U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–945 PDF 2004

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE PEOPLING OF

AMERICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 20, 2004

Serial No. 108–230

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

——— ———

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. MARC WHEAT, Staff Director

ALENA GUAGENTI, Legislative Assistant

MALIA HOLST, Clerk

TONY HAYWOOD, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 20, 2004 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Matthews, Janet Snyder, Associate Director for Cultural Resources, National Park Service ....................................................................................... 17

Toy, Katherine, executive director, Angel Island Immigration Station

Foundation; Ellen Von Karajan, executive director, the Society for the

Preservation of Federal Hill and Fell’s Point, board member, Baltimore

Immigration Project; and Kathryn E. Wilson, director, education and

interpretation, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania .............................. 39

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 9

Matthews, Janet Snyder, Associate Director for Cultural Resources, National Park Service, prepared statement of ................................................ 20

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 4

Toy, Katherine, executive director, Angel Island Immigration Station

Foundation, prepared statement of ............................................................. 43

Von Karajan, Ellen, executive director, the Society for the Preservation

of Federal Hill and Fell’s Point, board member, Baltimore Immigration

Project, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 62

Wilson, Kathryn E., director, education and interpretation, the Historical

Society of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of ........................................ 77

(1)

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE PEOPLING

OF AMERICA

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND

HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Souder, Cummings, and Norton.

Staff present: J. Marc Wheat, staff director and chief counsel;

Alena Guagenti, legislative assistant; Malia Holst, clerk; Tony Haywood, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee will come to order.

Good afternoon and thank you all for coming. Today’s hearing

will examine the historic preservation of the story of immigration,

migration and settlement of the population of the United States.

The peopling of America. This is a facet of our history that strikes

a chord with many Americans, because it so closely relates to our

personal histories as Americans and how our families came to be

here.

Recent years have seen a boom in America’s interest in family

history. A poll conducted in 2000 found that approximately 60 percent of the U.S. population is interested in family history, and that

about 35 million people had conducted family history research on

line. One of the gems in my district is the Historical Genealogy Department at the Allen County Public Library.

With its renowned collection of historical records, every year the

library’s Genealogy Research Center serves over 100,000 researchers who come from all 50 States as well as from foreign countries

to discover their family roots. In fact, it’s second to Salt Lake City.

They search for information about the places where their families

entered the United States, trace their paths as they moved through

their new land and uncover the places where they settled and

made their new homes. They discover their family’s role in the peopling of America.

At some point, all Americans traveled to this country from another land. The story of how people immigrated to this country, migrated within it and settled in communities is not only an important part of our personal family histories, it’s an important part of

our national history as well. It is part of the story of many people

2

coming together to form this great country of ours, as our national

motto expresses, E Pluribus Unum, from many, one.

How do we preserve this part of American history and educate

future generations about it? Because the history of the peopling of

America is very much embedded with a sense of place, the ports

of entry where people came into the United States, the route they

journeyed along as they moved within the country, the communities where they settled, one of the primary ways we commemorate it is by preserving those places that are of particular significance to our national story.

As the guardian of many of our Nation’s historic places, the National Park Service has a crucial role in preserving the history of

the peopling of America. Many of us have been to or at least know

of Ellis Island, part of the Statute of Liberty National Monument

in New York. Over 12 million immigrants entered the United

States at Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954, and the exhibits and

programs there now mark an important period in the peopling of

America. Other National Park Service units, from the Bering Land

Bridge National Preserve in Alaska, to the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, to Gloria Dei Church National Historic Site,

originally built by 17th century Swedish colonists in what is now

Philadelphia, preserve elements of the history of the peopling of

America.

In its revised thematic framework, adopted in 1994, the National

Park Service identified ‘‘peopling places,’’ human population and

change, as one of eight primary themes for preserving and interpreting American history. The Park Service has explored various

aspects of this theme, not only through interpretation at individual

park units, but also by connecting related sites through educational

and research programs. For instance, the National Register of Historic Places’ program Teaching with Historic Places, which incorporates historic sites listed on the National Register into educational materials, has created lesson plans on such subjects as

‘‘Immigration,’’ ‘‘Pioneer America,’’ ‘‘Westward Expansion,’’ and several ethnic studies.

Yet with the importance of the peopling of America to our national history, we should examine if historic sites can be still better

linked through resources such as educational materials and heritage tourism products to increase public awareness of these historic

places and promote education on American history. Are there heritage tourism products available for people interested in this history,

so they can visit sites related to the peopling of America? Are comprehensive lists of historic sites that interpret themes of immigration, migration and settlement available for people who wish to

learn more about the places that tell this story?

We also should consider how sites significant to the peopling of

America are identified and preserved. Even though there are over

77,000 listings on the National Register of Historic Places, sites associated with a broad range of cultures are not well represented.

Even designated sites can be in danger of being lost. Just 5 years

ago, the National Trust for Historic Preservation listed the Angel

Island Immigration, a National Historic Landmark often referred

to as the Ellis Island of the West, as one of America’s 11 most endangered places. What about sites that have no designation? We

3

need to identify where these gaps in historic preservation are and

take steps to ensure that nationally significant sites are protected.

How do we identify important sites and establish their significance? What partnerships can be formed to preserve and interpret

them? What is the role of the National Park Service in this historic

preservation and how are State, local and private entities also engaged in this work? These are valuable questions for us to ask as

we examine how we can best preserve this part of our Nation’s history.

Today we are pleased to hear from Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews,

Associate Director for Cultural Resources for the National Park

Service. I look forward to learning more about the Park Service’s

sites and programs that can help tell the story of the peopling of

America and discussing the Park Service’s continued role in preserving this important part of American history.

Private organizations and individuals have often been vital actors in preserving historic sites and structures. Today we are

pleased to hear from witnesses who will discus community efforts

and interest in preserving the history of the peopling of America.

We welcome Katherine Toy, executive director of Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation in San Francisco, CA; Ellen Von

Karajan, executive director of the Society for Preservation of Federal Hill and Fell’s Point in Baltimore, MD and a board member

of the Baltimore Immigration Project; and Kathryn Wilson, the director of education and interpretation at the Historical Society of

Pennsylvania. Arnaldo Ramos, who works with the cultural communities here in Washington, DC, was invited to testify, but is ill

and unable to attend the hearing today. He will be submitting a

written statement for the record.

We thank everyone for joining us today for this important hearing.

This is our first subcommittee hearing on national parks and

public lands oversight, which this subcommittee gained jurisdiction

over in the last negotiation over committee assignments. This also

has as a foundational background in a bill that Senator Akaka introduced and then I introduced in the House dealing with the peopling of America. It passed several times, but is now bound up

again, because it got caught twice in the legislative log jam at the

end of the year. And we’re in the process of rewriting that bill and

hope to move something yet this year. Part of the goal of this hearing is to define and better define the goals of that legislation, how

we identify sites that are still missing and develop this type of program.

So that’s the background of today’s hearing, and we will be working with the National Park’s authorizing committee, of which I am

a member as well.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

4

5

6

7

Mr. SOUDER. I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing. The National Park Service indeed plays a very vital

role in preserving and telling the story of our Nation’s history.

It was just Monday, Mr. Chairman, that I joined President Bush

at a presentation that was actually done by the Park Service in Topeka, KS. It was one of the finest presentations I have seen in my

life. They have done a remarkable job of overseeing the renovation

of the school that was at issue in Brown v. Board of Education. It’s

a beautiful sight, and it certainly addresses of the time very frankly and all kinds of exhibits.

I want to take this moment to publicly say to all of our Park

Service friends that it is so important, and we thank you. Sometimes our history is not always pretty, but it needs to be told, and

to be accurate. I think you’ve done an outstanding job, and I hope

that you’ll pass that on to your colleagues.

Although the Park Service is best known for its maintenance of

U.S. parks, more than half of the units within the Service are cultural sites commemorating facets of the country’s history. The

Service also administers the National Historic Landmarks Program

to recognize nationally significant cultural resources outside the

Park Service. The Park Service’s thematic framework is a conceptual tool for evaluating the significance of cultural resources, such

as historical buildings and other physical sites within and outside

the Service. The framework outlines major themes that help to conceptualize American history. It is also used to identify historical

sites of significance and to describe and analyze the multiple layers

of history embodied within the site.

The first thematic framework was adopted in 1936, conceived in

terms of ‘‘stages of American progress,’’ it focused primarily on the

achievements of military and political figures. Revisions in 1970

and 1987 added chronological and topical detail and also increased

the number of themes and sub-themes, but did not alter the framework’s basic conceptualization of the past. In 1990, however, Congress passed legislation directing the Park Service to revise its thematic framework to reflect contemporary trends in scholarship and

research on American history and culture. Academic scholars and

Park Service professionals convened in 1993 to develop a revised

framework.

The revised thematic framework they devised sets forth eight

themes that present a larger and more integrated view of history.

The themes stress interplay of race, ethnicity, class and gender

within and among the framework’s broadened topics. First among

the eight themes in the revised framework is peopling places. The

peopling theme examines human population movement in a change

through prehistoric and historic times, focusing on immigration,

migration and settlement. It also looks at family formation and different concepts of gender, family and sexual division of labor.

Today’s hearing offers a valuable opportunity to assess the extent

to which the National Park Service has succeeded in infusing the

peopling places theme into all relevant Park Service programs. Although significant progress has been made in identifying and preserving sites that relate to a broader range of peopling stories, concerns remain about the under-representation of sites associated

8

with various population groups on the National Register of Historic

Places. In addition, given that peopling is discussed in terms of immigration, migration and settlement, it is important to clarify the

extent to which the theme embraces the importation of people as

chattel to the Americans during the African slave trade, and

whether relevant sites are being preserved to interpret the major

dimension of America’s multi-faceted peopling story.

Today we will hear from the National Park Service concerning

their efforts to express the revised thematic framework through

their preservation and educational activities. We will also hear

from individuals in the private sector who are playing an important

part in preservation and educational efforts related to places and

stories that have not received due attention in the past.

I am especially pleased that Ellen Von Karajan joins us today to

discuss her efforts to preserve and tell the story of Baltimore’s role

as perhaps America’s second largest gateway for immigrants. Mr.

