Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
PROPOSALS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH MUSEUM
Wednesday, July 21, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Economic Develoment, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Bob Franks (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. FRANKS. The Subcommittee will please come to order.
We expect a number of our colleague members. I see one entering right now. We expect others during the course of the next few minutes. I know Ms. Norton, who has an intense interest in this subject matter, has an unavoidable conflict, but she expects to be here as soon as possible.
I wish to welcome the members of this Subcommittee to the hearing this morning on National Health Museum Proposals. I am pleased to welcome a whole host of exceptional witnesses today. Dr. C. Everett Koop is with us. I would like to commend him on his fine efforts in organizing the National Health Museum.
Also with us today is my colleague from Union City, New Jersey, Congressman Bob Menendez. We will also be joined by the Honorable Bret Schundler, the Mayor of Jersey City, along with Finn Caspersen, who is Chairman of Governor Whitman's Advisory Committee on the Use and Preservation of Ellis Island.
GSA will be represented by Tony Costa, Assistant Regional Administrator For Public Buildings, National Capital Region, who will be making his first appearance before this Subcommittee. Two years ago, the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Conference Report included language that called for a National Health Museum to be located on or near the Mall on Federal or District of Columbia land.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The language amended an earlier National Defense Authorization Act, which called for the relocation of the Army Medical Museum back to the Mall. This Subcommittee has taken an active role in reviewing and authorizing various museums.
Over the past several years, the Subcommittee has held hearings on and authorized the establishment of the National Building Museum, American-Indian Museum, and the Smithsonian Air and Space Annex.
Currently pending before this Subcommittee is a bill introduced by my colleague, Mr. Lewis, and co-sponsored by over 40 members for a National African-American Museum. All of this legislative history underscores the point that, that there is a legislative process. I, as Chairman, am committed to honoring that process.
A public hearing provides an opportunity for all interested parties to comment on all important related matters. We, in turn, can properly incorporate comments into legislation that goes through this Committee, and eventually on to the House Floor.
The idea for a National Health Museum included in the 1998 Labor, HHS Conference Report, is moving from conceptual stages to hopefully bricks and mortar in the near future, thanks to Dr. Koop's strong leadership. However, also included in that report language was direction to form a National Health Museum Commission to study what the Federal Government's appropriate role should be in the National Health Museum.
I, unfortunately, note that the Commission was never created and that no report, although required, was ever submitted. Today, I am confident that the witnesses will be able to clearly spell out what they envision as the appropriate role for the Government in this museum.
As we explore the development of a National Health Museum, I want to be open to the idea of utilizing alternative facilities, including Ellis Island, in this effort. As Mayor Schundler and Mr. Caspersen will share with us today, Ellis Island contains the opportunity to explore medical history dating back to the 1890s.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am quite interested in hearing what they have to say. I would first like to ask if members of the Committee have any opening remarks?
[No response.]
Mr. FRANKS. Hearing none, I would like to now turn to our colleague from New Jersey, the gentleman, Mr. Menendez.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW JERSEY
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the distinguished members of the Committee. Let me first ask you, Mr. Chairman, if I may submit a revised version of my testimony and an article entitled, Doctors at the Gate, by Dr. Don Pariscondola, the Public Health Service Historian, for the record.
Mr. FRANKS. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you very much. As a member of the Full Committee, I want to thank you and the ranking member and our staff or advising me of the hearing and letting me know about this issue, as you hold hearings on where in fact the National Health Museum is to be sited.
I come before you today as the Member of Congress who represents the New Jersey of Ellis Island. We have been dealing with Ellis Island for many years, going back to when my predecessor, Frank Guarini, litigated and said that in fact a significant part of Ellis Island was in the jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey.
Many thought that was a frivolous suit at the time. Ultimately, it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that our claims were fitting and appropriate, and in fact that they were right. So, as a result of that, the overwhelming part of Ellis Island is presently in the jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey, although ultimately, of course, all that happens at Ellis Island is a Federal issue.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, having moved beyond the jurisdictional bickering between the States of New Jersey and New York, which left us in paralysis about the future of Ellis Island, we can now move beyond those issues, and design an initiative to save and rehabilitate Ellis Island so future generations will know its significance.
I applaud the Local Governments, Mayor Schundler of Jersey City, and certainly the Governor of the State of New Jersey for the attention that they have since given to Ellis Island. Yet it is the Federal Government that ultimately must decide about all of the future uses of Ellis Island.
The main thrust of what I would like to say today, as you consider the National Health Museum's siting, clearly as we all know Ellis Island might very well be an appropriate place for that siting. It was the principle Federal immigration station of the United States from 1892 to 1954.
More than 12 million immigrants were processed there. The region is rich in its history this Century. It is estimated that over 40 percent of all American citizens can trace their ancestry to those who came through Ellis Island.
It is also where the Public Health Service was established to examine arriving immigrants. Now unfortunately, Ellis Island is a deteriorating National treasure. The South Side of the Island, the side over which New Jersey has sovereignty, as the result of the 1998 Supreme Court ruling, contains many decaying buildings.
These buildings comprise, in their majority, a hospital complex for the millions of immigrants who came to Ellis Island. After 45 years of abandonment, and I visited the site myself on more than one occasion, many buildings have reached an accelerating state of deterioration and will likely crumble in the next 5 to 10 years.
That is why I am a strong supporter of a public-private partnership to rehabilitate Ellis Island's South Side. As you consider, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, the siting of the National Health Museum, I am not only here to urge this Subcommittee to consider, as a possibility, siting the National Health Museum at Ellis Island, but also to ask this Subcommittee to look at other possibilities, and to look at what the National Park Service will be doing in terms of its market and feasibility study for the South Side of Ellis Island, which is scheduled to be completed later this year.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Clearly, there are linkages that this Subcommittee can consider of the historical links of public health to Ellis Island and New Jersey. And as I said, the Public Health Service started on Ellis Island. It was the entity charged with conducting the medical inspection of arriving immigrants.
It is there that many of the first public health treatments were issued in many regards. The fact of the matter is that this option provides a possibility, siting it on Ellis Island, with an opportunity for the public to gain a knowledge of the history of health in this Country, outside the Washington area, an area that already houses the National Institutes of Health, and its National Library of Medicine, which is capable of hosting health exhibitions.
Establishing the museum at Ellis Island means reaching a wider audience who will benefit from the exposure. It also means a public-private partnership.
I know that Dr. Koop has done a tremendous job in raising resources towards establishing a National Health Museum in Washington. But when I look at the rest of the resources that might have to be raised for the museum in Washington I compare it to the reality of what has to be raised for Ellis Island, in terms of preserving a National treasure and a monument to our history, in New Jersey we would have access to the resources of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, which are based in New Jersey.
That creates a true public-private partnership that benefits Ellis Island, and I think would also benefit the National Health Museum. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for my entire statement to be included in the record so I can save some of the Committee's time.
Let me just make two last points. As the Committee considers the siting of the Health Museum, and as it moves beyond in its charge over public buildings and lands, let me just say that one of the things we have to make sure at Ellis Island is that in fact we have accessibility to it by all of our citizens.
In 1992, the Congress appropriated funds to build a permanent foot bridge to Ellis Island from Jersey City, which is approximately 1,300 feet away from the Island. The fact of the matter is we do not believe that a National monument with the type of heritage and history that Ellis Island holds--both in terms of its health history and its immigrant history, which is so hotly debated these days in Congress, and that Ellis Island could maybe shed some light on that immigrant history in terms of our debates here in the Congress and for the Nation to consider--shouldn't be held hostage to a monopoly.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Right now, the only way to get to Ellis Island is through a ride on a ferry. Some suggest that, that is the immigrant experience. I think if they want the immigrant experience, they would have to go across the ocean, be thrown into steerage, and ultimately travel a month or more to understand what that full experience was about. We need to make sure that families, many in my District, and I know in yours, and others throughout the Nation can go to a National monument, like Ellis Island, and not be held hostage to a monopoly that costs families $20 or $24 simply to try to get there to be able to see what is available.
The very last point I would like to make is we need to make sure that we create an opportunity for Ellis Island's history to be preserved. We are in danger of not having that history be preserved, not providing that legacy for the next generation, and not providing an opportunity to ensure what it meant to so many Americans and their families, to those with their names along the wall. We need to recognize that rich immigrant experience, and to recognize the health challenges that the United States was faced with. Public Health met first and foremost at Ellis Island and we cannot lose that knowledge for a future generation.
That is our great challenge. It is also a tremendous opportunity to preserve, for the next generation, that type of history. I know that I look forward to the Committee's leadership in looking at some of those issues and working with me in the days ahead to make sure that history is preserved.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Cooksey, any questions?
Mr. COOKSEY. No questions.
Mr. FRANKS. Congressman, we will make sure that your entire statement is made a part of the record for this hearing. We look forward to working with you as the Committee progresses with its charge.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. It is now my pleasure to ask to come forward the distinguished gentleman from Long Beach, California, Dr. Steve Horn.
Steve, welcome. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STEPHEN HORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. HORN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure to be involved with something that the gentleman from New Jersey is involved in. So, thank you for permitting us to be here.
I give strong support to the idea of a Health Museum near the Mall or in that area. I think that has to be worked out in cooperation with the Smithsonian and the Fine Arts Commission. I think if we look at both the history of health in the World, as well as America, and as well as the great things in genetics that are changing the way we live, it would be very important to ensure that the National Health Museum has a very broad-based Advisory Board of individuals throughout the health professions.
You and I know that this is one of the largest industries, if you will, in the United States. It is also one of the largest Governmental Programs in the United States. Health affects every one of us. When you look at surveys, that is what concerns the American people.
We have millions, as you know, who do not have the opportunities that a lot of us do have to have a decent health care package. The investments this Congress has made in NIH over the last few years is designed so that people can live a better life and not have the terrible diseases that we already have. Hopefully, one of these days, by genetic changes we can assure a difference in Alzheimer's that is occupying so many beds, and meaning misery for so many families; the effects of diabetes, heart, all of the rest of it. Cancer, heaven knows, is one of the greatest plagues that faces this Country, not to forget and mention AIDS.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, the Congress has sort of stepped up to the plate on this. I think we need an awareness area. This would be a good one. The use of computers, Web sites, would bring everybody into the living room. There needs to be a focal point, a center point. I am not suggesting any particular slot in the Washington area.
