<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27064.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-361
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1870 S. 1913
S. 1970 S.J. Res. 28
H.R. 318 H.R. 562
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-064 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas.................... 2
Coburn, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator From Oklahoma..................... 4
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey.............. 2
Parsons, John, Associate Regional Director for Lands, Resources
and Planning, National Capital Region, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 5
Smith, Chadwick, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, OK. 13
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator From Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 21
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:29 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. I think we will get started. It is kind of
a busy day for everyone. This is the third hearing I have had
and we will have another one shortly after this.
We appreciate you being here and we will try and get
through a number of things here. I think it is important that
we have this hearing. So I want to welcome John Parsons from
the National Park Service--glad to have you here--and Chief
Chad Smith from the Cherokee Nation. Thank you.
Our purpose today is to hear testimony on three Senate
bills, one joint resolution, and two House bills: S. 1870, a
bill to clarify the authorities for the use of certain national
park properties within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
and the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, and
for other purposes; S. 1913, a bill to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to lease a portion of the Dorothy Buell
Memorial Visitor Center to be used as a visitor center for the
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes; S.
1970, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to update
the feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for
the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and to provide for
the inclusion of new trail segments, land components,
campgrounds associated with that trail, and for other purposes;
S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution approving the location of the
commemorative work in the District of Columbia honoring former
President Dwight D. Eisenhower; H.R. 318, a bill to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and
feasibility of designating Castle Nugent Farms located in St.
Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Parks, and for
other purposes; and H.R. 562, a bill to authorize the
government of the Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal
land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the
manmade famine that occurred in the Ukraine in 1932 and 1933.
So these are the issues that we have before us. Let me say
a word just in general about the development on the National
Mall. The initial concept of the Mall was planned in the late
1700's as the city of Washington was laid out. In 1901 Senator
MacMillan responded to concerns of overdevelopment that
resulted in the plan for the Mall as we know it today.
In 2003 we passed legislation establishing a reserve area,
limiting future construction on the Mall. Last month we heard
about the site selection of the African American Museum in the
reserve area near the Washington Monument and today we are
considering a resolution to locate the Eisenhower Memorial in
Area I. Both of these projects are important, no doubt. But I
would like to reiterate that the National Mall is a complete
work of civic art that needs to be carefully managed for the
enjoyment of future generations.
So I believe it is time we take another look at the Mall,
as was done in 1901, and I will be introducing language soon to
accomplish that. The National Mall has outgrown its britches
and it will take more than a new belt and suspenders, I
believe, to fix it.
In any event, we thank the witnesses for being here today.
We will move directly into that area. As I said, we have Mr.
Parsons from the service and Mr. Smith from the Cherokee
Nation.
So, Mr. Parsons, if you would like to begin, sir.
[The prepared statements of Senators Menendez, Brownback
and Coburn follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Menendez, U.S. Senator
From New Jersey, on H.R. 562
Mr. Chairman, I would like first to thank you for bringing this
resolution, which establishes a memorial in the District of Columbia to
honor the victims of the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in
1932 and 1933, before the Subcommittee. I was a proud cosponsor of this
resolution in the House, and I continue to support this resolution now
in the Senate.
With this resolution, we acknowledge the incredible loss and
suffering by the Ukrainian people as a result of intentional policies
implemented by the former Soviet Union. With this resolution, we
remember that this brutal act against the people of Ukraine happened
only 60 years ago.
With this memorial we remember that the Soviet Union deliberately
confiscated grain harvests and starved millions of Ukrainians in a
policy of forced collectivization, to put down Ukrainian independence.
We remember that millions of Ukrainian children were orphaned and
left to starve by the Soviet Union, because Ukrainians fought for self-
determination and freedom of speech over oppression.
And in 2004, Ukrainians again chose freedom. For the first time
since independence in 1991, free and fair democratic elections were
held in the Ukraine. Ukrainians seized the opportunity to strengthen
their nation's rightful place in our community of world democracies,
and today continue to fortify those values of freedom and democracy.
And that spirit of democracy resounds strongly not just in the Ukraine,
but in this country as well.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator From Kansas,
on S.J. Res. 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for
conducting this hearing today and providing me the opportunity to speak
in support of a resolution that I sponsored with Senators Stevens,
Inouye, Roberts and Reed. It is with great pleasure that I speak to you
not only on behalf of this resolution, but on behalf of a great leader
and fellow Kansan, President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Most people know Eisenhower as a courageous five-star general who
served as the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during
World War II, led the D-day invasion in June 1944 and later was
commander of NATO. Less often is Eisenhower recognized for his
contributions as the 34th President of the United States. Under his
Administration from 1953 to 1961, President Eisenhower was the driving
force behind bringing statehood to Alaska and Hawaii, strengthening the
Social Security system for 10 million more Americans, and bringing the
St. Lawrence Seaway to completion. He was also instrumental in the
creation of the interstate highway system, the largest public works
program in U.S. history that created a 41,000-mile highway system.
Eisenhower was also a strong proponent of civil rights. He pressed for
passage of the first two Civil Rights Acts since Reconstruction and
ordered the complete desegregation of the Armed Forces. Furthermore, he
showed his commitment to this cause by sending troops into Little Rock,
Arkansas, to assure compliance with the orders of a Federal court. He
once wrote, ``There must be no second class citizens in this country.''
Eisenhower believed America needed to be modernized in
transportation, space and aviation. Drawing from his Kansas roots, he
took our state motto, ``Ad Astra per Aspera,'' meaning to the stars
through difficulties, literally by creating the Federal Aviation
Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). Quite appropriately, the proposed memorial site would be steps
away from the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Air and
Space Museum, which houses many artifacts donated by NASA.
President Eisenhower was one of the most dedicated public servants
in American history. He is recognized for his role as a peacemaker, his
diplomatic record and his faith in democracy. President Eisenhower's
Administration saw the end of the Korean War, dealt with crises in
Lebanon, Suez, Berlin and Hungary, established the basic national
defense policies that kept our country safe during the Cold War, and
prevented nuclear war. His commitment to democratic processes and
international peace stand as his lasting legacy to the Nation.
This extensive list of accomplishments would have caused most men
to boast. Dwight D. Eisenhower was not most men; at his core, he was
and would always remain true to his Kansas values. Born October 14,
1890, Eisenhower was raised in Abilene, Kansas, the third of seven
sons. Eisenhower was a great athlete, but his career came to an end
after he injured his knee trying to tackle the legendary Jim Thorpe.
With professional sports no longer a career option, Eisenhower found
his place in the United States Army and performed his duties well.
Although his administrative abilities had been noticed by the military,
on the eve of the U.S. entry into World War II, he had never held an
active command and was far from being considered a potential commander
of a major operation. Eisenhower persisted, remained humble and hard-
working, and continued to perform to the best of his abilities. General
George Marshall took notice and recognized his great organizational and
administrative abilities. In a few short years, Eisenhower was
appointed Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and left his
mark on history for all time.
In his now famous speech that would have been delivered if the
invasion of Normandy failed, Eisenhower took full responsibility and
said that if any blame or fault is attached to the attempt at Normandy,
it was his alone. He was offered the Medal of Honor for his leadership
in the European Theater but refused it, saying that it should be
reserved for bravery and valor. Eisenhower said, ``Humility must always
be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in blood of his
followers and sacrifices of his friends.'' It is the humility, bravery
and sacrifice of this man that we wish to honor with a memorial.
The United States Congress created the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Memorial Commission to consider and formulate plans for a permanent
memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower, including its nature, construction
and location. This Commission has worked tirelessly to research the
most suitable memorial sites and, after months of consideration, voted
in favor of a location across the street from the National Air and
Space Museum at the intersection of Independence and Maryland Avenues,
a site within the boundaries of Area 1. This resolution approves the
Secretary of the Interior's recommendation that the Eisenhower Memorial
be located within Area 1. This Area is reserved for commemorative works
whose subjects are of ``pre-eminent historical and lasting significance
to the Nation.'' President Eisenhower's life and legacy certainly had
and will continue to have a lasting significance and deserve a memorial
site to perpetuate his memory and his contributions to the United
States.
I am pleased to join with my colleagues and enthusiastically
support this resolution before the Committee today. All over the United
States and the world there are memorials that have been named in
Eisenhower's remembrance. Schools, roads, bridges, buildings, hospitals
and parks are named in his honor and organizations and programs have
been created in his name. It is time that we honored him in our
Nation's capital by creating a permanent memorial to acknowledge the
lasting impression he left on this city, the state of Kansas, the
United States and the world.
We want to ensure that the distinguished legacy of Dwight D.
Eisenhower lives on and serves as a stirring reminder of the sacrifices
and triumphs that created this Nation--a nation united in our past and
looking boldly towards our future.
I again thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this
resolution and look forward to working with you in order to move this
resolution through the Senate.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Coburn, U.S. Senator From Oklahoma,
on S. 1970
Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka, and distinguished members of
this subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today.
I am particularly grateful that you will be considering S. 1970 a bill
that I have introduced alongside Senators Frist and Alexander to amend
the National Trails System Act to recognize newly discovered routes
along the Trail of Tears.
The Trail of Tears--the forced removal of Cherokees from the
Southeastern United States to present day Oklahoma--was a dark and
shameful moment in our history.
Along the many routes used during this period of removal, lives
were shattered and many lost, and entire families were destroyed
forever. We can never forget that time, and it was this impetus that
inspired the original Trail of Tears legislation in the 1980s.
Over time, our ability for historical perspective has grown with
the development of our country. Today we have better means to increase
our knowledge and understanding about our past. There are new
discoveries highlighting the realities of the Trail of Tears, and,
since that original Act passed in 1987, our knowledge of the Trail has
grown immensely. We now know that there were additional routes on the
Trail, more than those originally designated by the federal government.
The bill before the committee today includes the Benge and Bell routes;
various water routes in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee; and
several other routes now known to be a part of the original Trail. The
goal, as you will hear from Chief Chad Smith of the Cherokee Nation
today, is to make sure that the full picture of the Trail of Tears is
known.
When deciding to introduce this legislation, the seriousness of the
matter weighed heavy on my heart. The Trail of Tears is forever linked
to Oklahoma, my home. I believe the purpose of this bill is noble and
true and it is a further step in reconciliation and healing in America.
This bill will officially recognize more recent discoveries about the
Trail of Tears that are long overdue and it will serve to honor the
people who were forced West.
In contemplating the intent of this bill, I also realized
potentially serious implications and considerations that I wanted to
ensure remained protected upon its enactment.
I wanted to make sure that this bill will in no way restrict,
impede or threaten private property rights on the lands pertaining to
this designation. My sponsorship of the legislation was also contingent
on the assurance that no new federal appropriations could be used
toward these new designations. That is why I have incorporated into our
bill a prohibition on new federal funding, and encouraged the
development of private and non-profit support as well.
With these assurances, I believe that passage of this legislation
is the right thing to do.
Therefore, I sponsor this legislation with profound reverence and
sensitivity as I reflect on the reality of lives lost and the suffering
endured by the Cherokee people on the Trail of Tears. We should
approach this legislation and see it to fruition with a solemn respect
and without political posturing for personal credit or gain. The new
designations of routes of the Trail of Tears are important so that we
as a people always remember the grave mistakes of our past, so that
they may never be repeated.
Before closing, I again want thank my cosponsors, Senators Frist
and Alexander. In addition, I thank Chief Chad Smith of the Cherokee
Nation for agreeing to be our lead witness this afternoon. Finally, I
pay tribute to Representative Zach Wamp for his tireless efforts to see
this legislation through the process. Without his leadership, this
legislation would not be before this committee today.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their consideration of S. 1970,
and ask for your support.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PARSONS, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR FOR LANDS, RESOURCES AND PLANNING,
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Parsons. I am John Parsons, the Associate Regional
Director of the National Capital Region of the National Park
Service here in Washington, DC, and I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to present the Department of
the Interior's view on these measures that you have just
outlined. With your permission, I will briefly summarize our
prepared testimony and submit that material to you for the
record.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Parsons. S.J. Res. 28 is a joint resolution approving
the location of a commemorative work within the monumental core
of the District of Columbia honoring former President Dwight D.