Chairman, it is of greatest importance that the history of this country be preserved for our own benefit, and that for generations yet

unborn. Our Nation’s historic sites are invaluable story telling devices. Working to expand the range of cultural resources we identify and preserve will ensure that our history will be told more accurately, vividly and comprehensively.

So I thank you for holding this hearing today and I look forward

to the testimony of our witnesses. With that, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative

days to submit written statements and questions for the hearing

record, and any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and

other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be

included in the hearing record, that all Members be permitted to

revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, so ordered.

It is the tradition and more or less agreed-upon requirement of

this committee and our standard practices that witnesses have to

testify under oath, as an oversight committee. So Dr. Snyder Matthews, if you could stand and raise your right hand, I’ll administer

the oath.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that the witness responded in

the affirmative.

I’m expecting great things here. I was talking with Congresswoman Katherine Harris last night at dinner, and she said that

you’re a wonderful person, worked with her in the State of Florida.

So welcome to our hearing, and we look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JANET SNYDER MATTHEWS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE

Ms. MATTHEWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the interest of brevity, I will summarize the testimony already

submitted to your subcommittee. Thank you for your kind comments. I’ll try very hard not to disprove anything you’ve heard. And

thank you, Mr. Cummings, for your comments as ranking member.

My own dissertation, just completed 5 years ago, was on an African-American topic in southwest Florida. That grew out of something that I had worked on for years as a consultant. I know the

undertone and the front tone of the things that you said, and appreciate your comments very much.

I will summarize and I’ll go as quickly as I can, because I’m already at 4 minutes and 19 seconds.

We are about the peopling of America. The National Park Service, the National Register of Historic Places, National Landmarks—

we are about peopling of America. That’s what we do. In a nutshell,

in the 1930’s, the period you referred to, Congress authorized the

Historic Sites Act, which recognized and underscored the importance of places significant to the Nation as a whole, places that

were to benefit and inspire the Nation as a whole, places that had

standing, significance to all Americans, coast to coast, border to

border.

In 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act, when the middle

class came to Congress, established the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Places, as we know

it today, encompasses places of local significance, State significance, national significance, things in your backyard, things in

your hometown, your grandmother’s house if it meets the criteria.

So we go from one iconographic level of significance to one that is

18

all America, and reflective of the Congress that enacted those authorizations.

We also do these online travel itineraries, 93 lesson plans that

you’ve alluded to already. All of those things are built on the documentation outlined in the landmark laws and in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. It all began in 1933 when the Parks

inherited management of battlefields, and added that management

responsibility to their mission.

In 1935, the Historic Sites Act required a historic site survey, so

that documentation became an important part of what we did to

determine significance. They are thematically related, tied together

to sites, so that they have a matching integrity upon which their

significance can be built. The importance of that is that we have

in each determination of significance something important to everybody in this room, including the students from Wichita, KS, who

join you today in your committee room. We have within each one

of those sometimes the only documented history of a place that’s

ever going to be written, because it has to meet the Federal standards for what documentation is.

So each one of these programs being built over 70 years and 40

years respectively, become a very important piece of a puzzle that

Congress designed by virtue of how they get to be designated, and

that is the documentation. As you said, within each of our areas—

immigration, settlement, and migration, the peopling of America—

we have within certain Park units so many sites that are specifically tied to that. But I must honestly say, as a historian of 30

years, whose history experience began with nominating a site to

the National Register, that I would be very hard pressed to tell you

that anything on the National Register today or any landmark

today excludes the topics you are interested in. Whether sites are

listed by that category or not, they represent exactly what you’re

after, almost each and every single one of them, even though we

may categorize them for certain other purposes.

You will be hearing from Katherine Toy. Congress directed the

National Park Service to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of

preserving and interpreting within the Golden Gate National Recreational Area, the Angel Island Immigration Station. On the West

Coast, that is to people of Asian heritage what on the East Coast

is represented in Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.

Today, after 40 years, the National Register of Historic Places totals 77,000 listings, but those represent 1.3 million contributing resources, inclusive of Eatonville in Florida, which is the first African-American established town in the Nation. And places like Fort

King, which is now a national landmark; last week the designation

ceremony occurred. That was because it represents a coming together of the Seminole Nation, and includes the slaves who had

gone voluntarily and involuntarily with the Seminole Nation, and

were at war with the United States of America when Florida was

still a territory.

So we have 77,000 listings on the National Register, and 1.3 million are contributing resources across the Nation. In 1992, we

began the travel itineraries, with the World War II Memorial being

finalized and opening officially on Memorial Day. In a few days, we

will have 33 travel itineraries. Those are on line, those are today,

19

interactive. Established in 1993, the Teaching With Historic Places

program is up to 113. These make students into historians. They

are on line, and they teach people to map their own back yards,

their own neighborhoods, how to get to school, what is in their own

towns, how do you look it up, and they include hot links to the Library of Congress and other resources that really would not be

available until you are an adult and qualified to research there.

So we’re talking about real places, we’re talking about 70 years

worth of landmarks, 40 years with National Register of Historic

Places. We’re talking about documentation for each and every one

of those 1.3 million resources, and 2,356 landmarks. We are about

real places, publicly owned park units, publicly owned by other

public bodies, privately held and individually held and the documentation that goes into those, and a huge body which could be legitimately called ‘‘the Peopling of America’’ in each and every instance.

And that is the history of how we’ve done it. I think it was best

said by Larry Rivers, who is the dean of the College of Arts and

Sciences at Florida A&M University, a new member of our National Park System Advisory Board, that met for the first time

since his appointment in March. He said, ‘‘We all, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Americans from every group, no matter

what generation, need to go into these units and find ourselves.

And if we don’t go, we’re not going to know. That is the challenge

of today, and I think that’s why you’ve convened this. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I’m available to answer any questions that I might

be able to.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Matthews follows:]

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I have a number of questions I’d like

to ask. I’m not quite sure which direction I want to go. Let me start

with the National Historic Landmark status. Who initiates the

process? Does it mostly come up from local groups? I know you

have regional people who go out to check out proposals that are

coming in, and you have a national board. But what’s the process

that says, look, here’s a gap, or is it more a process of somebody

pushing? I know for example in my area we had three that we

raised, because we had never had a historic landmark in my area

of the State.

The National Park Service had sent someone in who is the regional person who looks at that, evaluated three. They are at different stages. One has been cleared. One is pending because the

university that was contracted to study it further had a technical

area. The third, the Richardville House, which is the oldest Native

American home on its original site east of the Mississippi, had

some alterations and they’re trying to work through and take it

back to its more original state.

But those were all initiated by me, working with the local groups

and then calling in to the National Park Service and asking if

somebody could come here. How does, I assume that’s not the normal process.

Ms. MATTHEWS. Well, it can be the normal process, and we would

love to work with you and track those three and see exactly where

they are. As you know, the National Historic Preservation Act directs each State to designate a Federal officer to head up the State

Historic Preservation Office. I was the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, and I know how landmarks have worked in Florida. Often it is through that State office, which works in conjunction with the regional office and the Park Service. But landmarks

can be very individually nominated. The one I attended a designation ceremony for in Florida last week, Fort King, was initiated by

the city of Ocala, and their archaeological excavations began in

1954.

The U.S. Air Force Academy, which was just designated April 1st

on their 50th anniversary was undertaken by the U.S. Air Force

Academy. Individuals such as yourself can initiate nominations.

The National Register project I worked on initially, before I even

had a Master’s degree in history, was individually undertaken by

me back in the days of typewriters, when the form I sent in

weighed 3 pounds because of all the white-out on it.

So it can be ny am individual. It can be by a city. It can be by

any other unit. It can be by a private organization. With your Save

America’s Treasures grants program that you all support each

year, and have a great interest in, it can also be a congressionally

authorized study bill out of which national significance is one of the

requirements. So there’s hope for that as well.

Mr. SOUDER. You described in your testimony that at one point,

there was a, I forget the year, there was an analysis done by the

Park Service that said, here are the key sites we ought to be looking at. But that isn’t an ongoing review where you would look at

it and say, I’m going to oversimplify here and exaggerate, but to

somebody who comes from what I would call the Middle West or

the Great Lakes States—sometimes Nebraska thinks of itself as

30

the Midwest. If you go west of the Mississippi, wherever there were

about 50 Native Americans or Indians, there are 2 historic sites.

You go east of the Mississippi and there are hardly any in the system recognized.

Now, part of that is because a lot of them were denigrated in

their historic value. In other words, we built over them, we tore

them down, they were destroyed. But even in this list of migration

and settlement list that you gave, the overwhelming, you would

guess from that migration started somewhere around St. Louis and

then went west, and not that the majority of the people lived in the

eastern half of the United States, and the majority of immigration

and migration was in the eastern half of the United States. Does

somebody look at this, even when congressional proposals are coming up, or looking at it and saying, boy, we’ve got some gaps here.

We have a whole bunch out here, and you can’t go 50 miles going

west without running across a historic sites or a historic landmark.

But you go east and they’re few and far between.

Ms. MATTHEWS. Well, of course I will get back to you with a very

specific answer to that very specific question and do some analysis

of it. But of course in the eastern United States there is a preponderance of landmark sites and a preponderance of trails as well.

And in my own home State of Ohio, the Cuyahoga Valley National

Park and the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Corridor have a

very heavy intensity of sites. Sometimes it’s a matter of where the

research has been done and where it hasn’t.

And if the question is, are we looking levelly at representation,

fair representation, equal representation for areas, I will tell you

that as Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, I had a call 1

day from the National Landmark staff in Washington saying that

they had decided that the most likely Cuban immigration story site

should be the Freedom Tower, the former Miami News newspaper

office in Miami. They had actually picked that one out as the most

likely one because it still had integrity, etc. And we started from

that moment in-house, in-State writing that nomination, which still

isn’t finished.

Mr. SOUDER. That’s exactly what I was trying to get at. If you

could give us some insight, because yesterday as we were working

through the draft of the bill and trying to look at that, one of the

subjects that came up was the Cuban immigration. Is there a site

that could be identified, or is there any kind of planning at the national level that is looking at a category of Cuban-American people

that is significant? Sometimes we say a historic site has to be more

than 50 years old, some of the immigrant groups recently coming

in, but if we wait 50 years, the sites are often torn down.