I think it would be nice if most of the great national museums were in one area; not necessarily on the Mall. I think the Smithsonian expansion might preclude that. It certainly could be near the Mall, so people would know if they want education in the very best ways of museum arts of display through computers.
If you look at the Navy Memorial, which I think is one of the most fascinating of the museums in terms of using modern technology. I will never forget the display they had in the Ripely Pavilion on the Rain Forests of the World, where you had interactive video where you saw, after going through the exhibit, what the plantation owner did, what the Government officials did, what the Navy did, and so forth.
Then how do you bring all of those people together to solve the problem of cutting the forests for need of the particular individuals, therefore, affecting the whole earth for the rest of us? So, I think it could be a very exciting museum. I would hope that we would be able to give it our full support.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Horn, thank you very much for coming forward. Let me ask one clarification question. I think you alluded to it, at least by implication, but I just want to be clear for the record.
The relationship of the National Health Museum to the Smithsonian, in your judgment, ought be what kind of relationship?
Mr. HORN. Well, you have got two choices If it is a non-profit museum, it should not be a museum that is ideological, one way or the other, if there are issues of ideology to be had here in health. We should, obviously contact what are the long-range plans of the Smithsonian here to see if they are doing something in the area or whatever.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
They have, as you know, their own endowment funding, although the Government provides a fairly good budget to help them. They are open every day, but one of the year and, without question, one of the great experiences people when they come to Washington, D.C.
So, I think a little cooperation needs to be worked out and a little working together to get the right people in the room. Now, I do not believe they have filled the Secretary's position yet, at the Smithsonian. Dr. Hayman is retiring, as I retiring, as I recall. There is a very strong Board there headed by the Chief Justice of the United States. It would be good to at least sit down and, I think, talk to those individuals and see what their plans are. It is an ideal area; the space from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial. I do have a statement, which if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put it in the record.
Mr. FRANKS. Without objection.
Mr. HORN. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. COOKSEY. Just very briefly.
Mr. HORN. Let me just say, there are too many doctors in this room already. I am not a doctor who can do you any good. As my daughter said when she was 2, and they asked her what does her daddy do? She put her hands on her hips, and she said he is a pitiful scientist. So much for political science.
Mr. COOKSEY. You are from California. You have a Congressional District from California. You should not have any parochial interest in this issue as to whether it should be in New Jersey or the District of Columbia.
If you were to summarize it then, what do you think are the pros and cons? I know you have gone over this in your Statement.
Mr. HORN. I was one of the first, back in 1964, to go visit the Secretary of the Smithsonian and say, Mr. Secretary, you have only 2 percent of your stored items on display. What about moving 98 percent of that around America and have a Smithsonian east, west, north, south? That was before the easy times of deregulation, and the airline jets had not really come on stream. His answer was no.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When I did that 2 years ago and went down there to see Dr. Heyman, he said, you know, I have just been thinking of exactly that. He was familiar, as Chancellor, when I was President of a university, he was familiar with the Oakland Museum, a very fine western museum. They have loads of western paintings in the Smithsonian. They cannot display them all.
As he has said, he has two warehouse of ship models from the 19th Century and so forth. So he checked with his curators when he came back from a month's vacation. Every one of them agreed with that idea. Long Beach has been one of the first Cities.
The University Art Museum at California State University at Long Beach, where I was President, is one of the first museums to get objects on loan from the Smithsonian. You have to take and pay for the security, pay for obviously for the proper setting in which those things should be displayed.
They can call it back any time, if there is a National exhibit or a World exhibit they want to participate in. So, I am a very strong backer of the Smithsonian. That does not mean we cannot do various things around the Country. I think if health is such a major issue and a major effect on all our lives, I think Washington, D.C. is the appropriate place to put it. If you are not going to put it here, then why do you not put it in Long Beach, California, if we can get Mr. Franks out of the room.
If New Jersey wants it, you can do it. This is the kind of thing where one museum alone would not reach all of this. Down the line, you could have different approaches to it. In the age of high technology, satellites, computers, Web sites, and all of the rest, everybody can be connected.
Mr. COOKSEY. That is a good response. For those in the audience who are not aware of it, you have a major role in making sure that the Government is Y2K compliant.
Mr. HORN. Hopefully. You will know at midnight on January 1st.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. COOKSEY. I share your comments. I agree with your comments really. We should place these in multiple sites. They should be available to people, even on the west coast, even in the great Nation of California which sometimes marches to its own drum beat.
Mr. HORN. We will expect an exhibit on vegetarianism, if you are going to fly it to the west coast.
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Dr. Horn.
Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Horn, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
Mr. FRANKS. We appreciate your time.
Our next witness will be Dr. C. Everett Koop, the Chairman of the National Health Museum, who will be accompanied today by Jennifer Dorn, President of the Museum; and Charlene Drew Jarvis, a member of the D.C. Council, and Secretary of the National Health Museum. Will that panel please come forward.
[Pause.]
Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Koop, welcome. We are delighted to have you. I am pleased that we could get this hearing underway as quickly as we have since our meeting of a couple weeks ago. I am delighted to see you this morning.
TESTIMONY OF DR. C. EVERETT KOOP, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, THE NATIONAL HEALTH MUSEUM
Dr. KOOP. Good morning to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I, too, have a longer version of my remarks, which I would like to put in the record, if you will.
Mr. FRANKS. Without objection.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. KOOP. I come before you today in my role as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Health Museum Incorporated. The National Health Museum is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, incorporated in the District of Columbia, and governed by an independent Board of Trustees whose members are serving without compensation.
I would like to take just a few minutes to take you back a few years to the mid-1980s. I can remember, as Surgeon General, with an office overlooking the Mall, seeing thousands of school children inspired to become astronauts, artists, historians, leaders of all sorts, learning and experiencing the lessons of history, of physics, of astronomy, of art, and design, but nowhere on the National Mall was there a place for them to learn about health, to learn about how their bodies worked, to comprehend the importance of nutrition and fitness to their health, to understand the dangers of smoking, alcohol, and drugs, or to be inspired to enter a health profession, either as a practitioner or a teacher. In the past in museums, people have been content to stroll through displays and read descriptions of well-protected objects in glass cases; curio shops. Today, people need and expect much more from a museum experience. They expect a hands-on, interactive encounter with objects and exhibits. They expect personal relevance. They expect to learn something new.
They expect, in a word, to have fun. It is a happy coincidence that these expectations, when fulfilled, lead to positive changes in behavior which improve one's lifestyle in reference to health.
Our credo is this. That the National Health Museum will educate, and engage, and inspire people to understand the past, present, and future of health and health science, and empower them to act upon that information to enhance their individual, family and community health.
In November 1997, as you already alluded to, the Congress passed, and the President signed legislation which directed ''The National Health Museum shall be located on or near the Mall on land owned by the Federal Government and/or the District of Columbia.''
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We come before you today in support of legislation that would direct that the property at Second and C Streets, S.W., soon to be vacated by the FDA, be designated for sale to the National Health Museum. This site, originally brought to our attention by the General Services Administration, has proven the best-suited for the museum, among the more than 30 other properties evaluated, at great length, by the Museum and this development team.
Among the reasons this site was preferable over others were:
Availability. The FDA site is scheduled to be vacated in a time frame that will accommodate our fund raising, design, and construction schedule. Further, GSA has indicated to the Museum that it is willing to sell the site to the museum.
Access. The FDA site is located directly across the street from a Metro Station, and within blocks of other attractions on the Mall, including the Air and Space Museum, the U.S. Capitol, and the soon-to-be-built National Museum of the American Indian.
Size. The FDA site will accommodate all of our programs.
Building Requirements. Fortunately, the FDA site has no historic facade requirements that would limit our ability to project a healthy, 21st Century image to visitors.
Location. As far as location is concerned, the FDA site fits within the parameters established under Public Law 105-78 as being on or near the National Mall.
Like other important museums in the Nation's Capitol, the National Health Museum will provide important and compelling public benefits. Through science-based health information, people will be motivated to take greater responsibility for improving their health.
It will transmit new health findings to the public in a relevant, accurate, and unbiased manner. It will provide health and biology education resources to any teachers who wish them. It will significantly enhance the economic base of the District of Columbia and surrounding region, providing jobs, new spending, and tax revenue.
It will help fulfill, the National Capital Planning Commission's vision for extending the monumental core, utilizing sites adjacent to the Mall for new museums and memorials. A state-of-the-art conference center will serve those in government, science, and health. And a Web site, already funded, will provide a virtual museum to those who cannot travel to the nation's capital.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In sum, Mr. Chairman, I would ask this Subcommittee to give the National Health Museum the opportunity to create a vibrant new landmark in the nation's capital--a place where every visitor will have the experience of a lifetime, and a lifetime of good health.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Koop, thank you for your testimony. Ms. Dorn.
TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER L. DORN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HEALTH MUSEUM
Ms. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask that my statement in full be submitted for the record. Many thanks for your prompt convening of this hearing. It is an important matter to us, and a time-sensitive one, as we have discussed.
I believe our statement laid out what we believe to be a very important concept, the National Health Museum, and illustrated that we have a strong program. We have a sound business approach to accomplishing that program. We have a world class team to execute it.
We sincerely hope that in the wisdom of this Committee and with its leadership, that the Second and C site that Dr. Koop mentioned will in fact be designated for this important public purpose. We believe it would give a real boost to the private sector interest, which has already made clear its commitment to this effort.
I would like to make a couple of brief points, if I may. First of all, recent research demonstrates that museums are now one of the two most attractive tourist destinations in the U.S. today. We know that 20 million visitors are drawn to the District every year, and that number is growing. The nation's capital can easily support, and as Dr. Jarvis will mention, in fact welcomes a new state-of-the-art, interactive educational musuem on health.
I would like to emphasize something that Dr. Koop mentioned. We are not talking about giving sleepy tours through a ''do not touch'' museum. In the arena of health, that will not help kids learn how to eat right, how to stay fit, how to avoid risky behaviors or learn the science behind health. Our exhibits will put kids and families, and all of us, at the center of a hands-on exploration of health that leads to better understanding and good attitudes, and, as Dr. Koop has said, a lifetime of smart, healthy choices.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would like to emphasize here that the National Health Museum will not become a policy advocate or ethical arbiter. We recognize that some areas of health are controversial and matters of public debate. However, we think there are many, many issues that are not matters of public debate.
