Specifically, we provide information services to Members
of Congress and other policymakers. The NCC also represents member
organizations on matters relating to Federal funding and
appropriations, policy, and legislation that have an impact on
historical and archival programs, research, and teaching.
I possess a Ph.D. in history (1999) from The American University,
Washington D.C. I am a cold war historian with a speciality in the
history of espionage. My dissertation, Treasonable Doubt: The Harry
Dexter White Case, 1948-1953'' traces the espionage activity of
Treasury Department officials during the early cold war period. I have
written and published extensively on the cold war for over fifteen
years. I am also the principal in the legal challenge, Craig v. USA
which served as the catalyst for the 1999 Federal court judgment that
resulted in the unsealing of the grand jury records relating to the
Alger Hiss case. This was the first time in American history that grand
jury records had been unsealed solely on the basis of their historical
interest and value.
I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee today in support of
H.R. 107--legislation introduced by Representative Joel Hefley to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a National Landmark
theme study to identify sites and resources relating to the cold war
and to recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the
cold war era. While the NCC fully supports the intent and objectives of
this legislation, and we support enactment of this legislation even as
presently drafted, I would like to present for the Subcommittee's
consideration, a few ideas that may strengthen the bill.
Mr. Chairman, for much of the second half of the twentieth century,
the contest between two nuclear superpowers--the former Soviet Union
and the United States--defined the character of global and domestic
politics. The threat of mass destruction that carried with it the very
real possibility of annihilation of not only the citizens of both
nations but nearly everyone else on earth, also left a permanent mark
on American life and politics. The cold war (as it was dubbed in 1947
by journalist Walter Lippman) created an atmosphere of ever-present
fear of thermonuclear war that nearly every American over the age of 30
can well remember.
In the realm of international politics, the contest between the two
superpowers shaped American foreign policy worldwide: for some
historians, the term preponderant power most accurately describes
America's foreign policy objective with respect to the Soviet Union and
its communist bloc allies. Preponderant power was achieved through
unprecedented expenditures on the military (creating what President
Eisenhower characterized as the military-industrial complex ) and
through the creation of mechanisms for international collective
security (NATO and NORAD are but two examples). Through these
institutions the United States sought to check the expanding power of
the Soviet Union.
In the realm of domestic politics, from the late 1940's through
1990 when what President Ronald Reagan characterized as the evil empire
collapsed, the culture of the cold war completely transformed aspects
of American life. For example, the excesses of the so-called McCarthy
Era played on the popular fear of communist subversion, which with
thanks to the relatively new invention of the television, found its way
into the middle-class American household, and permeated the American
psyche. Another example--the fallout from the Alger Hiss-Whittaker
Chambers controversy gave rise to the creation of an anti-communist
liberal tradition and gave new impetus to the modern conservative
movement. The cold war also provided momentum to the career of dozens
of political leaders (perhaps most notably Richard Nixon), many of whom
dominated the political scene for the next three decades.
Clearly there is a need to identify, document, and preserve sites
and resources that illustrate cold war history. I believe that the
historic events and associated locations of this time period will be
viewed by future generations of Americans as being every bit as
important to preserve as many Americans view Civil War sites today.
With the exception of the Civil War, no other war has shaped the
American character so subtly or so intricately as did the cold war.
This is because virtually every American was a front-line soldier in
the battle to defeat communism. Its fallout was unforgettable.
While there are some cold war related sites listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (for example, the Oak Ridge Historic
District in Tennessee) and there are a few National Historic Landmarks
that commemorate people and events related to cold war history, (for
example, the Westminster College Gymnasium in Fulton, Missouri where
Winston Churchill delivered his famous March 1946 Iron Curtain speech--
long heralded as the seminal event marking the beginning of the cold
war) for the most part, historic sites in our National Park System are
woefully inadequate in interpreting and preserving resources relating
to cold war history. At some already established sites, there are
specific locations and resources that could be more fully interpreted
to tell aspects of the cold war story--the Harry S. Truman National
Historical Site in Missouri and the Eisenhower National Historic Site
in Pennsylvania are but two examples. Still, there is no
representational national historical park focusing upon cold war
history. There ought to be. This theme study should serve as the
catalyst for the creation of cold war National Historical Park.