In Indiana, it’s been very difficult to preserve Native American

sites. One that we were trying to develop near Peru, IN, which is

not in my district, some landowner got, and he wasn’t particularly

positive toward historic preservation or Native Americans. And as

we were trying to get it certified, he burned it down. Just burned

his own property. And it was one of the last three major sites left

in the State.

Trying to identify in categories, for example, in Immigration, we

had some discussion about Angel Island, and I’m sure we’ll have

some others. But clearly there are different types of immigration

31

patterns, depending on the types of groups that came into the

United States and what period they came into the United States.

What I would be interested in is whether you have a process. As

we look at legislation in defining that process, would it be helpful

to have it further defined? We want to work with you. Otherwise,

we’ll either draft it and then ask you to comment and edit, or if

you want to come to a proposal with us as to how to systemize this.

One of the questions I have is, in interpreting migration and settlement in the sites that the Park Service units have, for example,

the Bering Land Bridge isn’t listed under that, which would seem

like a pretty fundamental site.

Ms. MATTHEWS. And it is listed in some of the narrative text that

I was reviewing this morning.

Mr. SOUDER. And in fact, I have to say about Bering Land Strait,

because I want to put this on the record. When I visited there, it’s

the only place in the United States that when I showed up, in fact

when I called to make the reservation, they were so excited, because they were familiar with this bill and hoped that it would get

more attention on their site, because it is arguably the first

immigrationsite in the United States. So why wouldn’t that be featured as the kind of preeminent immigrationsite?

Ms. MATTHEWS. I don’t know the answer to that question. We

can get back to you. We would welcome the opportunity to work

with you on looking at whether there is a need for a more systematic process. I know how the system works in my own experience.

And I know that it would be a welcome opportunity.

Mr. SOUDER. It was a few years ago when we moved the Underground Railroad bill through, because we had to decide where were

the premier sites and then where were the secondary sites. It is

difficult because a lot of it is local. There are a lot of people who

would have been killed or at the very least harassed if they had

kept better records and then it’s very hard to document. But we’re

not doing a systematic thing on the Underground Railroad.

We had a terrible time on the Lewis and Clark Trail. We eventually formed a Lewis and Clark caucus here, working with the National Park Service. But I mean, part of it was National Forest,

part of it was BLM, part of it was private. One little pet peeve that

I have is when you go to a Park Service site, like a Gateway Arch

or Fort Clatsett, it’s like there is minimal acknowledgement that

other park sites exist in the Lewis and Clark trail. I would expect

to see, for example, when I came in at the front of Gateway Arch

the park maps and brochures of every Lewis and Clark site right

there in front of me, because that’s an overview of the whole trail.

When I go to Fort Clatsett, I’ve already expressed that I’m interested in Lewis and Clark. Why, when I walk in there, isn’t the

Park Service providing information for somebody who’s already

self-identified as somebody who is interested in Lewis and Clark?

And that’s our success story right now, is Lewis and Clark. Underground Railroad is moving, but what other types of patterns, the

missions area is one. But that really doesn’t reflect Mexican immigration in the United States. That’s more Spanish settlement.

What sites do we have that might reflect Mexican immigration?

How are we going to sort that through? First off, many of them

were here before many of us, in the southwest region. But then

32

even in the new waves that have come in, what is the criteria? I

know there’s kind of a popular historical trend to say, everybody’s

exactly equal and every site’s exactly equal. But we’re in the business of having to make decisions.

So how are we going to make those kinds of decisions? What becomes significant? Is it the integrity of the site? Is it the lack of

other sites similar in that category, and what kind of weight should

there be? Is it the historic nature of that site, so it may not be the

ideal site for the Cubans, because it doesn’t have its structural integrity? But it may be the place where most of them landed and

the building has been taken down, so the ground itself is what’s

important. And how do we weigh that? I think the way we weigh

it right now, quite frankly, with some exceptions, it sounds like the

Park Service is doing it based on who politically thinks of a bill and

gets it put in an appropriations bill. Seems to be part of the way

we’re doing it right now.

Ms. MATTHEWS. That’s one way. And certainly the way you

would see from your perspective. There is also a tremendous grass

roots opportunity and a growing one for individual nominations to

come from local governments and individuals. That’s the effort I’ve

seen on the ground, and I’ve seen that make a huge difference, not

just in what you describe in the interpretation.

By the way, we have a very nice travel itinerary on the Lewis

and Clark trail. And that probably should have been on an interactive device when you walked through the door, where you

punched it and saw the little canoes going up the rivers and the

portaging.

Mr. SOUDER. It should have been there before there is an anniversary?

Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes, for you to punch the button. We would love

to work with you on exactly what you are describing. There is a

grass roots element. There is a State element. There are local government elements. There is the element you see in congressional

authorizations for studies.

Mr. SOUDER. We usually are reacting to the grass roots elements,

so it’s not like we go around thinking of the things. A grass roots

group will come in to us. But that means it’s often determined by

political power, not by the merits.

Ms. MATTHEWS. Well, I can tell you in my own experience, I

began my career in history by doing an independent National Register nomination and found out how difficult it was to do, and finally turned that enthusiasm into a Master’s degree.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. First of all, thank you for being here. You said

you did a dissertation, is that what you mentioned when you were

talking earlier?

Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What was it on?

Ms. MATTHEWS. It was on—I actually can’t repeat the title, it

was so complicated. But roughly, in a nutshell, it was——

Mr. CUMMINGS. This was for a Ph.D?

Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK.

33

Ms. MATTHEWS. I could write it, but I can’t give you the title, but

it’s something like this. It was on the African-American experience

in southwest Florida from 1841 and the Seminole conflict, through

1927 when Dunbar High School was established as the only African-American high school between Tampa and Miami. It was established after a horrific lynching of two young men who were Williams Academy students. I had been hired to do historical consulting on restoration of Williams Academy. And in the course of that,

I was invited to interview gentlemen who had been first and second

graders during this school experience.

So my dissertation covered the Seminole conflict, the Civil War

when two units of the U.S. Colored Infantry were stationed at Fort

Myers. And the evolution of the establishment of the first school

there in the 1880’s by a homesteading freed slave who in the

course of proving up his homestead papers indicated that he’d been

freed on an inland farm, a cattle farm by the U.S. Colored Infantry

unit stationed at Fort Myers, on to the establishment of his community, which is today called Dunbar, and named for the school established in 1927.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So your job is what? What are your responsibilities?

Ms. MATTHEWS. I’m the associate director for cultural resources.

So that covers history, archaeology, all the programs that we

touched on here today.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Were you involved in this, the one in Topeka?

Ms. MATTHEWS. No, sir, our travel is severely restricted. I certainly wish I had been standing there beside you. I felt like I was.

I listened to it all on NPR and C–SPAN.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me ask you this. One of the things with regard to African-American history is the migration from the South.

I assume you keep up with things that you all do in your area. I

mean, I take it that’s your job.

Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do we have a lot on that? Because that’s very,

very significant, as I’m sure you well know.

Ms. MATTHEWS. I was thinking about that as we prepared for

what you might want to cover here this morning and this afternoon. There has been a lot written. And I will get to you some reference works, if you want, on the migration out of the South to the

industrial cities of the North and to the relatively more inviting opportunities that were available. And now the reverse is happening,

as people like Tuskegee Airmen settle in Sarasota, FL, and retired

school teachers from Detroit come back to their roots, back to the

South which is now a more welcoming place than it was when they

left.

That migration within the United States is a very important part

of what I think should be incorporated into your context here.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do we have a lot on that, the migration?

Ms. MATTHEWS. There has been a lot written about it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But I mean with regard to, and I don’t even

know what the, it’s just like you have an exhibit there in Topeka.

Are there things that people can actually go to? Let me say where

I’m going. A few years back, there was an exhibit at the Smithsonian, and I also want to know how you all work with the SmithsoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Dec 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\96945.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
34

nian, by the way. Just make a footnote of that. And it was one of

the most moving exhibits I’ve ever seen. It was called From Field

to Factory.

Basically what it was, they had all kinds of, they would have like

books from these landowners in the South where they could literally show how, I mean, these were actual books that where the

sharecroppers were paid, they told them how much cotton they had

picked or whatever. You could literally see, these were actual,

unaltered, how these people were being cheated. And they’d work

all day, pick all this cotton, and there was a manipulation of the

figures, like two sets of books.

And I’ll never forget, I said to my father, who was a former

sharecropper from Manning, SC, to see this exhibit, and it was a

wonderful exhibit. It had stuff about churches and it had some old

beat-up cars people used to get from the South to the North. And

he cried, because his whole life had been changed when he moved

from the South to the North, from making 15 cents a day to making $1 an hour.

I just was wondering how, are there things like, I don’t know

what it would be, but are there exhibits or places that people can

go if they wanted to see stuff like that.

Ms. MATTHEWS. May I get back to you on that?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, please do. Is that considered part of ‘‘Peopling,’’ by the way? This whole thing, ‘‘Peopling?’’

Ms. MATTHEWS. Absolutely. It’s huge. And today, in historic sites

everywhere, there’s an interest in going back and looking. Because

at plantation houses, at one time the only thing of interest was the

people who lived in the plantation house. We’ve now spent many,

many, many years of study just on how slaves lived, and how you

interpret the slave experience, the life, the culture, the hard work,

the pay.

A lot of those records are available through the census. Prior to

1865 there were two separate census records, as you know. Those

have a wealth of information. In my own experience with school

records, the original school records for Lee County exist. And the

records for the State of Florida exist side by side, which show how

much was spent on a book for colored children, there’s an asterisk

after that word, and how much was spent on White children. That

record is permanent.

And it’s just like that exhibit. You read those and it brings tears,

whether you experienced it or you didn’t. It just couldn’t be more

graphic.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me just ask you this finally. I think, I clearly

understand, and you are saying things right now that is a reminder of why diversity is so important. Because I would think

that, I want people, want to make sure people in your organization

who care enough to appreciate that all people need to know the history, good, bad and ugly, of all people who make up this country.

How do you guarantee, how do you try to make, what efforts do

you put forth to make sure that happens?

