National Parks Subcommittee Hearing

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1686, a bill to amend the Constitution Heritage Act of 1988 to provide for the operation of the National Constitution Center; S. 2417 and H.R. 4192, bills to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate the President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace home in Hope, Arkansas, as a National Historic Site and unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; S. 2568, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail; S. 2627, a bill to amend the Act of August 21, 1935, to extend the authorization for the National Park System Advisory Board, and for other purposes; and S. Res. 468, a resolution supporting the continued administration of Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in accordance with the laws (including regulations) and policies of the National Park Service.

Archived Webcast

If you are having trouble viewing this hearing, please try the following steps:

Clear your browser's cache - Guide to clearing browser cache
Close and re-open your browser
If the above two steps do not help, please try another browser. Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge have the highest level of compatibility with our player.

Witness Panel 1

The Honorable Mark Pryor

Member

U.S. Senate

Read statement

Witness Panel 1

The Honorable Mark Pryor

Statement by Senator Mark Pryor

On Designating President Clinton’s Birthplace Home a National Historic Site

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Committee for allowing me to testify on behalf of S.2417, legislation to designate the President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace home in Hope, Arkansas, as a National Historic Site and unit of the National Park System. Congressman Mike Ross has shepherded identical legislation through the House of Representatives, which passed on March 8^th by an overwhelming majority.

The little wood frame house on 117 S. Hervey Street begins the first chapter to a story I wish every little boy and girl could hear about hope and opportunity in America. It is the home where Billy Blythe spent his first years where he tells us he learned to walk and talk, pray, read, and count from playing cards. It is by all means a modest home that defines a humble childhood. It is the birthplace home of our 42^nd President. Like the homes of presidents who came before him, I believe this landmark deserves Federal recognition and should be preserved as part of the National Park System.

Clinton’s birthplace underwent an extensive renovation funded by the non-profit Clinton Birthplace Foundation. During the home’s dedication in 1999, then-President Clinton recalled that we make seemingly-ordinary places into landmarks because they “remind us that America’s greatness can be found not only in its large centers of wealth and culture and power but also in its small towns, where children learn from their families and neighbors the rhythms and rituals of daily life. They learn about home and work, about love and loss, about success and failure, about endurance, and the power of dignity of their dreams.”

The resources of the National Park Service can only enhance this landmark, providing further economic opportunities for southwest Arkansas and educating thousands of families who travel to Hope, AR about the life and times of President William Jefferson Clinton.

This designation is supported by the entire Arkansas congressional delegation, Governor Mike Huckabee and the Clinton Birthplace Foundation. I ask this committee for its approval of S.2417, and I thank you again for your consideration.

###
The Honorable Paul Sarbanes

Member

U.S. Senate

Read statement

Witness Panel 1

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes

Statement of Senator Paul S. Sarbanes

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

May 16, 2005



           Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to testify on S. 2568, designating the route of Captain John Smith’s exploration of the Chesapeake Bay as a National Historic Trail.

            We have a unique opportunity to commemorate a very significant event in the history of our Nation and of the Chesapeake Bay – the 400th Anniversary of Captain John Smith’s first landing and settlement at Jamestown, Virginia and the beginning of his momentous voyages of discovery in the Chesapeake Bay region. There is a compelling case to be made for establishing this trail and Senators Warner, Allen and I are joined here today by Pat Noonan, Chairman Emeritus of The Conservation Fund – who conceived this idea – and Gilbert Grosvenor, Chairman of the Board of the National Geographic Society, to make that case and to appeal to the Committee to swiftly approve this legislation and designate this trail, this year, before our nation’s quadcentennial   celebrations in 2007.

            As you well know, the Congress established the National Trails System “…in order to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation.” National Historic Trails such as the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Pony Express Trail, the Trail of Tears, and the Selma to Montgomery Trail were authorized as part of this system to identify and protect historic routes for public use and enjoyment and to commemorate major events which shaped American history. To qualify for designation as a National Historic Trail, a trail must meet three principal criteria: It must be “nationally significant,” have a documented route through maps or journals, and offer significant potential for public recreational use. There is no question that the proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail meets these criteria and is a fitting addition to the National Trails System.

            We are grateful for the Committee’s support last year in helping us to enact provisions authorizing the National Park Service to undertake a study of the feasibility of establishing the proposed trail. Pursuant to that legislation, on March 21, 2006, the National Park System Advisory Board concluded that the proposed trail is “nationally significant” because of its impact on the exploration and settlement of North America, its impact on the commerce and trade of North America and its impact on our ethnic heritage and relations between the English settlers and the Native American tribes of the region.



            The National Park Service has been proceeding expeditiously with its examination of the other two criteria and recently completed a thorough, peer-reviewed report, which is now being published, documenting the routes of John Smith’s Chesapeake voyages, satisfying the second of the three criteria.   The careful journals that Smith kept and the remarkably accurate maps and charts he made of his voyages into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries provided a wealth of information to support this study.

            Likewise it is clear that the proposed trail offers tremendous opportunities for public recreation and historical interpretation and appreciation. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail, this new historic “watertrail” will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to follow Smith's journeys, to learn about the roots of our nation and to better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived within the Bay region. It would allow voyagers in small boats, cruising boats, kayaks and canoes to travel the same routes that Smith took -- from the mouth to the headwaters of Chesapeake Bay -- and serve as a national outdoor resource, providing rich opportunities for education, recreation, and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 million Americans living in the Bay's watershed, but for visitors to this area. Already reports about the proposed trail and the reproductions of the vessels – the Godspeed and open shallop -- are generating national and international attention and inquiries. Equally important, the Trail would help highlight the Bay's remarkable maritime history, its unique watermen and their culture, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary. In response to an inquiry on the status of the study that Senator Warner and I sent to the National Park Service, the Director recently responded “...we have not encountered any information that would lead us to believe that the trail fails to meet required criteria for designation.”

            What better way to commemorate this important part of our nation’s history and honor John Smith’s courageous voyages than by designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail? We are strongly supported in this endeavor by our co-sponsors, Senators Mikulski, Carper, Biden, Santorum and Specter, by the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, as well as scores of other officials, individuals and organizations, including the Garden Club of America, the Izaak Walton League of America, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. In fact we know of no opposition to the legislation.

There is precious little time remaining in this session of the Congress -- less than 15 weeks -- and it is important to have this legislation on a fast track if we are to have any hope of having the trail designated before the 400th anniversary celebrations in 2007. We urge the Committee to swiftly approve this measure and report it to the full Senate for consideration.
The Honorable Barbara Boxer

U.S. Senator
The Honorable John Warner

Member

U.S. Senate

Witness Panel 2

Ms. Patricia Gallagher

Executive Director

National Capitol Planning Commission

Read statement

Witness Panel 2

Ms. Patricia Gallagher

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks
Testimony for Senate Hearing on S. 2419 and H.R. 4882 as amended
Patricia Gallagher, Executive Director
National Capital Planning Commission
May 16, 2006

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on S. 2419 and H.R. 4882 related to
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center (“Visitor Center”). The National Capital
Planning Commission and the Administration actively support a Visitor Center to inform and
educate the public about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Vietnam War. We also
support a sound process for site selection that includes development and evaluation of
environmental and historical information and an opportunity for public input as provided under the Commemorative Works Act process. It is important to note that the National Park Service has nearly completed an Environmental Assessment, and will solicit public comment by the end of May, such that a site selection decision can move forward at NCPC’s August 3, 2006 meeting.

The Bills.

The Commemorative Works Act process provides an important opportunity for the public
to review the site for a commemorative work like this Center on the National Mall—one of the nation’s most important public spaces; and provides for gathering and evaluating important environmental and historic preservation data in order to permit informed decisions about siting and design. The Commemorative Works Act process takes into account possible impacts, facilitates the development of design parameters and mitigation for the effects of the siting decision, and assures the best siting and design for a Visitors Center and a National Mall that is worthy of our honored veterans and the American public. While the text of S. 2419 is not clear, it appears to preempt meaningful evaluation, public input, and review at the site selection phase, and the concept, preliminary, and final design approval stages as well.