Our aim is to provide accurate, science-based information in a family-friendly environment so that people can understand what science knows about health, and be equipped to apply that knowledge to their daily lives.
Obviously, health is a topic that has captured the intense interest of all of America, whether it is around their dining table or in their doctor's office. It is one of the most often pursued subjects on the World Wide Web. You cannot pick up a periodical or a newspaper without seeing numerous articles on the latest science and what people need to know to take charge of their health.
It is interesting also to note that there are only 295 science museums in the U.S. There are thousands, and thousands of other types of museums. Fewer than one-fifth of those approximatly 300 science museums have exhibits devoted to health. Of the seven ''health only'' museums, only one is larger than 75,000 square feet. The National Health Museum will be entirely new in its scope, in its breadth, and its synergies amongst components. It deserves a place in the nation's capital.
There has been much discussion about the public benefit of the National Health Museum. As I think has been mentioned by several others, the Federal Government has a substantial and compelling interest in improving the nation's health. Preventable injuries cost Americans $150 billion a year; heart disease and stroke, $135 billion; annual health care and related costs attributable to alcohol abuse and illicit drugs, over $105 billion a year.
The National Health Museum will indeed be a priceless asset in its fight to reduce both personal and the financial cost of preventable injury and disease in America. In coming to this Subcommittee today, I think it is vitally important to be clear: We are not the National Health Museum seeking a Government subsidy. We recognize that the days of old where the Government supports museum after museum after museum is no longer viable. We at the National Health Museum are willing to pay a fair price for this site that will become available in the next 18 months or so.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, admittedly, a big for-profit corporation might be willing to pay more to build a high-density, high-rent office building on that site, if there was commercial development interest. There appears not to be, at this point, any activity in that arena that would perhaps generate more revenue. But I would be surprised if Congress would consider that as an appropriate use for a site that is just 200 yards from the Capitol and right behind the HHS building.
I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that the analysis provided by the General Services Administration suggests that the if the Government were to spend the necessary $67 million to renovate this site and use it for Government office, it could save, as is my understanding, over 30 years some $81 million, compared to having to lease another site for Government office use. It is my understanding, however that this figure does not take into account actually getting paid for the site by the National Health Museum. That would indeed more than offset this cost to the Government. Even if Congress were to decide to give us this site, I would like to make the point that the $81 million, as a 30-year figure, means that each year the Government would theoretically have to pay, on a present value basis, $2.7 million more annually to lease the required space. With some 2 million visitors that we project to visit the National Health Museum, that is again a theoretical cost of less than $1.25 per visitor. If each visitor is motivated to exercise more, or to eat a balanced diet, or to better understand the role that immunization plays in preventing disease, or is inspired to participate in his own health decisions because of what he or she saw in the museum, that visit could be worth 10 to 100 times more to the nation in the reduced cost of preventable injury and disease.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that not only do we have widespread local community support, but both the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts have indicated in communications and letters that they are extremely excited about this project in the nation's capital and the site that we have in mind.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
They are very enthusiastic, as well, about our preliminary designs, which we brought for the Committee and other staff to view. We are very proud that in a Nationwide competition, world renowned architect, Moshe Safdie was selected as our architect. He has designed cultural institutions from Los Angeles, to Kansas City, to Montreal, to Jerusalem.
As you can see from several of the examples, and I stress that these are preliminary designs, he has effectively utilized the direct visual access to the Capitol that this site would permit. A glazed central space opens light to all four levels of the building.
Mr. Safdie has a reputation for exciting, effective collaboration between architects and exhibit designers. We see great potential for this museum. He speaks eloquently of his vision and his plans. With your permission, I would ask that his statement be included for the record.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, a tremendous amount has been accomplished towards the creation of the National Health Museum in the nation's capital. With the momentum that has been created, and the assistance of the Committee in designating the site at Second and C for purchase or lease by the Museum, we are confident that America will soon have the legacy of good health that it so richly deserves.
Thank you very much.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Dorn.
Dr. Jarvis, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLENE DREW JARVIS, D.C. COUNCIL MEMBER, AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, THE NATIONAL HEALTH MUSEUM
Ms. JARVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I am delighted to be here. Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, I am Charlene Drew Jarvis, member of the Board of Trustees of the National Health Museum, President of Southeastern University, and a member of the Council of the District of Columbia, representing Ward 4.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I also am the representative of the Chairman of the Council on the National Capitol Planning Commission. I am, by training, a neuro-psychologist with a 10-year history of research on the brain at the National Institute of Mental Health. One of the major focuses of this museum will be the brain.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of a legislatively-directed sale of the property at Second and C Streets, S.W., to the National Health Museum. It is rare and particularly satisfying when I can combine my interest in health, my passion for education, and my commitment to the well-being of the District of Columbia in a single project.
It was particularly gratifying that the citizens of the Advisory Neighborhood Commission, ANC 2D2, and my colleagues on the Council of the District of Columbia formally voted to endorse locating the National Health Museum at Second and C Streets, S.W.
I am equally pleased that the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Anthony Williams, has endorsed the sale of this property to the National Health Museum. I would like to mention, and it is not in my testimony, so I would like to amend the testimony, Mr. Chairman, and make sure that you get it.
The Army Medical Museum is located at Walter Reed in my Ward; Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. It has been there since 1972. Before that, this museum was on the Mall. In 1888, it was on the Mall and it remained on the Mall until 1968. We want to move a National Health Museum back to the Mall because the million or so visitors that came to the Army Medical Museum on the Mall were lost when it was moved to a site at Walter Reed, which was further north.
We would therefore like to not only recover those million visitors, because that was some years ago. We would like to capture some of the 22 million visitors who come to the District of Columbia, and who go to the Mall for various educational and historic opportunities.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, we almost regard this as a relocation to the Mall. The endorsements of which I spoke by the elected representatives of the citizens of the District of Columbia reflect their strong belief that the National Health Museum will have a profound and positive impact on the health and well-being of the people of the District of Columbia, the vitality of the neighborhood, and the economic base of the District of Columbia and surrounding regions.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have in the District of Columbia the citrus fruit of Florida, or the coal of some of the mid- Eastern States. What we have as an economic base in the District of Columbia is hospitality and tourism. That is our private sector industry.
As the Congress is aware, the District faces enormous health and economic challenges. A recent study conducted by the non-profit organization, Drug Strategies, found that there are a series of health issues that I laid out in my testimony, which I will present for the record. Suffice it say that we have enormous health challenges in the District.
Creating the National Health Museum will ensure that the District residents, and those from the surrounding region, can take full advantage of the many programs and the educational opportunities that will be offered. In addition, the Museum has already made a very, very special commitment to the youth of the District of Columbia, to work with the District's school system to improve health education, and help them lead healthier and more productive lives.
I am particularly pleased the Museum intends to create a dedicated learning center, specifically for District of Columbia students, and is working with the School of Public Health at George Washington University, as well as the Office of the Superintendent of Schools to meet the special needs of our students.
As Chair on the Council's Committee on Economic Development, I am enthusiastic about the significant positive impact that the National Health Museum will have on the economic recovery of the District of Columbia. As many of your colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and yourself know, the District of Columbia's fiscal health depends on our ability to continue to build the private sector base in the District.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With the down-sizing of the Federal government, with the down-sizing of the local government, the economic recovery of the District of Columbia is only assured if we continue to expand the service base of our economy, and that is the hospitality industry.
New spending associated with construction and operation of the Museum is expected to create over 1,000 permanent jobs in Washington, D.C. Our new spending is expected to exceed $50 million annually, and in the region, $80 million annually. Mr. Chairman, that is an important figure because for every dollar of growth in the District of Columbia, there is additional growth for surrounding jurisdictions.
As President of an important university located in the Southwest quadrant of Washington, D.C., Southeastern University, I wholeheartedly support locating the Museum at Second and C Streets, S.W. The National Health Museum will accelerate the transformation of the Southwest quadrant and the South Capital Street corridor, into the vibrant, liveable community envisioned by the National Capitol Planning Commission in its Monumental Core Plan, which was referenced by Dr. Koop.
Mr. Chairman, this Subcommittee and this Congress have an extraordinary opportunity to improve both the health and economic well-being of the citizens of the District of Columbia at little or no cost to the Federal Government, since, as Ms. Dorn has said, this is a market-based approach that is being used by the National Health Museum.
I urge you, therefore, to expeditiously direct the General Services Administration to make this property available for what is an extraordinary opportunity to relocate a health museum on or near the Mall, in the vital center of the District of Columbia and the nation's Capitol in Washington, D.C. Thank you.
Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Jarvis, thank you for your testimony. I applaud you for helping to advance the economic and cultural vitality of the Nation's Capitol. We appreciate your good work.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. Koop, if I can, I think it is an important function of this hearing to lay out the history of this effort, so that we can put it on the record and have folks be able to understand how we have gotten to this point. I hope between my opening statement, yours, and Ms. Dorn's we have amplified on that issue. I want to pursue it for just a moment.
On that basis, there was an interesting column this morning in the Washington Post. I am going to ask unanimous consent to include it in today's record.
[The Washington Post article referred to follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. FRANKS. Let me just read a few excerpts from this little column. It is not relevant to the instant case because it is Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt commenting on a litigation which he is involved concerning American Indian Tribes. The relevant portion is as follows:
''This matter indicates it is more complicated, because one of the hardest things to define is the intent of Congress,'' Babbitt said, ''because most of the time on a lot of legislative things, there is in fact no intent of Congress, in the sense of passing legislation, because legislation is often,'' I am quoting here. This is Bruce Babbitt, ''is put together usually in a kind of House/Senate kind of thing where it is the munchkins who actually draft the legislation at midnight in a Conference Committee, and it goes out from there.''
The history of the legislative provision that you and I both spoke to, be clear on this, was not in the House version of the legislation. It was not in the Senate-passed version of the legislation at the outset. Is that correct?
Dr. KOOP. I think that is correct.