Ms. MATTHEWS. Well, I can tell you from my own experience, I

came to the Park Service January 5th, raised my right hand, and

that was the last time I had done that lately until today. And in

my own experience, to know is to care. And that’s research. And

35

I have worked very hard and the Park Service has worked very

hard to have diverse representation. The National Park System Advisory Board, a new member, Dr. Rivers, who wrote Slavery in

Florida, just published 3 years ago.

We have worked very hard to have representation and to incorporate it into every landmark study. I chaired the Landmarks

Committee as a member of the National Park System Advisory

Board appointed in 2002. And for every landmark nomination that

came through there, we saw to it that diversity was represented in

the documentation before it went out of that committee. Because

it is so important. If it isn’t there in those little documentary histories, it isn’t going to be interpreted. And if it is there, it will be

there. And that’s a very big thing.

Mr. CUMMINGS. This is the last question I have. I had a conversation with Congressman Jim Clyburn at lunch today. And he

was telling me how in South Carolina, as a matter of fact, he represents the same area where my foreparents were slaves. And he

was saying that an elderly White gentleman who apparently was

an editor of a newspaper or worked for a newspaper down there in

Clarendon County was at a dinner with regard to Topeka, KS, the

it Brown v. Board. And he was just talking about how the paper

intentionally did not record things that were happening with African-Americans, I mean good stuff.

And the sad part about it is that, Jim was saying, and Jim is

a historian, and when he goes back trying to find history, it’s not

there. Unless an African-American paper wrote it, it’s not there.

It’s like it never happened. So one of the things that people, that

a lot of us do here in the Congress, African-Americans, we try to

make sure that every chance we get, if there is something we want

to make sure goes down in history, we’ll talk about it. Because we

want to make sure that 300, 400 years from now, if there are some

folks that want to know about their history, they’ll be able to read

something that says, this happened back in 2003 or what have you.

The reason why I say all this, Mr. Chairman, and to you, our

witness, I just want to reiterate how important it is. I want my

daughter, every document that has my name in it, I make sure I

save. Do you know why? Because I don’t have that. I don’t have

information about my great-grandfather. Zero. I don’t know what

they did. I know they were slaves, but that’s about all I know.

I think it’s important that young people, that people have an idea

of where they came from, be it good, bad or ugly. So I just want

to point that out, because I think it’s so very, very important.

Ms. MATTHEWS. It’s very important, and it should be noted that

those school mates of theirs’ murders, ceremonial murders were

never recorded in any newspaper. They were dismissed by the coroner’s jury, the authorities. When I worked on my dissertation, and

learned that the NAACP had been founded, one of their specific

goals was to record lynchings in the South. And when Theodore

White started all that, and they started because he had blonde hair

and blue eyes, and he could go get eyewitness testimony.

When I discovered those Fort Myers lynchings and others in

Florida, simultaneous in the 1920’s were recorded in newspapers

and collected in the NAACP clippings files. They are there. And I

was thrilled and they were thrilled. I will tell you that in a lot of

36

slave records, there are very, very good records. Judge Manson, the

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, has started

doing his own research and family history. And he’s amazed at

what he’s finding.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOUDER. One of the main things that I’m interested in focusing on, and I’ve gone on the National Parks Web site, I got appointed to the Resources Committee because of my interested in

history and have accumulated this. I’m bound and determined to

make sure a few things happen before I leave Congress. One is

that there is some order to this process. Because first off, most of

the Members, at least in the majority side, are from the west. It

results in a discontinuity of things coming to the House floor geographically. I want to know that there is some kind of order. If you

take this, OK, where are our parks, which would be the premier

institutions, then where are national historic sites, which would be

smaller than a park but similar to a park? Where are these recreational areas, seashores, all that kind of stuff.

But then if you would go down to heritage areas, which would

be somewhere underneath parks and sites to heritage areas, then

you have landmarks, then you have National Register. And you can

get books on these different things. If you look at the National

Landmarks book, it is incredibly uneven in its distribution. Hence

my question of how does it get in there.

For example, 75 percent of the people in Indiana are north of 40,

but most of the historic landmarks are south. That’s just in my

home State. But in looking at the book, I can tell there’s a great

unevenness in State after State. And there’s almost a randomness

to the significance of the sites. I’m not saying the most significant

sites aren’t in there, I’m just saying there’s a randomness beyond

that.

And I’m wondering how you do that. Clearly we have a shortage

of African-American sites. And there still may be. For example, I

don’t know whether you’d look at Chicago or Detroit or Philadelphia or pick a city and say, OK, where can we do this, the big

times of southern migration and tell that story. At the same time,

there is proportionally nothing on Swedish and Norwegian migration, or minimal, other than sites. Certainly not a landmark, probably not anything at a park, or maybe a site inside these new

recreation areas that are more common and where you have multiple historic sites.

The German heritage of the United States, where you have 50

million people without their story being accessed at all. Some

States sites in Pennsylvania, and we’ll follow that up in the second

panel.

But what kind of systematic evaluation that says, look, are there

holes here? What do we need to do and look at from a national perspective and what’s a fair way to do this? And then what issues

inside this for immigration, migration and settlement differently

and try to get some order to that? I believe the Park Service has

been doing this. Like you say, it’s a major part of what the Park

Service does. You have many of these sites inside. And of your list

on migration settlement, I’ve been to half of those, and there are

a lot of pretty obscure sites on there.

37

So it’s not as though I haven’t been looking at these and don’t

understand some of the length. I can tell you for example, I think

it’s really nice that the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park

in Seattle is finally starting to try to figure out how to work with

the one in Skagway. It would have been nice to do that a little

while ago, since we have two national park sites along the same

stream that have only been marginally integrated.

So that’s kind of what is behind this, and I look forward to working with you on it and look forward to having somebody who actually has worked in the field with this type of thing.

Ms. MATTHEWS. Thank you very much. I would really look forward and welcome working with you all on this.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one other, two other questions real quick.

When we talk about migration and immigration, would slaves be

a part of that, people coming here as slaves?

Ms. MATTHEWS. There’s involuntary immigration and there’s voluntary immigration. The Trail of Tears and the importation of

slaves are definitely involuntary.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So it is a part of this whole thing?

Ms. MATTHEWS. It is a part of this whole thing, and it’s a very

big part, and it’s a growing part. As we evolve as a Nation, with

a conscience and a forward look, we know we have to look back,

exactly as you said, at the good, the bad and the ugly. That’s how

we understand who we are and don’t make the same mistakes

again.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one more. What about the Native Americans and all they went through and all they lost?

Ms. MATTHEWS. That’s a very important part of what we do, and

it’s a very important part of the law. One of the major projects

we’re working on right now is the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, passed by Congress in 1990, and implementation of that, dealing with the Native American representatives directly.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. The specifics in the peopling bill, you would separate, some of these things might have multiple functions. But you

certainly would have an immigration, involuntary and voluntary

and West Indian as opposed to maybe African. You would have a

number of things. But not everything Native American would necessarily fall into the category of peopling, and not everything under

the African-American struggle toward freedom would fall under

peopling. There would be different functions inside the Park Service that might address the battle for liberty, the battle for jobs and

different categories.

Partly what happens is when sites, in my opinion, aren’t focused

to define an experience in some region and try to do 100 things at

the site. You don’t get anything out of the site when it isn’t focused. You get so much of a random type thing and so many different thoughts in your head, you don’t walk out with a clear

theme. And that’s part of trying to tell different stories in different

places rather than to some degree what is happening in the Lewis

and Clark Trail. Every site told, 90 percent of the thing was on the

whole story, and then 10 percent of the uniqueness.

38

You should be able to get kind of an overview, and then when

you go to the individual sites, get the uniqueness of that site, but

have a place where you can go for the story. Immigration would do

that. You might have how you first come in, then the first move

farther west and south, then the big migration pattern up to Chicago or to Detroit, when the auto era started. Then following

through with others. There are primary and secondary sites.

And when we’re not willing to make those tough cuts, it makes

it very difficult to absorb the story, because you’re just getting feelings rather than really a layout. That’s what we’re trying to do

with the bill. And the Park Service will have other elements, too,

in the Native American story, which will be battles and abuse and

all sorts of other things to it.

Do we have a vote right now? Thank you very much for your testimony, and we look forward to following up.

Ms. MATTHEWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr.

Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOUDER. If the second panel will come forward, before I

swear you in, I’m going to find out whether we’ve got some votes.

Why don’t we go ahead and introduce the second panel, because

Congresswoman Woolsey is here to introduce Ms. Toy. There are

going to be five votes. Congresswoman Woolsey, do you want to do

that from there, or do you want to come up here and introduce her?

What would you like to do?

OK, let me swear in the witnesses first. And if you’ll each stand

and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that each has responded in the

affirmative.

I now yield to our distinguished colleague from the San Francisco

area, who has long been an advocate of the Angel Island area to

introduce our panelists and describe a little bit the background of

that.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.

Cummings. It’s nice to see Eleanor Holmes Norton here today.

I’m very thankful that you allowed me to come here today to introduce Katherine Toy. Katherine is the executive director of the

Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation. She and I have been

working together for the past 2 years in an effort to preserve the

historic Angel Island Immigration Station, which is located on

Angel Island in my district, the Sixth Congressional District which

starts halfway across the Golden Gate Bridge, going north from

San Francisco.

As Katherine will share with you today, this site has important

historical significance to the thousands of immigrants, primarily

Chinese, who entered the United States on the west coast at Angel

Island. I have been to this site and I’ve seen first-hand the telling

poetry carved in the walls depicting the sadness, and yes, the hope

of the people held there. In addition, I have observed the desperate

physical condition of the site, and I’ve seen the importance of providing additional funding to preserve this American treasure.

Katherine Toy has worked tirelessly with my office to find additional sources of funding to preserve and restore the Angel Island

39

Immigration Station, which is currently used as a teaching tool for

students and a museum for visitors. The bad news is that the current estimate to preserve this site comes in at $30 million. But the

good news is that $16 million has already been raised, through

grants, State funding and private donations. So we only need $15

million in order to save this historic site.

That’s why today I brought the Angel Island Immigration Station

Reservation and Preservation Act with 21 original co-sponsors.

