U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42-475 PDF 2009

THE FUTURE OF 

THE NATIONAL MALL 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 

Serial No. 110-71 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Steve Scalise, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Akridge, John E. ‘‘Chip,’’ III, Chairman, Trust for the National Mall ......... 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43 

Cogbill, John V., III, Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission ... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Feldman, Judy Scott, Ph.D., President, National Coalition to Save Our 

Mall ................................................................................................................ 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35 

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

of Columbia ................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

O’Dell, Margaret, Superintendent, National Mall and Memorial Parks, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Spitzer, Arthur B., Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union of 

the National Capital Area ............................................................................ 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30 

Tregoning, Harriet, Director, Office of Planning, Government of the 

District of Columbia ...................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘THE FUTURE OF 

THE NATIONAL MALL’’ 

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rau ́l M. Grijalva 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Kildee, Holt, Brown, 

Sarbanes, and Inslee. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. The Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands will come to order. The 

agenda today and the hearing is about the future of the National 

Mall. 

Let me, at the outset, welcome all of you here. Thank you. As 

this meeting comes to order and Memorial Day approaches, it is 

fitting that we are holding this hearing on the future of the 

National Mall, while we pause to remember the American heroes 

who gave the last full measure of devotion. The war memorials of 

World War I, II, Korea, and Vietnam will be on the minds of all 

Americans. 

Also on our minds will be the words and deeds of those great 

Americans who have transcended their individual accomplishments 

to become institutions unto themselves: Washington, Jefferson, 

Lincoln, Roosevelt. 

Recently, the National Mall was named one of the seven wonders 

of America. But it is more than just a wonder. The National Mall 

is part of our national identity and serves as our national front 

yard. Its appearance reflects our collective pride as Americans. 

We can hope that the Mall’s memorials, museums, and open 

space will inspire visitors and future generations of Americans to 

their own greatness. But these hopes will not be realized if the condition of the Mall fails to inspire. 

This is a critical time in the history of the National Mall. Currently, four different entities are in the midst of planning efforts 

that will directly impact the Mall, in some cases over the next 50 

2 

years or more. And with such an important and visible symbol of 

America at stake, it is important that these groups and all others 

interested and affected work together collaboratively to get the 

planning job done correctly. 

I am pleased to have Congressman Eleanor Holmes Norton. She 

has joined us today to share her thoughts and concerns for these 

various plans. And I look forward to her joining us on the dais after 

her testimony and being part of this hearing. 

I am also pleased to welcome the National Park Service, the 

National Capital Planning Commission, the Government of the District of Columbia, and several advocacy groups to this hearing to 

share their collective vision for the Mall. 

We thank the witnesses very much for their time and effort to 

be here today. And with that, let me turn to our distinguished colleague, Ms. Norton, for her testimony. 

Welcome. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́ l Grijalva, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

As Memorial Day approaches, it is fitting that we are holding this hearing on the 

‘‘Future of the National Mall.’’ While we pause to remember the American heroes 

who gave the ‘‘last full measure of devotion,’’ the war memorials for World Wars I 

and II, Korea and Vietnam will be on the minds of all Americans. Also on our minds 

will be the words and deeds of those great Americans who have transcended their 

individual accomplishments to become institutions unto themselves—Washington, 

Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt. 

Recently, the National Mall was named one of the seven wonders of America— 

but it is more than just a wonder. The National Mall is part of our national identity 

and serves as our national front yard—its appearance reflects our collective pride 

as Americans. We can hope that the Mall’s memorials, museums and open space 

will inspire visitors and future generations of Americans to greatness of their own. 

But these hopes will not be realized if the condition of the Mall fails to inspire. 

This is a critical time in the history of the National Mall. Currently, four different 

entities are in the midst of planning efforts that will directly impact the Mall, in 

some cases for the next fifty years or more. And with such an important and visible 

symbol of America at stake, it is important that these groups and all other interested and affected parties work collaboratively to get the planning job done correctly. 

I am pleased that Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has joined us today 

to share her thoughts and concerns for these various plans and I look forward to 

her joining us on the dais after providing her testimony. I am also pleased to welcome the National Park Service, the National Capitol Planning Commission, the 

Government of the District of Columbia and several advocacy groups to this hearing 

to share their collective vision for the Mall. We thank the witnesses very much for 

their time and effort to be here today. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Bishop for any opening statement 

he may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELEANOR HOLMES 

NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva. I very 

much appreciate your holding this hearing today. This hearing will 

seem like the time to many who follow the work on the Mall, because it is the first time that there has been a hearing on the 

National Mall in memory of this now two-mile strip, which we hope 

to see expanded 700 acres. 

3 

Twenty million people come. They have all heard of the National 

Mall, and when they go there, what they see we all should be 

ashamed of. It is a barren, dull place where they mow the lawn, 

and nothing else. It is essentially a passthrough. 

For more than a dozen years I have been trying to improve the 

Mall. Your hearing is especially valuable to us in drawing attention 

to the place where essentially the constituents of Members of Congress come. So the 20 million people who come, some of them are 

my constituents, but most of them are constituents of my colleagues. And so your title here, the Future of the Mall, I think encompasses what we need to focus on. 

I have my own view. I appreciate, I would very much appreciate 

that if we could move from this hearing to a markup of the Mall 

Revitalization and Redesignation Act. What it does is simply codify 

what you will hear from the National Planning Commission on its 

framework. It has been working on it now for a couple of years so 

that they would have the ability to expand the Mall. 

We are not simply talking about this two-mile place. They already, indeed, have allowed memorials to go into the far reaches 

of what is not considered the Mall, but the Mall doesn’t have an 

official designation. My bill for the first time would name the Mall, 

and it would give the NCPC the capacity to designate and expand 

what the Mall is so that when, in fact, people come and you want 

them to go where we now call the Mall, they will understand that 

is a part of the Mall, because we really don’t have anything named 

for monuments and the like in the Mall, and you can’t even get on 

the Mall, or what we call the Mall today, without an Act of Congress. 

This is our most treasured and best-known site perhaps, but no 

site is more neglected, no site is more undervalued. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to focus, since the National Capital Planning Commission and the other agencies are here, I am going to 

focus on the part of my bill that I think would be easiest to implement. 

I think we have to deal with the disgrace that the Mall is right 

now, so the second part of my bill is a low-cost way to make the 

Mall people-friendly. I introduced the bill after some jazz musicians 

were with me so that people could see that there was lots of free 

entertainment. They would come during lunchtime and during the 

evenings so that people could be sitting at decent tables, no hard 

benches. Low-cost tables, free entertainment from string quartets 

to poetry readings, to have lunch in the open with no real fast food. 

But I have focused on this near-term way, knowing full well that 

the total makeover that the Mall deserves is many years away, 

given the PAYGO Rules, given the many priorities of the Congress. 

This is a low-cost way to make the Mall into something that is not 

essentially a disgrace. 

Mr. Chairman, today it is raining. For the visitors who would 

come here, there is no shelter in the Mall. You had better hope 

that one of the museums is open. And the terrible humidity of 

Washington which will soon be upon us, don’t look for shade unless 

you can find a tree, which of course you will not always find, and 

hope for a bench under that tree. 

4 

I mean, these are the kind of amenities. And I do not need to 

say that you had better hope that the museums are open if you 

have to use the restroom. 

Here is a place that we grandly call the Mall, and there are no 

amenities, no identity, though we give it an official identity, no 

names whatsoever. There is no great national park that suffers 

from this kind of neglect. 

So Mr. Chairman, I am asking that we move forward with my 

bill. My bill codifies what you will hear from the National Capital 

Planning Commission. I worked closely with them in designing 

that part of the bill. 

And the second part of the bill tries to rescue the Mall from the 

neglect that I think our constituents would be surprised to see 

when they came here, because it takes the first steps to give the 

Mall its due after decades of neglect and indifference. It tries to 

breathe life into the Mall at virtually no cost to the taxpayers. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, 

a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia 

I am very grateful to you Mr. Chairman and to the subcommittee for this hearing, 

the first we have had on the two-mile 700 acre strip of land, informally called the 

Mall, since I began working to improve the National Mall a dozen years ago. Because it is in my district, I have taken a special interest in the Mall and have introduced several Mall and Mall-related bills that I am seeking to move forward to passage. This hearing entitled ‘‘The Future of the Mall’’ relates particularly to the Mall 

Revitalization and Redesignation Act that I introduced in October 2007. I am requesting that the subcommittee mark-up this low-cost bill at an early mark-up. In 

addition, I have introduced two bills necessary for the Smithsonian Institution. As 

you know the majority of Smithsonian museums have the Mall as their front yard, 

and will play an integral role in increasing the life and vitality on the Mall. In fact, 

the Smithsonian’s Jazz in the Sculpture Garden is a prototype of the lively performing art I would like to see more of throughout the Mall. H.R. 4098, The Smithsonian Modernization Act, would bring the Smithsonian into this century by giving 

it a governing board that meets modern standards and whose members are free and 

equipped to raise urgently needed funds. H.R. 5424, The Smithsonian Free Admission Act, is important to preserve the long-standing requirements and tradition of 

access to Smithsonian museums and exhibits without admission charges. 

The National Mall is one of the nation’s best known and most treasured sites, and 

it is also Washington’s most neglected and undervalued. The Mall lacks everything 

that a majestic natural wonder deserves, from an official identity to necessary 

amenities. My bill: (1) authorizes the National Capital Planning Commission 

(NCPC) to officially designate and expand the boundaries of the Mall, and (2) requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan to enhance visitor enjoyment 

and cultural experiences within 180 days of passage of the bill. I worked closely 

with NCPC and other agencies in framing the Mall designation and expansion section of the bill, in keeping with its National Capital Framework Plan. However, 

H.R. 3880 would not only give the NCPC the responsibility for designating and expanding the Mall, it also would meet the vision of many of us and of the District 

of Columbia for an expanding Mall to specific, named sites. The bill gives the NCPC 

the necessary flexibility to both expand and designate the Mall area, as appropriate, 

for the first time since its creation 

Let me begin with the section of my bill that is easiest to implement now. The 

twenty million visitors annually to the Mall should not have to wait for the long 

term makeover of the Mall it must have before it becomes more than a mowed but 

battered lawn bereft of even restrooms. H.R. 3880 requires near-term action now 

to erase barren and disgrace of today’s Mall and make it people-friendly. I introduced the bill on the Mall with world class musicians playing jazz to help make the 

point that tourists and workers downtown should be able to walk to the Mall and 

hear terrific music, or have other appropriate, free entertainment—from string 

quartets to poetry readings—perhaps during lunch at attractive tables where sandwiches and good—not fast—food are available. Although bordered by internationally 

5 

famous cultural institutions, the Mall itself has been reduced to a lawn with a few— 

too few—ordinary benches and a couple of fast food restaurants. In writing this bill, 

I was compelled to recognize today’s reality that funds to make the Mall the 21st 

century destination it deserves to become are simply not available, and will not become available until the deficit and other priorities make room. The Mall needs, and 

must get, a total makeover for the 21st century that would be worthy of L’Enfant 

vision for the city he planned and the MacMillan plan that is largely responsible 

for the space between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial. However, preparing 

for the future must not stand in the way of moving now to begin to do what we 

can to rescue this space from its present condition, damaged by heavy use and often 

no more than a pass-through, despite its magnificent potential. 

With the necessary imagination, a plan to make the Mall an inviting place with 

cultural and other amenities envisioned by the bill is achievable now. What I have 

envisioned in H.R. 3880 would do no more than make the Mall presentable and 

pleasant for visitors. At very little cost, the Mall would no longer lack the most basic 

amenities appropriate to such an area including restrooms, shelter and informal 

places to gather and interesting places to eat. Today, when it rains, there are no 

places to stay dry on the Mall and when the humidity reaches sky high, there are 

few places to rest and have a cold drink. These are disgraceful conditions for a place 

that is grandly called ‘‘The National Mall.’’ The NCPC is already working on the 

other section of my bill’s requirements for an expansive 21st century definition of 

the Mall. Frustrated at continually fighting off proposals for new monuments, museums, and memorials, on the crowded Mall space, I asked the NCPC to devise a mall 

presentation, and in 2003, Congress amended the Commemorative Works Act to 

enact the NCPC’s designation of a no-build-zone where no new memorials may be 

built without an act of Congress. This action was helpful in quelling some but by 

no means all of the demand from groups for placement on what they view as the 

Mall. 

Recognizing the need for more sites, the NCPC and other federal agencies have 

been devising a National Capital Framework Plan that has already identified sites 

near the Mall which are suitable for new memorials, including East Potomac Park, 

a part of the Mall area that is seldom visited or viewed as integral to the more familiar space between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial; Banneker Overlook, the 

grounds around RFK Stadium, the Kennedy Center Plaza site and the new South 

Capitol gateways. Five new prestigious memorials are scheduled for such sites, including the Eisenhower Memorial and the U.S. Air Force Memorial. 

Just as important, residents of the city region and should be able to find expanded 

space for fun and games beyond the cramped space between Third street and the 

Lincoln Memorial. I appreciate that NCPC works closely with the District of Columbia in designating off-Mall sites for new monuments, but the country needs to understand that these are not off-Mall, but part of the official Mall, as my bill would 

make clear. The District has long welcomed the expanded Mall into our neighborhoods, enhancing the work of the District of Columbia government and local organizations, such as Cultural Tourism that offers historic tours of District neighborhoods 

and all the while, helping to develop local tourism that is vital to the city’s economy. 

The off-Mall sites for monuments complement the creation of entire new neighborhoods now underway near the Mall, particularly the District’s re-development of the 

Southwest waterfront and my own SE Federal Center legislation, now taking shape 

as The Yards, a mixed use public private development and waterfront park. 

The Mall Revitalization and Designation Act is the first step in an effort to finally 

focus the Congress on the necessary steps to give the Mall its due after decades of 

neglect and indifference. H.R. 3880 begins at the beginning—defining officially for 

the first time what we mean by the Mall, allowing for expansion of its natural contours, and taking the first steps to breathe life into a space that is meant for people 

to enjoy. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Congresswoman. And one of the ironies today I think the staff would just tell me, they were debating 

this hearing to be held here or to be held on the Mall. And sometimes you are better lucky than good, because it is raining today. 

Let me turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, for any comments he may have. No? OK. 

And I personally have no questions. And like I stated earlier, I 

would be pleased if you would join us at the dais for the rest of 

the hearing. And let me turn to Mr. Bishop if he has any questions. 

6 

Mr. BISHOP. Just thank you for your presence. I will waive any 

questions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank our colleague for the diligence with which she looks after not just the people of the District of Columbia, the nation’s capitol, but also the appearance of our nation’s capitol. And I thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. And we will be pleased if 

you would join us at the dais. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you especially for your generosity in inviting me to sit with you in Subcommittee today. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me now welcome the second panel, please. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Now we will welcome the 

second panel, and begin with Ms. Peggy O’Dell, Superintendent, 

National Mall and Memorial Parks, National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 

Superintendent, welcome. And I look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PEGGY O’DELL, SUPERINTENDENT, NATIONAL 

MALL AND MEMORIAL PARKS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. O’DELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Bishop and members of the committee. 

I am Peggy O’Dell; I am the Superintendent of the National Mall 

and Memorial Parks, and I have been with the National Mall for 

six months now, just having arrived from my previous assignment 

in St. Louis. It is an honor to be joining the National Mall during 

this critical time of National Mall planning. 

The National Mall planning process began in July of 2006, and 

it has been a very highly collaborative process. The planning team 

consists of Park staff and representatives from 19 cooperating 

agencies, such as GSA, the Smithsonian, the Architect of the Capitol, and representatives of my panel members, NCPC and the DC 

Department of Planning. 

Several public comment periods and public meetings have been 

held at each step of the planning process, as well as online opportunities to track the plan and to comment by email. 

The first newsletter and the scoping process generated 5,000 

comments from the public, which told the National Park Service 

what the public wanted to see for the future of the National Mall. 

It fell into four major categories. 

They wanted to see us improve the overall appearance of the 

National Mall. They wanted us to provide better signage. They 

want more and cleaner restrooms. And they want better variety in 

visitor facilities, such as food and beverage. 

The second newsletter summarized this public comment that was 

received during scoping, and identified planning principles that 

were developed by the Park staff and cooperating agencies. 

The third newsletter described a no-action alternative and three 

draft alternatives. We asked the public to tell us how they would 

mix and match elements from each of the three draft alternatives 

to complete a picture of the next vision for the National Mall. 

7 

Those three draft alternatives were focused on major categories 

of use that goes on at the National Mall and needs to be continued, 

focused on historic landscape and education. The second alternative 

focused on a welcoming civic space for gatherings and events and 

high-use levels. And the third alternative focused on open space, 

urban ecology, recreation, and healthy lifestyles. 

Twenty thousand comments were received after those alternatives were released, and it reinforced the need for the National 

Mall to remain a premiere site for First Amendment activities, and 

it identified the elements of each one of the alternatives that the 

public viewed as important to see as part of the final-draft alternative National Mall plan. 

The planning team is currently working through a process to 

draft a preferred alternative, taking into consideration all of the 

public comment that we have had and all of the research that has 

gone into looking at similar sites around the country and the world. 

We anticipate producing a draft preferred alternative and a draft 

environmental impact statement this year, the goal, of course, 

being that the National Mall set a standard for excellence for public spaces. 

Transportation for the National Mall is a separate planning effort that began prior to the National Mall plan, but we see it eventually becoming a part of the overall vision for the National Mall. 

Many improvements have been made in operations and management in the park as this planning process has progressed. We have 

examined best practices and management standards for similar 

sites around the country and the world. We have completed inventory and condition assessments of site furnishings and plant materials. We have conducted cultural landscape inventories. We conducted an assessment of the 2007 Cherry Blossom Festival and the 

Fourth of July celebration so that we can make improvements for 

the 2008 festivals. 

We are involved in solid waste and recycling studies, and demonstration projects for recycling are underway. We also have a turf 

management demonstration project that is underway in the grass 

panels from Third Street to Seventh Street. 

We are also very fortunate to have received the Centennial Challenge Project for the National Mall. With the generous contribution 

from the Trust for the National Mall and the Congressional appropriation, we will be able to improve signage on the National Mall 

for park visitors. 

We also have received 41 additional seasonal employees as a result of the Centennial funding, and that will result in cleaner restrooms, more frequent trash pickup, and more rangers to interact 

with the public on a daily basis. 

Chairman Grijalva and Mr. Bishop and all committee members, 

as a member of the National Park Service, I would like to thank 

you for your support for that Centennial initiative. It is going to 

make a big difference for visitors in this park this summer, and we 

are very excited to see that happen. 