Mr. FRANKS. So, this is a provision that was added once the House version had passed, and the Senate version had passed, and was added through the vehicle of the Conference Committee, which makes it applicable, which makes it statutory law as the other features are. I am not questioning its standing.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. KOOP. I understand.
Mr. FRANKS. I do think it is important that we understand this was not in either House version. It was added in a Conference Committee. There were other elements of the provisions that were added by the Conference Committee, including a requirement that a commission be formed to determine the most appropriate role of the Federal Government in actually supporting this very important facility.
That commission was never actually convened. Can you give us, from your perspective, what happened to that feature of the mandate added in the Conference Committee?
Dr. KOOP. I am going to go back just a little bit further to clarify the history.
Mr. FRANKS. Please do.
Dr. KOOP. At the end of the Civil War, there was a very prominent gentleman who had been the Surgeon General of the Army. He had a small collection of microscopes, which he brought down to the Mall and put in a red brick building. He called it the Army Medical Museum.
He had a small collection of books, which he put in Ford's Theater. Well, Ford's Theater became the National Library of Medicine. The little collection of microscopes became the most popular visitor site on the Mall, and that was the old red brick building. It was such an important and famous place that a lot of members of Congress today remember being brought there as children, and seeing some horrific specimens that made them shudder.
So, we have had to disenchant them of the idea that that is what we plan to do with the National Health Museum today. Then because of the importance of the Surgeon General's Museum here for the Army, Congress said it was such a valuable addition to Washington, that it was designated a national historic landmark.
Then Ladybird Johnson met Mrs. Hirshhorn. Mrs. Hirshhorn had a huge collection of art, which her husband had paid for, but for which he did not share the same artistic concerns. Ladybird Johnson managed to get Congress to say that the national historic landmark designation Trust had nothing to do with a building. Rather, it pertatined to what was in it. So, the old red brick building was demolished, with kind of a promise that these artifacts would be taken care of after a new museum was built.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Just as a matter of history, and it is hard to prove this, but I can attest to it, Mr. Hirshhorn's real enthusiasm was to build on the Mall a building. And, he got his building.
Ladybird Johnson and Mrs. Hirshhorn got their art, and that left a little bit of a sour taste in the mouths of those in public health who were concerned about the future. You have accurately talked about everything else down to the Commission. One of the reasons why we added the Commission to our request to Congress was that we felt that the Congress and the Nation better understood the role of the Holocaust Memorial Museum after their Commission had very aptly looked at it for a long time and decided that this was something that Americans should not forget.
The way the Commission was designed by Congress was that eight appointments would be made: two by the President, two by the Majority Leader of the Senate, and two by his minority counterpart, two by the Speaker of the House, and two by his minority counterpart. We were never able to get the Congressional leadership, on the majority side to make their appointments.
The House lagged behind because they wanted the Senate to go first. The White House declined to publicly announce their appointments until Congress made theirs. So, it languished. We did not know what to do. We were able to meet with the staff of certain of those gentlemen, but we were not able to get appointments with perhaps two of the most important people, Mr. Lott and Mr. Gingrich, about this issue.
So, when Donna Shalala, the Secretary of HHS, asked us what had happened to the Commission, we said we think it is no longer a viable Commission. It then centered on the economics. Of the $500,000, we had spent according to the plan, $290,000, and the remainder was kept by HHS because the Commission was paid for out of their funds. So, that is the whole story, as I understand it.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. I thank you for that clarification. You mentioned in your written testimony that the Museum would pursue two types of future support from the Federal Government: program-specific grants and matching grants. Can you help us by illuminating us as to how you envision the use of those funds?
Dr. KOOP. As far as the Program grants are concerned, we would consider ourselves like any other citizen who had the opportunity to apply for grants that were made available by Congress for such purposes. So, that would make us equal among equals.
As far as the other grant is concerned, Senator Frist, working with Senator Kennedy and several others, has proposed to the Appropriations Commottee that it provide $2.7 million, one time, to be matched three for one, by the private sector. The reason why that amount of money was selected is that 2.7 times 4 is the amount of money it would take, from today, to get us to the point of breaking ground, doing all of the things that have to be done.
We have done a lot them. Many tough things have been done. We are already working with the Capital Planning Commission to give us its blessing, as well as the National Fine Arts Commission. All of those things usually take more time than you can imagine.
So, we now just have things like architectural plans, engineering plans, and so forth. That is the only type of money that we plan to ask for from the Federal Government.
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Dorn, if I may, relative to the Second and C Streets, S.W. location, I want to find out a little bit more about how we identified that site. I think I know, but I want you to be able to put it on the record. Let me ask, as you answer that question, do you believe at any time you have received indication from the Administration that you ought pursue this site, or that there would be a no-cost transfer through some action of the Federal Government? What has been stipulated by the Federal Government to you in your discussions with them, relative to this or indeed any site in the District of Columbia.
Ms. DORN. Mr. Chairman, we have pursued aggressively over 30 sites; some owned by the District, some owned by the private sector, and others owned by the Federal Government. In the conduct of our analysis of these sites, we approached owners and operators of all of these sites.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At several points we actually visited with those in the Public Buildings Commissioner's Office, and with the Commissioner himself. We indicated that our mutual goal here, among many other goals, is the continued revitalization of the District of Columbia, and utilizing the Mall for the highest public purpose.
In discussing that, several sites were identified by the Public Buildings Commissioner as possibly being available. We analyzed those sites as well and came to the conclusion that one of those, the FDA site, was the ideal site. In fact, it was the only site that seemed appropriate for both accommodating our program, at about 265,000 square feet, and also being available on a timely basis to allow us to open the doors by 2004.
We discussed the options for obtaining such sites. Everything from a lease to a sale was discussed. At no point were there any promises made. We openly discussed the options. I believe that there was strong support for aggressively pursuing this idea with the Congress about the FDA site.
Dr. KOOP. Mr. Chairman, can I add a little more about distant history?
Mr. FRANKS. Sure.
Dr. KOOP. I was asked to serve on a committee to investigate this problem while I was still Surgeon General. So, that preceded 1989. I think it is important that your Committee know the series of disappointments we went through to get to where we are today.
Our biggest supporters, in those early days, were Senator Hatfield, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Hatch. The way they said it to us was this way and I do not exaggerate. We will try to get you the land and then give you a grant every year for one-tenth of the cost of the building. It is sort of like lend-lease, and after 10 years, you will own the building.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, we began our early machinations to get this museum started, with the relative assurance, though not official to be sure, that we would not only get the land, but that we would also get the building paid for by the Federal Government. Economics have changed. We understand that. We are not asking to go back. I just wanted you to know that we started on a much different basis than we find ourselves on today.
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Dorn, two quick questions, if I may.
The revenue projections contained in your proposal call for, among other items, $7.7 million from retail sales at the museum. Is that correct?
Ms. DORN. Those are the preliminary estimates. That is correct. What the configuration will be will depend on the plans as we move forward and the site. We recognize and understand that we are a 501(c)3, subject to all restrictions. Any kind of revenues that are achieved through either the conference center or any other kinds of activities similar to what the Smithsonian or other museums do, would be used to offset the operational costs of the museum.
So, this private sector funded museum could be opened to the public, with no admissions fee, as other museums in Washington, D.C.
Mr. FRANKS. Could you compare the base, that number, that $7.7 million retail sales figure, to the equivalent sales at other elements, for example, the Smithsonian here in Washington? What are the retail sales, for example, at the Air and Space Museum? Can you give us one or two other examples.
Ms. DORN. I could not personally at this point. I would be happy to provide that for the record. I would note that we recognize that is a preliminary estimate. We also recognize the incredible interest on the part of the public for educational materials as they relate to health. That was indeed an estimate. I would be happy to provide that information for the record.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information referred to follows:]
[insert here]
Ms. DORN. Note that it is an estimate, particularly when we do not have a site, and we are not certain on those issues that would relate to size. For example, if we have a bookstore, how large the bookstore can be. These are preliminary estimates, but we believe that the experience of other museums provides ample evidence that this is a very important component of offsetting expenses.
Mr. FRANKS. I appreciate that this is merely a projection at this juncture. I would simply note that last year I had the opportunity to take my 2-year-old cousin to the Air and Space Museum. He liked a lot of what he saw at the retail shops. He went away with a boatload of stuff. I am told the annual retail sales from that element of the Smithsonian is about $4.5 million.
Ms. DORN. One piece that I do not believe the Air and Space Museum has is the Web site. We are establishing our Web site in the next few months. Because of the incredible partnership and gift, in fact, of an award-winning Web site sponsored by Genentech, we believe that the kind of visitorship that we would have on the Web would incredibly increase the numbers of visitors and sales.
You can be a virtual visitor to the National Health Museum, according to our plans. That was factored into the $7 million figure as well.
Mr. FRANKS. One last question. Is that architectural design of the facilities a site-specific design?
Ms. DORN. Yes, it is. Is it a detailed scenario specific to all of the requirements for the utilization of the site? No. It took into account the square footage and what we were trying to accomplish. This is mostly to give an idea of alternatives, but it is definitely site-specific.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Jarvis, one last question. You brought a very interesting point to light. The Army Medical Museum was located on the Mall until the late 1960s, did you say?
Ms. JARVIS. Until 1968, and then the Army Medical Museum was located at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, where I did my Ph.D. So, I used to go to that Museum there. It has been there since 1972.
Mr. FRANKS. You indicated that while it was on the Mall, it did a million visitors per year?
Ms. JARVIS. Yes, on the average.
Mr. Chairman, may I contribute something else, if I may.
Mr. FRANKS. Very quickly, if you can, Dr. Jarvis, because I have to move on. Thank you.
Ms. JARVIS. With respect to the site, that is the site of the former FDA building. I had indicated my concerns to my Congressmember who is here—thank you for having us— about moving FDA from that site into the surrounding jurisdiction. Thus, when the idea of the National Health Museum came forward, I called Bob Peck and indicated to him that while I had really strongly objected to the FDA moving out of the city into the region, because there is really a priority on having that site occupied.
I was strongly in favor, as a local elected official, of having the site designated for the National Health Museum. He said, can you verify that we have some support from the District of Columbia Government? I believe you, Ms. Jarvis, but can we have some support from the District of Columbia Government? We do, from the Mayor, and from the D.C. Council.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Dr. Jarvis.