This legislation becomes necessary because the Immigration Station is located in a California State park. Therefore, it’s ineligible

to receive Federal dollars beyond the Federal grants already

tapped, unless we help. My bill would allow the Angel Island Immigration Station to retain its status as a State-owned facility, but

make a special exception for the preservation project to receive the

Federal dollars needed to preserve the site.

I hope all the Members here today will consider supporting this

effort in your upcoming bill, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like a great

bill.

Thank you again for letting me speak. I’m proud to have a constituent and a dedicated person like Katherine Toy working absolutely passionately and effectively to help others understand the

story of the Angel Island Immigration Station. And again, thank

you for letting me come.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

We’re going to take a recess, so we can go do the votes, then we’ll

come back for your formal testimony. That will enable the questions to come at the same time as the testimony.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman Woolsey. The subcommittee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee is reconvened. Thank you all for

your patience. We’ll take your statements, and we won’t really turn

the clock on, because it will be pretty informal at this point. But

we want to make sure that the statements each get into the record.

Your full statement will be in the record, anything you want to

add, and then we’ll ask some questions. We’ll start with Ms. Katherine Toy, executive director of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation in San Francisco, CA.

STATEMENTS OF KATHERINE TOY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ANGEL ISLAND IMMIGRATION STATION FOUNDATION;

ELLEN VON KARAJAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE SOCIETY

FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FEDERAL HILL AND FELL’S

POINT, BOARD MEMBER, BALTIMORE IMMIGRATION

PROJECT; AND KATHRYN E. WILSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION, THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ms. TOY. Thank you, Chairman Souder, for this opportunity to

speak before this committee today on the peopling of America. I’m

Katherine Toy, executive director of the Angel Island Immigration

Station Foundation, the non-profit partner of California State

Parks and the National Park Service in the work to preserve the

historic U.S. Immigration Station in San Francisco Bay.

40

Our Nation offers a history of great diversity, one that matches

the wealth and experiences of our rich heritage. So many of these

stories, however, have gone untold. Angel Island Immigration Station is one example of such a hidden history now coming to light

and enriching our understanding of our Nation in historic and contemporary times. Most Americans know the story of Ellis Island,

which processed immigrants crossing the Atlantic. But the story of

its west coast counterpart, Angel Island, is little known.

Located in the middle of San Francisco Bay, Angel Island Immigration Station was routinely the first stop for many immigrants

crossing the Pacific Ocean. Between 1910 and 1940, hundreds and

thousands of immigrants from around the world came through the

station. Angel Island’s greatest significance, however, is tied to the

story of approximately 175,000 Chinese immigrants whose experience was shaped by the Chinese Exclusion Act, the only legislation

ever to ban a specific ethnic group from entry into the United

States.

Whereas many immigrants passed through Angel Island in a

number of days, the average detention time for a Chinese immigrant was 2 to 3 weeks, and often several months. A few were

forced to remain on the island for nearly 2 years. As a point of comparison, most immigrants passed through Ellis Island within a day.

In 1882, Congress passed the first Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting Chinese laborers from immigrating and denying citizenship to

foreign-born Chinese. Other exclusionary laws followed that profoundly affected all Asian immigration until the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943.

But exclusion did not stop Chinese and other Asians from coming

to America. Feeling the laws were unfair, they came as paper sons,

falsely claiming to be related to a legal resident or another family

legally entering the country. But the burden of proof fell squarely

on the shoulders of every Chinese immigrant brought to Angel Island Immigration Station. New arrivals to the Immigration Station

underwent a medical examination. Unfamiliar with the language,

customs and western medical procedures, the examination was

often characterized by newcomers as humiliating and barbaric.

After the physical examinations, the entry hearing was the most

critical hurdle. Hearings often lasted 2 to 3 days, with inspectors

interrogating applicants about the smallest details of their houses,

village or family. A family member of the applicant was also interrogated to confirm the applicant’s answers. Passing the interrogation was no simple task. Failure could mean deportation. The last

resort was an appeal to a higher court and an indefinite stay on

Angel Island while awaiting a decision.

Inspectors presiding over each case had wide discretionary power

in determining the fate of each applicants. Questions typically

asked included, what is your living room floor made of, where has

the rice been kept, where is your village temple, what direction

does your home in China face, how many windows does your house

in China have. For Chinese immigrants detained on Angel Island,

weeks easily passed into months, anxiety, depression and fear were

expressed through poetry written and carved into the barrack

walls. Today, more than 100 of these poems are still visible at

Angel Island Immigration Station, capturing the voices of immiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Dec 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\96945.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
41

grants in time and place and serving as a physical and emotional

testament that resonates with all Americans who share a history

of immigration.

Angel Island Immigration Station closed in 1940 after a fire destroyed the administration building. The Immigration Stationsite

and buildings were transferred back to the U.S. Army, which

quickly adapted the site to temporarily detain prisoners of war and

to house enlisted soldiers. When the Army vacated Angel Island,

the structures fell into disrepair. Today, Angel Island Immigration

Station is a part of Angel Island State Park and operated by the

California State Park system. Limited restoration efforts by community members in the early 1980’s allowed the first floor of the

detention barracks to open to the public for the first time, and

some of the poetry to be viewed.

The site is a popular destination for school field trips, with more

than 30,000 students and their teachers visiting the site each year.

It has been nearly 50 years since the last active use of Angel Island

Immigration Station. The buildings and the treasured poems have

been battered by time and elements. Over the past two decades,

the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation has tirelessly advocated for the preservation of the poetry and remaining structures

on the former detentionsite.

The Immigration Station is now a national historic landmark. It

took our group almost 20 years of community-based advocacy to

win that designation. In 1999, the site was named as one of America’s 11 most endangered historic places by the National Trust for

Historic Preservation. We are also a member of the International

Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience.

Over the past few years, our organization and preservation partners, California State Parks and the National Park Service, have

conducted approximately $500,000 worth of historic preservation

studies with funds raised from private, State and Federal sources.

A master plan for the site has now been completed, calling for five

phases of restoration at the historic Immigration Station. Phase

one is funded by $15 million in bond funds approved by California

voters in 2000 and a $500,000 Save America’s Treasures grant

from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. The

entire project, however, is expected to cost far above $30 million.

While owned and operated by the State of California today,

Angel Island represents a national history of importance to all

Americans. In fact, while the Immigration Station and the precious

poems carved on the walls serve as a physical touchstone to history, the story of these immigrants is chronicled in the National

Archives and Records Administration. Future phases of the Immigration Station project call for restoration of the station hospital as

an educational and family history and genealogy center, providing

visitors with digital access to NARA and other immigration

records.

The enduring value of Angel Island Immigration Station lies in

the lessons of its past and what it can teach us about our present

and our future. Immigration is a national story and one that gets

to the heart of the very question of America’s identity: who is an

American, who is included and who is excluded, and how has that

definition changed over time. Angel Island and Ellis Island serve

42

as bookends to the national story of immigration, not only in geography, but also in meaning and experience. While Angel Island represents a difficult chapter in our national history, it is ultimately

a story of triumph and of perseverance of immigrants to endure

and establish new lives in this country. It’s important to tell these

stories to validate the experience of these people as a legitimate

part, not of only Asian-American history, but of American history,

because the stories that we don’t tell say just as much about us

and our culture and our values as the stories we do tell.

The restoration of Angel Island Immigration Station is a prime

example of how everyday Americans can work together with private, State and Federal partners to preserve a chapter of our national story. Congress can aid this work by supporting bills such

as the Angel Island Restoration and Preservation Act, introduced

this week by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, which will help direct

Federal dollars to the preservation of this important historical site.

I applaud the members of this subcommittee for your efforts to

understand the needs of preserving the history of the peopling of

America. I urge you and your fellow Members of Congress to work

to preserve sites like Angel Island Immigration Station. In doing

so, generations to come can appreciate these sites, which are symbols of the perseverance of the immigrant spirit and the diversity

of this great Nation. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Toy follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Ms. Toy.

Ms. Karajan.

Ms. VON KARAJAN. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you

this afternoon. I also want to thank you sincerely, as a person who

is out there every day trying to deal with these issues of interpretation, for your very sincere and thorough interest in this topic. It’s

a topic very dear to my heart.

Sadly, just 2 days ago, the Preservation Society was forced to appear before a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge to secure a temporary restraining order to halt the demolition of a series of buildings very important to Baltimore’s immigration history. This is the

family home and creamery or dairy of Julius Wills, a German immigrant and dairyman. These buildings were structurally sound,

they were built in 1927.

But they were idiosyncratic. Even though they were located in a

National Register historic district, and even though they were theoretically protected by an urban renewal plan, because they didn’t

fit the mold of what city officials thought of as historic, and they

didn’t belong to an important man, only a working man, the city

issued a demolition permit. These properties will come down and

be replaced with a group of five new townhouses as part of the

gentrification that’s going on right now in Fell’s Point.

Actually, we were able to get the demolition restraining order because the city felt that these buildings were so unimportant that

they didn’t even bother to follow their own internal procedures before they issued the demolition permit. So it was on a point of law.

It’s also only the second time in the more than 35 year history of

the Preservation Society that we’ve ever prevailed against a demolition action that was brought by someone who wanted such a permit.

But that’s what Fell’s Point is and that is what is historically important about it. It is a maritime working man’s community, and

it is and has always been an immigrant community. Why the properties there are important is summarized, and I’m not going to

read the whole thing in the interest of time. But in a letter that

is written by a man, Ron Zimmerman, who for the last 10 years

has been trying to create this Baltimore immigration project to tell

the story of Baltimore’s immigration, migration and settlement,

Ron is a person who will tell you he doesn’t have a high school education. He began his career digging ditches. He’s been a Locust

Point resident his entire life. And when he went to Ellis Island and

saw what happened there, he knew that his family had come in

here in Baltimore at Locust Point, and he said, well, we have our

own story here in Baltimore, why doesn’t anybody tell it?

And he’s been working for 10 years trying to get the story told,

but I want to read this one section in the letter where he says, for

the last 10 years, I have been working on a program to honor and

record the story of Baltimore’s immigrant founding families before

what these people did to get us started in America gets lost in time

and space forever.

