Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
NAVY SHIP DONATION PROCEDURES
House of Representatives,
Committee on National Security,
Military Procurement Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, October 8, 1998.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:13 p.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. HUNTER [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to order.
I want to apologize to our witnesses who've waited excessively for the hearing to commence. As you may know, the previous hearing was interrupted by some fairly grave proceedings on the floor of the House; that is, the subject of the impeachment inquiry, and that took about an hour-and-a-half bite out of our workday here with the previous hearing.
We're putting this hearing together because a number of folks are very concerned about this issue; it's a major issue for us. I listened to my great counsel and my great comrade on the National Security Committee here, Mr. Saxton and Mr. Mike Pappas, and when I've talked to them about the possibility of having a hearing for this, they think this is an important issue to discuss, and it's certainly one that's had a tremendous amount of discussion over on the Senate side, and I want to thank my colleagues for seeing to it that we brought this thing to the fore here just a couple of days before we leave on this final recess.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have our colleague, Mr. Andrews, who has also been very, very interested in this, and I know he's going to testify today and all the rest of the witnesses who are here with us. We want to welcome all witnesses from both the Navy and the State of New Jersey.
And the purpose of today's hearing is to better understand the Navy ship donation procedures and to share views and concerns of those in New Jersey who may participate in the transfer of the historic battleship, U.S.S. NEW JERSEY.
As most of you know, the Conference Agreement and the National Defense Authorization Act for 1999 included a provision that would strike the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY from the Naval vessel register and transfer that vessel to a non-for-profit entity which would locate the vessel in the State of New Jersey, and I want to thank Mr. Pappas for bulldogging the conferees on a daily basis to see to it that that happened along with all of the other fine members of the delegation.
To date, the Navy had donated 45 ships to private entities. These organizations have preserved these great naval vessels paying tribute to the courageous men and women of our Navy and Armed Forces who have served so honorably. The vessels, displayed in museum status, also serve to educate American citizens about military service and the contributions our American military men and women have made in the past and continue to make to preserve the freedom that we enjoy in America today.
So, given the increase in interest in military forces of yesterday and today, I think it's fair to say that a distinguished ship, such as the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY should be a valuable asset to the community to which she's donated. We want to ensure that all participants understand the process and have the opportunity to share views and concerns, and with us today are the honorable Rob Andrews, my good friend and colleague, a member of Congress, the New Jersey first district; welcome Rob; the honorable Joe Azzolina, also a friend, the New Jersey State assemblyman for the 13th district, chairman of the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY Battleship Commission; welcome Joe. Joe's also a captain of the United States Navy Retired and has served on the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY, and, Joe, I was on the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY when the National Security Committee, then Armed Services Committee, flew all night to get to Lebanon just before the Marines were—had that enormous tragedy at the barracks in Beruit, and I'll never forget the New Jersey steaming off shore of Beruit in the early morning hours, beautiful hours, great crew with a lot of—with wonderful morale. Also, Major General Donald Gardner, USMC Retired, president and chief executive officer, Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum. General, welcome back to Washington.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Having made those statements, before we open up here, we've got our colleagues from New Jersey, and—oh, excuse me—I forgot all about Mr. Hammes—you're not a potted plant—Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition, and, Mike, thank you for being with us. We appreciate your presence.
Before we kick off here, I know Mr. Saxton, my great colleague and friend, a very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, may have a statement to make. The gentleman's recognized.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We really appreciate very much the fact that you have agreed to call this hearing, and I know it was done hurriedly, and we appreciate you making time for us.
Just by way of interest to everyone, I would just like, if you would hold your glasses up for just a moment, so everyone can see how the side of the glass—it's got a paper clip in there, in case you can't see it. He used to wear white ones, and I——
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Pappas, you're now recognized. [Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, MILITARY PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, though, seriously, thank you very much for the opportunity to get together today to discuss what to New Jersey is an extremely important issue for a number of reasons. I would also—like you, Mr. Chairman—like to thank our witnesses who have come from New Jersey today, and some of them arrived as did Mr. Azzolina, very early in the day.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Also with us today is a great leader in south Jersey, State Senator John Matheussen, who has worked extremely hard on this project, and obviously would love to see the New Jersey back to our State, and I might also say that his interests and mine are quite synonymous in that we share some geography near the Delaware-Philadelphia port which is one of the proposed sites for the New Jersey.
It's the right time for this hearing to discuss the Navy donation. There are nine vessels of great historic significance that are on the list anxiously awaiting donees of which the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY—the catalyst of our discussions today—looks to be one.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask unanimous consent to put the rest of my statement in the record and just conclude by saying this: those of us who requested this hearing did so for four reasons. One—I want to say up front—is parochial; the ship was built in Philadelphia with constituents of Bob Andrews and mine who did great work putting the parts together and manufacturing the parts, primarily in Mr. Andrew's district but also in mine. Number two, in as much as this is a museum, we believe that as a museum, wherever the New Jersey ends up, it should compliment the area. In other words, it makes very little sense to put a battleship museum in an area where there isn't a lot of local interest. Number three, it must be economically feasible, and I know that you know how important this is. I listened to the previous hearing that was in this room just before this one, and we were worrying about where we were going to get money for new defense systems, and Major General Gardner reminded me earlier today that in Fiscal Year 1999, we found it necessary to appropriate $13 million to redeck the Intrepid, and that's fine; we were happy to be able to do it, but the fact of the matter is these museums need to be able to stand alone; they need to be able to operate themselves on their own budget, and they need to be able to maintain themselves, because the simple fact is we don't have a lot of $13 millions to pass around for museums. I wish it weren't that way, but the economic factors here are extremely important. And, finally, the fourth factor is that this needs to be a situation which the Navy and Congress together create, which is good for the public generally, and those four criteria I think are extremely important, and I hope that this discussion that we're going to have today in this hearing will shed light in those four areas in particular, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton can be found in the appendix on page 35.]
