U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

71-123 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

HEARING ON H.R. 107, H.R. 400,

AND H.R. 452

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

March 8, 2001

Serial No. 107-2

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ′′Billy′′ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

C.L. ′′Butch′′ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

VACANCY

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

VACANCY

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina,

Vice Chairman

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 8, 2001 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin

Islands ............................................................................................................ 7

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement on H.R. 452 ............................................................. 6

Hastert, Speaker J. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, Prepared statement on H.R. 400 .............................................. 3

Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 107, H.R. 400, and H.R. 452 .................. 4

Kildee, Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan 27

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District

of Columbia ................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement on H.R. 452 ............................................................. 30

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................ 32

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from the State

of West Virginia ............................................................................................ 26

Statement of Witnesses:

Brody, Carolyn, Member, Commission of Fine Arts, Washington, DC ........ 47

Prepared statement on H.R. 452 ............................................................. 49

Craig, Dr. Bruce, Director, National Coordinating Committee for the

Promotion of History, Washington, DC ....................................................... 86

Prepared statement on H.R. 107 ............................................................. 87

Dishner, Jimmy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

(Installations), The Pentagon, Arlington, VA ............................................. 51

Prepared statement on H.R. 107 ............................................................. 52

Norquist, Grover, Chairman, Ronald Reagan Legacy Foundation,

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 64

Prepared statement on H.R. 452 ............................................................. 65

Powers, Francis Gary, Jr., Founder, Cold War Museum, Fairfax, VA ........ 68

Prepared statement on H.R. 107 ............................................................. 72

Ring, Richard G., Associate Director, Park Operations and Education,

National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ..... 35

Prepared statement on H.R. 107 ............................................................. 36

Prepared statement on H.R. 400 ............................................................. 38

Prepared statement on H.R. 452 ............................................................. 38

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 41

Wymbs, Norm, Chairman, Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation,

Del Ray, FL ................................................................................................... 58

Prepared statement on H.R.400 ............................................................... 61

Additional materials supplied:

Text of H.R. 107 ............................................................................................... 8

Text of H.R. 400 ............................................................................................... 13

Text of H.R. 452 ............................................................................................... 18

Map of Commemorative Works Area 1 on National Mall in Washington,

DC .................................................................................................................. 25

List of Area 1 Memorials submitted for the record ....................................... 56

(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 107, TO REQUIRE THAT

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR CONDUCT A STUDY TO IDENTIFY SITES AND

RESOURCES, TO RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMEMORATING AND INTERPRETING THE COLD WAR, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 400, TO AUTHORIZE

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ESTABLISH A RONALD REAGAN BOYHOOD

HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 452, TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEMORIAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD

REAGAN WITHIN THE AREA OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REFERRED TO IN THE

COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT AS ′′AREA 1′′,

TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH MEMORIAL, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

Thursday, March 8, 2001

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m. in

Room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. HEFLEY. This is my first time to chair this Committee as

Chairman of the Committee. I have chaired it in my esteemed colleague from Utah’s absence from time to time but this is my first

time to chair it and I think I would be remiss if I did not point

out the fact that I sat for many years on this Committee under the

tutelage of Bruce Vento.

Now Bruce, as you know, we lost last year. He could be very partisan at times. He was very liberal, very different philosophically

2

from me, but if you wanted to challenge Bruce on a public lands

issue you had better pack your lunch and come prepared.

And Bruce was a gentleman. If you had a good idea and you

were in the minority, in those days it was the practice that any minority good idea would be stolen by someone in the majority. I

mean that is just the way things were done. Bruce, if you had a

good idea and you were in the minority, he would cosponsor that

idea with you.

And I learned a great deal about public lands issues from Bruce

Vento and I wonder if at the start of this hearing if we might just

take a moment of silence in remembrance of Bruce and his contribution to this Congress and to the United States of America.

[Pause.]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing today. The

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will

come to order.

I would like to congratulate and welcome my colleague, the Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, as the new ranking

member of the Committee and I look forward to working with her.

The Subcommittee staff and I will do everything we can to see

that this Committee is run in a fair, evenhanded manner and hopefully it is—I started to say bipartisan but as nonpartisan a way as

possible. Most of the issues we deal with are not or should not be

partisan issues in here and some of them will be but mostly they

should not be. We will try to operate in as congenial a fashion as

possible.

I would also like to point out that the name of the Subcommittee

has changed. The Subcommittee name now includes recreation in

its title and with good reason. Chairman Hansen and I, along with

many other members of the Committee, believe that for the last

eight years our nation’s premier park system and vast public lands

have become more synonymous with unnecessary restrictions on

access and a predominant bias toward preservation, rather than

the opportunities for recreation and family enjoyment.

Today, and for the foreseeable future, the Subcommittee will add

a new focus on recreation and multiple use on our publics lands.

Concerning today’s hearing, the Subcommittee will consider

three important bills: H.R. 400 sponsored by Speaker Hastert that

would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site in Dixon, Illinois;

H.R. 452 sponsored by Chairman Hansen that would authorize the

establishment of a memorial to former President Ronald Reagan on

the National Mall; and H.R. 107 sponsored by me that would require the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study to identify sites

and resources for commemorating and interpreting the Cold War.

I especially look forward to hearing the witnesses’ comments on

the proposed memorial for former President Reagan. I suspect that

this will be an unusual hearing as the new Administration has

come out in opposition to not only my bill and Chairman Hansen’s

bill but to Speaker Hastert’s bill, as well.

[The prepared statement of Speaker Hastert follows:]

3

Statement of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (IL–14), on H.R. 400

Chairman Hefley, Ranking Member Christensen:

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today in support of H.R. 400

which would establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site in

Dixon, Illinois. As you are well aware, this bill would allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Reagan boyhood home from the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home

Foundation to ensure that this important historical structure is protected and maintained in perpetuity.

At this time, I would like to take a moment to recognize Norm and Harriet

Wymbs—without their selfless dedication—and the dedication of the folks of Dixon,

Illinois—to preserving the legacy of Ronald Reagan, we would not be here today. We

all owe them a debt of gratitude.

Ronald Reagan occupies a special place in the heart of all of us from Northern

Illinois. We take great pride in the record of our native son. As our 40th President,

Ronald Reagan steered this country through some very difficult times. I am sure

many of us here today can recall the atmosphere in America when he took office

in 1981. We were mired in recession, in the midst of a cold war with the Soviet

Union, and there was a real sense that America had seen its better days. By the

time Reagan left office, we were in the middle of unprecedented economic growth,

peace and freedom were on the rise in every corner of the globe, and we had experienced a re-birth of the American spirit. Reagan’s belief in limited government, lower

taxes, and individual freedom had transformed American politics and re-ignited our

spirit of optimism.

Many of us believe that Reagan’s success as President stems in no small part

from his upbringing in Illinois. And, while his path to greatness took him to many

places, I believe what he learned growing up in Illinois never left him.

Although born in Tampico, Illinois, Reagan has always considered Dixon his

hometown. In Reagan’s youth, as it is today, Dixon represents a traditional, rural,

Midwestern town. In Dixon, Reagan attended school, played football, worked as a

lifeguard, and developed the values that would shape his future life in politics. In

fact, many of the images of Reagan in his youth, which we are all familiar with,

were taken in Dixon and the surrounding area.

The history of Ronald Reagan’s life in Dixon is typical of most raised in small

Midwestern towns. Reagan’s parents, Nelle and Jack, instilled in him a sense of fair

play, duty to others, and a respect for hard work. They taught young Ronald that

religious or racial prejudice is wrong. And, Jack and Nelle were determined that

their children would have every opportunity to excel and saw to it that the Reagan

children obtained a college education. These are ideals we must share and pass on

to future generations of young Americans.

Ronald was thirteen when he entered Dixon’s Northside High School. At

Northside,‘‘Dutch′′ Reagan played football and basketball, ran track, and acted in

school plays. Athletic achievement and theatrical performances in school plays increased his popularity at Northside. In his senior year, Reagan was elected student

body president. As was the custom of the time, yearbooks generally included mottoes written by the student to describe attributes or perspective outlooks. Ronald

Reagan’s reads: ‘‘life is just one grand sweet song, so start the music’’ Ambitious,

full of life, and ready to take on the world, Reagan graduated from Northside High

School in 1928.

After High School, Reagan was admitted to Eureka College on a partial football

scholarship-he lettered in football all 4 years. Reagan washed dishes at his fraternity house and at the girls dormitory on campus for spending money. Reagan

worked as a lifeguard and swimming coach in the summer months as well. As a

freshman, Ronald Reagan was already a proven leader-he organized and led a student strike in protest of the decision by college administrators to reduce the array

of courses offered. The demonstration resulted in the resignation of the college president and a return to the old curriculum. While at Eureka he also made it possible

for his older brother Neil, who was then working at a cement plant, to go to college

by getting him a job, a partial scholarship, and a deal deferring his tuition until

after graduation.

The Depression hit Dixon, Illinois especially hard. The Reagan’s were forced to

sublet their home and live in one room. Jack and Nelle’s next door neighbor at times

cooked for them, and handed meals through the window. The Depression had an

enormous impact on Reagan-he often recalled the uncertainty of the times by retelling the story of his father expecting a bonus check and instead being fired on

Christmas Eve 1931. The trying times of the Great Depression touched the lives of

every American and the Reagans were no exception. The charitable kindness reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
4

ceived and practiced by the Reagan’s helped them to survive and thrive when hard

times came.

After college, Ronald Reagan borrowed his father’s beat up Oldsmobile and set out

on a 1-day swing of nearby small-town radio stations. Reagan was offered five dollars and round trip bus fare to broadcast a University of Iowa football game. He

did so well that the station manager gave him a raise to ten dollars for the remaining games. Early in 1933 World of Chiropractic radio (WOC), a subsidiary of WHO

radio in Des Moines, hired Dutch as a full time announcer for $100 a month—a lot

of money at the time. He had enough money to help his parents and send $10 a

month spending money to his brother Nell while he finished college at Eureka. At

first, Reagan’s oratory was neither polished, nor very professional but he learned

to rehearse and sound spontaneous. As we all know, Reagan’s weakness became one

of his trademark virtues. In the future, Reagan’s speeches gave hope to millions

around the world who suffered under the oppression of Communism.

From his job at a small radio station in Iowa, Reagan went on to serve in the

Army during World War II, become a movie star, president of the Screen Actors

Guild, a traveling spokesman for General Electric, Governor of the State of California, and, ultimately, President of the United States. Wherever he went, however,

lie carried the lessons lie learned growing up in Dixon, Illinois, with him.

I believe that, as a Nation, we must preserve and protect places of historical interest for future generations. The affection we, as a Nation, have for the 40‘‘’ President

of the United States is demonstrated by the fact that so many important things now

bear his name-from the airport which serves the Nation’s Capital and a Federal

building, to the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier.

In my mind, however, there is another important piece of Reagan’s life that deserves preservation. I believe that Reagan’s life in Dixon, Illinois, is critical to understanding the man and the presidency. But don’t take my word for it. Take the

word of the tens of thousands of visitors who tour his boyhood home every year.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to represent President Reagan’s boyhood home of

Dixon, Illinois, in Congress and I am proud to sponsor legislation that will ensure

that the opportunity to experience the place where he was raised will be available

to all Americans for years to come. I look forward to working with you, and Ranking

Member Christensen, to make this a reality as soon as possible.

Mr. HEFLEY. I want to thank our panel of witnesses, especially

Speaker Hastert and Chairman Hansen, for being here today to

testify on these bills.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]

Statement of Hon. Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks,

Recreation, and Public Lands

Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee on

National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will come to order. I would like to

congratulate and welcome my colleague, the Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Ms.

Christensen, as the new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee

staff and I look forward to working with all of you in what I hope will be a very

productive, bipartisan, and congenial session for this Subcommittee.

I would also like to point out that the name of the Subcommittee has changed.

The Subcommittee name now includes Recreation in its title and with good reason.

Chairman Hansen and I along with many other Members of the Committee believe

that for the last 8 years our Nation’s premier park system and vast public lands

have become more synonymous with unnecessary restrictions on access and a predominate bias toward preservation, rather than with opportunities for recreation

and family enjoyment. Today, and for the foreseeable future, the Subcommittee will

add a new focus on recreation and multiple use on our public lands.

Concerning today’s hearing, the Subcommittee will consider three important bills:

H.R. 400, sponsored by Speaker Hastert, that would authorize the Secretary of Interior to establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site in Dixon,

Illinois; H.R. 452, sponsored by Chairman Hansen, that would authorize the establishment of a memorial to former President Reagan on the National Mall; and

H.R. 107, sponsored by me, that would require the Secretary of Interior to conduct

a study to identify sites and resources for commemorating and interpreting the cold

war. I especially look forward to hearing the witnesses comments on the proposed

memorial for former President Ronald Reagan. [I suspect this will be an unusual

5

hearing as the new Administration has come out in opposition to not only my bill

and Chairman Hansen’s bill, but Speaker Hastert’s as well.]

I want to thank our panel of witnesses, especially Speaker Hastert and Chairman

Hansen, for being here today to testify on these bills. I now turn the time over to

the Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen.

Mr. HEFLEY. I wonder if the gentlelady, Mrs. Christensen, would

suspend her comments just a moment in deference to Chairman

Hansen, who is going to have to leave and would like to give his

comments on his bill. I would ask unanimous consent that we do

that, get that out of the way before we go vote. Would that be all

right?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Fine with me. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. All right, Chairman Hansen, we turn it over to you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking

member for her courtesy. I have another meeting to get to but if

I could just quickly give an opening statement on H.R. 452, which

establishes a presidential memorial for one of the most influential

men of the 20th century.

As one of our most notable Presidents, Ronald Wilson Reagan

initiated policies, such as peace through strength that helped win

the Cold War, contained the economic stagnation of the early ’80’s

by cutting taxes and increasing funding for the national defense

and helped to restore the United States as a leader on the world

front. In doing so, President Reagan restored America’s faith in

itself and our system of government. In short, he restored pride in

our nation.

Specifically, this bill creates and then directs the Ronald Reagan

Memorial Commission to cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and the National Capital Memorial Commission to identify and

then recommend to Congress an appropriate site for the construction of a memorial honoring the former President Ronald Reagan.

The bill specifies that the memorial site be situated in Area 1 as

identified in the Commemorative Works Act and that it be placed

between the Lincoln Memorial and the U.S. Capitol Building. The

Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission would also select the memorial design and raise the necessary funds to complete the memorial.

Furthermore, the commission will have the responsibility to raise

the necessary funds from the private sector for the design, construction and maintenance of the memorial and to issue a report

to Congress and the President on its activities every 6 months from

its first meeting, along with a final report on its findings.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to address some of the criticism regarding my legislation. First, the 25-year waiting period established by the CWA is more of an arbitrary time period than representing a particular formula. Quite frankly, it could be five or 50

years. There really is no right time period. I believe that Mr.

