[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 271, H.R. 980, and H.R. 1668
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 12, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
-------
77-881 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Samoa
George Radanovich, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 12, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 5
Delahunt, Hon. William D., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Massachusetts................................. 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 1668.......................... 17
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 271........................... 4
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 271, H.R. 980, and H.R. 1668.. 2
McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Massachusetts, Prepared statement on H.R. 1668 21
Rahall, Hon. Nick J. II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia, Prepared statement on H.R. 1668 20
Roemer, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana.........................................12
Prepared statement on H.R. 1668.......................... 14
Wamp, Hon. Zach, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Tennessee............................................... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 980........................... 8
Article ``Park Status for Moccasin Bend'' submitted for
the record............................................. 10
Article ``Moccasin Bend for national park'' submitted for
the record............................................. 11
Statement of Witnesses:
Baker, Jack D., President, Trail of Tears Association,
Oklahoma City, OK.......................................... 55
Prepared statement on H.R. 980........................... 57
Culp, Carson Pete, Assistant Director of Minerals, Realty and
Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
DC......................................................... 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 271........................... 29
Ellis, Dr. Joseph J., Professor and Author, Mount Holyoke
College, South Hadley, MA.................................. 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 1668.......................... 40
Galvin, Denis, Acting Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 980........................... 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 1668.......................... 34
McCullough, David, Author, West Tisbury, MA.................. 41
Prepared statement on H.R. 1668.......................... 43
McIntosh, Janice L., Director, Carson City Senior Citizens
Center, Carson City, NV.................................... 59
Prepared statement on H.R. 271........................... 60
Mills, James O., Vice-President, The Friends of Moccasin Bend
National Park, Chattanooga, TN............................. 52
Prepared statement on H.R. 980........................... 53
Additional materials supplied:
Collins, Kevin, Acting Legislative Director, National Parks
Conservation Association, Letter submitted for the record
on H.R. 980................................................ 68
Collins, Kevin, Acting Legislative Director, National Parks
Conservation Association, Letter submitted for the record
on H.R. 1668............................................... 69
Davenport, Robert M., Jr., Chattanooga Project Office
Director, Trust for Public Land, Statement submitted for
the record on H.R. 980..................................... 70
Inter-Tribal Council, Letter submitted for the record on H.R.
980........................................................ 73
Parsons, John, Chairman, National Capital Memorial
Commission, National Park Service, Letter submitted for the
record on H.R. 1668........................................ 75
Trail of Tears Association, Resolution submitted for the
record on H.R. 980......................................... 76
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 271, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONVEY A FORMER BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE
SITE TO THE CITY OF CARSON CITY, NEVADA, FOR USE AS A SENIOR CENTER;
H.R. 980, TO ESTABLISH THE MOCCASIN BEND NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE IN THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSSTEM; AND H.R.
1668, TO AUTHORIZE THE ADAMS MEMORIAL FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH A
COMMEMORATIVE WORK ON FEDERAL LAND IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ITS
ENVIRONS TO HONOR FORMER PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS AND HIS FAMILY.
----------
Tuesday, June 12, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. I would like to welcome everybody to the
hearing today. This morning, the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will hear testimony on three
bills: H.R. 271, H.R. 980, and H.R. 1668. The first bill, H.R.
271, was introduced by Congressman Jim Gibbons of Nevada. This
bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a
former Bureau of Land Management administrative site to the
city of Carson City, Nevada, for use as a senior citizen
center. The approximately 4.5 acres of currently uninhabitable
buildings would be subject to reversion to the Federal
Government if they are used for another purpose other than a
senior citizens assisting living center or related public
purpose.
The second bill, H.R. 980, was introduced by Congressman
Zach Wamp of Tennessee. This bill would establish the 911-acre
Moccasin Bend National Historic Site in Chattanooga, Tennessee
as unit of the National Park Service System. I understand that
the National Park Service completed its special resource study
on the suitability and feasibility of establishing the National
Historic Site and concluded that, indeed, the site is
nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the
National Park Service. I also understand this bill is supported
by the entire Tennessee delegation and the Intertribal Council
of the Five Civilized Tribes.
The last bill, H.R. 1668, was introduced by Congressman Tim
Roemer of Indiana. This bill would authorize the Adams Memorial
Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in
the District of Columbia in honor of former President John
Adams and wife, Abigail, former President John Quincy Adams and
his wife, Louisa, Charles Francis Adams, Henry Adams and their
legacy of public service. The bill specifies that the memorial
will be constructed in accordance with the Commemorative Works
Act. The adoption of this bill would not result in any expense
to the Federal Government since the Adams Memorial Foundation
will be solely responsible for accepting contributions for and
payment of the expenses associated with the memorial.
At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Wamp and Congressman Roemer and Congressman
Delahunt be permitted to sit on the dais following their
statements. Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses today for being here to
testify on these bills. Mrs. Christensen is not here at the
moment, but she will have the opportunity to make an opening
statement at such time as she would be here.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hefley follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on H.R. 271, H.R. 980 and
H.R. 1668
Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. This morning, the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear
testimony on three bills--H.R. 271, H.R. 980, and H.R. 1668.
The first bill, H.R. 271, was introduced by Congressman Jim Gibbons
of Nevada. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey a former Bureau of Land Management administrative site to the
city of Carson City, Nevada, for use as a senior citizens center. The
approximately 4.5 acres of currently uninhabitable buildings and
improvements would be subject to reversion to the federal government if
they are used for another purpose other than a senior citizens assisted
living center or related public purpose.
The second bill, H.R. 980, was introduced by Congressman Zach Wamp
of Tennessee. This bill would establish the 911-acre Moccasin Bend
National Historic Site in Chattanooga, Tennessee as a unit of the
National Park System. I understand that the National Park Service
completed its Special Resource Study on the suitability and feasibility
of establishing the National Historic Site, and concluded that indeed
the site is nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the
national park system. I also understand this bill is supported by the
entire Tennessee Delegation and Inter-Tribal Council of the Five
Civilized Tribes.
The last bill, H.R. 1668, was introduced by Congressman Tim Roemer
of Indiana. This bill would authorize the Adams Memorial Foundation to
establish a commemorative work on federal land in the District of
Columbia to honor former President John Adams and his wife Abigail,
former President John Quincy Adams and his wife, Louisa, Charles
Francis Adams, Henry Adams, and their legacy of public service. The
bill specifies that the memorial will be constructed in accordance with
the Commemorative Works Act. The adoption of this bill would not result
in any expense to the federal government since the Adams Memorial
Foundation will be solely responsible for accepting contributions for
and payment of expenses associated with the memorial.
At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Wamp, Congressman Roemer and Congressman Delahunt be
permitted to sit on the dias following their statements. Without
objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to
testify on these bills and now turn to the Ranking Member, Ms.
Christensen.
______
Our first panel will be composed of Congressman Zach Wamp,
Tim Roemer, and William Delahunt, and also Jim Gibbons. I am
going to call on Jim first for comments on his bill, since that
is the lowest number bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for scheduling
this hearing on H.R. 271, a bill which I introduced to convey
4.5 acres of BLM land in Carson City for a much-needed senior
citizen center, and I certainly appreciate this opportunity to
discuss this very important piece of legislation to the
constituents of Carson City.
A commonsense directive, H.R. 271, along with Senate Bill
230, a companion piece of legislation introduced by my
colleagues, U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign from
Nevada, has garnered much bipartisan support in Congress, as
well as strong support in the area, and my home State of
Nevada. The legislation directs the Secretary of Interior to
convey a former Bureau of Land Management administrative site
in our State's capital, Carson City, for use as a senior
citizen center. The BLM has since moved to a new office in
Carson City and is fully supportive of this land conveyance.
The approximate 4.5 acres of land we hope to provide for
our growing senior population consists primarily of uninhabited
buildings that have been vacant for over 4 years. Mr. Chairman,
with nearly 89 percent of the State of Nevada currently owned
and managed by the Federal Government, I cannot think of a
better way or a better use of our disposable public land than
to help provide a much-needed facility for our senior citizens
in Nevada. The Carson City Senior Center, established in 1972
with the support of the Carson City Kiwanis Club and local
community involvement, has seen many changes to its membership
and, indeed, the center has changed its surrounding community
in Carson City over the past 20 years, as well.
Since 1982, Nevada's population has grown by about 1.5
million people, many of these people consisting of senior
citizens who see Nevada as an exceptional place to retire. This
rate of growth, Mr. Chairman, one not seen anywhere else in the
United States, requires our Federal, State, and local
governments to act accordingly on matters of public service. At
present, Carson City's population is slightly more than 50,000
people with at least 20 percent of its residents age 60 or
older. Mr. Chairman, that is one out of five in Carson City
would be over 60 years old. That is--of a population of
50,000--that is 10,000 people that this senior citizen center
has the ability to provide services to.
As a result, the current senior center in Carson City is
one of the most highly-used public facilities in the region.
Over the years, this facility has expanded to the point they
are at today, which is overcrowded with simply no room left to
grow. Consequently, new land is required to manage our growing
community, and H.R. 271 is a step in the right direction for
the senior citizens of northern Nevada. When completed, the
newly constructed facility will provide our senior population
with a modernized, state-of-the-art senior center. Furthermore,
it will conveniently accommodate access to the Carson-Tahoe
Rehabilitation Center Hospital and Assisted Living Center. With
the additional space required through this land conveyance, the
senior citizen center will be able to offer its most popular
activities to a larger segment of the public, and without a
doubt senior citizens throughout Nevada will greatly benefit
from the passage of this bill.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Committee's time to
consider this legislation. More importantly the senior citizens
in Carson City appreciate the time of this Committee and its
consideration, as well. It is my hope that we can report some
good news to them in the very near future, and on behalf of the
senior citizens of Carson City, I respectfully request this
Subcommittee's full support for this legislation and I thank
you for the time.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. Let me step back just a
moment and see if Mrs. Christensen has an opening statement
that she would like to make
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me
here today to discuss this very important legislation with you.
H.R. 271, along with S. 230 -- companion legislation introduced by
U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign, is a common-sense directive
that has achieved strong, bi-partisan support -- as well as strong
support in my home state of Nevada.
This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey a
former Bureau of Land Management administrative site to our State's
Capital -- Carson City, Nevada -- for use as a senior citizens center.
The BLM has since moved into a new office in Carson City and is fully
supportive of the land conveyance.
The approximately 4.5 acres of land that we hope to provide for our
growing senior population consists primarily of uninhabitable buildings
that have been vacant for over four years. Mr. Chairman, with nearly
87% of Nevada currently owned and managed by the federal government, I
cannot think of a better use of our disposable public lands than to
help provide a much-needed facility for our senior citizens in Nevada.
The Carson City Senior Center, established in 1972 with the support
of the Carson City Kiwanis Club and local community involvement, has
seen many changes to its membership. And indeed, so has changed its
surrounding community in Carson City over the last 20 years.
Since 1972, Nevada's population has grown by about 1.5 million
people, many of these people consisting of senior citizens who see
Nevada as an exceptional place to retire. This rate of growth, one not
seen anywhere else in the United States, requires our federal, state
and local governments to act accordingly on matters of public service.
At present, Carson City's population is slightly more than 50,000
people with at least 10,000 (or twenty percent) of these people being
of age 60 or older. As a result, the current senior center in Carson
City is one of the most highly used public facilities in the region.
Over the years, this facility has expanded to the point they are at
today ... overcrowded with simply no room left to grow. For this, new
land is required to manage our growing community and H.R. 271 is a step
in the right direction for the senior citizens of Northern Nevada.
When completed, the newly constructed facility will provide our
senior population with a modernized, state-of-the-art senior center.
Further, it will conveniently accommodate access to the Carson Tahoe
Rehabilitation Center Hospital, an assisted living center.
With the additional space acquired through this land conveyance,
the Senior Citizens Center will be able to offer its most popular
activities to a larger segment of the public. Without a doubt, senior
citizens throughout Northern Nevada will greatly benefit from passage
of this bill.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee's time to take up
this important legislation. More importantly, the senior citizens in
Carson City appreciate this committee's time and consideration. It is
my hope that we can report some very good news to them in the very near
future.
On behalf of our senior citizens in Carson City, I respectfully
request this committee's support for this legislation and thank each of
you for your time.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing on the three bills that we
are going to receive testimony on today. I want to welcome my
three colleagues who are here to testify. The first measure,
H.R. 271, directs the Bureau of Land Management to donate a
piece of Federal property in Carson City, Nevada to the city
for use as a senior citizens assisted living center. The four-
acre site is no longer used by the BLM and is adjacent to the
existing senior center. Given the prohibitive expense to the
community where they would be forced to purchase a property, as
well as the valuable purpose for which they intend to use the
land, this transfer is quite appropriate.
The second bill, H.R. 980, would designate the Moccasin
Bend National Site near Chattanooga, Tennessee. The area is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is
designated as a national historic landmark based on its
archeological resources. Native Americans lived in Moccasin
Bend as early as 12,000 B.C., until their forced removal by way
of the Trail of Tears in 1838. Some have identified Moccasin
Bend as one of the most important Native Americans sites inside
any American city. Unfortunately, Moccasin Bend enjoys no
uniform protected status and the land is home to a variety of
uses, including a statewide mental health facility and a
municipal golf course. The National Park Service has developed
a plan to designate the area as a national historic park and
phase out these inconsistent uses over time. However, this
approach has led to some controversy.
The legislation before us which designates the area as
Moccasin Bend National Historic Site excludes the parcel on
which the golf course is located. It is our understanding that
this parcel contained some of the most significant resources in
the area and its exclusion from the site raises concerns, as
well. It is our hope that today's hearing might help clarify
the merits of these two competing proposals to protect this
important historic area.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, and the reason that I ran over from
my other hearing, I truly appreciate your holding a hearing on
H.R. 1668, legislation I am pleased to be a co-sponsor with my
friend, Tim Roemer. John Adams, our first Vice President and
second President of the United States, was an early American
statesman and patriot. I will leave it to our witnesses here
today to describe in far greater detail the accomplishments of
former President Adams and his family. As I have come to learn
more about this President through Tim and the scholarly work of
David McCullough, I am convinced of the appropriateness of
establishing a memorial to their memory here in Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Chairman, I hope you and my colleagues will bear with
me. I do have to get back to another hearing, but I did want to
come over and make my statement and support 1668, in
particular, and I look forward to reading all of the testimony
from the panelists this morning. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, Mrs. Christensen.
Zach Wamp. We will turn to you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZACH WAMP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Wamp. To our distinguished Chairman and our
distinguished ranking member, all of my colleagues here, and
frankly, the staff that has worked so hard to bring us to this
day, I want to thank you for this much-appreciated opportunity
to testify on H.R. 980, the bill to establish Moccasin Bend
National Historic Site in the State of Tennessee as a unit of
the National Park Service. This bill is bipartisan. It includes
co-sponsorships from all nine House members in Tennessee and
Congressman Nathan Deal of North Georgia.
The process to develop H.R. 980 has been one of consensus
building and compromise. There has not been a point, since I
have been involved in the last 6 years, that we have had this
much support for adding Moccasin Bend into the National Park
Service around this compromise. I believe we have a good
compromise that has taken all views into account throughout
this process. The wide range of support for passage of this
bill today includes the city of Chattanooga, where the property
is; Hamilton County; the State of Tennessee; the Intertribal
Council of the Five Civilized Tribes Cultural Preservation
Committee; the Friends of Moccasin Bend, the Cherokee Nation;
and both editorial boards of the Chattanooga Times and Free
Press, who seldom agree. Although this may be the first step in
the legislative process, it is a monumental move for those who
have worked so diligently to see Moccasin Bend preserved. It is
the first time in decades that a Committee has revisited the
merits of adding Moccasin Bend in the National Park Service.
I will defer to Jack Baker, the president of the National
Trail of Tears Association, and Jay Mills, the vice president
of the Friends of Moccasin Bend, to explain in detail in their
testimony the history and importance of adding this into the
National Park Service. However, I would like to point out that,
in 1950, Congress enacted legislation that authorizes the
Secretary of Interior to accept a donation of no more than
1,400 acres of Moccasin Bend to the Chickamauga-Chattanooga
National Military Park. Although this legislation is still
valid today, there have been many changes to the property over
the years.
The site was also listed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 1984. In 1986, a 956-acre area was
designated as the Moccasin Bend Archeological District National
Historic Landmark. In 1998, Congress appropriated funds, at my
initiative, and the National Park Service conducted a
feasibility study that determined that Moccasin Bend holds
nationally-significant archeological and historical resources.
This study discussed many alternatives, but only had two viable
alternatives; either leave the bend as is or include it as a
unit of the National Park Service.
The National Park Service study is very thorough and
describes many of the threats to the resources that are
included in the bend. The two most controversial areas are the
Moccasin Bend Mental Health Institute and the Moccasin Bend
Golf Course. During a number of discussions with all parties
involved, I think we have brokered two very well-thought out
compromises on each and have received broad support. In H.R.
980, there are two privately-owned parcels of land; the Rock 10
parcel and the Saradino and Clemish property are owned by
willing sellers that would like their property to be part of
the park. I have worked in my capacity as a member of Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee to include $2 million in the
National Park Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund to
purchase these two properties, subject to authorization and the
enactment of this bill.
I know that the National Park Service will have some
initial concerns about 980 since the bill does not include all
of their recommendations. I believe that as the bill moves
through the legislative process we can address these concerns.
President Bush's initiative to eliminate the deferred
maintenance backlog should be commended. I look forward to
working with this administration on this initiative. Throughout
the appropriations process, for the last 5 years, on the
Interior Subcommittee, I have worked to reduce the backlog and
to find creative ways, like the fee-demonstration program, to
fund these needed improvements.
The time to add Moccasin Bend into the Park System is now.
From the early Native Americans to Hernando DeSoto on the way
to the Mississippi, from the Cherokees beginning the Trail of
Tears to the brave soldiers of the Civil War, the history of
the bend calls us to action now. We must do both, preserve
significant sites like Moccasin Bend, and deal with the backlog
of maintenance needs at our national treasures.
In closing, I would urge the Subcommittee to move forward
on H.R. 980. I stand ready to work with you, Chairman Hefley,
and the other members of the Subcommittee to make sure we that
we perfect this bill as it moves through the legislative
process. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
would look forward to any questions, and I would ask unanimous
consent to include in the record the full written statement of
Bobby Davenport the project director of the Trust for Public
Land in Chattanooga, a letter of support for H.R. 980 from the
Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes Cultural
Preservation Committee, and two newspaper editorials supporting
H.R. 980 by the two editorial boards of the Chattanooga Times
and Free Press. I will be happy to answer questions and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection, these items will be
included.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wamp follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Zach Wamp, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Tennessee, on H.R. 980
Chairman Hefley, Ranking Member Christensen and members of the
Subcommittee:
I want to thank you for this much appreciated opportunity to
testify before you today on H.R. 980, a bill to establish the Moccasin
Bend National Historic Site in the State of Tennessee as a unit of the
National Park System. This bill is bipartisan and includes the nine
House members from the State of Tennessee and Congressman Nathan Deal
as original cosponsors.
The process to develop H.R. 980 has been one of consensus building
and compromise. There has never been a point since I have been involved
in preserving Moccasin Bend that we have had this much support for
adding Moccasin Bend into the National Park system. I believe we have a
good compromise that has taken all views into account throughout this
process. This wide range of support for passage of H.R. 980 includes
the City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, the State of Tennessee, the
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes Cultural Preservation
Committee, the Friends of Moccasin Bend, the Cherokee Nation, and both
editorial boards of the Chattanooga Times and Free Press, who don't
always agree.
Although this may be the first step in the legislative process,
this is a monumental move for those that have worked so diligently to
see Moccasin Bend preserved. This is the first time in decades that a
Committee has revisited the merits of adding Moccasin Bend into the
National Park System. I will defer to Jack Baker, the president of the
National Trail of Tears Association and Jay Mills, the vice-president
of the Friends of Moccasin Bend, to explain in detail in their
testimony the history and importance of adding this into the National
Park system. However, I would like to point out that in 1950, Congress
enacted legislation that authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
accept a donation of no more than 1,400 acres of Moccasin Bend to
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park. Although this
legislation is still valid today, there have been many changes to the
property over the years. The site was also listed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 1984 and in 1986, a 956-acre area was
designated as the Moccasin Bend Archeological District National
Historic Landmark.
In 1998, Congress appropriated funds, and the National Park Service
conducted a feasibility study that determined that Moccasin Bend holds
nationally significant archeological and historical resources. This
study discussed many alternatives but only had two viable
alternatives--leave the Bend as is or include it as a unit of the
National Park System. The NPS study is very thorough and describes many
of the ``Threats to the Resources'' that are included in the Bend. The
two most controversial areas on the Bend have been the Moccasin Bend
Mental Health Institute and the Moccasin Bend Golf Course. During a
number of discussions with all parties involved, I think we have
brokered two very well thought out compromises on each and have
received broad support.