The House bill, H.R. 4882 provides that the site of the Visitor Center will be at an area
specified in that bill (“the Bacon Drive site”). It does not override the Commemorative Works Act process for the design phases of the project, including its implementation with NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act. While H.R. 4882 as amended permits evaluation and public involvement in these design stages, it still precludes evaluation and public involvement at the critical basic stage of site selection.

The Mall is a Special Place That We Have a Special Duty to Protect.

As trustees of our nation’s heritage, all of us—including federal agencies and Congress--
have an important responsibility to site, design, and build commemorative works like the Visitor Center, and to preserve and protect some of the country’s most important buildings and public spaces that grace the nation’s capital. The National Mall is of particular importance as a ceremonial and cultural symbol of America’s rich history. The review and approval procedures embodied in our nation’s laws ensure the provision of important information and provide a means to take into account a full range of important values, including protection of existing monuments, memorials, and open spaces, as well as the development of new commemorative works in ways that enhance our treasured places, our history, and our culture.

The Commemorative Works Act process assures this important outcome. For example,
site selection for the Visitor Center may affect historic trees and spaces, views to and from the Lincoln Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, traffic at a major gateway to our
nation’s capital, and the visitor experience to the Mall. The Public Law that authorized the
Visitor Center provides for application of site and design criteria under the Commemorative
Works Act and requires that the size of the Visitor Center be limited to “prevent interference or encroachment on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and to protect open space and visual sightlines on the Mall.” The Commemorative Works Act process ensures that the public has an important role and can give views and comment on alternatives for meeting these standards.

Summary of the Review Process to Date.

The impetus for the proposed legislation appears to be a concern that the review process
for site selection for the Visitor Center has been slow. A look at the process to date shows that it has moved along appropriately.

Our nation has commemorated Vietnam Veterans with three memorial components on
the National Mall. These are: the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and the three service men statue; the women in service to the Vietnam War statue; and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaque. In November 2003, Congress passed Public Law 108-126, authorizing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (the “Fund”) “to construct a Visitor Center at or near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia, or its environs....” The Act further reinforces that the Commemorative Works Act process, including approval by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, applies. The second title of the legislation establishes a Reserve on the Mall and underscores that siting of new commemorative works other than the Visitor Center is prohibited in the Reserve. Congress has made clear that the Visitor Center is to be sited and designed through the thoughtful and public process specified in the Commemorative Works Act as amended in P.L. 108-126. That process provides for site selection that is reviewed by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (the “NCMAC”), and subsequently approved by the Commission of Fine Arts (“CFA”) and the National Capital Planning Commission (“NCPC”).

The Public Law specifies certain design requirements, such as that the Visitor Center be
underground; it also provides for effective development, review and approval of the design of the Visitor Center. In April of 2004, after several years of work with CEQ, NCPC updated its environmental review procedures with specific provisions for site and design decisions under the Commemorative Works Act to ensure that compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act provides important information to the decisionmakers and a key role for the public. This approach assures that there is full and effective vetting and weighing of impacts and values particularly in such greatly significant places as the National Mall.

After the authorizing legislation was enacted, the Fund worked with the National Park
Service to develop and evaluate a number of alternative sites for the Center. In January 2005, the National Park Service and the Fund made available to the public their site selection study, which identified seven alternative sites on or near the National Mall. NPS and the Fund then submitted the study to the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (“NCMAC”), and in May 2005, the NCMAC recommended advancing two sites, Site A and Site E—the Department of the Interior South Building—for further study by the National Park Service. (A map with sites indicated is attached). In September 2005, the National Park Service submitted a request for approval of its preferred Site A to the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission. That same month, CFA gave conditional approval for Site A, raising many concerns about the sensitive nature of that site and advising NPS that CFA approval could be given only with the applicant’s assurances that the project design would be developed to alleviate CFA’s concerns that the Center not detract from the setting of the Lincoln Memorial and the experience of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

The National Capital Planning Commission considered the application for site approval
at its meeting of October 6, 2005. By a tie vote, the Commission did not approve or disapprove Site A. Rather, it voted unanimously to: “Request that the National Park Service submit a study of the Interior South Building front yard, Site G, and any other sites, to determine if they are feasible for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center, using the same level of analysis previously undertaken for Site A; and that (b) The applicant [NPS] will also provide sufficient information on the Center’s proposed building program to enable the Commission to better understand the impacts that the Center might have above ground on any site.” NPS conducted a site analysis of Site G. With regard to the Interior South Building front yard, the Department analyzed this option and determined that any change would have a negative impact on the operation of the offices currently located there and the ability of the Department to meet its mission. The Department explained these issues in a letter to NCPC dated October 27, 2005 citing operational, security, public access and design concerns.

On October 28, 2005, NPS resubmitted the preferred site, Site A, for approval along
with the additional analysis on Site G for consideration at the December 1, 2005 meeting of the National Capital Planning Commission. The NCPC subsequently removed the project from December meeting agenda, citing the lack of the required Environmental Assessment.
The National Capital Planning Commission developed the updated Policies and
Procedures in close consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality—the agency
charged with oversight of NEPA—through work that commenced in the year 1999. These
updated policies were unanimously adopted by the Commission on April 1, 2004 after approval by the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”). The Visitor Center is only the second Commemorative Work to be reviewed under the new Policies and Procedures, with the first—the Victims of Communism Memorial--being non-controversial and meeting criteria in NCPC’s Policies and Procedures for a categorical exclusion from NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), by letter of December 1, 2005, confirmed that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is required by NCPC procedures at the site selection stage under the Commemorative Works Act in order to properly inform the Commission and involve the public in the review of the Center. (CEQ’s Letter of December 1, 2005 is attached).

Since that time, NCPC and the National Park Service, with assistance from CEQ, have
worked to develop a cooperative and joint approach to an Environmental Assessment. A letter of agreement dated February 15, 2006 and signed by NCPC and NPS, sets forth the substance and process for the EA, and a useful EA is nearing completion. As of May 10, 2006, a revised working draft Environmental Assessment has been circulated for review by the National Park Service and NCPC staff. We expect the NPS will circulate an EA for public comment by the end of May and will, as the sponsoring agency, resubmit a request for site approval. NCPC will expeditiously review the application. Both the National Park Service and NCPC fully expect that this submission will be considered at NCPC’s August 3, 2006 meeting.

Review and Evaluation of Site Selection and Design for this Memorial Protects the Mall.

While the materials that the National Park Service developed in 2005 for site selection for
the Visitor Center looked at the effect of the environment on the proposed Visitor Center, there continues to be a need for important information about the effect of the Center on the
environment and historic resources of the proposed site, the National Mall, and existing
Memorials. The required environmental assessment, the opportunity for the public to engage in the process, and federal review of this project, will result in a Center that the nation’s veterans and all Americans can be proud of. This commendable and important project deserves no less.

Because of the special importance of the National Mall, and the particular concern of Congress in the Commemorative Works Act that agencies protect other Memorials on the National Mall, this information is crucial.

The site selection process as specified in the Commemorative Works Act should move forward on a course that will ensure the kind of professional evaluation that Congress has recognized as important and useful. Most importantly, this process brings about a much better outcome by taking into account possible impacts, permitting mitigation, and assuring the best siting and design of a Visitor Center on the National Mall that is worthy of the nation’s honored veterans and the American public. In summary, the process for review of site selection for the Visitor Center is moving forward quickly without further legislation.
Mr. Steve Martin

Deputy Director

National Park Service

Read statement

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Steve Martin

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 1686, TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION HERITAGE ACT OF 1988 TO PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER.

May 16, 2006
______________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1686, a bill to amend the Constitution Heritage Act of 1988. The Department supports enactment of S. 1686 with some amendments.