Here then, Mr. Chairman are some specific suggestions for
strengthening this legislation:
Section 1. COLD WAR STUDY
The thrust of this bill presently focuses upon sites associated
with American military strategy and technology. The legislation needs
to be broadened to include a more diverse collection of sites--both
sites associated with the military story of the cold war as well as the
social and non-military aspects of that war. To this end, let me
discuss each in order.
First, with respect to the military related resources, the
legislation should be more inclusive in focusing on diverse types of
resources. For example, in addition to the types of sites reflected in
the reports and inventory of sites mentioned in the legislation [see
page 2, items (1) and (2)], it should be noted that the National Park
Service maintains a master listing of National Register and National
Historic Landmarks sites that include cold war sites. Here one finds
listings of a Nike missile and other missile bases, ICBM launch
complexes, proving grounds, military and civilian operations/
communications centers, air defense centers, and at least one nuclear
reactor--all these sites should be examined in context with other
military-related cold war sites.
In addition, each State Historic Preservation Office maintains a
state inventory of historically significant sites (including sites of
local or regional, as well as national, significance). These sites
should be assessed in context with this study. Other resources--
including representative examples of historic ships (especially
submarines) and airplanes (the B-29 bomber, for example, for years
served as the principle short-range strategic strike weapon) also need
to be preserved and interpreted. To this end, we recommend either
legislative or report language be added directing the Secretary to
consult with other Federal agencies and state governments and
historical institutions in compiling a master inventory of cold war
sites and resources. This should not be a costly endeavor as much of
the work has already been completed; it need only be compiled into a
central data base.
Second, the legislation needs to be broadened to assess sites of a
non-military nature that contribute to telling the story of the cold
war from the perspective of government officials and civilians. To this
end, the assessment should include: Federal buildings such as the State
Department Building in Washington, D.C., sites associated with
intelligence gathering (i.e., the CIA, FBI and NSA headquarters) and
espionage (the home of Nathan Gregory Silvermaster who spearheaded the
largest communist intelligence gathering apparatus in Washington, D.C.
during World War II which centered out of a residence at 5515 30th
Street, is an ideal candidate for assessment), the headquarters of
fringe political movements such as the Communist Party USA and John
Birch Society; sites associated with cold war personalities, including
(but not limited to) Henry Luce, John McCloy, Allen and John Foster
Dulles, Lucius Clay, Dean Acheson, Douglas MacArthur, Paul Nitze,
Averell Harriman, Joseph McCarthy, George Kennan, George C. Marshall,
and Ronald Reagan. And certainly no cold war theme study could be
considered complete without assessing the merits of preserving the
bunker under the Greenbriar Hotel in West Virginia that was set aside
to provide refuge for high government officials in case of nuclear war,
as well as typical representative civilian defense bunkers. With
respect to the assessment of these sites (some of which may prove
controversial), it should be remembered that the purpose of the theme
study is to document where history happened, and not necessarily in
every case to commemorate or celebrate where history happened. Those
decisions are best left to others.
So that this study does not degenerate into an enormous assessment
of a motley collection of historic sites, some framework for assessment
needs to be created to give guidance to the NPS. The legislation should
provide that framework. To this end, at a minimum, we suggest the theme
study concentrate its assessment work on people, events and sites
associated with the following cold war hallmarks:
LBeginnings of the cold war
LMarshall Plan and the German Question (including sites
associated with the Berlin airlift)
LDevelopment of Nuclear Weapons
LStrategic Defense and Offense at Home and Abroad
LThe cold war on the Home Front
LDevelopment of the National Security State (including
Espionage sites)
LKorean and Vietnam War (the domino theory in practice)
LCuban Missile Crisis (including training and staging
sites associated with the Bay of Pigs invasion)
LEnd of the cold war (through the creation of the Russian
Republic and Commonwealth of Independent States)
Section 2. INTERPRETIVE HANDBOOK ON THE COLD WAR
We fully support the production of an interpretive handbook on the
cold war that focuses on historic sites and resources, people, and
events associated with the era. The cost associated with the production
of such an interpretive book, I understand, generally runs about
$100,000. Therefore, the dollar figure in Section 4 (AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS) may need to be revised upward.