Also, in H.R. 980 there are two privately owned parcels of land.
Both the Rock-Tenn parcel and the Serodino and Klimsch property are
owned by willing sellers that would like their property to be part of
the park. I have worked in my capacity as a member of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee to include $2 million in the National Park
Services Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase these two
properties, subject to the enactment of H.R. 980.
I know that the National Park Service will have some initial
concerns about H.R. 980 since the bill doesn't include all of the Park
Service's recommendations. I believe that as this bill moves through
the legislative process that we can address these concerns. President
Bush's initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog should
be commended. I look forward to working with this administration on
this initiative throughout the appropriations process. For the last
five years on the interior subcommittee, I have also worked to reduce
the backlog and to find creative ways like the ``Fee Demonstration''
program to fund needed improvements. But the time to add Moccasin Bend
to the park system is now. From the early native Americans to Hernando
de Soto on his way to the Mississippi; from the Cherokees beginning the
Trail of Tears to the brave soldiers of the Civil War--the history of
``The Bend'' calls us to action now. We must do both--preserve
significant sights like Moccasin Bend and deal with the backlog of
maintenance needs at our national treasurers.
In closing, I would urge the Subcommittee to move forward on H.R.
980. I stand ready to work with you, Chairman Hefley, and the other
members of the subcommittee to make sure that we perfect this bill as
it moves through the legislative process.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward
to any questions you may have.
______
[The articles referred to follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.008
Mr. Hefley. Congressman Roemer?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIM ROEMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent to have my entire statement entered into the record
along with facsimiles and explanations of historic documents
that we have from the Library of Congress.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, let me appropriately quote John
Adams to start my testimony, ``I never shall shine till some
animating occasion calls forth all my powers.'' I never shall
shine till some animating occasion calls forth all my powers.
We haven't had any shining on John Adams for over 200 years and
this omission needs to be addressed, hopefully by July 4th of
this year, which would be an appropriate date, given John
Adams' and Abigail Adams' and their family's contributions to
our independence movement.
Also, as he talks about an animating occasion, I hope that
you will find that with the distinguished scholars and
historians that we have here today, David McCullough and Joseph
Ellis, that they certainly will be animating and very powerful
in their explanations as to why we should build this monument.
Our powers--Mr. Chairman, I hope that we have bipartisan powers
here today to pass this bill, to get it on the suspension
calendar, encourage the Senate to go forward in an expeditious
fashion and get this bill passed into law.
I want to start by thanking you and your staff for all your
help and all your cooperation. I want to thank Mrs. Christensen
for her help and I want to thank the co-sponsors, some of which
we have here today, Mr. McGovern from the State of
Massachusetts, Mr. Souder from my home State of Indiana, for
their bipartisan support as well, too.
Many people ask me, Mr. Chairman, how is a guy from Indiana
interested in this issue? Several years ago, while doing some
research at the Library of Congress, I asked for a book that
was referred to in a famous Adams-Jefferson letter as Simple
Homespun. They told me they had to bring it out in the rare
book collection, so I went to the rare book collection and they
presented me with the very book that John Adams presented to
Thomas Jefferson, to rekindle their friendship that had been
soured politically after about 12 years. The book was written
by none other than John Quincy Adams, and was a book on
rhetoric and oratory.
This ignited the most important correspondence between two
leaders of our country in the history of our country, the
famous Adams-Jefferson letters. I became fascinated, not just
with John and Abigail Adams, but with the rest of the family
and the successive contributions that these public servants
have made. From the founding of the country to the independence
efforts, to keeping us out of war with France, to John Quincy
Adams writing the Monroe Doctrine, serving as President,
serving as a Member of Congress for 18 years--Charles Francis
Adams, running as a Vice Presidential candidate after he had
bolted one party--I guess we have to be a little bit careful
about bolting parties around here these days--bolting one party
and running as a Free Soil candidate, and then serving in
Congress and then being appointed by Abraham Lincoln to be the
diplomat to keep the English out of the Civil War, keep the
Confederacy from being supported by England. He was personally
responsible for that, from an appointment from Abraham Lincoln.
Then, from that family, Henry Adams was born, pre-eminent
historian, writing on Presidential administrations, and
probably wrote what many scholars say is the best autobiography
in the history of the country, The Education of Henry Adams--
successive generations of public servants, Presidents, Vice
Presidents, congressman, historians, men, women. We talked, and
you will hear a lot from Mr. Ellis and Mr. McCullough about
John Adams and Abigail Adams, and the 54-year marriage they
had, and the love and the passion and the politics that they
engaged in, unlike maybe any other relationship and marriage in
the history of our public servants.
They go on to have a child that is the sixth President of
the United States and who serves in three careers, as public
policy diplomat, as President, and as congressman. The history
here is so dazzling, so brilliant, so filled with virtue and
character and honesty, virtues that America needs to hear more
about, that I hope this memorial is built, not only soon, to
commemorate the contributions of this wonderful and talented
family, but I hope the educational efforts help bring us along
to talk about these kinds of virtues and characters and honesty
in public service that, quite frankly, causes a great deal of
cynicism on the part of many people in our electorate.
These documents that the Library of Congress has so
graciously brought today--Gerry Gawalt has brought them--are
three letters; one letter, from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson,
which talks about the two pieces of Homespun that I talked
about, that actually was the two volumes, the two books, from
John Quincy Adams, that he sent in the mail that were delayed
and later delivered to Thomas Jefferson, that started their
friendship.
Another letter is a letter from John Adams to the Federal
servants, public servants, at the time, telling them to pack up
and move all their belongings from Philadelphia to the new
capital in Washington, D.C. Again, an original document from
the Library of Congress. The third letter is a letter from John
Adams to Thomas Jefferson, talking with some degree of
trepidation, but also with a lot of excitement, about his first
meeting with King George III. This takes place when John Adams,
the victorious rebel of the American Revolutionary movement, is
meeting with the former oppressor. He buys a new coat and, I
think, new buckles for his shoes to go meet with him, and has
what he thinks is a respectful and kind meeting with the former
oppressor.
Three wonderful documents of many documents that the
library has that they have graciously provided here today to
catch up with some of the history that we have in this Adams
family. I also want to conclude, and you cannot scratch the
service in a 5-minute testimony about the importance of this
family--the Colossus of Independence, as Jefferson called
Adams, his contributions with his wife, Abigail, without
mentioning my good friend, Bill Delahunt. Bill graciously
hosted me up in Quincy, Massachusetts a few months ago, to
better acquaint me with the history, the homes, the history of
the family, the wonderful contributions that they have made. I
want to thank him personally for all his help in putting this
legislation together.
Let me conclude with another John Adams quote. He was
speaking to the determination that Great Britain had at the
time of fighting the so-called colonists in America and trying
to defeat the United States and keep them a colonial power.
This caused Adams a great deal of resolve in his attitudes, and
he said, ``Great Britain was determined on her system, but that
very determination determined me on mine.'' And I quote, ``Swim
or sink, live or die, survive or perish, I am with my country.
You may depend on it.'' We depended on him and his family, his
wife and his family, for our independence, our Revolution, the
founding of the country and the foreign policy. It is time we
deliver for this family and create this memorial. I look
forward to, I hope, a lively discussion on this. I know you
look forward to Mr. McCullough and Mr. Ellis testifying. Thank
you, again, for the time and your support, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roemer follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tim Roemer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana
We are here today because the question has been asked: why is there
no fitting memorial to John Adams and his family's tremendous legacy in
American politics. We are joined by two Pulitzer Prize winning authors
and historians who have asked the same question and concluded that it
is time to build it--and honor the most distinguished family in
American history.
This morning, the case will be made that John Adams's contributions
as a colossus of independence; as an equal partner with Washington and
Jefferson as a creator of our country; as the first Vice President and
second President; as a skilled diplomat negotiating peace with England
and later with France; as an author of one of the most important
diaries, and perhaps the most important letters with Thomas Jefferson,
are too great not to be immortalized among his colleagues.
As a public servant, my fascination with Adams extends through
three generations of his descendants. As a family, the Adamses were the
guardians of our republic, from its creation through adolescence. Their
courage and prophetic wisdom kept us out of war, built the foundation
of American foreign policy, transcended party politics, and displayed
independence in critical times. It is time to embrace their
contributions with a proper memorial in our capital city.
As a member of Congress, I am particularly intrigued by John Quincy
Adams, the quintessential public servant, and son of John Adams. John
Quincy Adams began his career as a diplomat, skillfully serving
America's national interests in Russia, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Prussia, and Great Britain. Under President Madison he negotiated the
Treaty of Ghent, and as Secretary of State during the Monroe
Administration, he helped create the most important and decisive
foreign policy statement of its time, The Monroe Doctrine.
John Quincy Adams's Presidency was ambitious. Like his father, he
believed that the government should invest in education and science for
the betterment of its citizens. He proposed a national university and
observatory. He pursued his agenda with tenacity and initiative, and
like his father, enjoyed negligible political support. Like his father,
he served only one term as President.
A true public servant, John Quincy Adams returned to public life
after a brief hiatus to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives from
his hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts. In his nine terms, he spoke of
no issue more often--or with more vigor--than slavery. Like his
parents, John Quincy Adams was a stolid abolitionist, known to his
colleagues as ``old man eloquent.'' He died at the ``post of duty'' as
a dedicated public servant, suffering a stroke on the floor of the
House. He passed away two days later in the U.S. Capitol.
John Quincy Adams's son, Charles Francis Adams, spent his formative
years in Washington, learning through the examples of his distinguished
predecessors. As he entered into politics, Charles Francis Adams became
increasingly disenchanted with the insincerity and outright corruption
of his generation of leaders in Washington. He soon bolted the Whigs in
favor of the Free Soil Party, which organized around the principles of
a profound opposition to slavery. He received the Party's Vice
Presidential nomination in 1848, and eventually held his father's old
seat in the U.S. Congress. In 1860, President Lincoln tapped Charles
Francis Adams--now a member of the new Republican Party, and widely
known for his sharp intellect and persuasive powers--to act as
Ambassador to England in order to prevent British military support for
the Confederacy. His logic, reserve and directness achieved functional
neutrality from Britain, which helped to preserve the integrity of our
Union.
Charles Francis Adams's son, Henry Adams, shared his father's
frustration with politics and corruption in Washington. His
observations steered him towards journalism, where he described the
shortcomings of modern politics without falling prey to them. A
``liberal Republican,'' Henry Adams wrote pointed, brilliant essays
exposing political fraud and dishonesty. He shared the idealism and
independence of his heritage, never putting politics above his
convictions. Henry Adams was also an accomplished academic, teaching
Medieval History at Harvard, and the first American to employ the
``seminar'' method of instruction. Henry Adams is best known for his
acclaimed autobiography, The Education of Henry Adams. Some have called
it the greatest autobiography in American history.
The Adamses occupy a position in American history unequaled by any
other family. They helped create our nation as champions of freedom;
they helped defend and guide it during its vulnerable, early days; and
they helped preserve it through the most divisive battle in American
history. They devoted their lives to our Republic, and it is time to
recognize and celebrate their genius, sacrifices, and significance,
here in our nation's capital.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Roemer. I think you are really
onto something here. I appreciate the enormous effort that you
have given to this and the fact that you have pushed it so hard
and have brought it to my attention and the Committee's
attention, and we are delighted to have you here today for the
open hearing.
Mr. Delahunt, we will turn to you now, but as we do that I
wonder, Mr. Roemer, if it would be possible for the
representative from the Library of Congress to walk around with
those documents. We are not going to touch them, but if you
would walk around the dais with those and let us get a little
closer look at them, they are very significant documents, and
it would be fun to do that.
Mr. Delahunt?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM DELAHUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here with Tim Roemer in introducing this legislation. As you
just indicated, I, too, to want to join in acknowledging
Congressman Roemer's initiative in this legislation. As a
native of Quincy, Massachusetts, which has been home to many
generations of this remarkable family, and as the current
occupant of the congressional seat once held by John Quincy
Adams himself, it is my hope to enhance public appreciation of
the contributions of the Adams family to our Nation.
It is not an easy thing to do when the objects of your
admiration do so little to cooperate, for they displayed a
humility and selflessness that was as endearing as it is rare
in public life. In 1776, John Adams wrote a famous letter to
Abigail, in which he said, and I am quoting, ``Let me have my
farm, family and goose quill, and all the honors and offices of
this world can bestow me go to those who deserve them better
and desire them more. I covet them not,'' unquote. So, maybe we
can blame John Adams for the lack of appropriate recognition
for his contributions to our country.
While his modesty was becoming, it was certainly
unwarranted, for the Adams family legacy represents what is
best about America, a profound sense of civic consciousness,
and a biting belief in the perfectibility of democracy, and a
commitment to service and particularly sacrifice for the common
good. I am sure David McCullough will amplify on that final
phrase. With so many lawyers and legislators in this room, I
would be remiss if I did not also say a brief word about the
colossal contributions of John Adams and John Quincy Adams,
also, to the development of the rule of law, both here in
America and to many other nations that have followed the
American example.
It is a living legacy, as we observe emerging democracies
everywhere adapting the Adams model. As a lawyer, John Adams
had a passion for justice. In 1770, he took the enormous
personal risk of defending the eight British soldiers who had
fired upon the crowd in what became known as the Boston
Massacre, and won the acquittal of six of the eight defendants.
As early as 1776, Adams wrote that the surest way, again
quoting Adams, ``To secure an impartial and exact execution of
the laws,'' unquote, was by guaranteeing an independent
judiciary. Judges, he said, should be subservient to none, no
more complicit to one than another.
Four years later, in 1780, Adams had the opportunity to put
these concepts, these principles, into action as the framer of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the
oldest written constitution still enforced and the first to
enshrine the concept of a co-equal and independent judiciary
peopled by judges and again quoting Adams, ``As free, impartial
and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.'' Nine years
later, when the United States adopted the Federal Constitution,
the framers adopted the design conceived by Adams, including a
system for ensuring the independence of judges through life
tenure, fixed compensation, and removal only by impeachment.
When, in 1801, his presidency was drawing to a close, John
Adams appointed John Marshall as the 4th Chief Justice of the
United States, an appointment that would do more than any other
in the history of our Nation to confirm the power and the
independence of the judicial branch of government.
The story did not end there. In 1841, Adams' son, John
Quincy, by then a former President and a member of the House of
Representatives, stood before Marshall's successor, Chief
Justice Taney, to argue the famous case of the Amistad, in
which the Supreme Court ruled that a group of Africans,
illegally taken from Africa and seized off the coast of New
York, were entitled to their liberty, a decision firmly rooted
in the rule of law which John Adams had done so much to assure.
Over the last 160 years since that decision, the Adams vision
of the rule of law, that a truly independent judiciary is
essential to a healthy and vibrant democracy, has been embraced
by countless other nations throughout the world.
I submit that it is high time we celebrated here at home,
as well. The people of Quincy have long honored these
achievements. As you know, a recently critically-acclaimed
biography on John Adams was released by Pulitzer Prize-winning
historian David McCullough, whom we will be hearing from
shortly. Senator Kennedy and myself are also encouraging
Massachusetts State officials to more properly honor the Adams
legacy with a commemorative tribute in Boston, as well. As a
result of the McCullough biography and a previous work by
another eminent historian, Joseph Ellis, there is a new wave of
public interest which reflects the purpose of today's hearing.
John Adams, John Quincy Adams and other members of the
family served such a critical role in American history that
there should be a publicly-accessible memorial to educate the
hundreds of thousands who visit our Nation's capital each year.
The city of Quincy and its residents, its citizens, want to
share with the rest of America and visitors from oversees the
enormous magnitude of this family's contribution to American
democracy. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and obviously urge quick
and swift approval of this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt follows:]
Statement of The Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Massachusetts
I am pleased to join Congressman Roemer in introducing legislation
to authorize a commemorative work in our nation's capital honoring
Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams and their First Ladies.
As a native of Quincy, Massachusetts, which has been home to many
generations of this remarkable family -- and as the current occupant of
the congressional seat once held by John Quincy Adams himself -- it is
my hope to enhance public appreciation of the contributions of the
Adams family to our nation.
This isn't an easy thing to do, when the objects of your admiration
do so little to cooperate. For they displayed a humility and
selflessness that was as endearing as it is rare in public life.
In 1776, John Adams wrote a famous letter to Abigail in which he
said, ``Let me have my Farm, Family, and Goose Quill, and all the
Honours and Offices this World can bestow may go to those who deserve
them better, and desire them more. I covet them not.''
His modesty was becoming, but unwarranted. For the Adams family
legacy represents what's best about America--a profound civic
consciousness, an abiding belief in the perfectibility of our
democracy, and a commitment to service and sacrifice for the common
good.
With so many lawyers and legislators in the room, I would be remiss
if I didn't also say a brief word about the colossal contributions of
John and John Quincy Adams to the development of the rule of law, both
here in America and in the many other nations that have adopted the
American example. It is a living legacy that continues to a have a
profound influence in the 21st century as we observe emerging
democracies adapting the Adams model.
As a lawyer, John Adams had a passion for justice. In 1770, he took
the enormous personal risk of defending the eight British soldiers who
had fired upon the crowd in what became known as the Boston Massacre,
and won the acquittal of six of those defendants.
As early as 1776, Adams wrote that the surest way to ``secure an
impartial and exact execution of the laws,'' was by guaranteeing an
independent judiciary. Judges should be ``subservient to none, nor more
complacent to one than another,'' he said.
Four years later, in 1780, Adams had the opportunity to put those
ideas into action, as the framer of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the oldest written constitution still in
force, and the first to enshrine the concept of a coequal and
independent judiciary, peopled by judges ``as free, impartial and
independent as the lot of humanity will admit.''
And when, nine years later, the United States adopted the Federal
Constitution, the framers adopted the design conceived by Adams--
including his system for ensuring the independence of judges through
life tenure, fixed compensation, and removal only by impeachment.
When, in 1801, his presidency was drawing to a close, John Adams
appointed John Marshall as the fourth Chief Justice of the United
States--an appointment that would do more than any other in the history
of our nation to confirm the power and independence of the judicial
branch of government.
Nor did the story end there. In 1841, Adams' son, John Quincy, by
then a former president and a member of the House of Representatives,
stood before Marshall's successor, Chief Justice Taney, to argue the
famous case of the Amistad, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a
group of Africans illegally taken from Africa and seized off the coast
of New York were entitled to their liberty--a decision firmly rooted in
the rule of law which John Adams had done so much to assure.
Over the last 160 years since that decision, the Adams vision of
the rule of law--that a truly independent judiciary is essential to a
healthy and vibrant democracy--has been embraced by countless other
nations throughout the world. It is high time we celebrated it here at
home as well.
The people of Quincy have long honored these achievements. As you
know, a critically-acclaimed biography on John Adams was recently
released by Pulitzer-prize wining historian David McCullough whom we
are fortunate to have with us today. We are also encouraging
Massachusetts state officials to more properly honor the Adams legacy
with a commemorative tribute to these native sons in Boston as well.
In short, there is a new wave of public interest which reflects the
purpose of today's hearing. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and other
members of the family served such a critical role in American history
that there should be a public, accessible memorial to educate the
hundreds of thousands who visit our nation's capitol each year. Quincy
wants to share with the rest of America and visitors from overseas the
enormous magnitude of this family's contribution to American democracy.
It seems incredible that there isn't already such a tribute, which
should be a highlight of the pilgrimage to DC that is part of almost
every American schoolchild's experience. H.R. 1668 would begin the
process of addressing this omission.
Not so long ago, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the arrival
of John and Abigail Adams as the first occupants of the White House.
With the remarkable parallels to the 41st and 43rd Presidents, this is
a particularly appropriate time to honor the Adams legacy. I urge my
colleagues to help seize this opportunity to do so.
______
Mr. Hefley. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Delahunt, for
your testimony.
Questions? Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend the
sponsor of this, Mr. Roemer, for preparing this and for the
research that he put into it, and I, too, hope that this will
receive swift approval. One thing that I hope you and the
others will talk about even more is the valor shown by John
Adams. We here in Washington often celebrate the military valor
in monument and otherwise. John Adams showed a quiet valor that
was every bit as admirable as what we celebrate elsewhere here
in Washington, and I hope that you will address that.
I know David McCullough has talked about the fact that he
and the others who were active at this tumultuous time, 225
years ago, had no idea where they were heading, whether it was
toward the gallows or not. So, it is certainly worthy to
celebrate his intellectual accomplishments, his judicial
accomplishments, and the crafting of the greatest invention in
humankind, the Government of the United States. We should also,
I think, be celebrating his valor, and I hope that as you carry
this forward, you will talk more about that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, may I respond, please?
Mr. Hefley. Certainly, Mr. Roemer.
Mr. Roemer. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank my
good friend who serves with me on the Education Committee about
his kind comments about the research. Nobody appreciates
research more than you do, given your great background as a
scientist and your contributions on the Education Committee to
those efforts.
I could not agree with you more, Mr. Holt. One of the great
virtues of this man is certainly his valor and his honesty and
his integrity. Whether it is the bravery and valor that he
shows in being Jefferson's voice in the Continental Congress--
to really get this done. Jefferson was not a good speaker. He
had a squeaky voice and did not like to speak. He had a great
pen, but Adams was the voice. He was the chair of many of the
Committees, most of the Committees that got this done. As you
mentioned, being in that kind of prominent role could very well
have resulted in him being hung and going to the gallows.
He not only showed it then, he showed it as President when
it would have been very popular to declare a war against
France. He resisted that popular temptation, probably cost him
another term as a President, but probably helped us preserve
the country. A costly war may have bankrupt us and sent us to
an early grave. So, I think that is absolutely a character that
needs celebration. I think you will hear plenty from Joseph
Ellis, who wrote The Passionate Sage; and from David
McCullough, who now has the bestseller out there with his book
on John Adams.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Chairman, may I have one moment? I think it
is also important that we mention at this hearing the courage,
if you will, of John Adams' wife, Abigail Adams. One only has
to read the first 100 pages of the McCullough biography to
truly appreciate the heroism of this leading figure. I do not
base that on her gender, but clearly a leading figure in the
early history of America. She was truly a remarkable woman.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to welcome
all of our colleagues and thank them for their good work. We
have these three bills before us today which vary widely in the
scope and what they do, but all three are very interesting and
very significant pieces of legislation. I took almost all of my
undergraduate electives in history and I have always especially
loved American history, and I have told many, many people, on
tours of the Capitol, the story of John Quincy Adams and how he
served first as President and came back and served from 1831-
1848 in the House, and how many people feel that he did some of
his greatest work when he was in the House of Representatives.
This is a very significant and important family in the
history of this Nation. Congressman Roemer, I was fascinated by
your recitation of all of the important things that they had
been involved in and I commend you for this legislation, and I
especially appreciate the fact that when most of the groups
that come before us are seeking money, and admire and respect
the fact that this foundation is willing to establish this
memorial on its own. I think that is very good.
I especially want to comment at this time about Congressman
Wamp's legislation, because he had and I represent adjoining
districts and have worked very closely together on many, many
things. In fact, I have said that I do not believe that any
member that I know of in Tennessee has done more for our State
or more for his district than Zach Wamp has. I greatly respect
the work that Congressman Wamp has done, and he has, I know,
worked very hard to forge a compromise, a consensus, on this
legislation on Moccasin Bend. I know the Park Service has some
problems with it; the fact that there is a mental hospital and
a golf course that will remain there under this legislation.
They call it incompatible, but we have a similar situation in
my hometown of Knoxville.
The Lakeshore Mental Health Institution, for many years,
was fenced and nobody was allowed in and it was a place of very
high security, but a few years ago, when the movement started
to mainstream people with mental illness--we opened up the
Lakeshore grounds. They were turned into a park with a walking
and jogging trail, and several little league ballfields, and
all kinds of activities; picnics, baseball games, hiking or
jogging and walking go on throughout those grounds all the
time. There is not a golf course there, but all of those things
go on, and we have turned that into probably the most popular
city park in the city of Knoxville. It is not a part of the
National Park Service. It does not have the Native American
history and background that Moccasin Bend does, but I
appreciate what Congressman Wamp has done in regard to this
legislation.
You could never satisfy government's appetite for money or
land. You cannot do it. If we gave every agency twice as much
money as we give them now, within a short time, they would be
coming back to us for more, and we all recognize that. You
cannot satisfy government's appetite for land, but the Park
Service should be happy to get this--is it 911 acres?
Mr. Wamp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. I know this is very difficult from a highway
project and also from a bridge project in my district--it is
very hard to work many of these thing out when you have these
Native American artifacts and burial grounds and so forth. But,
this is a compromise that has been worked out. I know you said
that the Chattanooga Times and the Chattanooga News Free Press
almost never agree on anything, and I know that to be true. I
don't really have any questions at this point. I will simply
say that I think all three of these bills are good legislation
and deserve our support, and if Mr. Gibbons gets his senior
citizen center for his district, I am going to try the same
thing for a county in my district, too.
Mr. Gibbons. I will support you for that.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern. I, too, want to commend all my colleagues for
their testimony and I would like to submit a longer statement
for the record. I also want to ask unanimous consent that a
statement by ranking member, Mr. Rahall, in support of H.R.
1668, be part of the record.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick Rahall, Ranking Democrat, Committee on
Resources
As this bill's language points out, somewhere along the way, we
lost sight of the extraordinary national contributions of John Adams
and those of his wife Abigail and their offspring. Among the gleaming
marble facades of our presidential constellation along our national
mall, among the many sites where we pay homage to individuals
throughout America's history here in our Nation's Capital, there is a
void, an Adams void, that should be filled.
I want to thank historians Joseph J. Ellis and David McCullough for
being here today to make the case for an Adams Memorial, and also for
reigniting interest in the life and legacy of John Adams and his
family. I am pleased to take this opportunity to reinforce their
message with some other voices from our history.
Though we as a Nation are reacquainting ourselves with the Adams
family, primarily thanks to the two gentlemen testifying today, near
and at the end of John Adams' life, Adams was remembered along side the
other founders as part and parcel to their ultimate success.
Former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin has highlighted for me
a passage in a letter Thomas Jefferson sent Adams recalling the joint
efforts of the two old revolutionaries, ``We were fellow-laborers in
the same cause... Laboring always at the same oar, with some wave ever
ahead, threatening to overwhelm us, and yet passing harmless under our
bark, we knew not how we rode through the storm with heart and hand,
and made a happy port... and so we have gone on, and shall go on
puzzled and prospering beyond example in the history of man.''
In 1826, Daniel Webster commemorating the lives of Adams and
Jefferson on their demise, placed them side by side. Webster
proclaimed, ``They live in their example: and they live, emphatically,
and will live, in the influence which their lives and efforts, their
principles and opinions, now exercise, and will continue to exercise,
on the affairs of men, not only in their own country but throughout the
civilized world.''
``A truly great man,'' Webster continued, ``is no temporary
flame.'' Rather he concluded it is ``a spark of fervent heat, as well
as radiant light, with power to rekindle the common mass of human kind;
so that when it glimmers in its own decay, and finally goes out in
death, no night follows, but it leaves the world all light, all on fire
from the potent contact of its own spirit.''
It is time we reignited the flame of Adams genius and work. Our
flint and steel will be an interpretive memorial for generations to
visit, perpetually sparking their curiosities of this great American,
John Adams, and his family.
Joseph Ellis has called Adams, ``the supreme political realist of
the revolutionary generation'' and cautions, ``Adams tells us what we
need to know. Perhaps now, and only now, are we prepared to listen.''
David McCullough reminds us of Adams' clarity and vision for
America's tomorrow, when upon the fiftieth anniversary of our
independence Adams chose precisely two words: Independence forever!
As an American, and as the Ranking Democrat of the House Resources
Committee, I can only humbly add to the efforts to create an Adams
Memorial two words: Build it.
______
Mr. McGovern. I want to commend, in particular, my
colleagues, Mr. Roemer and Mr. Delahunt, for their really
eloquent testimony and for their advocacy for this important
memorial to John Adams, and indeed, to the Adams family. I also
want to thank them, and Dr. Ellis and David McCullough, for
giving this Committee and giving the Nation an important
history lesson. I think many are just beginning to appreciate
what an incredible man John Adams was, and what an incredible
family that he belonged to. We are grateful for your advocacy
and making us aware of that.
Honoring John Adams is long overdue. I think this is an
important piece of legislation. I am glad I am a co-sponsor and
I hope that we can meet the challenge that Mr. Roemer and Mr.
Delahunt have put before our Committee, that we report this
legislation out and get it enacted upon before July 4th. I
think that is the best way we can pay tribute to the second
President of the United States and to his family. I thank you
for the time, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGovern follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James P. McGovern, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Massachusetts
I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman, Mr. Hefley for
holding today's hearing on H.R. 1668, a bill authorizing the Adams
Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land
in the District of Columbia to honor former President John Adams and
his family. I would like to thank Mr. Roemer and my distinguished
colleague from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Mr. Delahunt for
introducing this bill, and I urge this committee to report H.R. 1668 to
the House before the July 4th recess. I would also like to thank the
distinguished panelists for being here today.
John Adams was not just a noble president, but he was also a great
man. The son of a farmer in Quincy, Massachusetts, he attended Harvard
College. After graduation, he took a position teaching grade school in
my home town of Worcester, Massachusetts, where he quickly became
preoccupied with other legal matters. After finishing an apprenticeship
under James Putnam, a distinguished Worcester lawyer, he moved back to
Braintree to practice law. In 1770, John Adams took a courageous stance
by defending the British soldiers who were involved in the Boston
Massacre.
As we all know, Adams was not just a great attorney, but a great
writer and statesman as well. While he lived in Massachusetts, Adams
drafted the Massachusetts Constitution, our nation's first State
Constitution. This document served as a model for the United States
Constitution. Adams was extremely patriotic and attended the second
Continental Congress. He influenced the actual creation of the United
States by delivering a speech at the second Continental Congress to
support the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson exclaimed ``''
moved us from our seats.'' And his support for the United States did
not waiver during the American Revolutionary War.
Although Adams did not fight in the war, his enormous contributions
to the United States during the Revolutionary war helped save the
Union. During this time, John Adams went to the Netherlands to
negotiate a treaty. This treaty provided the United States with much
needed money and the recognition that the allowed the United States to
secure other loans. As the Revolutionary War ended, John Adams also
helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War.
The young nation started to develop under the Articles of
Confederation, but they did not provide for a strong unified National
government. The founding fathers then started to draft a new
Constitution, and after much debate and discussion, they agreed on the
current Constitution. It was written in 1787 and finally ratified by
all 13 states in 1790.
In 1789, John Adams was elected Vice President under George
Washington. When Washington decided not to run for a third term, Adams
ran and was elected as the second President of the United States and he
was the first President to serve in Washington D.C.
During Adams presidency, there was a great deal of tension between
the United States and France. Both sides were prepared to go to war
over the commercial and political problems that existed at the
beginning of Adams' term, a war that surely would have been disastrous
for the United States. Adams was able to negotiate a peace treaty and
prevent a war, but only at the cost of his own political popularity.
Adams did not win a second term.
While the main focus of this legislation is to provide John Adams
with the admiration and attention he deserves, it also acknowledges the
contribution of the entire Adams family. Abigail Adams was a strong
patriot and promoted women's rights. She was also an extraordinary
writer. Her legacy, while not as well known as her husband, should also
be given the gifted tribute that she deserves. And contributions of the
Adams family do not stop with John and Abigail Adams. John Quincy
Adams, the son of John and Abigail Adams, served as ambassador to the
Netherlands and to Russia. Before being elected president, John Quincy
Adams was Secretary of State under President James Monroe. As Secretary
of State, he helped negotiate the Treaty of Ghent that ended the War of
1812. He also helped move the United States into a position of power by
authoring the Monroe Doctrine that declared that the Western Hemisphere
was off limits to European expansion. As president, he started
conservation and other projects that would enhance the country. These
enhancements included the building of the C&O canal, a university, and
an observatory. John Quincy Adams was an extremely influential
president who was critical in uniting the country, and the only
president to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives after he
left the presidency. While he was in the House of Representatives, he
fought against the congressionally imposed ``Gag rule'' that was
Congress' attempt to end all debates on slavery and prevent the topic
from surfacing again. John Quincy Adams used his power as a
representative to get this rule removed. John Quincy Adams collapsed
from a stroke on the House floor and died a couple of days later.
I am certain the addition of a monument for John Adams will finally
give honor to the legacy of a family that has played a significant role
in the foundation of the United States. Again, I urge the committee to
report this bill before the July 4th recess.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I request that my statement be
included in the record of this hearing.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to my
colleagues who have presented this Adams family memorial
proposal. I think when I talk to children, this type of
memorial, which would educate a great deal of our American
public about the successes and wonderful contributions this
family gave to our country, would go a long way to dispel the
TV concept of the Adams family. You have to get children to
understand that. I think it is a great idea. It is a wonderful
idea. I wish we could make individual memorials to each of the
members rather than a memorial to a family. We do memorials to
Presidents, great Presidents like Jefferson and Lincoln, and we
should be able to do the same for John Adams, John Quincy
Adams, as well, but this is a great contribution.
I know my colleague from Tennessee has worked long and hard
on this compromise process for his bill, and I think it is very
meritorious. I joined with my colleague, also from Tennessee,
in support of your effort in that regard. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I have no other questions and yield back.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. First, I want to congratulate my friend from
Indiana in his tremendous pushing of this bill. I think it is
very important. I am an enthusiastic co-sponsor. I read Peter
Shaw's book on the character of John Adams probably 25 years
ago and it had a major impact on me--Nagel's book--in addition
to the two tremendous authors you managed to bring today, they
are kind of my rock stars. If they had been real rock stars, I
would still be home with my family this morning rather than
here in Washington. They are my rock stars and my type of
heroes from a whole series of books that you both have
brilliantly written in addition to the Adams books.
Also, I could not resist the chance to come with my friend,
Bill Delahunt, back when Massachusetts produced conservatives--
it is just so thrilling to see the party of Jefferson pushing
the Adams leaders. I had one substantive question related to
the Adamses, and that is, do either of you have an idea of what
type of memorial you are thinking? Would it combine a museum
with it? Could you elaborate a little bit on that, knowing
there would be a commission to research that?
Mr. Roemer. First of all, I want to thank my good friend
from our great State of Indiana, not only for his interest in
the sponsorship of the legislation, but his ongoing interest in
history throughout. He and I, over our career, have had many,
many discussions about the history of Indiana, and you were one
of the people I sought out in a bipartisan way to support this
legislation. You came on right away and we appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, just to make a point on that, Mr. Souder and
Mr. McGovern, who probably agree on nothing else, agree that we
need to do this, hopefully, before July 4th, and hopefully, we
can get that done.
To my good friend from Indiana, as he knows, this
legislation simply authorizes the three commissions--the Fine
Arts, the Planning and the Memorial Commissions--to then go
forward and design a fitting tribute to this family. You know,
in my wildest fantasies, what do I see happening with regard to
what this could or might or should look like? Could it be in
the Tidal Basin, near Thomas Jefferson's and George
Washington's monument? I think he deserves it historically,
with his contributions, called the Colossus of Independence
with his virtue and character.
Might it have some attachment to Abigail, his wife of 54
years, who wrote letters, probably of equal content and
intelligence of John Adams and maybe Thomas Jefferson? I think
it should include her.
Might it include John Quincy Adams and other dissidents? I
think it should have that possibility. I would, however,
caution a museum. I do not think that we should probably go
that route. Mr. Delahunt, do you have any comments?
Mr. Delahunt. Yes, I concur with Tim's comments. Again, in
terms of specific contributions by John Adams, and to a lesser
degree, John Quincy Adams, his efforts in behalf of an
independent judiciary are just simply of such a magnitude that
somehow they have to be recognized. I am confident that in
Boston, for example, the supreme judicial court there is fully
cognizant of the fact that there has been an omission in terms
of recognition of his contribution to the judicial branch. Now,
again, as Tim indicated, we all have our own fantasies. I do
not know if there is any particular area over by the United
States Supreme Court, but clearly, his contribution to the
judicial system, in some way, in some venue, it is mandatory,
it is compelling to be recognized. I also agree with him about
the museum concept.
Mr. Roemer. I love the comment in the beginning of
Passionate Sage where Adams, they said, if he wanted a
memorial, he wanted it to be able to cast a shadow over
Jefferson's and Jefferson's over his, because that is what they
did much of their career.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of Mr. Wamp,
if I may, as well. I am pleased to hear your testimony and
presentation today as a fellow classmate. We have done many
things together. I have two particular questions as I look to
understand the bill more. You are not necessarily advocating
that it is a park itself, but something within the Park
Service; is that correct?
Mr. Wamp. A separate unit, because it has its own identity.
I respect all of my colleagues' position about not adding any
more land into the Park Service because of the backlog
maintenance. I, too, have been fighting that challenge and
dealing with that for a number of years, but this has such
individual historical context that it needs to be a separate
unit. So, it would be a separate unit standing on its own.
Mr. Roemer. It would be a separate unit, but it could be,
for example, a historical park, a historical--they each have
slightly different--a park has a much more purist position,
that in the areas of where there is a golf course and a mental
health institute, are you proposing that the unit itself would
currently include those, or only when those are removed, or
could the park be noncontiguous, such that it goes around
those? Boston, for example is not all contiguous. I know that
is one of the concerns. The ideal thing is to have it be a
perfect unit, but I have some concerns if these would be
brought inside of a park unit and not under their control. I
did not fully understand that.
Mr. Wamp. The boundary of the park, as the bill proposes,
would include the hospital, but the hospital would be
grandfathered in under its current use, as long as it continues
to be a mental health center run by the State of Tennessee. If
the State ever closes it, the State would clean the site up and
the property would be returned to its original condition. It
would be within the park boundary, because the national
historical significance of this site really must include the
footprint of the hospital. The reason Governor Clement did not
sign the legislation 51 years ago, adding this, was he had
plans to build a mental health center out there. At that time,
they put them in places where people could not escape. The bend
is surrounded by water, so people could not swim across the
river, which today would not even be an acceptable alternative.
The hospital must remain open to meet the needs of nearly
2,000 people that have to have that hospital. We cannot have a
squeeze play from the Federal Government to force the State out
of the mental health services business, so we crafted a
compromise that grandfathers it in under its current use, and
at whatever point the State provides an alternative to Moccasin
Bend, it will be closed and cleaned up by the State. Then it
will just be raw land as part of the National Park.
The golf course was left out, because it is owned by the
city and county, but we put a unique provision in that if it
ceases to be a golf course run by the city and county, it can
be added at that time. Under both of these compromises, it
allows or creates the support from all the stakeholder groups
that simply is not going to be there without it. Our local
government will not support this proposal if it closes the
hospital, even 14 years from now, because the State has no new
land for a new facility. They have not initiated any plans to
build a new facility, and our criminal justice system has to
have a place to send prisoners who need mental health services.
That place has to be in our county.
This is a big issue. Frankly, it is one that the planning
team does not understand. There are people from other places in
this country that come and present their findings, and I
respect that, but they are not sensitive to local needs and the
consensus-building process that is necessary for us to honor
the stakeholders' interest. That is what we have done, built
consensus. We came up with a compromise that people from the
far left to the far right, logical, sensitive, local people
support, and while I respect the Park Services planning
recommendations, frankly, if we stuck by the letter of their
recommendations we would not have local support. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Gibbons, let me ask you, is everybody on
board on this transfer of the 4.5 acres?
Mr. Gibbons. Yes, from a delegation standpoint, all of the
members of the State of Nevada are on board. The communities of
Carson City and the Governor, as well, are in support of this
transfer.
Mr. Hefley. Bureau of Land Management?
Mr. Gibbons. Bureau of Land Management would like, of
course, for the city to pay fair market value, but absent that,
they are in support of the conveyance.
Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, could I have 20 seconds as you
get ready to introduce these next two witnesses? Let me just
say--a play on the old, if you build it, they will come--if you
write it well, they will read it. We have two historians here
that I am so grateful took time out of their busy schedule to
come to talk about the Adams family. David McCullough has a
bestseller out there right now at the top of the list selling
like hot cakes. It is rich in its history and thorough in its
research and Americans are running to the bookstores to buy it
and to read it. What a wonderful thing to see in this country.
Joseph Ellis, Dr. Ellis, who wrote the Passionate Sage,
laying the groundwork for John Adams, has come out recently
with his Pulitzer prize-winning book, Founding Brothers, that
has been on the bestseller list now for 25 weeks, going on 26
weeks. Americans are buying it and reading it. I think this is
a real tribute to our scholarship in this country, but also to
our citizens; that if we produce good history, they will buy it
and read it. I hope that this hearing leads to even more
researchers out there writing the kind of history that Mr.
McCullough and Dr. Ellis have been doing for years. Thank you.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a concluding
comment? As Tim indicated, he had the opportunity to visit the
venue where so much of American history was crafted by visiting
the Adams historic park. I would like to make a formal
invitation to yourself and to members of the Committee to come,
to visit, to see Quincy, Massachusetts. It would certainly be
my pleasure to host you and your colleagues on the Committee.
Maybe we can even make a side trip to America's hometown,
Plymouth, Massachusetts, and even spend some time on Cape Cod.
Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. Let me ask before this
panel leaves. Zach, I think you gave an excellent explanation
of this. It appears to me that the Park Service is willing to
give up the good because they are not getting the perfect.
Would you comment on that?
Mr. Wamp. That is my notes, literately, that this is a
perfect example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
They have not been involved, the Park Service Planning Team, in
the consensus-building process. They wrote the study. They did
a great job, and that has been months and literately years ago
since they finished their study. Since then we have had to
build consensus from all these different groups: the Five
Civilized Tribes, frankly, Local Government, State Government,
the mental health community, and 1,200 golfers signed a
petition saying do not close our golf course. Well, these are
legitimate people. I have a lot of Cherokee blood in my veins,
Chairman Hefley, and the Cherokees loved games. They used
sticks and balls and played games. I do not think my Cherokee
ancestors would say to forcibly close this golf course, when no
one here has talked about what is next to the golf course.
There is a sewage treatment facility, a massive,
multimillion dollar smelly, stinky sewage treatment facility on
the other side of the golf course, and the golf course serves
as a perfect buffer between the National Park proper and this
smelly sewage treatment facility. Why in the world would you
spend $2 million to tear the golf course down, when the golf
course is a perfectly good and not , in my view--they say it is
nonconforming use. I disagree. I have been to Yosemite Valley.
There is a golf course in Yosemite Valley. I do not think that
golf is necessarily Anti-National Park Service.
I do think they are letting the perfect be the enemy of the
good, and we have built consensus, and they have not been
involved in that consensus. They are professionals, and in this
case, they are just bureaucrats. We have to deal with reality.
We have to deal with people and we forged consensus. Now
everybody that is thoughtful, that is on the ground in our
local community is favor of it, and I thank you for pointing
that out.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Wamp, the record will show that it is your
feeling that the Cherokee invented golf rather than the Scots;
is that correct?
Mr. Wamp. There are some days I wish they would not have.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Roemer and Mr. Delahunt, I am somewhat
embarrassed, had you not brought this to my attention, and I
had to prepare for this particular hearing--and I am a lover of
American history, as Mr. Duncan indicated he was, and yet how
little I know about John Adams. You know he was one of the
founding fathers and all that kind of thing, but in the
specific sense, how little I know. So, what you are pursuing
here, I think, has tremendous value in terms of educating us
about, not only John Adams, but a tremendous family of public
servants. Let me ask you, why not sooner? Where did he fall
between the cracks of recognition? Obviously, the contribution
was so enormous, why have we not done this sooner?
Mr. Roemer. I would simply say that you are probably going
to get a better answer from the two people after me than you
will from me, but just as a guess, I would say; one, that he
was overshadowed by people like Thomas Jefferson and George
Washington, certainly two eminent people deserving of where
they are, although in some of the later scholarship, I think
there are some various opinions coming out and some conflicts
coming out on Thomas Jefferson. Certainly, George Washington
remains at the apex of the mountain and John Adams should have
been up there, but was overshadowed by some other people.
I think, secondly, John Adams had an inaccurate reputation
as being overly cranky and self-absorbed, and maybe speaking
too quickly without letting a filter, probably politically
correct some of the things he was going to say. Actually, he
had one of the best senses of humor of any of the founding
brothers, as Joseph Ellis calls them, and if you read the
correspondence that he engages in, you cannot help but love
this man. He is an extraordinary individual in every sense of
the word. So, I think he has been overshadowed and I think
accurately portrayed in some ways, and I think it is high time
that we corrected those two problems.
Mr. Delahunt. If I may add, Mr. Chairman, I think and I
refer back to the quote that I made in my opening remarks, it
is clear that John Adams did not seek notoriety, and he made
efforts I would suggest, and you can pose that same question to
these two historians that will succeed us at the witness table,
but he did not covet, if you will, the attention and the
accoutrements of recognition. Maybe he needed a better
communications director than the one he had, but certainly has
done very well with Joseph Ellis and David McCullough. I think
their efforts will serve as a catalyst to raise public
awareness of the contributions, not just of John Adams, but as
Tim has indicated, John Quincy Adams and a number of
generations of the Adams family, and hopefully, give them their
proper place in American history.
Mr. Hefley. None of you mentioned that John Adams is
credited with introducing the distinctive manner of speech of
folks from Massachusetts, particular from Boston; is that
correct?
Mr. Delahunt. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Hefley. He
had trouble with his r's.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, and please feel free to
join us on the dais for the remainder of the hearing. We are
going to have a panel of administration officials very briefly,
first, before we go to the historians.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Chairman, just very quickly I wanted to thank
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, for the
invitation. In fact, I intend to be in your area this weekend
and would appreciate a tour guide. Thank you.
Mr. Delahunt. I would be happy to do it.H.R. 271, 980 and
1668
Mr. Hefley. The second panel is Mr. Carson ``Pete'' Culp,
Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty and Resource
Protection, Bureau of Land Management; and Mr. Denis Galvin,
Acting Director of the National Park Service. If they will join
us at the table.
Mr. Culp, we will start with you and try to hold your
testimony to 5 minutes, if you would, and your entire statement
will be put into the record.
STATEMENT OF CARSON ``PETE'' CULP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Culp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
You and Mr. Gibbons and Mrs. Christensen certainly summarized
H.R. 271 very well. The bill would transfer what to us is an
isolated parcel of land, which we once used as a wareyard for
one of our local offices to the city of Carson City for use in
senior citizens facility. BLM in Nevada is in favor of this
legislation, and the administration is not opposed. The
proposed use of the land is certainly a higher and better use
than its retention for no Federal purpose at this point.
The only other thing I would add is, there might be a
question about why legislation is necessary. Normally, we would
use of vehicle called the Recreation and Public Purposes Act
for a transfer of this nature, where we can do a below-market
value long-term lease or sale. It is a bit of a quirk of that
law that since this is in-part a residential facility, we
cannot use that act. Hence, the legislation is appropriate.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Culp follows:]
Statement of Carson Pete Culp, Assistant Director of Minerals, Realty
and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, on H.R. 271
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to testify on H.R. 271, a bill
to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a former Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), administrative site in Carson City, Nevada, for
use as a senior center.
Generally the BLM does not support the transfer of federal land to
an entity that possess the ability to acquire the property at fair
market value. Such transfers could deny other parties the opportunity
to acquire the land for recreational or public purposes. Nonetheless,
the BLM may have no objection to a transfer where (1) the entity has
demonstrated limited funding capability, (2) the land is being used for
the intended public purposes, and (3) the monetary value of the land is
not likely to be significant. Likewise, the BLM may not oppose a
transfer where a general, yet meritorious public benefit has been
identified. Such is the case here. H.R. 271 presents an opportunity to
address the community's need to care for its senior citizens by
transferring property which is no longer of use to the BLM. The BLM,
therefore, does not oppose this conveyance or this legislation.
The administrative site described in H.R. 271 was previously used
by the BLM as a vehicle and supply storage facility in conjunction with
the BLM's Carson City Field Office. In the autumn of 1997, it ceased to
be used for these purposes and has since been vacant. The City of
Carson City wishes to acquire the parcel for use as an assisted living
center in conjunction with existing city-operated health care
facilities. An existing Senior Center and intensive care facility are
located adjacent to the subject property. In May 1998, the City
submitted an application under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act
(R&PP) for a residential facility to provide extended care to Senior
Citizens. However, the residential aspect of the assisted living
facility did not qualify under the R&PP Act. In response, BLM
considered selling the property to the City by direct sale at fair
market value. However, the City indicated that it could not afford to
purchase the parcel as the subject property is located in downtown
Carson City where real estate values could easily exceed $300,000.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Galvin?
STATEMENT OF DENIS GALVIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Galvin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have testimony on
two bills, H.R. 980 and H.R. 1668, and I will simply summarize
my statements and submit them for the record. H.R. 980, as has
been amply testified to this morning, would establish the
Moccasin Bend National Historic Site as a separate unit of the
National Park Service. The department recommends that the
Committee defer action on H.R. 980 during this session of
Congress, so that the National Park Service is able to make
further progress on the President's initiative to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog.
Furthermore, even without that policy, the department does
not support H.R. 980 in its current form. We believe that if a
National Historic Site is to be established at Moccasin Bend,
it should be done in accordance with the preferred alternative
presented in the National Park Service's Cooperative Management
Plan Environmental Assessment for Moccasin Bend. Earlier
testimony has pointed out that there are a couple of
incompatible uses in the area, and the National Park Service
would like to see some arrangement that insures the long-term
removal of those sites, so that important archeological
resources and public use can be accommodated.
Most of the area of Moccasin Bend is already a national
historic landmark. It includes an incredible layer of important
history. The Federal road between Ross Landing and Brown's
Ferry, that was part of Trail of Tears, it was used during the
Civil War by the Union Army. The bill also includes a small,
private parcel known as the Saradino and Clemish property.
The State of Tennessee and local authorities own most of
the land within Moccasin Bend, although there are some private
holdings. Most of the authorization would be acquired by
donation, exchange or purchase from willing sellers. It
specifically provides that the Secretary may not accept a
donation of the parcel containing the Moccasin Bend Mental
Health Institute, one of the two major incompatible uses, until
after the facility is no longer used to provide health care
services. H.R. 980 excludes from the boundary of the National
Historic Site, part of the archeological district that is
currently leased for a golf course. In fact, the bill prohibits
the Secretary from proposing that the golf course be included
in the boundary until it is no longer used as a public or
municipal golf course. The bill includes authority for the
Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements, which is
useful, allows the Secretary to use a portion of the visitor
center proposed to commemorate the Trail of Tears, which is
part of a long distance historic trail.
Mr. Wamp adequately pointed out that previous legislation
authorized the Governor of Tennessee in 1950 to donate 1,400
acres of Moccasin Bend to the Department of Interior to make it
part of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park.
There was no development on the site at the time, but as Mr.
Wamp pointed out in his history, development has taken place
since then.
There is no question about the national significance of the
resources on the site. In fact, it contains an unusually rich
medley of historic resources, including archeological remains
as much as 10,000 years old. They include transitional
paleoarchaic and archaic sites, woodland period settlement
sites and burial mounds, fortified protohistoric villages,
Spanish exploration and settlement of the southeastern United
States, contact between native and non-native peoples, part of
the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail, and the location of
union earthworks from the Civil War. It was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in 1984 and 956 acres--the
bill proposes 911--was designated as the Moccasin Bend
Archeological District National Historic Landmark in 1986.
The National Park Service study, completed in 1999, found
the site nationally significant. It found the site suitable as
a unit of the National Park Service since no other site in the
National Park Service currently contains such a diverse record
of human habitation in North America. It is a feasibility
question that raises our reservations about the bill as
currently drafted, and that is, specifically, the incompatible
uses of the mental health hospital and the adjacent golf
course. I would point out that we are not anti-golf. It is just
that the golf course contains important archeological
resources, including a site along the southern boundary where
adjacent archeology indicates 10,000-year-old settlements
occurred.
The study recommended, not that the incompatible uses be
stopped immediately, but that a date be set at some time in the
future when those incompatible uses were terminated. Mr. Wamp
has indicated in a conversation prior to this hearing that that
is not acceptable to the State and local interests. Perhaps
there is some middle ground that we can craft with Mr. Wamp and
with this Committee so that there is more assurance that the
incompatible uses will end someday, while not removing them at
the present time.
I would just like to reiterate that this is a very
significant natural resource that has potential if certain
conditions are met, to be an important addition to the National
Park System. That concludes my summary of statement on Moccasin
Bend. I can go on to the Adams testimony, if that is the
chair's pleasure.
H.R. 1668, as eloquently testified to earlier, authorizes
the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the
District of Columbia and its environs to honor former President
John Adams and his wife, Abigail, former President John Quincy
Adams and his wife, Louisa, and their legacy of public service.
The department supports enactment of H.R. 1668. This position
is consistent with the recommendation of the National Capital
Memorial Commission, which endorsed the bill by a unanimous
vote on April 26, 2001.
The bill is in accordance with the provisions of the
Commemorative Works Act of 1986, which establishes a process in
which a plan is submitted for the site and design of the
memorial at a future date. The bill also provides that no
Federal funds shall be used to pay any expense of the
establishment of the commemorative works. The Adams Memorial
Foundation would be responsible for, not just the cost of the
construction of the memorial, but also for establishing a fund
in the Treasury equal to 10 percent of the cost of construction
for catastrophic maintenance and preservation. That is also
consistent with Section 8(B) of the Commemorative Works Act.
I believe the previous witnesses and subsequent witnesses
would be far better qualified than I to point out the
significance of the Adams and Adams family in American history.
I would only say that it was my privilege when I was stationed
in Boston to work closely with the Adams National Historic
Site, the Adams birthplace and the churches in Quincy that were
important to the Adams family. That experience acquainted me
with current members of the Adams family, who are still
prominent American citizens in their own right, and gave me an
opportunity to know the important contributions that this
family has made to the United States over two centuries.
That concludes my summary statement, Mr. Chairman. I would
be happy to answer questions on either of these bills.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Galvin follows:]
Statement of Denis P. Galvin, Acting Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 980
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 980, which would establish
the Moccasin Bend National Historic Site in Chattanooga, Tennessee as a
unit of the National Park System.
The Department recommends that the Committee defer action on H.R.
980 during this session of Congress so that the National Park Service
is able to make further progress on the President's Initiative to
eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog. In order to focus staff and
resources on existing national park units and other types of designated
areas, the Department will not support new designations at this time.
We will reevaluate our progress on fulfilling this commitment during
the second session of the 107th Congress.
Furthermore, even without our policy regarding designations of new
units, the Department does not support H.R. 980 in its current form. We
believe that if a national historic site is to be established at
Moccasin Bend, it should be done so in accordance with the preferred
alternative presented in the National Park Service's Cooperative
Management Plan/Environmental Assessment for Moccasin Bend. That
document, which served as a special resource study of the area,
supports establishing the area as a unit of the National Park System
only if current incompatible uses of the area are removed so that the
National Park Service has the ability to ensure the long-term
protection of the resources and to accommodate public use. H.R. 980 as
introduced does not adequately address incompatible uses at Moccasin
Bend.
H.R. 980 would establish the Moccasin Bend National Historic Site
comprised of most of the area that has been designated the Moccasin
Bend Archeological District National Historic Landmark. It would also
include a portion of the Federal Road between Ross Landing and Browns
Ferry that was part of the ``Trail of Tears'' traveled by the Cherokee
Indians during their removal from their ancestral lands to Oklahoma
during 1838 and 1839, and that was used during the Civil War by the
Union Army to break the Confederate siege of Chattanooga. And, it would
include a small private parcel known as the Serodino and Klimsch
property.
The State of Tennessee and local authorities own most of the land
within Moccasin Bend, although there are some private holdings in the
area. H.R. 980 would authorize the land within the proposed boundary of
the national historic site to be acquired by donation, exchange, or
purchase from willing sellers. It specifically provides that the
Secretary may not accept a donation of the parcel containing the
Moccasin Bend Mental Health Institute--one of two major incompatible
uses at Moccasin Bend--until after the facility is no longer used to
provide health care services. H.R. 980 excludes from the boundary of
the national historic site the part of the Archeological District that
is currently leased for a golf course--the other major incompatible
use--and it prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from proposing that
the golf course area be included in the boundary until it is no longer
used as a public or municipal golf course.
In addition, H.R. 980 provides authority for the Secretary to enter
into cooperative agreements with other parties for the preservation,
development, interpretation, and use of the historic site, and allows
the Secretary to use a portion of the visitor center established for
the historic site as an additional interpretive center for the Trail of
Tears National Historic Trail.
Mr. Chairman, efforts to include Moccasin Bend in the National Park
System date back to 1950, when Congress, at the recommendation of
Interior Secretary Oscar L. Chapman, enacted legislation that
authorized by donation the addition of 1,400 acres of Moccasin Bend to
the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park. At that time,
Moccasin Bend was devoid of incompatible development. State, county,
and city governments acquired property, but did not transfer any of the
land to the National Park Service. Instead, much of the land was made
available for other purposes.
Since then, Moccasin Bend has been recognized for its nationally
significant cultural resources in addition to its scenic values that
were the basis for the 1950 legislation. Surrounded on three sides by
the Tennessee River, Moccasin Bend possesses a special collection of
continuous prehistoric and historic sites that chronicle important
aspects of human history on the North American continent, including (1)
transitional Paleo-Archaic and Archaic sites, (2) woodland period
settlement sites and burial mounds, (3) fortified proto-historic
villages, (4) Spanish exploration and settlement of the southeastern
United States, (5) contact between native and nonnative peoples, (6)
part of the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail, and (7) the
location of Union earthworks, such as cannon emplacements, rifle pits,
bivouac pads, and access roads, which were of strategic importance in
breaking the Confederate siege of Chattanooga in the fall of 1863.
The site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in
1984, and a 956-acre area was designated as the Moccasin Bend
Archeological District National Historic Landmark in 1986.
In 1998 and 1999, at the direction of Congress, the NPS prepared
the Cooperative Management Plan/Environmental Assessment for Moccasin
Bend in accordance with guidelines for special resource studies. This
process followed other Moccasin Bend planning efforts in the 1990's,
including a Chattanooga citizen involvement planning process called
``Revision 2000,'' and a battlefield preservation plan for Civil War
resources within the national historic landmark prepared by the Friends
of Moccasin Bend National Park. The study was called a cooperative
management plan to emphasize the close working relationships that had
developed among local, regional, state, federal, and tribal governments
as well as the extensive public participation involved in the effort.
As is standard procedure for special resource studies, this study
examined the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of
adding this site to the National Park System.
The determination of national significance had already been
established through the designation of the Moccasin Bend Archeological
District National Historic Landmark in 1986 because of its significance
to American Indian and U.S. military history. According to the study,
the area has the best intact concentration of archeological resources
known to exist in the entire main 650-mile Tennessee River valley, and
the quality, diversity, and broad accessibility of these resources
cannot be matched in any other American metropolitan area. The study
also found that the extant earthworks of the Battle of Chattanooga
within the archeological district are the best preserved of all
physical remnants of that battle and the only recognized unit of Union
army gun emplacements, trenches, and support areas remaining extant
from that costly campaign.
The study also found that the Moccasin Bend Archeological District
met the test of suitability for a unit of the National Park System, in
that it represented a theme or resource that is not already adequately
represented in the National Park System nor is comparably represented
and protected for public enjoyment by another land-managing entity.
Although American Indian archeological sites are represented in the
National Park System, none of the designated units possess the
extensive range of excavated archeological resources as well as
unexcavated subsurface resources for which Moccasin Bend is
significant. The length of continuous cultural occupation at Moccasin
Bend--10,000 years--is not duplicated anywhere else within the National
Park System.
With respect to the test of feasibility, however, the study found
that certain conditions needed to be met for the area to be considered
feasible as a new unit of the National Park System. To be feasible for
inclusion, an area's natural systems and/or historic settings must be
of sufficient size and appropriate configuration to ensure long-term
protection of the resources and to accommodate public use, and it must
have potential for efficient administration at reasonable cost. The
study found that unless the incompatible uses within the Moccasin Bend
Archeological District were removed and the land was restored to
resemble the way it looked at the time of the 1950 legislation, the
area would not be feasible as a unit of the National Park System. Those
uses need to be removed in order to provide visitors a quality
experience in a landscape reminiscent of its past, comprehensively
protect archeological resources and provide for additional research
opportunities, and attract tourists to visit Moccasin Bend in large
numbers.
This does not mean that the restoration of the area would need to
occur before the site could be established. The study offers a phasing
plan that provides for an orderly and timely removal of uses and
restoration of the cultural landscape, calling for the National Park
Service to receive the land in four phases over ten years. This may be
an ambitious plan because of the complex issues surrounding the mental
health institute, the golf course, and funding for land acquisition and
restoration of the cultural landscape. It may be more reasonable to
complete land acquisition by 2015 or some other mutually agreed-upon
timetable. These provisions are extremely important in ensuring the
integrity of the site. So long as any of the 956 acres remain under the
jurisdiction of entities that do not have resource preservation as a
primary goal, there is always the risk that future management actions
could damage or destroy subsurface cultural resources.
For these reasons, we would not support establishing a national
historic site at Moccasin Bend without substantial revisions to H.R.
980. Most importantly, the Moccasin Bend Golf Course, which contains
vital archeological resources and is a key part of the national
historic landmark, should be included in the boundary, along with a
reasonable date (preferably 2010) by which the golf course would be
transferred to the Secretary of the Interior.
Second, the legislation should require the State to donate to the
Secretary of the Interior the Moccasin Bend Mental Health Institute no
later than 2015, or some other mutually agreed-upon date. In both
cases, we believe that by including deadlines in the legislation, the
State and city would hasten efforts to seek alternative locations for
these facilities.
Third, the legislation should provide a timetable for the removal
of other incompatible uses within the national historic site, including
a model airplane flying facility and a law-enforcement firearms
training range, along with the removal of any hazardous waste, and the
restoration of the land base to resemble the area's 1950 appearance, at
no cost to the Federal government.
Fourth, the legislation should contain language that requires the
National Park Service to consult with the culturally affiliated
Federally recognized Tribes on any interpretation of the site.
Mr. Chairman, Moccasin Bend is a very significant national resource
that has the potential, if certain conditions are met, to be an
important addition to the National Park System. If the time comes when
the Department is no longer asking Congress to defer action on
legislation designating new units of the National Park System, we would
be pleased to work with the committee to develop legislation that
establishes the Moccasin Bend National Historic Site in accordance with
the provisions outlined above.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of Denis P. Galvin, Acting Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1668
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 1668, which would authorize
the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District
of Columbia and its environs to honor former President John Adams and
his wife Abigail, former President John Quincy Adams and his wife
Louisa, and their legacy of public service.
The Department supports enactment of H.R. 1668. This position is
consistent with the recommendation of the National Capital Memorial
Commission, which endorsed the bill by a unanimous vote on April 26,
2001.
H.R. 1668 authorizes the establishment of the Adams memorial in
accordance with the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. The Act
established a process under which, following authorization of the
subject matter by Congress, the Secretary of the Interior submits a
plan for the site and design of the memorial for approval by the
National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.
The bill also provides that no Federal funds shall be used to pay
any expense of the establishment of the commemorative work. The Adams
Memorial Foundation would be responsible for not only the cost of
construction of the memorial, but also for establishing a fund in the
Treasury equal to ten percent of the cost of construction for
catastrophic maintenance and preservation, as provided for in Section
8(b) of the Commemorative Works Act.
A memorial to President John Adams, President John Quincy Adams,
and their wives and their legacy of public service in the Nation's
Capital would be quite appropriate. As one of the findings in H.R. 1668
states, ``Few families have contributed as profoundly to the United
States as the family that gave the Nation its second president, John
Adams, its sixth president, John Quincy Adams, first ladies Abigail
Smith Adams and Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams and succeeding
generations of statesmen, diplomats, advocates and authors.'' One of
the three Library of Congress buildings is named after John Quincy
Adams but, otherwise, there is no major public work in the Nation's
Capital that recognizes or memorializes John Adams or John Quincy
Adams. We agree with Congressman Roemer and the other sponsors of this
bill that these father-and-son presidents and their legacy of public
service deserve a memorial in Washington.
As noted above, this legislation simply authorizes the process for
developing an Adams memorial to move forward. The Adams Memorial
Foundation has not yet proposed a design or site for the memorial, nor
have there been any decisions made by the National Capital Memorial
Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, or the National Capital
Planning Commission other than endorsement of H.R. 1668 by the National
Capital Memorial Commission. However, because the three commissions
have established policies against siting any more memorials in the
``reserve,'' the area that represents the Mall east to west and the
White House to the Jefferson Memorial north to south, the memorial
would not be located there. Instead, the recommended site would likely
be one of the 100 sites that have been identified in a master plan for
memorials and museums in the District of Columbia and its environs by
the three commissions as sites that are appropriate for new memorials.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, Mr. Galvin. Just a couple
of questions for each of you. The incompatibility is a little
bit hard for me to understand. Are you saying that you would
give up--you are not going to get what you want here, the
perfect, it appears at this time. I think Mr. Wamp has
eloquently pointed out that the coalition that supports this
would fly apart like crazy. So you are not going to get the
perfect. Would you give up the good in order--because you are
not getting the perfect? Would you rather not have it done at
all?
Mr. Galvin. First, let me just repeat that the
administration recommends deferral of this bill on other
grounds, and then let's get into the substance of it. Our study
proposed a date certain for the termination of these uses. Mr.
Wamp's bill proposes essentially open-ended continuation of
these. Perhaps there is someplace in the middle or some
language we can agree on that will better ensure that
eventually--eventually--even the study does not recommend that
these uses be terminated tomorrow--but that eventually this all
becomes part of an important National Historic Site.
Mr. Hefley. I visited Valley Forge last summer, and I
noticed that in one area around Valley Forge, it was hard for
me to tell sometimes whether I was on park property or on
private property. So it is not like many parks do not have what
you might call incompatible uses, but it works out very well
and no one seems to object to that.
Mr. Galvin. Well, in the case of Valley Forge, I am not
sure I agree with you that it works out very well. We have had
and we have right now proposals in Valley Forge to build major
highways through the park. Private property within the park
boundaries has frequently proposed development that is inimical
to the historic scene there. We essentially inherited a State
park there with much of the uses that you point out.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Culp, will Carson City be required to spend
any money for this land if it is transferred?
Mr. Culp. No, not under the terms of this legislation, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. And the BLM used this land for what prior to
that?
Mr. Culp. It was a wareyard for our local office, storage
of vehicles and materials that we used in our programs to
manage the public lands.
Mr. Hefley. Are there any hazardous materials on the site?
Mr. Culp. Not to my knowledge. There are some old buildings
that would be, I believe, demolished.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. Any further questions, Committee?
Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. I had first a brief comment and than a follow-
up question. I want to say for the record again that I do not
support the administration's position of a complete freeze to
catch up with the backlog and I do not believe that is as
sustainable position for this year. All of us, particularly
those of us who are conservative Republicans, had a concern
about major annexations of territories that were not supported
at the local community level that seemed to be, at times, at
whim; but it is another thing to say we are not going to add
anything.
There have been these historic battles for 100 years nearly
in the Park Service about Congress--I know fellow Hoosier and
former Parks Director, Mr. James Ridenour, believes that
Congress pork barrels. Well, of course they do. That is how the
Park Service got started. That is what Albright and Mather and
all these people did, is they put together coalitions to try to
get support for the Park Service, and if the Park Service does
not incorporate things that communities and States and Members
of Congress desire, then we are going to get a proliferation of
heritage areas and the monies are going to go away from the
Park Service and we will have inconsistent development like is
occurring right now in the Forest Service and the BLM.
We do not know who has wilderness. We do not know who has
recreation. We do not know who has historical areas. Secondly,
we have a different problem east of the Mississippi than we
have west of the Mississippi, because we cannot do in Indiana
the type of swaps with BLM like they are doing in Nevada,
because we have 3 percent public land, including State, county
and Federal. Therefore, almost all of our historic sites have
things built over the top and built over the top; and trying to
figure out how to do transition processes and how to do
compatibility and yet have the east as our environmental and
historical and cultural awareness increases, because
historically we wanted to preserve the things in the West. That
is why they have 70-to-90 percent public lands, but in the East
we do not have many of these things.
We are going to have this battle in Tennessee in almost
every area, in almost every park question that comes up to do
that. As you heard from my earlier questions, I have some
concerns about how this works through, too, and would encourage
the Park Service to continue to work with Congressman Wamp and
others in Tennessee as to how to do a logical transition, what
can and cannot be included in the properties, how you do a
transition, how you preserve and make sure nobody tampers with
the historically significant parts of the mental health site
while it is still a mental health site.
I am not totally convinced that it should be part of the
Park Service thing, but obviously if there are historically
significant things there, we do not want them damaged. But I
would encourage you to look forward to that, and I wanted to
make a statement for the record that I have. I understand that
we still do not have a confirmed new parks director. The
administration--I can understand why they are concerned about
this session of Congress, but it is unlikely this Congress will
completely hold back any more than any other Congress in
American history has completely held back.
Mr. Galvin. Without taking a position on that, Mr. Souder,
your observation of history is certainly correct, and certainly
the history of the National Park Service System is closely
aligned with congressional action, since the property clause of
the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create units
of the National Park System I certainly recognize that, having
been a frequent witness before this Committee over a number of
administrations.
The growth of the Park Service, I think, over time is
organic. In recent Congresses, we have gotten sites that we
would not have considered 20 or 30 years ago, sites that really
add to the richness of the system, like Manzanar, Martin Luther
King and others, that add to the important story of America as
that story is made. So, ultimately, I believe the growth of the
Park System has to be organic and it has to be at the direction
of Congress.
To answer your last question, I have committed to Mr. Wamp
that I will work with him to try to remove this impasse on the
incompatible uses.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Wamp?
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions
for Mr. Galvin. First, does the language in H.R. 980 prohibit
the Secretary from including the acreage on the golf course in
the park by 2010?
Mr. Galvin. I believe it says that the--well, I could look
at it, but it is not within the boundaries; but it comes into
the park when the golf course is ended. So it does not, no. If
the golf course use ends, it comes into the park.
Mr. Wamp. The golf course lease is up in 2005. If local
government decides to not extend the lease of the golf course,
the Secretary may add the golf course to this site. That is a
decision that we left to local government because they own the
land. This is their asset. To me, this is not an egregious,
non-conforming use, and that is the point that I am making.
Secondly, there have been no remains found under the golf
course. On the excavation of the golf course 30 years ago,
there were no remains. We asked this question during the public
consensus-building process of the archeologist that did the
study, and they said, ``Well, they were next-door,'' and I
heard what you said about that. But there is a huge difference
between finding remains under the golf course and finding them
next-door; and frankly we are going to have an archeologist
testify to why the property at the end of the bend must be
included, based on Mr. Souder's question, because wherever
there are remains, absolutely include them. But this is not one
of the most significantly historical sites on the bend.
It is important and I hope it can be added at some time,
but not with a baseball bat, saying to local government, ``We
are going to take this against your will, and do not forget
what is next to it, and that is that big asset of the sewage
treatment facility.''
Second question: Your testimony says that the National Park
Service believes that by including deadlines for closure in the
legislation, the State and city would hasten efforts to seek
alternative locations for these facilities. Now, that approach
is like a squeeze play for the mentally ill; and I would just
ask you, what is your solution to 1,900 patients that rely on
this hospital for their mental health services, because your
whole notion is if we do this, we will force them to move.
Well, move where?
Mr. Galvin. Well, we are proposing a unit of the National
Park System here, and it is not usual for mental health
hospitals to be in a unit of the National Park System. If there
is strong support for a unit of the National Park System,
perhaps cooperatively we can work out a solution to that. I
recognize that is a problem.
Mr. Wamp. Has your planning team or your organization been
in negotiation with the State of Tennessee, which runs the
mental health center, the city or the county governments which
use the mental health center to take care of their prisoners
and their population, about this approach of seeking an
alternative?
Mr. Galvin. Well, the study was done with public
involvement and there were local planners on the study team.
Mr. Wamp. I can answer your question. The answer is no, you
have not been involved. You have not been involved in the
consensus-building process. Your expert planners came in from
out of town and made these recommendations and then they left.
Basically, they have not been involved in building consensus,
and that is the problem. We have to be involved in building
consensus, and basically you are out in a vacuum, making
recommendations without the understanding; and this brings me
to my third and final point.
I read the summary of the National Parks Legacy Project
that the President rolled out in California 2 weeks ago. It
says in it that the Park Service should be a partner with State
and local governments on behalf of our parks in urban areas.
Mr. Galvin, this is in the middle of the city of
Chattanooga. This is a perfect urban setting. If there is any
place that the Park Service should be willing to negotiate and
compromise with local governments to see an urban park setting,
it is this. It is a perfect case. If you have been to
Chattanooga, you will see public space, public walks, river
walks, people come and melt and mix, and it is wonderful. If we
do not turn this property over to the Park Service and
integrate this over time and let the local government have a
voice in this process, it will not happen. That is what this
consensus-building process did, and I am sorry that it is a
fact that local government will not support the plan that your
planning team recommended, but they have endorsed H.R. 980 as a
compromise, and at some point you have got to compromise; and
that is exactly what I came to appeal to the Subcommittee for
today, and I appreciate your willingness. But if it is your way
or the highway, I hope the Committee will take the highway.
Mr. Galvin. Well, we serve at the pleasure of Congress. You
pass the laws and we will do the best we can with them; but we
would--this is an undeniably rich site that would make a fine
unit of the National Park System, and we are interested in the
long-term to some solution to these uses that do not have
anything to do with the history of the site.
Mr. Hefley. Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you
very much, gentlemen. I am going to break up the next panel, if
I could. I know there are some time constraints Dr. Ellis and
David McCullough. I am going to ask Dr. Ellis and David
McCullough to join us. We are going to get the rest of this
panel following their testimony.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you for being here today. It is a
privilege to have both of you here. It is always a privilege to
have people that are the very best at what they do testify
before us. I am going to ask the TV cameraman to get his
pictures and move as quickly as possible, because I can hardly
see the witnesses.
Dr. Ellis, we are going to start with you, I believe, and
we will turn it over to you at this point.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ELLIS, Ph.D., PROFESSOR AND AUTHOR, MOUNT
HOLYOKE COLLEGE, SOUTH HADLEY, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Ellis. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I had a
statement, which I think you have copies of, and rather than
read that statement, which contains information designed to
inform anyone who knows very little about John Adams why, in my
judgment, he is worthy of the memorial and why he is probably
the most unappreciated great man in American history, and it
suggests that if, in fact, instead of calling David McCullough
and Joseph Ellis as expert witnesses, we might be able to call
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They would, I think, be
able to testify even more eloquently as to the fact that Adams
was an essential person in their own lives and now they have
got their own places in this National Capital, and the most
sacred space imaginable, and Adams really deserves his, as
well.
It says all that, but what I thought I would do is be
reasonably brief and turn it over to David, and then allow for
conversation so that we can respond to the congressmen's
questions, and what I want to do is--it is, in some sense, an
attempt to answer why does Adams speak to us at this moment in
time, as we enter the 21st century, why is this coming up now?
Both David and I think it probably should have come up at least
100--David thinks 200 years ago--why is it coming up now?
What I have done is draft, in my own hand, if you will, the
Declaration of Independence, if Adams written it; and, in fact,
it was highly likely that Adams would have written it. He was
chair of the Committee on which Jefferson served in May and
June of 1776, and he delegated the drafting of the declaration
to Mr. Jefferson. In his old age, Adams rued the day that he
did that, because his own reputation did not grow as
Jefferson's did, but all that.
Here is Adams' Declaration of Independence, and I think it
begins to highlight the differences between Adams and
Jefferson, and begin to suggest why Adams is coming back: ``We
hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women
are created equal--Abigail would insist upon that--that they
are endowed by their Creator with mutually dependent rights and
responsibilities; that among these rights are life, liberty and
the pursuit of virtue; and among these responsibilities are
self-denial, duty to the Commonwealth, and a decent respect for
the wisdom of the ages; that to secure these rights and enforce
these responsibilities governments are instituted in all
civilized societies, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed and from the accumulated experience of
proceeding generations.''
``Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long-
established should not be changed for light and transient
causes and the lamp of experience will demonstrate that human
passions aligned with dreams of perfection ought not seduce
governments to embrace revolutionary change when imperfect
evolution is possible, or listen to the tribunes of the people
who ignore the abiding interests of the public. Accordingly,
all experience has shown that mankind must resist the tyranny
of despots and the tyranny of majorities; must balance their
urge for freedom and their obligation to others; must contain
their pursuit of personal happiness within the covenant of the
collective; must, in sum, strive to subordinate the selfish
impulses that animate our expectations to the better angels of
our nature.''
``Let these principles be declared to a candid world at
this propitious moment with a firm reliance on the protection
of Divine Providence and the civic sense that our mutual pledge
binds us together within the expansive limits of our lives, our
fortunes and our sacred honor.''
Mr. Chairman, that is my statement.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ellis follows:]
Statement of Dr. Joseph J. Ellis, Professor and Author, Mount Holyoke
College, South Hadley, Massachusetts
If, by some miracle, this congressional committee were able to call
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as expert witnesses, instead of
David McCullough and yours truly, they would almost surely express
amazement that this hearing was occurring at all. From their
perspective, John Adams was a leading member of the ``band of
brothers'' that won American independence and then secured it with a
national government. Like them, he was ``present at the creation.''
Like them, his public career stretched across the most critical years
of the infant American republic. Like them, his revolutionary
credentials were impeccable. Like them, he served as president.
If there were a Mount Olympus in American history where the
American gods gathered; everyone knew that Washington occupied the
pinnacle, but Adams, along with Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were
accorded a niche just below the summit. The leading members of the
revolutionary generation would have presumed that a fitting monument to
Adams had long ago been constructed on a prominent site in this capital
city. These hearings, in effect, should have occurred about a century
ago.
Adams himself, on the other hand, if permitted to testify, would
have said, ``I told you so.'' In 1790 he predicted that, ``Mausoleums,
statues, monuments will never be erected to me,'' explaining that he
lacked what he called ``the gift of taciturnity,'' a roundabout way of
saying that he could not keep his mouth shut. In his conversation and
voluminous correspondence, he always spoke his mind. In his diaries, he
always spoke his heart. His extreme candor made him the most colorful
member of the revolutionary generation, and therefore a favorite among
professional historians. But it also made him difficult to mythologize
as a demi-god, because he made a point of displaying his own human
ambitions, vanities, and psychic edges for all to see.
He was also a lifelong contrarian, meaning that he instinctively
embraced unpopular causes whenever he thought that popular opinion was
at odds with the long-term public interest. Defending the British
troops after the Boston Massacre is the classic example in this mode.
But refusing to declare war against France in 1799, the first
implementation of Washington's isolationist advice in The Farewell
Address, was another example. He was, in fact, proudest of this
decision, which subsequent history proved correct, though it cost him
the presidential election of 1800. I think this contrarian streak
should actually have helped him win the election with posterity, but it
has obviously worked against him. Jefferson tells us what we want to
hear. Adams tells us what we need to know. Perhaps now, and only now,
are we prepared to listen.
If the case for Adams needs to be made, simply to place it on the
congressional record, my version would go like this: he was the
acknowledged ``atlas of independence'' in the Continental Congress, the
statesman who insisted most firmly that reconciliation with Great
Britain was impossible; he nominated Washington to head the Continental
Army and chose Jefferson to draft the Declaration of Independence; his
``Thoughts on Government'' provided the model for most of the first
state constitutions; he almost singlehandedly wrote the Massachusetts
Constitution, which, in its emphasis on separation of powers and an
independent judiciary, greatly influenced the shape of the United
States Constitution; along with Franklin, he led the negotiations that
produced the Treaty of Paris in 1783; he was America's most effective
diplomat in Europe during the 1780s, winning recognition of our
sovereignty as a nation and a loan from Dutch bankers that consolidated
our foreign debt; he was the first Vice-President and second President
of the United States; his correspondence with Jefferson from 1812 to
1826 became the literary capstone for the American Revolution and the
greatest exchange of letters between statesmen in American history.
Finally, along with Abigail, he founded a family dynasty that, in
terms of public service and intellectual brilliance, is without peer in
all of American history. In a sense, Adams never needed marble statues
to memorialize his name, since John Quincy, Charles Francis and Henry
Adams became living embodiments of his legacy.
If this current initiative bears fruit, as I fervently hope it
does, Adams would surely like to be accompanied by his beloved Abigail
and John Quincy in their stroll towards immortality. They are all in
fact already there, waiting for us to catch up. And while no American
statesman was more politically incorrect than John Adams, even he was
enough of a politician to recognize that a group design might appeal to
congressional devotees of family values. If he could choose he
location, it would be on the Tidal Basin, so that he and Jefferson
could take turns casting shadows over each other's facades.
Enough special pleading. It is high time, indeed long past time,
for the nation to memorialize its most independent, most pungent, most
politically profound founder. . Washington and Jefferson required his
company during their lifetimes. They need him now in their repose. And
so do we.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Dr. Ellis.
Mr. McCullough?
STATEMENT OF DAVID McCULLOUGH, AUTHOR, WEST TISBURY,
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. McCullough. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
I am delighted to be here, very pleased to be asked to appear
before you. I come to you as one who, 6 years ago, knew
relatively little about John Adams. I now feel, and I feel this
as strongly as I possibly can and hope I can express it
adequately, that John Adams was one of our best ever. He was
brave. He was honest. His devotion to service, to the service
of the country, to the public good, is beyond almost any other
example.
Except for George Washington, no other figure of the time
played a greater part in the winning of independence and the
establishment of what we call our balanced or republican form
of government. He was a true patriot in every sense of the
word, serving the country for more than 25 years as a Member of
Congress, as a diplomat, as Vice President, and President of
the United States. He was the only Founding Father who never
owned a slave as a matter of principal. He was the author of
the oldest written constitution still in use in the world, the
constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which was
passed into the law in Massachusetts 10 years before our
national Constitution and is, in effect, a model of the
national Constitution.
He was separated from his family for more than 10 years in
the service of the country, traveling farther than any other
American leader of the day by far, over terrible seas and
mountains, again in the service of the Nation, and secured
while he was in Europe during the war, vitally-needed financial
help to make the war possible, from the Netherlands, an
initiative that he took under his own responsibility against
all the odds and, with extraordinary determination, succeeded
in bringing about.
He was the man who urged the French to commit their navy to
our cause, and it was because the French navy was there when
the armies of Rochambeau and Washington converged on Yorktown,
that the Battle of Yorktown was decisively decided by our
forces, and Cornwallis' famous surrender resulted.