This concludes my oral presentation this morning. I would like 

to submit my full testimony for the record. I am very happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Dell follows:] 

8 

Statement of Margaret O’Dell, Superintendent, National Mall & Memorial 

Parks, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the future of the National Mall and the planning efforts 

underway with our National Mall Plan. 

The National Mall—the great swath of green in the middle of our capital city and 

stretching from the foot of the United States Capitol to the Potomac River—is America’s civic stage. For more than 200 years it has symbolized our nation and its democratic values, which have inspired the world. ‘‘We the People’’ come here to celebrate 

our rights and freedoms, our history and culture, our unity and diversity, and our 

way of life. 

The origins of the National Mall are as old as the capital city itself. The open 

space and parklands envisioned by Pierre L’Enfant’s plan, which was commissioned 

by President George Washington, created an ideal stage for national expression of 

commemoration, remembrance, celebration, observance and public assembly. The 

National Mall and its grounds are of great historic significance and interest. The 

National Mall contains some of the oldest protected park lands in the National Park 

Service dating from the 1790’s. 

At the beginning of the 20th century in response to increasing development that 

was diminishing the character of this public space, Congress created the McMillan 

Park Commission to produce a plan for the Nation’s Capital which would recall 

L’Enfant’s formal design and protect the heart of the Nation’s Capital. The McMillan Plan restored the National Mall’s historic sweep and framed it with impressive 

museums and monuments that today celebrate our nation’s achievements, heroes 

and most significant events. 

The National Park Service (NPS) was given the responsibility for management of 

the National Mall by the Act of March 3, 1933 and Executive Order 6166 (1933), 

which transferred oversight of all Federal parkland in the District of Columbia to 

the NPS. The National Mall extends from the grounds of the United States Capitol 

west to the Potomac River, and from the Jefferson Memorial north to Constitution 

Avenue. Over the years there have been varying definitions of the National Mall, 

some due to differences in the actual land mass. This boundary definition is the 

commonly accepted one and is used by the NPS. It is home to the great symbols 

of our country—national icons such as the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. It also includes the Vietnam Veterans, Korean 

War Veterans and World War I and II Memorials, as well as lesser known memorials to American heroes, such as the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence 

and John Paul Jones. The National Mall also boasts beautiful open spaces such as 

the Tidal Basin where the blossoming of thousands of cherry trees heralds spring. 

Present and Future Uses of the Mall 

Millions of people visit the National Mall each year. The National Mall must function efficiently and flexibly at many levels—as the highly symbolic visual setting for 

our government; as part of the city’s circulation and transportation networks; as the 

location of the nation’s primary memorials and museums; and as the stage for national, regional, and local events and activities including organized sports such as 

softball and other recreation for city residents. 

The demands on the National Mall are constant and wide-ranging. Each year 

there are over 3,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in more 

than 14,000 event-days. These events include public demonstrations in connection 

with First Amendment rights; annual celebrations such as the National Cherry 

Blossom Festival, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Presidential memorial birthday 

celebrations, the Smithsonian Institution American Folklife Festival, Black Family 

Reunion, and the National Fourth of July Celebration; concerts and cultural programs; hundreds of events such as solar technology displays, book fairs, public employee recognition events, the laying of commemorative wreaths, reenlistment ceremonies, weddings, school group musical performances, as well as one-time events 

such as state funerals or home building displays for Hurricane Katrina victims; annual marathons and races benefiting various causes, and hundreds of recreational 

league sports. We want people to use and enjoy the Mall. These activities are appropriate and encouraged. Yet, the resulting wear and tear damages trees and turf, creates a less-than-desirable appearance of the historic landscape, and provides continual maintenance challenges. 

The message our visiting public is sending is clear. The value and fundamental 

purposes of the National Mall are clear. It is the symbol of our nation and its values; it is an essential location for First Amendment demonstrations; and it is an 

American pilgrimage destination where people come to understand our history, culVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\42475.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
9 

ture, heroes, values and way of life. In safeguarding the opportunities to participate 

in this history and to express a voice under the First Amendment, it is the NPS’s 

responsibility also to manage the National Mall in a way that can respond to increased visitation and use and accommodate suggested improvements such as improved health of the landscape and grounds, and improvements to restrooms, food 

services, bicycle facilities, and signs/maps. 

Status of the National Mall Plan 

The great public open spaces of the Nation’s Capital are managed primarily by 

the NPS through National Mall & Memorial Parks, a unit of the National Park System, an area of approximately 650 acres. A current management plan does not exist 

for this area, which contains concentrations of our nation’s memorials, cultural 

treasures and museums. The NPS is currently engaged in developing a National 

Mall Plan to guide its activities through the coming years. 

The National Mall Plan is a long-range vision plan focused on improvements related to public use, health, appearance and preservation of the historic National 

Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site. The planning process involves significant participation by approximately twenty cooperating agencies with 

review, jurisdictional or operating authority within the study area. Robust civic engagement will continue to ensure all Americans are provided with information and 

the opportunity to participate in planning a revitalized and more beautiful future 

for our nation’s grand and symbolic civic spaces. The NPS has held a series of cooperating agency workshops leading to the development of alternatives and has held 

public meetings to discuss the alternatives. These meetings and additional development work will lead to issuing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement this year. 

A Final Environmental Impact Statement should be released by the middle of 2009. 

The consultation process pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is also underway with more than 30 consulting parties involved. 

The National Mall Plan will provide the vision for a significant private/public 

partnership to restore the National Mall. This process has already begun. The NPS 

and our authorized fundraising partner, the Trust for the National Mall, are working together to begin improving signs and wayfinding in the National Mall, one of 

the first approved Centennial Initiative projects. The NPS has developed two public 

engagement video products, using donations by project media partner Discovery 

Communications. 

The vision plan will be formed by continual conversation with others in order to 

address management standards and best practices in standards of care, turf/tree 

management, benchmark standards, and events management. A number of NPS or 

consultant studies have been completed or are underway to provide information for 

planning, with some of the findings already translating into action. The following 

studies have been completed: 

• Local and National/International Best Practices studies for managing heavily 

used and historic landscapes and related Turfgrass Management. 

• Inventory and Condition Assessment: Site Furnishings and Plant Materials 

• Cultural Landscape Inventories: the Mall, Union Square, Constitution Gardens 

• Public Scoping Comments Report 

• Events Assessments—2007 National Cherry Blossom Festival and 2007 Independence Day 

• White papers—History, Legal Considerations, Issues and Objectives of Planning, Glossary 

Additionally, the following three studies are currently underway: 

• Solid waste and recycling studies and demonstrations projects 

• Turf management demonstration projects 

• National Mall Plan standards for landscape and maintenance 

Some of the cooperating agencies, the Architect of the Capitol, the District of Columbia Office of Planning, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital 

Planning Commission, and the NPS, have published a brochure, Planning Together 

for Central Washington, on coordinated vision plans, common objectives and priorities. Some of these partners also have planning and projects underway. 

Public Participation 

The scoping process began with a symposium, scoping newsletter and public meetings. During the four-month public comment period, 5,000 comments were received. 

They came in from every state in the union. Scoping typically generates far fewer 

comments. A second newsletter summarized public comment and included planning 

principles developed by the cooperating agencies. When it was determined that the 

plan needed to include an Environmental Impact Statement, additional public meetings were held. There continues to be good media announcement of public meetings. 

10 

Public comment helped cooperating agencies and the NPS develop a range of alternatives. Highlights were shared with the public in an alternatives newsletter and 

additional public meetings were held. 

The NPS has provided extensive public information regarding this planning process—Federal Register notices were published on January 16 and September 6, 

2007 and the plan was announced at a press conference on November 1, 2006; assorted media reports and releases have been issued and a public symposium was 

held on November 15; meetings were held in January 2007 and again in January 

2008. The NPS established a dedicated planning website at www.nps.gov/ 

nationalmallplan and an e-mail address at nationalmallplan@nps.gov. Newsletters 

have been posted online and distributed to visitors at events and by park rangers. 

Around 24,000 comments have been received from individuals in all states. 

The NPS is continuing to work with professional and other organizations to provide accurate planning information via their websites, e-mails and magazines. We 

have provided tours to highlight planning issues to symposium participants and organizations and to media writing articles about the plan, including a youth reporter 

from Scholastic Magazine. 

First Amendment Uses 

From the inception of this plan in July 2006, First Amendment demonstrations 

were identified as a fundamental purpose that must continue to occur on the National Mall. The First Amendment defines an essential right of citizens and the National Mall Plan in no way proposes to infringe upon that right. 

During the second public comment period, the NPS received around 17,000 comments related to First Amendment demonstrations. Newsletter 3 described alternative ways of managing events to reduce their impact. It became apparent that 

some commenters assumed the terms ‘‘event’’ and ‘‘demonstration’’ could be used 

interchangeably. For the most part, commenters were unaware of the difference between these types of gatherings and assumed that the NPS was seeking to restrict 

First Amendment demonstrations or confine them to specific locations. Nothing 

could be farther from the truth. 

The NPS is proud to be able to have a venue for demonstrations that exemplify 

a core value of our nation—Freedom of Speech as enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As stated repeatedly during planning, it is 

a fundamental purpose of the National Mall to remain as our national civic stage— 

and the court systems have reaffirmed this purpose. 

The Code of Federal Regulations regulates uses on the National Mall and the 

NPS will continue to adhere to these regulations as planning for the National Mall 

continues. The Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 7.96(g) defines the following 

terms: 

The term ‘‘demonstrations’’ includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like 

forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views 

or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has 

the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term does 

not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an 

intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers. 

The term ‘‘special events’’ includes sports events, pageants, celebrations, historical reenactments, regattas, entertainments, exhibitions, parades, fairs, 

festivals and similar events (including such events presented by the National Park Service), which are not demonstrations under the previous definition, and which are engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of 

which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. 

This term also does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists 

which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers. 

The NPS is not considering any alternatives that are not in keeping with the First 

Amendment and federal regulations. Consistent with 36 CFR 7.96, demonstrations 

and other First Amendment activities would continue to be permitted throughout 

the park on a space available, first-come first-served request basis. Consideration 

is being given to help improve venues for events and demonstrations; however, demonstrations would not be limited to specific areas, and demonstrators would not be 

prohibited from erecting stages or from any exercise of First Amendment rights that 

are currently enjoyed by demonstrators on the National Mall. Two of the alternatives would increase space available for demonstrations. At no time has the NPS 

entertained the possibility of limiting First Amendment demonstrations to specific 

areas. The NPS has communicated this at public meetings, through updating the 

public planning website and has undertaken a mass e-mailing when commenters 

have provided their e-mail address. At the request of some Members of Congress, 

11 

the NPS has also drafted a response to constituent concerns stating that we will 

be protecting First Amendment rights. 

Improving Visitor Amenities on the National Mall 

Based on an evaluation of comments and present conditions NPS is considering 

a variety of ways to make the National Mall a more comfortable, convenient, enjoyable and welcoming space. Currently NPS is designing new directional and orientation signs for pedestrians that are coordinated with the city’s wayfinding system. 

Within the National Mall Plan, pedestrian circulation alternatives address surfacing, new walks, width of walks, crosswalk improvements and pedestrian bridges 

or tunnels. There are over 1,600 public parking spaces along park roads throughout 

the National Mall, and 117 parking spaces for people with disabilities. Alternatives 

related to vehicular circulation explore metered parking, underground parking, 

parking lot or road revisions, additional parking for visitors with disabilities, and 

improvements to tour bus drop-offs. The NPS is providing additional bicycle facilities and the alternatives look at separate bicycle routes or lanes. 

Public comments indicate that additional services are desired—visitor facilities 

may be hard to find, others lack a common identity to make them readily apparent, 

and some are outdated and difficult to maintain. The NPS is currently planning the 

relocation of the Washington Monument food and gift concession to allow for the 

construction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture and 

three alternative locations are under review. Public comments also indicate that 

more variety in commercial visitor services is desired. Food service is offered at refreshment stands and mobile carts, and gifts are available at some locations. However, studies at other sites suggest that commercial services should be used to 

strengthen the identity of the NPS as well as the message of stewardship and education. The National Mall Plan looks at different types of food service that could 

provide not only relaxing experiences but also offer opportunities for additional programs and performances. 

Comments also state that restrooms are insufficient for demand and not located 

near food service outlets. Park furniture is inadequate at various times; it does not 

address the needs of groups, is not focused on views, and lacks enough shaded seating in the summer. While the Smithsonian Institution’s Arts and Industries Building is not under the NPS’s management, it has been suggested as a good site for 

a welcome center for the National Mall. Using the historic building for visitor services (food, restrooms, theater and exhibits) as well as for staging certain events in 

a climate-controlled venue, could take the pressure off other Mall resources. This 

facility is also being proposed as a site for a Latino Museum. The NPS will continue 

to follow the Smithsonian plans for the building. 

The Sylvan Theater, the lower approach way to the Lincoln Memorial, the D.C. 

War Memorial, and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial are currently used for regularly 

scheduled performances and school programs. Additional entertainment such as 

opera simulcasts, military concerts, and ‘‘Screen on the Green’’ are also offered. The 

National Mall Plan explores alternatives for additional or improved performance 

venues and programs. 

Additional recreational opportunities, such as kayaks, rowboats, model boats, and 

lawn chairs have been suggested. A commercial services plan would determine the 

feasibility of any service changes. The D.C. Recreation Department issues permits 

for league use of some ball fields. Informal games and recreation take place 

throughout the National Mall. Some people have expressed a desire for more entertainment opportunities. 

Public Health, Security and Safety Improvements 

The plan will address a number of issues, including public health, safety and welfare. While alternative specifics vary the following topics are included: pedestrian 

lighting; pedestrian street crossings/crosswalk improvements; security perimeter 

completion; public address/messages and emergency call boxes; basic services such 

as restrooms and drinking water; services for people with disabilities; relief from 

heat and humidity; providing first aid and emergency medical services; emergency 

preparedness coordination; law enforcement presence, and development of separate 

circulation systems for bicycles. 

Transportation on the Mall 

The NPS desires an affordable interpretive visitor transportation system, with 

state of-the-art equipment integrated with the existing urban transportation network to 1) serve the estimated 75 percent of visitors who are open to using in-park 

transit services; 2) reduce private vehicle congestion; and 3) meet the needs of disabled visitors. The current operator, an authorized NPS concession-operated partner, serves a million people annually. 

12 

An Environmental Assessment on a new visitor transportation system was released in November 2006. It assessed conceptual routes, areas served and methods 

of interpretation. Possible operation models include concession contract(s) and 

public/private partnership(s). The Environmental Assessment preferred alternative 

can be achieved via any operations model. The planning process actively sought private industry input, including Tourmobile, Gray Line/Martz Group, industry associations, National Tour Association, Guild of Professional Tour Guides, and Reason 

Public Policy Institute (focused on the provision of public and privatized services), 

etc. The preferred alternative reflects the following 2003 NPS visitor survey data: 

• Strong desire (53 percent) for convenience (easy to understand, links to Metro/ 

subway), 

• Metro widely used by visitors (61 percent); 25 percent of visitors have difficulty 

walking, 

• Desire for range of transit services, including interpretive tour services. 

The time required to shift to the selected approach will depend upon the selected 

management structure for future service. Current estimates range from 6-24 months 

depending upon the complexity of the transition. The current transportation concession contract has been extended until December 31, 2008. 

To preserve its treasured memorials and landscapes as well as our freedoms, the 

NPS must efficiently use available resources to improve resource conditions; raise 

the standard of care; establish a standard of quality that invites respect and generates stewardship; prepare for high levels of use; and provide for the physical 

needs, enjoyments and convenience of visitors and park users on the National Mall. 

Planning for the future will result in an experience that meets the expectations of 

millions of visitors. We accept and embrace the challenge for today’s generation, 

which is to restore the National Mall so that it will continue to symbolize the ideals 

and greatness of the United States of America. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an overview of the planning process we are undertaking 

for the National Mall. We would be pleased to provide an in-depth presentation on 

any or all aspects of the National Mall Plan and remain available to provide updates as you may wish as the planning process continues. 

That concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you or 

other members of the subcommittee might have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, without objection. Let me just say that 

I neglected to mention that the full testimony will be made part of 

the record, and any additional materials that would want to be included in that testimony will also be made part of the record. 

Let me now turn to our next panelist, Ms. Harriet Tregoning, Director, Office of Planning, Government of the District of Columbia. 

Welcome, and thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HARRIET TREGONING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

PLANNING, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

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

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the House Committee 

on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 

and Public Lands. I am Harriet Tregoning, the Director of the DC 

Office of Planning, and I am very pleased to present testimony on 

behalf of Mayor Adrian Fenty regarding the future of the National 

Mall. 

The Mall has long been an important space in the District of Columbia. Pierre L’Enfant referred to it as the vast esplanade, and 

intended it to be the symbolic heart of the District of Columbia. 

The Mall has indeed been the city’s commons, its Central Park, 

its ceremonial gathering place, its festival site, its protest grounds. 

It has also long been the southern boundary of the districts 

downtown. With downtown’s emergence over the past 10 years as 

both a real residential neighborhood and an entertainment district, 

13 

as well as the premiere office location in the region, the Mall has 

been an important part of the area’s growing vibrancy. 

However, the District of Columbia’s downtown is expected to be 

fully built out in the next five years. Mayor Fenty unveiled the Development and Quality of Life Strategy earlier this year, called the 

Center City Action Agenda, in order to continue to capture the 

growing demand for office, retail, culture, entertainment, and residential demand in our city. 

The Center City Agenda identifies an area nearly three times the 

size of the current downtown that will be home to future vibrant, 

green, and sustainable mixed-use development served by transit, 

but also designed to be walkable and bikeable. Several emerging 

neighborhoods surrounding downtown are part of the strategy. 

But the important thing is that it moves the center of the city 

south and east, to include the southeast and southwest waterfronts. It crosses the river into Anacostia. So it makes the National 

Mall no longer the lower boundary of downtown, but literally the 

center of Center City Washington. 

So we have a deep interest in the future of the Mall. We have 

been collaborating with our Federal partners on a series of efforts 

to enhance circulation and the quality of experience for residents, 

workers, and visitors to our city. 

Since 2006, several DC Government agencies, including the Office of Planning, the State Historic Preservation Office, and the 

District Department of Transportation, have been engaging with 

the National Park Service as it develops its 50-year comprehensive 

vision statement for the National Mall. Throughout this planning 

process, discussions have focused on preservation and the necessary evolution of the Mall in response to opportunities created in 

part by the revitalization of surrounding city blocks, waterfront 

destinations, and emerging neighborhoods. 

Another district collaboration with the Federal planning agencies 

resulted in a framework document called, ‘‘Planning Together for 

Central Washington,’’ that Mr. Cogbill will be talking to you more 

about, so I will leave that part. 

