of the Underground Railroad, the genesis of black education in the United States, and a memorial site for really the cooperation between white and black races in freeing the slaves? Is there a difference?

Mr. TOBIN. There are similarities.

Representative BROWN. Is there a difference?
Mr. TOBIN. Sir?

Representative BROWN. Is there a difference?

Mr. TOBIN. I cannot pinpoint differences personally and professionally.

Representative BROWN. I don't want to embarrass you with this situation, but it seems to me that if President Carter wants to have a site in Atlanta for a memorialization of the life and experience of Dr. Martin Luther King, it is not a great deal different with respect to whatever this evanescent national policy on museums is than the proposal that Senator Glenn and I are trying to advance to establish a much more general site for all the black experience in the United States at Wilberforce, Ohio, where there are historic sites, where there will be some private activities, where there are two great educational institutions, where there is already a commitment by the State of Ohio to a museum.

I am straining to get the answers to that and my own logic and would be more than happy to have any help you can contribute to my understanding.

Mr. Eck. Congressman, I don't think there is any difference between the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site and the Colonel Young or the Wilberforce National Historic Site. The form of administration that we would set up at Martin Luther King is essentially what we are studying with respect to the Wilberforce National Historic Site.

As we stated, we are just in the process of reviewing that. The only difference between the two is that the position with respect to the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site has been cleared and the one for the Wilberforce National Historic Site is still under review.

Representative BROWN. It has been cleared. What do you mean it has been cleared?

Mr. Eck. It has been cleared by the administration and presented to Congress.

Representative BROWN. It has been presented formally?

Mr. Eck. The Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site, yes.

Representative BROWN. And the prospect of an investment of Federal dollars?

Mr. Eck. Yes.

Representative BROWN. And an estimate of the cost?

Mr. Eck. Yes. I am sure the Congress has been provided with that.

Representative BROWN. You don't know what that is?

Mr. Eck. We don't.

Representative BROWN. In light of that, I recognize that President Carter may have some more influence in the administration than Senator Glenn or I have, but I think it might be helpful if you could review also for us that proposal and this proposal and ex

plain to us the significant differences as to why this is not approved and that is.

Mr. TOBIN. I am unable to give you a detailed explanation, Congressman. The best I can respond is what was just presented by Mr. Eck, and that is that the administration still has the Colonel Charles Young National Historic Site under review. It has not determined its position. We reported in that regard.

We are also aware that the administration has reviewed the Martin Luther King proposal and believe that they are at a hearing this day to present testimony which would be, as we understand it, favorable for that site.

Representative BROWN. Fascinating. I just want to remind you, in conclusion, that there is sort of a habit or pattern of Congress with reference to such matters. When we are debating whether we ought to build a dam here or a dam somewhere else, that one of the ways to compromise that issue is we build the dam in each of the places. Perhaps you would like to recommend that somewhere in the administration, that it might be nice to go ahead with the President's request for something in Georgia and for the request that Senator Glenn and I have for a similar but I think, frankly, more broadly pervasive in its approach site in Ohio.

Mr. TOBIN. I would like to point out, Congressman, that in our reports we have stated that we believe Wilberforce is a feasible location for such a facility.

Representative BROWN. I thought your report was right on all the conclusions except the last one. That was that you thought it was an excellent site, that the historic positions or locations were there, that the Young home did have historic quality to it, that the two institutions could contribute, that it was well located with reference, as Senator Glenn said, and I won't belabor all of the issues. All of those were fine. But the final conclusion was you didn't want to do it. That is what I am questioning with reference to the other thing. I hope you will submit the material to us and perhaps we can even get some of the administration testimony that is being delivered somewhere else for the record and insert it in the record here today, Senator Glenn, and draw up some of the analogies and apparent contradictions in the administration's position.

Senator GLENN. That is being submitted today, you say, in another committee on the House side?

Mr. Eck. It is, right now, before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.

Senator GLENN. Could you secure a copy of that testimony for us?

Mr. TOBIN. Yes, sir. We would be glad to.

Senator GLENN. I would like to ask staff also to check with staff over there.

Maybe a good thing to do, since that may have a good deal more push than we have in this one, that we could amend this one into that. Is there any reason why they could not be combined?

Mr. TOBIN. I see no reason why not.