I want to move to the next panel as quickly as I can, but I also want to give my colleagues an opportunity to ask some questions, if they would like. Dr. Cooksey.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. COOKSEY. I want to defer to my overall Committee Chairman, Mr. Shuster, if he has any questions.
Mr. SHUSTER. [Microphone not on]
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?
Mr. FRANKS. Yes, sir.
Mr. COOKSEY. Dr. Koop, do you think there are more monuments, historical sites built to politicians in this City or to people in the medical profession?
Dr. KOOP. Well, I think you have already supplied the answer to that.
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you. Number two, would your support for this National Health Museum be as great if it were located at Ellis Island as here?
Dr. KOOP. That takes a long discussion. I think Ellis Island is an extraordinarily interesting place. I am very interested in it because it is the Surgeons General who preceded me who made Ellis Island what it was. I think it deserves the historical designation that it has.
As I have already told Mr. Caspersen, I think there are many things that we can do together, emphasizing history at the Ellis Island site, and the here, and now, and the future of health in Washington, D.C.
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me offer my profound apologies to my Council Member from the District of Columbia, Ms. Jarvis, to Dr. Koop, and to Ms. Dorn. I had very much looked forward to this hearing because it involves a matter in which I have been deeply involved with these witnesses now for several years.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. Jarvis, of course, will understand that when Chairman sets a hearing, that is prerogative. I just have to go where there is a priority. Unfortunately, it was a press conference involving a GAO Report that I, myself, had commissioned. So, there was no way for me to excuse myself. At the same time, I felt it absolutely imperative to be here this morning. I was with Dr. Koop and Ms. Jarvis a number of years ago when we thought this Museum was on its way, and in fact by now, I suppose, it would have been built had that vision in fact remained.
I recall the circumstances of a ceremony under a large tent attended by—from all over the Country, and all over the City, inaugurating the return of a health museum to the Mall. There we were, literally in celebration. At that time, we were talking about a piece of land that was vacant, and that all were prepared to support.
As I understand it, that piece of land proved too small for the Mall and those hopes were dashed. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that Dr. Koop and his colleagues, instead of losing heart, have since that time redoubled their efforts to try to find a replacement on the Mall for this Museum.
I would be less than candid if I did not say that I have been in tandem with them. I, too, believe that it was appropriate to return that institution to the Mall, which had always been there and still do. I do not know if one recalls the interest of Ellis Island and the Mall; an abundance of britches or not.
I do want to indicate that the District of Columbia would hate to lose a museum that had always been located here. Of course, people come here expecting that institutions of National importance will be located here. I hope that we can continue to work with the Committee as the idea becomes attractive enough to be desired elsewhere as well.
I do want to put on the record that the District of Columbia has certainly lost no interest. I really do feel for this group though, Mr. Chairman, because they have worked mightily, gotten all kinds of financial and other support, worked to keep those who supported them from the beginning in place, and somehow kept the enthusiasm of all of those people up. Now, they are told that maybe it should be someplace else.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Well, I think it is up to them. They have done all of the grunt work. Nobody would have thought of a health museum without them. Without their leadership, this idea was dead and buried. So, what I want to say is I think that while any such institution will be located, based on a number of factors, I believe that your work has been so substantial, both in getting fund raisers in place, and in getting the building itself, and the ideas for what would go into a modern health museum to be realized.
Your work has been so substantial that I certainly believe that the Committee ought to listen very attentively to what you have to say and to try to reach some accommodation with you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. KOOP. Mr. Chairman, could I add one thing that I think will come up in your own deliberations that you ought to know? The Smithsonian was mentioned here. You ought to know how the Smithsonian feels about this. On three separate occasions I lead a delegation from our Museum to the Smithsonian, because whenever anybody says ''museum,''everyone thinks ''Smithsonian'' in this town, which is natural.
Their position has always been this, reiterated most recently by Secretary Heyman. We wish you well. We hope everything goes as well as it can. We would love to see a museum here, but health is not an issue the Smithsonian is prepared to address. So, we have been working in tandem and not in opposition to each other.
Mr. FRANKS. I want to thank the members of the panel for their testimony today. We thank you very much.
Next, I would like to call on Anthony Costa, the Assistant Regional Administrator For Public Buildings, National Capital Region, for the General Services Administration.
[Pause.]
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Costa, thank you very much for joining us this morning. We look forward to your testimony. First, I would like to recognize in fact the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Shuster, for coming today. We would like to provide him the opportunity for a statement.
Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate GSA being here today. Before we get into the details of the hearing, I want to make some observations regarding GSA and its future as an agency responsible for the procurement of real estate for the Federal Government. In recent years, GSA has certainly not distinguished itself in the performance of its responsibilities for providing office space for the Government.
There have been too many instances where GSA appears to take Congress and its supporters for granted. In recent years, GSA has signed options for leased space with no prior prospectus approval. GSA signed a lease for space without any Congressional authority and expected approval of its mistake after the fact.
It adds insult to injury by signing a lease that turns out to be a capital lease, costing its own budget untold millions in budget authority. GSA has spend millions to repair a building purchased hastily, only to have it sit vacant for 7 years. GSA could not keep track of its own revenue and suffered an $850 million shortfall in its Federal Building fund.
As a result, the new building program had to be suspended for a year while GSA mended its woeful estimating procedure. GSA is making a virtual mockery of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 by these cavalier acts. I might say parenthetically that in another life before I came to Congress, I was an RCA Vice President in this town, and I was responsible for negotiating the GSA contract for RCA, many years ago.
So, I have some in-depth knowledge of the workings down there. My message today, and I want to be sure that it is very, very clear. If GSA expects to continue its role of providing office space to this branch of the Government, it is going about it all wrong.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Officials at GSA should not assume that Congress or this Committee will passively sit by as the agency ignores the law and acts with casual disregard to its oversight committees. The Public Buildings Act of 1959 is not set in stone. GSA does not have permanent authority without scrutiny. In fact, perhaps it is time, perhaps it is over due time, for us to revisit the Public Buildings Act.
GSA can and should be subject to reauthorization of its core mission, and may well—these agencies better equipped to perform its mission and be far less inclined to play fast and lose with the law, the facts, and create false impressions about matters under its own responsibility.
Indeed when we talk about streamlining, one way to streamline is to give each of the agencies the authority to make their own decisions, and remove that from GSA, so we would remove one more step in the whole process. Certainly, the appropriate committees of the Congress would have oversight responsibility over the various agencies who would be making their own decisions.
One final note, the Committee received GSA's testimony for today's hearing at 8:30 a.m. The deadline for this testimony was July 16th, last Friday. The last time this happened, this Subcommittee postponed the hearing for a week. Now, if GSA cannot even get their testimony up here on time, it makes me wonder how they can make the much more complex and much more important decisions as to where the various agencies of the Federal Government should be located.
I will also note that ironically the GSA is asking this Committee for prompt consideration of two prospectuses, but at the same time disregards our need for timeliness and expects us to respect their needs for timeliness.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to provide a very, very watchful eye. I think we have to look at all of the alternatives here and find out if there is a better way for the Federal Government to make its procurement.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costa.
TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY E. COSTA, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. COSTA. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee. My name is Tony Costa, and I am the Assistant Regional Administrator For Public Buildings for the National Capital Region of the General Services Administration.
Thank you for inviting GSA to appear before you here today to discuss the National Health Museum proposal, as it relates to the future use of Federal Office Building 8, at Second and C Streets, S.W. here in Washington.
I would like to start by giving you a brief description of the building's status. Federal Building 8 was constructed in 1965 as laboratory space for the Food and Drug Administration. It has been used for this purpose ever since. The property is located in a prime spot, one block from the National Mall with great access to transportation services.
The site is approximately 2 acres with a total building square footage of more than 500,000 gross square feet, including as I mentioned, mostly laboratory space. The FDA is locating to a new facility that GSA is constructing in College Park, Maryland. The move is scheduled to be completed in September 2001.
The FDA will then complete environmental remediation for the labs in Federal Building 8, which will probably take 6 to 12 months. Federal Building 8 needs major renovations. As you know, it is usually more cost effective for the Government to house Federal offices in owned space rather than leased space.
GSA is leasing more than 18 million square feet of space in the District of Columbia. In that light, GSA did a preliminary study on renovating this building, and determined that for a cost of approximately $67 million, the building would yield more than 570,000 gross square feet of office space. As Ms. Dorn mentioned, when compared to leasing, the cost of renovation is approximately $80 million less than leasing the same amount of space.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Of course, the renovation of Federal Building 8 will compete with other capital project needs nationwide for limited dollars. If funding were provided, this renovation would allow the consolidation of agencies, currently in leased space, into Government-owned space.
It is important to note that GSA's Public Buildings Service funds its operations and capital needs through income generated from its real property assets and activities. Therefore, any loss of property that could generate income for PBS, diminishes our ability to provide space and services to our customer agencies.
Although Federal Building 8 has significant value as a part of GSA real estate portfolio, the Administration believes that the National Health Museum, located near the mall, could serve an important educational purpose. With respect to this particular site, however, we believe that any directed disposition should require that the Government be reimbursed for the full market value of this site with the proceeds from such a sale being dedicated for acquisition of replacement space.
Only in this way might it be possible to pursue alternative uses for the site while protecting the interests of the Nation's taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. Again, thank you for inviting GSA to appear before this Subcommittee today. I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Costa, thank you very much.
What is the current value of this site?
Mr. COSTA. We do not have a current appraisal for this site. We have actually just ordered one. With appraisals, you do not want them to sit around too long, especially in a hot real estate market. So, we have just ordered an appraisal.
Mr. FRANKS. When do you expect that you will have the results of that appraisal?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. COSTA. Probably within 2 months; although, we should have a preliminary number much sooner than that.
Mr. FRANKS. What would the value of the site be for the intended use, such as a museum? Is that, again, something that would have to wait for your appraisal.
Mr. COSTA. Yes.
Mr. FRANKS. I am disappointed that we do not have that available to us as we go through this process. I will simply accept that. Does GSA want to keep this site in its inventory?