John Adams was one of the three who signed for us and
negotiated for us, the new United States of America, the Treaty
of Paris, that ended the Revolutionary War in 1783. He played a
very vital part in what has been judged by many historians as
perhaps the most advantageous treaty ever signed by the United
States of America. It not only established us as an independent
Nation, but it set the boundaries of the Nation at the
Mississippi.
He was the first American to stand before King George III
as our first minister to Great Britain, a farmer's son,
standing before the monarch of Great Britain, to represent the
new independent Nation, surely one of the greatest moments,
greatest scenes in American history. As Vice President, he was
in the chair virtually every day, casting more deciding votes,
tie votes, breaking more tie that any Vice President in our
history. As little as he thought of the insignificant role in
which he was cast, as he said privately, he was, again, as
dutiful as anyone who ever served in that position.
As President, he kept us out of a very unnecessary war with
France, which he thought was his greatest service to his
country. But his greatest service, if we may say so, and if we
only remember him for this, was the part he played in
Philadelphia in 1776. He was the decisive voice. If Jefferson
was the pen, Adams was the voice. He drove the Declaration of
Independence through the Congress, made it happen when it
happened, and the key word there is when; for in the first week
of July, 1776, the time of the declaration, the time when the
Declaration of Independence was voted on, the British landed
32,000 troops on Staten Island. That is more troops that the
entire population of the largest city in the colonies at the
time, which was Philadelphia, 30,000 people.
When I saw those statistics, Mr. Chairman, when I realized
here was the foe landing more troops--and not just troops, they
were the best troops in the world, tough, well-experienced and
ready to march, and they were only a day-and-a-half's march
from Philadelphia, it suddenly struck home to me as never
before that when they were pledging their lives, their
fortunes, their sacred honor, those were not mere words.
In our rotunda, sir, hangs the great painting of the
signing of the Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull,
seen by thousands of tourists, thousands of visitors from all
over the world, millions of people, year after year. If you
study the painting, at the exact center, the focal point, with
all of the devices that an artist uses to train the eye to come
to the focal point clearly in evidence, clearly at work, at the
exact center is John Adams, because those who were there knew
that he was the man who made it happen.
As Jefferson said himself, John Adams was the colossus of
independence. The idea that we have forgotten this man, that he
has stood in the shadows all these years, does not reflect well
on any of us. The time is long past due to give him his place
in the American pantheon and in our American hearts. We owe him
more than we can ever express. We owe all of that generation
more than we can ever express. We can never, ever know enough
about them, and we must carry that attitude to our children and
grandchildren.
We are raising in this country, alas, disgracefully, a
generation of young Americans who, to a very large degree, are
historically illiterate; and we must be able to come to this
city and be reminded, not just of Washington and Lincoln and
Jefferson, but of John Adams. If we can do this now, what
better timing and what better timing especially if it could be
done before the Fourth of July?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCullough follows:]
Statement of David McCullough, Author, West Tisbury, Massachusetts
The Chairman. Let it be said for the record that John Adams was the
driving force who made the Declaration of Independence happen when it
happened, in the fateful first days of July, 1776; that while Thomas
Jefferson was the pen of independence, John Adams was the all important
voice.
His speech to the Second Continental Congress on July 1st, behind
closed doors, was not only the greatest speech of his life, but one of
the greatest in American history, in that it carried the day. In
Jefferson's words, ``[His] power of thought and expression...moved us
from our seats.'' To Jefferson, John Adams was unquestionably the
``colossus of independence.''
In the aftermath of the Declaration, in the midst of war, no
patriot traveled farther in the service of the American cause, over
winter seas and mountain ranges, and often at extreme risk of life.
It was Adams, acting almost wholly alone and on his own initiative,
who secured vitally needed support from the Netherlands to finance the
Revolution--an accomplishment of almost superhuman determination and
ingenuity, the benefits of which are almost beyond reckoning.
And in 1783, it was again John Adams, with Benjamin Franklin and
John Jay, who negotiated the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolution,
established a new independent United States of America, and fixed our
western boundary at the Mississippi. In all, it was as advantageous to
our country as any treaty in history.
On June 1, 1785, two hundred and sixteen years ago this month, in
one of the most memorable scenes in history, it was John Adams, a
farmer's son, who stood before King George III as the first minister to
the Court of St. James's representing the new American nation.
It was John Adams who was later elected our first Vice President.
As the second President he was the first to live in the White House,
the first to address a joint session of Congress here at the Capitol,
and to his everlasting credit, at great risk of his political fortunes,
he managed to avoid war with France when that would have been both
popular and advantageous to his own career. History has shown it to
have been a true ``profile in courage.'' Adams himself would write to a
friend, ``I desire no other inscription over my gravestone than: ``Here
lies John Adams, who took upon himself the responsibility of peace with
France in the year 1800.'' ``
But there is more.
It was John Adams who drafted the oldest written constitution still
in use in the world today, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts enacted in 1779, fully ten years before our national
Constitution. Moreover, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts contains a ringing clause unlike that of any ever
included in such a document before and that speaks to us eloquently
today. It declares it the ``duty'' of the government to educate
everyone.
It was John Adams, more than anyone, who championed the creation of
an American navy. Indeed, if there was a father of the American Navy,
it was Adams and his memory might well be honored for that alone.
He was, furthermore, the only founding father who never owned a
slave as a matter of principle.
He was the first college graduate to become President, the first
published author to become President, and he was besides, the husband
of the extraordinary Abigail Adams, one of the most remarkable
Americans of the time. And he was the first to father a President.
Beyond all that, it was John Adams as much as anyone who spoke for
and insisted upon the balance of a three-part system of government--
legislative, executive, and judicial--and he who stressed with a
persistence equaled by nobody that there must be an independent
judiciary.
Let us remember that the American Revolution was made by individual
men and women who, by our modern way of seeing things, were very few in
number. The war they fought was the most important in our history, as
it gave birth to our nation and our free way of life.
But the revolution began well before the war. As John Adams
observed famously, ``The revolution was in the minds and the hearts of
the people.'' He himself, in 1765, ten years before blood flowed at
Lexington and Concord, declared to his fellow Americans:
Government is a plain, simple, intelligent thing, founded in nature
and reason. Quite comprehensible by common sense...The true source of
our suffering has been our timidity. We have been afraid to think...Let
us dare to read, think, speak and write.
There was no American nation then, no army at the start of the war,
no sweeping popular support for rebellion, no promise of success. Had
they taken a poll in the colonies, the Declaration of Independence and
the war would have been scrapped as unpopular. Only about a third were
for the revolution, another third were adamantly against it, while the
rest, in the old human way, were waiting to see which side would
prevail.
No rebelling people had ever broken free from the grip of a
colonial empire. Those we call patriots were also clearly traitors to
the King. And so as we must never, never forget, when they pledged
``their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor,'' it was in no mere
manner of speaking.
We call them our Founding Fathers in tribute, but see them as
distant and a bit unreal, like figures in a make-believe costume
pageant. Or worse, we forget them. Yet real they were, as real as all
that stirred their ``minds and hearts.''
In one of her most poignant letters to her husband in far off
Philadelphia, Abigail Adams wrote, ``I wonder if future generations
will ever know what we have suffered in their behalf.''
With the end of the war came the no less difficult and uncertain
task of building a new nation. And in this, too, John Adams played a
lead part. Indeed, it may be fairly said that with the exception of
George Washington, no American played a greater part in winning
independence and establishing a republican form of government than John
Adams.
Yet curiously, sadly, unfairly, we have neglected him.
As a people, we claim to believe in giving credit where credit is
due. But public acclaim and honor for John Adams is now more than two
centuries past due. That such is the case is irrefutable and does not
reflect well on all of us. But better late than never. It is time to do
something about it.
And wouldn't it be fitting to move the measure to the House Floor
before the July 4th recess? Timing is everything after all and the
timing would be perfect.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCullough, in your testimony you indicate that 6 years
ago, you knew very little about him. Why did you choose him? I
can understand why you chose Teddy Roosevelt. I can understand,
because he is very prominent in the American mind--why you
chose Harry Truman. But why did you choose Adams when you
started out?
Mr. McCullough. As you know, Mr. Chairman, John Adams and
Thomas Jefferson incredibly, unbelievably, died on the same
day, and not just any day, but their day of days, July 4, 1826,
the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The
idea that these two extraordinary men, so different in so many
ways, such opposites in many ways, had led the intertwining
lives that they had, first as friends, then as political
rivals, then political enemies who did not speak to each other
for 10 or 11 years, and then as friends again, struck me as one
of the most interesting stories in our past, and my initial
thought was to do a dual biography, giving them, in effect,
each equal time.
But I soon found very early in my work and reading that
John Adams was the man I wanted to write about, because of the
vast collection of papers, diaries letters, and particularly
those between John and Abigail Adams. The letters between John
and Abigail Adams, for example, number more than 1,000. I felt
as if I had walked into a cave full of treasure, and there it
was, all waiting, I felt, for me to dig in and follow a life,
the likes of which is almost without comparison, because it is
so full of adventure, full of uncertainty.
The hardest thing in writing history and teaching history,
and maybe the most important thing, is to convey the essential
truth that nothing ever had to happen the way it happened; that
things could have gone off in almost any direction at any time
for any number of different reasons. Those brave people, men
and women, who set off on the course of independence and
revolution, had no way of knowing how it was going to come out.
Adams said we were about one-third Tories, one-third timid and
one-third true blue.
He was true blue if any of them ever was, and I felt
privileged to keep company with him and to learn from him, and
to find again what we all should really understand, that the
ideas and ideals for which they were willing to risk their
lives and fortunes, were at the heart of one of the great
moments in world history. If we do not know that, if we do not
honor that, then we are not just negligent in our duties, we
are really failing those people.
I think one of the most poignant moments in the letters of
Abigail Adams is when she writes to her husband at a time of
great suffering and travail for both of them, ``I wonder if
future generations will ever know all that we have suffered in
their behalf.''
Mr. Hefley. Dr. Ellis, I might ask you the same question.
Several years ago, you wrote The Passionate Sage, an
outstanding work. Why did you choose Adams for that?
Mr. Ellis. Similar reasons to David. As a historian, you
are looking for colorful material that also has historical
resonance and significance. The late 18th century is the moment
when the United States creates the institutions that still
abide, the basic institutions of this Republic in which we are
participating now; and it was an act of improvisation in the
late 18th-century. They did not know what they were doing,
except on a day-by day-basis.
So to be able to go back to that moment and to study the
greatest generation, all apologies to Mr. Brokaw, and to
recognize that it wasn't that there was something special in
the water back then, it was not that God shed his grace on
thee, it was that a set of historical circumstances created a
true gallery of greats that probably is the greatest leadership
in the history of United States, politically. Alfred Lord North
Whitehead said that, as far as he could tell, there are only
two moments in all of Western history when an emerging elite or
an elite in an emerging nation behaved about as well as one
could ever expect; one was Rome under Caesar Augustus, and the
other was the United States under this group called the
Founding Fathers. I am trying to get us to call them Founding
Brothers.
Then, within that group, Adams--as I started to read their
papers, Adams became the most colorful, the most pungent, the
most--well, the most truthful. If we are looking for ways in
which we can have windows back into the past, can look back and
really come to terms with the minds and the hearts of those
people, let us know what they really thought, what they really
felt, no one does that as effectively as John Adams, and the
materials that the Adams papers contain affords the
storyteller, as I think David can attest, kind of an
incalculable advantage.
Both of us are lucky enough to have books on the bestseller
list, and it just so happens we have the best subject. So once
you begin to encounter Adams and the Adams family, there is a
kind of electromagnetic field that establishes itself and that
I think you are forever living within. I started a crusade back
in the early 1990's to suggest that there should be a memorial,
and I think it is the arrival of David's book that has pushed
us over the top; and I want to thank him for the major
contribution he has made to that particular cause.
Mr. Hefley. Have any one of you considered at all about
writing a book about the great American leaders sitting around
this dais?
Mr. Ellis. I am open to that suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Questions, Committee?
Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is, I think, a good
idea to remind ourselves why we spent taxpayer money or, in
this case, foundations would spend money to honor deceased
patriots. It is not to recognize historians or their work, but
really to raise a standard to which the more meager talents of
the day can repair. You have both, particularly in your recent
works, I think have made a very good case that we can learn for
today a great deal from the way Adams and some of his
contemporaries approached the problems, recognizing--if we
recognize that they had little idea of where the road was
taking them.
I find it particularly meaningful to remember the remark
that Mr. McCullough, you have extracted from Adams' writings,
that I guess this was a saying of the day, that we cannot
guarantee success. We can do something better. We can deserve
it. It is, I think, that idea which would serve us all well,
and I certainly hope that this monument to Adams and the
Adamses will proceed quickly and in a way that will allow us to
draw lessons for the day from their work.
Mr. McCullough. May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hefley. Surely.
Mr. McCullough. That very line is a particularly
interesting point. We cannot guarantee success, but we can
deserve it. When I first read that line, it just made me come
up out of my chair. I thought, ``Isn't that amazing, that we
live in a time when coming in first or winning is all that
matters? He is saying something quite different,'' and then I
found out that George Washington said the same thing in some of
his letters, and then I found out that for neither of them was
it original. It comes from a play, the play, ``Cato,'' by
Joseph Addison; and the point of that, it seems to me, is that
they all knew the line. It was part of the culture. That play,
Washington saw it, I think, something like six or seven times.
It was almost like saying to you, ``Well, I guess you'll
have to follow the Yellow Brick Road.'' It was a line everybody
knew; and I think what that shows is that we cannot understand
those people unless we understand the culture in which they
lived, and we ought to take a tip from that, that the culture
we are making is what is going to shape our outlook, and a
statue or a memorial may seem like a small thing, but a statue
or a memorial can move the minds of a nation and of a society,
and it can help in the right direction.
Mr. Holt. Particularly, I might add, if the memorial will
make part of modern-day culture this idea that we cannot
guarantee success, we can do something better, we can deserve
it; and make that a part of our culture even more than the
Yellow Brick Road.
Mr. McCullough. Yes.
Mr. Ellis. Could I just briefly--very briefly say that I
think the notion that this should go on the fast track--we have
had recent discussions about another memorial on the mall that
is somewhat controversial. This would permit us to come
together in a way that brings the Congress into a truly
bipartisan mode, because Adams is a person who stands astride
both conservative and liberal political traditions; both
political parties have legitimate claim on his legacy and could
join together in, in effect, writing the wrong that is at least
100 years old.
Mr. Hefley. Further questions?
Mr. Holt. If I may use the remaining few seconds, I believe
the current witnesses were out of the room when earlier I
commented that I think a particularly important reason to have
such a memorial is to recognize not just John Adams' judicial
wisdom and constitutional wisdom, but also to recognize his
valor. We have so many monuments in this town that recognize
military valor. I think the valor that he and some of the
others at the time showed was every bit as great and every bit
as important for us to recognize as the military valor that we
have commemorated around this city.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, one thing that
was prompted earlier by a comment from Mr. Delahunt, as well,
that one of the things we have worked out in the Andean region
is, in Columbia and Peru, they struggle with the drug question
and the rule of law, because it seems to me some of what we
could do in our embassies is to, for example, at St. Petersburg
and at Paris, is that we ought to work to try to get some of
our famous people who were in other places and be able not just
to have something at the embassy that is a statue of them, but
to work this in; and if we evolve this as a way to extend and
make our American roots in a more simple way than just we are
exporting capitalism and the complexity behind it, I hope that
you would continue to stay interested in that and a way to
extend it internationally, as well.
The second thing, I mean, you have exciting subjects and
every one of the subjects you have done in your books are
exciting subjects. The plain truth is I have plenty of other
books on Adams and other subjects that you have that did not
make the bestseller list. Both of you deserve tremendous credit
for making your subjects interesting and engaging the general
public, because too often the history is disconnected; and the
question I have and the challenge is how we can make the
memorials more interesting for our era.
Often, while we want to highlight the valor and the
outstanding characteristics and hold up a model, they, I do not
think, have the same inspirational value. Part of your success
in your books, whether it is the Mornings on Horseback, you
said let us look at Roosevelt as a boy, and got people to think
in an approach; and in the Founding Brothers, you engage the
people with something that gets them thinking about the dual,
and they get engaged in the dual; and with younger people
today, that is an increasing challenge for history; and how can
our memorials in some way pick up this Adams as just this
bundle of contradictions, the fear that you mentioned that we
lose. When we see a marble statue, you lose all that.
Saving Private Ryan made World War II different for so many
Americans because you could feel it, and what could we do as we
evolve this? You have clearly figured that out, from other
biographers and other historians, how to make your books more
interesting by getting the personality. How do we do that in
our memorials?
Mr. Ellis. I will take a first crack at that idea and then
give David a chance to think and offer probably a wiser answer.
I think that text and a monument are different things, and
therefore--I have a chance in my narrative to develop in ways
that a sculptor does not. I do think that both from my
citizen's point of view that the Vietnam Memorial and he Korean
Memorial are extraordinarily powerful works created within the
past 20 years or so, and so that their legacy is not totally
barren.
I think that there ought to be some thought to the
question. In other words, the decision about the design for
this memorial is something that ought to have your goals very
much at the center; that it is still, I believe, undecided.
David and I are not going to be determinative in that decision.
If you were going to ask me, I would say--I mean, I have joked
about this in the past. I said at the end of the Adams book
that we need an Adams monument on the Tidal Basin in such a
location that Jefferson and Adams can take turns casting
shadows across each other's facades.
I would love it on the Tidal Basin. I would love Adams--
Abigail--as reasonably young people in the 1770's, at the
height of his power in the Continental Congress, with John
Quincy Adams trailing as a young boy behind him. I think that
gives you feminist values. It gives you family values and it
gives you John Adams at the moment of his greatest power. But
that is my opinion and in some sense the words around it will
need to be used. There are words on the Jefferson Memorial, the
Lincoln Memorial. The words will need to be chosen to reflect
the power of Adams, and believe me there are plenty of words
that we can find to put on such a memorial.
David, have you thought of something better?
Mr. McCullough. No. I would say to me as moving a place as
there is in Washington is the Lincoln Memorial, when you see
the words of the Second Inaugural Address. As Professor Ellis
has said, the words that one might draw from John Adams and
Abigail Adams are a surplus of riches. I think the answer to it
is talent, to make sure that the project is taken up by people
of extraordinarily talent. Don't settle for second-best. Don't
let compromise become such that it is a stultifying experience
for whoever is the person who has the opportunity to create
something of this kind.
This could be a testimony to our creativity, as well as to
the courage and valor, which is an absolutely perfect word, of
those brave people. This is a worthy, worthy project. There is
no question whatsoever that it is long overdue and should be an
exciting, creative enterprise undertaken by the most talented
people possible.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. Let me ask--and you, Dr.
Ellis, have already stated what you thought would be a dramatic
depiction. You think it is better to do something that
commemorates the Adams family, rather than John Adams,
individually?
Mr. Ellis. In the end, Adams deserves a monument or
memorial of his own, and yet my own view is that in Adams'
political career, his most important political confidant and
ally was Abigail, that during his Presidency she was
effectively his one-woman Cabinet. He did not listen to anybody
else. So her inclusion does not, in some sense, detract. I
would hesitate to make it a monument in which the entire Adams
family is, in some sense, replicated, because it seems to
diminish and dilute, if you will, Adams' singular contribution.
But I am prepared to put John Quincy in there as a
recognition that perhaps one of Adams' most important legacies
is his family, which is arguably the greatest political and
intellectual family in American political history. So I would
not want to go beyond those three, and if somebody wanted to
knock it down to one or two, I would go along with that. I
would opposed expanding it to numbers greater than that.
Mr. McCullough. I agree. It is impossible to understand
John Adams without understanding Abigail and the part she
played. It further is impossible to understand Adams' attitude
toward women and the part women played in the Revolution.
Thomas Payne famously said, ``These are the times that try
men's souls.'' John Adams reminded Benjamin Rush, ``These were
the times that tried women's souls, too.'' Years ago, Anne
Morrow Lindbergh said to me that true love is not just gazing
at each other, true love is also gazing out in the same
direction together; and if ever a couple, ever a husband and
wife ever exemplified that approach, it is John and Abigail
Adams.
We tend to think of the patriots of that day as men. You
cannot understand her unless you realize that she was a
profound patriot. ``I would not have you be an idle
spectator,'' she says. ``We have too many high-sounding words
and too few actions to correspond with them,'' what a line and
what a line that could be underneath a statue.
Mr. Hefley. Why do you suppose that when the planners
around this town were planning the Washington, the Lincoln, and
the Jefferson, that Adams was completely overlooked?
Mr. Ellis. I tried to answer that on several occasions, and
the answer I have come up with is never completely
satisfactory. Adams himself predicted that would occur, and
there is a famous line in a letter to Benjamin Rush,
``Mausoleums, monuments and statues will never be erected to
me. I wish them not,'' but he then goes on to say if they are
going to have a memorial, he wants it to represent him as he
really was, ``All but the last I loathe.''