The construction of the National Constitution Center (NCC) was a major component of the reconstruction of Independence Mall, the three city blocks north of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This multi-year planning effort also included a new Independence Visitor’s Center completed in 2001, and the Liberty Bell Center completed in 2003. Improvements to the Mall landscape are continuing.

The NCC represents a true exemplar of the value of public-private partnerships being undertaken today at Independence National Historical Park by the National Park Service. The state of the art facility, designed with more than 100 advanced interactive exhibits, opened to rave reviews on July 4, 2003, and continues to provide an outstanding visitor experience. Visitors to the NCC come away with an understanding of the framing and implementation of the Constitution of the United States, and as important, its continuing relevance to today’s society. The NCC’s programs are challenging, thought provoking and have received wide acclaim by visitors and scholars alike. The National Park Service is proud and privileged to be a partner with the non-profit organization of the same name, the National Constitution Center, which operates the NCC, in this most successful endeavor.

S. 1686 would clarify the authorities that support current operations and agreements between the National Park Service and National Constitution Center. It would amend Section 4 of the Constitution Heritage Act of 1988 by adding a new subsection (c) relating to provisions of a cooperative agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and the National Constitution Center. The provisions specify that any revenues from facilities and services of the NCC shall be made available to the National Constitution Center to offset operating expenses without further appropriation, as is the current practice. It would also ensure the continuation of an existing cooperative agreement, and allow a subsequent agreement to be negotiated for up to 30 years, instead of the current limit of five years. This longer time period would facilitate the National Constitution Center’s efforts to obtain financing. Other provisions would require the National Constitution Center to purchase insurance, provide annual reports, and take other administrative steps as part of a cooperative agreement. The bill also provides amendments to a number of sections by striking the word “Center” and inserting “NCC” to clarify the difference between the physical building and the 501(c)(3) organization.

The relationship of the National Park Service with the National Constitution Center is a significant model for successful public-private partnerships. We look forward to continuing our productive partnership in the future and request that the committee favorably act on S. 1686.

We propose a few amendments to the bill to clarify when we are referring to the organization operating the NCC and not to the actual building. In addition, based on Public Law 107-217, we need to update a reference to an existing law that has been superseded. We would be glad to work with the committee on these proposed amendments.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the committee might have.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, CONCERNING S. 2417 AND H.R. 4192, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO DESIGNATE THE PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFERSON CLINTON BIRTHPLACE HOME IN HOPE, ARKANSAS, AS A NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE AND UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM.

MAY 16, 2006
________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2417 and H.R. 4192, bills that would authorize the Secretary to establish the President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home as a National Historic Site and a unit of the National Park System in Hope, Arkansas. H.R. 4192 passed the House of Representatives on March 8, 2006, without a hearing. The Department supports the effort to honor the birthplace home of former President Clinton, but suggests amending S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 to authorize a study.

S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate the William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home as a National Historic Site and a unit of the National Park System should the Secretary acquire, by donation only, the birthplace home and any personal property related to that site from the Clinton Birthplace Foundation, Inc. The Secretary would administer the unit in accordance with laws generally applicable to preserving national historic sites. It is our understanding that the Clinton Birthplace Foundation also intends to donate the existing visitor center located at 415 West, Division Street and adjacent to the birthplace home, however this property was inadvertently left out of S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 when the bills were introduced.

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 (NPS) in determining whether to recommend an area as a unit of the National Park System.

We recognize the importance of the birthplace of President William Jefferson Clinton and therefore appreciate the goals of S. 2417 and H.R. 4192. Consistent with our testimony on the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home in March 2001, we suggest, however, that the subcommittee 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 birthplace and the visitor center to determine whether they conform to the criteria of Public Law 105-391. We recognize the potential significance of these properties and would support an authorization of a new study. We would be glad to work with the subcommittee on the appropriate language.

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 individual.

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 allows Congress to be sure it is protecting an area that meets the criteria of the National Park System.

A study also will enable the NPS and the Congress to identify the costs in acquiring, restoring, and operating a potential site. We believe that the information gathered during the study process is invaluable and better ensures that the NPS can continue its progress in addressing maintenance backlog needs in our national parks. In fact, in March 2001, the Department also took the position that a study was needed when asked to testify on the designation of the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home as a National Historic Site. Similar to S. 2417 and H.R. 4192, that bill also proposed designation prior to the authorization and completion of a study.

Presidential homes and sites provide a valuable link to understanding our country’s history and government and are an important part of our national heritage. Plans to purchase and restore the birthplace home of then President William Jefferson Clinton began in 1993, and the Clinton Birthplace Foundation, a non-profit organization, was formed to purchase, restore, and promote the history of the site. The two and one-half story American four-square home, patterned from a design in France, was built in 1917 by Dr. H.S. Garrett. The home is located at 117 South Hervey Street in Hope, Arkansas, and belonged to President Clinton’s maternal grandparents, Eldridge and Edith Cassidy. William Jefferson Blythe, as he was then known, lived there from his birth in 1946, until his mother married Roger Clinton in 1950.

The residence has been returned to its identical state when President Clinton lived there as a young boy. It is currently open for public tours operated by the Clinton Birthplace Foundation. When the home was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1994, it was described as “. . . the single property most significantly and exclusively associated with Clinton’s humble beginnings, the inner strength he learned from his mother, and the dedication to purpose that has sustained him throughout his distinguished political career.”

The William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace site demonstrates the efforts of a local community working together to preserve and to tell the story of the birth and childhood of a man who later became the 42nd President of the United States to present and future generations.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other subcommittee members might have.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2419 AND H.R. 4882, BILLS TO ENSURE THE PROPER REMEMBERANCE OF VIETNAM VETERANS AND THE VIETNAM WAR BY PROVIDING A DEADLINE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A VISITOR CENTER FOR THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL.

May 16, 2006

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam Veterans and the Vietnam War by designating a site for a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4882 as amended on March 28, 2006, by a vote of 404-4.

The Department supports development of a visitor center (center) for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. We also support the processes governing such development as set forth in the Commemorative Works Act (CWA), which separates the authorization of memorials and the site and design approval processes and provides for public input, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which describes a vision for balancing environmental, cultural, and economic goals and provides for cooperative problem solving by requiring public comment on the environmental effects of federal actions.

We are making significant progress in the site approval process for the center as provided for under the CWA and the National Park Service (NPS) is nearing completion of the Environmental Assessment provided for under NEPA that was requested by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). The NPS plans to release the Environmental Assessment for public comment before the end of May and submit our preferred site for the center to the NCPC by June 30, for approval at its August 3 meeting. If the NCPC agrees with our preferred site, the site selection process will be completed this summer.

S. 2419 and H.R. 4882 would amend section 6 of Public Law 96-297, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Act, by authorizing the location of the center for the memorial at Henry Bacon Drive, 23rd Street, Constitution Avenue and the Lincoln Memorial in the District of Columbia. S. 2419 also would authorize a deadline for the final approval of the center no later than 30 days from the date of enactment of this legislation in section 2(c). Should the subcommittee decide to move forward, the Department recommends that the additional language in section 2(c) of S. 2419 be removed because it is confusing and does not make a distinction between the site selection and the design process. The siting process for the center is currently underway; however, the center has not yet undergone the design phase and those decisions cannot be completed within 30 days.

The CWA developed a process for establishing memorials in the Nation’s Capital. This process has worked well for 20 years, and we support this process. While it has been amended, these changes have strengthened the CWA without modifying the process as originally authorized. The CWA identifies the roles and responsibilities of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, the NCPC, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the Secretary of the Interior. The NCPC and the CFA both play critical roles in the site selection and design process. We believe that the expertise offered and the approvals required by these entities as well as the process of gaining the approval of the Secretary of the Interior has resulted in new memorials of the highest quality. In addition, the CWA provides the American people with the opportunity to be involved in the decisions regarding how the historical events and persons will be honored in the Nation’s Capital by providing public involvement in the siting and design of the memorials.

