99–010

Calendar No. 179

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 107–77

ADAMS MEMORIAL

OCTOBER 1, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. BINGAMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 1668]

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was

referred the Act (H.R. 1668) to authorize the Adams Memorial

Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in

the District of Columbia and its environs to honor former President

John Adams and his legacy, having considered the same, reports

favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the

Act do pass.

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 1668 is to authorize the Adams Memorial

Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of

Columbia or its environs to honor former President John Adams,

his wife Abigail Adams, their son, former President John Quincy

Adams, and the family’s legacy of public service.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The family including our second President John Adams, his wife

Abigail Adams, and their son, the sixth President John Quincy

Adams has made a distinguished contribution to American history.

Historian and author David McCullough contends that the force of

John Adams’ argument on the floor of the Second Continental Congress was critical in securing sufficient support for the Declaration

of Independence. During the Revolutionary War, Adams negotiated

a loan from the Dutch that allowed the former colonists to carry

on the fight for independence, and he later helped to negotiate the

Treaty of Paris, ending the American Revolution. Following his

service as the Nation’s first Vice President, John Adams was elected President in 1797, the first to live in the White House. As PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:31 Oct 03, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR077.XXX pfrm04 PsN: SR077
2

dent, John Adams managed to avoid a potentially disastrous military confrontation with France, despite considerable political pressure to declare war.

John Adams’ wife, Abigail Smith Adams, was an early advocate

of women’s rights, a fierce patriot, and a staunch abolitionist. She

is still regarded as one of the most influential first ladies. Their son

John Quincy Adams was the only former president to be elected to

the House of Representatives. Prior to his election as President in

1825, John Quincy Adams served in the Senate and later as Secretary of State under the Monroe Administration. During his tenure in the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams was

known as ‘‘Old Man Eloquent’’ for championing unpopular causes

with distinction and for his leadership in opposition to slavery.

H.R. 1668 would honor the family’s legacy of public service by

authorizing the Adams Memorial Foundation to construct a commemorative work in the District of Columbia or its environs in accordance with the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 1668 was introduced by Representative Roemer on May 1,

2001. The Act passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote

on June 25. The Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing

on the bill on July 17, 2001. At its business meeting on August 2,

2001, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered

H.R. 1668 favorably reported without amendment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in

open business session on August 2, 2001, by a voice vote of a

quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 1668 as

described herein.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1(a) contains congressional findings.

Subsection (b) authorizes the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia or its

environs to honor former President John Adams, his wife Abigail

Adams, their son, former President John Quincy Adams, and the

family’s legacy of public service.

Subsection (c) requires that the memorial be established in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et

seq.).

Subsection (d) precludes the use of Federal funds to pay for any

expense relating to the establishment of the memorial. The Commemorative Works Act requires the sponsoring entity to raise the

entire cost of construction, plus an additional 10 percent to be used

to fund perpetual maintenance of the commemorative work.

Subsection (e) provides that if the Adams Memorial Foundation

raises funds beyond the amount required, including the maintenance reserve, then any additional funds are to be transmitted to

the Treasury in accordance with section 8(b)(1) of the Commemorative Works Act.

3

Section 2 states that the terms ‘‘commemorative work’’ and ‘‘the

District of Columbia and its environs’’ have the same meaning as

they are defined in the Commemorative Works Act.

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of the costs of this measure has been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, August 17, 2001.

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1668, an act to authorize

the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative

work on federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs

to honor former President John Adams and his legacy.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.

Sincerely,

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

H.R. 1668—An act to authorize the Adams Memorial Foundation to

establish a commemorative work on federal land in the District

of Columbia and its environs to honor former President John

Adams and his legacy

H.R. 1668 would authorize the Adams Memorial Foundation to

establish (without the use of federal funds) a memorial in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act. Under that act, any association that receives a permit to construct a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs must deposit an amount equal to

10 percent of the memorial’s estimated construction cost in the U.S.

Treasury. The funds deposited are then available without further

appropriation for maintenance and preservation of the memorial.

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1668 would have no significant impact on federal discretionary spending. Because the act

would affect offsetting receipts (from the payment of 10 percent of

construction funds) and direct spending (from using a portion of

this money for annual maintenance), pay-as-you-go procedures

would apply. CBO cannot estimate the effect of these transactions

because a design or concept for the memorial does not exist at this

time. Based on the experience with similar commemorative

projects, however, we expect that no amounts would be received or

spent by the federal government for several years after the legislation is enacted and that such collections and spending would offset

each other over time.

The legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and

would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

4

The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget

Analysis.

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out

H.R. 1668. The Act is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing government-established standards or significant responsibilities on private individuals and businesses.

No personal information would be collected in administering the

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy.

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of H.R. 1668

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

On July 27, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of the

Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting forth

Executive agency recommendations on H.R. 1668. These reports

had not been received at the time this report was filed. The testimony provided by the National Park Service and the National Capital Planning Commission at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. PARSONS, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR LANDS, RESOURCES, AND PLANNING, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present

the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 1668, which

would authorize the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia and its environs to honor former President John Adams, along with

his wife Abigail Adams and his son, former President John

Quincy Adams, and the family’s legacy of public service.

The Department supports enactment of H.R. 1668 as

amended and passed by the House of Representatives on

June 25, 2001. This position is consistent with the recommendation of the National Capital Memorial Commission, which endorsed the proposed legislation by a unanimous vote on April 26, 2001.

H.R. 1668 authorizes the establishment of the Adams

memorial in accordance with the Commemorative Works

Act of 1986. The Act established a process under which,

following authorization of the subject matter by Congress,

the Secretary of the Interior submits a plan for the site

and design of the memorial for approval by the National

Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine

Arts. The bill also provides that no Federal funds shall be

used to pay any expense of the establishment of the commemorative work. The Adams Memorial Foundation would

be responsible for not only the cost of construction of the

memorial, but also for establishing a fund in the Treasury

5

equal to ten percent of the cost of construction for catastrophic maintenance and preservation, as provided for in

Section 8(b) of the Commemorative Works Act.

A memorial to John Adams, Abigail Adams, and John

Quincy Adams in the Nation’s Capital would be quite appropriate. As one of the findings in H.R. 1668 states, ‘‘Few

families have contributed as profoundly to the United

States as the family that gave the Nation its second president, John Adams; its sixth president, John Quincy

Adams; first ladies Abigail Smith Adams and Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams; and succeeding generations of

statesmen, diplomats, advocates, and authors.’’ One of the

three Library of Congress buildings is named after John

Quincy Adams but, otherwise, there is no major public

work in the District of Columbia that recognizes or memorializes John Adams or John Quincy Adams. We agree

with the sponsors of this bill that these father-and-son

presidents and their family’s legacy of public service deserve a memorial in Washington.

As noted above, this legislation simply authorizes the

process for developing an Adams memorial to move forward. The Adams Memorial Foundation has not yet proposed a design or site for the memorial, nor have there

been any decisions made by the National Capital Memorial

Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, or the National

Capital Planning Commission other than endorsement of

H.R. 1668 by the National Capital Memorial Commission.

However, because the three commissions have established

policies against siting any more memorials in the ‘‘reserve,’’ the area that represents the Mall east to west and

the White House to the Jefferson Memorial north to south,

the memorial would not be located there. Instead, the recommended site would likely be one of the 100 sites that

have been identified in a master plan for memorials and

museums in the District of Columbia and its environs by

the three commissions as sites that are appropriate for

new memorials.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be

pleased to answer any questions you or other members of

the Subcommittee may have.

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA E. GALLAGHER, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to speak

on behalf of the National Capital Planning Commission regarding the proposal to construct a memorial honoring

former President John Adams; his wife, Abigail; and his

son and former President John Quincy Adams. The Commission recognizes the enduring legacy and remarkable

contributions the Adams family made to the social and political life of our nation. Commemorating John Adams and

his family’s life and work in our Nation’s Capital is a fitting and appropriate tribute.

The Commission is particularly pleased to support this

proposal because this is among the first memorials whose

6

location and development will be guided by the new Memorials and Museums Master Plan. The Commission developed the master plan in cooperation with the Commission

of Fine Arts and the National Capital Memorial Commission and released it in draft form several months ago. The

plan is the result of a two-year collaborative effort to preserve the historic open space of Washington’s Monumental

Core while identifying sites for new cultural and commemorative facilities.

A key feature of the master plan is a Commemorative

Zone Policy that establishes a Reserve in the central crossaxis of the Mall in which the three commissions have

agreed to approve no new memorial sites. The area immediately adjacent—Area I—is a sensitive area designated

for memorials of preeminent and historic national significance. Finally, the Commemorative Zone Policy delineates

an Area II that encompasses the rest of the city and where

the review agencies will encourage development of future

commemorative works. The plan integrates key natural

features—rivers, ridges, overlooks—with the avenues,

parks and squares created by Pierre L’Enfant and subsequent planning. Although it builds on these earlier plans,

it also introduces new elements that strengthen Washington’s symbolic and commemorative character.

The master plan identifies approximately 100 sites for

new museums and memorials and provides general guidelines for how these facilities should be developed. The plan

seeks to reach public consensus on locations in the National Capital that are appropriate for these important

public spaces and offers memorial sponsors suitable locations for their projects. The plan is also intended to ensure

that future generations of Americans have a sufficient supply of desirable sites for their own commemorative and cultural needs. For your information, we have provided maps

of the Commemorative Zone Policy and the proposed master plan sites.

In preparing the master plan, we have consulted with a

team of nationally recognized planning and design professionals and with the District of Columbia government and

local and community and professional groups. Released in

draft form for public comment this past December, the

plan has enjoyed broad public acceptance. Benjamin

Forgey, the Architecture Critic of the Washington Post has

called the plan ‘‘a brilliant piece of work.’’ The Washington

Chapter of the American Institute of Architects has applauded the plan, and the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association has recognized it with its highest award. We are now incorporating the comments we received from the public and expect to release the final

version in September.

The Commission believes that with the help of the master plan, the Adams Memorial Foundation will be able to

identify several highly desirable possible locations for its

project. We look forward to working with the Adams Memorial Foundation to identify a location of beauty and sigVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:31 Oct 03, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR077.XXX pfrm04 PsN: SR077
7

nificance and to approve a design that is worthy of this remarkable family. We believe that the Memorials and Museums Master Plan offers a new landscape of commemoration in the Nation’s Capital and that this memorial will

permit us to demonstrate that we can pay tribute to our

national history in a way that makes us all proud.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I will

be happy to answer any questions.

8

9

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the Act H.R. 1668 as ordered reported.

Æ