Reagan is a very special case. Because of the nature of his battle

with Alzheimer’s disease, sadly it means Mr. Reagan’s public life

is and has been coming to an end since he left office in 1989.

Secondly, the National Mall has come to represent so much in

terms of who we are as a people. It represents our struggles, our

6

achievements and our appreciation for those Americans who led

our country in time of crisis. I find it hard to believe that a memorial to President Reagan so negatively impacts the integrity of the

beauty of the National Mall.

According to the National Park Service, there are 1,791 acres in

Area 1. This includes 608 acres covered by the Potomac River and

the Tidal Basin, 344 acres occupied by Federal buildings and museums and 315 acres occupied by existing or planned memorials.

That leaves approximately 525 acres of open space. I think if everyone would keep their perspective on this issue another memorial is

certainly not going to destroy the vistas of the Mall. In fact, I believe most Americans walking the National Mall to better understand our history would not object to a memorial honoring one of

the most influential and historical figures of the 20th century.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 452 is similar to the bill that former Resource Chairman Don Young introduced last Congress. If you recall, that bill was favorably reported by the Resource Committee.

Mr. Chairman, this bill honors a great American who deserves

a national tribute in a place of prominence and recognition on the

National Mall alongside the other great leaders of our nation’s history.

And with that, thank you so very much for allowing me to do

that.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Chairman Hansen. Rest assured this

Committee will take care of your bill in due time.

Mr. HANSEN. That is what I am worried about.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hansen follows:]

Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, Chairman, Committee on Resources,

on H.R. 452

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

H.R. 452 establishes a Presidential memorial for one of the most influential men

of the 20th Century. As one of our most notable Presidents, Ronald Wilson Reagan

initiated policies such as peace through strength that helped win the cold war,

tamed the economic stagnation of the early 1980’s by cutting taxes and increasing

funding for the national defense, and helped to restore the United States as leader

on the world front. In doing so, President Reagan restored America’s faith in itself

and our system of government. In short, he restored pride to our Nation.

Specifically, this bill creates and then directs the Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission to cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and the National Capitol Memorial Commission to identify, and then recommend to Congress, an appropriate

site for the construction of a memorial honoring former President Ronald Reagan.

The bill specifies that the memorial site be situated in Area 1’’ as identified in the

Commemorative Works Act, and that it be placed between the Lincoln Memorial

and the U.S. Capitol Building. The Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission would

also select the memorial design and raise the necessary funds to complete the memorial.

Furthermore, the Commission will have the responsibility to raise the necessary

funds from the private sector for the design, construction, and maintenance of the

memorial, and to issue a report to Congress and the President on its activities every

6 months from its first meeting, along with a final report on its findings.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I wanted to address some of the criticism regarding

my legislation. First, the 25 year waiting period established by the CWA is more

of an arbitrary time period than representing a particular formula. Quite frankly,

it could be five or 50 years. There really is no right time period. I believe that Mr.

Reagan’s is a very special case. Because of the nature of his battle with Alzheimer’s

disease, sadly it means Mr. Reagan’s public life is, and has been coming to an end

since he left office in 1989.

Second, the National Mall has come to represent so much in terms of who we are

as a people. It represents our struggles, our achievements, and our appreciation for

7

those American’s who led our country in times of crisis. I find it hard to believe that

a memorial to President Reagan will so negatively impact the integrity or the beauty of the National Mall.

According to the National Park Service, there are 1,791 acres in Area 1. This includes 608 acres covered by the Potomac River and the Tidal Basin, 344 acres occupied by Federal buildings and museums, and 315 acres occupied by existing or

planned memorials. That leaves approximately 524 acres of open space. I think if

everyone would keep their perspective on this issue, another memorial is certainly

not going to destroy the vistas of the Mall. In fact, I believe most Americans walking

the National Mall to better understand our history would not object to a memorial

honoring one of the most influential and historical figures of the 20th Century.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 452 is similar to the bill that former Resources Chairman

Don Young introduced last Congress. If you recall, that bill was favorably reported

by the Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, this bill honors a great American who deserves a national tribute

in a place of prominence and recognition on the National Mall along side the other

great leaders in our Nation’s history.

Mr. HEFLEY. The Committee stands in recess while we vote and

we will be back as quickly as we can and we will pick up with Mrs.

Christensen’s statement.

[Recess.]

Mr. HEFLEY. The Committee will come back to order and we will

go now to Mrs. Christensen.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure

to be here today at the first meeting of the renamed National

Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Subcommittee of this Congress.

On behalf of the Democratic members of the Subcommittee, let

me congratulate you on your new role as Subcommittee Chairman

and we look forward to working with you to address the many

issues that will come before this Subcommittee during the 107th

Congress.

Today, whether by accident or design, it appears there is a theme

to our hearing. Former President Reagan played a significant role

in the latter stages of the Cold War and all three measures we will

consider today deal with this theme.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Our first bill, H.R. 107, of which you are the

sponsor, Mr. Chairman, directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study regarding the sites and resources associated with the

Cold War. The tension between the United States and the former

Soviet Union that marked the Cold War era had a significant impact on U.S. policy both at home and abroad. As such it is an important element of our recent history.

[The text of H.R. 107 follows:]

8

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 107

To require that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a study to identify

sites and resources, to recommend alternatives for commemorating and

interpreting the Cold War, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. HEFLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To require that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a

study to identify sites and resources, to recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the Cold

War, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COLD WAR STUDY.

4 (a) SUBJECT OF STUDY.—The Secretary of the Inte5 rior shall conduct a National Historic Landmark theme

6 study to identify sites and resources in the United States

7 that are significant to the Cold War. In conducting the

8 study, the Secretary of the Interior shall consider—

9

2

•HR 107 IH

1 (1) the inventory of sites and resources associ2 ated with the Cold War completed by the Secretary

3 of Defense pursuant to section 8120(b)(9) of the

4 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1991

5 (Public Law 101–511; 104 Stat. 1906); and

6 (2) historical studies and research of Cold War

7 sites and resources such as intercontinental ballistic

8 missiles, flight training centers, manufacturing fa9 cilities, communications and command centers (such

10 as Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado), defensive radar

11 networks (such as the Distant Early Warning Line),

12 and strategic and tactical aircraft.

13 (b) CONTENTS.—The study shall include—

14 (1) recommendations for commemorating and

15 interpreting sites and resources identified by the

16 study, including—

17 (A) sites for which studies for potential in18 clusion in the National Park System should be

19 authorized;

20 (B) sites for which new national historic

21 landmarks should be nominated; and

22 (C) other appropriate designations;

23 (2) recommendations for cooperative arrange24 ments with State and local governments, local his25 torical organizations, and other entities; and

10

3

•HR 107 IH

1 (3) cost estimates for carrying out each of those

2 recommendations.

3 (c) GUIDELINES.—The study shall be—

4 (1) conducted with public involvement and in

5 consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force,

6 State and local officials, State historic preservation

7 offices, and scholarly and other interested organiza8 tions and individuals; and

9 (2) submitted to the Committee on Resources of

10 the House of Representatives and the Committee on

11 Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate no

12 later than 3 years after the date that funds are

13 made available for the study.

14 SEC. 2. INTERPRETIVE HANDBOOK ON THE COLD WAR.

15 Not later than 4 years after funds are made available

16 for that purpose, the Secretary of the Interior shall pre17 pare and publish an interpretive handbook on the Cold

18 War and shall disseminate information gathered through

19 the study through appropriate means in addition to the

20 handbook.

21 SEC. 3. COLD WAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

22 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of the Interior,

23 upon funds being made available to carry out this Act,

24 shall establish the Cold War Advisory Committee (here25 after in this section referred to as the ‘‘Advisory ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
11

4

•HR 107 IH

1 mittee’’). The Advisory Committee shall be composed of

2 9 members, appointed by the Secretary, of whom—

3 (1) 3 shall have expertise in Cold War history;

4 (2) 2 shall have expertise in historic preserva5 tion;

6 (3) 1 shall have expertise in American history;

7 and

8 (4) 3 shall be from the general public.

9 (b) CHAIRPERSON.—The Advisory Committee shall

10 designate one of its members as Chairperson.

11 (c) MEETINGS WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—The

12 Secretary, or the Secretary’s designee, shall meet and con13 sult with the Advisory Committee on matters relating to

14 the study conducted under section 1 on not fewer than

15 3 occasions.

16 (d) COMPENSATION.—Members of the Advisory Com17 mittee shall serve without compensation, but the Secretary

18 may pay expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out

19 their responsibilities under this Act on vouchers signed by

20 the Chairperson.

21 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

22 There are authorized to be appropriated $200,000 to

23 carry out this Act.

Æ

12

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Our second bill today, H.R. 400, would require the Secretary to purchase a facility in Speaker Hastert’s district in Dixon, Illinois known as the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home

complex and designated as a new national historic site. Apparently

former President Reagan lived in this home for a brief period in the

mid-1920’s. The complex gained some recent attention with an Associated Press story identifying the home as a site of a life-sized

portrait of the former President done in jelly beans.

Certainly any site which plays a significant role in the life of a

U.S. President and which retains historically significant resources

relating to that period is deserving of consideration for addition to

our National Park System. In this instance, however, it is unclear

what role this property played in former President Reagan’s life;

nor is much known about its current condition and the condition

of the resources located at this site. It is our understanding that

no resource study of the home has been completed, as would normally be the case and the bill fails to authorize one.

Thanks to legislation you authored and we in the minority supported, Mr. Chairman, current law directs that a resource study

should be done before any new unit is added to the National Park

System. In this instance such a study would provide critical information regarding this facility. We look forward to learning more

about this particular site from the witnesses before us this morning.

[ The text of H.R. 400 follows:]

13

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 400

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Ronald Reagan

Boyhood Home National Historic Site, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 2001

Mr. HASTERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the

Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN BOYHOOD HOME NATIONAL

4 HISTORIC SITE.

5 (a) ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.—As soon as prac6 ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

7 Secretary shall purchase with donated or appropriated

8 funds, at fair market value and from a willing owner only,

9 fee simple, unencumbered title to the Property and to any

10 personal property related to the Property which the SecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
14

2

•HR 400 IH

1 retary determines to be appropriate for the purposes of

2 this Act.

3 (b) ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC SITE.—After the

4 Property is acquired by the Secretary, the Secretary shall

5 designate the Property as the Ronald Reagan Boyhood

6 Home National Historic Site.

7 (c) MAP.—The Secretary shall ensure that a copy of

8 the map referred to in subsection (f)(2) is on file and

9 available for public inspection in the appropriate offices

10 of the National Park Service.

11 (d) MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC SITE.—

12 (1) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—The Secretary

13 shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the

14 Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation for the

15 management, operation, and use of the Historic Site.

16 The cooperative agreement shall provide for the

17 preservation of the Property in a manner that pre18 serves the historical significance thereof and upon

19 such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers

20 necessary to protect the interests of the United

21 States.

22 (2) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.—Not later

23 than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this

24 Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Ronald

25 Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation, shall complete

15

3

•HR 400 IH

1 a general management plan for the Historic Site

2 that defines the role and responsibility of the Sec3 retary with regard to the interpretation and the

4 preservation of the Historic Site.

5 (e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.—The Secretary

6 shall administer the Historic Site in accordance with the

7 provisions of this Act and the provisions of laws generally

8 applicable to national historic sites, including the Act enti9 tled ‘‘An Act to establish a National Park Service, and

10 for other purposes’’, approved August 25, 1916 (16

11 U.S.C. 1–4), and the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for

12 the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, ob13 jects and antiquities of national significance, and for other

14 purposes’’, approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et

15 seq.).

16 (f) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this Act, the

17 following definitions apply:

18 (1) HISTORIC SITE.—The term ‘‘Historic Site’’

19 means the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National

20 Historic Site.

21 (2) PROPERTY.—The term ‘‘Property’’ means

22 the property commonly known as the Ronald Reagan

23 Boyhood Complex located in Dixon, Illinois, and

24 identified on the map entitled ‘‘ll’’, numbered

25 ll, and dated ll, and all structures thereon.

16

4

•HR 400 IH

1 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

2 the Secretary of the Interior.

Æ

17

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Our third bill, H.R. 452 introduced by Chairman Hansen, would authorize a memorial to former President

Reagan on the National Mall here in Washington, D.C. President

Reagan’s term in office was significant and a significant period in

American history and there are many who believe that he deserves

a memorial on our National Mall. As the Committee is well aware,

however, H.R. 452 violates several critical provisions of the Commemorative Works Act or CWA authored by our former colleague

Bruce Vento and others and signed into law by President Reagan

himself. In our view, the CWA framework, including the 25-year

waiting period, has served the Mall, the public and those memorialized on the Mall very well. The fact that H.R. 452 would exempt

this proposed memorial from the sound public policy requirements

which apply to all other proposed additions to our National Mall

is troubling.

Furthermore, we are puzzled by the apparent haste to place this

memorial on the Mall, given that significant honors have already

been bestowed on our 40th President. The second largest Federal

building in the country, as well as National Airport are named in

his honor. In addition, just this past Sunday the $4 billion aircraft

carrier RONALD REAGAN was christened, the first carrier ever

named for a living President. There is little chance that the American public will forget Ronald Reagan even if the statutory waiting

period for a memorial to him on the Mall is respected.

[The text of H.R. 452 follows:]

18

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 452

To authorize the establishment of a memorial to former President Ronald

Reagan within the area in the District of Columbia referred to in the

Commemorative Works Act as ‘‘Area I’’, to provide for the design and

construction of such memorial, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 2001

Mr. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the establishment of a memorial to former

President Ronald Reagan within the area in the District

of Columbia referred to in the Commemorative Works

Act as ‘‘Area I’’, to provide for the design and construction of such memorial, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Memo5 rial Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds the following:

19

2

•HR 452 IH

1 (1) Ronald Reagan is an American hero deserv2 ing of recognition by this and future generations of

3 Americans and visitors from around the world.

4 (2) As President, Ronald Reagan initiated poli5 cies that won the Cold War, protected and restored

6 freedom and democracy around the globe, lowered

7 taxes on American citizens, tamed the economic

8 threats of inflation and economic stagnation, and

9 ushered in an unprecedented era of peace and pros10 perity across the Nation, and his contributions merit

11 permanent memorialization.