Eisenhower. The Department strongly supports enactment of this
measure and transmitted a similar proposal to Congress just
this January, January 31. We are pleased to report that the
National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission has met on this
matter and unanimously concluded that Dwight Eisenhower made an
extraordinary contribution in his lifetime of public service to
this country and had a profound effect on all Americans, which
will continue through history.
Under the provisions of the Commemorative Works Act, of
course, the location will be deemed disapproved unless Congress
approves by law the location within 150 days, which would be
July 2. So we urge timely and favorable action on this measure.
The Department also supports enactment of S. 1870, which is
based on an administration proposal that was submitted to
Congress last year. This involves the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area and the San Francisco Maritime National
Historical Park. Both have had longstanding authority to spend
revenue generated from certain properties for maintenance of
park facilities.
S. 1870 would enable the National Park Service to ensure
that the revenue from those properties could be used for multi-
year rehabilitation and maintenance projects. It would also
separate the property use and admission fee authorities for the
parks and it would provide for a modest boundary adjustment
between them.
S. 1913 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
lease a portion of the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center
for use as a visitor center for the Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore. The Department transmitted a similar proposal to
Congress last September and strongly supports enactment of this
measure.
The bill would authorize the Park Service to use federally
appropriated funds to lease space in the Dorothy Buell Visitor
Center, a new facility being built by the Porter County
Convention, Recreation, and Visitor Commission outside the
boundary of the lakeshore. This jointly operated facility will
be located on the heavily used, heavily traveled route into the
park. This concept was generated through a general management
plan which concluded that we would better serve park visitors
at this location.
S. 1970 would amend the National Park System Act to update
the feasibility and suitability study of the Trail of Tears
National Historical Trail. The enabling legislation--enabling
the examination of additional routes, land components, and
campgrounds associated with the trail which were not included
in the initial study done in the 1980's.
S. 1970 would authorize the Secretary to make a
determination if any of these additional routes, land
components and campgrounds were eligible for inclusion in the
Trail of Tears National Historical Trail and then to designate
these as additions to the national historic trail.
While we support updating the feasibility and suitability
study of the Trail of Tears, we recommend that S. 1970 be
amended to remove the language providing that a studied route
shall automatically be designated as an addition to the
original trail upon the study's determination that the route is
eligible for inclusion in the original trail. That is, we would
return to Congress with the study and Congress then would
authorize its designation rather than the Secretary.
H.R. 562 would authorize the government of the Ukraine to
establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of
Columbia to honor the victims of the manmade famine that
occurred in the Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. The Department
opposes enactment of this measure because in our judgment it
duplicates efforts currently under way to establish a memorial
that would honor all victims of communism worldwide. This
memorial, the Victims of Communism Memorial, was authorized by
Congress in 1993. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
is proposing a memorial to the victims of communism worldwide
that will be supplemented by a virtual museum to tell the
history of the impact of the communism.
Because the Victims of Communism Memorial will encompass
the history of the Ukraine famine as well as that of 120
nationalities, ethnic groups and countries that were also
victims of communism, we feel that a separate specific
recognition of this or other national or ethnic groups should
not be authorized. We believe that creating separate memorials
for individual groups would detract from the overall message of
the Victims of Communism Memorial and could potentially create
an unfortunate competition amongst various groups for limited
sites in the Nation's capital.
H.R. 318 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
study the suitability and feasibility of designating Castle
Nugent Farms, located on St. Croix in the Virgin Islands, as a
unit of the National Park System. The Department does not
oppose H.R. 318, if amended to allow the study to evaluate all
alternatives for preservation and interpretation, including
what role, if any, might be just played by the National Park
Service or other partners.
We recommend that H.R. 318 be amended to specify that the
study should explore all options. This study would determine if
the resources present at Castle Nugent Farm are nationally
significant, if the site would be suitable and feasible to
National Park System, whether direct NPS management or
alternative protection by other agencies or the private sector
is appropriate for the site, and what management alternative
would be most effective and efficient in protecting the
resources and allowing for public enjoyment. We feel a modest
amendment will accomplish this and we have attached that to our
testimony.
That concludes my testimony here today. I would be glad to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Parsons follow:]
Prepared Statement of John Parsons, Associate Regional Director For
Lands, Resources And Planning, National Capital Region, National Park
Service, Department Of The Interior
ON S.J. RES. 28
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution approving the
location of the commemorative work in the District of Columbia honoring
former President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Department strongly supports
enactment of S.J. Res. 28. The Administration transmitted a similar
proposal to Congress on January 31, 2006.
This joint resolution would approve the location of a proposed
memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower in Area I of the District of Columbia
and its environs. Legislation authorizing the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Memorial Commission to establish this memorial on Federal lands in the
District of Columbia or its environs was signed into law on January 10,
2002.
The Commemorative Works Act governs the establishment of memorials.
It sets forth strict requirements for locating a memorial in the
central monumental core of the Capital City, which is designated as
``Area I.'' After seeking the advice of the National Capital Memorial
Advisory Commission, the Secretary of the Interior determines that the
subject of the memorial is of preeminent historical and lasting
significance to the Nation. The Secretary must then notify Congress of
the determination that the memorial should be located in Area I. The
location of the commemorative work in Area I is authorized only if the
recommendation is approved by law within 150 calendar days after the
Secretary's notification is received by Congress.
Dwight D. Eisenhower served with distinction in the United States
Army as Supreme Allied Commander of the Army in Europe, Commander of
Allied Forces landing in North Africa, the General of the Army, and as
Commander of NATO forces. General Eisenhower left military service to
become the 34th President of the United States in 1952. Among President
Eisenhower's accomplishments were the establishment of the interstate
highway system and the completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. He also
established the Federal Aeronautics Administration, and his interest in
space led to the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. He established the United States Information Agency and
made the Voice of America a principal component of that agency. His
strong belief in education and his social and economic advantages led
to the creation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the
predecessor agency to today's Departments of Education and Health and
Human Services.
Mr. Chairman, the National Capital Memorial Commission met on March
1, 2002, to consider the appropriateness of placing this memorial on a
site within Area I, and unanimously endorsed this proposal to the
Secretary. The Secretary has recommended authorization of a location in
Area I. However, under the Commemorative Works Act, the location will
be deemed authorized only if the recommendation is approved within150
days of February 2, or by July 2, 2006. We, therefore, urge timely and
favorable action on S.J. Res. 28.
That concludes my prepared testimony and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
ON S. 1870
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1870, a bill to clarify the authorities for the use of certain National
Park Service properties within Golden Gate National Recreation Area and
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park.
The Department supports enactment of S. 1870, which is based on an
Administration proposal that was submitted to Congress last year.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) and San Francisco Maritime
National Historical Park (NHP) both have had longstanding authority to
spend revenue generated from certain properties for the maintenance of
park property. S. 1870 would enable the National Park Service to more
effectively manage these properties by ensuring that the revenue from
those properties could be used for multi-year rehabilitation and
maintenance projects. This legislation also would separate intermingled
authorities of the two parks and, therefore, ensure that each park has
its own property-use and admission-fee authorities. In addition, S.
1870 would provide for a modest boundary adjustment between them.
Since 1978, Golden Gate NRA has had authority to retain the revenue
from the use of the Haslett Warehouse, the Cliff House properties and
Louis' Restaurant, which the National Park Service owns. Under this
authority, the park may use the revenues for certain infrastructure
expenses, ``provided that surplus funds, if any, will be deposited into
the Treasury of the United States.'' This provision has been
interpreted to mean that funds that are not spent within the fiscal
year in which they are collected cannot be spent by the park. Without
the ability to retain revenues over a longer period of time, the park
cannot use the funds for projects that cost more than the park receives
in one year. This legislative proposal would allow revenue to remain
available until expended, giving the park the authority to enter into
longer-term rehabilitation and maintenance contracts.
The property-use authority granted to Golden Gate NRA was extended
to San Francisco Maritime NHP when that park was established in 1988 as
a separate unit from property within Golden Gate NRA. However, the
authority for revenue use was provided by a reference to the Golden
Gate NRA law. Instead of relying on this reference, S. 1870 would
explicitly include in the law that established the maritime park, the
authority for administering contracts for, and revenues received from,
the use of the Haslett Warehouse and other San Francisco Maritime NHP
properties. San Francisco Maritime NHP, like Golden Gate NRA, would
have the ability to retain the revenue beyond the current fiscal year,
allowing the park to enter into multi-year contracts for the
rehabilitation and maintenance of its historic ships and other assets.
Revenue generated from the use of properties at both parks would be
available for use as in current law--for administration, maintenance,
repair, and related expenses of the properties under a management
contract or lease. Thus, the revenues generated by these properties
would be used to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog at the parks,
rather than for broader park purposes.
In addition, S. 1870 would transfer the authority for retaining
revenue from admission fees to the ships owned by San Francisco
Maritime NHP from the law governing Golden Gate NRA to the law
governing San Francisco Maritime NHP. And, it would adjust the boundary
between the two parks by moving San Francisco's Municipal Pier from
Golden Gate NRA to San Francisco Maritime NHP. The maritime park
already administers Municipal Pier by direction of the Regional
Director of the Pacific West Region; this provision would simply
conform the two parks' boundaries to the existing administrative
arrangement. This boundary adjustment, along with the division of
legislative authority for administering leased properties and admission
fees, would complete the separation of the two park units that began
with the formal establishment of San Francisco Maritime National
Historical Park in 1988.
There are no additional costs to the National Park Service
associated with S. 1870.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
ON S. 1913
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 1913, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to lease a portion of the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor
Center for use as a visitor center for the Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore. The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 1913. The
Administration transmitted a similar proposal to Congress on September
30, 2005.
S. 1913 would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to use
federally appropriated funds to lease space in the Dorothy Buell
Memorial Visitor Center, a new visitor facility being built by the
Porter County Convention, Recreation and Visitor Commission (PCCRVC)
outside the boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (national
lakeshore). It would also authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Porter County
Convention, Recreation and Visitor Commission prior to entering into a
lease agreement. The Memorandum of Understanding would outline the
terms of the joint partnership, including cooperative management of the
new visitor facility and sharing of operational activities.
The new Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center is located
approximately three quarters of a mile south of the national lakeshore
boundary on IN 49, the principal north/south artery into the national
lakeshore. It will be owned by the PCCRVC and space will be leased to
the national lakeshore. The two parties will jointly plan and staff the
new visitor center and offer ``one-stop shopping'' for the visitor with
exhibits and theater space to educate them about the resources found in
the park, aspects of threatened and endangered species management,
habitat preservation, and wetlands restoration.
In 1998, the national lakeshore and the PCCRVC began to explore the
concept of a joint visitor center to be shared by the PCCRVC, the
national lakeshore, and the Indiana Dunes State Park. Both the national
lakeshore and the PCCRVC suffer from low visitation at their respective
visitor centers due to their poor locations away from the primary
thoroughfares. Only about 66,000 visitors to the national lakeshore,
just 3 percent of the park's 2 million visitors, travel to the existing
visitor center each year. Because of the existing visitor center's
inconvenient location, size, and layout, the national lakeshore's
General Management Plan recommended relocating the existing visitor
center to the more heavily traveled IN 49 corridor. The old visitor
center would then be used exclusively for school programs, which the
national lakeshore currently hosts for over 50,000 students per year.
A partnership to acquire land for a new site was initiated. A more
prominent location outside the national lakeshore but within the
primary travel corridor to the dunes was selected. Using a series of
Transportation Enhancement grants, the PCCRVC purchased the land and
secured a contract for construction. The site for the new facility will
be the cornerstone of a small commercial center.
A transportation study indicated that the new visitor facility
would increase revenue to the area by $24 million and visitor center
visitation by over 300 percent. Commercial tour bus operators would be
advised of the new visitor center and could include it as the first
stop on their way into the national lakeshore or state park for
information and orientation to the area. Local schools also would be
directed to the new visitor facility to begin their educational trips
to the national lakeshore. Visitor contact facilities and waysides
within both the national lakeshore and the state park would provide
information regarding the new visitor facility and list its location.