Some of the organizations authorized by public law to erect memorials have been frustrated by the delays brought about by the opinions of these public bodies regarding the location or design of their projects. But by the time these memorials were dedicated, many have agreed that their commemorative work was of a higher quality due to the process used along the path to completion.

The Act authorizing the center states that the provisions relating to siting of memorials under the CWA would apply. This includes approval of the site by both the NCPC and CFA. The CFA reviewed and conditionally approved the site at its September 15, 2005 meeting with the proviso that the design not detract from the Lincoln Memorial and Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Their conditional approval was based on a documentation of alternative sites evaluated for the center, which followed a similar format that other memorial sponsors have used since the enactment of the CWA. As mentioned above, NPS will complete its portion of the process by the end of June with the NCPC’s consideration of NPS’ site submission in August. We, thus, plan to complete the siting process by the end of this summer.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other subcommittee members might have.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2568, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO DESIGNATE THE CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.

May 16, 2006
_______________________________________________________________________

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2568, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail.

The Department is currently completing the study authorized by Public Law 109-54 to determine the feasibility of designating this trail. We request that the committee defer action on the bill until the study is completed. To date, we have not encountered any information that would lead us to believe that the trail fails to meet the required criteria for designation as a national historic trail.

S. 2568 would designate the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail as a component of the National Trails System. The trail would be administered by the Department of the Interior in coordination with the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network and the Chesapeake Bay Program. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior would consult with other Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies, and the private sector in the administration of the trail. No land could be acquired for the trail outside the boundary of any Federally managed area without the consent of the owner of the land.

As we approach the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement and the anniversary in 2007 of the beginning of Captain John Smith’s explorations, the conduct of our present study is most timely. The proposed trail would follow a series of routes extending approximately 3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay in the States of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, and the District of Columbia that trace Captain John Smith’s voyages charting the land and waterways of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

Captain John Smith explored the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in a series of voyages and travels from 1607 through 1609, while executing his company’s directives to search for a “northwest passage” to the Pacific Ocean. Smith’s two major explorations occurred in the summer of 1608, each leaving from Jamestown, Virginia. Between the two voyages, Smith and a small crew traversed the entire length of the Chesapeake Bay, explored the shoreline of the lower half of the Eastern Shore, and ventured into the major tributaries along the western shore of the bay. Smith had extensive interactions with Native Americans and recorded significant information about these peoples and the general Chesapeake environment in his book published in 1612. He also made one of the first and most detailed maps of the Chesapeake Bay. In Smith’s words “heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a more perfect place for man's habitation.”

Four hundred years later, the Chesapeake Bay’s basic geography remains relatively similar to Smith’s time, but much else has changed. More than 16 million people live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with the densest concentrations at locations adjacent to where Smith traveled (Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD and the greater Norfolk/ Hampton Roads area in VA). Human uses of the bay region have caused significant impacts on the Chesapeake environment and the Bay itself. The establishment of a national historic trail traversing the routes of John Smith’s early voyages would likely provide increased public knowledge of the history, and sensitivity to the valuable resources of the Chesapeake Bay, as well as increased recreational opportunities.

The National Park Service enjoys a close association with the Chesapeake Bay and local governments and organizations in the region through the Gateways and Water Trails Network, authorized by the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998. This partnership system of 147 designated Chesapeake Bay Gateways serves to connect the American public with the resources and themes of the nationally significant Chesapeake Bay. Through its coordination of the network, the National Park Service is also authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to gateways for enhancing interpretation, improving public access, and stimulating citizen involvement in conservation and restoration efforts. All of these efforts would complement the proposed trail. S. 2568 provides for coordination of the trail with the Chesapeake Gateways and Water Trails Network and the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Our study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail is nearing conclusion. In March 2006, the National Park System Advisory Board found the routes of John Smith’s voyages to be nationally significant, a major requirement in the finding of national trail feasibility. The Advisory Board concluded that the trail is of national significance for its association with the following themes: (1) Ethnic Heritage (American Indians); (2) Exploration and Settlement; and, (3) Commerce and Trade.

We expect to issue a draft report for public comment no later than August of this year. In light of this schedule, we would request that the committee defer action so that the study may be completed and the public given an opportunity to comment on any proposed designation alternatives. Our receipt of 167 letters regarding the study since it began indicates considerable public interest in trail designation.

The Department wishes to recognize the generous support of the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission during the conduct of this study.

This concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the committee might have.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2627, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL PARKS SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD ACT.

MAY 16, 2006

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior’s comments on S. 2627, the National Park System Advisory Board Act of 2006, a bill to extend the authorization and improve the composition of board members of the National Park System Advisory Board (Board).

The Department supports S. 2627, which is similar to a proposal transmitted to Congress by the Administration on December 7, 2005. The Department wishes to thank Senator Domenici for sponsoring this legislation at the Department’s request.

The National Park System Advisory Board was first authorized in 1935 under the Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. The Board advises the Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior on matters relating to the National Park Service, including the administration of the Historic Sites, Buildings, and the Antiquities Act; the designation of national historic landmarks and national natural landmarks; and the national historic significance of proposed national historic trails. The Board may advise on matters submitted to the Board by the Director, as well as any other issues identified by the Board.

The Board’s membership consists of no more than 12 individuals selected from citizens of the United States having demonstrated commitment to the mission of the National Park Service, and representing various geographic regions, including each of the seven administrative regions of the National Park Service. The Board has provided exemplary service to the Director of the National Park Service and works cooperatively with the Director to ensure the preservation of this Nation’s important natural and historic places for future generations of Americans.

The Board is an active body currently engaged on a broad front of issues, meeting quarterly and consulting regularly with the Director. Recent accomplishments and ongoing efforts include:
• The Board regularly considers recommendations from its National Historic Landmarks Committee about properties the committee wishes the Board would recommend to the Secretary for designation as National Historic Landmarks.
• Last year, the Senate passed Senator Thomas’s “Heritage Partnership Act” (S. 234), which incorporated recommendations from a Board report. The Act would create a system of National Heritage Areas and clarify the relationship of those areas to the National Park Service.
• The Board just completed an advisory report to the Director recommending that the National Park Service undertake a series of pilot projects to test, measure and validate the premise that the national parks contribute to healthy lifestyle through active participation in park-based recreational activities. This report supports the President’s HealthierUS initiative and Executive Order 13266, which calls on federal agencies to increase the accessibility of resources for physical activity.
• In support of President Bush’s call to help, “restore civic and historical understanding throughout American Society,” the Board recently convened a panel of prominent American historians and scholars. The panel counseled the National Park Service about its education/interpretive mission and ways in which the program offered visitors at parks and historic sites can advance the President’s goal.
• Next week, the Board will review and advise the Director on the National Park Service’s proposed final revision of NPS Management Policies. Participating in this assessment will be several former National Park Service Directors and past Park Service senior executives.

S. 2627 proposes amending the Board’s statutory authorization in four areas. The first area would modify the membership to the Board. This would be done by requiring at least four members to have expertise in the fields of history, archeology, anthropology, historical or landscape architecture, biology, ecology, geology, marine science or social science; three members to have expertise and prior experience in management of National or State parks or protected areas or natural or cultural resources management; three members to have expertise in any other professional or scientific discipline important to the mission of the National Park Service; at least one member to have expertise in historic recreational opportunities within units of the National Park System; and at least one member to be an elected official from an area adjacent to or within close proximity to a unit of the National Park System. The second area would require that the Advisory Board members adhere to ethics and conflict of interest provisions by removing the current law’s exemption. The third area extends the authority of the Board to 2016. A fourth area of revision provides for technical amendments. The Department supports the amendments, which will increase the Board’s overall effectiveness and influence and improve clarity and ease of reference.