Mr. HUNTER. Well, I want to thank the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, one of our great members of this committee, for having the foresight to ask for this hearing, along with others, and to do all the work he's done on it.
I'd like to recognize now, of course, our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Sisisky, who has to go out and talk about the vote that he just cast, so he wants to make a statement before he does that.
STATEMENT OF NORMAN SISISKY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. SISISKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me apologize twice: number one, for being late and starting this late—just like the chairman, you know what happened today, and I hope you'll please forgive us; the other apology is I must leave. I'm a half hour late already for where I've got to go. It's wonderful to welcome my very good friend, Rob Andrews—I'd like to have him for an advocate—and I found out today that Major General Gardner is a constituent of mine, believe it or not, and you know I'm delighted to have him here—[Laughter.]—and Mr. Hammes and I have worked together over the years, and I know he'll be fair, and he's a good man to know, though, because we got our battleship.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I don't blame you for wanting a battleship. You know, I've always said unless you see a carrier battle group or a battleship carrier group in foreign port, you'll never understand the power and might of the United States Navy—excuse me, of the United States, not the United States Navy. Airplanes 40,000 feet in the air and, of course, the Army's in different places getting on the ships, but you can see those battle groups in a foreign port, and, of course, the battleship is not extinct but it's something that everybody wants to go on that they've seen in the movies. And I'll tell you this—I'm probably older than anybody in this room—I still get the thrill of going aboard a naval ship. I guess it's the youth in you and the movies that you saw that you want to do that. I was at Fort Bragg a few weeks ago, and down in the dirts of the Army is a little different than that, but I do welcome you here, and I hope that we can work it out, a satisfactory thing, and make this thing work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Sisisky. And now the gentleman who really ramrodded our provisions. He's responsible for getting this thing through this committee, the Full House, and the conference. I guess you can have the battleship right wherever you want it now, Mike, because you got this thing done. Mike Pappas.
Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and really the entire committee for being as supportive as you've been through this process, and for those members of the public from New Jersey who are here who have been involved in this a lot longer than I have, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
If I were parochial, I would say I want it on the Raritan River in Somerset County, but I don't think that that would be possible, but I am parochial in that having the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY in New Jersey I think has been my primary focus. I'm not from north Jersey; I'm not from south Jersey, I'm from central New Jersey, so parts of my district have probably interests in this going in either location.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
My biggest concern is I don't want anything that is done here or in the future to jeopardize the placement of the ship as far as the Navy is concerned. I think we've demonstrated as a State the seriousness with which we have to raise the necessary funds to bring this ship back to restore it, and I certainly don't want any differences of opinion as to where it should go or the process that can't be worked out to impede what I think we're all trying to accomplish. There are lots of interests that are represented at the table, and I'm certainly interested to what each of you have to say and look forward to asking you questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay, thank you, and you're recognized now, the fine gentleman——
Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems like we've been in this room all day, haven't we?
Mr. HUNTER. Briefly. We've been here briefly.
Mr. WELDON. We started the hearing at, what, 10 o'clock this morning or 11 o'clock this morning here?
Mr. HUNTER. Yes, yes.
Mr. WELDON. It's a pleasure for me to join with my distinguished chairman—even though I'm not on this subcommittee—Mr. Azzolina, Chairman Azzolina, first told me about his efforts—what was it, about a year or two ago? Is that when you came to me and——
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. AZZOLINA. Right.
Mr. WELDON [continuing]. And I said I'll do anything the New Jersey folks want, and then Jim Saxton started bugging me and Mike started bugging me, and Rob, and it's easy to get on a winning bandwagon, because you have so many attributes in New Jersey. As you know, I'm a part-time resident of your State, and I know there's some differences about where to locate it, so I have a solution. You know, I used to be the mayor of Marcus Hook across the river from Paulsboro, so I suggest you put it in Paulsboro, and we'll move the ship back and forth across the river. How does that sound? Does that make it easier for you?
I'm very happy to be here. This is an exciting project for our region. We have a close relationship in our region between the States, and that's only getting stronger. There is no place in America that this should go other than New Jersey, and while I'm not a full-time resident, I obviously have some biases because I am from the Delaware River area and bay, but I respect New Jersey's ability to make the determination of where they would like to see it, and I'll do everything possible to help locally get the infrastructure necessary with my colleagues to maybe show that maybe we could do something in the Delaware River and bay as well that would help in this decision process. But I'm just happy to be here to lend my support and to make sure that we bring this project to fruition for the benefit of New Jersey's residents.
Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Curt; appreciate your comments.
Now let me see, we've gone through that very—the guy that I thought was probably one of the most effective advocates for national defense in the history of the world, Jim Saxton, who said ''You ain't seen nothin' yet 'til you've seen Mike Pappas,'' and you've both made great opening statements here. We have my great friend Rob Andrews who's also very, very concerned about this situation, and we've got, I'd say, another hour or so, maybe longer than that, that we can spend on this thing, and we'll stick around as long as it takes.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, Rob, thank you for being concerned about this and talking to us about it, and the floor is yours Rob.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my gratitude to you for holding this hearing. I understand the sacrifice that this is for you given your busy agenda. We are very appreciative, all of us, for your consideration.
I want to ask your indulgence for a couple of things. One is, with your unanimous consent, I have some material I'd like inserted in the record, which includes some statements from my constituents and also includes a statement from our colleague, Frank LoBiondo, who is from our neighboring district in support of what we're saying here today. Second, I ask your indulgence, after I testify, I need to leave, but I will return before the end of the hour, so I can take any questions that people have.