S. 1913 would provide authority to Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
to expend federally appropriated funds outside the boundaries of the
park in order to lease space for exhibits, offices, a book store, and a
theatre from PCCRVC. It would also authorize the expenditure of funds
for the planning, design and development of exhibits to be placed in
the new facility in the NPS-leased space and provide NPS staff for
visitor information and education.
Passage of S. 1913 would have minimal impact on the park's current
budget. The space that would be leased by the NPS includes room for
exhibits, offices, a theatre, and a bookstore that would be operated by
the national lakeshore's cooperating association. Park staff would be
relocated to the new visitor facility to provide education and
information, so no additional FTEs are required or expected as a result
of this proposal. The national lakeshore will continue to participate
in the development of the new visitor facility's design plans,
providing input for enhancing visitor flow and sustainability and
offering technical advice on issues such as native landscaping.
A one-time cost of approximately $1,200,000 would be needed to
design, construct, and install exhibits in space leased for the
national lakeshore. The NPS would include the project in the next
update of its five-year construction plan. Annual lease payments would
be approximately $70,000. This cost increase would be offset within the
park's base budget with a reduction in lower priorities, so no
additional operational funding would be requested or expected.
Two million visitors travel to Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
each year. Many of them are from the Chicago metropolitan area and are
often unaware that the national lakeshore is a unit of the National
Park System. By relocating the primary visitor contact point to a more
prominent location, the park would have the opportunity to contact and
educate four times as many visitors regarding the national lakeshore's
programs and resources as well as helping them understand the mission
of the National Park Service.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
ON S. 1970
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 1970. The bill would amend the National Trails
System Act to update the feasibility and suitability study of the Trail
of Tears National Historic Trail (NHT).
We thank Senators Tom Coburn, Bill Frist, and Lamar Alexander for
their interest in and support of the commemoration of the Trail of
Tears NHT. The Department supports updating the feasibility and
suitability study for the Trail of Tears NHT; however, we recommend
that S. 1970 be amended to remove the automatic designation of any
additions to the original trail the study determines to be eligible. In
a time of austere budgets and a refocusing on the core mission of the
National Park Service (NPS), we believe that available funding should
be first directed toward taking care of what we already own.
S. 1970 would update the feasibility and suitability study for the
Trail of Tears NHT through the examination of additional routes, land
components, and campgrounds associated with that trail not included in
the initial study. The Secretary of the Interior would determine if
some or all of these components are eligible additions to the trail at
the completion of the study. Further, it would authorize the Secretary
to make designations of any of these additional routes, land components
and campgrounds that she found eligible. The National Trails System Act
does not provide for additions to trails subsequent to their
designation by Congress.
A network of 24 scenic and historic trails has been created since
the enactment of the National Trails System Act in 1968. These trails
provide for outdoor recreation needs, providing enjoyment and
appreciation, which in turn, promotes good health and well-being. They
traverse resources that connect us to history and provide an important
opportunity for local communities to become involved in a national
effort by encouraging public access and citizen involvement.
In 1987, Congress designated the Trail of Tears National Historic
Trail. The trail encompassed the primary water route and northern land
route used during the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation from its
homelands in the southeast to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma).
The trail is administered by the NPS.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 mandated the removal of all Indian
tribes from east of the Mississippi River to lands west of Arkansas and
Missouri. Of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Cherokee were perhaps the
most successful at resisting the Act's implementation. But their fate
was sealed in 1838 when the U.S. government was determined to complete
the Removal. The roundup began in May, as thousands of Cherokee
families were brought by force to nearby military forts or camps, and
subsequently marched to the principal emigration depots at Ross's
Landing or Fort Cass in Tennessee, or Fort Payne in Alabama. From
there, they either walked overland or rode river steamboats, flatboats,
and keelboats to Indian Territory. By the spring of 1839, nearly the
entire Cherokee Nation, comprising some 16,000 individuals from all
levels of society, had been removed west.
The 1992 Comprehensive Management and Use Plan for the Trail of
Tears NHT identified the need to study two additional major routes of
Cherokee Removal, the Bell and Benge Routes in the states of Tennessee,
Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma as possible additions to the
existing trail. Both of these routes are included in S. 1970.
Subsequently, the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians, the Trail of Tears Association, and other trail supporters
have urged the NPS to include additional important routes of Cherokee
Removal in Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.
These routes lead from the many removal forts established by the
military during the roundup of the Cherokee to the major embarkation
sites from which the Cherokee people left on their tragic journey to
Indian Territory. The roundup of the Cherokee is a major part of the
story of the Trail of Tears, and it is not adequately represented by
the current trail.
The Department recognizes the importance of telling the complete
story of the Trail of Tears. Updating the feasibility and suitability
study would cost approximately $175,000. Also, the NPS estimates that
it would require an additional $295,000 per year to adequately provide
funding for staff, travel, supplies, and other costs to administer the
new routes.
Historic trails cross public and private lands, and the intent of
the National Trails System Act is one of respecting private property
rights. In so doing, the development of strong partnerships is critical
to administering and managing the historic trails and achieving
preservation of trail resources and interpretation of the trail to the
public. The Trail of Tears NHT demonstrates the results of this type of
effort.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
ON H.R. 562
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 562, a bill to authorize the Government of
Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of
Columbia to honor the victims of the man-made famine that occurred in
Ukraine in 1932-1933.
The Department opposes enactment of this legislation because it
duplicates efforts currently underway to establish a memorial that
would honor all victims of communism worldwide. This memorial, the
Victims of Communism Memorial, was authorized by P.L. 103-199 on
December 17, 1993.
H.R. 562 would authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a
memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the men,
women, and children who perished by famine under communist rule in
Ukraine from 1932-1933. The bill would require that the establishment
of the memorial comply with the major provisions of the Commemorative
Works Act, but contains minor exceptions to four provisions. Two
provisions require a commemorative work to have significance to the
American Experience, and two relate to the requirement that the
Secretary maintain and preserve the memorial. As a memorial gift from a
foreign nation, the Government of Ukraine would be responsible for
establishing, constructing, maintaining and preserving the memorial.
The people of Ukraine were brought to the verge of physical
extinction in 1932-1933 when a man-made disaster resulted in the deaths
of millions of innocent men, women, and children. The Soviet
Government, under the political control of Joseph Stalin, used food as
a weapon to annihilate or suppress the political and cultural identity
of the Ukrainian people. To fill impossibly high grain quotas, assigned
brigades seized the 1932 crop from one of the world's most fertile
farmlands. Those who resisted giving up their crops were killed.
Millions of people starved while stockpiles of seized grain rotted by
the tons. Attempts were made by the United States Government to
intercede at the height of the famine to provide food and other
necessary supplies to help the starving people of Ukraine. In 1988, the
United States Commission on the Ukraine Famine reported that the people
of Ukraine were victims of genocide, or ``starved to death in a man-
made famine.''
The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (Commission),
established in 1986 to review proposals to establish memorials and
provide its recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior and
committees of Congress, reviewed this proposal on March 15, 2005. While
it supported a similar proposal in the 108th Congress, the Commission
has since considered revisions made by the Victims of Communism
Memorial Foundation (Foundation) to expand its effort as a two-fold
commemoration. The Foundation is proposing a memorial to victims of
communism worldwide that would be supplemented by a virtual museum to
tell the history of the impact of communism. The Commission also
concluded that because the Victims of Communism Memorial would
encompass the history of the Ukraine Famine as well as that of 120
different nationalities, ethnic groups, and countries that were also
victims of communism, it would not endorse legislation proposed to
provide a separate, specific recognition of this or other national or
ethnic groups that already would be recognized in the Victims of
Communism Memorial.
We agree with the approach of commemorating the millions of victims
of communism worldwide, including those who suffered immeasurably
during the horrific Ukraine Famine, through the Victims of Communism
Memorial. While the victims of the Ukraine Famine obviously deserve
recognition, we believe that creating separate memorials for individual
groups would detract from the overall message of the Victims of
Communism Memorial and could, potentially, create an unfortunate
competition amongst various groups for limited memorial sites in our
Nation's Capital. The Foundation envisions the Victims of Communism
Memorial as a visible symbol for all those who have suffered atrocities
to human rights and perished. The Foundation secured site approvals for
placement of the Victims of Communism Memorial within sight of the
United States Capitol and design approvals in 2005. The Foundation
plans to begin construction on the memorial this spring.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
ON H.R. 318
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 318, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to study the suitability and
feasibility of designating Castle Nugent Farms on St. Croix, Virgin
Islands, as a unit of the National Park System.
The Department does not oppose H.R. 318, if amended as described in
this testimony. This study would provide an opportunity to determine
the appropriate way to preserve and interpret resources associated with
the plantation period in the Virgin Islands. The National Park Service
(NPS) currently manages three units on the island of St. Croix--
Christiansted National Historic Site, Buck Island Reef National
Monument, and Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological
Preserve. In a time of tight budgets and a refocusing on the core
mission of the National Park Service (NPS), we believe that funding
should be directed first toward completing the 25 previously authorized
studies.
In light of the President's commitment to devote more resources to
maintaining existing units of the National Park System, we have made an
effort to curtail taking on new responsibilities. For this reason, we
believe any study should evaluate all alternatives for preservation and
interpretation, including what role, if any, might best be played by
the NPS or other partners. We recommend that H.R. 318 be amended to
specify that the study explore all options. Our proposed amendment is
attached to this testimony.
The NPS is in various stages of progress on 25 studies previously
authorized by Congress, 17 of which are being funded through the
special resource study budget. We transmitted three studies in FY 2005,
and there are seven studies in the transmittal process. Our highest
priority is to complete these pending studies, though we expect to
start newly authorized studies as soon as funds are made available. We
estimate that the costs of completing this study will be approximately
$250,000 to $350,000.
H.R. 318 would direct the Secretary to carry out a study of the
Castle Nugent Farms, which consists of approximately 1,400-acres
located on the arid southeastern shore of St. Croix. The property is
believed to be the largest parcel of privately held land in the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
The farm's rolling terrain consists of a mixture of dry forest,
native vegetation, and rangeland that slopes down from an elevation of
750 feet to the sea, fronting on a coastline that includes cobble
beaches. One of the largest and healthiest fringing coral reef systems
in the Virgin Islands extends only a few hundred feet offshore. The
property also provides nesting areas for sea turtles, blackcrowned
night herons, and a host of other migrating and resident birds.
Castle Nugent Farms has a long and diverse history of farming
dating back to the 1730's when the property was first established as a
cotton and sugar plantation after the Danish West Indies Company
purchased St. Croix from France. For many years, sugar cane, indigo,
and cotton were the main crops.
After Emancipation in 1848, the plantation began breeding N'Dama
cattle, which had earlier been brought to St. Croix from Africa. This
breed was a prominent part of the farm's operations until the 1960s
when attention shifted towards raising an N'Dama cross breed of cattle
known as Senepol. Introduced to Castle Nugent Farms in 1957 the Senepol
breed has been able to flourish due to its tolerance to tropical, dry
climates and its ability to survive in near-desert conditions, thus
making the cattle an ideal match for St. Croix' climate. Today, the
farm is well-known for its production of high quality Senepol beef,
which is both consumed locally and exported to world markets.
Castle Nugent Farms contains a cluster of buildings from the
colonial plantation era including a great house that dates from the
plantation's establishment, a converted chapel, the remains of a sugar
mill, slave quarters, and a converted cotton storage shed. The
buildings are situated in close proximity to each other on a hill with
views towards the Caribbean Sea. The current owner lives on-site and
also operates the buildings and grounds as a bed and breakfast.
According to the owner, other cultural resources on the grounds include
recent discoveries of pottery shards and other artifacts left over from
either slave shanties or Arawak Indian campsites.