Mr. COSTA. We had no intention of declaring this property excess; which is the formal process of disposing of property. As I said, we did look at the property for renovation purposes and use as office space. We also know that the Congress and the Administration is supporting the National Health Museum at a location near the Mall.
So, if Congress, along with the National Health Museum decide that this is the right sight for the Museum, then that would be fine with us.
Mr. FRANKS. Your testimony, as well as your answer just now, cited the fact of Congressional support for the site near the Mall. That is contained in the legislative language adopted as part of the Conference Committee that we discussed with the last panel. Separate and apart from that legislative language, what other ways has the Congress communicated to GSA its desire to acquire a site on or near the mall?
Mr. COSTA. To my knowledge, none.
Mr. FRANKS. If the Government can move Federal employees out of leased space and save $81 million by using this particular building for Federal employees, why would GSA consider conveying this for use as a museum?
Mr. COSTA. Again, $67 million will be needed to renovate this building. That would have to compete nationally. Frankly, there are many buildings that need that kind of renovation. There are many opportunities that we would like to take advantage of, if given, to move people out of leased space and into owned space.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, there are other opportunities besides this building to do that. It is just that with the upcoming date of moving FDA out of the building, this is particularly good timing, which is why we looked at renovation.
Mr. FRANKS. Earlier this year, did Mr. Bob Peck meet with officials of the Health Museum to discuss this site?
Mr. COSTA. Yes, he did.
Mr. FRANKS. What was the outcome of that meeting?
Mr. COSTA. Let me back-up a little bit. We have worked with lots of museums when we are looking for sites. What we normally are asked to do, and we were in this case also, was to help the National Health Museum look at alternative sites, not just GSA sites, but any available sites in the downtown and especially the Mall area.
We did that. Commissioner Peck met with the National Health Museum and I attended most of those meetings. We talked about various options that would make sense for the museum as described by the National Health Museum representatives. We talked about our disposal process and what that means.
I would like to make sure I clarify, in one sense, that we simply do not have the authority to sell this property to the National Health Museum. That was made clear to the museum folks. We did talk about past instances where Congress has directed disposition of property. That was really the extent of the discussions.
Mr. FRANKS. Let me be specific here. Were there any commitments, explicit or implied, that GSA would act in a particular manner in response to a particular request by the National Health Museum?
Mr. COSTA. No.
Mr. FRANKS. GSA never encouraged the National Health Museum to seek a—go ahead.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. COSTA. We described the fact that we did not have the authority to sell the property. We described other instances in the past where Congress has directed disposition. We described how that had happened in the past. The National Health Museum folks asked us if we would participate actively in doing what was needed to be done?
We explained to them that this is just how it happens. You are going to have to garner local support. You are going to have to talk to folks in Congress. That is what you are going to have to do, but that is not our job from GSA's standpoint.
Mr. FRANKS. You talked about how Congress has expressed its position in this matter. Who, in the Administration, supports the location on or near the Mall?
Mr. COSTA. I do not have any personal knowledge.
Mr. FRANKS. Okay. Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. COOKSEY. Where is Mr. Peck?
Mr. COSTA. Portland, Oregon.
Mr. COOKSEY. I got to know Mr. Peck quite well in my first 2 years on this Committee. Are you an accountant or a CPA?
Mr. COSTA. No.
Mr. COOKSEY. Realtor?
Mr. COSTA. I do not have a realtor license or anything. I have been doing real estate for 15 years and have had many real estate finance courses.
Mr. COOKSEY. You are not a lawyer, I hope.
Mr. COSTA. No. Actually, my background is in city planning.
Mr. COOKSEY. Good, good. I do not really have a position on this issue, except that I think it will be great to have a National Health Museum. I think that is a worthy cause. Health is a major concern to everybody personally in this Country. I think we have an opportunity to showcase some of this Nation's achievements over the history of this Nation, particularly in this Century.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is interesting to watch the sparring, though, between the people of the District of Columbia, and the people of New Jersey. Both groups wrote their own plan. I am representing a District that is not in this. We just happen to be paying for it. We want to make sure that whoever gets it, that good business decisions are made instead of political decisions.
It took someone from my District, Dr. Andrew Bremmer, who is a Professor, to come up and straighten the finances out of the District of Columbia, because the people could not do it themselves. I would hope that the same thing is done here. Our concern is that too often political decisions are made instead of good business decisions.
We feel that we are financing all of this and none of it really comes back to our District. I think that is the thrust of the questions here and the reason for those questions. The question that I think my colleague was asking is why the pressure to put it in D.C.? I know the reason for the pressure to put it in New Jersey. They want to utilize Ellis Island. I think that is a worthy cause.
I personally think it would be good to have something about health care on the Mall, because we have got some other good museums on the Mall. Why the pressure, and where the pressure to put it here, or is there pressure, or can you assure me that there is no pressure?
Mr. COSTA. Frankly, from my standpoint, I really cannot answer that.
Mr. COOKSEY. You have not had a lapse of memory or anything; have you?
Mr. COSTA. No. From GSA's standpoint, this all started with a given that the National Health Museum would locate in the District and would be in close proximity to the Mall. That is where our participation started. We thought we were being helpful in helping folks identify sites.
Mr. COOKSEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Costa.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costa, I must say I am confused about how much thought the GSA has given to what size use might be made of this building. Your testimony makes an important point, as far as this Committee is concerned. That is that GSA is always looking for space and it is. The only reason why you move agencies out of Washington is because there is not enough space.
I have been on this Committee long enough to know that agencies prefer to be in Washington. There would be no Northern Virginia and Montgomery County if Washington were a bigger City, but there is no place to locate agencies now, except for scarce parcels. In the District, there is no place to locate it, but out there where there is more land.
I would like to know what you think the best use of this building is. You seem to talk about leasing, but I had understood that GSA had considered demolition of this building and building a new building where this building is located. Is it demolition? Is it now renovation because it saves the Government money over leasing? Should this be put on the open market? Should there be a directed sale? From GSA's point of view, I am confused as to what your preferred use is, given the options available to you.
Mr. COSTA. Strictly from the GSA mission standpoint to provide real estate, our preferred solution is to renovate; although we did look at demolishing the building and rebuilding. We have decided that, of those alternatives, renovation is the best alternative.
Ms. NORTON. What does it cost for demolition and rebuilding compared to renovation?
Mr. COSTA. The renovation cost is about $67 million. The demolition and construction, if memory serves me, was closer to $100 million.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Is that reconstruction of a Federal site.
Mr. COSTA. Construction of a building on that site.
Ms. NORTON. Of a Federal space.
Mr. COSTA. Yes; right.
Ms. NORTON. Had you intended to ask this Committee for funds to do either of those things?
Mr. COSTA. We are going through the formulation of the fiscal year 2001 budget. This project was in the mix. We would not really decide whether we will propose it until January.
Ms. NORTON. In his testimony, Mr. Koop talks about selling the site to the National Health Museum where the General Services Administration would forgo $20 million that it might have received from a for-profit developer. Have you had any discussions with them about selling the building to them, or about the difference between what the building would cost to them and to a for-profit developer?
Mr. COSTA. We did have some preliminary discussions with the National Health Museum folks about value. That was actually, Mr. Chairman, your first question. Depending on how you ask an appraiser to value the building and the site, you will come up with very different figures.
So, our discussions with the Museum were really how the appraiser would look at the site. Depending on the instructions given to him or her, site could be valued at the maximum floor area ratio, which is well-beyond the existing building. Of course that would make the site more valuable.
If you decided to demolish the building and make it an open space, of course, the value is dramatically lower. So, that was really the basis for any of that discussion; just really discussing how buildings are appraised, and the instructions you give toappraisers.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Is sale to a for-profit developer, the least likely disposition of this building?
Mr. COSTA. From my perspective, yes.
Ms. NORTON. Everybody wants to be on the Mall. I have generally not been much for on the Mall because there is not anything on the Mall. These folks seem to have found something that was close to the Mall. My usual view is that there are plenty of spaces nearby the Mall, in downtown Washington, or the neighborhoods of the District where people can go.
This is one of those rare instances where an institution fits the size of an existing building. If somehow this building were not available, do you think that there are appropriate places for a National Health Museum to go in this City, given what you know about land use in the District?
Mr. COSTA. I think it depends on where you start. If the preference is just for a site near the Mall it becomes more difficult. Personally, I think that there are other sites in the District that might be appropriate for a project of this kind.
Ms. NORTON. Are the other sites near the Mall where museums could be located, National Museums that is?
Mr. COSTA. Relatively close. Actually, they become more cumbersome because of the construction costs. They are not easily packaged as Second and C Streets.
Ms. NORTON. Do you expect that the Administration, which has not even been willing to include in its budget money for desperately needed courthouses, would consider including money in its budget to renovate a building near the mall or, for that matter, to demolish a building and build a new office building near the Mall? Is that realistic to believe that OMB would approve such a proposal from GSA?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. COSTA. There is lots of competition for scarce dollars.
Ms. NORTON. Would this be your first priority, to renovate and lease that building?
Mr. COSTA. Headquarters is now looking at National priorities. From my perspective, it is one of the National Capital Region's first priorities. Again, from the National perspective, we are spending time right now—
Ms. NORTON. This would be renovating that building. So, for Federal office space would this be your number one priority for $61 million for your 2001 budget?
Mr. COSTA. No. I cannot say that.
Ms. NORTON. If in fact it was not renovated, then we are faced with the possibility of an empty building on the Mall; are we not?
Mr. COSTA. After 2002, after remediation is done, yes.
Ms. NORTON. Well, let me just tell you something, Mr. Costa. I take a real dim view of empty buildings in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia has some themselves. We also have housing in the District of Columbia that is blight on our City. So, I hope that a realistic view of use to be made of that building will be made. I am not sure if members know where this building is located.
The specter of an empty Federal building this close to the Mall is simply unthinkable. If you do not use it for the Museum, if you do not have money in your budget to renovate it, then I believe that GSA has an obligation to come before this Committee with a use so that we are not left, even for a short period of time, with a slum building on the Mall.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Norton, thank you very much.
Mr. Costa, if there were to be a directed sale of this parcel, does not the law require it to be, as a general period, does not the Federal Property Act require Federal property be sold at the highest and best use? Is that not the doctrine under which GSA operates?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. COSTA. Our normal disposition authorities do require that. In the past when Congress had directed disposition, it is not necessarily at the full market value or highest and best use.