And for the past two years, we have been working with the 

National Capital Planning Commission, the District’s Department 

of Parks and Recreation, and the National Park Service on an effort called Capital Space. It is an effort designed so that local and 

Federal agencies can develop a comprehensive system to manage 

all the parks and open spaces in the District. 

While the National Mall is certainly an icon in the nation’s capitol city, it is also a vital city park that provides both positive and 

active recreation for local and regional workers and residents. The 

facilities and programs provided on the Mall, including more than 

6 volleyball courts, 22 baseball diamonds, 2 football fields, 3 rugby 

fields, and many more active recreational spaces, they are a big 

part of helping us meet the challenge of active recreation facilities 

in the District, and making the city one of the most livable in the 

world. 

In addition, we are currently involved in one other collaboration 

with the Park Service related to the need for improvements to 

floodplain protection in the District. Recently, FEMA highlighted 

concerns that they and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had 

14 

about an increased risk of flooding on the Mall, as well as the Federal triangle, because of deficiencies in the existing Potomac Park 

Levee, particularly at the 17th Street closure. 

With the Park Service and our other Federal partners, particularly the National Capital Planning Commission, FEMA itself, and 

GSA, we have organized an unprecedented cooperative effort that 

allows us to move very rapidly toward an immediate remedy that 

will protect the National Mall, Federal buildings, and private property, and result in construction of an improved levee system we 

hope in the next 18 months. 

These collaborative efforts have several things in common, including recognizing the need to relieve some of the pressure for 

monuments, memorials, and the increasing number of activities on 

the Mall, by making other important locations in the city visible, 

well-known, convenient, and easily accessible. And a high-performing transportation system is very important to that, providing 

convenient, safe, and equitable access to the National Mall, and allowing residents and visitors to experience the city by foot, by bike, 

by transit. And that is a goal that we all share. 

We are proud of the fact that for many of our city’s visitors, their 

very first experience on transit is in the District of Columbia. We 

aspire to enhance our transit system with cutting-edge transportation technology, and really make it possible for a walkable urban 

character way-finding, green infrastructure, and transit to support 

strong and inviting connections between the Mall and the center 

city areas. 

Together, I think we can do all of these things, realize all of our 

ambitions for the Mall, and be a model of green and sustainable 

development. 

We would like to support the vision of a management plan that 

emerges for the Mall that will afford great opportunities for enhancements to event programming, transportation, parking, visitor 

information systems and amenities, so that the city can realize its 

vision as a globally competitive, green and sustainable capitol city, 

as well as continue the Mall’s legacy as a permanent world’s fair, 

demonstrating to the United States citizens and visitors what it is 

like to experience 21st century transportation and green and sustainable development practices. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian Fenty. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tregoning follows:] 

Statement of Harriet Tregoning, Director, DC Office of Planning 

Good morning members of the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. I am Harriet Tregoning, 

Director of the District of Columbia Office of Planning and I am pleased to present 

testimony on behalf of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty regarding the future of the National 

Mall. 

Pierre L’Enfant referred to the Mall as ‘‘the vast esplanade,’’ and intended it to 

be the symbolic heart of the District of Columbia. The National Mall has been the 

city’s common, its central park, its ceremonial gathering place, its festival site, and 

its protest grounds. 

Through the years, the Mall has hosted an incredibly diverse array of activities. 

In the late 19th century, activities on the Mall included farming, canal transport, 

and a train depot. In the early 20th century, people could be found strolling in romantic gardens, picnicking on the grass, and studying botanical displays. Now, on 

15 

any given day one can find families ice skating, playing ball, listening to blues, jogging, bicycling, flying kites, watching fireworks, or viewing monuments by moonlight. 

The Mall has also hosted an amazing range of events—from the Solar Decathlon, 

the Smithsonian Folk Life Festival, and the Memorial Day concert, to marches in 

support of AIDS research, a breast cancer cure, climate change action or an end to 

famine. These events create a vibrancy that makes living in the nation’s capital a 

unique experience, with the Mall an inspiring and evolving place of exploration, 

education, and ideas. 

The Mall has long been the southern boundary of the District’s Downtown. With 

Downtown’s emergence over the past 10 years as both a real residential neighborhood and entertainment district, and as the premiere office location in the region, 

the Mall has been an important part of the area’s growing vibrancy. However, the 

District of Columbia’s Downtown will be fully built out in the next five years. Mayor 

Adrian Fenty unveiled a development and quality of life strategy earlier this year— 

the Center City Action Agenda—in order to continue to capture the growing demand 

for office, retail, culture, entertainment, and residential space. The Center City Action Agenda identifies an area nearly three times the size of the current Downtown 

that will be home to future vibrant, green, and sustainable mixed-use development 

served by transit, but also designed to be walkable and bikeable. Several emerging 

neighborhoods surrounding downtown are part of the strategy, including NoMA, the 

area north of Massachusetts where NPR and the Department of Justice recently announced their relocation; the Capital Riverfront, where the new LEED-certified Nationals baseball stadium recently opened; Hill East, along the Anacostia, east of the 

Capitol Hill neighborhood; the Southwest Waterfront; Mount Vernon; and Poplar 

Point/Anacostia. This strategy moves the center of the city south and east to include 

the southeast and southwest waterfronts and crosses the river into Anacostia. No 

longer the lower boundary of Downtown, the Mall becomes the literal center of Center City Washington. 

The District of Columbia has a deep interest in the future of the Mall. We have 

been collaborating with our federal partners on a series of efforts to enhance circulation and the quality of experiences for residents, workers, and visitors to our city. 

Since 2006, several DC Government agencies, including the DC Office of Planning, the State Historic Preservation Office (as one of the Section 106 review consulting parties) and the District Department of Transportation, have been engaging 

with the National Park Service as it develops a 50-year comprehensive vision statement for the National Mall. Throughout this planning process, discussion has focused on preservation and necessary evolution of the Mall in response to opportunities created by the revitalization of the surrounding city blocks, waterfront destinations, and emerging neighborhoods. 

Another of the District’s recent collaborations with federal planning agencies resulted in a vision framework document called ‘‘Planning Together for Central Washington,’’ which gives voice to the shared collective goals of the District and the federal agencies with responsibility for the stewardship and development of Central 

Washington, including the Mall. The DC Office of Planning, the National Park Service, the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, and 

the Architect of the Capitol envision a Central Washington that achieves: 

• Welcoming Atmosphere 

• Well-Connected Public Space 

• Distinctive Places 

• Green and Sustainable Development 

• 21st Century Transportation 

Also, for the past two years, the DC Office of Planning and the District’s Department of Parks and Recreation have been working with the National Park Service 

and the National Capital Planning Commission on a collaborative planning effort 

called CapitalSpace so that local and federal agencies can develop a comprehensive 

system to manage parks and open space located in the District. While the National 

Mall is an icon in our nation’s capital city, it is also a vital city park that provides 

both passive and active recreation for local and regional workers and residents. The 

CapitalSpace project has identified a deficiency in District-owned recreation facilities in Center City and other close-in neighborhoods. A significant challenge exists 

in an area like ours with significant growth and few land resources. The facilities 

and programs provided on the Mall—including more than six volleyball courts, 22 

baseball diamonds, two football fields, and three rugby fields—play a big part in 

helping meet this challenge, as well as making the District one of the most livable 

cities in the world. 

In addition, we are currently involved in another collaboration with the National 

Park Service related to the need for improvements to floodplain protection in the 

16 

District. Recently the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) highlighted 

concerns they and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had about an increased risk 

of flooding on the Mall, as well as the Federal Triangle and adjacent areas because 

of deficiencies in the existing Potomac Park Levee, particularly at the 17th Street 

closure. With NPS and our other federal partners including NCPC, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and General Services Administration, we have organized an unprecedented cooperative effort that has allowed us to move very rapidly 

towards immediate remedies that will protect the National Mall, federal buildings, 

and private property. We are very appreciative of our federal partners, especially 

NPS, for the spirit of cooperation, and the quality of the resources that they have 

dedicated to this effort, which we expect to result in construction of an improved 

levee system in the next 18 months. 

These collaborative efforts have several things in common, including recognizing 

the need to relieve some of the pressure for monuments, memorials, and the increasing number of activities on the Mall by making other important locations in the city 

visible, well-known, convenient, and easily accessible. In order to realize this vision, 

the parties agree that key investments in a few streets and avenues are essential. 

A high-performing transportation system that provides convenient, safe, and equitable access to the National Mall and allows residents and visitors to experience the 

city by foot, bike, or transit is a goal that is shared among the entities responsible 

for stewardship of the National Mall. We are proud of the fact that for many of our 

city’s visitors, their first experience with transit is in Washington, DC. We aspire 

to enhance our transit system with cutting edge transportation technology. Enhancing the ability for residents and visitors to get to and from the National Mall via 

4th Street, 7th Street, 14th Street, Constitution and Independence Avenues on foot, 

bicycle, and transit is a priority. A walkable urban character, way-finding information systems, green infrastructure, and transit support strong and inviting connections between the Mall and surrounding Center City areas. Along existing vehicular 

routes across the Mall, improved pedestrian access, additional street trees, groundlevel retail, and cultural activity can encourage residents to intimately experience 

on foot the nation’s most important civic space and venue for expression of democratic events and ideals. 

Part of the legacy of the Mall, dating from the McMillan plan, is the notion of 

that grand civic space as a kind of permanent world’s fair, an exposition that showcases the latest technology and industry, the finest art and cultural achievements, 

as well as the history of this country and the world. We think the Mall should continue to be that place—but now also showcasing the best in 21st century transportation, and in green and sustainable development practices—in keeping with the 

General Services Administration’s leadership and with the District’s own Green 

Building Act, the most ambitious in the nation. Transportation around the nation’s 

premier civic space in particular should be a model for the rest of the country. This 

entails designing ‘‘Complete Streets’’ that provide for the mobility of pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers in an attractive and safe environment. This also 

means a road infrastructure designed using ‘‘Green Highway’’ principles, such as 

use of recycled materials, watershed-based stormwater management, and shared 

space for motorized and non-motorized travel. In addition, 21st century energy-efficient vehicles should be provided as options for visitors to travel among tourist sites 

along the National Mall, as well as other popular destinations throughout the city, 

such as Georgetown, Dupont Circle, and Union Station. This also means re-thinking 

management of the Mall to support a strong presence of the District’s SmartBike 

program on the National Mall. Bike sharing has a host of benefits for the environment in and around the National Mall. It is carbon-free and has no negative impact 

on air quality. It combats climate change, supports green collar jobs, reduces congestion, decreases noise pollution, requires no parking spaces, provides healthy exercise, and offers residents, workers, and tourists a great way to experience and navigate the city. 

As the National Park Service prepares to celebrate one hundred years of stewardship and leadership in the management of some of the nation’s most treasured public spaces, we have arrived at an important crossroads in the history of the National 

Mall. We are transitioning from a period where the citizens of our nation primarily 

experienced national parks by visiting our country’s important wilderness areas. 

Today some of our most visited national parks are in urban communities like Golden Gate Park in San Francisco or the National Mall in Washington. These urban 

park sites are very intensely used—overused, some may say. Today, visitors have 

much higher expectations about the quality, programming, and management of 

urban parks than in previous eras. The Sculpture Garden at the National Gallery 

of Art is one park that seems to fully meet those higher expectations. Highly utilized, it is programmed for a variety of seasonally-appropriate activities, features a 

17 

prominent and lovely restaurant, offering not just sustenance, but cuisine, and it is 

meticulously maintained. However, we should examine how we might enhance the 

existing resources allocated to our national parks and the current guidelines for the 

use and management of the National Mall to meet the new expectations of its 25 

million annual visitors. Other urban parks have used public-private partnerships to 

provide for the unique and evolving needs of urban park users, including the Central Park Conservancy in New York City and the Golden Gate National Park Conservancy in San Francisco. 

Together, I think we can continue to do all this and even more. We can take further steps to be a model of green and sustainable development. In the Summer of 

2007, the Mall was host to the Solar Decathlon and recently the U.S. Botanic Garden constructed a Sustainable Schoolyard exhibit to demonstrate how green schoolyards can lead to healthy, active, green, and livable communities. It is our hope that 

the vision and management plan that emerges for the National Mall will afford 

great opportunities for enhancements to event programming, public transportation, 

parking, visitor information systems and amenities in order that the city may realize its vision as a globally competitive, green and sustainable capital city, as well 

as continue the Mall’s legacy as a permanent World Fair demonstrating to United 

States citizens and visitors what it is like to experience 21st Century transportation 

and green and sustainable development practices. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the District 

of Columbia and Mayor Adrian Fenty. I am pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Now I will ask our other 

panelist, Mr. John V. Cogbill, III, Chairman, National Capital 

Planning Commission. 

Sir, your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN V. COGBILL, III, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION 

Mr. COGBILL. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and members of 

the Subcommittee. I am John Cogbill, Chairman of the National 

Capital Planning Commission, also known as NCPC. Our agency 

serves as the Federal government’s planning agency for the 

National Capital Region. 

I welcome the opportunity to speak to you about NCPC’s role as 

it relates to the National Mall and this great capitol city. I am 

pleased to report that there is great cooperation taking place 

among the key agencies responsible for the Mall and its surrounding areas. 

NCPC, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, the National Park 

Service, the District of Columbia Government, and the Architect of 

the Capitol are closely collaborating with each other and others 

who have a vital interest in the Mall. 

Together we recently announced a joint endeavor planning together for Central Washington. Our efforts are distinct, yet reflect 

the shared objectives we have for the city and the treasured open 

space of the Mall. We know that there are continuing and increasing demands on the National Mall due to its role as a preeminent 

symbolic landscape in the country. The Mall is an historic terrain, 

as envisioned by Pierre L’Enfant and the McMillan Commission; 

but it also is an evolving landscape that must be adapted to meet 

the needs of the current and future generations. 

As part of its ongoing work to preserve and protect the Mall, 

NCPC and CFA joined forces in May of 2006 to develop the 

National Capitol Framework Plan, a comprehensive study of preVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\42475.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
18 

dominantly Federal precincts immediately surrounding the Mall. 

This initiative is one of four of the planning together projects. 

The Framework Plan will identify opportunities to create new 

and exciting cultural destinations beyond the Mall for memorials, 

museums, and public gatherings. 

The plan is being developed with the input of important stakeholders that include key Federal and local agencies, as well as the 

public. The Framework Plan seeks to preserve the open space, 

grace, and beauty of the National Mall, create desirable settings for 

new cultural destinations, and enhance the appearance and function of our public spaces; improve connections to existing and new 

destinations, and contribute to the growth and sustainability of our 

capital city. 

The initiative focuses on these key objectives: establishing the 

Federal triangle and northwest rectangle as high-quality workplaces, and workable cultural destinations; strengthening Pennsylvania Avenue’s image as Washington’s main street; transforming 

the Southwest Federal Center Precinct into a distinguished workplace and a welcoming cultural hub. And finally, establishing East 

Potomac Park as an easily accessible destination that offers expanded opportunities for commemorations, celebration, and recreation. 

By expanding the setting for new memorials and museums, enhancing the function and beauty of public space, and linking destinations, the Framework Plan can be a valuable tool to preserve 

the Mall. The Framework Plan builds upon NCPC’s extending the 

legacy and the memorials and museums master plan. Legacy is the 

visionary guide for long-term growth in the Capitol for the next 50 

to 100 years. It calls for recentering the city on the U.S. Capitol 

by distributing memorials, museums, and other new development 

on an axis with the Capitol and in emerging areas along the waterfront. 

The 2001 Memorials and Museums Master Plan aims to protect 

the Capitol city’s open space, and ensure future sites for commemoration. It identifies 100 sites throughout the city for memorials and 

museums, and called for a reserve or no-build zone on the Mall, 

which Congress enacted in 2003. 

Since its release, the Plan has guided five memorials to sites off 

the Mall. The success of the Master Plan supports the Framework 

Plan’s premise that memorial sponsors will be attracted to sites off 

the Mall, as long as these are appealing locations. Creating new 

destinations throughout Washington will ease pressure on the 

Mall, stimulate activity in other parts of the city, and encourage 

visitors to see more of our capitol city. 

The opportunities identified in the Framework Plan supports 

NCPC’s earlier efforts, and complements the work of our 

partnering agencies. Shared goals include preservation of the Mall, 

expanding the city center to the waterfront, creating distinguished 

and accessible public places, and achieving a livable and sustainable capitol city. 

Achieving a sustainable capitol will, in fact, be the focus of an 

NCPC conference in September, assembling planners from around 

the globe to explore the leadership role of capitol cities in creating 

a more sustainable community. 

19 

The Framework Plan supports efforts to increase visitor support 

facilities on or near the Mall. We are working with the Park Service as a cooperating agency on its National Mall Plan, and we are 

participating with their efforts to identify an interpretive transportation system. We are also working with the District on its Center 

City Action Agenda, which supports our efforts to draw memorial 

and museum sponsors to locations off the Mall. 

Further, the NCPC, the Park Service, and the District have 

joined together to develop a permanent levee location solution for 

the National Mall that is sensitive to the historic landscape. 

Since 1936, a levee system in the vicinity where temporary buildings were located on the Mall during World War II, has helped to 

protect Washington’s Federal buildings and downtown business district from river flooding. However, the Army Corps of Engineers 

identified a need to make the levee more reliable and effective 

against a 100-year floor. The partnering agencies recognized the 

Mall as an evolving landscape that must be adapted to meet current and future needs. 

In closing, thank you for inviting me to brief you on our continuing efforts to preserve the National Mall. We welcome the opportunity to keep you informed on the progress of the Framework 

Plan, and I work to improve the experience of those who visit, live, 

and work in our nation’s capitol. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cogbill follows:] 

Statement of John V. Cogbill, III, Chairman, 

National Capital Planning Commission 

Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and Members of the Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forest and Public Lands. My name is John Cogbill. I am the Chairman of 

the National Capital Planning Commission, also known as NCPC. The agency 

serves as the federal government’s central planning agency for the National Capital 

Region. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you about NCPC’s role in 

enhancing the future of the National Mall and burnishing Washington’s image as 

a great capital city. 

This is an ideal time to focus on the future of the Mall and central Washington. 

Currently, there is extraordinarily good coordination taking place among key agencies responsible for the Mall and its surrounding areas. 

NCPC, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, the National Park Service, the District 

of Columbia Government, and the Architect of the Capitol are closely collaborating 

with each other and others who have a vital interest in this open space. Together, 

these agencies announced a joint endeavor in February—‘‘Planning Together for 

Central Washington.’’ Our coordinated efforts are distinct; yet reflect the shared objectives we have for the city and the treasured open space of the Mall that is recognized by millions of Americans as a premier symbolic site in the nation’s capital. 