The National Park System Advisory Board is an invaluable partner of the Department as we both carry out the national vision that created the National Park System 90 years ago. Throughout that time, the Department and the Board have worked effectively and collegially together to enhance conservation efforts across the nation. The Department looks forward to continuing this relationship with the Board as we strive to position the NPS for its next 100 years.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee may have.

STATEMENT OF STEVE MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. RES. 468, SUPPORTING THE CONTINUED ADMINISTRATION OF CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, INCLUDING SANTA ROSA ISLAND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS (INCLUDING REGULATIONS) AND POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

May 16, 2006

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. Res. 468, supporting the continued administration of Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in accordance with the laws (including regulations) and policies of the National Park Service.

Because S. Res. 468 is a Senate resolution that will not be signed into law, the Department is not taking a position on the resolution itself. However, the Department strongly agrees with the sentiment expressed by the resolution that the National Park Service (NPS) should continue to manage Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in a manner that provides for protection of the park’s resources and their enjoyment by visitors to the islands.

S. Res. 468 calls for the NPS to manage Santa Rosa Island, part of Channel Islands National Park, in a way that protects and allows interpretation of the natural, scenic, and cultural resources of the island and provides visitors with a safe and enjoyable park experience. It further states that the NPS should not be directed to manage Santa Rosa Island in a manner that would result in the public being denied access to significant portions of the island or that would be inconsistent with the responsibility of the NPS to protect native resources within the park.

We understand that S. Res. 468 is in response to repeated attempts in recent years to allow deer and elk, and associated hunting operations, to remain on Santa Rosa Island indefinitely. The current effort in this regard is language included in H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007, which requires the Secretary of the Interior to stop the plan to remove the deer and elk from the island as required by a court-ordered settlement agreement. This provision would effectively overturn the 1998 settlement agreement, that the NPS is legally bound to, that requires the phaseout of non-native deer and elk over several years and their complete removal from the island by the end of 2011. Until the deer and elk are removed and the hunting operation ends, most of the island will remain closed to the public for significant portions of each year.

Channel Islands National Monument was designated in 1938 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt under the authority of the Antiquities Act. In 1980, the monument was expanded to include additional islands, including the 54,000-acre Santa Rosa Island, and redesignated as Channel Islands National Park. The park’s purpose is to protect the nationally significant natural, scenic, wildlife, marine, ecological, archaeological, cultural, and scientific values of the five out of the eight California Channel Islands that comprise the park.

The question of whether to allow hunting in units of the National Parks System is decided by Congress on a case-by-case basis. Congress discussed the issue of the appropriateness of hunting on the Channel Islands during consideration of the legislation to redesignate Channel Islands National Monument as a national park in 1979 and 1980, and made a deliberate decision not to allow hunting there. We feel that this is still the appropriate decision today.

It is important to note that once it was determined that Santa Rosa Island was to be incorporated within Channel Islands National Park, Vail and Vicker’s, Ltd. (V&V) requested that Santa Rosa Island be the highest priority for acquisition by the NPS. This was reflected in the enabling legislation. In 1986, the NPS purchased Santa Rosa Island for $29.5 million from V&V, who retained a 25-year non-commercial reservation of use and occupancy covering a 7.6-acre area containing the ranch house and a nearby field. At the request of V&V, supported by members of Congress, the NPS issued a series of 5-year special use permits (SUPs) to allow V&V to continue their cattle ranching and elk and deer hunting operations.

In 1996, because of the impacts on endangered species and water quality issues, the National Parks Conservation Association sued the NPS. In 1997, V&V sued NPS to retain their current SUP and continue their operations until 2011. A three-way settlement agreement, entered into court in 1998, provided for removing the cattle by the end of 1998, which occurred on schedule, and for phasing out deer and elk, and removing them altogether by the end of 2011, when the V&V 25-year non-commercial reservation of the 7.6 acre ranch expires. The settlement agreement included two options under which hunting could continue. The parties chose the second option, which was to manage the deer and elk using adaptive management guidelines. Each year, the NPS, with recommendations from an agreed upon scientific panel, determines whether an accelerated reduction in either the deer or elk herds are necessary. Regardless of the management option, all deer and elk are to be removed by V&V no later than the end of 2011. At that time, V&V will be required to remove all their property, including any remaining deer and elk, which V&V owns.
It is necessary to end the hunting operation to open up the island for other recreational purposes, such as hiking, camping, and sightseeing, on a year-round basis. So long as a hunting operation continues, 90 percent of the island will be off limits for general recreation for four to five months of each year. After spending $29.5 million to purchase the island and more to restore native plants and animals, the NPS has been eager to make this spectacular island available for full-time enjoyment by the general public.

Santa Rosa Island is currently the most accessible of the five islands that are part of Channel Islands National Park. It is the island where the NPS can most easily and cost effectively welcome American citizens who have physical disabilities, including our men and women in uniform who have become disabled in the service to our Nation.

Removal of the non-native deer and elk is necessary for native plants and animals to flourish on Santa Rosa Island, and to ensure that efforts spent on restoration are not wasted. Channel Islands National Park has been in the forefront of the NPS’s efforts to control non-native species that out-compete the native species. The park has undertaken several successful ecological restoration programs. The eradication of introduced rats from Anacapa Island has resulted in the increased survivability of the Xantus’s murrelet. The removal of introduced rabbits, cattle, sheep, and mules from Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands has allowed for vegetation restoration. Park staff, local communities, the Nature Conservancy, and the Montrose Trustees, who worked together to reestablish the American bald eagle were recently rewarded with the first eaglet born on the northern Channel Islands in 50 years, on Santa Cruz Island. The NPS looks forward to more successes of this type in the Channel Islands, including Santa Rosa Island.

For all these reasons, the Department supports the continued implementation of the 1998 settlement agreement, so that the day will come, after 2011, when NPS will be able to manage Santa Rosa Island as Congress intended when Channel Islands National Park was established in 1980.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have.

Witness Panel 3

Mr. Patrick Noonan

Chairman Emeritus

The Conservation Fund

Read statement

Witness Panel 3

Mr. Patrick Noonan

Statement
of
Patrick F. Noonan, Chairman Emeritus of The Conservation Fund
before the
Subcommittee on National Parks
of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
on
S. 2568, The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act of 2006

May 16, 2006

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of S.2568, the “Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act of 2006.” I am Patrick F. Noonan, Chairman Emeritus and founder of The Conservation Fund – a national organization dedicated to conserving historic, natural and working landscapes and to promoting sustainable economic development through tourism, education and community-based initiatives.

I am accompanied by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Gilbert Grosvenor, the Chairman of the Board of the National Geographic Society. Gil Grosvenor and I have worked closely together to educate the public about the importance of Captain John Smith’s voyages and the splendors of Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I ask consent to include Mr. Grosvenor’s statement in the record.

We also wish to thank Senator Sarbanes for his leadership role in introducing this bipartisan bill with the outstanding support of Senator Allen and Senator Warner. The bill is co-sponsored by Senator Mikulski, Senator Biden, Senator Carper, Senator Santorum and Senator Specter, a testament to their recognition of our nation’s rich history and the importance of commemorating the 400th anniversary of the establishment of Jamestown and Captain John Smith’s voyages.

We strongly support S. 2568, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate Captain Smith’s routes of travel as the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. By establishing a new National Historic Trail, the bill would designate Smith’s historic routes of travel as nationally significant. These routes of travel extend for approximately 3,000 miles in the Chesapeake Bay and along portions of the Bay’s major tributaries in the states of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.

For over thirty years, I have worked to protect America’s great treasures, such as Civil War battlefields, by forming partnerships with private landowners, major corporations, and state and federal agencies. The Chesapeake region is particularly special to Gil and me because we are “children of the Chesapeake” and have lived near its shores for our entire lives.

The proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail comes from the people of the Chesapeake. After the hearing before this Subcommittee last year, we have seen a tremendous outpouring of support for establishing the trail, from state and local governments, Indian tribes, businesses, chambers of commerce, tourism leaders, non-profit organizations, landowners, educational institutions and individual citizens. We are pleased that the proposed trail enjoys the support of the governors of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania as well as the Virginia Council on Indians and the Nanticoke Indians. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a list of supporters be included in the record.

The completion of a replica of Captain John Smith’s 30-foot boat, a shallop, earlier this year has heightened this level of public support and stirred the imagination of the general public about Smith’s voyages. We are pleased that the shallop will be on display here in Washington, D.C. at the National Geographic Society later this year. We anticipate that the public’s enthusiasm for telling this important story will only grow in advance of next year’s commemoration of the important events that took place in the Bay nearly 400 years ago.

In carrying out the Congressionally-authorized study of the proposed trail, the National Park System Advisory Board recently found that Smith’s voyages are nationally significant, a key step in the process to establish the trail. The Board concurred in the findings of the National Park Service and National Landmarks Committee that Smith’s routes of travel are nationally significant with respect to several broad themes in our nation’s history including ethnic heritage (Native Americans), exploration and settlement, and trade and commerce. Because of the historic, cultural, and economic importance of Captain John Smith’s explorations of the Chesapeake Bay and the public’s demand for information on Smith’s voyages, we respectfully request that Congress pass the bill to establish the trail this year.

Bringing American History and Imagination to Life

As you know, 2007 marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first permanent American settlement and of Captain John Smith’s arrival in the New World. Captain John Smith - sailor, soldier, explorer, and colonial leader - played a crucial role in establishing the roots of our nation’s rich maritime heritage when he explored the Chesapeake Bay in a shallop. Smith saved the hour at America’s birth and served as indefatigable leader who, with the assistance and forbearance of the Native Americans, turned fate by keeping Jamestown afloat.

As the eve of the quadricentennial of Jamestown’s founding approaches, it is important to commemorate the national significance of Smith’s voyages, which are on par with Lewis and Clark’s Corps of Discovery and their exploration of the nation’s interior. The proposed trail will recognize John Smith’s leadership and inspire generations of Americans and overseas visitors to follow Smith's journeys, gain a better understanding of the contributions of the Native Americans and to learn about the roots of American democracy.

Captain John Smith’s exploration of Chesapeake Bay was a monumental and historic achievement, shaping the boundaries, character and future of America. Smith and his crew of just over a dozen men courageously traveled almost 3,000 miles along the Bay exploring a vast region from the Virginia capes to the lower Susquehanna River near Pennsylvania.

Smith saw a Chesapeake Bay with its incredible, productive ecosystem intact and with sophisticated and diverse Native American cultures thriving along the shores of what is known today as Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Smith's famous 1612 map was the first accurate depiction of the Chesapeake Bay and the native settlements present. For nearly a century, the map served as the definitive map of the region, including areas documented entirely with information supplied by Native Americans. By providing accurate information, this map enabled the colonization of British North America. Smith’s voyages also opened the door of opportunity to establish our democratic forms of government for all Americans

On his voyages and as President of the Jamestown Colony, Captain Smith became the point of first contact for scores of Native American leaders from around the Chesapeake. His notes describing the indigenous people he met in the Chesapeake are still widely studied by historians, anthropologists and scientists. The impact of Smith’s voyages on the American Indians is a critical element of the story.

Smith commonly formed partnerships with the many different tribes by building an economic relationship based on trade. The supplies he obtained through trade with American Indians are credited with saving the Jamestown colony, during its early years. The historic meeting between colonists and Native Americans profoundly impacted both cultures and changed the course of history. These early interactions between the ambassadors of both peoples were in many ways a significant prelude for events to come.

As chronicled in his journals, Smith’s voyages in America ignited the imagination of the Old World. He produced many books and his writing inspired hundreds, and then thousands of people to settle in the “dense woods and fertile valleys” of the Chesapeake. His adventurous spirit, descriptive writing and accurate mapping all serve to bolster his place in history. A man of humble birth, he was a captivating individual that played a crucial role in our country’s history. The proposed National Historic Trail provides a practical opportunity for the outdoor enthusiast as well as the historian to get a taste of Smith’s spirit by traveling the same route he did nearly 400 years ago.

In many ways, Captain John Smith personified the chance for a better life that would become the American dream for the millions of immigrants who would later benefit from his daring. The son of a farmer in Lincolnshire, England, Smith left his home to seek adventure and fortune in the wider world. Although he was not part of England’s upper class, he became President of the Jamestown Colony, which was funded by the London based Virginia Company, one of North America’s first “venture capital” enterprises. Smith demonstrated that America was a different place, where success was achieved through hard work, not necessarily noble birth. He helped set the foundation for America’s philosophy of equality through his famous “don’t work, don’t eat” policy. Smith focused on skills and talents, not titles, setting an egalitarian outlook that has echoes in America to this date.

Smith was a bold leader who defied the odds and ignited a nation. His contemporaries gave him the credit for having supplied the firm hand and common sense that saved the Jamestown colony during its early struggles with starvation and disease. If not for his leadership, the colony would most likely have failed like the earlier lost colony of Roanoke. England may have lost its claim on the New World and our history would have been vastly different. Instead, he planted the seeds of our American democracy right here in the arms of the Chesapeake and provided inspiration to our county’s founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson when writing the Declaration of Independence.

In 1804, in his book on The Life of George Washington, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of Captain Smith "[w]hen we consider that he sailed above three thousand miles in an open boat; when we contemplate the dangers, and the hardships he encountered, and the fortitude, courage and patience with which he met them; when we reflect on the useful and important additions which he made to the stock of knowledge respecting America, then possessed by his countrymen; we shall not hesitate to say that few voyages of discovery, undertaken at any time, reflect more honor on those engaged in them, than this does on Captain Smith."

Maritime Heritage, Tourism and Recreation

In addition to commemorating Smith’s voyages, the proposed trail offers tremendous economic opportunities through heritage tourism, such as: trail outfitting and guide services, motor coach tours, food, lodging and maritime commerce. By establishing the trail, S. 2568 would provide an excellent opportunity for the public to learn about Native American history, early English settlement, as well as the Chesapeake Bay’s natural resources. The trail could promote public education through: trail maps and guide books, classroom and field experiences, museum and website exhibits, and interpretive buoys.

Smith is a proud part of the region’s rich maritime and cultural heritage, which includes the fleets of working boats tied up to the docks at watermen’s villages, restored 19th century skipjacks and buyboats, Native American villages, and documentation in local maritime museums. John Smith’s waterways of history would link these features with other recreational, cultural and historic destinations providing a highly desirable tourism opportunity for the region.

The Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Executive Council, and economic development officers, chambers of commerce and local governments have recognized the potential historic tourism opportunities of the trail. Involving volunteer communities, non-governmental organizations, public agencies, business and private landowners in the planning and operation of the trail will make the trail a new model for public-private partnerships so crucial to protecting the ecological integrity of working waterways and the ability to experience history.

Conclusion

The Chesapeake is an American treasure. It is the cradle of our nation and ties us to our history as a nation from Yorktown to the nation’s capital. The Chesapeake is also a working landscape providing billions of dollars annually to the economy of the region and is cherished by the millions of people that live near its shores. Through the bipartisan leadership of the Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania Congressional delegation, the establishment of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail would create exceptional opportunities for recreation and historical tourism experiences, education and stewardship.

S.2568 recognizes the riches of the Chesapeake, just as John Smith did when, referring to the Chesapeake, he said, "Heaven and earth never agreed better to form a more perfect place for man's habitation." We urge your favorable consideration of this bill and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Harry Robinson, III

Board of Directors

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund
Read statement
Witness Panel 3

Mr. Harry Robinson, III
Today, you are considering S. 2419, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Deadline Enforcement Act, which was introduced by Senators Stevens, Kerry and Hagel on March 15. A similar bill was passed in the House last month.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is testifying today to answer some of the questions members of the Senate may have about the necessity of this bill.