Mr. FRANKS. The general rationale is that the taxpayers receive monies reflecting the highest and best use, although we do create exceptions to that.
Mr. COSTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. I am a little concerned, Mr. Costa. I am regretful that Mr. Peck is not with us today. Having been present at these meetings with the Museum advocates, we are not able to delve into some of the items that were discussed. I am particularly troubled by the allegation that I have heard, but cannot substantiate, and would simply ask Mr. Peck to put it on the record for us, and I will, that this Committee was essentially bypassed up until this moment, as we are now trying to grapple with how to proceed in lieu of the language that was incorporated in the Conference Report.
I think it is important for this Committee to know whether or not Mr. Peck personally advised the Museum to circumvent this Committee, go directly to the Appropriations Committee and seek incorporation of this language. I do intend to create a forum in which Mr. Peck will be answering that question. I understand he is traveling today.
He has been a part of this process. I am not presuming that he has been in any way an improper part of the process. An inability to ask him directly this question is a bit troubling to me. Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costa, I think you are doing as good a job as you can under these circumstances on the information provided for us. I really miss my colleague, Jim Traficant, who is on this Committee with me. He taught me a lot about oversight. He gave me some history about some things that were done. They were political decisions that were made instead of economic decisions, or best for the taxpayers in Districts across this Country.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With that said, I did get to know Mr. Peck for the last 2 years. We developed some rapport. He provided some information sometime that was very good and some that was sometimes left out. I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, that we reconvene this Subcommittee at a time that would be convenient for Mr. Peck so we can clarify this.
I am a proponent of a National Health Museum. I support a National Health Museum. I have not fallen on the side of the Mall or New Jersey yet. I might want to put it in my District. I am being facetious. I will not make that request. I am probably the only one here who does not have a vested interest in it for my District.
I want to do what is best for the taxpayers of this Country and indeed get a National Health Museum that will be available for everyone to come and see where we have been, where we are, and hopefully get some insight as to where we are going. Would it be possible to discuss this again in some part of this Subcommittee's agenda when Mr. Peck can be here?
Mr. FRANKS. I want to consult with Ms. Norton and the Minority. We will discuss that possibility, Dr. Cooksey, but it may well be a very rational way to approach it.
Let me say finally, Mr. Costa, on this note. This Committee, if it had been given the opportunity, could in fact have provided some leadership in helping to answer some of these questions that are now somewhat unresolved.
The fact that this went to Conference and was inserted at that level, I think some of the benefits that could have accrued from this Committee having fully discharged its traditional responsibilities could have been secured through the Commission that was required under that Conference language that was inserted.
That National Commission was never appointed for a variety of reasons. Again, I do not want to find fault in anyone. That certainly was not GSA's fault. We could have, if we would have had a National Commission, had a public process where those with an interest in the National Health Museum could have had an opportunity to access that Commission, bring forward their public input, and had a full and thorough review of available options.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That Commission was never convened. This Committee was never able to play its traditional role in the National Health Museum and I think leads us to this point where we are at today. So, it is a little bit more difficult for us to resolve these issues. We thank you for your help and your attendance today. We will be in further contact with you about this.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. I would just like to indicate, because I endorse very much your views about regular order on this Committee. I do want to indicate that I have indicated to the backers of the Museum that there is a long history that everybody on this Subcommittee, and I must say on the Full Committee, is very sensitive to, and that is that, that history pre-dates me and it pre-dates you, Mr. Chairman.
It really does have to do with going around this Committee. I have indicated in no uncertain terms that while I support this National Health Museum, I cannot and will never support going around this Committee. It is my understanding that this group understands that, does not intend, and has not gone around this Committee.
Many authorizing committees feel that way and are able to do nothing about it. The reason why this authorizing committee is able to do something about it is that for many years this was done and there was a coup de ta in this Committee as a result of it. So, there is nobody who is Chairman of any committee or subcommittee of this Committee that will tolerate that.
It is not necessary here. It absolutely is not necessary here in order for an appropriate disposition to be made of this important issue. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Let me also indicate that those of us who know Dr. Cooksey and know of his unique and very considerable abilities to move policy in his own direction, when he sets his mind to it, working with the legendary Mr. Traficant, we may all be visiting this Museum in Youngstown, Ohio.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Costa for your testimony.
I would like now to call upon Mr. Finn Caspersen from the New Jersey Governor's Advisory Committee on the preservation and use of Ellis Island.
[Pause.]
Mr. Caspersen, we will hopefully secure the arrival of the Honorable Mayor during the course of your testimony. In the event that he is not able to come, we are delighted to have you. We thank you for making the trip down from New Jersey today. We look forward to hearing your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF FINN M.W. CASPERSEN, JR., CHAIRMAN, NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE PRESERVATION AND USE OF ELLIS ISLAND
Mr. CASPERSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For your information, we brought several blow-ups of Ellis Island and a map. We are ready to display them. I do not think they have to be in any particular order. As like the others, I, too, have submitted a statement and rather extensive attachments.
I am on a Commission and we have been funded. We received the grand sum of $10,000 for our work, which we have not spent yet. Our charge is to review the options available for Ellis Island, to work with both the Federal Government and New York State, to work with Manhattan and Jersey City.
We have a number of photographs; some as they were, some as they are. You will notice that as they were is generally quite a bit better condition than as they are. This Ellis Island is really a National disgrace. The Government deserted it. I use the word ''deserted'' advisably.
In the early 1950s, they did not even bother to close the damn windows and left it. At this juncture, we are advised that if we did not get stabilization money within a period of months, that the entire complex, with the exception of the one building that was fixed, would fall down.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Windows were open. File drawers were left there. Doors were knocked down; vandalism rampant. Lee Iacocca and his Statue of Liberty Group restored one building; one building which you can see the main building. This is not a New York, New Jersey situation. All of these buildings mesh together as one complex. It is a National complex.
The main building that is shown there has been restored. The bays and dormitory building, the architects argue about whether you can even stabilize it because it is so bad. The south side has now, thanks in part to the Federal Government, and thanks in part to the Millennium Grant that was just received, thanks in part to some casino matching funds from New Jersey, and thank in part to the New Jersey Legislature has the money to be stabilized.
Stabilized means it will not fall down for 15 years, but that is a step forward. We were dealing with 15 months before. The committee the Governor has created has discussed the possible uses. One of the potential uses is as a health museum or something to do with public health. We have not gotten there yet as to what we think it should be.
I see a beautiful complex like this, the question is can you build a public health museum in a building that was built in the early 1900s? I do not know if you can, but it is something I think we should find out. We are faced with the requirement, to put it mildly, that we have to fix this.
Forty percent of Americans have descended, in one fashion or another, from those who went through Ellis Island. Dr. Koop's grandparents as have mine have gone through Ellis Island. We share that. We share the belief that there should be a National Health Museum. The question is really where it should be. Where is most economical? What is the best for the Country?
That is very simple. We do not have a study that gives us the answer. The National Park Service is conducting such a study right now with the Sedway Group. We would hope to have the answers, at least in preliminary form, within 2 to 3 months, that we could show you.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There is a possible usage. There may be an ancillary use to the National Health Museum. It is a marvelous location. It has, as of now, 2 million visitors a year. As Representative Menendez said, we have a boat trip. In order to get to Ellis Island, first you have to go to the Statue of Liberty, wait in line, then go back to Ellis Island.
The Congressman has been arguing, and I believe absolutely correctly, that there should be a bridge directly, a permanent bridge directly to New Jersey City so that people can get to Ellis Island free, instead of paying $7 a head, which is what the going tariff is now. The Federal Government gets $1 or $2 and the server line gets the rest. He has a very sound point there, I think.
The point I would like to leave with you today is we have a huge potential here. We will, in some fashion or another, public, private raise the funds necessary to keep this and to restore it. One of the best possible uses is as a health museum. The other major use is as an immigrant history museum.
We took a poll in New Jersey and it showed almost 80 percent deemed it was highly important or very important to save. It was rather embarrassing to the backers of a new stadium because they only got 40 percent form the same poll. My point is that Americans, at least New Jerseyans, and we are going to do the same poll for the rest of America, believe that this is a very important historic monument and believe that it is important to be saved.
The further question which has to be approaches is, is this something that can be—best interest of the American taxpayer and is that the most effective cost methodology? All I ask is of the Committee that you consider this. To the extent possible, you review the National Park Cost Analysis and Strategic Study, which should be available before year- end and before you make your decision.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Caspersen, thank you very much.
I am not sure that the Committee has developed all of the related tourism data. I am sure it is assessable to this Subcommittee in another form, if you cannot provide it for us. I am just curious, the level of tourism to Ellis Island last year was 2 million. Did you indicate?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CASPERSEN. Yes.
Mr. FRANKS. That is given the monopoly, as Congressman Menendez indicated, that you cannot get there unless you access the ferry service, which is the only mode of transportation available to the Island today.
Mr. CASPERSEN. That is correct.
Mr. FRANKS. Do we know what the level of tourism is to New York City and the Metropolitan area?
Mr. CASPERSEN. I would speculate that it is between 30 million and 40 million a year. I think it is slightly ahead of Washington, but not hugely.
Mr. FRANKS. The historic nature of Ellis Island is unassailable. Not far from this facility is the Liberty Science Center, which is something quite different than an historic monument. What, in your judgment, is the synergy that exist between anything that would happen that would be related to health care on Ellis Island and the Liberty Science Center?
Mr. CASPERSEN. Huge synergy there.
I met with the Board of the Liberty Science Center. They are very eager to work together with whatever transpires on Ellis Island. Similarly, from a fund raising standpoint, New Jersey does have the leading pharmaceutical companies in the Country.
They, of course, would have a vested interest in having a National Health Museum there. On the flip side, New York has probably the leading health centers in the Country. I would add, of course, Robert Wood Johnson, to that. So, you have a tremendous degree of medical knowledge and medical interest immediately adjacent from the standpoint of putting together a museum, putting together Ellis Island. Those are important factors.
Mr. FRANKS. If there were an element, or if in fact the National Health Museum were to be located on Ellis Island, I am wondering the amount of promotional focus that could be directed toward that facility. I know that the Mall is extraordinarily convenient because it in fact embraces a whole host of museums.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As Ms. Norton indicated, there are a lot of wonderful attractions on the Mall. Under one school of thought, we would add to it the National Health Museum. That existing traffic would be encouraged to visit the National Health Museum. There is enormous competition for museum visits here on the Mall.
Would the location of Ellis Island itself to an exclusive promotion of the National Health Museum such to give it a standing that it might be enjoyed by adding another museum facility to the Mall area?
Mr. CASPERSEN. I think that would be a tremendous degree of promotion because of that. Also, as you can see in one of the photographs over there, and you will note the window is broken, from the end of Ellis Island. So, you have this marvelous view of New York City, a marvelous view of Jersey City, Verrazano Ridge, and then of course the Statue of Liberty.
So, you have a huge view. At the same juncture, I can understand the McDonald's and the Wendy's argument. If you have one museum, and you have another museum, you get two—as opposed to just twice as much. So, there is certainly a very valid argument for the Mall.
I think we could promote it. I think we would promote it. I think it fits in with the Statute of Liberty. It fits in with the history of public health. Dr. Koop was telling me that initially when the immigrants walked up, and you have to remember that only storage went through Ellis Island.
Those who could provide first class or business class went right into the Manhattan Piers. When you walked up this large stairway, they had five doctors who just looked at you. They looked if you had the spots under your eyes. Looked if you had bulges in your coat for spleen, et cetera, et cetera. That was the beginning of public health. That went on, and on, and on for 50 years and grew up there. So, this is the birthplace of public health as we now know it in America.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. You indicated that the New York Metropolitan area, particularly Northern New Jersey, is the medicine chest of the World. The largest pharmaceutical companies are located disproportionately, at least, within 25 miles of this site. Do you have any active indication from that industry that they would see this as a viable location for such a National Health Museum?
Mr. CASPERSEN. I have not approached any of them on that basis. I have asked whether or not they would be interested in supporting a history of health museum on the Island. They have indicated they would certainly listen very favorably to any proposals. I think you would have to tie them down a little further before you can make an absolute statement.
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Caspersen, have you spoken with Dr. Koop?
Mr. CASPERSEN. I have spoken to him briefly on the phone about 10 days ago when I learned of his interest in the National Health Museum, which I had not been aware of before, and I spoke with him this morning.
Ms. NORTON. What did he say to you about the location of his idea of a museum, not in Washington, but in Ellis Island?
Mr. CASPERSEN. I think he prefers Washington. I think he prefers, and probably with good reason, the custom-built building to house his exhibits. I have no idea what a health museum requires. I only have a very rough idea about the square footage, which is as I understand slightly under 300,000. We are dealing here with about 450,000.
One of the constraints that the Committee has imposed on itself is that we do not want to change the face of the outside. We feel that Ellis Island should be treated as a whole. It should be treated as an historical architectural remnant. You have much more freedom here. I do not want to put any words in his mouth. I think he believes it should be in Washington because that is where the action is and he may well be right.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that because I am an ardent historical preservationist that you say you want to maintain much of the site, the buildings.
Mr. CASPERSEN. We want to maintain all of the external appearance.
Ms. NORTON. Of course, that would be required in any case. National Historic Preservation Laws would not allow you to do anything else.
Mr. CASPERSEN. There have been some liberties taken.
Ms. NORTON. I am sure you want to do that. In any case, I think that many people, knowing they were going to Ellis Island, would believe they were going to see some recreation of what was at Ellis Island before, such as your pictures indicate. Have you thought about recreating, in any sense, the health facilities or other aspects of Ellis Island, rather than simply plopping some other facility down because you need to renovate Ellis Island?
Mr. CASPERSEN. Well, the main building is such a recreation. That takes you through completely all of the latest technical paraphenalia of what an immigrant experience was.
Ms. NORTON. No. I am talking about what it actually was; a recreation. I have been to Ellis Island where you go to have receptions and so forth. When it is a museum, do you not think people might expect to see a recreation of what was there at the time, as opposed to some updated version of some other institution?
Mr. CASPERSEN. No. I do not think we are asking for an updated version of another institution. The other major competing use would be an updated version of the immigrant experience, and using the term ''immigrant'' in its vastness; not limited to just the east coast port.
On the public health standpoint, what we are considering is a history of the public health. I do not think you would have incremental paying customers to justify recreating 27 hospital wards, which is what you would be doing.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Well, you would not have to recreate 27 in order to give people some idea what it was like to come to a hospital ward.
Mr. CASPERSEN. No. You could recreate one.
Ms. NORTON. Would you like to recreate one?
Mr. CASPERSEN. Yes.
Ms. NORTON. Are you going to do that?
Mr. CASPERSEN. Pardon?
Ms. NORTON. Would you do that?
Mr. CASPERSEN. Yes.
Ms. NORTON. What other plans would you have?
Mr. CASPERSEN. That is what the Committee is grappling with. We obviously have not made up our minds yet. We are going to make a recommendation to the Governor. That is going to be coupled with a Park Service Feasibility Study.
Ms. NORTON. This is awkward for me and for the Chairman because on the one hand, in D.C. there was no process either. We are both acting in our capacities for our home Cities, but we recognize we are Federal Officials. That is why I am going to insist that D.C. go through Federal processes. I know the Chairman feels the same as well.
Mr. FRANKS. Will the gentle lady yield?
Ms. NORTON. I am glad to yield to the Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. I see remarkable similarities on sitting here looking at this site to the Southeast Federal Center and let me tell you why. I have lived within 25 miles of this site for all of my life. I have been to this location a grand total of twice. Candidly, during the course of my lifetime, this has fallen to such extraordinary disrepair and underutilization that there candidly has been virtually no reason to go here.
We now are done with the Court suits. We now have a Declaration that the bulk of this land area belongs to one State rather than the other. That has set into motion activities that are going to reinvigorate this historic treasure which has been the gateway to America.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is for that reason that I think it is at least logical to consider, among a number of competing and important options, that a National museum of health could in fact be a part of the long-term features of this great Island. I thank the gentle lady for yielding.
Ms. NORTON. The Chairman refers, I think quite appropriately, to under use, indeed disuse, values malfeasance in the use of Federal land, and valuable Federal at that. You do have an analogy here. This surely must also be among the most valuable Federal land in the Country. The Chairman went with me to a parcel of land 5 minutes from the Capitol, bordering on the Anacostia River that is among the most valuable land in the Country.
The Federal Government has let it lay fallow. Meanwhile, done nothing and rented space for office space. So, we are looking at a misuse there. I recognize that New York and New Jersey had to decide which State. This is Federal land.
Mr. CASPERSEN. It is Federal land, Federal maintenance. If you will look at the picture over there right next to there, it shows you the actual roof had fallen in. It is a disaster.
Ms. NORTON. I am amazed at that. The Southeast Federal Center was once a place where there were Federal buildings, but Ellis Island, my goodness. That is kind of sacred soil here. I am not sure how you want this matter handled, because you indicated that you have your own process.
In your own testimony you say that the Committee has not reached a decision of the highest and best use of Ellis Island. You expect a decision by the fall. All of the matters have to be chartered out, including the financial implications, the appropriateness of a museum, and the rest of it. What would you like this Committee to do?
Mr. CASPERSEN. Well, we have if anything a job that is as difficult as yours. While we may have capitular jurisdiction as a State, the property is no longer owned by the Federal Government. We share it with New York. We have got 2 Cities, 2 States, and the Federal Government. Eventually, somebody is going to have to design some mechanism where all of the parties are at a table.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It may take a specific statutory authority and say, here is what you do. Here is how you go, et cetera, et cetera, or they could leave it to the Park Service and have the Park Service act as a custodian. What I am saying is that we will have significant information which we will share completely. We have no power whatsoever to implement.
The only power we have is to provide information, alternatives, and costs to the extent the Park Service comes up with it.
Ms. NORTON. I noticed in your testimony you indicate by combining New Jersey funding, Federal funding, Millennium Award, matching casino funding, et cetera. Are you aware that I have indicated to the National Health Museum folks that I would expect they could get no Federal funding and that they would have to raise all of the money and that this Committee has not funded a museum for a very long time? And it is not a priority of this Committee to fund museums.
Mr. CASPERSEN. I was not aware of it.
Ms. NORTON. What do you think of that notion?
Mr. CASPERSEN. I think that is a very fine notion.
At the same juncture, I would point to Ellis Island as a, look Uncle Sam, this happened on your watch. You left the windows opened. You did not lock the doors. It is unfair for you now to go back to your citizens and say, fix what I broke.
Ms. NORTON. And after you finish saying that, you go out and raise the money.
Mr. CASPERSEN. That is right. That is exactly right. You know it as well as I do.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Caspersen, we thank you very much for coming down to testify today. I think this has been a very important hearing and it will help us to sort out some of these very interesting timely issues that demand our very prompt consideration.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I beg your indulgence for a moment?
Mr. FRANKS. Indeed.
Ms. NORTON. I would like to bring to your attention that in the room now are some youngsters from the District of Columbia who are a part of the Summer Step Program, a Center for Artistry and Teaching. They are a part of a program that I started called D.C. Students in the Capitol because, Mr. Chairman, as a child I never came to the Capitol.
There was no Representative for the District of Columbia. There was no Mayor, and no City Council Chair. So, it is kind of a sentimental notion of mine that no youngster should grow up in the District without coming to the Capitol, getting to see a hearing, getting to see what a real live Chairman looks like. So, I wanted you to know who these youngsters who tipped in the room are.
Mr. FRANKS. I appreciate you bringing us that knowledge, Ms. Norton. Let me say to the students who are present that they are not only welcome here, but they are in fact stakeholders in all that we do in these institutions. I am just delighted that they get the opportunity to gain some personal exposure and knowledge.
They could not have a better role model to look to than Ms. Norton because she does an extraordinary job on behalf of the District and for each and every one of its residents. We are proud to have her on this Committee. I think it is great that she is encouraging all of you to have an interest in what we do here at the Capitol. So, welcome. We are grateful for your attendance today.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. That concludes today's hearing. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing adjourned.]
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[insert here]