NCPC recognizes that there are continuing and increasing demands on the National Mall due to its role as the preeminent symbolic landscape in our country. The 

Mall is an historic landscape, as envisioned by Pierre L’Enfant and the McMillan 

Commission, but it also is an evolving landscape that must be adapted to meet the 

needs of current and future generations. 

In recognition of the needs of the Mall, NCPC and CFA joined forces to develop 

the National Capital Framework Plan, a comprehensive study of predominantly federal precincts immediately surrounding the Mall. This initiative is one of four of the 

Planning Together projects. The other three include the Park Service’s National 

Mall Plan, the city’s Center City Action Agenda, and the Architect of the Capitol’s 

Capitol Complex Master Plan. NCPC’s and CFA’s Framework Plan will identify opportunities to create new and exciting cultural destinations beyond the Mall for memorials, museums, and public gatherings. Launched in May 2006, the plan is being 

developed with the input of important stakeholders that include key federal and 

local agencies as well as the public. 

20 

The Framework Plan seeks to 

• Preserve the open space, grace, and beauty of the National Mall; 

• Create desirable settings for new cultural destinations and enhance the appearance and function of public spaces, streets, parks, and plazas for workers, visitors, and residents; 

• Improve connections to existing and new destinations; and 

• Contribute to the growth and sustainability of the capital city. 

The initiative focuses on the enhancement of five key areas: (1) establishing the 

Federal Triangle and the Northwest Rectangle as high-quality workplaces and 

walkable cultural destinations that are connected by beautiful and engaging public 

spaces; (2) strengthening Pennsylvania Avenue’s image as Washington’s main 

street; (3) transforming the Southwest Federal Center precinct into a distinguished 

workplace and a welcoming cultural hub and visitor destination; and, (4) establishing East Potomac Park as an easily accessible destination in Washington’s iconic 

landscape, offering expanded opportunities for commemoration, celebration, active 

recreation, and leisure activities. 

By expanding the setting for new memorials and museums, enhancing the function and beauty of public space, and linking destinations within the city, the Framework Plan can be a valuable tool to preserve the Mall. To achieve these goals, the 

plan explores beautification of public spaces; infrastructure changes; mixed-use development opportunities in precincts around the Mall; the use of federal land and 

facilities in the monumental core, and transit options between downtown, the Mall, 

and the waterfront. 

The Framework Plan respects the foundation laid by Pierre L’Enfant, designer of 

the capital city. It is an action plan that builds upon NCPC’s Extending the Legacy 

and the Memorials and Museums Master Plan. Legacy is a visionary guide for longterm growth in the capital for the next 50 to 100 years. It is the result of a multiyear collaboration with federal landholding agencies, Congress, the public, preeminent architects, planners, historians, and other experts. Legacy called for re-centering the city on the U.S. Capitol by distributing memorials, museums, and other 

new development on axis with the Capitol and in emerging areas along the waterfront. 

The Memorials and Museums Master Plan, released in 2001, aims to protect the 

capital city’s open space and ensure future sites for commemorative works by identifying 100 appropriate sites throughout the city. The Master Plan was the first tool 

designed to bring the visions outlined in Legacy to fruition. In addition to identifying alternative sites for commemorative works, the Master Plan called for the establishment of a Reserve or no-build zone on the Mall, which Congress enacted in 

2003. Since its release, the Memorials and Museums Master Plan has been instrumental in guiding five commemorative works to sites off the Mall. These include the 

U.S. Air Force Memorial overlooking the Pentagon, the Memorial to Victims of Communism (intersection of New Jersey and Massachusetts Avenue), the Thomas Masaryk Memorial (at Massachusetts and Florida Avenue), and two future memorials— 

one honoring President Eisenhower (to be located near the Air & Space Museum) 

and another honoring American Veterans Disabled for Life (along 2nd Street, SW 

across from Washington Avenue). 

The success of the Master Plan in locating commemorative works off the Mall supports the Framework Plan’s premise that memorial sponsors will be attracted to 

sites off the Mall, as long as there are appealing and exciting destination spots elsewhere in the city. Creating new destinations throughout Washington will ease pressure on the Mall, stimulate activity in other parts of the city, and encourage visitors 

to see more of central Washington. Collectively, this will broaden the public’s image 

of the nation’s capital and improve the visitor’s experience. 

The opportunities identified in the Framework Plan support and complement the 

work of the National Park Service, the District of Columbia, and the Architect of 

the Capitol, which have undertaken major initiatives for central Washington, DC. 

Shared goals include preservation of the Mall, expanding the city center to the waterfront, creating distinguished and accessible public places, and achieving a 

liveable and sustainable capital city. 

The National Park Service’s Mall Plan is a necessary tool to both preserve the 

Mall’s historic landscape and manage its physical development. As America’s symbolic front yard, the Mall must accommodate high levels of use, both in numbers 

of visitors, the volume of special events, and commemorative needs. The Mall, 

roughly 650 acres in size and framed by historic landscape, should exemplify model 

practices in environmental sustainability. We are working with the National Park 

Service as a cooperating agency on the National Mall Plan, and we have collaborated with NPS throughout the development of our Framework Plan. 

21 

NCPC also is an active participant in the National Park Service’s identification 

of a new interpretive transportation system. We strongly support an easy-to-use and 

affordable system that is integrated with the city’s urban transportation network to 

serve visitors, residents and workers. One potential future transit service that could 

be considered for the Mall is the successful DC Circulator system, first proposed in 

NCPC’s Legacy Plan. The city’s Circulator system offers frequent, affordable, and 

easy-to-use service that has the flexibility to accommodate the changing needs of the 

National Mall. NCPC, in collaboration with its partners, also seeks to improve vehicular, bicycle, and transit options between the monumental core and the center 

city, and along the waterfront. 

In addition to the Park Service’s Mall Plan, the Framework Plan also complements the District’s Center City Action Agenda, which strives to improve downtown DC and advances Washington’s identity as a world-class city. The District’s 

work to enhance the capital city supports our efforts to draw memorial and museum 

sponsors to locations away from the Mall, by creating vibrant and attractive destinations that feature a variety of mixed-uses such as retail, restaurants, offices, and 

residential dwellings. 

Further, NCPC, the Park Service, and the District have joined together to develop 

a permanent levee solution for the National Mall that is sensitive to the historic 

landscape. Since 1936, a levee system—in the vicinity where temporary buildings 

were located on the Mall during World War II—has helped to protect Washington’s 

federal buildings and downtown business district from river flooding. However, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified a need to make the levee more reliable and 

effective against a 100-year flood. The partnering agencies recognize that the Mall 

is an evolving landscape that must be adapted to meet current and future needs. 

We are committed to collaborating with our federal and local stakeholders to design 

and construct an interim fix to this problem and to identify potential permanent solutions. 

NCPC shares the concerns voiced by Congressional members, the National Park 

Service, and the American people regarding the need to protect this historic terrain 

and ensure the availability of visitor support facilities on or near the Mall. The 

Framework Plan supports efforts to increase food service, restrooms, seating, and 

signage on the Mall and in adjacent areas in order to help create a world-class experience for the millions of annual visitors from home and abroad. Americans take 

proud ownership of the National Mall for many reasons, and we must ensure that 

they are inspired by their visit. 

NCPC and CFA are currently preparing a draft of the Framework Plan for public 

review and comment. The plan has benefited from public input at several public 

meetings and from coordination with many federal and District of Columbia agencies. A 16-member interagency Steering Committee also is providing oversight to the 

planning process. We intend to present the draft to the interagency Steering Committee on June 2. A final draft will then be presented to both Commissions and released to the public for review and comment. Following public comment, staff will 

refine the plan as appropriate and seek final approval from NCPC and CFA. 

Thank you for inviting me to share NCPC’s work on the National Mall and to 

brief you on our continuing efforts to develop the National Capital Framework Plan. 

We welcome the opportunity to keep you informed of our progress on the Framework Plan and as well as our collaborative efforts with our partners to improve the 

image of the nation’s capital and the experience of those who visit, live, and work 

in Washington, DC. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Let me begin with you, Mr. 

Cogbill, and comment that you made in your testimony. 

Since establishing the reserve and shepherding all the new memorials into other areas of the city, how have these new memorial 

locations been, throughout the city, been received by those seeking 

to establish the new memorials, number one? And number two, is 

there a member of the city under these new guidelines that seems 

to be more popular in the establishment of these memorials? 

Mr. COGBILL. Well, we had great success with the 2-M Plan. We 

actually had five memorials that have come before us, and have 

now been considered, and are actually going to be located off the 

Mall, three currently in existence. The Air Force Memorial at the 

Pentagon is one. The Victims of Communism Memorial, which was 

22 

established in 2007 at New Jersey and Massachusetts Avenue; the 

Thomas Masaryk Memorial, who was the first president of Czechoslovakia, has been established. And we currently have looked at 

plans and are working with those who would propose to build the 

monument to President Eisenhower, and also the veterans disabled 

for life. Both of those have a picked site, all of those have picked 

sites from the 2-M Plan. And we have continuing interest in people 

coming before us. 

The second part of your question, we believe this has been well 

received. What has the effect of is making people focus on areas 

outside of the reserve, realizing that there are very distinguished 

sites available within the city that can be used. And by having this 

book available to them, they understand and appreciate the viability of these sites. And it enhances the visitor experience in Washington. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Tregoning, let me, a couple of 

questions. 

Do you think that the needs of local residents are in conflict 

with, as we talk about this planning process and the future of the 

Mall, are they in conflict with the need of visitors, tourists? 

Ms. TREGONING. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that they are in 

conflict. If you ask me could they be better integrated, could the 

means of the visitors and the residents be better integrated, I 

would have to say yes, they could, particularly where it concerns 

transportation. 

Right now we do have more or less separate transportation systems for visitors with interpretive services, versus the transit that 

serves other parts of the city. We have a relatively new premium 

transit service called the DC Circulator, and we have designated a 

new route that goes to the Mall, particularly on weekends, to try 

to accomplish some of our common planning goals, which includes 

getting people to experience other parts of the city than just the 

Mall, which helps to relieve some of that pressure to always be 

there on the Mall. And frankly, enjoy the many revitalizing and exciting neighborhoods around the city. And I think there is opportunity to do more of that integration. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Then back to that same question. So do you, is the 

Mall seen by local residents as more, as more important as an 

urban green space? Or as more important as a memorial landscape? 

Ms. TREGONING. I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, that even 

for long-time Washington residents, I think it is important as both 

of those things. That, you know, people are very, very proud of the 

nationally significant events that happen on the Mall, and participate in a lot of them. And that is really a source of great pride and 

inspiration about living here in Washington. 

But it is also true that, you know, being able to have a Saturday 

morning softball game, or do some recreational activities after 

work, or jog along the Mall, that is an important part of the quality 

of life that Washington citizens enjoy, and that visitors also get to 

take part in. So I would hate to savor one thing at the exclusion 

of the other. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. As a non-Federal entity working with all these 

Federal partners in this process, how would you characterize the 

23 

level of collaboration and cooperation of all these agencies involved 

in the planning process? 

Ms. TREGONING. I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have 

only been with the District Government for about a year and a 

half; but from everything that I understand, I think that we are 

enjoying a time of unprecedented cooperation and collaboration, 

and a great commonality in some of our goals, some of our planning goals. And particularly our transportation goals. 

So I would have to say it is a very favorable climate. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. My time is winding down. 

If I have an opportunity to ask some questions of the superintendent. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Are these new mics? You guys are 

spending money all over the place, aren’t you, here? It is a good 

thing it wasn’t in the supplemental. 

Mr. Cogbill and Ms. Tregoning—is that proper? Good. As I have 

heard your oral testimony, you have talked about the vision of expanding sites so that people are visiting other areas rather than 

the Mall, as well as the cooperation. I would just congratulate you 

on that. It sounds as if the cooperative nature between the Federal 

government and the city is working well, and you have a good vision. 

I think the idea of expanding to other sites and emphasizing 

other sites within Washington is a marvelous plan. And I appreciate the testimony you have given so far. It is one that I think is 

very positive. So thank you for your presentation, and I urge you 

to push forward with that vision you have enunciated today in your 

oral testimony. 

Ms. O’Dell, the public comment needs that you recited from the 

Mall area seems to be the same needs that I have heard on every, 

every national park that we have. Are you treating this Mall differently than any other national parks, as far as this public process 

or this planning process? 

Ms. O’DELL. I believe that we are following the National Park 

Service process for planning, and that we are putting a heavy emphasis on public involvement. And we have chosen to extend public 

comment periods to let more people put their voice forward for our 

planning effort. And we intend to go forward with more public involvement and public comment periods as the plan develops. 

So I believe we are on track with the National Park Service’s approved planning process, and that we will always err on the side 

of more public involvement than less. 

Mr. BISHOP. The 41 seasonal employees that you have added, 

what kinds of jobs are these? 

Ms. TREGONING. We have maintenance employees, basically laborers. We have resource management employees who are doing 

more specific maintenance at monuments and memorials. And then 

we have park rangers to do interpretation and education. 

Mr. BISHOP. How many rangers of that 41 would there be, roughly? 

Ms. TREGONING. About 20. 

Mr. BISHOP. About half and half, then. 

Ms. TREGONING. Yes. Approximately, yes, sir. 

24 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that very much. I just have two other 

comments. In fact, in the morning I brought seven members of the 

German Bundestag to one of the national parks; we flew in late 

last night. 

The things that you all need to work on in the future are what 

you have already identified: that is, access to the malls. 

Ms. TREGONING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. You know, parking abilities, or those alternatives for 

parking, that has to be there. And the second is obviously the condition of the Mall. 

I am on the softball league, and I enjoy playing out there. So I 

would urge you not to take our fields during the summer, and I 

would urge the Chairman to make sure votes don’t go later than 

6:00 on a Wednesday night. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. For the months we would get off at 3:00, and all of 

a sudden softball season starts and you screwed me over three 

weeks in a row. There better not be a fourth, that is all I can say. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you for having this hearing this morning. I 

have been in Washington for 32 years, and have a great love of the 

open spaces of the Mall. And I commend all of you for working together. I think it takes a great cooperative effort. And all I can say 

right here is to encourage you to continue that. You are not competitors; you are people who want to enhance everyone’s experience 

on the Mall, and maintain the nature of the Mall with some of the 

additions that we do put there. And I think I just want to commend 

you for that cooperative attitude among yourselves, and urge you 

to continue that in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Brown, do you, any questions? Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a couple of—the 

Mall is, obviously has many, many different kinds of uses, and that 

have been tough on the landscape. And what I want to ask is, what 

is going into the plan that will look after the maintenance of the 

trees? One particular area that I have in mind is Constitutional 

Gardens, at the, I guess it is the west end of the Mall. At the time 

of the Bicentennial in 1976, that area was designed in keeping with 

the event planned. Those trees are now more than 30 years old. 

They are all stunted, and it does not look like the mature forest 

that it should be turning into. 

Our colleague, Ms. Holmes Norton, spoke about the need for 

shade, and to appreciate the Mall. It really is at a premium. And 

part of the problem is that the drainage, the soil preparation, and 

the maintenance simply has not been done in Constitutional Gardens, as one example. 

And I wanted to know, in addition to all the attention to the memorials and the buildings, what attention is being paid to the 

trees? And that will be for all three of you. 

Ms. O’DELL. May I begin? I believe that as part of the planning 

process for the Mall, as we look at other places around the country 

and around the world, we look at their best practices of how they 

25 

maintain their turf, how they maintain their trees, and how they 

maintain their monuments and memorials. 

And we are trying to learn from other places that have better results than we are currently having on the National Mall. So we are 

looking for better practices. 

And as the Superintendent of the National Mall, that is where 

I need to start. I need to question our assumptions about the maintenance program that we currently have, and try and figure out 

how we can do better with the resources that we currently have. 

And the Natural Resources is a very strong point of conversation 

with the planning team and with our consulting parties, who all 

share the desire to maintain that historic landscape, those historic 

trees; who provide the amenities for visitors as they visit the 

National Mall. 

Mr. HOLT. Ms. Tregoning? 

Ms. TREGONING. Thank you, Mr. Holt. We don’t have the jurisdictions to plant trees on the Mall, but I can tell you that the tree 

canopy in Washington, D.C. is a very important issue for us. And 

we are, we have efforts underway right now, in collaboration with 

some important non-profit partners, including the Casey Trees 

Foundation, to restore the tree canopy in Washington, D.C. because 

of the many benefits, as I believe you know, trees provide, including stormwater management, reducing the urban heat island effect, 

carbon sequestration, and simply providing important shade and, 

and traffic calming, if you will, if you want to look at the effect that 

trees have helping to create a street edge along our major city 

streets. So we are certainly very supportive of any efforts of the 

Park Service or our other Federal partners to do tree planting, and 

to maintain and nurture their trees. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Cogbill? 

Mr. COGBILL. I will respond in three different areas. First on the 

Mall. The National Capital Planning Commission worked closely 

with the construction of the World War II Memorial to make sure 

that the elm roots were trimmed back. That was part of the plan, 

overseen by the Park Service; and that was very helpful in keeping 

those trees alive. 

The same advice had been given to the Vietnam Veterans’ visitor 

folks to do the same things, to make sure that we preserved those 

trees. 

With respect to other spots in the city, we were actually working, 

when we did Pennsylvania Avenue and did the improvements 

there, we specifically went out and purchased disease-resistant 

elms so that we would have a much better likelihood of them surviving. 

And finally, we did also work with the city in the Casey Foundation in doing the tree inventory for the city. And that would also 

be reflected in what we are working with now through Capital 

Space. 

Mr. HOLT. Let me just also ask the Park Service, as you plan 

events or issue permits for events, that you steer those events that 

are incompatible with preservation of trees, and that might damage 

the tree roots, to areas, to areas that are better suited for those activities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

26 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don’t have any 

questions. I am here to learn. I don’t envy the task you have before 

you in terms of coordinating all the different perspectives and demands there are for use of the Mall. It is obviously not just a treasure for the District, but it is a treasure for the nation. To balance 

those continued demands is no small feat. So I will continue to listen with interest. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Ms. Holmes Norton, questions, 

comments? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a 

few questions. 

The Mall has always been crime-free. There was a terrible exception a couple years ago when there were a number of assaults on 

the Mall, specifically with handguns, walking and talking to the 

Park Police, one of the bad assets of the nation’s capitol also as neglected as the Mall itself is. And one of the reasons for these assaults is lighting frankly. In fact, I think that was the major reason 

for the assaults. 

Let me ask you about some specific lighting. What was astonishing to me, and I think there was some effort made to put temporary lighting, was that in this long, beautiful, beautiful walkway 

between the Lincoln Memorial and the World War II memorial, it 

was absolutely dark. Not a single light. 

Now, of course, the assaults didn’t happen there. They happened 

where the lights were dim and there were bushes also. I hope you 

are not waiting for the Trust to get lighting on the Mall as we get 

to the tourist season and as we face the possibility that we can 

have more crime going on. Is there permanent lighting between 

those two great memorials? 