He talks about Mr. Julius Wills and says, ‘‘He was ordinary, but

what this man did, what this immigrant did was to bring sweet,

nourishing milk and even ice cream to a part of the city that was

poor and stinking and overcrowded and lacking in any kind of

59

clean fun beyond our imagination. The city didn’t even get around

to putting public water or public sanitation in Fell’s Point until the

1930’s. So you can imagine, it was pretty bad. Not to mention most

of the liquid that flowed in Fell’s Point, prohibition or not, was not

milk. It was still a sailor’s town, filled with flophouses and barrooms, and its housing stock was so degraded that it became the

natural place for the worst-off of the newly arrived immigrant families to settle.’’

I want to flip forward to another line, where he said, ‘‘Fell’s Point

people changed the world and changed the course of history, some

with daring-do and audacity, like the privateers in the War of 1812

and some in ways that were plain and basic, like Mr. Wills, with

milk and ice cream. Please help me honor the memory of both by

working with us to find ways to develop those buildings without

bulldozing them.’’

I want to jump forward now to say that, although Baltimore was

a major port, certainly a major port of entry for a great many people, we don’t have so much as a single historic marker anywhere

to commemorate this. Fell’s Point was the early port of entry during the age of sail. Later on, during the age of steam, Locust Point

became the major point and also Canton. But believe it or not, we

don’t have a single historic marker there to commemorate. Now,

our buildings are gone. Immigration was a private enterprise in

Baltimore, it was really a business venture between the shipping

lines and the railroads. It really preceded the days of a lot of Federal Government intervention. The immigration depots themselves

were wooden, they were destroyed in fires. You can just see the

ends of sort of the ruins, the tiny little footings that are left from

the piers. That’s about all that’s left.

But it is equally difficult for those of us who are interested in the

topic is that when we actually began to involve some historians, almost nothing is written about immigration in our State. There’s a

single chapter length article by a local historian, Dr. Dean

Esslinger, in a book called Forgotten Doors: The Other Ports of

Entry to the United States. And as we talk to people, what we find

is, hard to believe, but many people don’t even recognize, I mean,

Ellis Island has done such a magnificent job of telling its story that

people do not realize that there were other major ports of entry and

other immigration depots throughout the country and on the east

coast.

We are just about to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Port

of Baltimore, so we’ve really found a tremendous amount of enthusiasm on the part of historians, ethnic aid organizations, all sorts

of people to bring their energies together to really begin to tell the

story of what happened here. So the Baltimore Immigration Project

really is a partnership of all of these groups. We don’t have a single

staff person at this point in time. We have been applying for

grants, I’ve listed on the final sheet the academic and archival institutions we have been able to recruit to assist us, all on a voluntary basis. Community organizations and ethnic aid organizations and in the public sector, places like the Maryland Heritage

Area Authority, certainly the Chesapeake Bay Gateway, private

foundations and corporate foundations.

60

But what we want to do in Baltimore, we’ve set out to do in two

phases since we realized this was going to take some time, since

we’re starting from in essence nowhere, we want to create an online genealogical data base to make it easier for people to trace

their roots here. Because right now, you go to the city archives or

you can come to the Library of Congress or you can go to the Maryland Historical Society and find the shipping manifests.

But these organizations are not particularly accessible. The

Maryland Historical Society is an archival institution, so you have

to wear gloves to work with their materials. You need to make appointments. We want to make this as easy as possible for people

to be able to find out who their people were, where they came in,

what vessel they came in on. Since we know that we’ll never be

able, that our structures are gone, our actual immigration depots

are gone, we have a magnificent digital imaging center at the University of Maryland, we want to digitally recreate, and there are

some amazing technologies that are relatively inexpensive, so that

people can actually see what it would have been like, we know

what it would have been like from historical records, from architectural data and from photographs.

The other big thing that we want to do and that we’re hoping to

accomplish through our National Endowment for the Humanities

‘‘We the People’’ grant, if it’s funded, we want to stimulate interest

in the scholarly community and bring to bear the talent of some

of these people and take a look at this and create actually an

intranet, a sort of history intranet where these historians can share

information and their discoveries and the images that they find

with each other.

We want to develop an orientation film and an interactive multimedia Web site because Baltimore remains a community of neighborhoods, we want to be able to enable people to come to one place

and go out to other places, so that if they are interested in the African-American experience, if they are interested in the German experience, they can come to a place and then we can send them out

to other places, so that they can see the progression of settlement

in Baltimore.

We have already created the self-guided walking tour, enlisting

the help of some scholars. We want to identify and document key

historic sites, because we simply have not, as I said, we don’t have

a single marker that tells what our important places are. And

there’s all of this history that’s just buried for want of someone to

actually tell the story of it. And of course, we want to work with

others to publicize this program as widely as possible, locally, nationally and internationally.

So in closing, I really want to thank you for convening a hearing

on the topic of historic preservation of the peopling of America, and

for inviting our testimony today. We have great plans at the Baltimore Immigration Project for programs, for family reunions, for

family genealogical research. But these plans depend on having important historic immigration and settlement properties intact, and

that’s where the Preservation Society comes in, and today’s hearing. It also depends on getting the research on the documentation

done.

61

I think that as I say in closing, we owe this much to our fathers

and our mothers and our grandmothers and grandfathers, and to

our children and grandchildren and their children. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Von Karajan follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Dr. Wilson.

Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the invitation to address the subcommittee today on the subject of the historic preservation of America’s immigrant heritage. It’s my pleasure to tell you just a little bit about what we’re doing in Philadelphia and some of the challenges of that work and of preserving immigration history generally.

Just a kind of mini-crash course on Philadelphia history, it is a

kind of microcosm of American diversity, three centuries of immigration encompassed in the story of one region. From the beginning

of William Penn’s holy experiment to the present, we’ve seen a

large number and a great diversity of settlement to the area. William Penn encouraged immigration from all over Europe and especially with regard to German immigration in the 18th century, the

first German settlement in America is located in northwest Philadelphia.

Throughout the 19th century, Philadelphia remained an economic center and an immigrant destination, although the port was

maybe third or fourth, depending on what period you’re looking at,

compared to places like New York. A lot of immigrants who came

through Ellis Island actually eventually settled in Philadelphia and

in Pennsylvania. Irish immigrants came in large numbers after the

1830’s and through the famine years. By the 1870’s, Philadelphia

was known as the workshop of the world. That workshop was

staffed and fueled by an influx of immigrant and migrant labor,

Italians, Poles, Greeks, Eastern European Jews, Slovaks, Russians

and others, as well as Black migrant labor from the South. Philadelphia’s Chinatown got its start also in the 1870’s, when laborers

were recruited from the west to work in laundries in New Jersey

and Philadelphia.

As you know, immigration slowed as it did across the country

after 1924. Legislation imposed quotas on new arrivals. Philadelphia during that time witnessed renewed migration from the

South, from the African-American South, and immigration was revived again in the post-World War II period, with migration from

Puerto Rico and an expanded Chinese community. Nineteen sixtyfive was a major turning point when immigration restrictions were

removed, and African, Asian, and Latin American immigrants

came in large numbers for the first time.

Immigrant communities formed in Philadelphia after this change

are Koreans, South Asians, Southeast Asian refugees from Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, and Africans as well as Latino immigration and migration which continued unabated during this period,

and now incorporates a new diversity in the Latino community

with the settlement of Dominicans, Mexicans, Colombians, Peruvians, Venezuelans, Hondurans, Guatemalans and others.

Well, where does the Historical Society fit into all of this? It’s a

very old historical society. We’ve been around since 1824. But especially since our merger with the Balch Institute for Ethnic Studies

2 years ago, we are very committed to preserving and exploring the

origins, diversity and development of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

and the Nation. We’ve refined our strategic plan somewhat. We are

not necessarily focusing on the general public per se, but we want

74

to serve as an important resource for researchers, including genealogists, educators, historic site interpreters, historic preservationists and what we call community history groups, interested people

in local communities who are interested in preserving and representing their own histories.

We do this through conservation and preservation of documents

and graphics and providing access, of course, to those materials.

We don’t maintain a museum or historic site, but seek through

those resources to be an important resource for the interpretation

of such sites.

Since 1997, the Balch Institute for Ethnic Studies, which as I

said is now part of HSP, has been specifically involved in documenting the most recent histories of immigration to the Philadelphia area. To date, we have worked with South Asian, Arab, African, Latino and Chinese communities, and we have plans to work

with Korean and Southeast Asian communities in the coming few

years. Our goal in these projects has been to build our institutional

knowledge base as well as our archival collections through the documentation of immigrant life.

In each case, we work closely with the community, we spend a

couple of years doing ethnographic field work with that community.

We document community life through photographs, oral history

interviews, field notes, and we collect a lot of ephemera, flyers,

broadsides, newsletters, stuff that gets generated in the community

that ultimately does document the activities of that community. We

take a lot of photographs and interview community residents. Invariably, we uncover much more interesting stories than we have

resources to document in detail, because this is of course all based

on limited foundation and other grant money.

We encourage the community members to considering donating

their papers to the archives at some point. We have seen some donations of this sort, but we hope there will be much more in the

future. These materials will provide valuable resources to future

historians and others seeking to understand the experiences of immigrants and the enormous changes that our society and culture

has seen in the late 20th century and beyond. They join our already rich archival collection, which documents and represents earlier waves of European immigration. We have an unrivaled collection of ethnic newspapers, for instance, as well as papers, photographs and graphics which represent over 80 ethnic groups. This

is in the Balch Institute collection.

We’ve also found that many times the histories we uncover

throughout ethnographic and archival work with recent immigrant

communities reveal much longer histories of global presence in our

locality. Researching the recent history of Latinos, for instance, we

discovered that the history of the Latino presence in Philadelphia

dates back to the 18th century. Philadelphia’s trade with Cuba, the

Latin American revolutionaries lived in exile in Philadelphia, as

well as New York. But we were more interested in Philadelphia for

our purposes.

And we also found evidence that Mexican braceros had worked

on the Pennsylvania Railroad during World War II. This history

wasn’t known by us at the Historical Society, and it wasn’t known

by the community. They were very excited to learn about that. So

75

Philadelphia is a lot more diverse historically than even we knew.

These histories become very important in validating, especially for

recent arrivals who want to see themselves as part of the American

story.