[The information referred to can be found in the appendix beginning on page 69.]
I'd like to begin with a word of thanks and a statement about what I think is some compelling evidence and then some suggestion about process. I've already thanked you, Mr. Chairman, and I want the record to reflect that without Jim Saxton's efforts we would not be here today and also Mike Pappas I know has been engaged in this from the beginning. I want to thank Joe Azzolina, the assemblyman, Joe Azzolina, who is the chairman of the New Jersey Commission who has worked tirelessly on this issue and deserves much credit, and I particularly want to pay reference to three public officials from my area, two of whom are with us today, State Senator John Matheussen who is here; Camden County Freeholder—and we know that a freeholder is a county commissioner for those of you not fortunate enough to be from New Jersey—Camden County freeholder, Patricia Egan Jones, and the mayor of the city of Camden, Mayor Milton Milan who has also been a leader in this effort is not with us today.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me say some words about what I think——
Mr. HUNTER. And, Rob, could you have those folks stand, the people that you've introduced here, so we know——?
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, I ask if Patricia Jones and Senator Matheussen could stand and be recognized? We thank them for——
Mr. HUNTER. Folks, we welcome you. Thank you for being with us.
Mr. ANDREWS. I will disclose my bias from the outset: I believe very strongly that the city of Camden is the right place for the berthing of the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY, but what I really want to talk about today is as a Federal official; the Federal question that we have in front of us because of a statute that this committee wrote and is writing this year. Prior to this year, you wrote a statute which I think is a wise one, which sets forth conditions and criteria for the transfer of one of these ships for museum purposes. This year, with Mr. Pappas' leadership and from Senator Lautenberg and Senator Torricelli, we're writing an authorization bill that says that the ship will come to New Jersey.
So, there really are three conditions that Federal law puts on the donation of the Battleship New Jersey: the first is it must go to New Jersey—which I would add is immediately across the river from Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania by any definition—second, there must be a maintenance agreement satisfactory to the Secretary of the Navy, and, third, the transfer must take place at no cost to the taxpayers of the United States of America.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'd like to talk about those last two criteria and some compelling evidence that I think already exists on the record in favor of the Camden site as we proceed in this matter. The Department of—the Navy has talked about five factors in identifying what it means to fulfill its statutory authority. The first of these is an adequate financial plan. I believe there are essentially a couple of factors here that distinguish the Camden application from the others. The first is the maintenance cost differential between a ship that is moored in freshwater v. one that is moored in saltwater. The only freshwater applicant here is the Camden application; the other two are saltwater applications, and this has two significant cost impacts on the application.
The first is the need v. the lack of need for drydocking. It is generally believed by experts in the field that ships which are docked at freshwater facilities do not require regular drydocking for upkeep. Ships that are drydocked in saltwater do. For example, the U.S.S. MASSACHUSETTS is being drydocked this year at a cost of $6.2 million. It is estimated this drydocking needs to take place about once every 15 years. This is a substantial cost which the Camden site would not have to bear but the others would.
A second major cost differential is the need for cathodic—I think I pronounced that correctly, and my experts can correct me on that—but the cathodic exchange process. It is generally believed that a cathodic exchange process is not necessary for a ship in freshwater. It is demonstrably necessary for one in saltwater. The cost differential of that is between $25,000 and $50,000 a year.
The second cost factor is capital improvements. It's generally accepted that the Camden site would require capital improvements of around $3 million. The records of the commission would seem to indicate Jersey City has a need for about $9 million, and the record is not clear as to the cost of infrastructure improvements in Bayonne.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The next cost consideration is the issue of revenues. One of the problems with revenue flow when we have to drydock a ship periodically is the interruption in revenues. It is estimated that the drydocking of a ship would take about a year out of commission in terms of admission revenues. That is a problem we would not have at the Camden site that we would have at the other two, and that is a significant cost differential as well.
Finally, there's the issue of the contributions that are on the table. The Camden applicant has made a binding, legal commitment for $4.2 million above and beyond what the commission and the State would do. The other applicants I don't believe have made similar binding commitments; they can certainly speak for themselves.
Second criteria is environmental. The Delaware River channel is deep enough for this ship. It is not clear whether the harbor in the other two cases is. As a matter of fact, the weight of authority seems to be that dredging would, in fact, be necessary for the ship to be home ported in either place. I don't have to tell my colleagues from New Jersey the environmental issues incumbent with respect to dredging in the Newark Harbor. It's an issue that we have grappled with for a long, long time; it does not have a readily apparent solution, and it is an environmental issue quite relevant to this discussion.
With respect to the issue of maintenance, frankly, the same cost issues which raised the specter of the cost differential between fresh and saltwater are also here with respect to a maintenance plan. Towing we are told would be essentially equal for all three applications, in the neighborhood of $1.6 million or $1.7 million.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me just close by talking about the curatory factors which the Navy looks at. This ship was built at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. My grandfather was an employee at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. There are thousands of families in our area that have their roots in the construction of this ship, and I think that that very broad and deeply felt historical commitment would be one that would be beneficial, both in the economic promotion of the ship, the care for the ship, and its proper promotion as a prized naval vessel of this country.
Let me conclude before we go to vote with this one thought: this Congress and the President wisely deemed the city of Camden to be an urban enterprise zone, because we need the help. We are the fifth poorest city in the United States of America. We do not need more State or Federal handouts in the long run. We need economic development. There is no more effective tool for economic development given the existence of the State aquarium at this site, given the existence of the Sony Music Center at this site, there is no greater tool for economic development than this ship.