Ms. O’DELL. The lighting that was installed right after those assaults is still in place, Congresswoman, and it is functional. 

And—— 

Ms. NORTON. But it is not permanent yet. 

Ms. O’DELL. No, ma’am, it is not permanent yet. We do have 

funding requests in place to create permanent lighting as well as 

improve the landscape between Lincoln and the World War II Memorial. But we do make certain that those temporary lighting that 

were installed are functioning. 

Ms. NORTON. There was a knifing apparently yesterday at Third 

and Jefferson Street, very close to the Capitol. I don’t know if those 

were teenagers or what in the world happened. Can you give us a 

report on that assault? 

Ms. O’DELL. Yes, ma’am. I heard from the U.S. Park Police this 

morning. They were juveniles. The stabbing apparently happened 

at a Metro station, and the victim, who was stabbed, chased his assailants into the National Mall, where the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police and the U.S. Park Police, were able to work the incident. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I congratulate them for, that it didn’t happen 

right on the Mall. 

And Ms. O’Dell, you have a very heavy burden with respect to 

what are the proposals that you have, that the Park Service has 

come forward with. 

27 

First of all, the first burden is apparently to pave over the reflecting pool. Is that right? Is that what you are going to do? 

Ms. O’DELL. There is an alternative in one of the plans to make 

the reflecting pool by the Capitol drainable, so they can use it for 

hard space, or it can have water in it. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, they do have a reflecting pool, but you drain 

the water out sometimes? 

Ms. O’DELL. Yes, ma’am, that is an alternative. 

Ms. NORTON. I think you have to be very careful about that alternative. But I am concerned that the ruckus that has been kicked 

up about why they are doing this, why do you wish to confine many 

of these to a drained reflecting pool? And will you assure me that 

the drained water, the water would be promptly put back in the 

reflecting pool? 

Ms. O’DELL. I think a lot of the concern about events was articulated by members of the committee, that events are hard on the 

turf. And we are trying to find ways and look at alternatives that 

will preserve the turf, as well as allow for large-scale events. 

There have been no proposals in any of the draft alternatives 

that would limit activities to any certain places on the ground. We 

are looking at whether or not a hardscape location would be beneficial for events, or whether or not it would not be beneficial. And 

that is why it is a proposal and a draft alternative, so that we can 

hear the public’s thoughts and comments on that, have it be considered by the planning team and determine if there is benefit to create space like that or not. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. O’Dell, I couldn’t somehow ignore the initial 

upkeep on the turf, but the events that do the most damage are 

the events that tourists, residents, perhaps most come to see. What 

are you going to do? Move the Folklife Festival or the Seymour 

Holmes Decathlon to the reflecting pool? That is where the turf— 

I mean, you have, we can’t have more than—you tell me, how 

many demonstrations do we have each year that make use of the 

grounds? Large demonstrations. 

Ms. O’DELL. We have roughly 3,000 events that are permitted on 

the National Mall. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to know how many large events. 

Ms. O’DELL. There is probably 10 to a dozen large-scale events 

that happen in—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I think the burden on you is to show that. 

Are you going to move the Folklife Festival or not? Are you going 

to move the Seymour Holmes Decathlon or not? Is there a proposal 

to do that as well? 

Ms. O’DELL. There is not a proposal at this moment in time to 

relocate any of those current events to different locations. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, in many running events, they dig into the 

earth. If you want to know what really, in fact, causes damage, I 

think you ought to look there first. I think paving over is a very 

radical thing to do. And, of course, it seems to me that if you look 

at the cost of draining it and putting it back, putting the water 

back, and let me go to transportation if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask, I guess this is also, this is for Ms. Tregoning, 

and it is also for you, Ms. O’Dell. We have this long alternative bill, 

of course, that was approved, that was the carbon footprint phase. 

28 

Is that the kind of vehicle we have to continue to use for tourists 

on the Mall, or are you considering smaller, perhaps alternativefuel vehicles among the nonstandard? 

Ms. O’DELL. We would be very interested in sustainable and 

green technology as we move forward with transportational—— 

Ms. NORTON. What is the state of, what is the state of the contract? 

Ms. O’DELL. The contract will expire in December of 2008. And 

we are considering what we will consider alternative transportation 

vehicles, and we are in the process of studying the transportation 

needs, working with our colleagues on NCPC and the District to 

determine how better to connect with existing public transportation, and how to have affordable transportation for visitors who 

want to get around the Mall. As well as maintain our interpretive 

educational function that is part of our current transportation offering. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Tregoning, these buses, these huge buses along 

the Mall, they park in the Mall, they let people off at the Mall. And 

if you talk with them, they will say the District of Columbia doesn’t 

provide them with anyplace to park, so what are they to do? What 

is your response to that? And do we have the same problem with 

the convention, with the opening of the new, of the new park and 

the Capitol? 

Ms. TREGONING. Congresswoman, we are absolutely looking for 

places in the city where we could consolidate the tour bus parking, 

because I think it is problematic in many different parts of the city. 

But I will emphasize what Ms. O’Dell just stated, that we think 

that there is an opportunity to provide a lot more choices to visitors 

on the Mall. The Tourmobile has been a great thing for people who 

want to have a tour of the monuments and want that interpretive 

service. But for a lot of visitors, especially a lot of frequent visitors 

to Washington, they don’t necessarily need to have those interpretive services on every trip, but they would love to be able to get 

to a lot of destinations around the Mall, and also to be able to integrate those Mall trips and visits to museums with more of an experience of city life, at DuPont Circle, or at Georgetown, or in Penn 

Quarter or Gallery Place, or many of the other emerging neighborhoods, the Southwest waterfront. 

So we think that there is an opportunity to do a much better job 

of integrating those transportation services. And because the 25 

million visitors that come to Washington every year, a lot of them 

come from places that don’t have our level of transportation services. So we are starting something called Smart Bikes next month, 

where you can basically do bike-sharing, take a bike trip for an 

hour. That is the perfect way to see sites along the Mall. 

So we are really looking—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Thank you, and I hate to interrupt—— 

[Electronic interference.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA.—allocated for questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And let me turn to, I don’t have any 

follow-up questions. I will, Ms. O’Dell, submit my questions in writing so we can—I didn’t have a chance to ask you—it has to do with 

29 

staffing, has to do with park rangers and safety issues, has to do 

with the social and the floor plans. There is a mutual exclusivity 

to them, and I would like you to respond to that assertion. 

I don’t have any follow-ups. Mine will be in writing. And Mr. 

Bishop? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Does anyone on the panel have any follow-up 

questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With that, let me thank you very much, and welcome the next panel. 

Ms. O’DELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Let me welcome our last 

panel, and thank you for your patience. Five minutes of testimony, 

and your full testimony will be submitted, will be part of the 

record, as well as any additional material you feel you need to provide for us. 

Let me begin with Mr. Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director, American 

Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area. Welcome, sir. 

Your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR B. SPITZER, LEGAL DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATIONAL 

CAPITAL AREA 

Mr. SPITZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We appreciate the invitation to testify here today. 

Our focus really is a much narrower one than those of the other 

witnesses. And I have learned a lot already by listening to what 

they have had to say. 

The Mall is obviously a place of many important uses, and has 

many challenges confronting it for the next several decades. We 

have heard about the need for better access, better signage, better 

restrooms, protecting the turf, better lighting. The ACLU certainly 

has no quarrel with any of those needs and goals. Speaking as an 

American citizen and a local resident, I am in favor of all of those 

things. I am a regular visitor to the Mall not only in my capacity 

as an ACLU lawyer, but as a local citizen. 

But our particular focus, of course, is on the use of the Mall as 

a form for free expression and First Amendment activity; and our, 

the point we wanted to emphasize here this morning is just that 

that particular use of the Mall is one that must be kept firmly in 

mind as a primary and Constitutionally protected use of the Mall 

area. 

As the Courts have recognized over many years, the Mall is perhaps America’s premiere First Amendment forum. Groups of all 

kinds and sizes and shapes have come here, local groups and 

groups from around the country, when they feel strongly the need 

to communicate to their government with their presence; not just 

by letters, not just by emails, not just by hiring a lawyer, to be a 

lobbyist, but to actually come here and demonstrate through their 

presence, through the efforts they make through their travel, how 

important some issue is to them. 

30 

And the Mall is really the place for that kind of activity. Of 

course, Lafayette Park and the White House sidewalk are important places, the Ellipse Zone is an important place for marches 

down Pennsylvania Avenue and Independence Avenue and other 

places in the city, all of which are important and Constitutionally 

protected. 

But in particular for the very largest demonstrations, ranging 

from Martin Luther King’s march on Washington for jobs and freedom back in 1963 with the famous ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ speech, to the 

Million Man march in 1995, the Promise Keepers Rally in 1997, 

the Million Mom March against gun violence in 2000, and even the 

celebration of the Mass on the Mall by Pope John Paul II back in 

1979, the Mall is the only place where these very large gatherings 

can be held. And we think it is essential that everyone keep in 

mind the necessary purpose of the Mall as a locus for those kinds 

of activities. 

And I am happy to hear that no one seems to disagree with that 

proposition. Of course, protecting the trees and the turf is important, but as Congresswoman Norton just pointed out in her questions a few moments ago, First Amendment activity is not really 

the activity that poses the great danger to those things, things like 

the Folklife Festival and the Solar Homes Decathlon that lasts for 

weeks, that put tent stakes deep into the ground, that cover large 

areas of the surface with food service areas and dance floors and 

heavy equipment and vehicles, are much more of a challenge. 

I am happy to say that although back in the sixties and the seventies there was a lot of conflict between the ACLU, representing 

various demonstrators, and the National Park Service about demonstrations in Washington, D.C., in recent years the Park Service 

has been much more hospitable, welcoming and facilitating to those 

kinds of activities. Our experiences with them have been good, and 

we certainly hope and expect that will continue. And we certainly 

hope that the committee will keep carefully in mind, as all these 

processes go forward, the important need to protect First Amendment activity in the National Mall. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spitzer follows:] 

Statement of Arthur B. Spitzer, Legal Director, 

American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area 

Chairman Grijalva and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, which is the local affiliate 

of the ACLU, a nationwide, nonprofit organization representing more than 500,000 

Americans who believe that the protection of civil liberties and civil rights—including the freedoms of speech and petition enshrined in the First Amendment—are 

among our Nation’s proudest achievements. 

Those achievements are not self-protecting, however. As we have all learned, they 

must be actively guarded against the constant pressure of competing interests. As 

the National Park Service considers a new long-term plan for the National Mall, it 

must therefore bear in mind the essential role the Mall has played in the life of 

our democracy as a location for First Amendment expression. 

Americans have a constitutional right ‘‘peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 

Government for a redress of grievances.’’ As the Founders recognized, freedom of 

speech and the right to assemble peacefully are indispensable characteristics of a 

government of, by and for the People. When Americans feel the need to communicate emphatically with their government, they have the right to come here, to the 

Seat of Government, to communicate in person, with their bodies. No one can deny 

31 

that an assembly of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people communicates 

a powerful message about the breadth and depth of feeling behind an issue, in a 

way that letters or e-mails, or even hiring a lobbyist, simply do not. 

Public parks in Washington, D.C., and throughout the nation, serve as vital public 

forums for the exchange of ideas and public discourse. The Supreme Court recognized that fact, and its constitutional dimension, nearly seventy years ago: ‘‘Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in 

trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes 

of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part 

of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.’’ Hague v. CIO, 307 

U.S. 496, 515 (1939). Such ‘‘traditional public forums’’ receive the highest level of 

First Amendment protection: ‘‘In such places, the government’s ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited.’’ United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 

171, 177 (1983) (striking down ban on demonstrations on the sidewalks surrounding 

the Supreme Court). 

The Nation’s Capital is a location where the exercise of these historic liberties is 

particularly appropriate and essential. There is both symbolic meaning and functional practicality in the People’s ability and right to voice their concerns in the 

place where political decisions are made and public policy is enacted and carried 

out. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has 

noted, ‘‘the general concepts of First Amendment freedoms are given added impetus 

as to speech and peaceful demonstration in Washington, D.C., by the clause of the 

Constitution which assures citizens of their right to assemble peaceably at the seat 

of government and present grievances.’’ A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 460 F.2d 

854, 859 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Indeed, the exercise of these rights in proximity to the 

Capitol or the White House is ‘‘of undoubted importance in the constitutional balance,’’ for this is ‘‘where a petition for redress of national grievances must literally 

be brought.’’ Women Strike for Peace v. Morton, 472 F.2d 1273, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 

1972). 

Thus, the courts have consistently upheld the First Amendment right to demonstrate peacefully in public areas in the nation’s capital, including the Ellipse, 

Women Strike for Peace v. Morton; Lafayette Park and the White House sidewalk, 

A Quaker Action Group v. Hickel, 421 F.2d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 1969); the Supreme 

Court sidewalk, United States v. Grace, supra, the Capitol Grounds where we sit 

this morning, Chief of Capitol Police v. Jeannette Rankin Brigade, 409 U.S. 972 

(1972) (summarily affirming 342 F. Supp. 575 (D.D.C. 1972)); and of course the National Mall, ISCKON of Potomac v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Henderson v. Lujan, 964 F.2d 1179 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The right to assemble for First Amendment purposes in these places has been upheld against governmental claims that 

such activity would create a risk of terrorism, Lederman v. United States, 291 F.3d 

36 (D.C. Cir. 2002), impair presidential security, A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 

460 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1972), or interfere with the ‘‘‘peace,’ ‘serenity,’ ‘majesty,’ 

maintenance of a ‘park-like setting,’ and the ‘glorification of a form of government 

through visual enhancement of its public buildings.’’’ Jeannette Rankin Brigade, 342 

F. Supp. at 585. 

The National Mall stretches for nearly two miles between the U.S. Capitol and 

the Lincoln Memorial. ISKCON, 61 F.3d at 951. The National Park Service refers 

to it as ‘‘America’s national civic space.’’ NPS National Mall Newsletter Fall/Winter 

2007. While many public parks in the nation’s capital are utilized for the purposes 

of free speech and assembly, the National Mall’s size and central location make it 

‘‘an area of particular significance in the life of the Capital and the Nation,’’ 

ISKCON, 61 F.3d at 951, where many of the nation’s most historic demonstrations 

have taken place. ‘‘It is here that the constitutional rights of speech and peaceful 

assembly find their fullest expression.’’ Id. 

The Mall thus has a long tradition of use as a forum for speech and assembly 

by a wide variety of groups with a diverse array of viewpoints. A few examples will 

illustrate this breadth of this impressive history. 

In 1939, when African-American Marian Anderson was barred from performing at 

privately owned Constitution Hall, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and the NAACP 

organized an Easter Sunday concert on the grounds of the Lincoln Memorial. More 

than 75,000 people turned out to hear her sing, one of the largest crowds to have 

gathered on the Mall up to that time. 

In August 1963, the Lincoln Memorial was also the site of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, with more than 200,000 participants hearing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s historic ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ speech. 

In the 1971 ‘‘Mayday’’ demonstrations, more than 500,000 Americans came to 

Washington to lobby Congress and protest against the Vietnam War. Although the 

32 

vast majority were peaceful, more than 13,000 were arrested—arrests later declared 

unconstitutional in ACLU litigation. Sullivan v. Murphy, 478 F.2d 938 (D.C. Cir.), 

cert. denied, 414 U.S. 880 (1973); Dellums v Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1977), 

cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 (1978). 

In 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992 and 1996, the AIDS Memorial Quilt was displayed in 

its entirety on the National Mall—the only place it has ever been displayed in its 

entirety. The first display was during the National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, which drew half a million participants. By the time of the last 

display, in October 1996, the quilt covered the entire eastern half of the Mall, from 

the Capitol to the grounds of the Washington Monument. There is probably no other 

public forum in the nation that could have accommodated it. 

In October 1995, nearly four hundred thousand African-American men gathered 

on the National Mall for the Million Man March, stretching from the foot of the 

Capitol to the base of the Washington Monument. 

In October 1997, the Mall was as the location of ‘‘Stand in the Gap,’’ a gathering 

of perhaps a million Christian men organized by the Promise Keepers organization. 

On Mother’s Day 2000, an estimated 500,000 people gathered for the Million Mom 

March, organized after the shootings at Colorado’s Columbine High School, to foster 

handgun violence awareness. 

Every January 22, the Mall serves as the starting place for the March for Life, 

protesting the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). On 

the other side of the same issue, the pro-choice March for Women’s Lives filled the 

Mall in April 2004. 

The Mall has even hosted a celebration of the Mass by Pope John Paul II on a 

Sunday in October 1979. Although that event was challenged by individuals who alleged that it constituted a prohibited ‘‘establishment’’ of religion, that challenge was 

rejected by the court, which explained that ‘‘the National Mall is a public park that 

has regularly been made available to all major demonstrations presenting First 

Amendment values. That is the non-discriminatory policy of the government, 

evolved in accordance with rulings of this court. The government has applied this 

policy not only to purely secular uses, but for uses by religious groups.’’ O’Hair v. 

Andrus, 613 F.2d 931, 937 (D.C. Cir. 1979). (The ACLU of the National Capital Area 

filed a brief in that case supporting the Pope’s right to use the Mall, as a public 

forum.) 

Of course not all demonstrations on the Mall are of the same magnitude. Each 

year the National Mall & Memorial Parks area hosts nearly 3,000 events ‘‘ranging 

from parades to national days of tribute and observance to public demonstrations.’’ 

NPS Park Spotlight, available at http://www.nps.gov/parkoftheweek/. But every one 

is important to those who participate, and to those who are exposed to new ideas 

and opinions. 

This is a history of which we should all be proud—and a tradition that we should 

all wish to see continue undiluted. 

The National Park Service is charged both with protecting the Mall as a place 

of beauty and majesty, and with protecting its availability for use by the American 

people for First Amendment activities and such other uses as Congress sees fit to 

allow, such as motion picture projections, kite-flying competitions, the Smithsonian 

Folklife Festival, and displays of solar houses. We have no quarrel with any of those 

activities, and we certainly have no quarrel with the Trust for the National Mall’s 

laudible goals of restoring and preserving the Mall’s structural elements and creating educational programs and events to enhance the experience of visitors. But 

what the National Park Service, the Trust for the National Mall, and the Congress, 

must not ignore is the fact that, of all the activities that take place on the Mall, 

only one is a matter of constitutional right. 

It may be true, for example, that First Amendment assemblies can cause some 

damage to the turf—but certainly not as much as such long-running events such 

as the Folklife Festival or the solar homes decathlon (see www.solardecathlon.org), 

which bring tens of thousands of people to the Mall for days and weeks at a time, 

complete with heavy equipment, enormous tents, stages, dance floors, food service 

areas and the like. By comparison, a few hours’ presence by even hundreds of thousands of pedestrian demonstrators is not where the problem lies. 

One option that the National Park Service reportedly has under consideration is 

paving Union Square, at the west foot of the Capitol, and making it a special venue 

for demonstrations. See Michael E. Ruane, The Battle to Remold the Mall, Preservation Proposals Spark Debate Over Protest Rights, The Washington Post, January 

20, 2008. While some groups might find such a venue appropriate, others may not— 

sitting for hours on a shadeless concrete pad on a hot summer day seems more akin 

to punishment than to freedom. 

33 

In our view, to the extent that public use of the Mall must be limited for the purpose of protecting natural resources, the Mall’s availability as a forum for First 

Amendment assemblies must take priority. There is no constitutional right to watch 

movies on the Mall, to fly kites on the Mall, to display solar homes on the Mall, 

or to erect food service tents and picnic tables on the Mall. There is a constitutional 

right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances on the National Mall. 

The ACLU has registered as a consulting party in the Park Service’s planning 

process, and we hope to participate actively in that effort. We know that this subcommittee will continue to provide legislative oversight of that process, and we respectfully urge the subcommittee to bear in mind, and to communicate to the Park 

Service, the primary importance of the National Mall as the epicenter, so to speak, 

for the American people’s exercise of the vital First Amendment rights of assembly 

and petition. 

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions that you 

may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Judy Scott Feldman, Dr. Feldman, President, National Coalition 

to Save Our Mall. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF JUDY SCOTT FELDMAN, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL COALITION TO SAVE OUR MALL 

Ms. FELDMAN. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and committee 

members. 

I am Dr. Judy Scott Feldman, founding member and President 

of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, an independent citizens’ nonprofit formed in 2000 to provide an organized voice for the 

public in Mall matters. 

In 2007 our coalition created a new nonprofit, the National Mall 

Conservancy, to fill gaps in Mall programming. Our inspiration 

was New York City’s Central Park Conservancy, where they visited 

last week. 

Some of our projects include our Friendly Mall Map and Recreation Guide. We have copies for each of you, and programs including the Mallwide Recycling Program, a visitors center and education of tourists. 

I was born and raised in Washington. My father worked in the 

Senate as Staff Director in the Appropriations Committee. The 

National Mall and Capitol Hill are part of my fondest memories 

growing up. 

With the committee’s OK, I will submit my testimony for the 

record, and summarize my main points. 

As much as we welcome the flow of attention to the National 

Mall by several NDC planners and the interest and good work of 

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, these efforts are piecemeal, and lack any true vision for the future of this nationally significant symbolic landscape. 

In short, the Coalition is calling for a Congressionally chartered 

commission of prominent Americans to prepare a vision and framework plan for the National Mall, updating the 1901-1902 McMillan 

Commission Plan, the last time there was a serious look at the 

Mall as a whole. 

Why a commission? The National Park Service claims sole jurisdiction for the Mall. But in truth, management is fragmented 

among six agencies, as shown in Illustration 1. Oversight in ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\42475.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
34 

gress is divided among at least eight Congressional committees, diagramed in Illustration 2. 

Meanwhile, D.C. Mayor Fenty, in order for his Center City Action Agenda to succeed, needs the Mall to be revitalized in new 

ways, but he lacks any real planning authority for the Mall. 

Congress in 2003 declared them all completed, and imposed a 

moratorium, but already has made exceptions, and more may follow. The National Park Service calls its Mall plan a vision, but it 

is little more than a typical management plan for grass and restrooms. 

Those of us participating in the public consultations for this plan 

have been frustrated by the piecemeal approach and the lack of 

clear scope and transparency in the planning process. 

The Coalition believes that the Mall cannot be completed any 

more than American history will have stopped happening. It is 

time for a radical rethinking of the Mall and its future as one of 

our nation’s most symbolic landscapes and civic spaces in the heart 

of the Capitol and the nation. 

This is not a task just for government agencies. As mentioned, 

it requires the best creative minds in the country to study the problems and needs and explore the exciting possibilities for the future. 

At the turn of the 20th century, the McMillan Commission understood what our burgeoning democracy needed in its capitol: iconic 

locations for new memorials, public buildings for growing government, a grand expanded landscape that projected the image of the 

United States as a world power. 

Today, in an era when Americans don’t know our nation’s history, how can we better utilize the Mall for civics education? What 

is the vision of the Mall that speaks to us as a people and a nation 

at this critical time in our history, and in world history? What 

could a future vision look like? 

The way to protect the Mall is to expand it again. Most Americans don’t appreciate that the original L’Enfant Mall, what we call 

the First Century Mall, ended at the Washington Monument; and 

that a century ago the McMillan Commission expanded the Sexton 

Century Mall onto landfill, adding the Lincoln Memorial and hundreds of acres of public parkland, as shown in Illustration 3. 

Today, the Third Century Mall can grow again, perhaps incorporating East Potomac Park, L’Enfant Promenade, and other public 

land, and provide new iconic locations for future monuments and 

museums on the Mall. And the Mall can be rejuvenated as a grand 

urban park, connected to the surrounding city. 

In Illustration 4 we show a sketched 10-year vision for the Third 

Century Mall that includes a three-mile-long water park, new pedestrian bicycle and shuttlebus routes connecting all parts of the 

traditional and expanded Mall, new parking, special venues for 

mega-events, and lively spaces for culture and recreation. 

In conclusion, imagine what a Third Century Mall could be with 

the kind of leadership and vision that was applied by the McMillan 

Commission, whose members included Daniel Burnham, Frederick 

Law Olmsted, Jr., Charles McKim, and Augustus Saint-Gaudens, 

some of the nation’s most creative minds. 

35 

Congress created that McMillan Commission at minimal cost to 

the American taxpayer. We would urge Congress to once again provide leadership by creating a Third Century Mall Commission. 

We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you have taken a leadership 

role in such an endeavor by having this hearing. I will be willing 

to provide an expanded briefing for anyone on the committee who 

would like to learn more about these ideas. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Feldman follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Judy Scott Feldman, President and Chair, 

National Coalition to Save Our Mall 

Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and committee members. I am Dr. Judy Scott 

Feldman, chair and president of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, an independent citizens nonprofit organization founded in 2000 that works to protect and 

enhance the integrity of the National Mall through education and advocacy. In 2007 

we created a new nonprofit, the National Mall Conservancy, inspired by New York 

City’s Central Park Conservancy, to fill gaps in programming for the Mall’s open 

space. With the Committee’s okay, I would like to submit testimony for the record 

and summarize my main points. 

The Value and Limits of Current Federal and DC Government Planning 

You’ve heard today about serious problems on the National Mall—dead grass and 

crumbling walkways; flooding; sinking seawalls at the Tidal Basin; numerous proposals for new museums and memorials despite the Congressional moratorium; lack 

of visitor amenities and adequate transportation—and about planning efforts by the 

National Park Service and the National Capital Planning Commission to address 

these problems, as well as Congresswoman Norton’s proposed legislation aimed at 

expanding the Mall. And you’ve learned that Washington, D.C., Mayor Fenty’s new 

Center City Action Agenda envisions the National Mall as a lively urban park and 

the centerpiece of a revitalized ‘‘center city’’ stretching from Downtown to the Southwest Waterfront. 

After years of trying to galvanize Mall planning, we are pleased to see so much 

activity by the federal government and the city. As welcome as this is, these efforts 

are insufficient and piecemeal. 

• While the National Park Service claims sole jurisdiction for the Mall, in truth 

Mall management is fragmented among six agencies including the Smithsonian 

Institution, the Architect of the Capitol, the National Gallery of Art, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, and DC Government (See Illustration 1). 

• At the plan review level, the National Capital Planning Commission and Commission of Fine Arts try to coordinate but tend to defer to each agency’s proposals. 

• We’ve identified at least eight congressional committees with oversight, and we 

fear there is little communication among them (see Illustration 2). 

• Some of these entities work in direct opposition; none can agree on the Mall’s 

definition or boundaries; none has the authority to cut through the turf wars 

or the ad hoc development and institutional neglect that have long characterized Mall management and oversight. 

• And yet, visitors don’t distinguish between the property of the Park Service and 

the National Gallery, or a Senate or House committee. They see the National 

Mall as a whole, from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, as an iconic landscape at the core of the American psyche. 

Even with all the ongoing planning activity, we don’t see the kind of visionary 

thinking and proposals we believe are warranted for this great symbolic landscape. 

• NPS calls its plan the National Mall Plan and a ‘‘vision,’’ but in truth the scope 

is limited primarily to management concerns—trees, grass, restrooms—and only 

to areas under park service jurisdiction. 

• NCPC’s Framework Plan addresses Congress’ need for sites for future museums 

and memorials off the Mall—certainly an urgent problem as new museum and 

memorial proposals continue to proliferate—but not the Mall itself. 

• With regard to the memorial siting challenge, we were pleased to see Congresswoman Norton take a leadership role in proposing to expand the Mall, which 

we have long advocated. We need to tell more of the story of our country, 

through additional markers, memorials, self guided tours, and the like. We simVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\42475.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
36 

ply cannot meet that need on the traditional Mall, so expansion is essential. We 

would go further than Congresswoman Norton. • Mall expansion needs to be about more than identifying real estate for new 

monuments. It goes to questions of how the Mall’s value to the nation and the 

City of Washington as symbolic landscape and urban park can be improved and 

enriched. And this is a conversation we believe requires Congress to create a 

new, independent National Mall Commission in the tradition of the McMillan 

Commission a century ago, about which we will speak more in a moment. 

DC’s Center City Action Agenda Needs a Lively Urban Park 

Adding to the complexity of how we look at The Future of the National Mall is 

Mayor Fenty’s new economic development action agenda, which seeks to create a 

new, expanded ‘‘center city’’ with the National Mall as the ‘‘centerpiece.’’ The Mall 

at long last could realize its full potential as a lively urban park in the heart of 

our nation’s capital. 

But DC government is confronted by a dilemma. Congress has declared the Mall 

a ‘‘substantially completed work of civic art’’ and NPS and other federal agencies 

are planning in ways that accept the status quo. DC’s Center City Agenda can only 

succeed, however, if the Mall can be transformed into a lively urban park that 

serves and connects neighborhoods and commercial areas around it. The status quo 

won’t do. The Mall has to be considered more than a national park such as Yellowstone. It needs to be reconceived in ways that go beyond NPS management policies, 

with their emphasis on preserving natural resources, in favor of a vision for a grand 

urban park created to serve people—25 million visitors annually from around the 

country and the world, as well as local residents and workers. In other words, the 

Mall cannot be ‘‘completed’’ if the Mall is to be part of the revitalization of the nation’s capital. 

Compounding the problem for the city, DC Government is effectively shut out of 

Mall planning. Again with the NPS’s latest planning effort, its National Mall Plan, 

there seems a reluctance by NPS to engage the District government even as the adjacent neighborhoods, including the area around the new ballpark, begin to attract 

business and new residents for whom the Mall will be their ‘‘local’’ park. Those of 

us representing citizens groups and nonprofits in NPS’s National Mall Plan consultation process are finding that the public has little opportunity to influence NPS 

thinking and instead is asked to react to NPS priorities (more about the NPS plan 

below). 

A McMillan-type National Mall Commission 

How to get beyond the fragmented jurisdictions, conflicting priorities, and policy 

differences to plan the future of the entire National Mall—for the nation, DC, and 

the American public? 

We believe that only a congressionally chartered commission of prominent Americans would be able to prepare a vision and framework plan for the Mall as a whole, 

updating the 1901-1902 McMillan Commission Plan, the last time there was a serious look at the entire Mall. The commission could work with NPS and NCPC to 

identify federal lands for Mall expansion; collaborate with the DC Government in 

reconnecting the federal and DC interests for the Mall and the city as a whole; and 

consult with the American public—local residents and citizens around the country— 

to find ways to make the National Mall newly relevant for all of us in coming years 

and decades. 

The Coalition and Conservancy and a Public Voice 

A Citizens’ Vision for the 3rd Century Mall 

For several years now, the Coalition has been proposing the exciting possibilities 

for a 3rd Century Mall vision. Because we are an independent citizens group, and 

not bound by Congressional or DC policies and priorities, we have been able to focus 

our attention exclusively on the Mall’s history, problems, and future. We call our 

concept a ‘‘citizens’ vision’’ for the 3rd Century Mall. 

We saw that in the years since declaring the Mall ‘‘completed’’ in 2003, Congress 

has made exceptions to its own moratorium. We realized the Mall can’t be ‘‘completed’’—any more than American history will stop happening. As new projects continue to be authorized or proposed—a Vietnam Veterans Memorial visitor center, a 

Museum of African American History and Culture, and most recently a Latin American Museum—and as our society continues to evolve, the call for monuments and 

memorials will continue to grow, and the available space will continue to shrink. 

The Mall today has become ‘‘the people’s place,’’ the stage for our democracy. The 

American people feel that they own it. The Mall is a place where our history continues to unfold, where our democracy can be continually rejuvenated. It is poised 

37 

as never before to become a lively destination not only for visitors from around the 

country and the world, but also for local residents, office workers, and businesses 

that are bringing new life to downtown Washington and nearby neighborhoods. 

We call our concept a ‘‘citizens’ vision’’ for the 3rd Century Mall. It calls for a new 

vision that enlarges and builds upon the historic L’Enfant Plan of 1791 (what we 

call the 1st Century Mall) and the expanded McMillan Plan of 1901-02 (the 2nd 

Century Mall) and makes them newly relevant to the 21st century—the 3rd Century 

Mall. 

What could that vision entail (see Illustration 3)? 

• The Mall can be expanded. Most Americans don’t appreciate that the Mall originally ended at the Washington Monument, or that the Lincoln Memorial is built 

on landfill. A century ago, the McMillan Commission expanded the Mall with 

landfill, more than doubling its size to create sites for the Lincoln Memorial and 

huge expanses of public parkland. Today the Mall can grow again—perhaps incorporating such public land as East Potomac Park, Theodore Roosevelt Island, 

L’Enfant Promenade, the South Capitol Street corridor (for the most part, land 

identified by NCPC and NPS for future memorials and museums)—to accommodate more museums, more memorials, more civic and recreational space. 

What would an expanded Mall look like? We have created a sketch of a ‘‘10-Year 

Vision’’ for the 3rd Century Mall that illustrates that (see Illustration 4): 

• Expansion areas could be connected to the traditional Mall and the surrounding 

neighborhoods in a continuous loop of pedestrian, bicycle, and shuttle bus 

routes, including new bridges across Washington Channel, and could encompass 

a three-mile-long waterfront park; 

• New circulation patterns could unfold along the Potomac route, starting at the 

Lincoln Memorial at the west and punctuated by the FDR, Jefferson, and memorials yet to come, before crossing the Washington Channel and ascending 

Capitol Hill along the majestic new Gateway Boulevard; 

• Parking, new venues for mega events such as the Smithsonian’s Folklife Festival, and new recreational space could be created beyond the Mall’s traditional 

main vista. 

We realize that our ideas are only the first step in moving toward creating a 100- 

year vision on the scope and scale of the historic L’Enfant and McMillan plans. The 

next step belongs to Congress and a 3rd Century Mall Commission. 

The Limitations of the National Park Service’s National Mall Plan 

The National Coalition to Save Our Mall is participating as a ‘‘consulting party’’ 

in the Historic Preservation Act Section 106 public consultation for the National 

Mall, along with several other nonprofit organizations and citizens groups. There 

have been a number of public meetings and listening sessions where NPS planners 

have presented and solicited comments. 

The scope of the NPS planning effort has been a matter of some confusion and 

concern among ‘‘consulting parties’’ in the Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

public meetings. It is still not clear how NPS’s study area relates to the historic 

L’Enfant Plan and McMillan Plan. Instead, NPS focuses on planning for individual 

‘‘cultural landscapes’’ such as the Washington Monument grounds, Union Square 

(the panel at the foot of the Capitol), but not for the National Mall as a unified 

whole based on the historic L’Enfant Plan and McMillan Plan. Nor has NPS explained adequately why critical topics such as transportation and circulation—right 

now a major problem for visitors and residents alike—and visitor amenities, such 

as good food options, are not included in the scope of study and seem to be determined more by the needs of NPS concessionaires than by public need. Several participants in the Section 106 process have raised concerns about the lack of transparency, insufficient consultation in developing alternatives, listening sessions that 

revealed little about NPS thinking and intent, and the piecemeal approach to different parcels of the Mall and lack of an overall vision as a whole in the tradition 

of the McMillan Commission. There is concern that NPS’s management priorities 

could set in motion changes that instead of showing the way to the future could enshrine the status quo and inhibit needed improvements. 

Creating a Vision for the 3rd Century Mall 

It’s easy today to throw around the words ‘‘vision’’ in planning. But none of the 

current federal and DC efforts—with their focus on natural resources, memorials, 

and economic development—constitute a vision for this iconic landscape. We would 

like to make our point about the kind of vision needed—and why only an independent commission of prominent Americans can achieve this—by looking back a 

hundred years to the McMillan Plan of 1901-1902, the last successful long-range 

plan for the Mall. 

38 

The McMillan Commissioners had a clear understanding of what our burgeoning 

democracy needed in its capital city at the turn of the 20th century: We needed sites 

for memorializing our heroes including Abraham Lincoln. We needed great public 

buildings in the Federal Triangle to house the growing civil service for our growing 

country. We needed to restore L’Enfant’s vision of the Mall as the people’s place, 

by clearing away the trees and clutter, and to tie it effectively to a system of parks 

and recreational places throughout the capital city. We needed to project an image 

in landscape, architecture, and majestic vistas of our nation as a world power and 

shaper of history. The Commission was blessed with land to grow into through the 

Corps of Engineers project to drain the marshlands along the Potomac shore, which 

resulted in creating hundreds of acres of new land contiguous to the original Mall. 

They gave us a plan that we have grown into over the past century and that now, 

once again, needs renewal. We need to seize this opportunity. The possibilities for 

the nation, the city, and the American public are exciting. 

This is not a task to be assigned to existing government agencies each with its 

own parochial interests and turf. As in 1901, it is the task of assembling a few of 

the best creative brains in the country to study the problems and—with assistance 

from federal and DC agencies as well as the public—plan how can best expand and 

rejuvenate our central public space. 

Here are some of the questions the new commission might want to explore that 

would help shape the Mall during the next century: 

• Our country continues to produce national heroes and to honor them on the 

Mall, including the recent FDR Memorial and the coming MLK Jr. Memorial. 

In what places could we honor yet unknown greats of the 21st century? 

• We are suffering collective amnesia about our national history, especially among 

young people. How can we develop sites and programs that better utilize the 

Mall—both the traditional Mall and expansion areas—for civics education and 

activities? 

• If the federal agencies continue to decentralize and move away from the Monumental Core area, what kind of new uses could the Federal Triangle (where 

GSA is already aware of vacancies) and other buildings serve? 

• As the city’s urban core expands southward towards the waterfront, the Mall 

will be come the center of an increasingly dense residential and commercial city 

filled with citizens who will want places to meet and recreate. How can we develop a 3rd Century Mall that meets the needs that will arise as the population 

and function diversifies? 

• We have never fully developed our riverfronts. As we deal with global warming, 

how can we best deal with potential flooding while making the riverfront more 

of a destination? Half the Mall already lies in a flood zone. We are blessed with 

hundreds of acres of largely undeveloped land left over from the Army Corps 

of Engineers landfill project. How can this land best be used? 

• Most important, our nation’s role in the world has changed dramatically since 

1902 and the last vision. How can the National Mall best symbolize our concept 

of who we are as a people and nation and where we hope to be a century from 

now? 

When Congress declared the Mall ‘‘a substantially completed work of civic art’’ 

with the intention of protecting the Mall from overcrowding, it failed to couple its 

action with a program for long-term expansion as the McMillan Commission did. 

Now Congress needs to take leadership once again and charter a new McMillan-type 

commission to imagine how we can best imagine the future of our National Mall, 

to allow the Mall to grow creatively to serve its role as a stage for our ever-evolving 

democracy. 

The National Mall Conservancy Filling Gaps 

The National Coalition to Save Our Mall and the National Mall Conservancy are 

dedicated to helping fill the existing gaps in Mall management and programming 

and in developing a structured public voice to make this happen. 

The National Mall Conservancy is working with government agencies and other 

citizens groups on a number projects: 

• There is no comprehensive recycling program on the Mall, each agency and 

building does its own thing. We’ve studied this and I’ve approached the Federal 

Environmental Executive about taking this on for the Mall as a whole 

• Transportation and circulation are limited. Tourmobile provides interpretive 

tours at $25 a day for an adult but the Circulator runs only during the week 

and peak hours and doesn’t serve the western Mall area. Nor does Metro with 

bus service. A graduate course in transportation policy planning at George 

Mason University undertook for us and just completed a review at our request 

and there are serious gaps. It is not easy, especially for older people, children, 

39 

and those with disabilities to get around the long expanses. The GMU report 

and PowerPoint presentation are posted at http://policy.gmu.edu/programs/programsltpollpractica.html>http://policy.gmu.edu/programs/programsltpollpractica.html 

• There is no Mall visitors’ center, which we think could be nicely provided in the 

Smithsonian’s Arts & Industries Building, with information, maps, a police substation for security, snacks, restrooms. (I give tours on the Mall and the most 

frequent question I get is where are the restrooms.) 

• Until the Coalition produced a map, there was no overall map and historical 

guide. We prepared the first ever recreation guide to the Mall as there is confusion over who has jurisdiction over the ballfields that are well utilized by DC 

residents for softball, soccer and so on. 

• Sustainable landscaping will be critically important in the future and we’ve 

been in conversations with the USDA which is moving forward with a creative 

sustainability landscape for its building on the Mall, conceived as an open-air 

classroom of USDA policies for stormwater, recycling, sustainable plantings, 

and so on. 

• While new FEMA flood maps have spurred DC and federal agencies to work on 

urgent flood control problems, the challenges of stormwater and flooding will require sustained, long-term creative solutions. We have compiled an extensive 

bibliography of resources that can be useful in future development of a larger 

regional approach to flooding and global warming. 

What Stands in the Way? 

When I present these ideas to groups throughout the city and region, audiences 

regularly ask me, ‘‘What’s standing in the way?’’ I can speak from experience that 

the public, and even many federal and DC planners, are excited by our vision and 

the great opportunity for creating a 3rd Century Mall vision. 

But let’s not fool ourselves. This will not be easy. Before a Senate hearing on The 

Future of the National Mall in 2005, Chairman Craig Thomas said he intended to 

create a Mall Commission. But he then changed his mind after the NPS, NCPC, 

and Commission of Fine Arts discouraged him, claiming that it would simply add 

another layer of bureaucracy. And besides, they would do the visionary planning 

themselves. Three years later, we see that’s not so. 

The need is more urgent than ever. Sustainability is a top priority but no one of 

the agencies can tackle it adequately, nor can their collective efforts rise to the level 

needed to confront the rising problems of flooding and stormwater. Sinking seawalls 

at the Tidal Basin can be repaired, but we need to rethink the whole character of 

the hundreds of acres of landfill along the shores of our rivers. 

Moreover, DC urgently needs a voice in shaping the Mall of the future, as do local 

residents and the American public. Only Congress can make that future happen. 

Imagining a Visit to the 3rd Century Mall 

Imagine what the 3rd Century Mall could be with the kind of leadership and vision that was applied by the McMillan Commission—whose members included Daniel Burnham, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Charles McKim, and Augustus SaintGaudens—some of the nation’s leading designers. In case you are not aware, the 

McMillan Commission conducted its research by touring some of the great urban 

spaces and parks of Europe. I’d happily join in any future research endeavors of this 

sort. 

Seriously, with more than half the Mall built on landfill and suffering effects of 

flooding and failing infrastructure, we need to go beyond repairing problems to rethinking them. The Mall could be a showcase of the most innovative and state-ofthe-art approaches to modern challenges of climate change. It could be transformed 

into an open-air classroom that engages residents and visitors of all ages, with demonstration projects for restoring turf grass, native vegetation, historic streams and 

wetlands, as well as recycling and whatever new solutions emerge in coming years 

and decades. Mall expansion could include rethinking and reconfiguring the landfill 

on both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. 

I would be willing to follow up with anyone on the Committee who would like to 

learn more about these ideas. 

Attachments: 4 Images 

40 


42475.001.eps 42475.002.eps
41 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Our final witness, John 

Akridge, III, Chairman, Trust for the National Mall. 

Mr. Akridge. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. ‘‘CHIP’’ AKRIDGE, III, CHAIRMAN, 

TRUST FOR THE NATIONAL MALL 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee 

on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to come and speak with you today and tell you 

about the Trust for the National Mall. 


42475.003.eps 42475.004.eps
42 

My name is Chip Akridge. I am Chairman of Akridge, which is 

a local commercial real estate development and property management fund. But I am here today in my capacity as Chairman of the 

Trust. 

We have some written testimony, and I trust it will be included 

in the record. 

I am a Tennessean, I am a Vietnam veteran. And I also go jogging. I am a runner, I jog on the Mall, and it is a hallowed space. 

I don’t know if any of you have been down there with the sun coming up, moving west across 5th Street and watch the sun come up 

over the Capitol, it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand 

up. I am proud to be an American, proud to be here. We could have 

been born anywhere in this world, but we were born here in America, with the rights to choose our successes as we have been able 

to do. 

But I don’t know if any of you have been down to the Mall lately, 

in the past few days, past year, or whatever. But I am here to report to you that it is a disgrace. It is in a state of disrepair. 

Do you all have these—you should have a copy of these books we 

have passed out. I wouldn’t mind you flipping through those as I 

continue my testimony, because a few pictures are worth a million 

of my words. In fact, there is a $350 million deferred maintenance backlog on 

the Mall, which is part of the National Park Service nationwide 

system’s $5 billion deferred maintenance backlog, which I am sure 

you gentlemen are familiar with those numbers. 

This backlog does not include any physical improvements to the 

structure down there to handle the 25 million people who currently 

visit the Mall. That is more people than Yosemite, Yellowstone, 

and the Grand Canyon, the next three most busy parks together. 

The park as it was originally designed, and has been improved over 

the years, is not capable of handling the people that is down there. 

It also doesn’t include any educational programs to educate people as to what the American experience is and what freedom is all 

about in this country. 

I think that the Park Service has done a good job with the budget that they have had, the limited budgets that they have had, to 

keep them all in as good a shape as it is. But again, the budget 

has just been woefully inadequate. 

I use as an example the Washington Monument. If you look at 

that monument, it has undergone renovation recently, primarily for 

security reasons; but at the same time, that space was upgraded 

to world-class space, which is what we are looking to try to accomplish for the entire Mall. 

While this space may be somewhat backyard to us here in our 

backyard in Washington, it is America’s front yard, and the Park 

Service cannot, we don’t believe, do this alone through public funding. So we felt that a created public-private partnership was a potential solution to solving this funding gap. 

We looked around the country and found the Central Park Conservancy in New York which 30 years ago took Central Park, which 

is an 800-acre park—the north half was closed because of crime, 

the entire park was greatly run-down—and they have raised about 

$500 million and brought that park back to world-class status. 

43 

We formed the Trust with the idea of doing basically the same 

thing to the National Mall. Our goal is to produce the best park 

in the world, where visitors have the best park experience in the 

world. It should be the best of the best. 

We held our first public event on May 8, just about 12 days ago, 

where 500 like-minded individuals turned out and contributed over 

$600,000 toward this cause, which shows you there is a willingness 

in the American public to support this effort. 

Last November Secretary Kempthorne rolled us out as the sole 

fundraising partner for the National Park Service for the Mall. 

Since then, Secretary Kempthorne and Director Beaumont have 

been great supporters of that partnership, and it is flourishing. 

You just heard Superintendent O’Dell testify as to all the efforts 

that are going on in terms of planning, and I won’t go back into 

that. But we estimate that $500 million is needed for the Mall 

today: the $350 million I already mentioned, probably $100 million 

for the beefed-up infrastructure, and $50 million to establish educational and interpretive programs to tell the story of what American democracy is all about, to our visitors and to our children. 

Our mission is simple. It is to support the National Park Service 

mission, and I quote, ‘‘to preserve and restore the natural and cultural resources and values for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.’’ 

As I said, the process which is underway, I will not reiterate that 

there were, you know, over 500 professionals would have reviewed 

the plan before it is approved, and over 23,000 Americans have already made their views known on what should be done with the 

plan. The publishers made known that their three main issues they 

are interested in, one was First Amendment rights, which was just 

spoken to, and freedom of expression. There was increase the number of toilets and food facilities. They want to improve the fiscal 

meaning of the space. 

This space is the staircase of democracy through the speech, 

leadership, sacrifice, and heroism. It is America’s front yard. It 

needs our help, and it needs it now. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Akridge follows:] 

Statement of John E. ‘‘Chip’’ Akridge, III, Chairman, 

Trust for the National Mall 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands, I am Chip Akridge, Chairman of Akridge, a local commercial real estate development and management firm. 

I am here today in my capacity as Chairman of the non-profit organization, the 

Trust for the National Mall. The Trust for the National Mall is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the National Park Service mission to ‘‘preserve— 

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values ‘‘for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.’’ As the official funding partner of the National Park Service for the National Mall, the Trust has a long term 

goal to raise over $500 million to help return the Park to a landscape of extraordinary beauty and to better connect visitors to its unique and important history as 

the platform of our democracy. 

After years of deferred maintenance on the National Mall, the current cost of restoring ‘‘America’s Front Yard’’ is a staggering $350 million. This figure does not include physical improvements to handle the current volume of 25 million annual visitors or money for educational programs. 

The Park Service cannot restore ‘‘America’s Front Yard’’ with its current budget. 

This urgently needed work can be funded and completed only through a creative 

44 

public-private partnership, which is what the Trust for the National Mall is proposing. 

Over the last twenty years, I’ve enjoyed regular jogs through downtown D.C. and 

across the National Mall. I started this routine to check on my properties throughout the District and ended each run with a scenic reminder of why I love this city, 

and a reminder of why I am proud to be an American. 

While I would look at the amazing icons on the National Mall: the sun coming 

up over the Capitol, the flags circling the Washington Monument, and the Jefferson, 

Lincoln and war Memorials, I rarely looked at the National Mall as a property manager. Over four years ago, someone challenged me to look closer at the condition of 

the park, and sadly what I saw did not make this American proud. The National 

Mall, ‘‘America’s Front Yard,’’ was and is a disgrace. 

So with the help of several Washingtonians, I founded the Trust for the National 

Mall in an effort to restore the National Mall to a place of beauty befitting our nation’s Capitol. We knew that we wouldn’t be alone in our efforts since there were 

many people in this community who cared about this sacred and historic space. We 

were right. 

We’ve modeled the Trust after the Central Park Conservancy in New York. Thirty 

years ago, half of Central Park was closed and its 800 acres were completely run 

down. In 1980, Mayor Koch asked Bill Beinecke, former Chairman of S&H Green 

Stamps, to lead a private effort to restore that park, and a successful public-private 

partnership was born. More than 25 years later and with close to $500 million raised, Central Park is 

truly a world-class urban space. We hope to follow their lead, raise a similar 

amount, and restore the National Mall to a place of beauty and pride for visitors 

and future generations. 

Last November, the Trust held its national launch when Secretary of the Interior 

Dirk Kempthorne announced the Trust’s designation as the official partner of the 

National Park Service (NPS) to raise private funds to be added to Federal funds for 

execution of the National Mall Plan. Under the leadership of the Secretary and NPS 

Director Mary Bomar, our partnership is flourishing. They, along with the new National Mall and Memorial Parks Superintendent, Peggy O’Dell, truly see the value 

in creating productive public-private partnerships to restore our national parks and 

have been terrific leaders in moving the Trust forward because they are committed 

to this American treasure. 

Today, with budget cuts and a deferred maintenance bill of $5 billion in the NPS 

system, the work cannot be done by the government alone. The National Mall carries a $350 million deferred maintenance deficit, and with 25 million annual visitors 

(more visitors than Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon parks combined) 

the decay from this wear and tear is massive and continues to grow. The NPS has 

done an outstanding job with the funds available to them, but those funds have 

been woefully inadequate to enable the NPS to properly maintain the park. 

The National Park Service is working diligently pursuing the critical work of preparing the National Mall Plan which will determine the future of the National Mall 

and will be the blueprint for our work. The NPS is working with over twenty cooperating agencies and thirty consulting parties to prepare the National Mall Plan. In 

all over 500 professionals will have reviewed and commented on the plan by the 

time it is approved. Additionally, during the plan scoping phase NPS held press conferences, issued media releases, published a newsletter requesting participation, and 

held a symposium and public meetings. More than 23,000 Americans from across 

the country have submitted their comments to the plan. The most important messages from the public have been to protect the space for First Amendment rights 

and freedom of expression demonstrations, increase the number of toilets and food 

facilities, and improve the physical beauty and quality of the area. 

The National Park Service leadership and staff have taken very seriously the 

guidance and vision of these organizations and the thousands of Americans in developing the final plan. The NPS is diligently pursuing the critical work of preparing 

the National Mall Plan which is due to be released at the end of 2008 and will serve 

as a blueprint for the NPS and the Trust’s work. 

In addition to the estimated $350 million needed for the deferred maintenance 

backlog, approximately $100 million is needed for infrastructure improvements like 

repairing or building additional food and restroom facilities and $50 million is needed for educational programming, to tell the story of our country’s rich history found 

in the park to all its visitors. 

The National Mall, the 700-acre stretch of hallowed ground located between the 

Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial and from Constitution Avenue to the Jefferson 

Memorial, has come to be known worldwide as a symbol of democracy and America’s 

heritage. It encompasses the strength and proud history of our nation, symbolizes 

45 

the democracy that our forefathers worked so hard to secure, and memorializes the 

sacrifices of so many who have given their lives to preserve. It is ‘‘America’s Front 

Yard.’’ 

Our project is unique: restore and preserve one our greatest American icons for 

all visitors and future generations. For some of us the National Mall is our backyard, but its real reach and purpose is without boundaries. Because of this, we know 

our efforts must be far-reaching in scope and require the support of volunteers ranging from gardeners and academics to individual and major donors from across the 

country. Our efforts will include outreach and education to all Americans, including 

students and parents, community leaders and patrons, educators and historians. 

As a real estate developer and property manager, I know what an immensely difficult and ongoing task it is to maintain the National Mall in world-class condition 

given the enormous usage of the space. But its purpose is to honor our forefathers 

and all the people who have made our country what it is today. It must be fixed 

and maintained and protected for First Amendment use in perpetuity. 

We believe—and are certain that you will agree—that the National Mall is one 

of the Nation’s chief cultural assets. There is no other place in the United States 

that celebrates our democracy, freedom of speech, leadership, and heroism like the 

National Mall, America’s Front Yard. And it needs all of our help now. 


42475.005.eps
46 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me thank all the panelists. 

Mr. Spitzer, you know, your idea, or the concept of funneling off 

free speech activities into one site-specific venue I agree is unacceptable. And that shouldn’t be the intent of the planning, and that 

shouldn’t bog down what I think is a very important planning process by raising that issue. 

Let me ask you, the discussion of providing amenities—i.e., 

speakers, all those in various locations along the mall to facilitate 

entertainment, activities, and possibly also demonstrations—what 

is your reaction to that concept? 

Mr. SPITZER. I think that could be a very positive thing, Mr. 

Chairman. I think making the Mall a more user-friendly place for 

demonstrators, as well as tourists and local residents, I think that 

those are not conflicting goals necessarily at all. 

I think many demonstrators would appreciate having a prime location, with the Capitol Dome in the background of their speaker 

stand for their own viewing, and for photographs and television; 

and having restroom facilities and benches and water and electrical 

outlets for their use. I think all those things could be very positive 

things, which could obviously be available for non-demonstrators at 

other times. 

We are not necessarily opposed to the possibility, and I gather 

it is only a possibility, of having a multi-purpose use for the Union 

Square area at the foot of Capitol Hill. I don’t know what kind of 

costs would be involved in having that reflecting pool being a 

drainable and refillable area; that is obviously something that others can study. As long as demonstrators are not being told here is 

your sort of demonstrator-specific and that is where you have to go. 

Many demonstrators, especially some of the smaller ones, might 

be happy to have such a location. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Dr. Feldman, quickly, if I may, an example of why you feel that the public has had little opportunity to 

influence National Park Service thinking on this National Mall 

Plan. And just quickly follow up why the Commission idea would 

deal with that issue of lack of participation in a much broader way. 

You mentioned that McMillan Commission idea. 

Ms. FELDMAN. The National Coalition to Save Our Mall, we have 

been involved in consultations, public consultations, with the 

Smithsonian, the Architect of the Capitol, the Park Service, and 

other agencies for the past eight years. And we can compare and 

see how the different processes work. 

First of all, we represent a public voice, not an agency voice. So 

in all cases, we are dealing with, based on five public forums we 

had in 2004, a point of view that is a little different from the priorities of the government agencies. 

In the case of the Park Service, we have been participating in the 

Mall planning issues. But what happens is the Park Service puts 

together information and matrices and alternatives, but none of us 

participating for nonprofits really had a clear understanding of 

where the choices are coming from. 

So we have tried, and we are doing, we are participating. Five 

thousand comments have come in from others, as well as from us. 