If authorized by Congress, and if funds are made available, a study
would be able to determine if the resources present at Castle Nugent
Farms are nationally significant, if the site would be a suitable and
feasible addition to the National Park System, whether direct NPS
management or alternative protection by other public agencies or the
private sector is appropriate for the site, and what management
alternative would be most effective and efficient in protecting the
resources and allowing for public enjoyment of the site.
That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Proposed Amendment--H.R. 318, Castle Nugent Farms Study
Insert a new subsection (c) as follows and redesignate the existing
subsection (c) as subsection (d).
``(c) MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES.--In completing the study authorized
in subsection (b), the Secretary shall examine whether the National
Park Service, the territorial government, or other public or private
groups will be the most appropriate entity to provide for the
management and preservation of Castle Nugent Farms.''
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
I think maybe, Mr. Smith, we will go ahead and have your
testimony and then we will have some questions.
STATEMENT OF CHADWICK SMITH, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE NATION,
TAHLEQUAH, OK
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
In 1838 one of the darkest chapters of American history was
written. This event was the forced removal of 16,000 Cherokees,
pursuant to the Treaty of New Echota of 1835, which was
fraudulent on its face, violated a U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, and undermined the
constitutional government of the Cherokee Nation. This episode
in American history will be forever remembered as the Cherokee
Trail of Tears.
The Cherokee people were forced from their homes in Georgia
and Tennessee and made to walk to Indian Territory 800 miles
away in the dead of winter. The most vulnerable, those elderly,
frail and young, were the first to perish. More than 4,000
died.
Seventeen thousand Cherokees wanted to stay in the land
where their ancestors were buried, preserve their national
character, and maintain their communities and way of life. They
signed their names in the Cherokee language on a petition to be
presented to Congress protesting the Senate's ratification by
one vote of the Treaty of New Echota. The cruel irony is best
evidenced by John Ross, Principal Chief, describing in an 1838
letter to his brother Lewis Ross the effort to present this
petition.
He wrote: ``Dear Brother: . . . Our friend in the Senate
has thus long deferred the presentation of our memorial . . .
in reference to the Execution of the spurious ``treaty'' [of
1835] . . . On Saturday last, the 24th, instituted a duel with
rifles, was fought between Mr. [William] Graves of Kentucky and
Mr. [Jonathan] Cilly of Maine, both of the House of
Representatives in Congress. On the third fire, the latter fell
and expired. Upon the meeting of the Congress this morning and
the annunciation of the death of Mr. Cilly, both Houses
adjourned, the funeral [taking] place tomorrow--and perhaps
nothing will be done, until the next day when it is supposed a
motion will be made by Mr. [John Quincy] Adams to expel all the
members of the House who were in any way engaged in this
tragical affair. Should this motion be made, it will
unquestionably produce much excitement among the members, and
perhaps lead to further acts of hostility, if not to the use of
powder and ball, to blows in some other way--if so, let them go
according to their own sense of honor through the scientific
refinements of civilized life.''
As a result of the ``civilized'' action of those members,
the delivery of this protest was delayed.
I have filed for the record a copy of the protest written
in the Cherokee language for demonstration; this is but one
small portion. It was created in a scroll that laid out 17,000
names of Cherokees protesting their removal from their
homelands.
The causes for removal were simple. At first, in 1827 the
Cherokees had the audacity to create a constitutional
government, formed in response to instructions by Thomas
Jefferson given in 1803 to create a regular set of laws.
Second, gold was found in Dahlonegah, Georgia, in 1829.
One of the public arguments to disguise this great national
sin of fraud and forced removal was that the Indians could move
to Indian Territory, where the game was plentiful and the water
pure. It would be a place where the Cherokees could live, never
to be disturbed again or have State or Federal governments
thrust over them. Of course, the Cherokees asked the most
obvious question: If Indian Territory was so nice, why did the
white people not move there and leave the Cherokees in their
ancestral homeland, as guaranteed by the United States in 23
treaties? In fact, David Crockett, a Congressman from
Tennessee, introduced a bill which provided to move the
Tennesseans to Indian Territory and advised the Georgians to
move to Tennessee.
Why is S. 1970, this bill recognizing the Trail of Tears
expansion, so important? There are three reasons. The U.S.
Government must not repeat the mistakes it made in the past. It
must honor its word and remember the inspiring story of the
Cherokee spirit. At stake is the integrity of the United States
and its word. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said:
``Great nations, like great men, should keep their word.'' The
value of this Trail of Tears designation is that it will remind
us of our obligations and duties and of the potentials and
opportunities in the covenants of those treaties.
The Trail of Tears reminds us of our first lesson of
history: The greed of individuals and the power of the U.S.
Government should never be used as instruments to defraud and
rob a people of their homeland and government. Our second
history lesson is that legal treaties of the past are still
binding, both on the United States and the Cherokee Nation,
even though they are not honored or acknowledged at times, and
they still are the supreme law of the land.
Our third history lesson is that, in contrast to the
horrific episode that is the Trail of Tears, the Cherokee
Nation and its people have continuously demonstrated our great
legacy. The Cherokee Nation and its people know that this
legacy is that we face adversity, survive, adapt, prosper, and
excel. We continued our legacy in Indian Territory by building
a sophisticated government and society through institutions of
higher education, obedience to the law, and cohesive cultural
communities. These lessons should never be forgotten, lest the
mistakes of the past be repeated.
Since the Trail of Tears, we have faced a number of other
challenges to the Cherokee Nation. I can tell you, with the
spirit of our ancestors and the conviction of our people, our
government, and our history, we will be here for centuries to
come to pass on this legacy.
Thank you for the opportunity to attend. We support S.
1970.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation,
Tahlequah, OK
In 1838, one of the darkest chapters of American history was
written. This event was the forced removal of 16,000 Cherokees pursuant
to the Treaty of New Echota of 1835, which was fraudulent on its face,
violated a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832),
and undermined the constitutional government of the Cherokee Nation.
This episode in American history will forever be remembered as the
Cherokee Nation's Trail of Tears.
Cherokee people were forced from their homes in Georgia and
Tennessee and made to walk to Indian Territory, 800 miles away, in the
dead of winter. The most vulnerable, those elderly, frail and young,
were the first to perish. More than 4,000 died.
Seventeen thousand Cherokees wanted to stay in the land where their
ancestors were buried, to preserve their national character and to
maintain their communities and way of life. They signed their names in
the Cherokee language on a petition to be presented to Congress
protesting the Senate's ratification--by one vote--of the Treaty of New
Echota. The cruel irony is best evidenced by John Ross, Principal
Chief, describing in an 1838 letter to his brother, Lewis Ross, the
effort to present this petition:
``Washington City February 26th, 1838
Dear Brother . . . Our friend in the Senate has thus long
defered the presentation of our Memorial . . . in reference to
the Execution of the spurious ``treaty'' ]1835] . . . On
Saturday last the 24ed inst. a duel with rifles was fought
between Mr. [William J] Graves of Ky. and Mr. [Jonathan] Cilly
[Cilley] of Maine both of the House of Repves. in Congress. On
the 3'd fire the latter fell and expired. Upon the meeting of
Congress this morning and the annunciation of the death of Mr.
Cilly, both Houses adjourned, the funeral will take place on
tomorrow--and perhaps nothing more will be done, until the next
day when it is supposed a motion will be made by Mr. [John
Qunicy] Adams to expel all the members of the House who were in
any way engaged in the tragical affair. Should this motion be
made it will unquestionably produce much excitement among the
members, and perhaps lead to further acts of hostility, if not
to the use of powder and ball, to blows in some other way--if
so, let them go according to their own sense of honor through
the scientific refinements of civilized life.''
As a result of the ``civilized'' action of those members, this
delivery of this protest was delayed.
I present to you a copy of the 1836 memorial of 17,000 Cherokees
protesting the Treaty of New Echota which resulted in the Trail of
Tears.
The causes for removal were simple. First, in 1827, the Cherokees
had the audacity to create a constitutional government, formed in
response to instructions Thomas Jefferson gave in 1803 to create a
regular set of laws. Second, gold was discovered at Dahlonegah,
Georgia, in 1829.
One of the public arguments used to disguise these great national
sins of fraud and forced removal was that the Indians could move to
Indian Territory, where the game was plentiful and the water pure. It
would be a place where the Cherokees would never be disturbed again or
have state or federal governments thrust over them. Of course, the
Cherokees asked the most obvious question: If Indian Territory was so
nice, why didn't white people move there and leave the Cherokees in
their ancestral homeland, as guaranteed by the United States in 23
treaties? In fact, David Crockett, Congressman from Tennessee proposed
to move Tennesseans to Indian Territory and advise Georgians to move
into Tennessee.
Why is this bill recognizing the Cherokee Nation Trail of Tears
important? There are three reasons. The United States government must
not repeat the mistakes it made in the past, it must honor its word,
and forever remember the inspiring story of Cherokee spirit. At stake
is the integrity of the United States and its word. Supreme Court
Justice Hugo Black once said, ``Great nations, like great men, should
keep their word.'' The value of this Trail of Tears designation is that
it will remind us of our obligations and duties and of our potentials
and opportunities in the covenant of those treaties.
The Trail of Tears reminds us of our first history lesson: The
greed of individuals and the power of our United States government
should never be used as instruments to defraud and rob a people of
their homeland and government.
Our second history lesson is that legal treaties of the past are
still binding, both on the United States and the Cherokee Nation, even
though often they are not honored or acknowledged and sometimes are
even viewed as primitive agreements even though they are the supreme
law of the land. In spite of such willful misinterpretations, these
treaties are equally as sacred to Indian nations as our U.S.
Constitution is to all of us.
Our third history lesson is that, in contrast to the horrific
episode that is the Trail of Tears, the Cherokee Nation and its people
have continuously demonstrated our great legacy: We are a people who
face adversity, survive, adapt, prosper and excel. We continued our
legacy in Indian Territory by building a sophisticated government and
society through institutions of higher education, obedience to the law
and cohesive cultural communities.
These lessons should never be forgotten, lest the mistakes of the
past be repeated.
At stake here is the integrity of the United States and its word.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said, ``Great nations, like great
men, should keep their word.''
The value of this Trail of Tears designation is that it will remind
us of our obligations and duties and of our potentials and
opportunities in the covenant of those treaties.
Since the Trail of Tears, we have faced and are facing a number of
other challenges to the Cherokee Nation. I can tell you, with the
spirit of our ancestors and the conviction of our people, our
government, and our history, we will be here for centuries to come to
pass on this legacy.
I am extremely fortunate to be here today and to advocate on behalf
of Representative Zach Wamp (R-TN), Marion Berry (D-AR) and 17
cosigners, including the Oklahoma delegation, on H.R. 3085 (``Trail of
Tears Documentation Act'') and Senator Thomas Coburn (R-OK) Bill S.
1970, to memorialize and to protect the physical remnants of the Trail
of Tears.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Chief. Would you care
to go over those signatures with us?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Smith. I would love to, sir. We can have the election
commission verify them.
Senator Thomas. That is very interesting. Thank you so much
for being here.
Let me go back then to Mr. Parsons and a couple of the
areas we discussed. On the proposal for the Eisenhower
Memorial, where is that now in relation to the Mall and so on?
Mr. Parsons. You mean the location?
Senator Thomas. Yes, the location.
Mr. Parsons. The location that we are currently dealing
with? The location has not yet been approved because we need
the legislation we are talking about here today.
Senator Thomas. Where is the proposal?
Mr. Parsons. The Eisenhower Commission looked at a dozen
sites, and we focused on one that is on Maryland Avenue at the
intersection with Constitution. It is directly across the
street from the Air and Space Museum and is one of the sites
that is identified in the monuments and memorials master plan
that I believe you are familiar with; a series of traffic
islands, not a very attractive location. We have all looked
forward for a long time to creating a sense of place here.
Senator Thomas. That is a traffic island now, with streets
on three sides of it; is that it?
Mr. Parsons. Yes. It also is complicated by multiple
jurisdictions. We have a piece, the District of Columbia has a
piece, and GSA has a piece, but we are working with all three
agencies to try to bring them together and get it under one
jurisdiction, hopefully the National Park Service.