The quippy, clever answer is that Jefferson tells us what
we want to hear and Adams tells us what we need to know, and
most of the time we do not want to hear it; that Adams is short
and stout, cantankerous; he does not stay on script; he refuses
to listen to spinners; he is maddeningly idiosyncratic, and so
he does not fit into mythical heroic terms. He himself said the
reason is because he talked too much, that he did not have the
gift of taciturnity; that Washington and Jefferson and Franklin
had the gift of taciturnity, meaning they kept their mouth shut
and everybody presumed that they understood everything that was
going on in the room, which, of course, they seldom did.
I think it partly has to do with the demise of the
Federalist party in the early part of the 19th century, so that
the party that would otherwise have brought him forward for
commemoration was essentially out of existence; but it is
mostly because he himself refused to be a person of party, and
so the Hamiltonians will get their statue and the Jeffersonians
will get their statue, but there is nobody to represent Adams
because he does not fit neatly into any of the grooves. I think
that one of the things that we are saying is it is precisely
because he does not fit into the ideological political groups,
that he is the ultimate symbol of American independence.
But it still--it is a statement about us more than about
him, that it has not happened; and, David, maybe you can follow
file up.
Mr. McCullough. I really have nothing more to add, except
that we have never celebrated--for some reason, we do not
celebrate one-term Presidents unless they have been
assassinated in office. There is something about the fact that
they lose, we do not want to honor them, and we do not honor
Presidents for what they did not do, the fact that he did not
take us into that war with France, and it would seem to me that
we in this generation especially, especially, should understand
the importance of that. He said, ``Great is the guilt of an
unnecessary war.'' What a line. Like everything he said, it is
exactly what he meant.
Mr. Hefley. We are very mindful of your time constraints
and we appreciate it. Are there any further comments?
Mr. McCullough. Yes, I have one more. He had the best sense
of humor of almost anybody who ever occupied a position of
importance in our government. He was a warm, affectionate,
great-hearted person, who would have been the best company
imaginable, were we to have the chance to be with him.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern. I am mindful of your time, as well, but I did
not want you to leave without saying thank you for giving us a
history lesson today. Thank you for introducing this generation
to John Adams and the Adams family, and thanks to both of you,
and Mr. Roemer and Mr. Delahunt, for helping to create a sense
of urgency, I think, here, for us to do something and to do it
now; and hopefully, given the fact that everybody is in
agreement here, that perhaps we can get this reported out of
Committee and enacted on before July 4th, which I think would
be a fitting tribute. But I wanted you to know how grateful we
all are that you were here today. Thank you.
Mr. Ellis. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hefley. Tim?
Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to join
in thanking both you in bringing this up, Mr. Chairman. You
have been a pleasure to work with through this process, and I
appreciate the bipartisan support that I have received in the
spirit of John Adams, from this Committee. We have cosponsors
from both sides of the aisle, and the staffs have been
wonderful to work with on both sides; and I want to join in
thanking our distinguished witnesses today, David McCullough
and Dr. Ellis, for their time and patiently waiting, not only
to testify, but waiting for this memorial as this country is,
as well.
I think that their testimony today and their suggestions
about a monument, in addition to John, that it is very
important that Abigail Adams be an integral part of this and
that John Quincy Adams be an integral part of this; but that we
are so much richer and wiser in this country when we have the
kind of people writing for us that David and Joe provide.
Number one on the list, number four on the list, oftentimes
ahead of the mud wrestlers and the get-rich schemes that many
people want to read about.
If it is written the right way, and informed and educated
verse, and compelling prose, tethered to research, the American
people will read it; and I think even better than reading it is
coming to this historic city and feeling it and seeing it and
learning it, the virtues and the valor and the honor and the
character of this family. These two have brought it alive and
will bring it alive to hundreds of thousands of people in their
books, and I am very, very grateful that they took the time to
come here today.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. Delahunt. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I want to specifically
thank Professor Ellis for pointing out, for the benefit of my
friend and colleague from Indiana, that both parties have a
claim on John Adams. But, seriously, to both of you, I think it
was David's comment that he learned from John Adams during
these past 6 years. Well, again, to echo the sentiments of
others, we are profoundly grateful and learn from both of you
every day.
Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. I, too, would thank you for being here today,
for writing the books that you did, for pushing the concept of
the recognition of the Adams family that we should have. I
would thank again--thank Tim Roemer for his champion of this
cause--Mr. Delahunt. I have a theory about politicians and
speeches, and that is it is a sin to bore a crowd. If you are
asked to speak to a rotary club, if you go in there and bore
them, it is a sin. Obviously, you all--the both of you--you
all? You can tell I came from the South--obviously, with your
writing, you must feel it is a sin to bore a reader; just
because you are historians, you do not have to make it dull and
dusty, and both of you are excellent storytellers and you tell
a story and, in the process, we get an awful lot of history out
of that, and we appreciate that very much.
Do either one of you have any further comments?
Mr. McCullough. No, sir.
Mr. Ellis. No, sir.
Mr. McCullough. Go forward.
Mr. Hefley. If not, with great appreciation, we thank you
for being here.
Mr. McCullough. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hefley. The next panel will be made up of James Mills,
Vice President of the Friends of Moccasin Bend National Park;
Mr. Jack Baker, President, National Association of Trail of
Tears, and Ms. Janice McIntosh, Director of the Carson City
Senior Citizens Center.
Mr. Mills, why don't we start with you?
STATEMENT OF JAMES O. MILLS, VICE-PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF
MOCCASIN BEND NATIONAL PARK, CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
Mr. Mills. I appreciate the opportunity to come before this
Committee. My name is Jay Mills, Vice-President of the Friends
of Moccasin Bend National Park, and I speak on their behalf.
The Friends is a community group dedicated to preserve,
protecting and interpreting one of the most outstanding and
beautiful sites of American cultural history. There is a long
history to this effort. Industrial development threatened
Moccasin Bend as early as the 1880's. In 1950, Senators
Kefauver and McKeller, representing a broad coalition of
business and community leaders, initiated legislation that was
approved by Congress and signed by President Truman,
authorizing the addition of up to 1,400 acres on Moccasin Bend
to the Chickamauga Chattanooga National Military Park. That
effort was suspended by the failure of Governor Frank Clement
to take necessary measure.
Today's proposed legislation gives new life to the decades-
old effort. This cause is worthy because Moccasin Bend contains
one of the most important and rich complexes of archeological
and historical sites to be found inside any city in the United
States, chronicling 10,500-plus years of human history. The
themes included in this history are the peopling of the
continent; the emergence of regionally-distinct cultures; the
transition to permanent settlement; long-distance trade; the
rise of politically-powerful, fortified population centers;
contact with Spanish explorers and the consequences of
epidemic; military and economic stabilization and collapse and
cultural survival; frontier and Cherokee tenure, including the
defiant Chief Dragging Canoe--his villages were along this
section of the river--also the Cherokee removal along the Trail
of Tears, to which Mr. Baker will speak in detail.
Moccasin Bend also played a pivotal role in the Civil War.
Union guns on Moccasin Point bombarded defense mounts on
Lookout Mountain and allowed Hooker's and Sherman's armies to
break the siege, join Grant in the city and route the
Confederates, turning a Union defeat at Chickamauga into a
victory at Chattanooga, giving President Lincoln the supply
route he needed through the mountains to press the war to the
Atlantic States.
As noted in the Park Service's findings of their corporate
management plan, nowhere within the Park System or in a State,
local or private park is such a diverse array of themes
significant to this Nation's history currently protected and
interpreted. National Park status will provide comprehensive
protection and interpretation of these precious nationally-
significant resources and ensure the professional development
into highly valued and attractive assets.
The Park Service is uniquely qualified to provide the
strength of Federal law to protect these resources from plunder
and other threats. It offers the greatest assurance that the
resources will be protected into perpetuity, along with the
highest level of professionalism and planning how the park will
be interpreted, experienced and managed; and only with Federal
management is there the assurance that the people whose
histories are to be interpreted, that they will hereafter play
a prominent role in determining how their own histories will be
presented.
The public benefits are enormous. Establishing the unit
would preserve a 911-acre green space contiguous to downtown
Chattanooga, while unlocking it for passive recreational,
educational and its economic benefits. The park would connect
Chattanooga's revitalized waterfront and downtown with the
renowned river walk system and the interpreted center would
serve as a gateway to the park. A 1996 study by Thomas J.
Martin and Associates projects that Moccasin Bend National
Historic Site and Interpretive Center would generate $29
million annually in economic benefit within the State of
Tennessee and $21 million annually within the county on an
ongoing basis.
Both Hamilton County and the city of Chattanooga have
passed resolutions requesting elected officials to work toward
Moccasin Bend being included in the National Park System. The
Friends have secured endorsements from over 25 community
organizations and have petitions from over 6,000 citizens. The
Trust for Public Land and the Nature Conservancy have endorsed
the project, and the editorial staff of both newspapers also
have endorsed it and have given extensive coverage throughout
the development.
Early in the process, we opened communications with the
Federally-recognized tribes whose heritage is at issue here,
most notably, the Creek and Cherokee Nations. The evolution of
the legislation before you today has been followed and shaped
by their leaders and endorsed by the Cultural Preservation
Committee of the Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized
Tribes, and they are the Muskogee Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw,
Choctaw and Seminole Nations.
Chattanooga has a rich history of success with public and
private partnerships. The leading foundations in Chattanooga,
as well as individuals, have already lent their support, and
the Friends are poised to help extend those efforts, knowing
that will take broad public-private support to develop a park
and interpretive programming with the high level of appeal and
impact that we envision.
The Friends intends to continue to work to make this
project a great success. A broad consensus has been forged,
thanks to the leadership of Congressman Zach Wamp, in-holding
issues have been resolved and the community awaits further
progress. The Friends of Moccasin Bend stand ready and
committed to sharing this area's rich past with those who will
visit her for generations to come.
Thank you so very much for your interest in Moccasin Bend
National Historic Site.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:]
Statement of James O. Mills, Vice President, The Friends of Moccasin
Bend National Park
I appreciate the opportunity to come before your committee. My name
is Jay Mills, Vice President of The Friends of Moccasin Bend National
Park and I speak on their behalf. The Friends is a community group
dedicated to preserving, protecting and interpreting one of the most
outstanding and beautiful sites of American cultural history.
There is a long history to this effort. Industrial development
threatened Moccasin Bend as early as the 1880s. Representing a broad
coalition of business and community leaders, Senators Kefaufer and
McKeller in 1950 initiated legislation that was approved by Congress
and signed by President Harry Truman authorizing the addition of up to
1,400 acres on Moccasin Bend to the Chickamauga and Chattanooga
National Military Park.
Although that effort was suspended by the failure of Governor Frank
Clement to take final necessary measures, today's proposed legislation
gives new life to a decades old effort. This cause is worthy because
Moccasin Bend contains one of the most important and rich complexes of
archaeological and historical sites to be found inside any city in the
United States, chronicling 10,500 plus years of human history.
The themes included in these resources are:
LThe peopling of the continent
LEmergence of regionally distinct cultures,
LTransition to permanent settlement,
LLong distance trade,
LRise of politically powerful fortified population
centers,
LContact with Spanish explorers and the consequences of
epidemic, military and economic destabilization, and collapse, and
cultural survival
LFrontier and Cherokee tenure including the defiant
Cherokee Chief, Dragging Canoe, whose villages were along this section
of the river.
LThe Cherokee removal along the Trail of Tears, to which
Mr. Baker will speak (has spoken) in detail,
LMoccasin Bend also played a pivotal role in the Civil
War. Union artillery pieces on the Moccasin Point bombarded defense
routes on Lookout Mountain and allowed the Hooker's and Sherman's Army
to break the siege, join Grant and route the confederates, turning a
union defeat at Chickamauga into a victory at Chattanooga, giving
President Lincoln the supply route he needed through the mountains to
press the war to the Atlantic States.
As noted in the findings of the National Park Service Cooperative
Management Plan, nowhere within the park service or in state, local or
private parks is such a diverse array of themes significant to this
nation's history currently protected and interpreted.
National Park status will provide comprehensive protection and
interpretation of these precious, nationally significant resources and
assure their professional development into highly valued and attractive
assets. The National Park Service is uniquely qualified to embrace the
full range of these responsibilities. Citizen's groups have insisted on
that level of protection and oversight.
More specifically, the Park Service is uniquely qualified to
provide the strength of federal law to protect the resources from
plunder and other threats. It also offers the greatest assurance that
the resources are protected into perpetuity, along with the highest
level of professionalism in planning how the park will be interpreted,
experienced and managed. And, only through federal management is there
the assurance that the peoples whose histories are to be interpreted
will hereafter play a prominent role in determining how their history
will be interpreted.
The public benefits are enormous.
Establishing the Unit would preserve a 911-acre green-space
contiguous to downtown Chattanooga while unlocking it for passive
recreation, education and its economic benefits.
The park would connect with Chattanooga's revitalized waterfront
and downtown via the nationally renowned river-walk system, and the
interpretive center will serve as a gateway to the park. The Friends
strive for an interpretive center equaling the quality and attraction
of the Tennessee Aquarium.
A 1996 study by Thomas J. Martin and Associates, whose estimates
for the Tennessee Aquarium proved conservative, projects that a
Moccasin Bend National Historic Site and Interpretive Center will
generate $29 million annually in economic benefits within the State of
Tennessee and $21 million annually within the county on an ongoing
basis.
The Friends for the last six years has worked very hard to lead an
all-inclusive community consensus in support of a National Park. Both
Hamilton County and the City of Chattanooga have passed resolutions
requesting elected officials to work toward including Moccasin Bend in
the National Park Service. The Friends has secured: endorsements from
over 25 community and petitions with over 6,000 citizen signatures. The
editorial staffs of both newspapers have strongly endorsed the project
and given extensive coverage throughout its development. The Trust for
Public Land and the Nature Conservancy have strongly endorsed the
project.
Early in the process we opened communications with the federally
recognized tribes whose heritage is at issue here, most notably the
several Creek and Cherokee nations and tribes, and continue to develop
a vibrant partnership with them. The evolution of the legislation
before you today has been followed and shaped by their leaders and
endorsed by the cultural preservation committee of the Inter-tribal
Council of the Five Civilized Tribes (the Muscogee, Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Choctaw and Great Seminole Nations).
Chattanooga has a rich history of excellent success with public/
private partnerships. Already, the leading foundations in Chattanooga,
as well as individuals, have lent their support to bring the project to
this point, and the Friends are poised to help expand those efforts,
knowing that it will take broad public-private support to develop a
park and interpretive programming with the high level of appeal and
impact that we envision.
The Friends intends to continue a highly pro-active effort to make
this project a great success. A broad consensus has been forged thanks
to leadership of Congressman Zach Wamp. In-holding issues have been
resolved and the community awaits further progress. The Friends
welcomes any suggestions or comments in pursuit of what we believe will
be a magnificent project.
Thank you so very much for your interest in a Moccasin Bend
National Historic Site.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
Mr. Baker?
STATEMENT OF JACK BAKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
TRAIL OF TEARS, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jack Baker
and I am a citizen of both the United States and of the
Cherokee Nation, and I am president of the National Trail of
Tears Association, and due to the Trail of Tears, I am also an
eighth-generation Oklahoman. Congress designated the Trail of
Tears National Historic Trail as such in 1987, and the trail
commemorates the tragic removal of the Cherokee people. It
encompasses two of the routes that were followed during the
removal.
One follows the principal land route and the other the
water route, and while this trail is specific to the Cherokees,
it represents the removal policy of the U.S. Government as it
relates to several of the Southeasterntribes. The Trail of
Tears Association was formed in 1993 as a support organization
of the National Park Service. At the time of our forced
removal, the Cherokees were on farms and even large plantations
and lived pretty much the same as our white neighbors. A
Constitution was adopted in 1827, patterned after that of the
United States; as we heard earlier, to that we owe the efforts
of John Adams. With Sequoyah's invention a few years before,
virtually every Cherokee family was literate, and this compared
with a 10-percent literacy rate in the surrounding States.
With the publication beginning in 1828 of their newspaper,
the Cherokee Phoenix, the Cherokees were well-informed of the
issues of removal. By 1819 my people had ceded 90 percent of
their original lands. They only had about eight million acres
left of their original 80 million, and those remaining lands
they sought to keep, while their white neighbors, being
desirous of the Cherokee farms, sought to have them removed.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its 1832 decision in the case of
Worcester versus Georgia, recognized the sovereignty of the
Cherokee Nation, yet even this did not save them from a
fraudulent treaty signed by a handful of Cherokees in 1835.
These signers had no authority to speak for the Cherokee
Nation, yet Congress ratified this treaty on May 23rd of 1836
by a single vote.
The Cherokees were given 2 years from that date to remove
to the West. Our principle chief and the Tribal Council
continued in their efforts to oppose removal, but to no avail.
So, in late May of 1838, General Winfield Scott and his troops
began to round up my people. The troops, with their rifles and
bayonets, drove families from their homes. They were allowed to
grab only a few items to take with them. Families were
frequently separated, with mothers not knowing where their
children were or husbands not knowing the whereabouts of their
wives or children.
In this manner, the entire Cherokee Nation became homeless
and, for the most part, destitute within a matter of days. They
were first taken to 31 stockades that were constructed
throughout the Cherokee Nation, and the conditions in these
stockades were deplorable. The people had no shelter, only a
few blankets that some of the people had been able to grab, and
inadequate food. These stockades were referred to as
concentration camps, and this appears to be the first time that
the term concentration camps was used.
From these holding stockades, the Cherokees were taken to
11 interment camps; 10 were in Tennessee and one in Alabama.
Family tradition states that my fourth great-grandmother, Lizzy
Ratley, had given birth to a baby girl right after the roundup,
and while being driven to one of the interment camps, she
became too weak to go any further. She refused to cross a
creek, and she was stabbed by one of the soldiers with his
bayonet and died soon after. One of the missionaries in his
journal describes an identical story, but does not give the
name of the woman, but it appears to be Lizzy Ratley.
Then, in mid-June, three groups of about 800 Cherokees each
were started west from Ross' Landing, which is present
Chattanooga. Two went by water around Moccasin Bend and the
other crossed on the upper part of Moccasin Bend, on the old
Federal Road. Of that group, only 635 arrived in the West.
There were 146 deaths and two births recorded along the way.
There was a severe drought at the time, with extreme heat.
Another of my ancestors, Katie North, along with her
brother, nephew and father were in this group. Her father,
William North, was a white man who had married a Cherokee women
over 60 years before. He had been described only a couple of
months before as being upwards of 100 years old and completely
blind for the last 25 years. There is no record of his arriving
in the West, so he is very likely one of the 146 casualties.
Because of the high casualties of these first groups,
permission was given to delay the removal of the other groups
until fall when it would be cooler. Also, the Cherokee leaders
petitioned General Scott that they be allowed to conduct their
own removal. Permission was granted, and it has been estimated
that as many as one-fourth of the 16,000 Cherokees died as a
result of this forced removal. I might add that had John Quincy
Adams been elected to another term to serve in 1829, rather
than Andrew Jackson, there probably would not have been a Trail
of Tears.
It is important that the American public remember the Trail
of Tears because it is an example of what can happen when
prejudice combines with greed. A couple of years ago, the
pictures of the people in Bosnia that were on TV, fleeing their
homes with only what they could carry reminded me of the Trail
of Tears, and the fact that it can and does still happen today.
Let us hope that such ethnic cleansing does not exist today or
the future of America.
It is also important that the American public recognize
that the history of America does not begin with Jamestown or
with the arrival of the Mayflower. As my distant kinsman and
fellow Cherokee, Will Rogers, once said, ``My family never came
over on the Mayflower, but they were here to meet the boat.''
The American public should be reminded that there were
indigenous people here with rights to their lands. While these
rights were not always recognized by our Founding Fathers, the
acts of wresting the land from the Native Americans have not
always been honorable. It is also important to our people that
the Cherokee remember the Trail of Tears. They need to be
reminded that although we faced a great adversity in the forced
removal, we did survive. We were able to adapt to our new lands
and prosper in them. Survival and adaptability are major
attributes of our heritage and our young people need to be
reminded of this.
Moccasin Bend is a unique location on the Trail of Tears.
Two removal detachments crossed by land at the upper portion of
Moccasin Bend, and also crossed the Tennessee River at Brown's
Ferry, which is a location along Moccasin Bend. Three other
detachments went around Moccasin Bend by water. So these land
and water routes completely encircled the land that is being
proposed for the proposed park. I know of only one other
National Park through which the Trail of Tears crosses, and
that is the Pea Ridge National Battlefield Park in northwest
Arkansas, and that park concentrates on the Civil War battle
site, and there are no interpretive exhibits on the Trail of
Tears.