I'll conclude by simply saying I want to join you as we watch this process go along, so that we make the correct decision under the law from the perspective of Federal taxpayers. I certainly bring a bias with me today, but I invite my colleagues in the House and Senate to look at this without bias. I believe they'll reach the conclusion I did: the evidence compels the selection of the Camden site.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews can be found in the appendix on page 42.]
Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Andrews, and we appreciate you and appreciate your being our colleague; being straightforward. You've made a strong case here.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We're going to go to Chairman Azzolina, but I'll tell you what, I think we've got about six minutes left on this vote, and, Joe, we want to give you a chance to make a full statement. So, let's go vote; we'll come right back, and we'll lead off with you.
[Recess.]
Mr. HUNTER. Okay, the subcommittee will resume, and Chairman Joe Azzolina, we wanted to give you every opportunity to make a full statement here, so the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF NAVY CAPTAIN JOSEPH AZZOLINA (RET), CHAIRMAN, USS NEW JERSEY BATTLESHIP COMMISSION
Mr. AZZOLINA. Thank you very much, the Honorable Duncan Hunter, chairman of this committee, and Honorable Congressman Saxton. Thank you very much for letting me be here today, and thank you very much for releasing this ship to the State of New Jersey. As you know, it was going to be an open rat race all over the country, and by your actions—it's amazing, the Senate also went along, which is very tough I understand, and through all your efforts, the impossible dream has been done.
Mr. HUNTER. Well, let me tell you, you've got to give a lot of credit to, obviously, Jim Saxton, the senior member of this committee, but he said that you're going to have a ball of fire here with this Mike Pappas, and Mike Pappas is responsible for getting this thing through and bringing the New Jersey home.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. AZZOLINA. I've been saying that——
Mr. HUNTER. Now, we're trying to define where home really is. [Laughter.]
Mr. AZZOLINA. Yes. I'd like to introduce a couple of people with that: Dave Shoe, Captain Dave Shoe, is the executive director of the North Carolina. He and I were on the Battleship New Jersey when we were arriving there, he was the Operations Officer, and I was on as Special Assistant to the Captain. We did the Far East, Central America, and then we were sent to Beirut, and we were both there when the two planes were knocked down and when the barracks were bombed, so we know exactly what you're talking about.
Mr. HUNTER. Then you were there when I was there.
Mr. AZZOLINA. Yes, it was some tour. I personally did it for no pay. I was gone for three months, and then I extended for seven months, so I did do that.
And let me just start by saying—and I have, also, Gordon Bishop who's with my staff here. He used to write environmental for the Star Ledger, and stand—would you stand, please? And one other that I tried to come to Congress—I tried to come to Congress 10 years ago, and I didn't make it; I arrived today. Thank you very much.
Mr. HUNTER. Joe, it's a pleasure to have you here, believe me.
Mr. AZZOLINA. Thank you.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HUNTER. Especially a guy who has exhibited as much patriotism and love for his country as you have.
Mr. AZZOLINA. Thank you. Quickly, I just want to give you a little background on myself, because you have to understand where I'm coming from. I grew up—my father's mother came from Italy, and I grew up in a little grocery store, and after I got out of the Navy, I was able to take what I learned there and develop a chain of supermarkets with 1,300 employees, and I had to select sites, and I've never made a mistake where I selected a site. One was overwhelmed with a lot of other stores which was small, but then we closed that, and we're going to do a new one. So, I do know how to select sites. Other than that, I put 42 years in the Navy. I went in at 18; I joined when I was in high school; finished quickly, and at 20 years old I was in the occupation forces in Europe—I'm that old, I look younger, I know—and then when I got out, I got involved in small grocery self-service stores and was called back for the Korean War, and after I came back I started opening stores over many years, and I was in the Reserves all those years. I served in every type of Navy ships, even Office of the Legislative Services here in Washington, Pentagon and many other naval duties, so—and I've done most of that for nothing. Only time I was paid was when I was a lieutenant I think; other than that, it was all for free. So, I just want to give you that background.
For over 20 years, I've served with pride and determination to bring the Battleship New Jersey back to her home State. Ten years before that, I was involved in Philadelphia when they recommissioned it. I was a captain at that time; I was in the legislature, and I was put on active duty for training on there also at the time. As the commission founding chairman, I have personally invested about $150,000 of my company's and my own money on this project from day one. Plus, I also served—well, I already covered that. As commission chairman, I've done everything within my powers as a businessman and naval officer and State lawmaker to assure this great warship will someday be on the Jersey waterfront as a world-class educational museum, a lasting tribute to all veterans of America's armed forces.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I want to commend the battleship commissioners who served with me over the past two decades giving generously of their time, talent, and resources, to move this unprecedented project forward. A lot of them give many, many hours as I have, and they've been persistent in this effort. One of our commissioners—just to give you an example—Walt Alonsky, who served on the Battleship New Jersey during World War II, has worked the last 2 years just on this project with Cray, Indiana to secure 300 inert projectiles needed for restoration to put on the ship that show these are 5-inch, 16-inch and so forth, and they've been transferred to Earl to wait until we receive the ship—and we paid for the transportation, so we didn't get it for free. Also, he's working on a lot of memorabilia for the ship. The commission's goal is to make this most decorated warship in naval history, premier educational museum and memorial, a tribute to all veterans of the armed forces.
Now that this much anticipated moment has arrived—we were out here alone all these years—that day when the big J soon will be released to its namesake State, the battleship is to be received by waterfront cities vowing to do everything they can to assure that the famed New Jersey will be sited at their own ports. As an entrepreneur, I have always believed that competition is certainly good for everyone. Society winds up with the best possible products and services at the lowest possible prices, and the same applies to the process of selecting the best possible site for the legendary warship. However, the three New Jersey waterfront cities are looking at what is in the best interest of their own cities. Our public commission is looking at what is best for the Battleship New Jersey.