The Memorial Fund is the organization that built the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Over the years, we have found that “The Wall That Heals” has become “The Wall That Educates.” Many of the 4 million visitors who come to the Wall each year are schoolchildren who were not even alive during the Vietnam War. The Memorial Fund has come to realize that we need to do more to educate the country’s young people about the patriots who sacrificed for their country during that war.

We have sought the advice of experts who have a great deal of knowledge about the National Mall. Our initial site evaluations were conducted by the designers who created Constitution Gardens and the architect of record for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

We have worked in good faith with the commissions responsible for new projects on the Mall, but the delays continue. Congressmen Richard Pombo and Steve Pearce met with the chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on March 2, 2006, and asked him about these delays. They soon thereafter introduced and passed H.R. 4882 to force compliance with the law authorizing the Center. Senators Ted Stevens, Chuck Hagel and John Kerry agreed that a legislative solution was needed, and they introduced S. 2419, now under consideration by this Subcommittee.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund has worked within the established system to get a site approved for the Memorial Center.

This legislation is not an alternative to going through the normal channels. We have, in fact, been working within the system. Two of the three commissions that must approve a site before it is awarded have approved our preferred site, which is the site named in the legislation: “Site A,” the land bordered by Henry Bacon Drive, 23^rd Street and Constitution Avenue. (For a timeline of all activity on the Memorial Center, see Exhibit 1.)

VVMF Testimony

Page 2

The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission recommended two sites for the Memorial Center on May 11, 2005: Site A and the Interior South Building on Constitution Avenue, which is not available.

The Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) gave conditional approval to Site A during a Sept. 15, 2005 meeting, approval that was reasonably conditioned on seeing an appropriate design.

The problems have stemmed from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the third group that must give approval to the use of Site A.

The Memorial Fund and the National Park Service have experienced numerous and continuing delays at the hands of the NCPC.

The Memorial Fund and the National Park Service have acted in good faith, trying to work with the NCPC to comply with all of its requests. Here are three examples:

During a presentation at the Oct. 6 NCPC meeting, architect James Cummings, AIA, presented traffic data gleaned from existing studies conducted in 1992, 1998 and 2000. The NCPC concluded that this information was not current enough and requested a new traffic study be conducted. It was commissioned by the Memorial Fund immediately, completed and submitted to the NCPC in time for the Dec. 1 meeting.

From the beginning of their dealings about the Memorial Center, the NCPC and the Memorial Fund have been using the NCPC’s own Museums and Memorials Master Plan as a guide for how and when information should be submitted in the approval process. This document clearly shows that a preliminary environmental analysis should be completed prior to site approval, and an in-depth environmental assessment should be completed once a site has been named. (Exhibit 2) Yet, the Memorial Center was taken off of the agenda for the Dec. 1, 2005 NCPC meeting because the commission insisted that a detailed environmental assessment needed to be conducted on two sites before approval was given for any site. The Memorial Fund commissioned this assessment. It has taken four months and has cost $80,000—time and money the Memorial Fund was forced to invest in a site that has not even been approved.

In June 2005, the Department of the Interior refused to allow its Interior South Building on Constitution Avenue to be considered as a site for the Memorial Center. In spite of this refusal, the NCPC insisted the building, as well as land in front and in back of it, be considered for the Center. At NCPC insistence, the National Park Service went back to the Department of the Interior several times to request that permission to use Interior South be reconsidered. The answer remained “no.” When the National Park Service and Memorial Fund did not

VVMF Testimony

Page 3

advance the building as a serious site candidate, the NCPC staff recommendation prior to the Oct. 6, 2005 meeting criticized them for not giving this site more consideration (Exhibit 3).

Why is the NCPC delaying site approval?

The NCPC is on the record opposing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center since the project was first being considered by Congress in 2001. In 2003, as part of her testimony before this subcommittee concerning the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center, NCPC Executive Director Patricia Gallagher said, “Since 1991, the Commission has been consistent in expressing its objection to additions to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.”

In 2003, Congress passed legislation allowing a Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center “at or near” the Memorial. President Bush signed that bill into law that same year. Although the will of Congress is clear, NCPC members have felt free to continue debating the question as late as October 2005, when they were supposed to be considering where to put the Center.

“I understand that Congress passed and said that the Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center would be exempt from that [the ban on future memorials on the Mall], and that would be the last one. Well, that doesn’t ring a bell with me, because Congress has said that will be the last one on a lot of other things, too, and they didn’t live up to what they said.”—Herbert F. Ames, NCPC Commissioner

“This is sort of déjà vu of World War II for me, which I voted against consistently for one reason: I do not believe we should study war on the Mall. I think the Mall is a sacred, hallowed ground, underneath or on top, and I believe that we should not have more and more things that point to war and celebrate it.”—Arrington Dixon, NCPC Commissioner

“If you ask the average American person, they would probably say the Mall is finished. Stop doing things to it. Leave it alone. I think that what we are trying to do here in continuing to nibble away at it by special exceptions will never end unless we all cumulatively take a stand on this.”—Jose L. Galvez III, NCPC Commissioner

Documents that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund has obtained through the Freedom of Information Act illustrate an institutional bias against the Memorial Center on the part of key members of the NCPC:

In an e-mail in February 2005 about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center project, NCPC Historic Preservation Officer Nancy Witherell jokes about a colleague’s comments that, to get to a remote site, “pedestrians can ‘run’ when they get a Walk sign!” (Exhibit 4)

VVMF Testimony

Page 4

In the same e-mail, Witherell referred to a recently held public meeting about the Memorial Center site as “an NPS dog and pony show.” (Exhibit 4)

In another e-mail sent around the same time, Witherell dismisses the importance of the Memorial Center: “I realize Jan Scruggs/Congress is a high-powered applicant, but so was MCI/Mayor Barry/Abe Pollin/Federal City Council.” (Exhibit 5)

Other memorials, including the World War II Memorial and the FDR Memorial, have found the bureaucracy of the NCPC to be inhibiting to forward progress and have also sought legislative remedies to the problem.

This legislation will not enable the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to ignore historic and environmental considerations.

Furthermore, it has never been the intention of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to bypass environmental concerns or distract from the historic importance of the Mall.

The Memorial Fund has demonstrated again and again that it cares about preserving the historic vistas of the National Mall.

The year-long study commissioned by the Memorial Fund to evaluate potential sites was conducted by Henry Arnold and George Dicky, who designed Constitution Gardens, and J.C. Cummings, the architect of record for the Memorial.

The Memorial Fund conducted a public design competition that took nearly nine months and produced two world-renown firms as winners: Polshek Partnership LLC as the architect and Ralph Appelbaum Associates as the exhibit designer.

In his testimony in front of the NCPC in October 2005, architect James Polshek stated his goals for the Memorial Center: “This is a project that [will] not bear, in the end, the signature of an architect, something that you are all too familiar with here in Washington….I talked to my staff and my partners and I said, ‘We are going into this as a facilitator, as a mediator and as a protector that, in the end, our job is to protect the sanctity of the memorial and its site.’”

The National Park Service is a partner with the Memorial Fund to make sure the site chosen is best for the Center, the Mall and the country.

VVMF Testimony

Page 5

A board member of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and a key advisor in this process is Harry Robinson, chairman of the department of architecture at Howard University and a past member and chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts.

The enabling legislation passed in 2003 stipulates that the Center will be underground. So, while a representative of the NCPC was quoted by the press not long ago as saying that this legislation would result in “a five-story building on the National Mall,” that is impossible. And it is not the goal of the National Park Service or the Memorial Fund. The Center will be underground. (For the facts about other misconceptions that have aired in the press, see Exhibit 6.)

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the National Park Service must still work with the NCPC and other commissions to get approval on the design aspects of the Memorial Center. Our intention is not to bypass these bodies, but to remove the delays from getting the center under way.

Thank you for your consideration of these points. We urge the members of this subcommittee and the entire Senate to approve S. 2419.
Mr. Ray Saikus

Vietnam Veteran

U.S. Army, 1968-69

Read statement

Witness Panel 3

Mr. Ray Saikus

Rimantas (Ray) Saikus
Vietnam Veteran 1968-69
173rd Airborne Brigade
Testimony
Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands
Hearing on S. 2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper remembrance
of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam War by providing a deadline for
the designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
May 16, 2006

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
testify on behalf of myself and the family of my best friend, Steve Mylant, a U.S. Marine, who was killed in Vietnam in 1967; my fellow Vietnam Veterans; and my fellow citizens, who are in concert with the statements and concerns to be presented here but could not attend. My testimony is directed to your deliberations regarding S. 2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

I have made this trip in the midst of a monumental task -- helping to organize the
placement of Memorial Day flags honoring the 120,000-plus veterans buried in more than 150 cemeteries throughout Greater Cleveland in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. I am the Vice-President of the Memorial Day Association of Greater Cleveland.

But the course of action that the House of Representatives has taken with bill H.R. 4882
and the Senate is considering with bill S. 2419, alarmed me and moved me to participate in this hearing in memory of those who we honor on Memorial Day. If this bill is enacted, it would bring into light a painful reality about what value we place as a nation on the beliefs and sacrifices of those who gave their lives for their country and those who serve or served in the past. My fellow veterans and myself served and placed our lives on the line with the belief that, as we brought freedom and self-determination to others throughout the world, we were guaranteeing the same for our families and our fellow citizens. The right and ability of ordinary citizens to participate in our government is what these bills would strip from the families of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, those who served and the citizens. It would take away the opportunity to benefit from the still gravely needed healing process that the site selection and design process for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center can bring.

I can assure you from my personal experience that the laws which would be preempted
by these bills – laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act – are fundamental to the rights of citizens in our democracy, and are effective ways for citizens to participate in our government. The House of Representatives seems to perceive citizen involvement as a nuisance that should be eliminated. But it is important to understand that, by shutting off these well-established public comment procedures, Congress would be silencing the voices of Vietnam veterans themselves, as well as their families, and denying veterans the ability to have any say at all in the location and design of their visitor center.

I have had the privilege of participating in volunteer organizations, as a veteran and as a
citizen, dedicated to honoring our heritage and honoring those who served. As a Mechanical Engineer and member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, now ASME International, I had the honor of successfully nominating two icons of our nation’s industrial heritage, the Steamship William G. Mather and the Hulett Iron Ore Unloaders in Cleveland, for designation as ASME International Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmarks. So I have a special appreciation for the importance of protecting our heritage, which these bills would undermine. I would like to cite four examples in which I have been personally involved, where the process of public involvement by veterans, including through the very laws that Congress is considering preempting here, is having a meaningful effect.

· I was a co-founder of Greater Cleveland Veterans Memorial Inc., an organization in
Cleveland that reclaimed Marshall Frederick’s "Fountain of Eternal Life", a onceabandoned
monument and plaza originally dedicated to honor those who died during
WWII and the Korean War. In a process that took over 10 years, we participated to
guarantee the monument's proper refurbishment and to bring about its expanded scope,
one honoring all of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country from Cuyahoga
County, beginning with the Spanish-American War up to and including the present Iraq
and Afghanistan Wars. Over 5500 names are now engraved on plaques around the
fountain.

· On another occasion, we Vietnam Veterans of Northeast Ohio had to fight to retain the
name of “Vietnam Veterans of American Highway” from being changed to “Hall of
Fame Highway,” a proposal that had been developed and advanced without any
consultation at all with the veterans.

· In another area of Cleveland, Rockefeller Park, trees were planted with plaques at their
bases in memory of the 800-plus soldiers from the County that were killed in action in
World War I. Rockefeller Park is also the site for four other veterans-related memorials,
the American Colonial Garden with a monument to those who perished at Pearl Harbor,
the Brotherhood Shrine Garden with a monument in memory of the four Chaplains who
gave their lives to save our troops, the American Legion Peace Garden of the Nations and
the American Legion Peace Garden of the United States. This area, once abandoned by
the city, has been continually restored during the last twenty years by volunteers and has
become a pristine area in honor of those WWI soldiers, the other veteran memorials, with
pride in the heritage of Rockefeller Park and Cleveland's Cultural Gardens. Then the
Doan Brook “Restoration” project was introduced by the FAA in an attempt to mitigate
damage to wetlands and streams from the expansion of the Cleveland Airport. However,
the veterans were totally excluded from this decision-making process, even though the
veterans were the earliest and among the most affected stakeholders. The remediation
design called for imposing extensive blotchy sections of wild growth, demolishing
retaining walls, and creating a look of abandonment, with major safety problems for
volunteers, residents and visitors. Fortunately for us veterans, the National Trust for
Historic Preservation advised us about the proposed project. The veterans immediately
rallied to the defense of a place of honor for those who cannot defend it themselves. Yet
our requests to reopen the decision were rejected by the FAA and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, even though the project was running into other problems as a
result of bids that far exceeded estimated costs. The veterans informed them that the
Doan Brook “Restoration” project was a misnomer and misled us into assuming that they
were fixing the retaining walls and improving the area . Though this conflict has not yet
been resolved, we are confident that the process will eventually be effective.

· On another project in Cleveland, four of the last remaining Hulett Iron Ore Unloaders
were the subject of a legal battle in Federal Court in which I was one of the Plaintiffs
against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for not complying with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. We lost two of the four Huletts to demolition when
the Army Corps issued a dredging permit without even considering preservation of the
Huletts. With the help of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, however, we were
vindicated by a federal court, and the dredging permit was revoked. Six years later, the
Port Authority is re-applying for a permit and the National Historic Preservation Act is
empowering us to defend and preserve for future generations the remaining two Huletts,
icons of this country's ingenuity and its industrious people.

Because we as citizens and veterans were left out of many of these processes, I am one of
the voices for those who want to make sure that the families of those who made the ultimate
sacrifice, those who still have both physical and emotional scars from the Vietnam War as well as their families, and the veterans who served, have an opportunity to be heard on how we are going to memorialize and interpret the story of their sacrifice, and alleviate their pain and suffering, and especially how we are going to help them and our nation heal. Our soldiers serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world will find comfort knowing that on our watch the freedoms and rights of their families to participate in the government decision-making process are being protected, especially when many of them are sons and daughters of Vietnam Veterans.

Congress has created the procedures for citizens to participate and bring forth their
visions. Since this Visitor Center will be built on public federal property or with the support of public funds or services, then all interested citizens, including the veterans themselves, deserve to be heard and have their right to participate defended and protected by this Congress.

My personal healing has come a long way because I have been able to participate in the
administrative process that influences the decisions of our government. Gentlemen and ladies, through your actions you can help other veterans and the nation heal. Please do not disrupt the ability of others to heal by taking away their right to participate in the public process that will help to decide the location and design of our Visitor Center.

The WWII and Korean Veterans waited longer than the Vietnam Veterans for their
memorials. A little wait by us Vietnam Veterans and families through this process will give an opportunity for the end product to be a significant and memorable addition to our "Wall" and one that those honored on the "Wall" deserve. Taking the additional time to allow a public process would also give the Vietnam Veterans themselves the opportunity to participate in influencing the location and design of the new Visitor Center. The bill as proposed would completely shut us out of that discussion.

We respect and salute those who have championed the cause to honor those who gave
their all during the Vietnam War, and those who served. Now is the time to reflect on their
accomplishments, cherish the legacy that they have left, and let not haste and exclusion taint
their good deeds.

Hearings and Business Meetings

Archived Webcast

Witness Panel 1

The Honorable Mark Pryor

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

The Honorable John Warner

Witness Panel 2

Ms. Patricia Gallagher

Mr. Steve Martin

Witness Panel 3

Mr. Patrick Noonan

Mr. Harry Robinson, III

Mr. Ray Saikus