Section 3. COLD WAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
We believe that there is a necessity for some type of outside
review and assistance from historical organizations and institutions in
crafting this theme study. Either some type of advisory committee along
the lines of the one established in Section 3 needs to be created, or
another suitable alternative should be Congressionally mandated.
Instead of creating an advisory committee, the Committee may want
to consider directing the National Park Service to conduct two
workshops comprised of academic scholars, knowledgeable
preservationists, and NPS professionals. During the first scoping
meeting, the workshop participants would provide advice in discussions
about representational themes, help refine the study framework, advise
on methodology for collecting data and suggest sites for study and
assessment. At a second review meeting (conducted after a draft report
has been prepared), the same group of experts would review the NPS
draft report and make formal recommendations relating to the selection
of National Landmark nominations and sites that meet the tests of
national significance, suitability and feasibility thus making them
candidates for possible National historic site or national historical
park designation.
Mr. Chairman, the National Park Service has had previous experience
in conducting this type of information gathering workshop. For example,
the NPS in partnership with the Organization of American Historians
assisted in the development of the History in the National Park
Service: Themes and Concepts, historic site framework which was adopted
by the NPS in 1994. Several dozen scholars and academics also assisted
the NPS in a Painting and Sculpture Theme Study Workshop conducted June
10-14, 1991. That workshop resulted in the creation of a Framework for
the Visual Arts Theme Study that defined the National Park Service's
role in preserving and interpreting sites associated with American
painting and sculpture. The Committee may want to model the workshop
requirement after legislative language found in Public law 101-628
Section 1209 (1991) directing the NPS to revise the 1986 thematic
framework. It well may be, though, that the more relevant model is the
Painting and Sculpture Theme Study Workshop which had no legislative
mandate. I would be pleased to provide the Committee with copies of
both of these excellent reports that were prepared based on this
workshop model.
I thank you for the opportunity today to discuss this legislation
and I welcome any questions the members of this Committee may have.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Dr. Craig.
And I am pleased that we did get all the testimony in
before the bells started going off. As I said earlier, we may
want to submit questions to you to be answered in writing.
In the meantime, Mrs. Christensen, do you have questions?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have maybe
a few for both Mr. Norquist and Mr. Wymbs.
Mr. Norquist, in developing the Ronald Reagan Memorial we
would be really making an exception to the CWA on a case-by-
case basis and I am having difficulty understanding why we
should make such an exception.
If the 25-year waiting period contained in the CWA were
respected in this case in your opinion wouldn't this memorial
still be built, that the legacy of President Ronald Reagan is
such that it can withstand the 25 years until such time that it
would be in compliance with the law?
Mr. Norquist. I think his legacy certainly stands the test
of time. It is my point that the legacy is so clear and it is
very unusual that a legacy is this clear this early, that his
victory over Communism was so complete, his success as a
President and his character so exceptional that we can make
this exception.
And I fully agree with you. It is a big exception. It
should be a rare exception. I do not expect us to be fighting
and winning a Cold War again for hundreds of years. These are
very substantial accomplishments that Reagan had and they are
very unique ones.
So yes, I agree with you that it should be an exception,
that it should be rare and I would argue and I think the
country agrees that Ronald Reagan's greatness is of that
nature.
Mrs. Christensen. In spite of the fact that President
Reagan himself agreed with the 25-year period of waiting?
Mr. Norquist. Every time you pass a law you supersede all
the previous laws you have passed and Congress does it every
week here. I think what Reagan signed in the previous law is
generally the right thing to do but obviously it is not in the
Constitution so it is a law that new laws can supersede and I
think we should put it to Congress that the greatness of
Reagan's presidency and his accomplishments do merit making the
exception, and it should be an exception. It should be rare.
The law is a good one.
Mrs. Christensen. We do not disagree with the contributions
but I think it is a bad precedent to set, to make an exception
like this.
And there is another departure, which is to remove the
National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine
Arts from the approval process for the memorial. Why is it
necessary, do you think, to create another Federal commission
to oversee this memorial?