On the issue of competition, the commission also believes that the Battleship New Jersey will complement the Intrepid Aircraft Carrier, also a naval museum, on New York City's waterfront. Big ships depended on one another during World War II and other international conflicts. The second half of the century, we think the New Jersey is good for New York's Intrepid and that the Intrepid is good for the New Jersey; two outstanding military icons and popular public attractions.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
These irreplaceable warships are docked far enough from each other to give residents and tourists time to visit one at a time, enjoy a complete tour and understanding of their roles in American and global military history. As we do in business, we don't put stores miles apart; we try to have them nearby, so we work together, and that can work with the Intrepid because they're two different ships, and the battleship is different. We would do everything we could to promote that also.
The Battleship Commission's original application to the United States Navy was submitted in 1995 designating Liberty State Park on the Jersey waterfront as a preferred site, but the cost was so prohibitive the adjoining city of Bayonne under former mayor Leonard Kiczek offered the historic military pier to the commission two years ago. Then we modified the commission's application designating Bayonne as the battleship site. Our goal was to bring the Battleship New Jersey back to her home State as soon as possible at the lowest cost possible to the people of New Jersey, America, and her donors and supporters.
The Bayonne site was modeled after the successful museum sites of the Battleship North Carolina and Alabama that you have pictures of there—see the pictures. Those impressive warships are secured at dockside with ample parking for thousands of visitors alongside the ship.
We are before this congressional subcommittee today to make sure the Battleship New Jersey goes to a more suitable site on the Jersey waterfront. This mighty warrior deserves nothing less than our very best cooperative efforts. The Battleship Commission voted on September 10, 1998 at an open public meeting at the State house in Trenton, our capital, to site the Battleship New Jersey at the military ocean terminal in Bayonne. This was the most active, modern military marine terminal on the East Coast during and after World War II. The New Jersey was berthed at the Bayonne terminal after World War II and again after the Korean War, and I have pictures here to show that, and just last—a couple of weeks ago, the people celebrated 50 years ago when the battleship came into Bayonne, the sailors had no place to stay, and the people of Bayonne did offer their residences to the sailors. So, there's history both in Camden, and there's history here. The ship was decommissioned twice at Bayonne and then stored there until it was moved to Philadelphia when the Army took over the base. So, it was between World War II, Korea, and then recommissioned after the Korean War.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Bayonne waterfront site is the State of New Jersey's only 2-mile long, 450-acre pier capable of immediately mooring this immense, 45,000-ton world-class battleship. A secure dock that can withstand a 100-year storm with little modification and birth in this historical, unique site that meets the Navy's stringent standards for safety and security for both the ship and a minimum 400,000 paying visitors a year who will board this magnificent, floating, educational museum and memorial. The Harris Engineering Firm is providing us the engineering data to make sure they're the ones that built the home port in Staten Island, and they're the ones doing the engineering study, what is needed there, and I'm sure that the amount of money needed is very minimal, and we have that available.
Of equal importance is the United States Coast Guard base is on the same pier at the same—where the Battleship New Jersey adding to that sites critical security and safety. They're just down several thousand feet.
In conclusion, the military—the Bayonne military ocean terminal can provide a modern dock to birth a ship; is about three football fields long, with the depth of water, with limited amount of dredging needed; utilities, all the infrastructure service, including fire alarms and fire hydrants, is right there on the pier; ease of large and heavy servicing equipment to maintain the battleship year round—I'm not sure if I asked if I could have the captain's statement from the Battleship North Carolina, which I've submitted, and——
Mr. HUNTER. Without objection, we'll take it into the record.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. AZZOLINA. Okay, thank you—and he is backing our position as far as dockside goes and a number of other things; a fire department located on the dock right near the ship within a few thousand feet; parking alongside the ship for as many as 700 vehicles—you can see it over there; this is the way it will look when it's finished—easy site access right off of exit 14A of the New Jersey Turnpike, the most heavily traveled toll road in America. If you've ever been to Newark Airport, there's four exit 14: 14A is the spur that goes towards Jersey City and Liberty State Park and New York, and this road here covers the interconnections from all kinds of highways and roads and the parkway and spurs that bring the tremendous amount of population that lives in that area and is within the end of the dock; it's within 10 minutes of 14A. Within two lights you're on a spur that will go right over into the base.
The, as you know, MOT, or Military Ocean Terminal is being vacated because of the downsizing of the military, and they're going to tear down—they're going to have redevelopment commission—right now, part of it doesn't look so nice; part of it looks very nice when you come onto the base, but a number of those buildings are going to be taken down, and Bayonne, through an economic development commission, is going to—they've got many proposals. The Army will be out of there next year, and there are many proposals to do a number of projects that will compliment the ship. A site within, as I said, the greatest metropolitan market in the United States; a pool of about 25 million residents in the greater metropolitan region plus—and I'm only—plus 45 million visitors, tourists, to the immediate region of which a minimum of 400,000 paying visitors a year are needed to generate sufficient revenues to sustain the battleships; $3 million annual operating and maintenance budget.
Now, I've only given you part of the population. There is, if you count everyone in all the counties in New Jersey that see each other, we're probably talking another 50 million. We've got the skyland region, the metro region, the shore area, and all these people generally come up the parkway or the turnpike. So, the population that visits the State in that area is tremendous.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The operating budget, I've figured, is about $3 million annually and the maintenance—because I've taken Dave Shoe who is the executive director, I've taken his budgets, and I've changed them for the northern Jersey or the New York metropolitan area. I've changed the budgets higher to meet the greater expense, but we've also got hundreds and hundreds of volunteers that are going to help us with the electric, the plumbing, the blacktopping, the painting, and one union alone just in Bayonne has offered all their union members to do the electrical work on board for free, and there's contractor associations who have offered thousands and thousands of dollars that are going to be able to help us. They helped the Vietnam memorial in New Jersey with $350,000 where the work they said in our case is going to be much, much more. So, all that is available to us.
And ample room as the Alabama has to do impressive military displays around the dock area, a dock that has been recently renovated will be leased to the non-profit Battleship Foundation for $1 a year. In addition, another $1 million has been offered by the city, or through their sources, to take care of some of these other contingency costs that I brought up. A ready pier with a value—if you figure $200,000, $200 a square foot, as we have an admiral on the commission who's the CB-type retired. This dock is worth—probably cost you $12 million to $15 million to build today, and eventually it will be planned as ferry service from the various areas that go to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and I have a picture in your packet that shows from the dock that you see the New York skyline and even the Statue of Liberty is not that far away.
The Bayonne battleship site will also have revenue-producing projects such as corporate functions, civic activities, campouts of the ship for youth groups, and so forth, and I'm not sure if I mentioned it, I think I did that available right on the dock—I think I did before—700 cars. You can't beat coming right to the ship, parking in front of the ship, and boarding it. In the other two sites that were proposed, parking is not nearby the ship. I guess there will be jitney service that could be provided—people will have to wait and so forth—but the walk is a distance, the park is a distance. The parking, in some cases, may be safe and may not be safe, that, the Navy will have to determine, but it's not nearby.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The key here also, the dock is right alongside. Our original proposal at Liberty State Park was to hopefully get parking nearby. There was another proposal at Caymen Point Pier which was too far out, and it's a little bit aways from the Liberty Park, so we've done our job, and I think we've come up with the best solution.
By the way, the Secretary of the Navy Layman, when I was on board with him when we did the sea trials at Long Beach, told a reporter at the time on TV that—and others have told me the same thing—that this ship was made from steel and nickel alloy, and you do need cathodic protection; they have it in brackish water. Captain told me he's in brackish water in North Carolina. He has a fine, cathodic protection system, and the cost is not $50,000; it's more like a few hundred or a few thousand dollars a year. There's other statements that were made, but I want to counter them or I'll pose those to the Navy. So, we've done our job.
We've—one other point, I did have this map here that's included which was Newark Airport, and it shows from Newark Airport out to Bayonne and around to the base here, and it's sited here, Battleship New Jersey right at this site. So, the airport in Newark, the continental, and others have said we can do all the promoting we want for this ship at the airport also, and it's, again, minutes away.
So, again, just to wrap up, there's a tremendous amount of population in this area, and as a supermarket—and that's why I gave you my background—you pick where the people are; you don't pick where there's limited people. So, we have to be where the biggest market is in the country, and that's where it is, because we're not just talking in the beginning. In the beginning, a lot of people will come, but it cuts down like the Camden Aquarium. They projected 1,000 visitors a year—I mean, 1 million visitors a year, and it came down to 500,000, and that's where it sits, and for years it hasn't paid. We want this to pay from day one. I'm a marketing guy; I'm a merchandiser; I know advertising; I know how to work with all kinds of groups as our commission members do, and we'll make this work.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This has been my life's work. I know I'm going to donate a lot more money to the cause as we go along, because I'm subsidizing certain people, certain benefits in the foundation now, and I'll continue to do it unlimitedly for a number of years. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Azzolina can be found in the appendix on page 44.]
Mr. HUNTER. Chairman Azzolina, Joe, you have given a wonderful statement, and I'm particularly impressed with your background and all of the enormous dedication that you've given to this country.
Mr. AZZOLINA. I forgot to tell you, I spent 17 of the 32 years in the legislature.
Mr. HUNTER. You've given, also, a very complete statement. That's right, but listen, thank you so much.
Mr. AZZOLINA. Thank you.
Mr. HUNTER. We really appreciate you.
Major General Gardner, the floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL DONALD R. GARDNER (RET), USMC, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTREPID SEA-AIR-SPACE MUSEUM
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
General GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to open with a very brief opening statement and request your permission to insert in the record a more detailed statement which I've provided.
Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure for me to appear before the House National Security on Military Procurement Subcommittee to share my views and experiences in the process of donating the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY to a not-for-profit entity in the State of New Jersey. I am currently serving as the president and chief executive officer of the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City. I assumed this position in September, 1996. Prior to this, I served almost 40 years in the active U.S. Marine Corps, retiring as a Major General.
Allow me to highlight the history of our great ship for you and your committee. The U.S.S. INTREPID is the fourth United States ship to bear this name. The 55-year old aircraft carrier was built in Newport News, Virginia. Construction began just nine days prior to the United States entry into World War II. The Intrepid and her two sister ships, the Yorktown and the Lexington, are currently open as museums, soon to be joined by the Hornet. At least six other American carriers have been decommissioned and are waiting to be transformed into museums as well or to be potentially scrapped. In addition, six of the eight remaining U.S. battleships are open as museums or scheduled to become museums.
Intrepid has become a monument to American know-how and spirit. The Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum is first and foremost a tribute to the men and women who pioneered marine and aviation heritage. None of this would have been possible without Mr. Zachary Fisher, the founder and chairman of our board of trustees. For those of you who do not know Mr. Fisher, he is a man who had a vision to save this carrier from decommissioning and scrapping and single-handedly created the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum. It is now the preeminent museum of its type with a mission to honor America's military and to educate our visitors in history and science.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Today, the museum is a national historic landmark and a permanent memorial to all those men and women who served in the defense of America. I'm pleased to report to you that Mr. Fisher, on September the 14th, received the most prestigious award a civilian can receive from the President, the Medal of Freedom, for his sacrifice, philanthropy, and for a lifetime of devotion to our country's military.
At the Intrepid, we continue to fulfill Zachary Fisher's dream to preserve and let grow one of America's most loved historical landmarks. Our goal is to honor as many active duty military and veterans as is possible. One of the ways that Intrepid fulfills her mission is to host the world-renowned fleet week, a week-long celebration with visiting ships which honors 10,000 military personnel who visit Intrepid during fleet week.
Intrepid is not only a museum, but an institution devoted to our country's military in every way. Since Intrepid opened its doors in 1982, it's become New York City's primary center for veterans' activities. In addition to hosting veteran ceremonies on holidays, Intrepid actively serves Veterans all year ensuring that all our citizens of our Nation are reminded of the invaluable contributions made to America by those who've served in the armed forces. Intrepid also has a special scholarship program for military personnel and their family members. More than $200,000 annually goes to support these Intrepid scholars with more than 800 students having benefited from the program.
A great philosopher once said, ''The purpose of life is to do something that outlasts life.'' Like many of you, Mr. Fisher has enjoyed the success of being an American, an American whose hard work has paid great dividends. More importantly, he's given back to the country we all love in a most generous way.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Intrepid allows young people to feel what it's like to be on the carrier. The Intrepid also educates history and let's them learn firsthand about the sacrifices that thousands have made to ensure our freedom. Countless patriotic Americans have also put up millions of dollars of their own money into this museum to ensure the survival of this historic old ship. Mr. Fisher has generously contributed $28 million of his own money to keep Intrepid afloat.
Her story continues to be told and will for generations to come. The legacy of Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher is priceless, but to assist the committee, let us examine the cost of operating a ship museum. In the acquisition phase, you must acquire the ship and find a suitable mooring site for the vessel. Support must be generated from political, civil, and business leaders, as well as veterans. You must raise the funds and tow the ship to the site, then hire a staff. The restoration phase starts with repairs and painting and enhancing the mooring site. The operation phase includes preparing the vessel and mooring site for public visitation, both for start-up and daily maintenance. Our acquisition, restoration, and start-up costs were in excess of $15 million in 1982.
The Intrepid Museum is a not-for-profit education corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. The museum opened to the public on August 3rd, 1982. The submarine, U.S.S. GROWLER, and the destroyer, U.S.S. EDSON, were similarly loaned by the Navy to the foundation and have been open to the public since 1989. We now average almost 500,000 visitors in annual attendance. This represents a 7 percent growth over the past year.
For our last fiscal year, ended April 30th, 1998, the operating budget totaled $8.5 million. Our largest operating expenses were salaries, utilities, and insurance. The budget for the current fiscal year is $9 million. Based on last year's budget, 41 percent of our revenues were from box office admissions. Contributions and fundraisers produced another 32 percent. Museum rentals for private social events yielded an additional 10 percent. State and local grants, catering royalties and museum gift shop, and other miscellaneous fees provided the balance.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The 105th Congress also appropriated, or made available, $13 million to the Department of the Navy a grant for the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum Foundation only for the refurbishment of the former U.S.S. INTREPID, CV11. The grant is for the preservation of the ship and cannot be used to support the operating budget. The grant was awarded in February, 1998 and expires in two years. This work is ongoing and is very important to the future of the museum. May I again express our most sincere thanks and appreciation to the Congress from our chairman, Mr. Zachary Fisher, our vice-chairman, Mr. M. Anthony Fisher, and all of our board of trustees and myself for your generous support in preserving Intrepid for future generations.
Lastly, as I conclude with a brief comment on the ship donation program. Currently, there are more than 43—45, I think is the accurate number—45 ships on display and the number is growing. We have received great support from the Navy. The annual inspection program is working well. The hull and the material condition surveys are helpful. The inspection program serves as an excellent training opportunity for the Navy Reserves. The Navy also helped us with the engineering package that paved the way for the Federal congressional grant.
My one caution to you is we must work together to place future museums so that all can financially survive. To paraphrase a depression era political phrase, ''We do not need a ship in every stream.'' We want all donated ships to be successful, including the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY, therefore, site selection is critical. Each donated ship museum should be separated by a minimum of 50 miles to ensure the financial success of both museums. Ships increasing in age require more and more maintenance. The operating budget must be raised each and every year. You cannot depend on public grants over the long term. There is high public and political interest in obtaining ships. The Navy is very helpful. The tough, real question is how much money, not the first year, but how much money can you raise for the second year?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views, and I will do my very best to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Gardner can be found in the appendix on page 49.]
Mr. HUNTER. General Gardner, thank you. Mr. Mike Hammes is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition and an old friend of this subcommittee and committee and a very trusted public servant. You've heard the testimony of the three contenders here.
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUNTER. Why don't you—if you could comment and lay out, initially for us, Mike, if you could, the process and the important items of the evaluation that you folks look at.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL C. HAMMES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION
Mr. HAMMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening.
Mr. HUNTER. I knew you'd get that in.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir. [Laughter.]
I was just wondering——
Mr. HUNTER. Hopefully, it will be ''good night'' soon.
Mr. HAMMES [continuing]. If one of us would have the opportunity.
The Navy thanks the chairman and the members for calling this hearing. We think it's important to get off and everyone understand the requirements and have an open environment in dealing up front as we move down to getting the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY to the State of New Jersey.
I would like, also, to submit my detailed statement for the record.
Mr. HUNTER. Without objection, Mike.