12 (3) The legacies of Ronald Reagan include re13 storing faith in our system of democracy and cap14 italism, returning pride in being an American, and

15 renewing the honor and decency of the American

16 Presidency, and are deserving of national recogni17 tion.

18 (4) The contributions of former President Ron19 ald Reagan, and his status as a preeminent twen20 tieth-century American statesman and one of the

21 greatest American Presidents, merit and require a

22 permanent memorialization alongside the other great

23 American leaders memorialized on the Mall in the

24 District of Columbia.

20

3

•HR 452 IH

1 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF RONALD REAGAN MEMORIAL;

2 LOCATION AND DESIGN.

3 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF RONALD REAGAN MEMO4 RIAL.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Ronald Reagan Memo6 rial Commission is authorized to establish the Ron7 ald Reagan Memorial in accordance with this Act,

8 on Federal lands administered by the National Park

9 Service in the District of Columbia.

10 (2) LOCATION.—The memorial shall be situated

11 in a location that is—

12 (A) recommended by the Ronald Reagan

13 Memorial Commission; and

14 (B) in the area on the Mall west of the

15 Capitol and east of the Lincoln Memorial, and

16 within the area referred to in the Commemora17 tive Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) as

18 Area I.

19 (b) DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL MEMORIAL

20 COMMISSION AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.—

21 The National Capital Memorial Commission and the Sec22 retary of the Interior shall assist the members of the Ron23 ald Reagan Memorial Commission—

24 (1) in the preparation of a recommendation to

25 the Congress of a permanent location for the memo26 rial; and

21

4

•HR 452 IH

1 (2) the selection of a design for the memorial

2 and the grounds of the memorial.

3 (c) DETAIL OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR EM4 PLOYEES.—The Secretary of the Interior shall detail to

5 the Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission such support

6 staff as are necessary to assist the members of the com7 mission in carrying out its responsibilities.

8 (d) BEGINNING OF PROCESS.—The Ronald Reagan

9 Memorial Commission shall begin the process of recom10 mending a location and selecting a design for the memorial

11 no later than six months after the date of enactment of

12 this Act.

13 (e) MARKER.—

14 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall erect, at

15 the site approved by the Congress for the memorial,

16 a suitable marker designating the site as the ‘‘Fu17 ture Site of the Ronald Reagan Memorial’’.

18 (2) REQUIREMENTS.—The marker shall be—

19 (A) installed by the Secretary no later than

20 three months after the date of the enactment of

21 a law approving the location for the memorial;

22 (B) no smaller than three feet square and

23 constructed of durable material suitable to the

24 outdoor environment; and

22

5

•HR 452 IH

1 (C) maintained at the location by the Sec2 retary until the memorial is completed, dedi3 cated, and open to the public.

4 (f) RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMMEMORATIVE WORKS

5 ACT.—Sections 3(c), 7(a)(2), and 8(a)(1) of the Com6 memorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1003(c), 1007(a)(2),

7 1008(a)(1)) shall not apply to the memorial.

8 SEC. 4. RONALD REAGAN MEMORIAL COMMISSION.

9 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a com10 mission, to be known as the Ronald Reagan Memorial

11 Commission. The commission shall—

12 (1) be comprised of—

13 (A) the Chairman of the National Capital

14 Memorial Commission;

15 (B) one member appointed by the Speaker

16 of the House of Representatives by no later

17 than six months after the date of the enactment

18 of this Act; and

19 (C) one member appointed by the majority

20 leader of the Senate by no later than six

21 months after the date of the enactment of this

22 Act;

23 (2) be chaired by one of its members, to be des24 ignated jointly by the Speaker of the House of Rep25 resentatives and the majority leader of the Senate;

23

6

•HR 452 IH

1 (3) meet no later than one month after its

2 members are appointed, and at such other times as

3 may be necessary; and

4 (4) be exempt from the Federal Advisory Com5 mittee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

6 (b) DUTIES.—The Ronald Reagan Memorial Com7 mission shall—

8 (1) raise necessary funds from private sector

9 sources to design, construct, and maintain the me10 morial;

11 (2) in cooperation with the National Capital

12 Memorial Commission and the Secretary of the Inte13 rior, determine and recommend to the Congress a

14 permanent location for the memorial;

15 (3) select a design for the memorial from pro16 posals solicited and accepted from qualified Amer17 ican architects; and

18 (4) issue a report to the Congress and the

19 President on its activities every six months after its

20 first meeting, and issue a final report to the Con21 gress and the President, including a recommended

22 location and final design for the memorial, no later

23 than February 6, 2003.

24 (c) TERMINATION.—The commission shall terminate

25 not later than 90 days after completion of the memorial.

24

7

•HR 452 IH

1 SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

2 In this Act:

3 (1) MEMORIAL.—The term ‘‘memorial’’ means

4 the Ronald Reagan Memorial authorized by this Act.

5 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

6 the Secretary of the Interior.

Æ

25

[Map of Commemorative Works Area 1 submitted for the record

follows:]

26

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, we join you in welcoming our

witnesses to the hearing. We look forward to their input on the

measures before the Subcommittee today and it is a special pleasure to welcome our colleague from the District, Congresswoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, to the Subcommittee this morning.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Any other opening statements? None on this side?

Mr. DUNCAN. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I just

want to congratulate you and Mrs. Christensen on your new positions. I also say that I agree with your philosophy as expressed in

your opening statement and I know you will provide great leadership for this Subcommittee.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rahall?

STATEMENT OF HON. NICK J. RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I likewise congratulate

you as the new Chairman and Mrs. Christensen as the new ranking member of the Subcommittee and associate myself, Mr. Chairman, with your words in commemoration of our late colleague,

Bruce Vento, made during the beginning of today’s hearing.

There are a number of concerns already expressed by the ranking member, that I have as well, with the pending legislation,

H.R. 452. To be perfectly clear, these concerns have nothing to do

with Ronald Reagan. For that matter, this bill could be about putting a monument on the Mall to one of America’s most loved characters, Mickey Mouse. Or it could be about a monument to Bill

Clinton or any other individual that does not meet the statutory requirements; my concerns would be the same.

The Mall is indeed America’s front yard. It is a very special place

to Americans and for that reason there are stringent procedures

governing whether additional monuments will be located in the

area, there is a vetting process, if you will, that has to be followed

before such monuments are put on the Mall. These procedures to

which I refer and which have already been referred to by others on

the Committee, are embodied in the Commemorative Works Act of

1986, so ably and effectively ushered through the Congress by our

late colleague Bruce Vento and signed into law, as it so happens,

signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.

So I guess I feel a sense of bemusement today, perhaps amusement. The pending legislation seeks to run roughshod over this important statute to achieve the goal of forcing a memorial to Ronald

Reagan onto the Mall. For instance, the 1986 law prohibits memorials on the Mall until after the 25th anniversary of the honoree’s

death. The purpose of that provision is to allow for enough time to

allow a person to be judged within the proper historical perspective, not the emotions of the moment, and that simply is not what

is being done here. On the other hand, now that I think about it,

it perhaps is applicable as there are those who hold that President

Reagan’s policies in many respects were fatal to the country.

But simply put, a memorial to one of our greatest Presidents,

FDR, for example, was only recently constructed on the Mall. Veterans of World War II have had to wait 55 years and we are only

27

now moving forward with a memorial to their great achievements.

So why should the process be any different for Ronald Reagan, regardless of how one views his contributions to our nation? There

is a vetting process in place. Our veterans have had to go through

that process before they can have their monument on the Mall. The

FDR Memorial went through that process and now why throw that

process out the window?

Another bill that is the subject of today’s hearing would establish

a Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home. Now that is certainly less objectionable. Certainly Congress has the right to determine whether it

is in the public interest to designate national historic sites and in

this regard there are many such designations relating to former

Presidents, such as the Truman National Historic Site in Independence, Missouri or the Garfield National Historic Park in Mentor,

Ohio.

So I would urge the supporters of the Reagan memorial bill to

perhaps do some self-reflection and find some other means of displaying their additional, and well placed admiration for this former

President. After all, as the ranking member has already said, we

do have an airport, and we have a Federal building named after

Ronald Reagan here in the nation’s capital. And certainly the Mall

is no place with which to play politics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Rahall.

Mr. Kildee?

STATEMENT OF HON. DALE KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. KILDEE. Just briefly, I look forward to working with you, Mr.

Chairman. You and I have been friends since you first arrived in

Congress and you have never needed to attend a conference on

civility; you came here with civility and I look forward to working

with you.

I want to associate myself with your remarks on my classmate

and seatmate, Bruce Vento.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. Let us proceed with our first

panel. I do not believe that the Speaker is going to be able to get

back over here. There are some activities occurring on the Floor we

did not expect. But we do have our delegate from Washington,

D.C., the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton. If you would join us?

Welcome this morning and we will turn the time over to you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on the proposed memorial. I want to be clear that I do not

appear this morning as a representative of my party. I am here as

a fourth generation Washingtonian and as the member who represents the people of the nation’s capital who for 200 years have

been the keepers of the history of this city and the guardians of its

precious monuments. Official Washington comes and goes and the

framers meant there to be permanent residents here so that the

continuity of history would not be lost.

We particularly value the L’Enfant plan and all that the Congress and the National Capital Planning Commission have done to

28

respect that plan. That plan assures that the nation’s capital will

remain what the founders intended and that is a planned city,

making the city one of the great capitals in the world and one of

the few truly planned cities.

I want also to be clear that I have no quarrel and indeed very

much appreciate the desire of Chairman Hansen to have a memorial for a President that is much beloved by many Americans on

the Mall and in this city. Indeed Representative Hansen and I have

worked together on a number of local projects affecting the capital

city and he has always shown great respect for me and for the city

and has always worked very amicably with me. I have a real fondness for the Chairman of this Committee.

I do not come simply to ask you to respect the Commemorative

Works Act. I also ask you to allow me to work with you to find an

alternative site and to remind you that the 25-year waiting period

applies only to the Mall and that there are many, many sites that

are off the Mall that might be even more attractive.

There are a number of reasons why the Commemorative Works

Act require special treatment for the Mall. Before the 25-year waiting period was enacted the Mall was in danger of being quite overwhelmed with memorials. As we speak, this small centrally located

patch of land would already be filled with memorials if the rules

were not observed.

The problem continues such that the National Capital Planning

Commission has submitted a bill for a no-build area on the Mall

itself and the reason for that is that while prior generations were

restrained, had a special feeling for the Mall and were restrained,

almost self-restrained, in coming forward to ask for memorials, our

generation is gobbling up all the space on the Mall, a space meant

for eternity. In one generation the Mall has become no longer a

green space but already a series of memorials.

The Senate passed the bill for a no-build area reserving space so

that if there is a great American 200 years from now you will not

find what you are now finding in some authoritarian countries.

They have to tear down memorials in order to build memorials because of overbuilding. We are trying to avoid that.

I have no reason to doubt that a memorial to President Reagan

would not be prejudiced if the proponents waited out the 25-year

time frame and I want to submit to you a compelling precedent.

In 1987 proponents came forward to ask for a memorial for one

of the great martyrs of American history, Dr. Martin Luther King,

Jr. The Democrats controlled the House then and the Senate and

during all the 8 years afterwards that proponents of a King memorial came forward with great emotion to ask that an exception be

made for this slain hero of American history but though the House

was controlled by the Democrats, at no time was this bill passed

until the 25th year had been reached.

I want to serve notice to all in my party who see the House now

almost controlled by Democrats and could become controlled by

Democrats, who see 50/50 in the Senate and who see this precedent, I want to serve notice that I will lead the fight against any

from my own party who say that if the Republicans can come forward, there’s no reason why the Democrats should not.

29

The Mall must have our respect. It must have the respect of history and for future generations. What will they think of us when

they look around and say that within a period of 30 years those

folks used it all up. They thought their wars and their Presidents

and their history were all there would ever be to American history.

This memorial is proposed out of love and out of respect for

former President Reagan. He was one of the most loved Presidents

and is already among the most memorialized. We should be careful

to respect Ronald Reagan’s considerable legacy by demonstrating

confidence in the durability of his contributions, that they deserve

respect for the rule of law that he showed and modesty, one of his

notable characteristics, suggesting that like our greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan would want to wait his time. Thank you very

much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]

30

31

32

33

34

35

Mr. HEFLEY. Ms. Norton, I think this Committee should give special deference to people whose district the Federal Government is

trying to place something and so we very much appreciate your

comments today.

I think you might in the future accompany your comments with

simply a picture of the Gettysburg battlefield, which has been overmemorialized until the first time I went there I was very disappointed to see how many memorials were there. So I think your

argument that we need to be very, very careful about how many

memorials we have on the Mall is well placed.

I have no questions. Mrs. Christensen?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I have no questions, either. I think the testimony was not only very sensitive and insightful, as usual; it was

very complete. No questions. Thanks.

Mr. HEFLEY. Does anyone have questions?

Thank you very much.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Let us go to panel number two: Mr. Richard Ring,

associate director of Park Operations and Education, the National

Park Service; Ms. Carolyn Brody, member of the Commission of

Fine Arts for Washington; and Mr. Jimmy Dishner, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations.

Jimmy, I have to say you and I have faced each other across

these ways many times but not in this setting, so we are delighted

to have you here today.

We will be on the 5-minute rule. Your statements without objection will be placed in their entirety in the record but if you could

hold your comments to five minutes and then we will have questions.

So do you have an order you would like to go in? If not, we will

start with you.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. RING, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,

PARK OPERATIONS AND EDUCATION, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.;

ACCOMPANIED BY SALLY BLUMENTHAL, DEPUTY REGIONAL

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Mr. RING. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Ring and I am the

Associate Director for Operations and Education of the National

Park Service. I am pleased to appear before you for the first time.

This is my first hearing in this position. I spent the last eight and

a half years as the Superintendent of Everglades National Park

working on the ecosystem restoration efforts there.

I am here to speak to you on all three bills this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s

position. I will summarize the testimony on each of the bills.

On H.R. 107, while we believe that it is wholly appropriate for

the National Park Service to undertake a study of this nature, the

Administration recommends that the Committee defer action on

H.R. 107 until they have been able to begin making progress on

the President’s initiative to eliminate the National Park Service’s

deferred maintenance backlog within five years. In most cases we

would be seeking a temporary moratorium on new park unit desVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
36

ignations or authorization of new studies so that we can focus on

our existing resources, on taking care of what we now own.

We also want to make sure that when completing previously

authorized studies, we closely examine the costs of acquiring, restoring, and operating a new unit of the National Park System.

With regard to H.R. 400, which would authorize the Secretary of

Interior to establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home and National Historic Site in Dixon, Illinois, in 1998 the Congress passed

Public Law 105-391, the National Park Omnibus Management Act,

which requires congressional authorization of areas to be studied

for potential new units of the National Park System. The law also

designates the criteria to be followed by the National Park Service

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

We recognize the importance of the boyhood home of President

Ronald Reagan and therefore appreciate the goal of H.R. 400. We

suggest however that the Committee ensure that the intent of Congress as expressed in Public Law 105-391 is carried out by amending the bill to authorize a study of the site to determine whether

it conforms with the criteria of that law. Such a review will ensure

that the continued expansion of the National Park System does not

increase the backlog of deferred maintenance needs, among other

things. We would be pleased to work with the Committee on further consideration of the bill.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to H.R. 452, to

authorize the establishment of a memorial for former President

Ronald Reagan within the area referred to as Commemorative

Works Area 1 and provide for the design and construction of the

memorial.

While the department wholeheartedly supports recognizing

former President Reagan’s significant contributions to the history

of the United States, we believe that it is important that the establishment of a memorial follow the well established process for authorizing memorials that is contained in the Commemorative

Works Act of 1986. Following this process will provide the best opportunity for soliciting public input and resolving any concerns regarding the location or nature of the memorial. We therefore recommend that Congress defer action on H.R. 452 until we have an

opportunity to examine options that are consistent with the Commemorative Works Act.

That concludes the summary of my statement on the three bills

and I would be pleased to take any questions. I would also like to

introduce Sally Blumenthal, who is the Deputy Regional Director

of the National Capital Region for Land Use and Land Use Coordination and ask her to join me at the table to assist with any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring on H.R. 107 follows:]

Statement of Richard G. Ring on H.R. 107

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on H.R. 107. This bill would require that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a study to identify sites and resources associated with the cold war and

to recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting that period of our

nation’s history.

37

While we believe that it is wholly appropriate for the National Park Service to

undertake a study of this nature, the Administration recommends that the Committee defer action on H.R. 107 until we are able to begin making progress on the

President’s Initiative to eliminate the National Park Service (NPS) deferred maintenance backlog within five years. We are generally seeking a temporary moratorium

on new park unit designations or authorization of new studies so that we can focus

existing resources on taking care of what we now own. We also want to make sure

that, when completing previously authorized studies, we closely examine the costs

of acquiring, restoring, and operating a potential new park unit.

H.R. 107 would require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a National Historic Landmark theme study to identify sites and resources in the United States

that are significant to the cold war. The bill specifically provides that the study consider the inventory of cold war resources that has been compiled by the Department

of Defense and other historical studies and research on various types of military resources. H.R. 107 requires the study to include recommendations for commemorating these resources and for establishing cooperative arrangements with other entities.

In addition to authorizing the theme study, H.R. 107 would require the Secretary

to prepare and publish an interpretive handbook on the cold war and to disseminate

information gathered through the study in other ways. The bill would also require

the Secretary to establish a cold war Advisory Committee to consult on the study.

H.R. 107 authorizes appropriations of $200,000 for these activities.

The National Historic Landmarks program was established by the Act of August

21, 1935, commonly known as the Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C. 461 et. seq.) and

is implemented according to 36 CFR Part 65. The program’s mission is to identify

those places that best illustrate the themes, events, or persons that are nationally

significant to the history of the United States and that retain a high degree of integrity. Potential national historic landmarks are often identified through ′′theme

studies′′ such as the one that would be authorized by H.R. 107.

For example, last year the National Park Service completed and transmitted to

Congress a National Historic Landmark theme study on the history of racial desegregation of public schools, which was authorized by Public Law 105–356, the Act

that established the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site. Federal,

state, and local officials across the country are now using this study to identify and

evaluate the significance of numerous properties. So far, properties in nine states

and the District of Columbia have been recommended for consideration as national

historic landmarks. Currently the National Park Service is conducting several other

theme studies, including one related to the history of the labor movement, another

on the earliest inhabitants of North America, and another on sites associated with

Japanese Americans.

At the moment, the history of the cold war has some presence in the National

Park System and on the two lists of historic sites maintained by the National Park

Service. The National Park System includes one unit related to the cold war, the

Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota, which Congress established two years ago to preserve and interpret the role of Intercontinental Ballistic

Missiles in our nation’s defense system.

Out of 2,329 designated national historic landmarks, five recognize civilian or

military aspects of cold war history, and out of more than 72,000 listings on the National Register of Historic Places, 17 (including the five landmarks) are related to

the cold war. The relatively small number of recognized sites is due in large part

to the fact that the cold war has only recently been viewed as history. With or without a theme study, these numbers would likely increase over time, and the Department of Defense could take steps on its own to identify these sites.

In addition to our general concern that a new study is not appropriate at this

time, we have a technical concern with Section 3, which provides for the establishment of an advisory committee to consult with on the study. In our view, such a

committee is unnecessary and, because of the legal requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), would add greatly to the cost of a study and

time required to complete it.

National Historic Landmark program regulations already require consultation

with Federal, state, and local governments; national and statewide associations; and

a variety of other interested parties. Through partnering with a national historical

organization, using a peer-review process, and consulting with appropriate subject

experts as well as the general public, the National Park Service would ensure that

the broadest historical perspectives are represented in any study it undertakes.

In addition, we have been informed by the Department of Justice that the provisions of the bill that would require the Secretary of the Interior to make recommendations to Congress concerning Federal protection for cold war sites appear

38

to violate the Recommendations Clause of the Constitution, which reserves to the

President the power to decide whether it is necessary or expedient for the executive

branch to make legislative policy recommendations to the Congress. At such time

when further consideration of the bill is appropriate, the Administration will be

pleased to provide language to remedy the bill’s constitutional defects.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any

questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring on H.R.400 follows:]

Statement of Richard G. Ring on H.R. 400

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 400, a bill to authorize the Secretary to establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site in Dixon, Illinois. The Department supports the effort to honor the boyhood home of former President Reagan.

H.R. 400 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Ronald

Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site in Dixon, Illinois. It also would require the Secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Ronald Reagan

Boyhood Home Foundation for the purpose of operating, maintaining, and using the

Historic Site.

In 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105–391, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which requires congressional authorization of areas to be studied for potential new units of the National Park System. The law also designates

the criteria to be followed by the National Park Service in determining whether to

recommend an area as a unit of the National Park System. We recognize the importance of the boyhood home of President Ronald Reagan and therefore appreciate the

goals of H.R. 400. We suggest, however, that the Committee ensure that the intent

of Congress, as expressed in Public Law 105–391, is carried out by amending the

bill to authorize a study of the site to determine whether it conforms to the criteria

of Public Law 105–391. Such a review will ensure that the continued expansion of

the National Park System does not increase the backlog of deferred maintenance

needs.

With respect to historical sites, the studies do not only look at whether the event

or person associated with the site was historically significant. They also look at the

integrity of the buildings, and other factors, such as whether there are other sites

that might more appropriately tell the story associated with a particular site.

The National Park system consists of many previous residences of former Presidents. However, there are also many residences of former Presidents that are not

part of the system. A study would look at whether the Federal Government is the

most appropriate entity to manage the site. Some sites are managed by other entities, such as state governments and private foundations. Conducting a professional

study also allows Congress to be sure it is protecting an area that meets the criteria

of the National Park System.

A study also would look at the management structure contemplated by the bill.

As written, the bill calls for the site to be managed through a partnership between

the Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation and the National Park Service. If this is the

best management structure for the park unit, it should be endorsed by a study.

Finally, a study will enable the Park Service and the Congress to identify the

costs in acquiring, restoring, and operating a potential site. Such a review is important if we are to gain control of the deferred maintenance backlog and eliminate it

within five years, as the President’s Initiative seeks to do. In most cases, we are

seeking a temporary moratorium on new park unit designations or new studies on

potential designations, so that we can focus existing resources on taking care of

what we now own. In this case, however, we recognize the potential significance of

this site and would support an authorization of a new study.

We would be pleased to work with the committee on further consideration of this

bill. This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring on H.R. 452 follows:]

Statement of Richard G. Ring on H.R. 452

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on H.R. 452, to authorize the establishment of a memorial to former

39

President Ronald Reagan within the area referred to in the Commemorative Works

Act as Area I and to provide for the design and construction of the memorial.

While the Department wholeheartedly supports recognizing former President Ronald Reagan’s significant contributions to the history of the United States, we believe

that it is important that the establishment of a memorial follow the well-established

process for authorizing memorials that is contained in the Commemorative Works

Act of 1986. Following this process will provide the best opportunity for soliciting

public input and resolving any concerns regarding the location or nature of the memorial. We therefore recommend that Congress defer action on H.R. 452 until we

have an opportunity to examine options that are consistent with the Commemorative Works Act.

H.R. 452 would establish the Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission to plan for

a memorial to former President Reagan on the Mall, somewhere between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial. The Commission, which would consist of the Chairman of the National Capital Memorial Commission, a member appointed by the

Speaker of the House, and a member appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate, would receive assistance from the National Capital Memorial Commission and

the Secretary of the Interior, including staff from the Department who would be detailed to the Commission.

The Commission would be required to recommend to Congress a location and final

design for the memorial no later than February 6, 2003. This panel would also be

responsible for raising funds from the private sector for the design, construction and

maintenance of the memorial. Three sections of the Commemorative Works Act

would be waived by this bill.

The Commemorative Works Act of 1986, which guides the process for establishing

monuments in the Nation’s Capital, was enacted during the Reagan Administration

following what some characterized as monumental chaos over the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial, which was dedicated in 1982. At that time, Congress was frustrated by

the lack of guidelines for the subject matter, siting, and design of memorials, and

the lack of a public process. Congress and the Department worked together to study

the process, delineate responsibilities and define procedures. Through passage of the

Commemorative Works Act, Congress established the process that, today, ensures

memorials in the Capital are erected on the most appropriate sites in the Federal

City and are of a caliber in design that is worthy of their historically significant subjects.

The Commemorative Works Act envisions a two-step legislative process for establishing a memorial in Area I: first, enactment of legislation that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to plan for a memorial without naming a specific site; and if,

through that process, the Secretary recommends siting the memorial in Area I, enactment of a second piece of legislation that authorizes construction of the memorial.

The idea of the two-step process was to protect the Mall the heart of the commemorative landscape of the Nation’s Capital by ensuring that a decision to construct a

new memorial there would not be made until the Executive branch had conducted

an orderly, deliberate process on siting and design. However, H.R. 452, the initial

bill for the Reagan memorial, would require this memorial to be sited on the Mall.

The Department supports the process established in the Commemorative Works Act.

We believe it is appropriate to apply a similar process to the selection of a site for

a Ronald Reagan memorial and for design of the memorial.

Under the process established by the Commemorative Works Act, the National

Capital Planning Commission, as the planning entity for all Federal projects in the

Nation’s Capital, and the Commission of Fine Arts, as an advisor on public improvements, location, and execution of public sculptures, play critical roles in the site selection and design processes. We believe that the expertise offered and the approvals

required by those entities as well as the process for gaining approval of the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of the General Services Administration,

as provided for in the Commemorative Works Act, has resulted in one of the most

beautiful cities in the world.

We also support the provisions of the Commemorative Works Act that enable us

to gain a historical perspective on memorial subjects before a memorial is designed.

The Act prohibits the authorization of a memorial to an event, individual, or group

before the 25th anniversary of the event or the death of the individual or the death

of the last surviving member of the group. The premise behind the 25-year stipulation is that succeeding generations can often provide a more objective viewpoint

when evaluating the most appropriate way to honor people of historical significance

or historical events. Notable among the many bills introduced in Congress since the

formulation of standards set by the Commemorative Works Act were several to memorialize Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The first such bill, introduced in 1987, exempted this 25-year period, and the legislation lapsed. Although successive measVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
40

ures were introduced for the next 8 years, Congress intentionally withheld action

on a memorial for Dr. King until the 104th Congress, 25 years after the tragic occurrence of his death. Former President Reagan is a man who follows the rules, and

we believe that he is better honored by following the processes set forth in the Commemorative Works Act, which he signed into law as President.

In addition, the Commemorative Works Act provides the American people with

the opportunity to be involved in decisions about how historical events and persons

will be honored in the Nation’s Capital by providing for public involvement in the

siting and design of the memorials. H.R. 452 does not contain provisions for any

such public involvement in the Ronald Reagan memorial, and it specifically exempts

the three-member Commission from the public involvement processes required by

the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

By requiring a recommendation to Congress on siting and design of the memorial

by February 6, 2003, H.R. 452 also places a far more difficult deadline on the Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission than under the Commemorative Works Act,

which provides 7 years to reach a decision on siting and design of a memorial. The

average amount of time for site selection and design process for a major Capital memorial is 4–6 years after authorizing legislation is enacted.

Moreover, we have been informed by the Department of Justice that section

3(a)(2) of H.R. 452 raises certain constitutional concerns and appears to be inconsistent with other provisions of the bill. At such time when further consideration

of the bill is appropriate, the Administration will be pleased to provide language to

remedy the bill’s constitutional defects.

In addition to our concerns that, under H.R. 452, the Ronald Reagan memorial

would not have the advantage of going through the well-thought-out process established by the Commemorative Works Act, we also are concerned about the requirement that the Ronald Reagan Memorial Commission raise all of the necessary funds

from private sector sources to design, construct, and maintain the memorial. Other

Presidential memorials, such as the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, the Washington Monument, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, have all been constructed and maintained at

least partly with Federal funds.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any

questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

[Responses to questions submitted for the record follow:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Mr. HEFLEY. Mrs. Brody?

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN BRODY, MEMBER, COMMISSION OF

FINE ARTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ms. BRODY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Commission of Fine Arts has submitted its written testimony. What I would like to do here is to highlight our major areas

of concern on H.R. 452 and then speak briefly about several specific provisions of the legislation.

The Commission of Fine Arts is charged by Congress with the responsibility to review and approve the site and design of memorials

proposed for the nation’s capital and it is one of our most serious

responsibilities. In our work we are guided by another act of Congress, the Commemorative Works Act enacted in 1986 precisely to

establish a structure and process to govern decisions about the

siting and design of memorials. This Act mandates not only that

expertise in planning, design and architecture is brought to bear

but equally important, that there is a full participation in deliberation.

The bill before you today, H.R. 452, contains three exemptions to

the Commemorative Works Act which are of great concern to the

Commission of Fine Arts. The bill mandates the site location in

Area 1, which is also known as the monumental core. As you have

heard, it is the area that is most sensitive to the location of memorials. We share the concern of many about the continuing pressure

to erect memorials on the Mall.

The Commemorative Works Act, in fact, mandates a two-step

legislative process for any Area 1 memorial and allows an Area 1

location only if the subject is of preeminent historical and lasting

significance to the nation. This bill does not follow the two-step legislative process.

The second exemption of concern to us relates to the Commemorative Works Act provision that allows commemorative work to be

authorized only after the 25th anniversary of the event or the

death of the individual. This moratorium has ensured that the passage of time confirms the lasting and historical significance of the

event or individual and it is this provision in the face of an increasing number of memorial requests that helps to ensure that the reason for the memorial does stand the test of time.

The standard, as you have heard, was most recently put to a test

in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial when Congress, after several entreaties in various Congresses, held to the 25th anniversary.

The third exemption in H.R. 452 of concern to us relates to process. Congress has put into place through the Commemorative

Works Act a process for approving the site and design of memorials. The Commission of Fine Arts, along with the National Capital Planning Commission, play key roles in this approval process.

We are specifically required to approve the design and the site.

This is a process which has been thoughtfully laid out by Congress

and has proven a most effective way to guide memorializations.

H.R. 452 removes the Commission of Fine Arts and NCPC from

this approval process.

I would like to just quickly call your attention to several specific

provisions in the proposed legislation which have also raised conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
48

cerns with us. Section 4 establishes the Ronald Reagan Memorial

Commission to be comprised of only three members. It charges

them with enormous amounts of work—raising funds and selecting

a design—that even with a strong staff would be especially onerous. The commission is required to produce a report on the site and

design selection by February 2003, which is an extremely abbreviated time frame, as we have all seen, given our experience with

other memorials, and probably unlikely to be achieved.

And lastly, Section 4(a) goes on to exempt the commission from

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which means that it would

allow deliberations out of the public eye if the commission so chooses. We have learned that in the end, open sessions and full public

participation are important to any memorialization process and

given President Reagan’s extraordinarily public appeal, it seems especially at odds to exclude the public in this memorialization.

I would like to conclude finally by saying that Congress has

taken great care in giving life to the Commemorative Works Act to

guide the memorialization process. The Commission of Fine Arts

feels privileged to have the responsibility that Congress has placed

in us and it is our strongest recommendation to restore to H.R. 452

the provisions of the Commemorative Works Act and its participating agencies in this worthy endeavor to honor President

Reagan. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brody follows:]

49

Statement of Carolyn Brody, Member, Commission of Fine Arts,

Washington, D.C.

50

51

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Ms. Brody.

Mr. Dishner?

STATEMENT OF JIMMY DISHNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS), THE PENTAGON, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

Mr. DISHNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I start off by saying congratulations to you on this Chairmanship.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Mr. DISHNER. It was an honor for the Air Force and for me personally to testify many years before you in the House Armed Services Committee and we look forward to working with you on anything in the Resource, National Parks, Recreation and Public

Lands, Mr. Chairman.

As far as H.R. 107, the Air Force would defer to the Administration’s position as articulated by the Department of Interior. I would

like to share with you, however, some of the things that the Air

Force has done starting in late 1989, 1990, 1991 through the Legacy program, which was funded to begin to look at those Cold War

structures, events, memorializations of things that mean so much

to all of us, a majority of which have been created from the Cold

War for 11 years. Here we are talking about history in the short

period of 11 years, but we should be and we should be looking at

those things because, as you and I worked on the other Committee,

the maintenance of those needs to be done on a timely basis; otherwise the significance would lose their value quite rapidly.

We have done over 100, 103 I believe the number is, of what we

call Legacy studies, starting in 1991. These Legacy studies looked

at a variety of Cold War relics and Cold War buildings, airfields,

pave paws up in the dew line, Alice White. Those terms I know are

familiar to you, Mr. Chairman. And those studies were completed,

looked at. Some were discarded as not being of significance, of not

actually adding to the story that we think America would want to

have told to our great-grandchildren and their great-grandchildren

as to what was this period of time that our nation went through.

The Air Force has currently 12 national historical landmarks already. Some, and I will just mention a few of them—Huffman

Field, which is that dirt strip out at Wright Patterson, very, very

significant in the Cold War, to Hickham in Hawaii, to Hanger 9 at

Brooks Air Force Base, which is a wonderful facility. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, which is obviously being used even as we

speak today. And Wheeler Field over in Hawaii.

One of the other ones that we looked at that may be closer to

you, Mr. Chairman, is we also looked at the Cheyenne Mountain

Air Force Station in Colorado, a very significant structure. It is still

in use today. It is not a Cold War relic; it is a Cold War-constructed

facility, 1961 if you recall, and was done with great speed and

great expertise and engineering expertise. We have looked at that

and have done the first step in determination of eligibility of that

building for the National Register of Historic Places, as it should

be. It is the only one that we know of in America and we think if

another nation has one of those that we do not know about, we still

think that Cheyenne probably has a leg up on it because of the capability.

52

Of late, one of the things that we have done in trying to add to

those Cold War legacies and how we could designate facilities to be

honored as such, just in the past 30 days we have transferred

$5 million that was appropriated by the Air Force to the Department of Interior for the maintenance of the DO-9 and DO-9 launch

control facilities near Ellsworth, the missile launch facilities. Very

significant. Those are not all needed now but at least one of those

should be kept for historical purposes and I think it is well that

we do one of those.

There are a number of studies that we have done, Mr. Chairman,

some of which I think you are familiar with, or members of the

Committee are familiar with. Coming in from the Cold, Military

Heritage in the Cold War—this was done back in 1991, a good start

on looking at things like that, a study that the Air Force, by the

way, helped do this but it was a Department of Defense effort. And

the Air Force is now doing Cold War Assessments, a Legacy

project, and that is September 2000, still under draft. And I just

show you these that the Air Force, again as I mentioned earlier,

did not want too much water to flow under the bridge before we

started capturing some of these facilities and the need that maybe

one of those as illustrative of all of them should be designated for

Cold War.

And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, other than the comment I

made on H.R. 107, I notice in the Committee set-up of that, that

I would think, since although the Secretary of the Air Force has

mentioned would be conferred with, that it would be to the benefit,

I think, if, in fact, the Committee is established, to have someone

that knows the military history—it could be a retired military person or something of that nature—I think it would add to that to

have that connectivity and the symbiotic relationship with the Department of Defense.

And again, sir, it is our pleasure to be here today and I stand

ready to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dishner follows:]

Statement of Mr. Jimmy G. Dishner, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air

Force (Installations)

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Air Force’s perspectives on house

bill (H.R.) 107, introduced by Congressman Hefley, concerning the proposal for the

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to identify sites and resources, to recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the Cold War, and for

other purposes.

For the purposes of my testimony today we have used the years 1946 to 1989

when the Berlin Wall came down as the Cold War period. During the period of 1946

to 1989 the Air Force constructed approximately 145,000 facilities at our active,

guard, and reserve installations worldwide. The Cold War has only recently been

recognized in a historic context. Indeed, current architectural references do not list

Cold War along with such styles as classic revival, Jeffersonian, and the Chicago

School. As a licensed professional engineer with some forty years of service to the

Air Force helping to build many of these facilities, I can tell you that some are truly

engineering marvels such as Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, Colorado, where

construction began in 1961. However, not all Cold War associated facilities were key

to the Air Force mission during the Cold War nor are of historic significance. Therefore, the Air Force feels that there should be care in evaluating for eligibility properties of the Cold War era. Some facilities, such as early warning defense radar systems, air defense, and strategic missile facilities, truly were mission essential. Numerous examples of many of these facilities can be found at installations throughout

53

the United States and are also documented in specific state or service efforts. For

example, in 1988 the Air Force completed a study of the White Alice Communications System. When the former Alaskan Air Command scheduled the White Alice

sites for demolition, the Air Force determined that they might be eligible for listing

on the National Register of Historic Places. Consequently, the Air Force and the

Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer signed an agreement to produce a historic

overview of the system, an inventory of the 19 White Alice sites, a statement of significance of the system, a map locating the sites and a biography of non-classified

material relating to the system. Most sites were demolished after this documentation was complete.

As many members of this committee are aware, many military facilities are constructed using standardized designs and can be found on our installations worldwide. The Air Defense Command (ADC) mission was carried out at approximately

fifty installations in the United States and Canada. An excellent example of this is

the ADC’s Semi–Automated Ground Environment (SAGE) building at the former

K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base in Michigan. There is no evidence that the ADC activity

at this SAGE facility contributed more to the Cold War effort than those activities

performed at many other SAGE facilities throughout the country.

Application of the criteria of eligibility and consideration, as specified in the National Historic Preservation Act, without more detailed guidance from the National

Park Service often results in inconsistent determinations of eligibility among State

Historic Preservation Officers and disagreement by the Air Force with the determination. Additionally, there is a lack of an overall cohesive synthesis of all of the

many studies that have been completed at the installation and major command levels within each service and among the various military services. The tension between what constitutes exceptional importance for properties less than 50 years old,

including Cold War properties and those properties that may be of interest at the

state and local level have proven problematic, and at times, conflicting. Studies such

as the 1994 Coming in From the Cold—Report of Military Heritage in the Cold War

were completed through the DOD’s Legacy Resource Management Program, an effort established by congress in November 1990 under Public Law 101–511 to help

conserve natural and cultural resources on DOD lands. The Air Force has in the

past and continues to use Legacy Funding to address Cold War studies at our installations. Our major commands report that most of these studies are either underway or complete. We have also done specific focus studies such as the Searching the

Sky Project, an excellent historic overview of the development of US Air Force Cold

War defensive radar systems. However, issues such as classification of materials,

proprietary information on systems still owned by the weapons manufacturers, and

treaty compliance mandates regarding static displays also make proper Cold War

determinations for significance difficult.

In our efforts to assess and catalogue our Cold War facilities we have found that

different standards in the evaluation process may lead to some properties being incorrectly determined as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places. Our view is that there are many methods of protecting resources. These include preparing comprehensive and oral histories, non- textual literary property

such as maps, educational websites, videos, brochures, books, the preparation of

Historic American Engineering Records and Historic American Building Records for

proper recordation of facilities deemed significant to the Cold War mission.

The Air Force defers to the Department of the Interior for the Administrations

position on H.R. 107, but recommends that, at such time when further consideration of the bill is more appropriate, this Committee consider adding a member to

the Cold War Advisory Committee who is specifically trained in military history. We

also recommend that the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the

State Historic Preservation Officers work with the military services to come to establish standards of eligibility for Cold War era facilities, and recommend how many

of each type of facility should be retained. In other words, we recommend that not

every base be required to maintain a missile or bomber alert facility if others exist

elsewhere. The focus should be on operational missions and equipment of unmistakable national importance and that has a direct, not merely temporal, Cold War relationship.

As I stated earlier in my testimony we constructed approximately 145,000 facilities during the Cold War. A potential determination of eligibility of even 10% of

these facilities for Cold War significance would substantially increase our management and oversight responsibilities. Further, we recommend the Department of the

Interior and the National Park Service work with the some 400 aerospace museums

across the country. Many of these museums have Cold War era pictures, maps, artifacts, and aircraft such as Inert Atlas, Titan I & Titan II Intercontinental Ballistic

Missiles, B–36, B–47 and early model B–52 aircraft. Many of you may also be aware

54

that the Air Force museum located on Wright–Patterson Air Force Base Ohio, the

oldest and the largest aviation museum in the world, is building a 32 million-dollar

addition called the Cold War gallery to provide subject matter coverage of this important period in the history of our nation and the Air Force. This project will be

built with private donations and not with military construction funds. We have also

recently been in discussion with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to garner their input into public and private partnerships for historic properties including

those that are determined to be of exceptional importance to the Cold War. Many

of you may also be aware that the Smithsonian Air Museum Annex near Dulles Airport will also display many aircraft, space, and Cold War era artifacts.

We appreciate the tremendous support Congressman Hefley provides the Air

Force, and look forward to working with members this Committee, and the leadership of the Department of the Interior.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Jimmy. The Air Force, I think, has an

excellent running start on what we want to do. We do not want to

overlook and lose this part of our history.

I am not going to ask all the questions that I had for this panel

because I want us to get to the next panel and finish up before I

think we are going to have a series of votes but I do not want to

discourage anyone from asking questions. We may submit questions to you to be returned to us in writing.

Questions?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Ring, it is good to see you here and talk to you.

The position in each of your statements is that basically we need

to take care of the backlog first. We all know we are in transition

in the new Administration.

Do you sense in the preparation of today’s testimony that that

is going to be a hard and fast position or is this kind of an initial

position as we start into the new Administration?

Mr. RING. Sir, I think it is an initial position. There are a number of new people coming into the Administration and they are trying to get their hands around a wide range of topics and they are

still very few. So I think they are trying to understand the nature

and the relationship of these studies and these efforts in the context of what is a very important initiative for them, which is to

deal with the backlog of the National Park System. So I think it

is an initial position.

Mr. SOUDER. Because there is going to be a great deal of sympathy on our side to slowing down the process but not necessarily

stopping the process and trying to figure out how we are going to

do at least studies and advisory-type positions and I encourage you

to take that message back, that a complete stoppage probably is

not going to work; there needs to be some sort of an accommodation

as to the processes we are going to go through, although I think

that the Subcommittee Chairman and most people on our side of

the aisle certainly feel a slower pace is a minimal goal. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Rahall?

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend all of you on your testimony and thank you

for your service to our country and your service in protecting our

historical heritage and your dedication to the good stewardship of

our public lands and monuments.

55

Just to follow up on the question just asked though, your testimony for the National Park Service was approved by Secretary

Norton before being here today; is that correct?

Mr. RING. The testimony that I presented today was approved by

the Department of Interior and the Office of Management and

Budget.

Mr. RAHALL. And by the Secretary of Interior, Miss Norton, who

is not going anywhere anytime soon, is she?

Mr. RING. No.

Mr. RAHALL. So you have said it is the initial position but I do

appreciate the concerns that you have expressed, especially with

the implementation of the current statute on the books and your

desire to see that the historical perspective be maintained before

establishing monuments just here and there on the Mall. So I do

appreciate that, and the concerns you have expressed in opposition

to H.R. 452.

Mr. RING. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Any other questions? Yes.

Ms. SOLIS. I have one question, if I might. I appreciate the testimony that was given, also, and I would ask that if you could provide the Committee with information regarding the current monuments that are there in place in that area regarding the proposed

H.R. 452 and we could kind of get a better assessment of what is

actually there in that particular area. And I appreciate the fact

that you are going to take an initial review and move a little slower on this.

I, too, have some concerns regarding breaking the mold, so to

speak, and moving fast and not honoring what has been done traditionally. I cannot think of any other monument that has been put

in place within a span of 25 years or less and I would ask you that

question, if there has been any.

Mr. RING. We would be pleased to submit that for the record.

[The list of memorials in Area 1 submitted for the record follows:]

56

57

58

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, thank you very much. It was excellent testimony and certainly I think the Committee is sympathetic with the

idea of taking care of the backlog and we will work with you on

that and see if we cannot do that. At the same time we do need

to establish some kind of a priority for things that once the backlog

is taken care of, that we can begin to move on so maybe you can

work with us on that, as well.

Mr. RING. We would be pleased to do so, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. HEFLEY. We will go to our third panel: Mr. Grover Norquist,

Chairman, Ronald Reagan Legacy Foundation; Mr. Norm Wymbs,

Chairman, Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation; Mr. Francis

Gary Powers, Jr., Founder, Cold War Museum, Fairfax, Virginia;

and Dr. Bruce Craig, Director, National Coordinating Committee

for the Promotion of History, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Wymbs, did you come here from Florida to testify?

Mr. WYMBS. No, Mr. Chairman. We came from Dixon, which is

almost as tough.

Mr. HEFLEY. Came from where?

Mr. WYMBS. From Dixon.

Mr. HEFLEY. Dixon, Illinois? Well, I am going to call on you first

because in case we do get interrupted, these that are local, we

could probably entice to come back again but you have come quite

a distance so I want to, if I might, I will call on you first.

STATEMENT OF NORM WYMBS, CHAIRMAN, RONALD REAGAN

BOYHOOD HOME FOUNDATION, DEL RAY, FL

Mr. WYMBS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I submitted a report which I presume you all have, the so-called initial remarks. I

do not want to particularly elaborate on those. I was trying very

much to impress you folks with the volunteer work that has been

done in this community to preserve Ronald Reagan’s boyhood

home.

And just as a matter off the track—maybe I am a little bit out

of order here but the prior testimony from the Department of Interior made reference to something that concerned us at the Reagan

Foundation apparently as much as it has concerned them so I

think we are both on the same track.

We have been in somewhat informal discussions with Mr.

Hastert and others concerning this for over two years. It is not

something that has just been suddenly brought forth. But during

that time the foundation itself and those of us who are active in

it expressed a great deal of concern about whether or not the Department of Interior would maintain or whichever department of

the Federal Government took over the home would maintain it as

well as we have maintained it.

Now I note that their concern is that they might be picking up

a pig in a poke because it might require a great deal of maintenance that they would not have the funds for. I can assure them

that they will find the maintenance of this project far in excess of

many of the historic sites that we have seen that do come under

the Federal jurisdiction. So our greatest concern was that they

start out and that they maintain a very strong interest in keeping

59

this property in the condition that we have kept it in up to this

point.

Just as another point since one of your members raised a question earlier or did not raise a question but was quoting unfortunately from some news reports and news reports are not—excuse

me, folks—not too accurate, there is no jelly bean portrait in this

complex. The Federal Government will not be buying a bunch of

Jelly Bellies. There was a Jelly Belly portrait made by the Goetz

Candy Company. Mr. Kelly has been a strong supporter of many

of the things we are doing.

That portrait has been placed in the Dixon Historic Center,

which is another project of the Reagan Home Foundation considerably larger than the home itself and it will have memorials to

many distinguished citizens of Dixon. It is dedicated to Ronald

Reagan because that is where he attended the sixth and seventh

grades and his brother attended there, as well. We will restore the

classrooms and the other things there for another memorial to Ronald Reagan, which is only three blocks away from the home complex but we have put the Jelly Belly portrait in there, which will

be part of the Reagan Historic Museum part of this entire set-up.

All we wanted to do in expressing this is that concern that this

be memorialized to Ronald Reagan. When some local citizens in the

community decided to purchase this property right after the President was nominated for his first term by the Republican Party,

they thought that this home should be saved and checked with the

President after his election to find out whether he would consider

helping out.

His immediate reaction, which was the same as the reaction from

Neil Reagan, his older brother, was that they considered this particular house as their home in Dixon. And you have to know a little

bit about Ronald Reagan’s history prior to the time the family

moved there in 1920. When they moved there in 1920 Jack Reagan

for the first time in his life had his own business. He had found

an angel that helped support him, a man that he had been working

for some time, who put up the financing to build his own store. He

opened a shoe store there. Dixon became then a permanent residence for the Reagan family.

Up to that point Ronald Reagan in his years in school and years

in the family had never spent as much as one whole year in any

single town in Illinois. The family moved quite frequently. When

they got to Dixon and he was 10 years old at the time, that became

the permanent home. That became his home from then on. This

house was the first one they lived in and the one they had the

strongest memories of.

Now Ronald Reagan and Neil Reagan both during the time we

did this, during his two terms, spent a great deal of time with us,

our historian, our architects, making sure that what we restored

and turned into a memorial to his early life was exactly the way

they recalled it. And it is absolutely historically the way it was

when the Reagans lived there.

It is quite a complex now. It covers approximately three-quarters

of a square city block. We bought the home next door which the

President used to refer to as ‘‘Those are the rich folks next door.’’

It is a house about twice the size of the Reagan home. We have

60

turned that into a reception center and the office for the Reagan

Foundation, as well. We had to build public facilities, of course, to

take care of the normal requirements of public visitors. We bought

a number of buildings around it. We razed one next door to the

Reagan home to create a mini-park. This was where Ronald and

Neil and their friends used to play football in the off-hours after

school. It was a vacant lot then. We turned it back into a vacant

lot but since that time we have placed a bronze statue of Ronald

Reagan in the center and turned it into a mini-park.

We also had to purchase a number of lots adjoining this property

so we would have public parking. So it is a completely self-contained unit. It is not just the home; it is a complete complex and

all of these buildings date back to the turn of the last century and

just before. We figure that the Reagan home was built about 1890

or thereabouts. We have no accurate records on it.

We are pretty accurate though in that this building, plus the adjoining building, were what we used to refer to as mail order

homes. In those days when you wanted to build a home of your

own and you wanted to get it designed properly you bought it from

mail order houses. Sears Roebuck used to be the largest provider

of single family homes in the United States. These were mail order

homes. They were made entirely of hardwood. They last forever.

You cannot knock them down. The entire house is oak and other

hardwoods. The homes were cut to size, the pieces were cut to size

before the buyer got them. The order started out by telling them

to get a shovel and start digging the basement and they went from

there on. At the end they sent them a catalogue and said, ‘‘Here’s

the kind of furniture you should put in.’’ There are literally hundreds of thousands of these homes

throughout the country today and this section that Ronald Reagan’s home is in is a beautiful memorial in itself to that early turn

of the century. The entire neighborhood has become a memorial to

the turn of the century because the citizens of Dixon are so

wrapped up and so in love with Ronald Reagan and his family and

his history that they themselves, at their own expenses, have been

restoring their own homes to where this is a truly historic landmark in itself and it is about one-quarter of the city of Dixon, Illinois.

So I would assure you folks on the panel, plus the Interior people, you are not going to be getting a pig in a poke here if they

go ahead with this. They are going to get a high quality memorial

and the one that Ronald Reagan declared was his home. And, just

as an aside, Ronald Reagan at one point expressed an interest in

having his museum and library in Dixon but the prevailing money

folks in California convinced him otherwise.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wymbs follows:]

61

62

63

64

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. That is excellent testimony.

Just very briefly, you all have done an excellent job with this

from everything I can learn. This is not in any danger of having

a Walmart built on it or it being destroyed in some way if we took

the time to go through the normal vetting process through the Park

Service, is it?

Mr. WYMBS. No, there is no problem of it going away as long as

those of us who are presently on the board, and we consider ourselves Dixonites, as well, because the city declared us honorary citizens when we got into this. But the board is, as a matter of policy,

only Dixon residents. All the work of viewing and showing of the

home is done by volunteers, as I pointed out in the opening letter.

We maintain it and we make sure that it is maintained. We do

not let even a loose board on the porch go unattended because we

are very hard-nosed about that sort of thing.

Our biggest concern is that there are a few of us that are getting

a little bit older and we can never be too sure with a private foundation who might be coming later that might have different ideas

on it. So we wanted to make sure that it was put in a place where

you folks have a longer life span than we have and therefore it

would be maintained for a longer period of time than we could. But

as far as it deteriorating, you have no fear about that.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Norquist?

STATEMENT OF GROVER NORQUIST, CHAIRMAN, RONALD

REAGAN LEGACY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. NORQUIST. Thank you very much. I serve as Chairman of the

Ronald Reagan Legacy project and our goal is to honor Reagan’s

legacy and his place in history specifically by naming things and

building things in his honor in the United States. Our goal is to

get something significant in each of the 50 states and something

in each of the 3,067 counties in the United States. We were very

active working with members of the House and Senate on the effort

to name Reagan National Airport and I point out that the next

major project will be in honor also of Senator Coverdell and his legislation to put Reagan on the $10 bill. We will be continuing Senator Coverdell’s efforts in that direction.

I am delighted that there is a consensus in the United States

that we should do something to honor President Reagan and the

greatness of his presidency. Questions have been raised about

should you build a memorial for a man or begin to build a memorial for a man who is still alive? And what about the traditional

25-year waiting period for parts of the Mall? And I think it is very

important to address both of those questions.

As Congressman Hansen said, the difference with the case of

President Reagan is given the nature of the disease he has, his

public life is over. It is not as if he is going to do or say something

that would change history’s view of his role in history and therefore

I think the question of doing something, naming things after him

while he is still alive is not the question that it would be for a

President who is wandering around doing and saying things that

might change your view of what they had accomplished or who

they were as people.

65

The question of waiting 25 years I think is a very important

statement that we want to be very clear, that if we are going to

put a memorial on the Mall that we do not do it hurriedly, and that

is why I think we should have a very high test, a very strict test

of who we honor and what we do and I would answer that Ronald

Reagan meets that test. I think that in the 10 years since the end

of the Cold War we have seen the greatness of his decision to embark and lead the United States in a policy of peace through

strength. I think the people of Poland and East Germany would be

very clear that they appreciate his leadership on that.

This is unlikely to change. People talk about waiting a while. We

are not going to want to go back to high taxes. We are not going

to want to go back to inflation. People of East Germany are not

going to want to go back to being under the Soviet empire and the

peoples of the former Soviet empire do not want a Soviet empire

returned, either.

So on each of those questions, and it is important also to think

back to when Reagan came here—the double-digit inflation, the collapsing economy, the Soviet Union on the march in every continent

in the world, the United States in self-doubt—and Reagan was a

Churchillian figure in that he stood up against the traditional establishment view of what was happening and he said, ‘‘Guys, you

have it wrong,’’ just as Churchill did. And history has made it very

clear that Churchill was right about the nature of National Socialism in Germany and history has shown that Ronald Reagan was

right about the nature of the Soviet Union and the Socialist government there.

So he not only turned the country around and brought us

through to victory but he did so under the criticism of some of the

people who thought of themselves as the best and the brightest

around, who have been wrong about history and we now know

were wrong about what was going on.

If you look at the last 20 years we see it as the extension of what

Reagan brought into this town. We are now talking about reforming Social Security, about building the strategic defense initiative,

about continuing to reduce taxes, about continuing to follow the

policy of peace through strength. I think history has shown that

Ronald Reagan’s greatness continues. I think the tribute to him on

the Mall is very appropriate and I look forward to working with

you to that end.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norquist follows:]

Statement of Grover G. Norquist, Chairman, Ronald Reagan Legacy

Project, Concerning H.R. 452

MR. Chairman, and members of the committee and invited guests, my name is

Grover Norquist and I am Chairman of the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project. The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project was formed in 1997 and is the most influential organization aimed at promoting the legacy of the 40th President. I am here this morning

to testify in favor of H.R. 452, the Ronald Reagan Memorial Act of 2001.

The Act specifies that a committee be established to choose a location on the National Mall for a memorial to Ronald Reagan. He deserves this memorial on America’s Mall because he represented America.

Reagan’s upbringing represents a wide cross-section of American culture. He was

a man born in a small Midwest town of humble background and later moved to Los

Angeles to pursue an acting career. Aside from being President of the United States

he also served as an entertainer, Union leader, corporate spokesman, Governor of

California.

66

When Congress places a memorial on the National Mall in honor of Reagan it will

recognize the will of the people who elected him overwhelmingly twice to the Presidency. In 1984, he earned the confidence of 3/5 of the electorate and was victorious

in 49 of the 50 states in the general election a record unsurpassed in the history

of American Presidential elections We can all be proud of Reagan’s legacy. He

worked in a bipartisan manner to enact his bold agenda of restoring accountability

and common sense to Government which led to unprecedented economic expansion

and opportunity for millions of Americans. Mr. Reagan’s commitment to an active

social policy agenda for the Nation’s children helped lower crime and drug use in

our neighborhoods.

In addition to major domestic accomplishments Reagan authorized several National Security Decision Directives (NSDD) that helped end a truly evil empire. Too

often Reagan is not given credit for his success in actively working toward the fall

of the Soviet Union. Allow me to explain a few of them here.

NSDD 32 had the objective of supporting movement working to throw off communist rule and intensified Radio Free Europe and Voice of America as well as reducing Eastern Europe’s reliance on the USSR.

NSDD 66 set policies aimed at: getting European allies to stop extending credit

at better than market rates, blocking Soviet access to the high technologies of Western countries, and developing alternatives to Europe becoming dependent on the Soviet Union for natural gas.

NSDD 75 declared a policy of exacerbating Soviet economic problems by working

to decrease its export revenues and forcing it to increase spending. In fact, we later

learned that Gorbachev increased military spending to 45 percent of GDP on an

economy that was already floundering.

NSDD 78 stated that the US would not accept the existing Soviet sphere of influence, but would work to roll it back, restricting technologies that might help its

economy and exploiting its vulnerabilities.

All of these actions reversed Soviet expansion into countries such as Afghanistan,

Angola and Mozambique and encouraged freedom publications in Poland and encouraged strikes in Poland which spread even into Siberia.

The National Security information concerning the fall of the Soviet Union was discussed in detail in the book Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy

that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union by Peter Schweizer (1994: Atlantic

Monthly Press).

Schweizer interviewed dozens of top-ranking Reagan White House and National

Security officials for his book and concluded that Reagan’s actions weren’t luck but

skillful policy which resulted in the end of Soviet Communism thus guaranteeing

basic human rights for millions of persecuted people.

Recognizing Reagan with this memorial will also pay tribute to our armed forces.

His commitment to our armed forces contributed to the restoration of pride in America, her values and those cherished by the free world, and prepared America to win

the Gulf War.

So, when Congress passes this bill it will recognize Reagan’s achievements of domestic prosperity and promoting international peace. Having outlined briefly his

legacy, it is clear that it needs to be preserved because we can all be proud of his

accomplishments.

It is our goal at the Reagan Legacy Project to preserve his legacy by encouraging

Governors, state legislators and the general public to become involved in the process

of naming at least one significant landmark or institution after Reagan in all 50

states and 3067 counties as well as in former communist countries.

Currently there are 45 dedications; 42 in the United States and 3 internationally.

We have most recently completed a campaign to have Governors and State Legislatures honor Reagan on his birthday. The campaign ended with 12 Governors and

28 State legislatures honoring the former President.

Nationally, we have also begun work on placing Ronald Reagan’s portrait on the

ten-dollar bill. In the states we have a variety projects such as in South Carolina

where Reagan’s portrait will be hung in the State House chamber and in South Dakota where the highway that leads to Mt. Rushmore will soon bear the name of the

Gipper.

Clearly, America loved Ronald Reagan and the Congress should recognize the will

of the people by passing this bill.

I thank the Chairman for recognizing me and I yield the floor to any questions.

67

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF CURRENT DEDICATIONS IN HONOR OF PRESIDENT REAGAN

INTERNATIONAL

Grenada

• Grenada Salutes Ronald Reagan, Leader of Freedom (commemorative stamp collection), Grenada [1996]. Proceeds from sales go to the Ronald Reagan Scholarship Fund

• Ronald Reagan Scholarship Fund, Grenada [1996]. The fund is used to send students from Grenada to the United States for study

Marshall Islands

• Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll [October,

2000]

IN THE UNITED STATES

Arizona

• Ronald Reagan Fundamental School [1984], 3200 West 16th St., Yuma, AZ

85364

California

• Reagan Center, Los Angeles, CA

• Reagan Ranch Leadership Program [1998]. 812-B Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. Affiliated with the Young America’s Foundation, current owners of Rancho del Cielo (formerly the Reagan’s’ ranch) near Santa Barbara • Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse—[February 1999]. 411 West 4th Street,

Santa Ana, CA 92701—— • Ronald Reagan Freeway, CA [December 7, 1994]. State Route 118 runs close to

the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Formerly named the Simi Valley-San

Fernando Valley Freeway

• Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum [1991], 40 Presidential Drive

Simi Valley, CA 93065

• Ronald Reagan Professor, School of Public Policy (Pepperdine University),

Malibu, CA [1999] • Ronald Reagan Elementary School [1998, 10800 Rosslyn Lane Bakersfield, CA

93311

• Ronald Reagan California Republican Center [renamed in 1996], 1903 S. Magnolia Blvd., Burbank, CA. 91506. Headquarters of the California State Republican Party. Its former name was simply ‘‘California Republican Party Headquarters’’ • Ronald Reagan State Office Building,—[1990], 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013.

• Ronald Reagan Suite, [1999], Century Plaza Hotel, 2025 Avenue of the Stars,

Los Angeles, CA 90067. This suite, which occupies the entire 30th floor of the

hotel, was often used by Ronald Reagan when he visited Los Angeles during his

Presidency. Was formerly called the Plaza Suite

• Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center [to open in 2004]

• Ronald W. Reagan Educational Center, Fresno, CA

District of Columbia

• Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center [named in 1995, dedicated May 5, 1998], 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20004

• Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy (Heritage Foundation), Washington, D.C.

• Ronald Wilson Reagan Communications Center (National Republican Congressional Committee), Washington, D.C.

• Ronald Reagan Institute of Emergency Medicine [1991], George Washington

University Hospital, Washington, D.C. 20037. Located at the hospital where

Ronald Reagan was taken immediately after the march 30, 1981 assassination

attempt. Dedicated by Reagan at the tenth anniversary of the assassination attempt.,

• Ronald Wilson Reagan Republican Center National Republican Senatorial Committee 425 Second Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20002–4914

Florida

• Ronald Reagan Avenue, Miami, FL. Formerly named Southwest Avenue,

• Ronald Reagan Turnpike, FL [1998]. 1Formerly named Florida’s Turnpike.—

Runs 312 miles, from north-central Florida to south of Miami

• Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building, 2305 Minton Road, West Melbourne,

Florida [October 27, 2000]

68

Georgia

• Ronald Reagan Drive, Columbia County, Augusta, GA [December 1, 2000]

• Ronald Reagan Parkway, Gwinett County Lawrenceville, GA

Illinois

• Reagan Physical Education Center [1970], Eureka College 300 E. College Avenue Eureka, IL 61530 Originally dedicated in 1961 as ‘‘The Reagan Center,’’ in

honor of both Ronald Reagan and his brother Neil.—Constructed to house all

of Eureka College’s athletic facilities.—Acquired its present name in 1970. • Reagan Drive, Eureka, IL [1979], Runs along the southern edge of Eureka College, Reagan’s alma mater • Ronald W. Reagan Exhibit [1994], Eureka College Eureka, IL. 61520——, A permanent exhibit covering Ronald Reagan’s entire life • Ronald W. Reagan Leadership Program Eureka College Eureka, IL. 61530 Established in 1982; began with students in the Fall of 1983.

• Ronald & Nancy Reagan Research Center (Alzheimer’s Association) [1995], 919

N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611

• Ronald Reagan Birthplace [1980], 111 S, Main Street Tampico, IL. 61283. Locally operated, includes a museum and a gift shop, which are located next door

to the building in which Reagan was born

• Reagan Park [1985], Tampico, IL. Formerly Railroad Park

• Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home [1984], 816 S. Hennepin Ave., Dixon, IL. 61202

Ronald Reagan lived in this house during part of his teenage years (1924–

1928).—It is now locally operated as a Museum.

• Ronald Reagan Bridge, Dixon, IL

• Ronald Reagan Highway U.S. Highway 14; runs from Chicago north to the Wisconsin State line.

• Ronald W. Reagan Middle School [1996], 620 Division Street Dixon, IL. 61021

Formerly named Madison School

Iowa

• Ronald Reagan Historical Marker, Des Moines, IA [November 9, 1999]

Mississippi

• The Reagan Hope Home Located on a ranch that is part of the Mississippi Sheriffs Boys and Girls Ranches

New York

• Ronald Reagan Boulevard, Warwick, NY

Ohio

• Ronald Reagan Highway Cincinnati, OH, Runs across the northern suburbs of

Cincinnati.

Oklahoma

• Statue at the National Cowboy Hall of Fame, Oklahoma City, OK

Texas

• Reagan Leadership Society [1997], 389 MSC Student Finance Center Texas

A&M University College Station, TX. 77843. A society dedicated to building student leadership for the Texas A&M campus and the community at large. Its

student founder named the society in recognition of Reagan’s ‘‘ability to communicate, his ability to inspire confidence, and his kind personality.’’

Virginia

• Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Arlington, VA. [1998]. Formerly

named Washington National Airport

• USS Ronald Reagan nuclear aircraft carrier [to be completed by 2002].

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Powers?

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS GARY POWERS, JR., FOUNDER, COLD

WAR MUSEUM, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA

Mr. POWERS. My name is Francis Gary Powers, Jr. from Fairfax,

Virginia. I am the founder of the Cold War Museum. I am pleased

to have this special opportunity today to testify before the SubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
69

committee. I would like to express my gratitude to Congressman

Hefley for inviting me here and for sponsoring a bill so significant

to our country.

This bill means much to me personally. As the son of a famous

Cold War figure, I grew up with the Cold War. The Cold War Museum began for me as a way to honor my father but soon took on

a much greater life and purpose. I am working toward a museum

that will honor all the men and women who worked for democracy

and freedom during the Cold War.

The museum is not about reviving old hatreds. Rather, it is

about promoting lessons learned. It is about teaching democracy in

the pursuit of world peace. The Cold War Museum will dedicate resources to commemorating those whose deeds and sacrifices

furthered democracy but the museum strives for an international

and objective understanding of the Cold War, one of the most intense periods of conflict and most dangerous years in human history.

The purposes of the Cold War Museum are to preserve the artifacts important to that period, to interpret the Cold War through

research and information-gathering, and to serve as the focal point

for information and preservation activities related to the Cold War

era. The museum’s distinguished board of directors are experts in

museum management, nonprofit management, and various aspects

of Cold War history. We also have an advisory board which includes Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita Khrushchev’s son, Eisenhower

aide Ambassador Vernon Walters, and renowned photographic interpreter Dino Brugioni.

Recently the Cold War Museum developed a list of important

Cold War sites, which is the focal point of your bill, with the eventual goal of recognizing a Cold War site in every state. I have included this list in our collateral material.

The museum does not have a permanent home but we do sponsor

traveling exhibits that have been on display throughout the United

States, including at the CIA in Virginia and internationally in Germany, Norway and Russia.

America has honored men and women from many wars who died

for freedom but whatever the reason, there has been almost no recognition of the Cold War, an era that lasted almost 50 years, cost

thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, changed the course of history

and left America the only superpower in the world.

However, the Cold War is virtually unknown to the current generation. This is a great disservice to those who gave their lives during the Cold War.

James Billington, Librarian of Congress, said in a foreign policy

speech, ‘‘The Cold War was the central conflict of the second half

of the 20th century, the longest and most unconventional war of

the entire modern era and an unprecedented experience for Americans. We were faced for the first time in our history with an opponent who was both ideologically committed to overthrowing our

system and was equipped to destroy us physically.’’

Journalist Charles Krauthammer in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post entitled ‘‘Build a Cold War Memorial’’ had this to say.

‘‘The Cold War did not have the dramatic intensity of World War

II but it was just as real and just as dangerous. Though often clanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
70

destine and subtle, it ranged worldwide, cost many lives, evoked

much heroism and lasted what seemed like forever. Considering

the stakes, the scope and the suffering, this was a struggle that deserves commemoration.’’ Although the Cold War periodically resurfaces in the news as is

evident by the Hanssen spy case, many people really do not understand the background or the history. The Cold War Museum’s

website testifies to the public’s need for information. Over the past

23 months 250,000 visitors have visited our website at

Coldwar.org. Those who have tested their knowledge on our Cold

War trivia and history quizzes help make the case for passage of

H.R. 107. Ten percent of the respondents believe that John F. Kennedy was President of the United States when the Soviet Union

was dissolved. The need for the passage of H.R. 107, the construction of a Cold War Museum and related educational programs, is

clear.

Charles Krauthammer went on to say about a proposed Cold War

Monument, ‘‘It needn’t be grandiose but it must have a small museum for instruction. A gallery of heroes: Truman, Marshall,

Churchill, Reagan. A hall for the fallen: the secret agents who died

anonymously. A tribute to allies and friends...and a gulag display

so that our children will learn the nature of evil.’’ Congressman Hefley, we would like to suggest that the Department of the Interior conduct a study to establish the value of a permanent Cold War Museum and Memorial as the central repository

for Cold War artifacts and information. Our plans include the following: display Cold War photos, art work and artifacts, establish

an endowed research chair at the Cold War Museum, collect biographies on key Cold War figures, record oral and written histories

to capture the human side of the conflict, create an inventory of

key technologies that resulted from the Cold War research and development, and finally, develop a comprehensive inventory of significant Cold War sites and resources that need to be preserved,

such as military bases, homes of key figures, laboratories, test sites

and historic places.

Congressman Hefley, we believe that it is vital to begin now to

preserve these historic resources. Sites are being lost to developers

and information gets lost every day.

I am proud to say that the Cold War Museum has recently become an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. They have agreed

to conduct a feasibility study with us to determine what artifacts

from the national collection can be used in our displays and exhibits. We have also received offers of support from a variety of

sources, including the Holocaust Museum, Voice of America and

the embassies of Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Slovakia.

In the coming weeks and months Congress will consider a number of issues. H.R. 107 should certainly be included in this agenda

to preserve American history and significant Cold War sites. We

believe the interest and support of James Billington, Charles

Krauthammer, the Smithsonian Institution, the Voice of America,

the Holocaust Museum and various embassies and schools are obvious proof that this bill and the Cold War Museum would be of considerable value to our country.

71

Congressman Hefley, the directors of the Cold War Museum and

I would like to express our strongest possible support for your bill.

H.R. 107 will help educate future generations about the Cold War,

honor Cold War veterans and preserve Cold War history. The mission and goals of the Cold War Museum further the objectives of

H.R. 107. We hope to continue to be involved with helping you and

the commission when it is established. Please feel free to call upon

us at any time. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powers follows:]

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Powers. You have obviously done

a lot of thinking and work on this and we appreciate your knowledge.

Dr. Craig?

STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE CRAIG, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE PROMOTION OF HISTORY

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bruce Craig. I am

the Director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, which is a consortium of 59 historical or archival

organizations. The NCC serves as the national advocacy office for

the historical and archival professions. My education—I am a specialist in the Cold War and the history of espionage. As of today

I consider myself also an expert on colds in general so please tolerate my husky voice.

I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee today in support

of H.R. 107, your legislation, Mr. Congressman, to conduct a national landmark theme study to identify sites and resources that

are related to the Cold War. We support the enactment of this legislation even as presently drafted. However, I would like to present

for your consideration a couple of ideas that might actually

strengthen the bill.

Certainly for much of the second half of the 20th century the contest between two nuclear superpowers, the former Soviet Union

and the United States, has defined the character of global and domestic politics. The threat of mass destruction that carried with it

the very real possibility of annihilation of not only the citizens of

both nations but nearly everyone else on earth also left a permanent mark on American life and politics.

In international politics, the contest between the superpowers

shaped American foreign policy worldwide. In the realm of domestic politics, it was the culture of the Cold War that completely

transformed aspects of American life.

Clearly, there is a need to identify, to document and to preserve

sites and resources that illustrate Cold War history. There already

are some Cold War-related sites that are listed on the National

Register of Historic Places. There are also some sites that are

established as national historic landmarks. For example, the Westminster College Gymnasium in Fulton, Missouri where Winston

Churchill delivered his famous March 1946 ′′Iron Curtain′′ speech

that has long held as a seminal event and marks the beginnings

of the Cold War, has been a national landmark for some number

of years.

However, the National Park System is woefully inadequate in interpreting and preserving resources relating to the Cold War. This

theme study should serve as the catalyst for the creation of a Cold

War National Historical Park.

In terms of some specific suggestions for strengthening this legislation, Section 1 of this section presently focuses largely on sites

associated with American military strategy and technology. We believe that the legislation needs to be broadened to include perhaps

a more diverse collection of sites, some of which Gary Powers has

87

mentioned and some specific recommendations are in my written

testimony, as well.

Also, we believe that the study should take a look at sites that

are associated with the domestic war; for example, sites associated

with intelligence-gathering and I might note espionage, as well,

and certainly some associated personalities with the Cold War.

So that the study does not degenerate into simply an assessment

of a motley collection of historic sites, some type of framework for

assessment seems to be necessary, as well. We believe the theme

study should concentrate on people, events and sites that are associated with a number of Cold War hallmarks, which are itemized

in my testimony.

In terms of Section 3, the advisory committee, we certainly believe that there is a necessity for some type of outside review and

assistance from the historical organizations and institutions in

crafting this theme study—but it need not be an advisory committee. This Committee might want to consider directing the Park

Service to conduct a series of workshops comprised of academic

scholars, knowledgeable preservationists and NPS professionals.

The Park Service has certainly had previous experience in conducting this type of information-gathering workshops. The history

of the National Park Service themes and concepts, in essence, the

overall theme study framework that was adopted by the Park Service in 1994 followed this type of framework, and, more recently, the

painting and sculpture theme study that was put together in 1991

also made use of this model. We think that these workshops perhaps might be a little bit better in terms of getting the advice that

the Park Service needs in terms of the establishment of a Cold War

National Park and the production of a Cold War theme study.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this legislation with

you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly welcome any questions that you or

the other members of the Subcommittee might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Craig follows:]

Statement of Bruce Craig, Director, National Coordinating Committee for

the Promotion of History, Washington, D.C.

I am Bruce Craig, Director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (NCC), a national consortium of 59 historical and archival organizations. Since 1982, the NCC has served as the national advocacy office for the historical and archival professions. Specifically, we provide information services to

Members of Congress and other policymakers. The NCC also represents member organizations on matters relating to Federal funding and appropriations, policy, and

legislation that have an impact on historical and archival programs, research, and

teaching.

I possess a Ph.D. in history (1999) from The American University, Washington

D.C. I am a cold war historian with a speciality in the history of espionage. My dissertation, Treasonable Doubt: The Harry Dexter White Case, 1948-1953’’ traces the

espionage activity of Treasury Department officials during the early cold war period.

I have written and published extensively on the cold war for over fifteen years. I

am also the principal in the legal challenge, Craig v. USA which served as the catalyst for the 1999 Federal court judgment that resulted in the unsealing of the grand

jury records relating to the Alger Hiss case. This was the first time in American

history that grand jury records had been unsealed solely on the basis of their historical interest and value.