Senator Thomas. So this is what, in Area I?
Mr. Parsons. It is just on the edge of Area I. Actually,
half of it is in Area II.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Parsons. It is simply the northern piece that is in
Area I.
Senator Thomas. Now, what is the long part of the Mall?
That is reserved area?
Mr. Parsons. Yes. This map, I think you are familiar with.
It is the one in the Commemorative Works Act that you
sponsored.
Senator Thomas. Yes. This is not in that area?
Mr. Parsons. Not at all, no.
Senator Thomas. I see.
This is always kind of confusing. Who actually has
jurisdiction over what is on the Mall?
Mr. Parsons. We manage 90 percent of the acreage of the
Mall, the National Park Service. The District of Columbia
manages streets going through it North-South--Third, Fourth,
Seventh, and Fourteenth Streets. And the Smithsonian of course
has the museums along the way. But the bulk of it is under the
jurisdiction of the Park Service.
Senator Thomas. So future development, particularly on the
reserve area, would be up to the authority of the Park Service?
Mr. Parsons. Correct.
Senator Thomas. It seems like it always takes the Park
Service, the city of Washington, the Smithsonian and everybody
to get involved in these decisions. I'm a little concerned that
we are going to be able--in fact, I think I am going to
recommend that we have a study again as to how we preserve that
Mall. There are always ideas about having some more buildings
on there and now here are two relatively new ones; right?
Mr. Parsons. Yes. Well, I would not characterize the
Eisenhower Memorial as being on the Mall. It is across the
street, as it were. Not the Mall that you and I are so
concerned about protecting through the reserve. But you are
absolutely right about the African American Cultural Museum,
Congress exempted the reserve and indeed the Smithsonian picked
it.
If you recall the hearings that we had last summer
regarding this very subject with the Planning Commission, the
Commission of Fine Arts, and the Coalition to Save Our Mall, we
outlined at that time what we intend to do now that we have the
reserve in place, and that is to do a two-fold planning
process. One is the Park Service is going to do a comprehensive
management plan for the Mall, which will deal with it from a
sustainability standpoint, not a development plan, not where we
are going to build more things, but how are we going to protect
what we have. At the same time, the National Capital Planning
Commission is going to do a framework plan surrounding the
Mall. That is all of the real estate in Area I. The reason they
are doing that is it is beyond our jurisdiction. So these two
companion planning processes will be going on at the same time
and we feel that will give you what you have in mind.
I think the main difference between 1901 and today is that
the L'Enfant Plan was being ignored. There was chaos on the
Mall, a train station in the middle of it. At the same time,
the Corps of Engineers was filling all of East and West Potomac
Park and there was no plan for that. Senator MacMillan decided
that there should be somebody that did this, so they created
the plan that we are all familiar with.
One of the important recommendations of that plan was to
create Federal agencies to steward this, and they created--the
Congress in turn created this Commission of Fine Arts and the
National Capital Planning Commission. So here we have two
Federal agencies, including ourselves, that are charged with
protecting this. I think that I would like to talk more about
this, not today obviously, but that that is the appropriate
mechanism to get a good plan for this area.
Senator Thomas. Good. Well, I feel very strongly about it,
as most people do. But unfortunately, as you know, or
fortunately, when something comes up that has a lot of merit,
no one argues with the merit of things. Well, then someone
wants it on the Mall. The next thing you know, you have got a
hassle going on again.
So I think if our plan is current and clear, why, that
would help a good deal. So that's good, I am glad you are
working on that.
Mr. Parsons. All right. I look forward to more discussion
about this.
Senator Thomas. This visitor center at the Buell Memorial,
is that going to be an additional responsibility of the Park
Service?
Mr. Parsons. We have an existing visitor center. It is off
the beaten path. What we will be doing is relocating our
personnel there. So from an operational standpoint, it is a
wash. There will be lease payments of about $70,000 a year
maximum that would be an additional cost, but we are
rearranging the priorities in the park so that we will not be
seeking an operational increase.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Parsons. There is also a cost of $1.2 million to
prepare exhibits, desks, the kind of thing you need in a normal
visitor center. That is a one-time cost. With this authority,
we would be seeking appropriations over the next 5 years to do
that.
Senator Thomas. Really? What a surprise. No, I understand.
This farm thing in St. Croix, would that be part of an
existing park or would that be a new designation, if that
should happen?
Mr. Parsons. As we understand the measure, it is being
studied as a stand-alone. It is not a boundary expansion, if
you will. It is a stand-alone unit that is across the island
from our current facilities.
Senator Thomas. I see.
What is the status of this, what do you call it, the
existing plan for a memorial on----
Mr. Parsons. Victims of Communism?
Senator Thomas. Victims of Communism.
Mr. Parsons. They hope to start--it is all approved, that
is through the various approval processes here in Washington.
They hope to start construction this spring and be completed by
November.
Senator Thomas. Oh, really. I see.
What have you heard--is this going to fulfill the hopes of
some of the people who have recommended this additional one, or
do you know?
Mr. Parsons. No, I think they feel pretty strongly that the
Victims of Communism Memorial will not represent what they are
trying to tell.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Chief Smith, now, is this an expansion, is this a study, or
is there authorization for an addition to the study, or how do
you define that?
Mr. Smith. If I could, I will just defer to the Park
Service. As I understand, it is a study for the designation of
additional routes of the Trail of Tears. Basically there were
four routes. The primary one has been designated and the study
is to expand the other three routes.
Senator Thomas. Someone suggested, however, in addition to
the study, that it also designates some routes before the
study; is that correct?
Mr. Parsons. Yes, the study--the way the measure is
structured now, we are suggesting it be changed. Rather than
us--what it says is we will study it; if we think it is worth
designating, it would automatically be designated. Highly
unusual. We usually return to the Congress with such a study
saying what we think should be designated, how much it would
cost, and those kinds of things. So that is the amendment we
are seeking.
Senator Thomas. Oh, I see. So the bill does not authorize
it. It just says if the study recommends it, it can
automatically be done.
Mr. Parsons. Yes.
Senator Thomas. You are suggesting, if the study recommends
it, it then has to go through the regular process?
Mr. Parsons. Correct.
Senator Thomas. Is that a problem for you, Chief?
Mr. Smith. No.
Senator Thomas. Okay, good.
Well, gentlemen, we are trying to see if we can do things
fairly quickly today.
Mr. Parsons. I think you broke a record today.
Senator Thomas. Is that a record?
Mr. Parsons. It must be.
Senator Thomas. Well, we appreciate very much your being
here. I think you have covered all the issues here pretty well
and we will try to move them on. I do not have any further
questions. If you would both be willing, we will have some time
for other members that were not able to be here, if they have
questions to submit to you within the next couple of days.
Mr. Parsons. Certainly.
Senator Thomas. Otherwise, thank you very much.
Mr. Parsons. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 13, 2006.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As Commissioners of the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Memorial Commission, we respectfully request that S.J. Res 28, a
resolution approving an Area I location for the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Memorial, be placed on the hearing agenda for February 16, 2006. This
resolution, introduced on February 7, 2006, was referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Resources.
S.J. Res 28 approves the Secretary of the Interior's recommendation
that the Eisenhower memorial be located within the boundaries of Area
1, as defined by the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 8901-8908).
This area is reserved for commemorative works whose subjects are of
``pre-eminent historical and lasting significance to the Nation.'' It
is outside the National Mall, but close to the central core of the
city.
Dwight D. Eisenhower served as the 34th President of the United
States. President Eisenhower helped lead the victorious resolution of
World War II, and was one of the most dedicated public servants in
American history. His commitment to democratic processes and
international peace stand as his lasting legacy to the Nation.
President Eisenhower deserves a memorial location that speaks to his
life and legacy.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that S.J. Res. 28 be placed on
the February 16, 2006 hearing agenda, and favorably reported as soon as
possible, in order to ensure that the memorialization be on schedule.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Ted Stevens,
U.S. Senator From Alaska.
Daniel K. Inouye,
U.S. Senator From Hawaii.
Pat Roberts,
U.S. Senator From Kansas.
Jack Reed,
U.S. Senator From Rhode
Island.
Sam Brownback,
U.S. Senator From Kansas.
______
Statement of Hon. Sander M. Levin, U.S. Representative
From Michigan, on H.R. 562
Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
H.R. 562. H.R. 562 would allow the Government of Ukraine to donate a
memorial in the District of Columbia honoring the victims of the
manmade famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in 1932-33. This is
important legislation to the 1.5 million Ukrainian-Americans throughout
the United States, to the people of Ukraine who have embarked on a
courageous effort to build a free, democratic, open society, and indeed
to all of us who value freedom.
The famine of 1932-33 resulted from criminal acts and deliberate,
criminal decisions by political officials, not from the forces of
nature. Yet it is also one of the least known of human tragedies.
Despite efforts by the Soviet government at the time and afterward to
hide the planned and systematic nature of this famine-genocide, the
Ukrainian Diaspora has struggled to preserve its memory.
By introducing unrealistically high quotas on grain and other
agricultural products, which were strictly enforced by Red Army troops,
the Soviet government deliberately starved 7 to 10 million Ukrainians.
The harvest of 1932 was only 12% below 1926-1930 average, but millions
of Ukrainians died a slow, agonizing death of hunger.
In his book ``The Harvest of Sorrow'', British historian Robert
Conquest provided a vivid picture of the devastating effects of the
Famine-Genocide in Ukriane: ``A quarter of the rural population, men,
women, and children, lay dead or dying, the rest in various stages of
debilitation with no strength to bury their families or neighbors.''
This effort was systematic and premeditated. Having sealed the
borders of Ukraine to prevent any outward migration or outside relief
efforts, the Soviet Union proceeded to confiscate grain and summarily
execute anyone found taking even a handful of grain that was considered
``social property.'' The result was devastating, and exactly what the
Soviet government intended. Materials now being found in KGB archives
have shown the pre-meditated, political nature of the famine.
Nearly a quarter of the Ukrainian rural population paid for their
love of freedom with their lives.
The United States and its people must persist in standing with
those living under oppressive and tyrannical regimes as they struggle
for their freedom. Part of this struggle is to remember the brutal acts
of these regimes and their victims. Preventing the recurrence of crimes
against humanity such as the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide begins with
remembering the tragedies of the past.
That is why I believe it is so important for there to be a monument
remembering the millions of innocent victims of this Famine-Genocide.
This memorial will not only honor the victims of this horrible period
of history, but also serve as a reminder to all of us that we must work
together to prevent such tragedies in the future. This reminder is
particularly poignant given the renewed commitment of Ukraine to
freedom and democracy as demonstrated during last year's Orange
Revolution.
Some hold the view that a memorial to the victims of the Ukrainian
Famine-Genocide would detract from the planned Victims of Communism
Memorial, and potentially lead to a competition among other groups for
separate memorials. My understanding is that this planned monument will
not make reference to individual countries and events. Specifically
remembering the grievous events of the Famine-Genocide makes the
brutality of Communism even more clear. Far from detracting from the
message of the Victims of Communism Memorial, this would reinforce it.
The large Ukrainian-American Community, in cooperation with the
people of Ukraine, has been working publicly toward a memorial with the
involvement of other concerned citizens for many years now. This effort
to commemorate a tragic, massive loss of 7 to 10 million lives has not
led to a plethora of requests from other countries or groups for a
memorial as a gift to the United States.
This bill specifies that no costs would be incurred by the U.S.
government. I also want to make clear that there is no expectation that
this Memorial would be placed on the National Mall.
This tragedy is more than worthy of, it is crucial to, our
remembrance. The House of Representatives approved this legislation by
voice vote on November 16th, 2005, and I believe it would enjoy
similarly broad support in the full Senate. I thank you again for this
hearing and urge the members of the subcommittee to support H.R. 562.