Senator GLENN. If this has all of the administration push behind it, then we can all push together, rather than putting a value on one man's life, which I support fully and I don't want to deprecate

in any way the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King and all the fine things he did for this country. But I think what we are trying to commemorate here is a much broader experience, of which Dr. Martin Luther King is one of the central figures. We have many generations of Americans whose lives can also be commemorated apart from just a memorial to Dr. King, honorable though that is, and as much as I would support such honoring of Dr. King.

Perhaps we maybe can put these two things together and make a single bill out of them and it perhaps then has a broader reach of what has been the whole, black experience in America, including Dr. King.

You are probably familiar with the study entitled, "National Museum of Afro-American History and Culture, Wilberforce, Ohio," a feasibility and suitability study, which was completed in September of 1978.

Mr. TOBIN. I have a copy of it, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GLENN. There were quite a number of different alternatives of how this thing could be operated. It says in the summary:

The study team has determined the Wilberforce area substantially meets the 11 considerations previously discussed. Therefore, given the specific direction for locating the museum, which was mandated by Congress, the National Park Service concludes that it is both feasible and suitable to establish a National Museum of Afro-American History and Culture at Wilberforce, Ohio.

That is a pretty definitive summary of that study. I would presume the only thing we are talking about here is money in this tight budget time. Is that correct?

Mr. TOBIN. I believe that has a significant impact, Mr. Chairman, plus the policy of the National Park Service having an operating responsibility for a national museum where the Smithsonian has that responsibility.

Senator GLENN. Everywhere it has "museum," let's change it to "site" or a "facility." We have done that in other cases, even for fish in Baltimore, as I mentioned a while ago. If we want something badly enough, we call it something else and suddenly it becomes approved because it has a different title on it. I don't mind calling it a site or a facility or whatever we want to call it if we get it established. I am not wed to the idea of calling it museum. I don't think Congressman Brown is necessarily, either. So I think we could work out some means. If it is mainly a budget problem, I understand that. What we have provided here is authorizing legislation. I would like to see this get through. I would hope you could support the administration and the administration could support the authorizing legislation by which we in the Congress indicate policy and general direction, even though we may not be able to appropriate financing that particular year.

I would feel we are making some progress even if we got the authorizing legislation through with administration support so as to show we really are for this, it is a policy of the country to set up such a center for study.

I might even be agreeable to saying we would not request an appropriation this year. We are interested in budget balancing here, too, even though the funds we are talking about here are pretty small. I would like to see some progress on this and just not have the administration stonewalling us on this, when they are going right ahead with another center in another place and finding

means of doing it, whatever the title is-facility, site, whatever. If they want to put one in, they sure can find a reason to put it in so it comes through in the authorization and appropriation OK.

I think they could do the same thing here. It has gone on too long here. I wish we would find a way to do it.

Thank you very much. We do have other witnesses this morning. If you could provide the information that has been asked so we can include it in the record, we would appreciate it.

Representative BROWN. Perhaps there is one more question I would like also for submission in the record. That is if you could locate for us the present black history or black culture sites within the Smithsonian.

Mr. TOBIN. Within the Smithsonian or within the National Park Service?

Representative BROWN. Both. But we have been told that the Smithsonian has already got a collection and is using black history and culture collections in its museum system. I would like to know where they are.

Mr. TOBIN. We will submit it for the record.1
Senator GLENN. Thank you.

[A letter with enclosures to Congressman Clarence J. Brown from Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, Aug. 18, 1980, follows:]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., August 18, 1980.

Hon. CLARENCE J. BROWN,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BROWN: Thank you for your July 24 letter concerning questions raised by Senator John Glenn and yourself in the course of the May 2, 1980, hearings before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, relating to the proposed establishment of a National Center of Afro-American History and Culture.

We are happy to share with you the information we are providing to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. We trust you will understand that some delay was necessary in responding to the questions posed by the Committee to coordinate our response with the Smithsonian Institution, an agency independent of this Department. Your letter has additionally raised several new questions which we are responding to at this time.

Your first question asks that we cite the policy which dictates that national museums be located in Washington, D.C. A response prepared by the Smithsonian Institution, designated Enclosure No. 1, is attached with this letter.

Question 2 inquires as to the views of this Department on a modified bill which would retain only sections 2 and 3 of S. 1814 (or H.R. 5401). Your third question asks for other specific objections we might have to the legislation pertaining to the proposed National Center of Afro-American History and Culture. Answers to both queries will be addressed in the formal Departmental report on S. 1814 now under review in the Administration.