Our experience suggests that it is absolutely critical to involve

immigrant community organizations, businesses and residents in

the inclusive documentation and interpretation of the site or story

in their own voices and from their own perspectives, especially because the histories of such communities often suffer, either historically or in the present day, from negative stereotyping or from

what we would say is the kind of fragmentation of the historical

record. There’s just sometimes not that much there.

So in our projects, we want to work closely with communities, so

they have a hand in drafting the research that we do and also the

interpretation that we generate. We do all this work in a context

in which the colonial founding narrative dominates most of the

preservation and interpretation activities in Philadelphia, and

where there are missed opportunities and numerous challenges for

this work.

Currently a lot of immigration history, even in a city as historical

as Philadelphia, often languishes unpreserved or under-interpreted.

A lot of historic structures have been restored. You mentioned Gloria Dei Church, which of course is very important, and other

churches have been restored. There are a lot of historical markers

all over the place.

But there’s a couple of problems with this. One is that historical

marker programs don’t always include sites that are of particular

interest for immigration history which may not be of statewide or

national significance, because they are just part and parcel of the

everyday life of working people. In some cases, structures have disappeared entirely. So the historic landscape is very fragmented.

Even where there are markers, markers don’t necessarily ensure

that there is preservation. So we need to preserve the structures,

as well as the stories, images and documents of these communities.

Also I want to point out that historically, immigrants, and even

now, often inhabit urban worlds that have not been thought worthy

of or fit for preservation. These neighborhoods often change, particularly in large cities like Philadelphia. They can become blighted

or subsequently gentrified. Previous generations of residents can be

pushed out, which we saw historically with the Latino community

in Philadelphia. Its original site of settlement, there’s a historic

church there, but most of the neighborhood now is gone as a Puerto

Rican neighborhood. It’s been gentrified as the ‘‘art museum’’ area.

And also in these communities, informal networks, oral tradition

are often very important. So we like to do oral history. Because a

lot of this stuff only survives in people’s personal memories or in

their family stories. Finally, some of these communities suffer from

a lack of resources that make historic preservation difficult. I mentioned North Philadelphia in my statement. This is an area of the

city which was an industrial powerhouse in the 19th century, a lot

of African-American laborers lived there. A lot of immigrant laborers lived there. And now the famous Philadelphia row houses are

decaying, the factories are abandoned. This area is adjacent to an

early 19th century immigrant neighborhood which is likewise adjaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Dec 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\96945.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
76

cent to a former immigration station, which is now a Dave and

Busters.

So there’s a kind of a sense that you could create a kind of heritage trail of immigration in some of these neighborhoods. But the

infrastructure just isn’t there. And the people who live there don’t

necessarily have the resources to generate this themselves. Also in

some cases, the people who live in these neighborhoods are not the

same ethnic group or the same group that lived there 200 years

ago. So I think we also want to be aware of what’s getting preserved, for whom, whose story is being told and what is the impact

on existing residents.

I’ve gone way over my time, so I thank you for your patience and

for your interest in this important topic, and I look forward to your

questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Mr. SOUDER. One of the discussions we’ve had with our legislation is that it’s hard to get your arms around how to tackle something, particularly from the Federal level. I’m more convinced of

that than when I started. So I don’t know whether I’ve advanced

my encouragement or my discouragement.

But let me start with a couple of basic questions. Because in your

testimony, you’ve kind of expounded on a number of these, so let

me start with Angel Island first, going back to that. I talked to

Congresswoman Woolsey on the subway as we were going over to

vote, and I told her I’d go on her bill. But one of the fundamental

questions, because of the Federal guidelines as far as how much

we’re allowed to put into a given project, because it’s not Federal,

because when we take the Federal tax dollars and put it into a

State controlled park, usually you have to have some sort of either

a joint operating agreement or a part of that park. In the Indiana

Dunes National Lakeshore, a portion of it is a State park, the U.S.

park is around it. That way there’s Federal money invested, but in

addition, there’s State money. And where the main beach and the

beach house is, where there’s revenue to be generated, the State

has that portion. They didn’t want to have that become part of the

Federal park, because it was a revenue generator.

I know when the peopling bill first came up, ironically, I think

the Angel Island both became an advantage and a stumbling block

with this bill, much like I was doing one on the northwest territory

in the Great Lakes area, and Mackinaw Island decided, the State

of Michigan was afraid we were trying to seize Mackinaw Island

for the Federal Government, when the bottom line is, because it

used to be a national park, they turned it over to the State. It’s

like, we really don’t need more things if the State wants to run

something.

But in the case of Angel Island, I think Senator Akaka realized

that was a site that was very important as well. And it focused,

and California immediately became concerned that we were trying

to take over Angel Island from the State park system. Now, bluntly

put, California hasn’t exactly invested much money in maintaining

these buildings. That’s why they became on the endangered list.

You said you have a bond out there now for $15 million, and you

have a plan to do that. In your opinion, are they continuing to deteriorate, will the deterioration continue at such a rate that they’re

going to fall down before the project gets done, can the State do

that alone, or is the State, and your group in particular, as a private sector foundation, are you open to working some kind of partnership with the Federal Government?

Ms. TOY. We are very open to doing that. In fact, with Angel Island, with our Foundation, with California State Parks and the National Park Service, had signed a three-party agreement that we

understand to be very unusual in that it included a State entity,

a Federal entity, and a nonprofit foundation, and that was to do

the original preservation studies for Angel Island, and there were

both Federal, State and private funds involved in that. And State

parks and the National Park Service I’m sure, as you know, have

cooperated quite often, particularly in northern California, with

Redwoods Park, with Muir Woods and Mount Tam, with a number

of sites in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. And we work

85

very closely with the GGNRA, superintendent Brian O’Neill out

there and so forth.

So I think the interest in everyone is to see the site preserved

and know that it is of value to everyone involved, whether it would

actually be Federal or State owned property. But there definitely

I think is an intention and willingness by all parties, and while I

can’t speak for the California State Parks or the National Park

Service, certainly in our work together that has been well articulated.

Mr. SOUDER. If the Federal Government portion was invested in

a major building or say, two or three buildings where the Federal

Government took over the rehab, or a visitor center, which is less

likely, because those are often cooperative, or even like in Philadelphia, where you have multiple cooperative things there on the

mall, do you think there would be resistance from your foundation

or from the State if the Federal Government operated those buildings within a State park? I don’t know what the rules are.

Ms. TOY. Not from our foundation. And I certainly can’t speak for

California State Parks, but I do know that the director of State

Parks will be speaking to Mr. O’Neill about this issue very shortly,

about how they can cooperate together and under what arrangement. I know that the willingness is there to look for creative ways

in which all of this can be done.

Mr. SOUDER. Because this is a compelling national site that cannot be lost. In other words, we can debate about relative things and

one of the most difficult things is to make these judgments about

what’s a national story, what’s a regional story, what’s a State

story, what’s a local story. Sometimes what’s a local story, if it’s a

non-powerful group that has no other means to jump to a national

level, you pick that not because it is nationally significant, but because it represents a type that’s national significance.

In other words, we may say Fell’s Point may not be more significant than any other neighborhood of this type or group, but we

don’t have anything in our national perspective where you can go

and see an example like that. It could be a slave quarters at some

area where you decide to interpret that. It could be interpreted at

any 1 of 100 sites, but you say, look, in the national system we

need one like this, not that this is particularly unique, it’s more

emblematic. You don’t preserve every one.

Part of the problem, I’m on the Indiana landmarks board, is

when you say we’re going to save every bridge, pretty soon you

save no bridges because you’re trying to save every bridge, and

then you lose credibility with the general public that says, we’re

not going to save every bridge. And how to balance that, because

every group thinks their thing is the most important, and pick that

as one of the things I would like your input as we move forth.

But clearly, Angel Island is undisputed. So finding a way to do

that, I know that Brian O’Neal is very familiar with Boston Island.

But you might look at that, which is the worst example in the park

system as a park, because the Federal Government doesn’t own

any land, yet it’s called the Boston Islands National Park Area. So

it’s the most confusing thing, and Brian was running as a consultant to them, because they were a mess trying to figure out how to

do it. He’s had a lot of success at Golden Gate.

86

But I think in order to move a bill and to get more attention on

it, we can continue to try to get attention on Angel Island. But so

many dollars have been poured into Golden Gate that there are actual limitations in some appropriations bills. In the Resources

Committee, some of them go purple every time it comes up over in

the Parks Committee. Nevertheless, somehow this got left out

when we were doing the Presidio, which was really the costly

money pit. Do you know the Presidio?

Ms. TOY. Our office is in there.

Mr. SOUDER. Golden Gate has 8 percent of all the historic structures in the entire National Park Service, 8 percent in one park.

So it has been an incredible challenge, and yet here we are with

Angel Island sitting there deteriorating.

Now, let me ask one other thing. As I understood from your testimony, it wasn’t just Chinese who came through. All groups came.

Was it the primary station on the west coast for all groups or just

for Asian?

Ms. TOY. There were groups from all over the world who came

to Angel Island Immigration Station. We see in the photographic

records people from, we know there were 60,000 Japanese immigrants, including about 20,000 picture brides. And Korean immigrants, South Asian, mostly Punjabi Sikhs, Filipino immigrants,

immigrants from Latin America, we have photographs of Italian

immigrants there, Russian immigrants who came out across the

Pacific, particularly after the Bolshevik Revolution. Even pictures

of people who look to be East African. So really it was some place

that was a destination for——

Mr. SOUDER. U.S. Government operated, not like what we’re

talking about at Fell’s Point——

Ms. TOY. Correct.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. Where it was a private sector steamship operator.

Ms. TOY. No. It was operated by the U.S. Immigration Service

and by the U.S. Public Health Service.

Mr. SOUDER. Was there a similar thing in Los Angeles and Seattle?

Ms. TOY. There was something down at San Pedro, I believe, and

in San Diego. But certainly Angel Island was the largest. There

was also some operation in Seattle.

Mr. SOUDER. OK.

Ms. TOY. The reason why it gets tied to Chinese exclusion is that

was the reason it was built.

Mr. SOUDER. Right.