______
Statement of Hon. Zach Wamp, U.S. Representative
From Tennessee, on S. 1970
Thank you Chairman Thomas, Senator Akaka and ladies and gentlemen
of the committee, I appreciate being given the opportunity to express
my support for S. 1970, sponsored by Senator Coburn and cosponsored by
Senators Frist and Alexander.
S. 1970 is the companion bill to H.R. 3085 introduced by me and
cosponsored by 20 of my House colleagues. The intent of both of these
bills is to study an expansion of the current Trail of Tears National
Historic Trail to include additional documented components into the
National Trails System Act. The proposed additions have been well
documented by National Park Service historians, military journals and
newspaper accounts. When the original Trail was designated only
primitive research existed, leaving two main arteries-Ross and Bell
missing, as well as many water routes and emigration depots.
The designation and interpretation of the sites and trails
associated with the Cherokee Removal will enhance public understanding
of American history. Our greatness as a nation is our ability to look
at our own history objectively and in proper perspective, being mindful
of the errors of the past in order not to repeat them. Through this
legislation we will honor the historic footsteps taken by the Cherokee
and celebrate our future as we remember the past.
Because of historical significance, S. 1970 and H.R. 3085, enjoy
broad support not only within Congress, but also with the Cherokee
Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee and associated trail organizations
such as the Trail of Tears Association. The legislation is a wonderful
example of how Congress can better understand a national event through
commemoration of the Cherokee's story. I believe the Secretary of
Interior will find that the additional routes meet the historical
significance, suitability and feasibility required by the National Park
Service for designation as part of the Trail of Tears National Historic
Trail. I thank you for today's hearing and I look forward to working
further with Senator Coburn and the Committee.
______
Statement of Hon. Donna M. Christensen, Delegate, U.S. Virgin Islands,
on H.R. 318
Thank you, Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka, for scheduling
a hearing on my bill, H.R. 318 to provide for a study to determine the
feasibility and suitability of designating Castle Nugent Farms in the
U.S. Virgin Islands as a unit of the National Park System.
Castle Nugent Farms is a unique 1350-acre property located on the
southeastern shore of my home island of St. Croix. It contains natural
and cultural resources, which could provide an unparalleled insight
into the plantation period of the Virgin Islands.
I was asked to introduce H.R. 318 by the owners of Castle Nugent
Farms, which is presently operated as a cattle ranch, because they are
very interested in preserving and interpreting the natural and cultural
resources of the area. Caroline Gasperi, whose family members have been
the stewards of this land for more than 50 years, has been an
enthusiastic supporter for the preservation of the site.
This hearing on this bill today brings her one step closer to her
long held and hard fought for dream.
The owners are justifiably proud of their ranch, which contains
more than four miles of pristine oceanfront with a large and healthy
fringing coral reef. The interior of the property consists of Caribbean
dry forest and pasture lands with cultural resources from both pre-
Columbian and post-European settlement.
A large Danish estate house, dating to the 1730's, sits on the
property. That house is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
At various points in its history Castle Nugent Farm has been
operated as a cotton plantation and a sugar cane plantation. Its
current use as a cattle ranch involves raising unique Senepol cattle, a
breed which is well suited to the climate and vegetation of the area.
H.R. 318 is a non-controversial bill. Identical legislation passed
the House in the last Congress. The National Park Service has no
objections to the legislation and the property's owners not only
support a park study of the site but also are enthusiastic about the
opportunity to preserve the natural and cultural resources of the farm.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the park study will provide the
blueprint by which we can preserve and interpret this unique piece of
island history and resources for the benefit of present and future
generations. I strongly support adoption of H.R. 318 by your committee
and the full U.S. Senate.
Thank you again for holding a hearing on H.R. 318. I look forward
to working with you to secure its passage in the Senate.
______
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Memorial Commission,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2006.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: On behalf of the
Eisenhower Memorial Commission I would like to thank you for holding
this hearing and for the opportunity to convey our support for S.J.
Res. 28, a resolution approving location of the Eisenhower Memorial in
Area I, as defined by the Commemorative Works Act.
The Eisenhower Memorial Commission was created by Public Law 106-79
and was fully appointed in 2001. The Commission consists of four
Representatives, four Senators, and four public members and is
completely bipartisan. I am the Commission's Chairman, and Senator
Daniel Inouye is the Vice Chairman. The other Senators are Senator Ted
Stevens, Senator Pat Roberts, and Senator Jack Reed. According to the
law, the Commission is charged with creating an ``appropriate permanent
memorial to Dwight David Eisenhower'' to perpetuate his ``memory and
his contributions to the United States.'' S.J. Res. 28 is an important
part of the process that we hope will fulfill the mandate of the law.
As you know, only memorials whose subjects are of ``pre-eminent
historical and lasting significance to the Nation'' may be located in
Area I. The Secretary of the Interior, with the consultation of the
National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, has deemed that the
Dwight Eisenhower Memorial meets these criteria and has recommended
that Congress approve her determination.
The Eisenhower Memorial Commission supports the Secretary's
determination and believes that an appropriate memorial to Dwight
Eisenhower must have a prominent location. The remarkable life and
legacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower is only partly known to the American
public. He is recognized as an exceptional General, but sometimes
regarded as only an average President. Only now are his extraordinary
accomplishments as President--in maintaining peace, fostering
democracy, and modernizing America--being understood and recognized.
I served in the European Theatre in World War II and later worked
as a special assistant to President Eisenhower in the White House. It
is evident to me and many of my generation that Eisenhower was a pre-
eminent figure in the Allied victory in World War II, as Supreme
Commander Allied Forces Europe, and in the successful and peaceful
years of his presidency. It is my hope that this memorial will show
future generations not only this historical import, but also his legacy
of public service, deep commitment to the freedom of our country, and
love of the Constitution and democratic processes that together
comprise his lasting significance to the Nation.
It is a great privilege on my part to be able at this point in my
life to spend time pursuing the goals of building this memorial. The
attached document is a brief summary of Dwight Eisenhower's legacy and
specific contributions to the United States of America.
Sincerely,
Rocco C. Siciliano,
Chairman.
[Enclosure.]
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission
THE NATIONAL MEMORIALIZATION OF DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
Dwight D. Eisenhower (October 14, 1890-March 28, 1969) served as
the 34th President of the United States and ranks as one of the
preeminent figures in the global history of the twentieth century.
Eisenhower was a central leader in the victorious resolution of World
War II but his lasting significance in history lies in his deep
commitment to freedom, the Constitution, democracy, economic progress
and international peace.
An officer in World War I, Eisenhower's unusual abilities led to
accelerated promotions at the outset of World War II and his selection
in December 1943 as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary
Forces. General George C. Marshall endorsed him for this position and
President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed him. He commanded the largest
and most complex amphibious assault in world history on D-Day, June 6,
1944. He tirelessly worked to achieve cooperation among the allied
nations and commanders and became one of the most beloved military
leaders in American history and most respected international figures of
that time.
Toward the end of World War II, Eisenhower was nominated by
President Roosevelt and approved by Congress for the rank of five-star
General. Upon retiring from military service, he served as President of
Columbia University from October 1948 to January 1951. While in that
position, President Truman regularly sought his advice and counsel and
then recalled him to active duty, appointing him in December 1950 as
the first commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO)
military forces in Europe.
Eisenhower's many contributions to our nation's security included
his oversight of the peacetime demobilization of American military
forces, his guidance in creating the armed forces needed to resist
Communist aggression, and his many efforts to promote the unification
of the armed forces.
As Eisenhower's two-term presidency began, American democratic
values and national security were threatened by powerful adversaries in
Europe and Asia. Passionately devoted to national security through
alliances with other nations, President Eisenhower insisted on
acquiring the modem military forces needed to contain the Soviet Union
and other Communist nations without weakening America's capitalist
economy and trading partners. Through crises and controversies, he kept
the nation focused on the long-term strategy that would, he was
certain, eventually win the Cold War. He understood the political
economy of warfare better than most of his contemporaries and realized
that excessive military expenditures could undermine the nation and its
allies. Knowing that nuclear war was un-winnable and a threat to
civilization, President Eisenhower promoted the peaceful uses of atomic
energy, while skillfully and willingly deploying the most advanced
electronic and photographic technologies to ensure American security.
Simultaneously, he sustained strategic nuclear deterrence. President
Eisenhower inaugurated the national security policies that guided the
nation for the next three decades, leading to the peaceful end of the
Cold War in 1989.
While advancing these strategic Cold War measures, President
Eisenhower assiduously pursued balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility,
and those public works that were essential to the nation and its
citizens. He introduced lasting innovations to the institution of the
presidency, creating the first White House chief of staff, the first
congressional relations office, the first presidential assistant for
national security affairs and the first presidential science advisor.
He dramatically improved the transportation infrastructure of the
country with construction of the interstate highway system and the St.
Lawrence Seaway. During his presidency, the United States added two
stars to its flag, symbolizing the addition of the important new states
of Alaska (January 3, 1959) and Hawaii (August 21, 1959).
To address the increasing complexity of the social needs of the
American people, President Eisenhower created the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare in 1953, improved Social Security by increasing
benefits and placing an additional ten million Americans in the Social
Security system, and dispensed free polio vaccines. In 1957, he led
Congress to enact the first civil rights legislation since
Reconstruction.
Like Washington, Eisenhower became president and commander in chief
after leading his countrymen and their allies to military victory and
then served through perilous times. Eisenhower's extraordinary
accomplishments as president and military leader can be followed
through the public record and a series of memorable addresses and
speeches including--the Guildhall Address (London, 1945), Chance for
Peace (Washington, 1953), Atoms for Peace (United Nations, 1953), Open
Skies (Geneva Summit, 1955) and his Farewell Address (1961). His
preeminent historical and national significance is assured. The
challenge in our memorialization of Dwight D. Eisenhower will be to
honor in a distinct, unique and enduring manner all of the facets of
his extraordinary career of service to this nation.
______
Statement of Jack D. Baker, President, Trail of Tears Association,
Oklahoma City, OK, on S. 1970
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. I am also an eighth generation Oklahoman due to the
Trail of Tears.
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. It quickly became evident that the Trail as
designated was inadequate to portray the various events of the forced
removal.
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 may well 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. The Trail of Tears National Historic Trail as it is now
designated begins at these internment camps in Tennessee. It does not
extend into Georgia where 54% of the Cherokees lived at the time of
removal or into North Carolina where 22% of the Cherokees lived. These
two states comprising more than three-fourths of the Cherokee
population and containing many historic sites relating to removal are
not included as part of the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail.
This legislation would correct that oversight and allow for the placing
of Trail markers along the routes from the stockades to the internment
camps. It would also include other Trail segments that the Cherokees
used in their removal and, particularly, the one from the internment
camp in Alabama to present Oklahoma.
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. It warns the American people that a nation founded on the
principles of equality can fall prey to greed and racism and cautions
us to be ever vigilant to prevent such an event from happening again.
It is also important that my people, the Cherokee, remember the
Trail of Tears where it has been estimated as many as one-fourth of our
people died. While 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.
I personally support and the Trail of Tears Association supports
the legislation expanding the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail. I
would appreciate your support of Senate Bill 1970.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The attached table has been retained in subcommittee records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
The Trust for Public Land,
Washington Office,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2006.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On February 16, 2006, your subcommittee held a
hearing on H.R. 318, a bill to authorize a study to designate Castle
Nugent Farms in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National
Park System.
Attached with this letter is testimony to be submitted for the
record on behalf of The Trust for Public Land in support of this
important legislation.
I thank you for holding the hearing and for considering our
testimony.
Sincerely,
Alan Front,
Senior Vice President.
[Enclosure.]
IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 318
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to express support for H.R. 318, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of
designating the Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin
Islands, as a unit of the National Park System.
The Trust for Public Land (TPL) conserves land for people to enjoy
as parks, gardens, and natural areas, ensuring livable communities for
generations to come. Since 1972, TPL has helped protect more than 2.1
million acres of land in 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada.
Currently TPL is working with the landowner of Castle Nugent Farms
to explore the different opportunities available in order to conserve
the Castle Nugent Farms property. Because of the unique historical
aspects and ecological nature of the property and the benefits to the
economy of the island of St. Croix, TPL enthusiastically supports this
legislation. This tract is the largest privately held property in the
Virgin Islands, and its conservation would be of great benefit to the
residents of and visitors to St. Croix.
The 1,350-acre Castle Nugent property is a window into the
plantation history of St. Croix. The property has a long agricultural
history dating back to the 1730s, when the Danish estate house, now
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, was constructed. In
addition to the pasturelands where prized Senepol cattle graze,
Caribbean dry forest extends over the rolling terrain up from the ocean
shoreline. These forests contain cultural resources from pre-Columbian
and post-European settlement periods.
Beyond the historical significance of the property, the ecological
treasures of Castle Nugent Farms are remarkable. A few hundred feet
offshore of the property's four miles of scenic and pristine coastline
is one of the healthiest and largest fringing coral reef systems in the
Virgin Islands. The property is also habitat for sea turtles and many
migratory and resident birds.
We are pleased that this legislation passed the House of
Representatives on November 15, 2005, and we look forward to the
passage of this bill by the Senate.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to provide
testimony in support of a study to determine whether Castle Nugent
Farms should become a unit of the National Park System.
______
Statement of H.E. Dr. Oleh Shamshur, Ambassador of Ukraine
to the United States, on H.R. 562
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, first of
all, let me express my deep gratitude for the attention you are paying
to the issue of raising a memorial to the victims of the manmade Famine
in Ukraine in 1932-33.
In Ukrainian language this tragedy is referred to as ``Holodomor'',
meaning ``Total Starvation''. Holodomor is an unparalleled disaster in
the history of my nation, similar to Holocaust in scale, cruelty and
cynicism of its perpetrators. A crime officially recognized by U.S.
Congress in 1986 as an act of genocide against Ukrainian people.
Although Holodomor has taken away from 7 to 11 million innocent
lives, it remains barely known to the world. Stalin and the Soviet
regime employed every possible tool in order to make this atrocious
crime fall into oblivion. And yet, as the Gospel says ``there is
nothing hidden, except that it should be made known; neither was
anything made secret, but that it should come to light''. The truth
about the cold-blooded starving to death of millions of human beings in
the centre of Europe, in the midst of the 20th century has been
revealed, although it is yet to receive a due historical tribute. The
pain and bitter memory of Holodomor are alive in practically every
Ukrainian family, they make our hearts ache and remind us what a
monster died when the Soviet empire fell apart 15 years ago.
There is at least one thing that has been always well known about
Ukraine: its richness in agricultural resources that earned it the name
of the ``bread basket of Europe''. In early 1930s Ukraine was still
largely an agricultural country. It was inhabited by hard working,
peaceful and diligent people. The state forced them into so-called
kolhospy, collective farms where they toiled to satisfy the
agricultural appetites of the Soviet regime. They were natural born
farmers deprived of earth and instruments of production. Yet, even
after 15 years of the communist rule they still knew how to grow wheat,
breed cattle, plow their fertile land. Respect to private property and
independent spirit were in their blood. This was their crime in the
eyes of the tyrant who ruled the country. This was the reason why
Ukraine and its people were considered dangerous by Stalin and his
henchmen.
I shall be honored to provide you with some background information
to explain what a horrible tragedy occurred in my country 73 years ago
and why it deserves to be commemorated in the capital of the U.S. In my
testimony I will rely upon the book ``Harvest of Sorrow'' by British
historian Robert Conquest, works of the British researcher James E.
Mace, Canadian scholar Roman Serbyn and British journalist Askold
Krushelnycky.
The disaster started in 1932 when the Soviet authorities increased
the grain procurement quota for Ukraine by 44%. They were aware that
this extraordinarily high quota would cause grain shortage, resulting
in the inability of the Ukrainian peasants to feed themselves. Soviet
law was quite explicit: no grain could be given to feed the peasants
until the state quota was met. Communist party officials with the aid
of military troops and NKVD secret police units were used to move
against peasants who may be hiding grain from the Soviet government. An
internal passport system restricted movement of Ukrainian peasants so
that they could not travel in search of food. Ukrainian grain was
collected and stored in grain elevators that were guarded by military
units & NKVD while Ukrainians were starving in the vicinity.
After it turned out in 1932 that Ukraine couldn't fulfill the quota
set by Moscow, draconian measures were taken. On the highest level, the
grown wheat was declared inviolate ``socialist property'' and anyone
who gleaned even an ear of wheat or bit off a sugar beet was declared
an ``enemy of people'' and could be executed or sentenced to not less
than 10 years in Gulag.
In Ukraine, the decree of December 6, 1932 singled out six villages
that allegedly sabotaged the grain procurement campaign. They were
placed on the ``blacklist'', which was soon extended in a wholesale
fashion. The blacklist meant a complete economic blockade of the
villages listed, including an immediate closing of stores with all the
food therein; a complete ban on trade in the village, including trade
in most essential goods; immediate halting and calling in of all
credits and advances; combing neighborhood for so-called ``foreign
agents'' and ``saboteurs''. At that time it was equivalent to a
sentence of death by starvation.
Only those who survived famine can describe adequately what it was
like. They tell of the entire village population swelling up from
starvation. They tell of the ``dead wagons'' day after day picking up
dead bodies to dump them later in pits. They tell of whole villages
becoming deserted, of homeless children roaming the country in search
for food and of railroad stations flooded with starving peasants who
had to beg lying down for they were too weak to stand. Many tried to
cross the border to the Russian Federation where bread was available.
But the secret police established border checkpoints to prevent anyone
from carrying food from Russia to Ukraine. This meant de facto
blacklisting of entire Ukraine.
Graphic portraits of the horrors of village life during Holodomor
emerge from testimonies of eyewitnesses gathered by British journalist
Askold Krushelnycky.
Oleksa Sonipul was 10 in 1933 and lived in a village in northern
Ukraine. She said by the beginning of that year, famine was so
widespread people had been reduced to eating grass, tree bark, roots,
berries, frogs, birds, and even earthworms. Desperate hunger drove
people to sell off all of their possessions for any food they could
find. At night, an eerie silence fell over the village, where all the
livestock and chickens had long since been killed for food and
exhausted villagers went to bed early. But requisition brigades looking
to fulfill the impossibly high grain quotas continued to search even
those villages where inhabitants were already dying from starvation.
Brigade members, fueled by Soviet hate campaigns against the peasants,
acted without mercy, taking away the last crumbs of food from starving
families knowing they were condemning even small children to death. Any
peasant who resisted was shot. Rape and robbery also took place.
Sonipul described what happened when a brigade arrived at her home.
``In 1933, just before Christmas, brigades came to our
village to search for bread. They took everything they could
find to eat. That day they found potatoes that we had planted
in our grandfather's garden, and because of that they took
everything from grandfather and all the seeds that grandmother
had gathered for sowing the following autumn. And the next day,
the first day of Christmas, they came to us, tore out our
windows and doors and took everything to the collective farm.''
As villages ran out of food, thousands of desperate people trekked
to beg for food in towns and cities. Food was available in cities,
although strictly controlled through ration coupons. But residents were
forbidden to help the starving peasants and doctors were not allowed to
aid the skeletal villagers, who were left to die in the streets.
Fedir Burtianski was a young man in 1933 when he set out by train
to Ukraine's Donbas mining area in search of work. He says thousands of
starving peasants, painfully thin with swollen bellies, lined the rail
track begging for food. The train stopped in the city of Dnipropetrovsk
and Burtianski says he was horrified by what he saw there.
``At Dnipropetrovsk we got out of the carriages. I got off
the wagon and I saw lots of people swollen and half-dead. And
some who were lying on the ground in convulsions. Probably they
were going to die within a few minutes. Then the railway NKVD
quickly herded us back into the wagons.''
Grain and potatoes continued to be harvested in Ukraine, driven by
the demand of Stalin's quotas. But the inefficiency of the Soviet
transportation system meant that tons of food literally rotted uneaten
sometimes in the open and within the view of those dying of starvation.
The scene Burtianski described was repeated in towns and cities all
over Ukraine. In the countryside, entire villages were being wiped out.
The hunger drove many people to desperation and madness. Many instances
of cannibalism were recorded, with people living off the remains of
other starvation victims or in some instances resorting to murder. Most
peasant families had five or six children, and some mothers killed
their weakest children in order to feed the others.
Burtianski said at one point, he avoided buying meat from a vendor
because he suspected it was human flesh. When the authorities heard
about the incident, he was forced to attend the trial of a man and his
two sons who were suspected of murdering people for food. Burtianski
says during the trial one of the sons admitted in chilling terms to
eating the flesh of his own mother, who had died of starvation.
He said, ``Thank you to Father Stalin for depriving us of food. Our
mother died of hunger and we ate her, our own dead mother. And after
our mother we did not take pity on anyone. We would not have spared
Stalin himself. ``
Mykhaylo Naumenko was 11 years old in 1933. His father was executed
for refusing to join a nearby collective farm. Mykhaylo was left with
his mother and siblings to face the famine without a provider. He said
people were shot for trying to steal grain or potatoes from the local
collective farm, which was surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by
armed men. He said people were executed even for trying to pick up a
few loose seeds dropped on the ground.
``A tragedy developed. People became swollen, they died by
the tens each day. The collective farm authorities appointed
six men to collect and bury the dead. From our village of 75
homes, by May 24 houses were empty where all the inhabitants
had died.''
Many people met their deaths with quiet resignation, praying and
comforting their starving children with fairy tales.
Teodora Soroka, who lost nearly every member of her family to
``dekulakization'' and famine, says such memories can never be erased.
Nor does she want to forget them.
``My baby sister died of hunger in my arms. She was begging
for a piece of bread, because to have apiece of bread in the
house meant life. She pleaded for me to give her a bit of
bread. I was crying and told her that we didn't have any. She
told me that I wanted her to die. Believe me, it's painful even
now. I was little myself then. I cried, but my heart was not
torn to shreds because 1 couldn't understand why this was all
happening. But today, and ever since I became an adult, I
haven't spent a day in my life when I haven't cried. I have
never gone to sleep without thinking about what happened to my
family.''
Let us think about this little girl. Visualize this Ukrainian
martyr forced to see her dear ones die one after another from
starvation. Multiply her suffering by at least 7 million--those are the
most modest estimates of human losses Ukraine suffered during
Holodomor.
Today I am adding my voice to many others who ask you to provide
Ukrainians with an opportunity to commemorate the immeasurable
suffering and horrid death of millions of their kin and to condemn this
act of genocide by erecting a solemn memorial in the heart of America
which has always been so attentive to pain and injustice inflicted upon
the others.
By doing so you will also pay tribute to over one million Ukrainian
Americans making an outstanding contribution to the prosperity of this
country. This memorial will be yet another sign of the developing
partnership between Ukraine and the United States now standing together
for democracy and against tyranny and oppression.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Michael Sawkiw, Jr., President,
Ukrainian Congress Committee of America
As a representative organization of the 1.5 million Americans of
Ukrainian descent, the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America would
like to thank the National Parks Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee for this opportunity to provide written
testimony regarding H.R. 562, a bill to erect a monument to the victims
of the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide in Washington, D.C. The subject of the
Ukrainian Famine-Genocide is of great importance to the Ukrainian
American community as it is one of the most tragic pages of Ukraine's
recent history. It acquires even more significance in the next several
years as communities worldwide will commemorate the 75th Anniversary of
the Famine-Genocide in 2008. For years, the Ukrainian American
community has been educating the general public and speaking out about
one of the most horrific cases of genocide in the 20th century.
PURPOSE OF THE UKRAINIAN CONGRESS COMMITTEE OF AMERICA
The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) is a national
umbrella organization representing the interests of the Ukrainian
community in the United States. Founded by the First Congress of
Ukrainians in America in 1940 in Washington, DC, the main purpose of
the UCCA is to support cultural, educational, and humanitarian
activities that emphasize the Ukrainian American heritage and to
effectively coordinate the work of the community. These goals are
achieved through a nationwide network of over 75 branches, member
organizations, and a variety of internal UCCA commissions that are
tasked with specific projects.
As a not-for-profit, educational and charitable institution, the
UCCA has a long history of actively pursuing issues that affect the
Ukrainian American community, particularly in the arena of U.S.-former
Soviet and now U.S.-Ukraine relations. The hopes and dreams of
Ukrainians worldwide came to fruition when Ukraine restored its
independence on August 24, 1991. With the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the UCCA redirected its efforts toward supporting Ukraine's democratic
development and economic rebirth while sustaining a vibrant Ukrainian
community in the United States. In 2004, the UCCA organized the largest
NGO election monitoring team for Ukraine's presidential elections, with
over 2,400 international elections observers traveling to Ukraine
during the Christmas holiday to ensure that Ukraine's re-runoff of the
presidential elections were held in a free, fair, and transparent
manner. The results became known as the ``Orange Revolution'' with the
nation of Ukraine democratically electing their next president, Viktor
Yushchenko.
However, the most important task of the UCCA was, and continues to
be, educating the American public about Ukraine, its history, culture,
and political development. Pursuant to this mission, the UCCA has
raised U.S. awareness of Ukraine, as well as represented the interests
of Ukrainian Americans before the U.S. government by organizing various
conferences, seminars, commemorations, cultural events and the like.
The UCCA also strives to educate the American public about the long,
rich, and sometimes tragic history of the Ukrainian people through
various publications including The Ukrainian Quarterly, the only
English language scholarly journal of Ukrainian and international
affairs. In our efforts to disseminate information, one of the most
important projects of the UCCA is the on-going educational campaign
about Ukraine's Famine-Genocide of 1932-1933.
HISTORY AND INTEGRITY OF THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE-GENOCIDE
The Ukrainian Famine-Genocide has been called many things--``the
Forgiven Holocaust'', ``the Forgotten Holocaust'', ``the Unknown
Holocaust''. These titles spring from the fact that most individuals
were and continue to be unaware of what happened in Ukraine during
1932-1933. It is largely because of a successful cover-up effort on the
part of the Soviet Union, assisted by Western journalists such as
Pulitzer Prize-winner Walter Duranty, that this tragic event has failed
to enter into Western consciousness.
______
In an effort to industrialize the Soviet Union as quickly as
possible and transform Ukraine so that it resembled the Socialist
paradigm, Stalin began to forcibly collectivize agriculture. As a
preliminary step, Stalin ordered the liquidation of ``kulaks''
(individual peasants), who, according to party doctrine, had
traditionally exploited rural workers. In reality, however, this title
came to be applied to anyone considered undesirable by those in the
party apparatus. Even the richest peasants, at this time, had only two
or three cows and up to ten hectares of sowing area.\1\ So, in effect,
the most prosperous peasants were executed, deported, or sent to labor
camps in Siberia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow, New York, 1986, p. 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the draconian dekulakization, the remaining peasants were
bullied into joining collective farms, whose harvests belonged to the
state. Having been put into this vulnerable position, the remaining
peasants now bore the brunt of Moscow's assault.
In 1932, Stalin ordered the grain quota for Ukraine to be raised by
44%. In August of that year came a decree that ``stealing Socialist
property'' (taking even a handful of grain from a collective farm) was
an offense punishable by death.\2\ As it became apparent that the grain
quota could not be met, party leaders were given the legal right to
seize whatever grain or food could be found. Robbed of their last
remaining grain, Ukrainian peasants began to eat anything they could
get their hands on. It is estimated that upwards of 7 million people
starved to death in Ukraine proper and in the largely ethnically
Ukrainian Kuban region.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, Toronto, 1988, p. 414.
\3\ Taras Kuzio, ``Soviet Crimes Remain Unpunished'', The Kyiv
Post, 3 October 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even as the famine situation deteriorated, the Soviet Union
continued to refute claims that Ukraine was experiencing a famine and
refused international offers of assistance for the starving peasants.
The authorities claimed that there was no famine and showed off
Potemkin villages to visiting dignitaries, such as French premier
Edouard Herriot.\4\ Despite the many letters sent from Ukraine to
relatives abroad pleading for any kind of help, the Soviet border
remained sealed both to relief efforts and to peasants attempting to
travel to other parts of the USSR in search of food. ``Clear orders
existed to stop Ukrainian peasants entering Russia where food was
available . . . and to confiscate any food they were carrying when
intercepted on their return.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Conquest, p. 314-316
\5\ Conquest, p. 328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why were peasants living in Ukraine subjected to this horrifically
cruel policy that could only result in their death by starvation? The
answer lies in the national politics of the Soviet leadership. It is
well known that Stalin had an acute fear of Ukrainian separatism. As
Soviet newspaper Proletarska Pravda (Proletarian Truth) stated in 1930,
``collectivization in Ukraine has a special task . . . to destroy the
social basis of Ukrainian nationalism.''\6\ If Ukrainian resistance to
collectivization could be destroyed, Ukrainian national aspirations
could be similarly done away with. Indeed, being that the majority of
the Famine-Genocide victims were Ukrainians it seems that the party
knew only too well whom they were supposed to target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Subtelny, 416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine suffered tremendously during this time. A few statistics
will illustrate this:
<bullet> Ukrainian villages were dying at the rate of 25,000 per day
or 1,000 per hour or 17 per minute;
<bullet> The Soviet regime dumped 1.7 million tons of grain on the
Western markets--nearly a quarter of a ton of grain for every
Ukrainian who starved to death;
<bullet> Among the children, one in three perished as a result of
rapid collectivization and the forced famine-genocide; and,
<bullet> The 1933 Famine-Genocide was geographically focused for
political ends as it stopped precisely at the Ukrainian-Russian
ethnographic border.
The economic, demographic and cultural results of the Famine-
Genocide are immeasurable. Ukrainian agriculture to this day has yet to
reclaim its reputation as ``the breadbasket of Europe'' after the
imposition of the grossly inefficient collective farm system (although
recently, the farming sector has seen some positive trends). Also,
together with the Great Terror of the 1930's, the Famine-Genocide
terrified the population and broke down the trust necessary to maintain
civil society. People were never allowed to mention the Famine-
Genocide, much less to mourn their dead. Even the word ``Famine-
Genocide'' [Holodomor--sic] was banned.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Yevhen Sverstiuk, ``Prayer and Memory . . . The Church and
Denying the Famine'', The Day, Kyiv, 3 April, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with the damage done to Ukrainian society and the economy,
the Famine-Genocide represented the final crackdown on a cultural
revitalization that had been going on in Ukraine during the 1920's.
After the purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the destruction of
the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, the Soviet authorities
turned their attention to the larger body of Ukrainian peasants where
the Ukrainian national idea remained strong. Given the background of
outright destruction of Ukrainian cultural institutions, the Famine-
Genocide can only be considered the culmination of the genocidal
policies of the USSR towards non-Russian nationalities.
WORLDWIDE RESPONSE TO THE FAMINE-GENOCIDE
Due to confluence of circumstances, the world did not make any
substantial efforts to assist or relieve the Ukrainian nation or
dispute the genocidal policies of the Soviets. Prominent journalists of
the time, such as ew York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, aided the
Soviets in concealing their crimes by proliferating their propaganda in
the West and slandering those who reported on the Famine-Genocide in
Ukraine. Mr. Duranty was even awarded the Pulitzer Prize for
`Excellence in Journalism' for his reports on the Soviet Union and its
``successful development,'' while in private admitting that up to 10
million people might have starved.
One of the heroes who attempted to inform the world of the
incredible belligerence to which the Ukrainians were subjected is
Gareth Jones, a Welsh journalist and diplomat, who made it his mission
to promote the truth about Soviet policies in Ukraine despite great
harm to his career and personal life. After his first article on
Ukraine's situation was published, New York Times' Walter Duranty
published a response denying Jones' analysis. Many others joined
Duranty in his attacks as evidenced by Eugene Lyons, a Moscow based
correspondent, who wrote in his 1937 book Assignment in Utopia:
``Throwing down Jones was as unpleasant a chore as fell to any of us in
years of juggling facts to please dictatorial regimes--but throw him
down we did, unanimously and in almost identical formulas of
equivocation. Poor Gareth Jones must have been the most surprised human
being alive when the facts he so painstakingly garnered from our mouths
were snowed under by our denials.''
Nevertheless, Mr. Jones refuted their allegations and published a
response in which he recounted his travels and observations:
. . . I stand by my statement that Soviet Russia [Ukraine--
sic] is suffering from a severe famine . . . My first evidence
was gathered from foreign observers. Since Mr. Duranty
introduces consuls into the discussion, a thing I am loath to
do, for they are official representatives of their countries
and should not be quoted, may I say that I discussed the
Russian situation with between twenty and thirty consuls and
diplomatic representatives of various nations and that their
evidence supported my point of view. But they are not allowed
to express their views in the press, and therefore remain
silent.
Journalists, on the other hand, are allowed to write, but the
censorship has turned them into masters of euphemism and
understatement. Hence they give ``famine'' the polite name of
`food shortage'' and ``starving to death'' is softened down to
read as ``widespread mortality from diseases due to
malnutrition.'' Consuls are not so reticent in private
conversation.
May I in conclusion congratulate the Soviet Foreign Office on
its skill in concealing the true situation in the U.S.S.R.?
Moscow is not Russia, and the sight of well-fed people there
tends to hide the real Russia.
Unfortunately, Mr. Jones was nearly alone in this overwhelming
struggle against Soviet propaganda.
IMPORTANCE OF CONSTRUCTING A MONUMENT IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
The Ukrainian American community is proud and fortunate to live in
one of the world's most developed democracies. Because of the freedoms
guaranteed by the United States, the Ukrainian community has had the
opportunity to voice our opinions, as well as those of the 50 million
Ukrainians who were trapped behind the Iron Curtain for over 70 years
of Soviet oppression.
In 1988, the U.S. Congress Commission on the Ukraine Famine, having
conducted an extensive study of this episode in Ukraine's history,
concluded: ``One or more actions specified in the [United Nations]
Genocide Convention was taken against the Ukrainians in order to
destroy a substantial part of the Ukrainian people and thus to
neutralize them politically in the Soviet Union.'' Furthermore, in its
``Investigation of the Ukraine Famine of 1932-1933,'' the Commission
concluded that ``Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide
against Ukrainians in 1932-1933.'' Standing in Washington, D.C., a
symbol of democracy and liberty, a monument dedicated to the 7-10
million victims of the 1932-1933 Ukrainian Famine-Genocide will serve
as a reminder to all who have, or continue to, suffer under oppressive
regimes. It is crucial that such chapters of world history be
understood and remembered.
In the broader context of memorializing the victims of the
Ukrainian Famine-Genocide of 1932-1933, this monument would enhance the
scope and message of a true victim of communism. Their ultimate
sacrifice was as a result of an inhumane ideology--food as a weapon.
Their sacrifice was unlike any other under communism, which resulted in
an act of genocide perpetrated against the Ukrainian nation. Though
other atrocities have afflicted many nations of the world, the sheer
magnitude and gravity of the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide remains little
known to the world.
Without American taxpayer's funds, this monument would serve not
only as a memorial to those who perished but also as a tool to help
educate the global community of such heinous crimes. Support for this
bill has also been expressed in the U.S. House of Representatives,
which unanimously voted on H.R. 562 in November 2005.
The United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy. It is our
task to keep the beacon of hope, freedom, and liberty alive for all to
admire. In this context, in a statement on the occasion of the 69th
anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide in 2002, President George
W. Bush wrote: ``Now better than ever, we recognize the Ukrainian
people's heroic struggle nearly 70 years ago, in which millions died
because they resisted Stalin's brutal regime. We honor their memory and
pledge to never forget their suffering. As we remember their struggle,
we also condemn all authoritarian governments who have terrorized their
people in the past and continue to do so, thus continuing the fight for
freedom and safety of all people.''
The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America requests the support of
the Natural Parks Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Resources
Committee to look favorably upon passage of H.R. 562.