Question 4 asks for the cost of the proposed "Martin Luther King Center" in Atlanta, Georgia. We have provided cost information on the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site in Atlanta, Georgia, in Enclosure No. 2. The Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change in Atlanta is an ongoing, private entity which is not the same as the proposed Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site. Due to its location within the Martin Luther King, Jr., Preservation District, it will have a close cooperative relationship with the historic site. The House-passed version of H.R. 3 spells out the terms by which properties currently owned by the Center for Social Change may be acquired for Federal administration within the national historic site. It further guarantees a first preference to the Center to act as a concessionaire for the sale of books and mementos within the park, provided the terms of such contract are acceptable to this Department. As to the source of funds for the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, we believe this would be

See enclosure No. 3 of Secretary Cecil D. Andrus' letter to Congressman Clarence J. Brown.

more appropriately pursued with the Center itself. Funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site will be through the usual congressional appropriations process.

With regard to your fifth question, we know of no money appropriated by the State of Georgia for the proposed Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site, nor has such assistance been requested. Subsection 106(d)(1) of H.R. 3 does require that within the boundaries of the national historic site

.

property owned by the State of Georgia or any political subdivision thereof may be acquired only by donation."

Question 6 inquires as to the significant differences between the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site proposal and the National Center of Afro-American History and Culture. The King site comprises within a few city blocks the place where Dr. King was born, where he worked, and where he is buried. Each is in and of itself historically associated with this figure of transcendent national, and even international, significance. The designation of this area as a national historic site does not represent an effort to synthesize a memorial to Dr. King. The structures have been decreed nationally significant; National Park Service involvement will be to ensure that these sites are available to present as well as future generations of Americans. The National Center of Afro-American History and Culture is not a historic resource nor does it contain any inherent aspect that dictates Wilberforce, Ohio, as its logical location. The National Park Service stated in its findings relating to the Afro-American museum proposal that Wilberforce was a suitable, but not necessarily most appropriate, location. To the extent that an appropriate location could be recommended, we believe that site would be Washington, D.C., for the same reason that the city was established as the Nation's Capital. It might, however, be asked whether additional national museums are at all consonant with modern needs. In recent years we have come to realize that massive museums thrive at the expense of smaller, more accessible museums, which better serve the needs and interests of communities across the country. This is not only so in terms of financial assistance, but in the very collections themselves contained in the museum. One could hypothesize a Dr. King's birthplace in Atlanta being stripped of its belongings for display at a museum in Wilberforce. This would not make Wilberforce more historical, but it would deprive the items of their proper setting and the people of Atlanta of their heritage. It is generally felt that the direction for museums of the future should be toward smaller museums, not more national centers. The Smithsonian has quite effectively shown the way with its Anacostia Neighborhood Museum in Washington, D.C.

Question 7, requesting a listing of black history and/or black culture sites within the Smithsonian and the National Park System, is addressed in Enclosure No. 3. Your final question asks that we briefly describe the function and operation of the National Maritime Museum in California. The museum was originally called the San Francisco Maritime Museum, and was operated by the San Francisco Maritime Museum Association. The Maritime Museum was part of the original Golden Gate National Recreation Area, established pursuant to the Act of October 27, 1972. The San Francisco Maritime Museum Association continued to own and operate the museum, however, until the facility was transferred to the National Park Service in early 1978. The museum essentially comprises five ships from the period 1850 to 1920 moored at the Hyde Street Pier, the square-rigged Balclutha at Pier 43, and the recently added Liberty Ship Jeremiah O'Brien, all in San Francisco. An admission fee to the Balclutha is charged; admission to the other ships is free. Costs for the operation of this unit of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area are borne by the Federal Government, with a portion of the cost authorized by law to be by direct transfer of proceeds from the rental of certain properties within the park. The National Park Service had originally planned to designate the museum as the "Maritime Historic Park” unit of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. However, the facility was referred to as the "National Maritime Museum" in section 317(f) of Public Law 95-625 and in section 3 of Public Law 96-203. The Park Service has received complaints about this "national" designation from maritime musum associations across the country, and we are discussing these concerns with staff members of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on National Parks and Insular Affairs. We will continue to seek resolution of this matter.

Sincerely,

Enclosures.

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary.