Moreover, the museum commission, and presumably the museum that would ultimately result, would have direct access to Federal funding, placing the Wilberforce facility at a competitive advantage over a number of similar facilities that must depend on private and other non-Federal sources of income.

Finally, we would add our additional concern that present fiscal necessities cannot accommodate the additional burden of the National Center of Afro-American History and Culture. We are aware of the commitment made by the State of Ohio, amounting to $3.5 million, toward this project. However, based on the study of the museum proposal completed in 1979, we estimate the capital construction costs of the museum or center could run as high as somewhere around $13-$17 million, with annual operating costs likely to be in the range of $1-$2 million per year.

Sections 6 and 7 of the bill authorize the Wilberforce National Historic Site. The site would comprise the former home of Col. Charles A. Young and an adjacent 79 acres. The home is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and effectively mirrors the unique history of Wilberforce, Ohio, a black community established prior to the Civil War. The Young home is the most frequently cited underground railroad station in Wilberforce. In later years, the house was occupied by Charles Young, third black graduate from West Point and highest ranking Afro-American officer during the First World War. Under President Theodore Roosevelt, Young served as America's first black military attaché. Charles Young purchased the home in Wilberforce in 1912, when he came there to instruct students in science, French, and military tactics at Wilberforce University. The Young home and its former distinguished occupant nicely parallel the spirit of independence, education and accomplishment that makes Wilberforce a unique black American community.

However, we are not prepared to comment upon whether the Young home should or should not be added to the national park system. This portion of the bill is under review and we hope to have an administrative position in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks on S. 1814.
Senator GLENN. Thank you very much for your statement.

Your raise two objections, so let me ask about them. No. 1, the policy that national museums must necessarily be in Washington, D.C., is known to us, but I felt for a long time after we got into this and looked into some of the other things that are built around this country that it is not a consistent policy. Are there other facilities of a national character, if we want to put that appellation on them, of a national character supported outside of Washington?

Mr. TOBIN. I am not personally aware of any museums established and called museums supported outside of Washington, D.C. Senator GLENN. Are you familiar with the Jefferson Expansion Memorial in Missouri?

Mr. TOBIN. The Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is a unit of the national park system. We do have a museum of westward expansion there. That is a facility which is designed to speak to a particular moment in history and has static exhibits which are of an interpretive nature.

Senator GLENN. But the museum is outside of Washington and supported by Federal funds; is that right?

Mr. TOBIN. I cannot disagree with that.

Senator GLENN. Isn't it true that we recently have seen a new aquarium at Baltimore designated as a national facility?

Mr. TOBIN. I am not familiar with that one. It is not in the jurisdiction of our agency.

Senator GLENN. I don't know who did it, but it is an aquarium in Baltimore supported by Federal funds. I would think that having an Afro-American museum or historic site or facility or expansion, whatever you wanted to call it, at Wilberforce is certainly more important to me than commemorating fish in Baltimore, or whatever it is we are doing in that facility. Perhaps that is not under your purview. Maybe that is done under some other one.

How about the various Presidential museums outside of Washington? They are supported by Federal funds, aren't they?

Mr. TOBIN. The Presidential libraries? Not through the National Park Service. I am not familiar with their operation, I am sorry. Senator GLENN. They are national facilities. I have felt we are sort of playing with semantics of what is a Federal museum or site or facility or something. We are falling back on that to prevent what has come to be an almost annual prevention of us establishing this particular site.

No. 2, you make the point that this facility should be a nonFederal facility. I presume you base that on budgetary considerations. Is that correct? Or do you have any other reason why you feel this would be a non-Federal entity?

Mr. TOBIN. On budgetary considerations and the consideration that national museums located in Washington, D.C., have a unique acceptance, where the Federal establishment competing outside of Washington, D.C., is not as acceptable to many.

Senator GLENN. You cite as a reason, of course, that this center would compete unfairly with other facilities for Federal funds. That is just the nature of the budgeting process. We have competition for funding. But I would point out that S. 1814 does not assume total Federal funding. There have been $3.5 million appropriated by the State of Ohio. Another $5 million are in the process of being appropriated now. So there is a good chunk of this that will be assumed by the State of Ohio, if we can go along with getting some additional support from the Federal level. That is over half the cost even of the estimates you had in your statement here. Do you have any further comment on that?

Mr. TOBIN. No, sir, other than that once completed, there still would be operating costs which would have a Federal involvement. Our estimate was $1-$2 million per year in that regard.

Senator GLENN. I wouldn't quarrel with your estimate on that at all. I would think those O. & M. funds, even if they are $1-$2 million a year, we would have an arrangement made to split support of some kind there. So I don't think we would see the possibility of $2 million flat coming out of the Federal Treasury for O. & M. funds.

I would just like to state for the record I think there is adequate historical precedence of other Federal facilities or sites or museums-in the interest of the country and in the interest of com

memorating different things, whatever they may be, or in providing focal points of culture and study-that are justified.

I don't quarrel with those others at all. But I do quarrel with the fact that this particular institution has been deemed not to qualify when we see so many others around the country called by so many other names that are actually museums, if we are all intellectually honest about it, I think this deserves Federal support and that is why we have pushed so long to get this. Congressman Brown has been pushing this longer than I have. As he said, he first put this in in 1968. Here we are 12 years later still fighting for it. To me, it is getting a bit ridiculous because I think there is a big interest in this. It is a national focal point; there is national interest in it. Probably nowhere else in the country is there such a center, that goes back in our own history, where one spot received such attention by black Americans in the days of the Civil War and shortly thereafter. I think it is a spot that is easily accessible for tourists and pretty well centered as far as the population of the country goes. It is within 1 day's driving time for about two-thirds of the population of the United States. It is a natural spot for it.

I would hope we could consider proposing this and start working to try and find some way to proceed with it since we have recognized precedence by other places around the country that may go by a different name but serve the same purpose we are trying to provide here.

Congressman Brown?

Representative BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Tobin, in the response letter that we got from the Department and also in your testimony today, you refer to a national policy with reference to museum locations and activities. We always hear that expressed in the hushed tones of authenticity. But I would like to ask if you can identify the genesis of that policy. Is it in either some law or statute that the Congress has passed? Is it in some Executive order that the President has issued? How is it codified into our annals as national policy with reference to museums?

Mr. TOBIN. My personal opinion is it stems back to the establishment of the Smithsonian Museum and its responsibilities as assigned by Congress here in Washington, D.C. That act was in 1846. Representative BROWN. I wonder if you could, first, for the record, cite that specific policy to me, or to the committee, that all national museums are to be located in Washington and that the Smithsonian is to be the end-all with museums.

Mr. TOBIN. I would be pleased to do that.1

Representative BROWN. Then if you could, rationalize for me whether or not the Department feels that there has been any change in our society since 1846 that might justify a change in the policy with respect to national museums.

There is a specific piece of legislation at issue here, H.R. 5401, and it has various sections in it which provide for various parts of the establishment of this museum or center that we hope to establish at Wilberforce. I am curious as to whether you could provide me with some analysis also of the specific objections to that legislation.

1 See enclosure No. 1 of Secretary Cecil D. Andrus' letter to Congressman Clarence J. Brown.

I can understand in a time of economic restraint how, for instance, you may take some exception to section 7 which provides for the authorization for appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the act. But it occurs to me perhaps we could implement the organization that is called for in sections 2 and 3 of the act and perhaps even go beyond that to authorize the agency to solicit funds, to accept gifts, to do the estimate of costs, and that sort of thing.

Would the Department object to that, or would the administration object to that, if we went just that far, without the specific authorization for an appropriation for the operation of the board or commission for an Afro-American Center of History and Culture? Mr. TOBIN. The Department and the administration may wish to explore that and respond to you. I will certainly take the message and we will make every effort to respond.

Representative BROWN. Rather than leaving it to the option of the Department, I wonder if we could ask for an analysis of the bill on the basis of what they might have objection to specifically in the legislation at this time.

Finally, I was on the airplane this morning and I read two documents, one of which belonged to another passenger and the other one belonged to the airlines. I am not sure in which I read it-it was either U.S. News & World Report or the Chicago Tribune-today on the airplane that said President Carter is interested in establishing a center in Atlanta in memory of Dr. Martin Luther King because the Congress has failed to pass the national holiday legislation to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, and that the estimated cost of such a center would be somewhere between $10 and $12 million.

Have you any familiarity with that? Has the Department done any study on it? Is there anything in preparation that might be presented to the Congress or the administration for consideration that would fall in such a descriptive analysis as I read this morning?

Mr. TOBIN. May I have Mr. Art Eck of my staff respond to that? He has worked with some of that material.

Mr. Eck. I am familiar with that proposal, Congressman Brown. What is being proposed is to establish the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site in Atlanta.

Now within the boundaries of that site is located the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, which already exists. It is not our intention or purpose to provide funding or promote the center. Dr. King is buried on the center grounds, his home is about a block away. The home is also of primary interest to us. But we would be interpreting Dr. King's grave site. So I guess what I would have to say is, to the extent that the administration is recommending anything for the center, it is only by accident that the center is located there. The Center for Social Change was established several years ago as a living memorial to Dr. King. I think the center primarily financed by private assistance, such as the Ford Foundation.

Representative BROWN. When you suggest that you would be interpreting the site, what does that mean officially?

Mr. Eck. Visitors will be visiting the historic site, both the Martin Luther King, Jr., birthplace and, of course, the grave site. We will be providing interpretation.

Representative BROWN. That is what I want to know about. Who is "we?" What will you be doing?

Mr. Eck. The National Park Service will be administering the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site.

Representative BROWN. Do you now operate it at the present

time?

Mr. Eck. No.

Representative BROWN. But the proposal would be what now specifically?

Mr. Eck. The proposal will be to establish the Martin Luther King National Historic Site in Atlanta.

Representative BROWN. That is not a museum?

Mr. Eck. No.

Representative BROWN. It is not a center?

Mr. Eck. No.

Representative BROWN. It is a site?

Mr. Eck. It is an historic site, just like any other historic site that we administer. But I do want to make it clear that the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change is located within the boundaries of the historic site.

Representative BROWN. It would have a specific flavor of Federal support; is that correct?

Mr. Eck. Definitely.

Representative BROWN. Federal dollars?

Mr. Eck. Yes, sir.

Representative BROWN. Federal administration?

Mr. Eck. Yes.

Representative BROWN. It encompasses another entity that is privately financed, that is not necessarily supported directly by Federal assistance, but supported by tax exemption for contributions I assume.

Mr. Eck. I am sure it probably is.

Representative BROWN. And the Park Service would take it over. Do you have any estimate of the cost to the Federal Government of that kind of operation?

Mr. Eck. I want to make sure that it is understood that within the boundaries of the historic site there will be, for example, a number of private homes, stores and things that we will never have any dealing with except to the extent that we might attempt to provide for the protection of the historic scene in that area. Only several properties within the boundaries of the historic site would we actually own and operate on a day-to-day basis.

Representative BROWN. I understand that. But what is the cost? That is the question.

Mr. Eck. That I am not familiar with.

Mr. TOBIN. I don't have that figure with me. We will provide it for the record.1

Representative BROWN. Could you tell me how that differs from the possibility of the Colonel Charles Young home and adjacent lands in Wilberforce being taken over as an historic site, a station

1 See enclosure No. 2 of Secretary Cecil D. Andrus' letter to Congressman Clarence J. Brown.