I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee today in support of H.R. 107—

legislation introduced by Representative Joel Hefley to direct the Secretary of the

Interior to conduct a National Landmark theme study to identify sites and resources

relating to the cold war and to recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the cold war era. While the NCC fully supports the intent and objectives

88

of this legislation, and we support enactment of this legislation even as presently

drafted, I would like to present for the Subcommittee’s consideration, a few ideas

that may strengthen the bill.

Mr. Chairman, for much of the second half of the twentieth century, the contest

between two nuclear superpowers—the former Soviet Union and the United

States—defined the character of global and domestic politics. The threat of mass destruction that carried with it the very real possibility of annihilation of not only the

citizens of both nations but nearly everyone else on earth, also left a permanent

mark on American life and politics. The cold war (as it was dubbed in 1947 by journalist Walter Lippman) created an atmosphere of ever-present fear of thermonuclear

war that nearly every American over the age of 30 can well remember.

In the realm of international politics, the contest between the two superpowers

shaped American foreign policy worldwide: for some historians, the term preponderant power most accurately describes America’s foreign policy objective with respect

to the Soviet Union and its communist bloc allies. Preponderant power was achieved

through unprecedented expenditures on the military (creating what President Eisenhower characterized as the military-industrial complex ) and through the creation of mechanisms for international collective security (NATO and NORAD are

but two examples). Through these institutions the United States sought to check the

expanding power of the Soviet Union.

In the realm of domestic politics, from the late 1940’s through 1990 when what

President Ronald Reagan characterized as the evil empire collapsed, the culture of

the cold war completely transformed aspects of American life. For example, the excesses of the so-called McCarthy Era played on the popular fear of communist subversion, which with thanks to the relatively new invention of the television, found

its way into the middle-class American household, and permeated the American psyche. Another example—the fallout from the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers controversy gave rise to the creation of an anti-communist liberal tradition and gave

new impetus to the modern conservative movement. The cold war also provided momentum to the career of dozens of political leaders (perhaps most notably Richard

Nixon), many of whom dominated the political scene for the next three decades.

Clearly there is a need to identify, document, and preserve sites and resources

that illustrate cold war history. I believe that the historic events and associated locations of this time period will be viewed by future generations of Americans as

being every bit as important to preserve as many Americans view Civil War sites

today. With the exception of the Civil War, no other war has shaped the American

character so subtly or so intricately as did the cold war. This is because virtually

every American was a front-line soldier in the battle to defeat communism. Its fallout was unforgettable.

While there are some cold war related sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places (for example, the Oak Ridge Historic District in Tennessee) and there

are a few National Historic Landmarks that commemorate people and events related to cold war history, (for example, the Westminster College Gymnasium in Fulton, Missouri where Winston Churchill delivered his famous March 1946 Iron Curtain speech—long heralded as the seminal event marking the beginning of the cold

war) for the most part, historic sites in our National Park System are woefully inadequate in interpreting and preserving resources relating to cold war history. At

some already established sites, there are specific locations and resources that could

be more fully interpreted to tell aspects of the cold war story—the Harry S. Truman

National Historical Site in Missouri and the Eisenhower National Historic Site in

Pennsylvania are but two examples. Still, there is no representational national historical park focusing upon cold war history. There ought to be. This theme study

should serve as the catalyst for the creation of cold war National Historical Park.

Here then, Mr. Chairman are some specific suggestions for strengthening this legislation:

Section 1. COLD WAR STUDY

The thrust of this bill presently focuses upon sites associated with American military strategy and technology. The legislation needs to be broadened to include a

more diverse collection of sites—both sites associated with the military story of the

cold war as well as the social and non-military aspects of that war. To this end,

let me discuss each in order.

First, with respect to the military related resources, the legislation should be

more inclusive in focusing on diverse types of resources. For example, in addition

to the types of sites reflected in the reports and inventory of sites mentioned in the

legislation [see page 2, items (1) and (2)], it should be noted that the National Park

Service maintains a master listing of National Register and National Historic Landmarks sites that include cold war sites. Here one finds listings of a Nike missile

and other missile bases, ICBM launch complexes, proving grounds, military and ciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:10 Jun 04, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71123.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
89

vilian operations/communications centers, air defense centers, and at least one nuclear reactor—all these sites should be examined in context with other military-related cold war sites.

In addition, each State Historic Preservation Office maintains a state inventory

of historically significant sites (including sites of local or regional, as well as national, significance). These sites should be assessed in context with this study. Other

resources—including representative examples of historic ships (especially submarines) and airplanes (the B-29 bomber, for example, for years served as the principle short-range strategic strike weapon) also need to be preserved and interpreted.

To this end, we recommend either legislative or report language be added directing

the Secretary to consult with other Federal agencies and state governments and historical institutions in compiling a master inventory of cold war sites and resources.

This should not be a costly endeavor as much of the work has already been completed; it need only be compiled into a central data base.

Second, the legislation needs to be broadened to assess sites of a non-military nature that contribute to telling the story of the cold war from the perspective of government officials and civilians. To this end, the assessment should include: Federal

buildings such as the State Department Building in Washington, D.C., sites associated with intelligence gathering (i.e., the CIA, FBI and NSA headquarters) and espionage (the home of Nathan Gregory Silvermaster who spearheaded the largest communist intelligence gathering apparatus in Washington, D.C. during World War II

which centered out of a residence at 5515 30th Street, is an ideal candidate for assessment), the headquarters of fringe political movements such as the Communist

Party USA and John Birch Society; sites associated with cold war personalities, including (but not limited to) Henry Luce, John McCloy, Allen and John Foster Dulles,

Lucius Clay, Dean Acheson, Douglas MacArthur, Paul Nitze, Averell Harriman, Joseph McCarthy, George Kennan, George C. Marshall, and Ronald Reagan. And certainly no cold war theme study could be considered complete without assessing the

merits of preserving the bunker under the Greenbriar Hotel in West Virginia that

was set aside to provide refuge for high government officials in case of nuclear war,

as well as typical representative civilian defense bunkers. With respect to the assessment of these sites (some of which may prove controversial), it should be remembered that the purpose of the theme study is to document where history happened, and not necessarily in every case to commemorate or celebrate where history

happened. Those decisions are best left to others.

So that this study does not degenerate into an enormous assessment of a motley

collection of historic sites, some framework for assessment needs to be created to

give guidance to the NPS. The legislation should provide that framework. To this

end, at a minimum, we suggest the theme study concentrate its assessment work

on people, events and sites associated with the following cold war hallmarks: • Beginnings of the cold war

• Marshall Plan and the German Question (including sites associated with the

Berlin airlift)

• Development of Nuclear Weapons

• Strategic Defense and Offense at Home and Abroad

• The cold war on the Home Front

• Development of the National Security State (including Espionage sites)

• Korean and Vietnam War (the domino theory in practice)

• Cuban Missile Crisis (including training and staging sites associated with the

Bay of Pigs invasion)

• End of the cold war (through the creation of the Russian Republic and Commonwealth of Independent States)

Section 2. INTERPRETIVE HANDBOOK ON THE COLD WAR

We fully support the production of an interpretive handbook on the cold war that

focuses on historic sites and resources, people, and events associated with the era.

The cost associated with the production of such an interpretive book, I understand,

generally runs about $100,000. Therefore, the dollar figure in Section 4 (AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS) may need to be revised upward.

Section 3. COLD WAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE

We believe that there is a necessity for some type of outside review and assistance

from historical organizations and institutions in crafting this theme study. Either

some type of advisory committee along the lines of the one established in Section

3 needs to be created, or another suitable alternative should be Congressionally

mandated.

Instead of creating an advisory committee, the Committee may want to consider

directing the National Park Service to conduct two workshops comprised of academic scholars, knowledgeable preservationists, and NPS professionals. During the

first scoping meeting, the workshop participants would provide advice in discussions

90

about representational themes, help refine the study framework, advise on methodology for collecting data and suggest sites for study and assessment. At a second

review meeting (conducted after a draft report has been prepared), the same group

of experts would review the NPS draft report and make formal recommendations

relating to the selection of National Landmark nominations and sites that meet the

tests of national significance, suitability and feasibility thus making them candidates for possible National historic site or national historical park designation.

Mr. Chairman, the National Park Service has had previous experience in conducting this type of information gathering workshop. For example, the NPS in partnership with the Organization of American Historians assisted in the development

of the History in the National Park Service: Themes and Concepts, historic site

framework which was adopted by the NPS in 1994. Several dozen scholars and academics also assisted the NPS in a Painting and Sculpture Theme Study Workshop

conducted June 10-14, 1991. That workshop resulted in the creation of a Framework

for the Visual Arts Theme Study that defined the National Park Service’s role in

preserving and interpreting sites associated with American painting and sculpture.

The Committee may want to model the workshop requirement after legislative language found in Public law 101-628 Section 1209 (1991) directing the NPS to revise

the 1986 thematic framework. It well may be, though, that the more relevant model

is the Painting and Sculpture Theme Study Workshop which had no legislative

mandate. I would be pleased to provide the Committee with copies of both of these

excellent reports that were prepared based on this workshop model.

I thank you for the opportunity today to discuss this legislation and I welcome

any questions the members of this Committee may have.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Dr. Craig.

And I am pleased that we did get all the testimony in before the

bells started going off. As I said earlier, we may want to submit

questions to you to be answered in writing.

In the meantime, Mrs. Christensen, do you have questions?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have maybe

a few for both Mr. Norquist and Mr. Wymbs.

Mr. Norquist, in developing the Ronald Reagan Memorial we

would be really making an exception to the CWA on a case-by-case

basis and I am having difficulty understanding why we should

make such an exception.

If the 25-year waiting period contained in the CWA were respected in this case in your opinion wouldn’t this memorial still be

built, that the legacy of President Ronald Reagan is such that it

can withstand the 25 years until such time that it would be in compliance with the law?

Mr. NORQUIST. I think his legacy certainly stands the test of

time. It is my point that the legacy is so clear and it is very unusual that a legacy is this clear this early, that his victory over

Communism was so complete, his success as a President and his

character so exceptional that we can make this exception.

And I fully agree with you. It is a big exception. It should be a

rare exception. I do not expect us to be fighting and winning a Cold

War again for hundreds of years. These are very substantial accomplishments that Reagan had and they are very unique ones.

So yes, I agree with you that it should be an exception, that it

should be rare and I would argue and I think the country agrees

that Ronald Reagan’s greatness is of that nature.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. In spite of the fact that President Reagan

himself agreed with the 25-year period of waiting?

Mr. NORQUIST. Every time you pass a law you supersede all the

previous laws you have passed and Congress does it every week

here. I think what Reagan signed in the previous law is generally

the right thing to do but obviously it is not in the Constitution so

91

it is a law that new laws can supersede and I think we should put

it to Congress that the greatness of Reagan’s presidency and his accomplishments do merit making the exception, and it should be an

exception. It should be rare. The law is a good one.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. We do not disagree with the contributions

but I think it is a bad precedent to set, to make an exception like

this.

And there is another departure, which is to remove the National

Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts

from the approval process for the memorial. Why is it necessary,

do you think, to create another Federal commission to oversee this

memorial?

And as a follow-up to that question, if the memorial is subject

to the review by the two entities, the National Capital Planning

Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, don’t you think it

would still move forward, given the 25-year waiting period?

Mr. NORQUIST. I am supportive of Congressman Hansen’s proposal. I am not wedded to the particulars. I am sure that he had

reasons for structuring it the way he did. I would defer to his

thoughts and recommend that he sit down with you on why he did

it that way.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Okay, just two more brief questions for Mr.

Wymbs, the Chairman of the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation.

Mr. Wymbs, would you be opposed to the Park Service completing a standard resource study of the site before we move forward with Federal acquisition?

Mr. WYMBS. It makes no difference to me what is done because

I know the condition of the property and what we have there and

there is going to be no difficulty with any type of study. We will

be happy to have our people there show them anything they need

to see.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Do you have an estimate for how much it

would cost for the Federal Government to acquire and restore the

site?

Mr. WYMBS. In our first talks with the people we know full well

that, of course, we cannot recoup what the Foundation itself has

spent. It has been quite an expensive proposition. Just as an example, the Reagan home itself we bought for $29,000. It had been converted from a single-family home into a two-flat. We laugh about

the price of it because it only cost us $450,000 to restore it to its

original condition.

So we cannot estimate. As I told one of the staff members from

the Committee that called me, I said there is no way we could come

up with an estimate of the value of what has been, for example,

put into the corner park. How do you estimate the value of what

essentially is a small vacant lot with a 15-ton bronze statue right

in the middle? Our appraisers could not touch that. We could not

come up with any figures for you because this has been an on-going

process since the early 1980’s when the President was elected and

the money has been spent over those years and we do not show it

anywhere in our books and records as a real investment in the

property, but it is all there.

92

We are willing to go with whatever values the department comes

up with with their own expert examination, providing they do not

make us look too silly in selling it.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Just one final question. What relationship, if

any, does this site have to the Ronald Reagan birthplace in Tampico, where I believe he spent a longer time?

Mr. WYMBS. Ronald Reagan was only there for a very few

months after his birth. He was a babe in arms when the family

moved from there. It was a small apartment above a store in a

small town that is about three blocks long. That has no relationship here.

The family, oddly enough, was living in Tampico just before they

moved to Dixon but the house they lived in down there is not available to the public. It is in private ownership and they will not even

let you set foot on the property. Again it was a house that they

rented for a short period of time, as Mr. Jack Reagan, Ronald’s father, made arrangements with the owner of the store he was working for to finance the new store up in Dixon. So the President had

no real memory of that spot.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank all of our panelists for their testimony. I apologize for having to step out for a few minutes.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Kildee?

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a brief remark.

The Cold War began basically when Harry Truman was President and began to wind down under President Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Powers, it is interesting. I lived in Pesawar, Pakistan in

1958 and ’59 and there were two American facilities there at the

time—the American Air Force base plus the CIA base. One was

nonexistent and the other was secret.

It was very interesting. Shortly after I returned home I realized

that I was living very, very near a very crucial element of our effort

to defend ourselves in the Cold War and your father played a very

important role in that defense and we certainly appreciate that. It

was very interesting to realize that I was so close to what was a

very closely guarded secret over there but a very important element in our efforts to defend ourselves. I appreciate your testimony.

Mr. POWERS. Thank you for your remarks and the honoring of

my father.

Mr. HEFLEY. I want to thank this panel, as well. I think the testimony was especially helpful. We may be coming back to each of

you not only to respond to questions but to get additional help in

forming legislation. And Dr. Craig, I appreciate your suggestions

about how to make the legislation on this Cold War thing better.

I appreciate, Mr. Wymbs, what you all in Dixon have done. If you

had not stepped in and done that that would not be available. We

would not be considering something like this at this point. So I appreciate that a group of citizens took it upon themselves to proceed

that way.

Mr. Powers, I have, and I am sure the Committee has, great respect for your father. He was a true cold warrior who risked his

life and almost lost his life to defend this country and we appreciate what he has done and we appreciate what you are doing to

preserve that heritage.

93

Mr. POWERS. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. If there is nothing else, the Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