It is neither near a major population area, nor is it on a
major highway. So Moccasin Bend would be an ideal location with
an interpretive center on the Trail of Tears. It is adjacent to
a large city, as well as being at the crossroad of two major
interstate highways. This location would have the capability of
pulling in large numbers of visitors. I personally support the
creation of a National Park at Moccasin Bend . I also speak for
the National Trail of Tears Association, which supports the
park. I have a resolution from the association's executive
Committee stating this.
In addition, the Cherokee Nation supports the creation of
this park. The Tribal Council voted unanimously to support it,
and I have a resolution from them to present to you, signed by
the officers of the Nation, including the principal chief and
deputy chief, and with your permission, I would like to ask
that they be entered into the record.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection. I am going to have to ask
you to kind of wind up your testimony. Your entire testimony
will be placed in the record.
Mr. Baker. Actually, that is the conclusion of my
testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
Statement of Jack D. Baker, President, Trail of Tears Association
My name is Jack D. Baker and I am a citizen of both the United
States and the Cherokee Nation. I am president of the National Trail of
Tears Association.
Congress designated the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail as
such in 1987. This trail commemorates the tragic removal of the
Cherokee people and encompasses two of the routes followed during the
removal -- one follows the principal land route and the other the water
route. While this trail is specific to the Cherokee it represents the
removal policy of the U. S. Government as it relates to several
Southeastern tribes. The Trail of Tears Association was formed in 1993
as a support organization to the National Park Service to further
research both the events leading up to removal and the removal routes,
to identify significant sites along the trail, and to help preserve and
protect these sites.
At the time of our forced removal, the Cherokee owned farms and
even large plantations much the same as their white neighbors. A
constitution was adopted in 1827 patterned after that of the United
States. With Sequoyah's invention of his syllabary a few years before
virtually every family had at least one literate member. (This compared
with a 10% literacy rate in the states surrounding the Cherokee
Nation.) With the publication beginning in 1828 of their newspaper, the
Cherokee Phoenix, the Cherokees became well informed on the issues of
removal. By 1819 my people had ceded 90% of their original lands. They
only had about 8 million acres left of their original 80 million. These
remaining lands they sought to keep while their white neighbors being
desirous of the Cherokee's farms sought to have them removed. The U. S.
Supreme Court in its 1832 decision in the case of Worcester v Georgia
recognized the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation. Yet even this did
not save them from a fraudulent treaty signed by a handful of Cherokees
in 1835. The signers had no authority to speak for the Cherokee Nation.
Yet Congress ratified this Treaty on May 23, 1836 by only a single
vote. The Cherokees were given two years from that date to remove to
the West.
Our Principal Chief and Tribal Council continued in their efforts
to oppose removal but to no avail. In late May of 1838 General Winfield
Scott and his troops began to round up my people. The troops with their
rifles and bayonets drove families from their homes. They were only
allowed to grab a few items to take with them. Families were frequently
separated with mothers not knowing where their children were or
husbands not knowing the whereabouts of their wives or children. In
this manner the entire Cherokee Nation became homeless and frequently
destitute in a matter of days. They were first taken to 31 stockades
constructed throughout the Cherokee Nation. The conditions in these
stockades were deplorable. The people had no shelter, only a few
blankets that some of the people were able to grab as they were being
forced from their homes, and inadequate food. These stockades were
referred to as concentration camps and this seems to be the first time
that this term was used.
From these holding stockades the Cherokee were taken to 11
internment camps. Ten of these were in Tennessee and the remaining one
was in Alabama. Family tradition states that one of my fourth great-
grandmothers, Lizzie Ratley, gave birth to a baby girl right after the
round up. While being driven to one of the internment camps she became
too weak to go any further and refused to cross a creek. She was
stabbed by one of the soldiers and died soon after. One of the
missionaries at the time recorded in his journal an almost identical
story but does not name the woman.
In mid June three groups of about 800 each were started west from
Ross's Landing at present Chattanooga, Tennessee. Two went by water
around Moccasin Bend and the other crossed the upper part of Moccasin
Bend on the old Federal Road. Of that group only 635 arrived in the
West with 146 deaths and 2 births being recorded. There was a severe
drought at the time with extreme heat. My ancestor, Katie North, along
with her brother, nephew, and father were in this group. Her father,
William North, was a white man who had married a Cherokee woman about
sixty year before. A couple of months before he had been described as
being ``upwards of a hundred years old and completely blind for the
last twenty-five years''. There is no record of his arriving in the
West so he was very likely one of the 146 casualties.
Because of the high casualties of these first groups, permission
was given to delay the removal of the other groups until fall when it
would be cooler. Also, the Cherokee leaders petitioned General Scott
that they be allowed to conduct their own removal. Permission was
granted. It has been estimated that as many as one-fourth of the 16,000
Cherokees died as a result of the forced removal.
It is important that the American public remember the Trail of
Tears. It is an example of what can happen when prejudice combines with
greed. The pictures of the people in Bosnia fleeing their homes with
only what they could carry reminded me of the Trail of Tears. It is
hoped that such ethnic cleansing does not exist today or in the future
of America.
It is also important that the American public recognize that the
history of America does not begin with Jamestown or with the arrival of
the Mayflower. They should be reminded that there were indigenous
people here with rights to their lands. While these rights were always
recognized by our founding fathers, the acts of wresting the land from
the Native Americans have not always been honorable.
It is also important that my people, the Cherokee, remember the
Trail of Tears. They need to be reminded that although we faced a great
adversity in the forced removal we did survive. We were able to adapt
to our new lands and prosper in them. Survival and adaptability are
major attributes of our heritage and our young people need to be
reminded of this.
Moccasin Bend is a unique location on the Trail of Tears. Two
removal detachments crossed by land at the upper portion of Moccasin
Bend and crossed the Tennessee River at Brown's Ferry. Three other
detachments went around Moccasin Bend by water. These land and water
routes of the Trail of Tears completely encircle the proposed park
area. I know of only one other National Park through which the Trail of
Tears passes and that is Pea Ridge National Battlefield Park in
Arkansas. That park concentrates on the Civil War battle site and has
no interpretive exhibits on the Trail of Tears. It is neither near a
major population area nor on a major highway.
Moccasin Bend would be an ideal location for an interpretive center
on the Trail of Tears. It is adjacent to a large city as well as being
near a crossroad of two major interstate highways. This location would
have the capability of pulling in large numbers of visitors.
I personally support the creation of a National Park at Moccasin
Bend. I also speak for the National Trail of Tears Association, which
supports the park. I have a resolution from the Association's executive
committee stating this.
In addition, the Cherokee Nation supports the creation of this
park. The Tribal Council voted unanimously to support H. R. 980. I have
a resolution from them to present to you signed by the officers of the
Nation including the Principal Chief and Deputy Principal Chief.
Thank you for allowing me to speak before you today. I certainly
appreciate your time and your consideration of establishing this park.
______
Mr. Hefley. Boy, you meet a request beautifully. I
appreciate that.
Mrs. McIntosh, you get the prize today on this panel for
coming the furthest to testify. So we will turn the time over
to you.
STATEMENT OF JANICE McINTOSH, DIRECTOR, CARSON CITY SENIOR
CITIZENS CENTER, CARSON CITY, NEVADA
Ms. McIntosh. Thank you. I also hope we kept the best for
last maybe, too. A lot has been said today about the situation
here at the senior citizens center, and previously we had
beautiful pictures painted of American history; and Carson City
is the capital of Nevada; and the picture needs to be painted a
little bit further for you.
I could read my testimony, and there are very many
important things in here that were not said before. One being
that this has taken a very long time to come to fruition. Once
the BLM had decided to move from the yard that is east of the
senior citizens center, it was at that time that the people
that were associated with the senior citizens center started
the ball rolling to acquire the land. The BLM was very
supportive of it, and what had happened in this situation was
that this piece of land no longer was on the outskirts of the
city. It was in the middle of a housing development. Across the
street from a senior citizens center is also a cemetery, and
some people think that in and of itself is a little bit
strange; but actually it is quite beautiful.
It is very, very essential that we acquire this land,
because we have an opportunity to make this what so many people
dream of, and that is having a one-stop shopping area for
services to serve the senior citizens of our community. We are
sort of at the crossroads here, also. It is not just the
citizens of Carson City that enjoy this. There are surrounding
areas. People come as far as Reno, Lake Tahoe, Garnerville,
Dayton, Virginia City; people come from all over to the senior
citizens center, and while it was thought when it was built 10
years ago, the present building that we are in, it was thought
it would be forever, it has grown so tremendously that we
literately have no more space.
We are putting a second floor on our building and we are
increasing the sizes of our dining rooms. Our building will
attain 39,000 square feet. It is also a big part of the
community. It is kind of a community center and it is also very
important for that. So it gets a lot of double usage, triple
usage, quadruple usage. It is a wonderful place to be. People
go in there and they cannot believe the vim, the vigor; and we
have people from all walks of life, of course, that come to the
center.
After BLM left, we tried to get this passed under the RPNP
Act, and it did not qualify because it had also been master-
planned to have this assisted living center, which required us
to take the approach we are here today with. In the last
legislature session, our then-Senator Bryan from Nevada
introduced it, and we were told, due to partisan politics, it
did not pass, as many things did not pass. They did not even
come to a vote. It is very essential now for this to move
forward, along with this building that we are doing.
Directly east of us, between the BLM land and our building,
is a cemetery office. It is being relocated. But most
immediately, we need it as a--the BLM land, which is east of
the cemetery office--we need that particular land to use as a
staging area for our building. It would make things easier. It
would make things safer, also, for the situation. So we really
hope that this will move forward and get out of Committee and
go forward, so that it can be voted on, because it would help
us most immediately and then downstream.
There was another piece to this property that did get
passed under the RPNP, and the Carson-Tahoe Rehabilitation
Hospital is right next to us. We are trying to do, like I said,
what a lot of other people have not been able to, and that is
to create an area that services seniors in its entirety. It is
an opportunity that most other places do not have, and we feel
very fortunate this is available to us.
We are actively moving forward on the building. It will
start in September. It will start slowly and take approximately
18 months to complete. So we feel that now is really an
essential time for us to make sure that this keeps moving
forward, because it will not only serve the citizens of Carson
City, but will serve all the surrounding areas, also.
Thank you very much for affording me this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McIntosh follows:]
Statement of Janice McIntosh, Director of the Carson City Senior
Citizens Center, Carson City, Nevada
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to testify on H.R. 271, the
conveyance of a former Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administrative
site to the city of Carson City, Nevada, for use by the senior center.
The BLM site has been vacant since 1997 when the BLM moved their
headquarters to another location in the area. The city of Carson City
desires to acquire the parcel for an assisted living and adult day care
center. The existing Senior Center is adjacent to the subject property
as is a Rehabilitative Center.
Carson City is the present owner of the Senior Center. The Center
is under the management and control of Carson City Senior Citizen's
Center, Inc., a non-profit Nevada corporation that has been in
existence since 1973. The 4.48 acres the subcommittee is considering
today would allow for the dedication of a centralized area for senior
services in the Carson City area. At one time the aforementioned
property was in the outlying area of Carson City. Today, however, it is
located in the middle of a housing development and would best serve the
citizens of this city/county by being designated as an area to serve
seniors. The majority of the property is overgrown with sage brush and
old Quonset but buildings that have been deemed to have no value.
The Senior Center started working on the transfer of the BLM land
in 1997. Initially an application was made under the Recreation and
Public Purposes (R&PP) Act for 1.93 acres to be used as a
rehabilitation center, physical therapy center, and other medical uses.
That parcel was transferred to the city and now is the Carson
Rehabilitation Center. In 1998 the Senior Center tried to secure the
remainder of the vacated BLM land once again under the Recreation and
Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. However, since a portion of the land was
master planned for a residential and ``domicile'' facility associated
with extended care it did not qualify under the R&PP. In the year 2000
U. S. Senator Bryan representing Nevada, introduced a bill from which
H.R. 271 was crafted. While not a controversial bill, like many other
bills at the end of the legislative session, it was not acted upon.
Accordingly, today I am here to help this bill get out of committee and
passed successfully in the Senate, House and then signed by the
President.
According to the Nevada State Demographer's Office June 9, 2000
report, Carson City will have a forecasted population of 56,665 in
2002. Carson City officials estimate that over 30% of thecity
population will be over age 60. The city continues to receive favorable
national publicity as an attractive retirement community. The influx of
seniors to this area has made our present 1990 building inadequate to
service the needs of seniors in this area. As a result, in September
2001, we are embarking on a major remodel of the Senior Center. The new
building will be two story and almost 39,000 square feet. It will serve
as the cornerstone for the remainder of the master planned senior
service area.
The transfer of this property is one of immediate importance due to
the fact that our impending remodel will require a building staging
area. To accomplish this, the Quonset huts need to be demolished so the
area could initially be used for large trucks to drop off and store
building materials. Until our remodel is complete we would also like to
use the area as a temporary parking area for patrons of the Senior
Center.
The forethought and master planning of this area will benefit the
entire community in Carson City and become a model throughout our
nation. Due to our constantly increasing senior population we feel
compelled to continue our work on this senior service area. Our
services and program participation have exceeded expectations and
available space. Therefore, we are requesting the transfer of this
property to Carson City so we may embark on this great project.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate this opportunity that has
been given to me to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss this
bill. I will be glad to answer any questions.
______
[An attachment to Ms. McIntosh's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.002
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much; and let me ask you, since
we are talking about the senior center at this point, you
stated in your written testimony that in order to proceed with
a remodeling, the quonset huts would have to be demolished.
Ms. McIntosh. Yes.
Mr. Hefley. Would you all do that or who would do that?
Ms. McIntosh. The agreement is the city is responsible for
that. They will be disassembled. They are all bolted together.
Some of them are open quonset huts. Some of them are closed.
This entire area is a bit of a blight. It has overgrown
sagebrush and the buildings are in severe disrepair. There are
nails that stick up on ramps and things like that. I mean, it
is not a very safe area, either; but the city does have people
that will take the building down for them--
Mr. Hefley. So you will not be paying for that.
Ms. McIntosh. No, we will not.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Baker, let me ask you, how inclusive was
the process for determining that this ought to be a unit of the
Park System? Did you feel fully included in the process?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I did, and I also attended a couple of the
meetings that the Intertribal Council Cultural Committee was
involved in, and they also were in agreement with this.
Mr. Hefley. Are you offended that the golf course and the
mental health center will be there? Does that detract from what
we are trying to do?
Mr. Baker. Of course, the ideal situation would be that
they were not there, but I have no problems with them being
there at the present; and as far as the golf course, it
actually protects the gravesites, if there are any there right
now.
Mr. Hefley. That occurred to me as the other testimony was
being given by the Park Service, that certainly there is no
desecration of those gravesites on the ninth fairway. The
20,000 golfers or whatever it is, would not allow for that,
Zach.
Mr. Baker. I agree.
Mr. Hefley. And it is beautiful green open space, too. Any
further questions for these witnesses?
Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. I have a quick question, and I wanted to
reiterate something the Chairman just said. Sometimes it gets
frustrating when you do not see lots of members here and you
have come a long way. The key thing is the Chairman is here;
the Committee is here. This is a process. Take it as a good
sign. When there is controversy, this place is jammed. It maybe
meant that you were going to get blocked.
I wanted to ask Mr. Mills just briefly, on the archeology,
could you give me a little bit more feeling of what type of
things you found there; and I notice in your testimony you
mentioned about one Indian village. Was that, indeed, on
Moccasin Point?
Mr. Mills. Yes, it is. Imagine Moccasin Bend--the reason it
is named that is it is in the shape of a foot, and the heel is
the most important site. Behind you is a beautiful mural, and
you see those trees growing along the river bank. That is a
natural levee where, when it floods the banks, it slows the
water down, silt drops out, and you get the formation of these
high places right by the river. The same goes for all around
this foot, but especially at the heel, where you have a broad
levee.
It was an ideal place for having, not just a camp or not
just a permanent household or two or three, where you have a
very small village like you did in the earlier times, the
archaic period, by the Mississippian time period, that became a
major population and political center that ranged--you would
have four of them spanning the distance of Tennessee, from
north to south. The next one up would be on the Highwasi and
the next one south would be in the Calhoun, Georgia area,
halfway to Atlanta.
When the Spanish came through--a lot of Spanish materials
were found there, and it would appear that Juan Pardot, when he
spent his winter at the one down in Calhoun, Georgia, that he
came up to the Chattanooga area and this site at Moccasin Bend
may well have been the site they visited, because of all the
Spanish goods that are found there, silver and copper plates,
as well as Spanish beads, and quite a lot of them. The site is
also important that things are so well-preserved there that the
house appear to have burned.
So you have dozens and dozens of structures that burned,
and when they collapsed, they sealed the floors. So you
actually have a living floor. It was not something that laid
open like a ghost town and everybody is able to pick things up
and walk off with them. It was sealed, collapsed.
Mr. Souder. Is this a continuing archeological sites then,
or is it viewed as mostly--
Mr. Mills. It has not been excavated in since 1980, 1982,
somewhere in there. When research determined that indeed there
are intact sealed structures throughout the place, that was
also when we were able to stop the looting that was going on.
There is a Native American Reserve Force which are county
deputies, actually, and they have done very effective job of
policing it for the time being; and we need protection to carry
that forward. A lot of these sites were been plundered, and
fortunately a lot of the collections have been amassed
privately or publicly in other places, and that those could be
brought back home to Chattanooga, interpreted and with the help
of Native Americans, the Creek and the Cherokee, whose heritage
is there, determine the appropriate repatriation measures and
interpretation that would fit those.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, one of the great ironies here is
it sounds like they have some of the things that would actually
constitute the national monument purpose, which were sites that
were potentially going to be destroyed; and instead we are
doing monuments of whole huge areas in the West. I thank the
Chairman and the witnesses.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Wamp?
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions
for Mr. Mills, representing the Friends of Moccasin Bend, which
is a broad stakeholder group of interested parties. Many of
them have been in this for decades now because they really care
about the historical significance and the preservation, and
that is correct; right?
Mr. Mills. That is right.
Mr. Wamp. The Friends is a very broad group, and it is an
activist group of just interested citizens, and you are here
representing them.
Secondly, when the planning team issued its report, its
findings, 2 years ago, the Friends supported their
recommendations; correct?
Mr. Mills. Correct.
Mr. Wamp. Now, 2 years later, after we have tried to build
consensus and we have tried to compromise and we have put forth
what we feel like is the most possible consensus support
through all the different details of it, the Friends also
support now H.R. 980 and understand why it was necessary to
build the consensus; correct?
Mr. Mills. That is right.
Mr. Wamp. The point I am making is that the groups that
really are on the ground locally, working on this, that are
very diverse in their makeup, have actually reached agreement
that this is the best way to proceed through some compromise. I
also want to mention I have actually been playing on this golf
course before, Mr. Chairman, where a huge buck would come out
of the Tennessee River, having swum (sic) the entire width, and
this is a very wide part of the Tennessee River, as it goes
around Moccasin Bend, swum all the way across the river and run
right across the golf course in the middle of broad daylight;
and there are no fences on the bend, and the wildlife is
incredible.
Actually, the deer are abundant; and one of the things I
would hope is that we would not have such finite, fenced-off
areas that we can allow that to continue, because this actually
is the home of the deer today.
Mr. Souder asked questions about the archeological findings
all down in the heel and the tip of the boot, which is very,
very important. Mr. Baker, interestingly enough, you focused on
the Trail of Tears, and that is one of my stated interests in
this entire process all along, was I feel much like John Adams.
The Trail of Tears, historically, has been overshadowed by
other events. The Civil War came 25 years later and certainly
overshadowed the Trail of Tears. Don't you believe that we need
to do more to actually give the Trail of Tears a place in
history so that we can learn what cannot ever happen again and
how important political decisions can be to people and their
rights in this country, and don't you think it is time that the
Trail of Tears has an interpretive center somewhere in our Park
System in this country?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I certainly do.
Mr. Hefley. Well, thank you very much, and thank you,
witnesses. Let me emphasize what Mr. Souder said, that we wish
the whole Committee was here to hear what you presented us,
because it was very excellent, but your statements will be in
the record for them to read; and it is a pretty good sign,
probably, as you said, Mr. Souder, that there is not a crowd
here, because if you actually want to get passed what you are
proposing, this is a pretty good indication that it is likely
to happen.
Thank you very much for being here. The Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The following additional information was submitted for the
record:]
1. Letter dated June 11, 2001 from Kevin Collins, Acting
Legislative Director, National Parks Conservation Association,
on H.R. 980;
2. Letter dated June 8, 2001 from Kevin Collins, Acting
Legislative Director, National Parks Conservation Association,
on H.R. 1668;
3. Statement from Robert M. Davenport, Jr., Chattanooga
Project Office Director, Trust for Public Land, on H.R. 980;
4. Letter from Inter-Tribal Council on H.R. 980;
5. Letter from John Parsons, Chairman, National Capital
Memorial Commission, National Park Service, on H.R. 1668;
6. Resolution on H.R. 980 from the Trail of Tears
Association.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3044.013