But when we see the matrix, then we do not see the issues, primarily transportation, good food, and the bigger question of the 

47 

Mall as a whole, which is not being addressed by the Mall Plan. 

That, I think, is why the Mall Commission idea comes out. 

In 1899 the Mall was divided up into different areas under different jurisdictions, and even some of the land had been sold off to 

private interests. They were confronted, the Congress, the Senate 

Park Commission, and the McMillan Commission were confronted 

with very similar issues. They needed a place for the Lincoln Memorial. They needed essentially Mall expansion. They needed to 

clean up what was already there. But they also needed to consolidate all the different planning that was going on by different agencies, because the Mall is a symbol as a whole of the nation. 

And we were looking at then and what we are looking at now 

is government agencies are doing their planning, and that is fine; 

but their priorities are agency priorities. Whereas the big question 

of the Mall, as a symbol of our national identity, and a place where 

our monuments should continue to unfold, we shouldn’t be forcing 

people off the Mall, in our view. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And let me indulge in extra time so 

I can finish my question. 

Mr. Akridge, you stated what is and was a disgraceful condition 

of the Mall that you mentioned in your testimony. To stop this continuing disgracefulness, for lack of a better word, and to change 

that, what kind of activities do you feel are leading to creating the 

disgraceful condition? Is it the intensity of visitation and activity 

on the Mall? Is it the lack of proper resources for the maintenance, 

upkeep, safety issues? 

And you know, I understand the private sector contribution, how 

important that is going to be. Do you feel, you know, they are not 

glamorous—the sprinkler system, turf restoration, restrooms—they 

are not the glamorous things that people like to put their names 

on when they donate. But nevertheless, those two questions in 

terms of if you would quickly respond to them, I would appreciate 

that. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. You need a roadmap to get 

from where we are today to the best park in the world, that is a 

fact. And we see the National Mall Plan, which is presently being 

undertaken by the Park Service, as producing that roadmap as a 

result of that process. 

And I think that all the issues that you, which you mentioned, 

the infrastructure just seems inadequate to handle the people, the 

uses out there are being looked at as to how to manage those. All 

aspects of the operation of the Mall are being looked at in this 

plan. 

And we see that the plan, once finished, which we hope will be 

finished late this year or next year, will provide that roadmap to 

bring us from our present situation to world-class status. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I have no specific questions, but Mr. 

Akridge, I certainly want to thank you for the information you provided. And I hope it is within our ethics standards if I keep this? 

OK, good. 

Dr. Feldman, I appreciate the written testimony. 

48 

Mr. Spitzer, I was especially impressed with the passionate defense you had for multiple use on the Mall. Lest your organization 

be considered hypocritical in any way, I certainly hope you have 

that same passionate defense for multiple use of public lands in the 

West as you do here in Washington, D.C. And also the passionate 

defense for all Constitutional rights in public spaces. So I appreciate your testimony from all of you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, Ms. Feldman 

and Mr. Akridge, this question is for you. 

What do you have the most anxiety about, in terms of solving the 

problem? I mean, is it trying to coordinate competing visions that 

all these different groups have for the Mall? Is it trying to coordinate competing jurisdiction and authority that the six or more different entities you referred to have? Is it worrying that the resources won’t be there in the end, even for a coordinated vision 

that is eventually rolled out? I mean, is it a combination of all 

three? 

But what are the thing that you see as the most significant obstacle to getting moving on this? 

Ms. FELDMAN. I think what we have found over eight years, it 

has been fragmented management and jurisdiction. Even if a government agency expresses a certain amount of interest, then there 

is a committee in Congress with oversight of a different agency 

that sees this as potentially impinging on their authority. 

We are concerned with ways, already in a Senate hearing in 

2005, that essentially went like today. The government agencies all 

said things were taken care of that we are planning. This is three 

years later, and everyone is planning. 

But again, we are dealing with fragmented priorities. And even 

though everyone is planning, everyone is staying to their turf and 

planning with their own priorities. And our fear is that with the 

Latino-American Museum coming, with at least 30 museums and 

other projects coming, we can’t keep saying no, the Mall is finished, 

we are just going to fix the grass. We have to say our vision has 

always been evolving. 

We need to rise above the division and above the fragmentation. 

We really have to see the changes required that we have to look 

forward, and we have to give our children that doesn’t say they 

don’t have a place in the Mall. 

It is hard because everyone is protecting their turf. But as the 

public keeps saying, the Mall is not a collection of agencies. To the 

American people it is this grand symbol of who we are. We want 

it to remain growing, evolving, beautiful, and inspiring. 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Akridge referred to what happened with Central Park as kind of a model of what you can do, but I don’t know 

how many different jurisdictions are involved there. I presume less 

than what you are dealing with here, so that may not be the best 

model from a practical standpoint. 

Ms. FELDMAN. Well, we just went up last week and met with 

both Adrian Benepe, the head of the New York City Parks, and the 

President of the Central Park Conservancy, Dr. Blonsky. They certainly sympathize with our condition in Washington because we 

have so much divided management. 

49 

But what they found is what the conservancy did is, it is a citizen-based independent group originally. It was not tied to any one 

agency. And so it could create a constituency that wasn’t tied to 

one entity or another, collect money—and of course, they have a lot 

more on Fifth Avenue than we may have. 

But because it was citizen-based and public-spirited, the city— 

and it took 20 years—but the City Parks Department eventually 

made a contract with the conservancy as the citizens’ voice. 

And so yes, that is one reason why we created our conservancy, 

to be an independent, unconnected citizens’ voice. And eventually, 

you know, taking baby steps now, but we are doing projects. And 

the projects we are working with on the USDA on the sustainable 

landscape, and George Mason University, a study on transportation. 

We are trying to build a citizens’ constituency that also the government can talk to, and as another voice beyond the Federal agencies in the city. 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Akridge, do you have a comment on obstacles? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Yes, I think that is what my biggest fear was in 

terms of getting on with this. And that is, is it simply comes along 

that knocks back the conclusion of the National Mall Plan. 

We need to complete this plan. I think that you have heard we 

have certainly seen unprecedented cooperation amongst these various agencies, and I think there is a strong desire amongst the 

agencies to come up with a single plan that takes into account the 

various organizations’ interest to the best that they can. 

Obviously there has to be compromise on a lot of different fronts. 

We have a lot of different entities involved. But this plan explaining your place, what roadmap we need to get started on bringing 

the Mall back to world-class status needs to begin. And it cannot 

begin until it is approved. 

So my biggest fear is that something will come along to knock 

that approval process back or to delay it, so that we can’t get started. 

As in any 30-year plan, it is not going to be written in stone. Obviously the plan will be reviewed on a periodic basis against the 

goals and against the changing times to make sure that we are 

doing the right thing. Thirty years ago we didn’t have computers, 

I mean, so the idea has to be a living plan; I think it will be. 

So yes, my biggest concern is that, that we don’t get started. 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, also a real quick question about 

this. Would you hazard a guess, or try to quantify, how much of 

what we see and hear that was disgraceful would you say would 

be different if the $350 million backlog of repairs and other infrastructure, upgrades and other things which you alluded to, had 

been dealt with? 

In other words, if there was $350 million that had gone into the 

Mall when it should have, would you say, you know, 70 percent of 

what you are depicting here would be different? Or would there 

only be 50 percent because there are other things at work? Can you 

just—— 

Mr. AKRIDGE. I would say the large majority of it. Probably the 

one thing that would not have gotten done, and it is not in that 

50 

$350 million, is the seawall and the tidal basin at the Jefferson 

Memorial, which has just recently come into view as being a big 

problem in and of itself. 

But I would say the majority of the things that you see, you 

know, the Constitution Gardens, which was completed 30 years 

that was mentioned earlier, there has been virtually no maintenance done on that particular area of the park in 30 years. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK, thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Congresswoman, any questions, comments? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions. 

I will try to stay within—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That is fine. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank all three of you. This is an important testimony for all of us to hear. 

Mr. Akridge, I am going to just say you are performing a magnificent public service. Mr. Akridge has led a very public-spirited 

development in the District of Columbia. But to take this on, which 

is essentially the work of government itself—and that is what you 

are doing. You seem to be dealing with the maintenance and the 

kinds of backlogs that one would expect if the Park Service had 

money, it would have done itself. 

And I see the importance, because I am a race-walker along the 

Mall. I love it, even in its decrepit condition. Even though I agree 

with you, it is a disgrace. 

Mr. Akridge, you heard the testimony of Ms. O’Dell. It looks like 

a lot is going to depend on the Trust. I mean, I was flabbergasted 

to hear that, you know, with signage, for example, we are waiting 

for the Trust. We are waiting for the Trust. And we are not waiting 

for Godot, but the notion is, you know, all of this is going to have 

to be done with the Trust. 

So I therefore must ask you what the timetable is for raising 

funds; when it is raised, can it be disbursed as raised? Or how does 

the fundraising mechanism work, given the extraordinary means 

even for basics of the Park Service? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Well, it is a two-part question. The signage issue 

was given to us actually by, it was this committee as part of the 

Centennial Challenge, with the public-private disbursement, $1.1 

million from the Federal government, $1.1 million from the private 

sector. And we were given the award three weeks ago I guess now. 

We have already begun raising the money, and we will have 

money raised by the end of September, the end of this fiscal year, 

which I don’t see a problem with that. 

As far as other members are concerned, the Park Service is not 

going to spend money on the Mall until the Mall plan is finished, 

is the short answer to that question. So once the plan is finished 

and we are implementing the plan, which is—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, can it wait until you raised all $500 million? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. No, it can be expended as raised. 

Ms. NORTON. If I could just put in a plug for restrooms. I just 

think that is the most basic amenity. And if the museums aren’t 

open, and they are always crowded, on our race-walks, then—— 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Part of the plan is to prioritize the needs. 

51 

Ms. NORTON. I am just asking that it be given priority. I don’t 

know what you do with a kid when he says, Mommy, I have to go. 

Where, if the museums are closed? 

I have a question for each of you. I just want to be clearer on 

Mr. Spitzer. You see, I have two kinds of objections. One, don’t take 

away our reflecting pool; if you do, you are going to have each time 

put it back. And of course, any First Amendment objections that 

you have, I would be inclined to have. 

This is the place in the country, the premiere place where American citizens of every background come for their own use and protests. And you have heard the testimony. She was telling only 

about 10 major events. And I appreciate the difference between the 

other events, which of course are not First Amendment at all, but 

which people, like the Folklife Festival. 

She says in her testimony, Ms. O’Dell says that they are not considering any alternatives that are not in keeping with the First 

Amendment and Federal regulations. And there was perhaps some 

confusion between protests and demonstrations, and you would be 

able to protest anywhere. 

And of course, as you know, under the First Amendment, a demonstration could always be, you can find time, place, et cetera. 

Do you think that you and the Park Service are going to be on 

the same page when this is all done, and that your concerns have 

been addressed? 

Mr. SPITZER. Well, I hope we will be on the same page when this 

is done. I guess that remains to be seen. 

But what I have heard and what I have heard in some private 

discussions before today’s hearing makes me more optimistic about 

that then I was when I read some stories in the paper a few 

months ago. 

There doesn’t seem to be any desire to confine First Amendment 

activity to a demonstrator’s pit someplace. I mean, the idea of demonstrators sitting in a, you know, in a paved square under the 

scorching summer sun, rather than being able to sit on grass or 

under a tree, would not be very welcoming or inviting. And I hope 

that is not what is in anybody’s mind. 

On the other hand, the possibility of providing improved amenities for demonstrators, along with others, is certainly not a negative thing. And I think as long as the Park Service and the other 

organizations that are involved in this effort are aware that this 

committee and Congress care very much about protecting the First 

Amendment use of the Mall, then the chances that we will all be 

on the same page at the end of the process will be greatly improved. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, this is, this is another piece for Mr. Akridge’s 

plate. If this were private, if the Mall was a private enterprise, 

having demonstrations on the Mall, just like having the Smithsonian like that would be a cost of doing business. So to say to the 

American people we can’t have your demonstrations and protests 

on the Mall because we don’t have the money raises very, very, it 

seems to me, very serious issues. 

But they do have maintenance problems when people use the 

Mall. And when we talk about backlog, we are really talking about 

extra funds so that when damage occurs, it can be repaired without 

52 

saying to the American people, I am sorry, you can’t go on the 

grass. 

Ms. Feldman, I just want to thank you publicly for your extraordinary, visionary work on the Mall when nobody was listening. You 

and I would have meeting after meeting. The Park Service wasn’t 

activated and there was no one else, but you and your commission 

were active and have been wonderfully, it seems to me, imaginative 

in all of this, and I just wanted to clarify a couple of parts of your 

testimony. The Chairman has had beforehand all of the agencies 

involved in planning, but there is a part of your testimony that 

talks about multiple jurisdictions in the west. I wouldn’t let them 

off that easy, Ms. Feldman. 

There is no question that this is an important hearing. The 

Chairman was able to call beforehand everyone. I can’t think of 

any other committee that either would do that, or would have the 

jurisdiction to do that. And the notion about the Smithsonian and 

the National Gallery, I can say to you without fear of contradiction 

that the Smithsonian could care less about the Mall. They have a 

far greater backlog, maintenance backlog, than the Park Service. 

Thus, I do not believe that the National Gallery of Art or the rest 

of them tend to the Mall, have an interest in the Mall. 

I now regard this as a jurisdictional matter. I believe this committee has the authority it seems to take the authority to do what 

it can to move this matter. Maybe in some world where Congress 

does not live, you know, you could put everything under a Czar and 

get things done, wearing the frustrations out from being in the 

Congress is had the monk work with the beast. 

And this is the beast. And I think this beast is far easier to handle than the ones I have seen on other committees, where indeed 

the multiple-jurisdiction committees fight for jurisdiction. The 

problem I have had is that nobody has been fighting for this jurisdiction. 

I would like to ask you, though, about forcing people off the Mall, 

and the Mall is not a finished work. Because I think we are playing 

with words here. 

Is it not the case that when the Mall was declared by somebody, 

it may have been NCPC, to be a finished work of art, they were 

really talking about every Tom, Dick, and Harry wanting his own 

memorial on the strip between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial. And it got so overcrowded and so unmanageable that they, on 

their own, went to other places, and have had some success in 

going to other places around the Mall. 

As I understood it, you were for an expanded space. You were for 

these spaces other than on that strip. So I wasn’t sure what you 

meant by forcing people off the Mall, or that the Mall is not a finished work of art. It seems to me that you are playing on words 

there, because I don’t believe they meant to say that you don’t, you 

don’t have an evolving kind of masterpiece here. It just means that, 

it seemed to me, that you were destroying the masterpiece by having to fight off every small and large memorial that came along. 

So I would like you to clarify what you had in mind. 

Ms. FELDMAN. First of all, I think that what has come out today 

is that everyone understands that the Mall needs a lot of work, and 

it is going to need some financing, whether it is government or priVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\42475.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
53 

vate. We all support the notion of raising funding to improve the 

infrastructure, the monuments and memorials. That is all very important. 

Our issue has to do with something other than Mall management 

and maintenance. What we are trying to get at is the concept of 

a vision. When NCPC came up with the notion that the Mall was 

completed, absolutely, and then Congress went along, the notion 

was we have run out of space for new memorials and museums. 

And what is happening, and what has been happening for the 

past several years, is we are actually locating new monuments on 

existing monumental grounds. That happened with the Vietnam 

Veterans Memorial Visitors Center, which is going to go actually 

on the Lincoln Memorial grounds, and now the African-American 

History Museum is going to go on part of the Washington Monument grounds. 

So we are starting to build on top of already-dedicated zones. We 

support that notion that the Mall, the existing Mall, can’t take on 

more memorials that take over the public open space, which was 

the original purpose of the Mall. That is why we support expansion, as you have proposed. 

Expansion, however, is not a question of real estate, of not just 

identifying new real estate where new monuments can go. The 

Mall concept is one of the public promenade, going back to 1791, 

the expression of this open space as the we, the people, place between the Executive and the White House, and the Legislative and 

the Capitol. It is the symbolic quality of it that requires more than 

a real estate approach, or a prohibition, or limitations, or a management plan. 

We don’t argue that all of these other plans are absolutely important, including the Center City agenda. But what we need now is 

a way to reconnect the National Mall, which has become a Federal 

enclave, to the lively city around it, and which really depends on 

the Mall becoming something other than a tourist venue. 

It really means something, and this is something that we have 

uncovered. The Park Service has a mandate, through the Organic 

Act, to preserve natural resources. The problem with the Mall is 

it was intended as a lively urban park. So we had, in essence, contrasting priorities—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We are going to have to wrap this part of it up. 

And we have one additional set of questions from Mr. Inslee, and 

I apologize for that. And then we are running against some schedule deadlines for not only myself, but other members. 

Mr. Inslee, do you have any questions? 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. A concern I have is to 

the extent sort of our generation is using up the Mall, every generation, you know, throughout American history is going to have 

some claim on the Mall. 

I had a concern that our generation was claiming it a lot more 

rapidly than other generations. And it is an end-use finite real estate. 

I am just asking for comments how we should figure out how 

much claim each generation should have on the Mall, and how do 

we decide that. I don’t want our, the Baby Boomer generation, to 

be seen as being overly greedy about this precious real estate. 

54 

Ms. FELDMAN. Well, I would just say that that is exactly how we 

came about the notion of a National Mall Commission. 

If we have people like historians like David McCullough, or if we 

have college presidents that are used to dealing with divided management and fractious points of view; if we could get big thinkers, 

real creative minds to help us answer these questions. Then instead of saying, the way we do now, that whoever has the money 

and the political power to get a monument on the Mall gets one, 

a bigger question is what belongs there, and how we can make it 

a better place. 

But that, I think we need help to do that. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And before I wrap, thank all the panelists and excuse myself, and apologize for interrupting mid-sentence or mid-paragraph, I don’t know where I interrupted. 

You know, sometimes when I vote on the Floor, I feel like I am 

in a demonstrators’ pit, but that is another story. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I wanted to say the 50-year plan is probably, for 

our national identity for the Mall, one of the most important undertakings that this Congress and this nation has in front of them. 

And I think the issue, as I saw it today, is how do you integrate 

the vitality of city residents with the need to promote that national 

identity for visitors and tourists, as well. 

And I think that can be done, but it can be done with transparency, with inclusion, and with the eye toward this being a lasting memorial. And also redefining what we mean by Mall, and defining what was appropriate for that Mall. 

Those are difficult questions. And I think the National Park 

Service has an undertaking in front of them that is very, very serious. And certainly this committee will not only monitor, but, 

thanks to the Congresswoman, provide additional oversight as that 

process begins. And one of the oversight issues is the inclusion 

issue. And I want to thank this last panel for making that a very 

important part of this hearing. 

And with that, let me adjourn the meeting. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