And as a follow-up to that question, if the memorial is
subject to the review by the two entities, the National Capital
Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, don't you
think it would still move forward, given the 25-year waiting
period?
Mr. Norquist. I am supportive of Congressman Hansen's
proposal. I am not wedded to the particulars. I am sure that he
had reasons for structuring it the way he did. I would defer to
his thoughts and recommend that he sit down with you on why he
did it that way.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay, just two more brief questions for
Mr. Wymbs, the Chairman of the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home
Foundation.
Mr. Wymbs, would you be opposed to the Park Service
completing a standard resource study of the site before we move
forward with Federal acquisition?
Mr. Wymbs. It makes no difference to me what is done
because I know the condition of the property and what we have
there and there is going to be no difficulty with any type of
study. We will be happy to have our people there show them
anything they need to see.
Mrs. Christensen. Do you have an estimate for how much it
would cost for the Federal Government to acquire and restore
the site?
Mr. Wymbs. In our first talks with the people we know full
well that, of course, we cannot recoup what the Foundation
itself has spent. It has been quite an expensive proposition.
Just as an example, the Reagan home itself we bought for
$29,000. It had been converted from a single-family home into a
two-flat. We laugh about the price of it because it only cost
us $450,000 to restore it to its original condition.
So we cannot estimate. As I told one of the staff members
from the Committee that called me, I said there is no way we
could come up with an estimate of the value of what has been,
for example, put into the corner park. How do you estimate the
value of what essentially is a small vacant lot with a 15-ton
bronze statue right in the middle? Our appraisers could not
touch that. We could not come up with any figures for you
because this has been an on-going process since the early
1980's when the President was elected and the money has been
spent over those years and we do not show it anywhere in our
books and records as a real investment in the property, but it
is all there.
We are willing to go with whatever values the department
comes up with with their own expert examination, providing they
do not make us look too silly in selling it.
Mrs. Christensen. Just one final question. What
relationship, if any, does this site have to the Ronald Reagan
birthplace in Tampico, where I believe he spent a longer time?
Mr. Wymbs. Ronald Reagan was only there for a very few
months after his birth. He was a babe in arms when the family
moved from there. It was a small apartment above a store in a
small town that is about three blocks long. That has no
relationship here.
The family, oddly enough, was living in Tampico just before
they moved to Dixon but the house they lived in down there is
not available to the public. It is in private ownership and
they will not even let you set foot on the property. Again it
was a house that they rented for a short period of time, as Mr.
Jack Reagan, Ronald's father, made arrangements with the owner
of the store he was working for to finance the new store up in
Dixon. So the President had no real memory of that spot.
Mrs. Christensen. I thank all of our panelists for their
testimony. I apologize for having to step out for a few
minutes.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a brief remark.
The Cold War began basically when Harry Truman was
President and began to wind down under President Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Powers, it is interesting. I lived in Pesawar, Pakistan
in 1958 and '59 and there were two American facilities there at
the time--the American Air Force base plus the CIA base. One
was nonexistent and the other was secret.
It was very interesting. Shortly after I returned home I
realized that I was living very, very near a very crucial
element of our effort to defend ourselves in the Cold War and
your father played a very important role in that defense and we
certainly appreciate that. It was very interesting to realize
that I was so close to what was a very closely guarded secret
over there but a very important element in our efforts to
defend ourselves. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Powers. Thank you for your remarks and the honoring of
my father.
Mr. Hefley. I want to thank this panel, as well. I think
the testimony was especially helpful. We may be coming back to
each of you not only to respond to questions but to get
additional help in forming legislation. And Dr. Craig, I
appreciate your suggestions about how to make the legislation
on this Cold War thing better.
I appreciate, Mr. Wymbs, what you all in Dixon have done.
If you had not stepped in and done that that would not be
available. We would not be considering something like this at
this point. So I appreciate that a group of citizens took it
upon themselves to proceed that way.
Mr. Powers, I have, and I am sure the Committee has, great
respect for your father. He was a true cold warrior who risked
his life and almost lost his life to defend this country and we
appreciate what he has done and we appreciate what you are
doing to preserve that heritage.
Mr. Powers. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. If there is nothing else, the Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]