Ms. TOY. And those are the poems that are on the walls.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. And because, what I was talking to Congresswoman Woolsey about is that it’s partly on your watch, in the

sense that she is the Congresswoman from that area, or were in

Congress at this point, is that as Asian population increases in the

United States, and let’s take 50 years from now, you don’t want

them looking back and saying, who let them fall down? Now we

would like to have that. That’s the Ellis Island. Who let that fall

down? Why wasn’t that taken care of when we could take care of

it?

87

And particularly when you see them merging large groups and

you have clearly defined the most significant site, you kind of go,

what’s wrong here. And like you say, it’s got a checkered history,

but that’s part of the history as well. And we’ve preserved some

sites in California relative to all sorts of kind of abuse of Chinese

citizen rights and others, Japanese citizens in particular, like in

the gold mining areas and all sorts of things like that.

Mr. Cummings, do you have comments?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I’ll be very brief. First of all, I want to thank you

all for being here. I was watching your testimony in the room over

here.

Ms. Von Karajan, I just want to ask you a few questions about

the support that you’ve gotten from the Park Service, if any.

Ms. VON KARAJAN. To date, we’ve not received any. We’ve only

really gone into a mode where we’ve been seeking funds over the

course of the last year. We have had funds from the Maryland Heritage Area Authority. We have Fell’s Point but not Locust Point.

Fell’s Point was just, its designation was just approved as a Chesapeake Bay Gateway, through that program, which is a National

Park Service program, relatively new, only about 4 years old.

So we just submitted a grant to them last Friday to begin doing

some work. But we’ve received none, but in fairness to the National

Park Service, I’d have to say, nor have we solicited it, because we

had to go about putting our program together, if you will, and that

took some organizational time to do. When Ron Zimmerman first

began this program, he saw it basically as a museum that he would

put at Locust Point. That idea has expanded considerably in that

the process of expanding that has meant that we really didn’t go

out and do a lot of fundraising until just this past year.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you anticipate that you will make requests of

the Park Service? And do you see a way that they can help you?

Ms. VON KARAJAN. I definitely do. I definitely have high hopes

for the Chesapeake Bay Gateway. It’s a program that talks about

the Chesapeake Bay, certainly if you came in in Baltimore you

came through the Chesapeake Bay. I believe that we will benefit

indirectly considerably from the trail that will be, I believe, we

hope will be signed into effect this year for the Star Spangled Banner Trail, for the War of 1812 Bicentennial.

But at this particular moment there isn’t really any one category

that our program seems to fit into. In a sense, we’re almost more

comfortable with initiatives like We The People and the National

Endowment for the Humanities. At this point in time, the National

Park Service, there just hasn’t been anything that fits what it is

that we’ve been trying to do at the Park Service level that I’m

aware of and that our group has been aware of. There may be

things, but we just, if there are we’ve not known.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What about you, Ms. Wilson? Have you gotten a

lot of assistance from the Park Service, if any?

Ms. WILSON. We don’t get assistance from the Park Service, no.

Although we are partnering with them, we hope, this fall on a symposium regarding the new President’s House, which they’re working on an interpretation of. I’d say traditionally in Philadelphia,

the Park Service, Independence National Park itself has kind of

been an animal unto itself and there hasn’t necessarily been a

88

great deal of collaboration even, let alone support for other historical activities. And yet that park pretty much dominates the agenda

of other historical activities in a lot of the city.

So we think this is some progress. I don’t know if you know, but

in Philadelphia in the last year or so, Independence National Park

has come under a lot of fire for its interpretation of the new Liberty

Bell site, and community groups, mostly African-American organizations in the city, organized and confronted Park Service people,

much to their discomfort. It was kind of a fiery encounter. But they

did get some concessions on having a narrative about slavery incorporated into that site.

So now we think it’s at least a positive sign that the Park Service

is interested in initiating the civic engagement discussion with

these groups again over the interpretation of slavery at the President’s House site. We will be a partner in that program. But that’s

been about the extent of it, quite frankly. I think in Philadelphia,

too, I talk about the fragmentation of the historical landscape, you

could talk about the fragmentation of the historical interpretive

landscape as well. There’s a lot of history organizations in Philadelphia. We don’t always work together in the way we should.

Mr. SOUDER. If the gentleman will yield for a second.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Sure.

Mr. SOUDER. We have an unusual thing in Philadelphia, because

on top of Independence National Park, they put the Constitution

Center in, and overrode the normal process of funding that. So I

worked with Congressman Pataki as we were trying to get a small

amount in for the education institute that was supposed to go in

between there for interpretation. And the Appropriations Committee had written in a clause that Philadelphia can receive no more

money in historic preservation, because they had gotten so much

disproportionate for a number of years, because the Constitutional

Convention building got $10 million, $5 million in two straight appropriations bills, plus Independence Park. Philadelphia is a very

historic city, but because of that, we may be able to do some more

down the road.

But that’s the type of thing that happens when you get one big

project in, it becomes like Golden Gate over in San Francisco or

like the Constitution Center, then Congressman Cummings’ district

and my district don’t get anything, and then we try to balance that

out a little through the appropriations process, too.

Mr. CUMMINGS. That’s all I have. Thank you all very much.

Mr. SOUDER. I would appreciate if you all can do some additional

brainstorming. Part of the problem is that each of you get very immersed, and we can’t build even a national historic—if you lose

your local properties and you lose the individual local stories, it’s

hard then to develop a larger story. All of a sudden something that

looked not significant, when you get lots of the little pieces together

or something that seems significant in one given era, 50 years later

we decide, oh, this is what was significant about that era and then

we don’t have any of the documentation.

At the same time, being at the national level, we’re looking most

at things of national significance. But we need to watch the pieces

as well. As we develop this bill, I’ve been trying to figure out, OK,

how can we narrow the scope and what types of things we do. For

89

example, we need to find out, you referred to a parks program that

you were applying to, Ms. Von Karajan.

Ms. VON KARAJAN. The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network. It’s

only about 4 years old. It is a National Park Service program. You

have to submit a nomination form to it. It’s a very——

Mr. SOUDER. Is that an immigration in the Chesapeake area?

Ms. VON KARAJAN. No, I think it’s actually an extraordinarily

good program. They’re looking at cultural, environmental, ecological.

Mr. SOUDER. Anything to do with the Chesapeake region?

Ms. VON KARAJAN. The bay is what organizes, it has sites in

Maryland and Pennsylvania and Delaware, wherever the bay is. It

includes, I think Fell’s Point was designated as a district, Cape

Charles, which is in 1812, is the only other historic district. But I

think they have an Indian reservation and they have a number,

they have some vessels like the Sultana, the Pride of Baltimore.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, it’s important in working with the Parks, one

of the things I’ve been trying to do is push them into thematic

structures.

Ms. VON KARAJAN. Very good.

Mr. SOUDER. It’s like the Chesapeake, like Lewis and Clark, like

Underground Railroad, like Presidents, like the missions program.

And there can be different things to do with it. But in looking at

immigration, migration and settlement, one thing we could do, because one thing that you raised was, some sites aren’t even

marked. If we had a site identification program that just dealt with

plaques, in other words, if you do the authorization at a certain

level, you can have up to a minimal amount and have people submit into the Federal Government, that would be something we

could include in a park and say, this has to deal with either an immigration, you’d have to make your submission based on either immigration, migration and significance, or uniqueness. That may be

the other word to use, significance and/or uniqueness, or symbolism

of a larger category.

We need to find out what NEH does on the We The People and

stuff on basic research. Because some of it may be just trying to

stimulate some basic research. Another part could be, and I wondered how you’d react to this, if the Federal Government said,

these are our gaps in the immigration story, and we’ve looked

through the register and we’ve looked through the landmarks and

we’ve looked through our recreation areas, these are gaps we have.

This group of people isn’t being covered in proportion to the different sites. And in effect, did a grant announcement seeking, OK,

who’s got anything that meets the gaps in this category in immigration, this category in migration, this category of this, and had

a certain percentage of their funding that gave a priority to that

type of structure.

If you can, having worked at the field, what types of things could

we do, understanding that it may or may not be something you’re

directly working with, but thinking now as somebody in that field,

if we’re trying to identify what’s significant for American history,

not our own personal interests, but what’s significant for American

history that it’s there and included, how do we make sure that the

next generation has identified and has a reflection of not just the

90

oddities or just the most extraordinary, but the actual diversity of

the country.

And that’s part of our challenge. It’s not just minority views, it’s

majority and minority. But it’s not just the majority, it’s also the

minority. It’s emerging minorities before their sites are lost. And

to me, this is a big challenge. We just need some people to help us

think this through and how better to target. If you have any final

comments.

Ms. WILSON. I would just observe that there’s a huge industrial

heritage in Pennsylvania. There are heritage areas that have been

declared in other parts of the State, not Philadelphia, but the western part of the State, where there was a huge, immigration of

course is a huge part of that story. I didn’t see any Pennsylvania

parks on the National Park Service list. But that’s something I

would think that’s, there’s already a huge groundswell at the local

level.

Mr. SOUDER. Another possibility would be to have these things

interpret inside existing sites and have a small grant program for

somebody to develop, like in the oil heritage area region, or in Fort

Wayne, what brought the Germans into our area were the railroads. I’m sure that was true a lot in Baltimore as well. But that’s

a good idea, inside the heritage areas, which is the fastest growing

category.

Anything else?

Ms. TOY. I do know at Lowell, I think it has some other designation, but the designation, up at the Lowell site is quite interesting.

Mr. SOUDER. That’s a national historic park. Actually it’s called

National Industrial Park.

Ms. TOY. Something like that. But the industrial heritage in the

tide of immigration is certainly very closely linked. I think they do

some fabulous programming up there.

I do say that I really support your efforts, particularly to look at

the issue of having the Federal Government or the National Park

Service or whatever the entity is take a proactive step into looking

out there and identifying these gaps in our national story. It

shouldn’t be that groups like ours have to advocate for 20 years to

make sure the site which was originally slated by California State

Parks to be destroyed.

In fact, we had some Julia Morgan designed staff cottages be

burned for the Robert Redford film, the Candidate. And that

shouldn’t be the case. We shouldn’t have to fight this hard to have

this kind of heritage preserved and to have at the national level,

to have a Federal entity come down and say, you know, we value

your history, it is important. That validation itself speaks volumes

to our communities.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, thank you very much. Any additional comments you have will be appreciated.

With that, the hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

Æ