Mr. HAMMES. As well as, I have some flip charts, and we have copies of those. Those should go in the records, and we have extra copies in case anyone didn't get them. It will probably take me five to seven minutes to go through this, and I'm going to hit the highlight as we go through. And, then, of course, I'm here for questions wherever we go after that.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information refered to can be found in the appendix beginning on page 69.]
I think we all understand the purpose of the program. It is certainly to promote the public interest and defense, particularly of the Navy, to honor the sailors and the families of the sailors that have served on these ships, and, in many cases, to honor the cities that have supported these ships while they were in services as well as who may have been involved in the building of these ships.
The program is governed by title 10, USC 7306, basically says it's up to the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to decide on where the ship is going to go. No cost to the Government; it goes to non-profit organizations, either a private organization that's non-profit or Government. They have to be ships that are excess. There's a notification period requirement after we make the decision of 60 days continuous Congress in session before we can finalize the agreement even though we've decided where it will go, and the ship must be maintained in a condition suitable and satisfactory to the Navy, and we've already discussed there's over 45—well, there are exactly 45 ships in the program today that have been donated.
I'm going to talk about the donation timeline processes in two different cases. I know it's hard to see this, and so I'm going to highlight it. I'm on the—excuse me, I skipped ahead one too far here.
I'll talk about the organization and who's involved in the process and how do we do it. The real work is done by the Ship Donation Program Office which is at the bottom of the left-hand column. Mr. Tom Demos works in the office; Gloria Carvalho. They get optional support from the Naval Sea Systems Command for technical, also legal aspects, environmental, environmental agency gets involved, and the EPA's in that, as well as Naval Shore Facilities. This is a team that has done a lot of source selections. They've done these donations before; they understand the integrity of source selections, and it's a fair process.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HUNTER. How big is the team again?
Mr. HAMMES. It will—depending on whether it's more than one proposal or one, you'll have a technical expert in each area, and there's seven major areas. So, there's at least 7 members on this team and sometimes more; it could be up to 10.
The Naval Sea System Command is where this Program Office will reside under the Program Executive Officer for expeditionary warfare. That's just how we house it in AFC.
I'm Mike Hammes. I work for Lee Buchanan who is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition. I will make the recommendation to him from this group that does that evaluation of the donees, and he will take that to Under Secretary Holton and on to the Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. HUNTER. While we're at it, Mike, excuse me for mispronouncing your name. I'm real good at that today.
Mr. HAMMES. Sir, I've been Hammes, Hammes.
Mr. HUNTER. We won't call you late to dinner, right?
Mr. HAMMES. Right. The timeline—really, there's two timelines. There's a timeline, in general, if there's one donee or applicant, and then if there's multiple, the timeline gets longer. The first part of the process is the ship has to be stricken by the Navy. At that point in time, we put on the Federal Register, the ship is available for donation. Ships available for donation can be ships that the Navy considers historical; there may be a member or a city that's interested in it, we could put it on the list. There are several ways that a ship could end up on the donation list.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Then we begin a six-month period of receiving proposals. Generally, that is our policy; that's not law. There's some flexibility of that. A lot of it would depend on whether the competitive applicants thought that they could deal with a shorter period. However, we will want to be fair to all applicants and generally we use six months.
Once we receive the applicant—in this case, just being one—it could take 3 to 18 months to get the ship donated. This is not generally driven by our—that time period is not driven by our requirements. It's usually the quality of the proposal: How good are the finances? How good is the technical proposal? Are we going to have any environmental problems in working out what we need to do with the EPA? It can be a long time, and it's affected by the 60-day notice and session in Congress.
In the case of the Missouri, it took us nine months before we finalized the donation after we had made the decision it would go to Hawaii, and the quickest we've ever done this process for one ship was the Hornet, and it took us seven months for the whole process, and there were congressional guidance there that shortened the time period we had to deal with on the end, and that's in my statement.
There is another column in the process for multiple donations—it's in the middle in purple—we think it's mostly six months where we go through and evaluate multiple proposals. This process begins just like when we have one, we treat all applicants fairly, then we close the doors once we have the firm proposals and we evaluate them. Then we deal one on one with each applicant with questions and answers in determining that we understand their proposal and point out any weaknesses in those proposals and any strengths to them. There's no leveling across proposals with whoever's doing it. It's just like an acquisition process and procurement integrity act. The same people do source selections in our acquisition programs that work this process. And then, once again, on the end, it's probably 13 to 18 months after we've made the selection before we can get the ship to the donee.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The basic criteria that's used as part of evaluation of what the applicant has to submit, they have to submit a financial plan, a mooring plan, a maintenance plan, towing plan, environmental plan, a security plan, and a curatorial plan. This normally is—if there's one applicant, that's all there will be. If there's more than one, and everyone rates very highly, and there's no major discriminating difference in those seven categories, then we would discuss with the Secretary of the Navy additional factors which could be public affairs and other items that he may have interest in. In that case, all applicants would be notified what the additional criteria and understand the importance of them.
This, quickly, is where all the ships are. You can see there are a large number of them concentrated in the Northeast area, but, however, they are all over the United States. We're quite proud of this. We have tried to get more proactive in this. We've established a Program Office to focus this program in the last year. We now have a website where the general public has access to this program and can communicate with us.
So, we look forward to working in the New Jersey process. We know where it's going to go; that's good, New Jersey, and I'm sure it's going to be very competitive. I and John Douglas still have a spear in our chest from the great American Norm Dix when his hometown lost the competition for the Missouri. That was very rough, but the decision——
Mr. HUNTER. Well, his State should have been named Missouri——
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. And he would have got it. [Laughter.]
Mr. HAMMES. That's the end of my statement, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hammes can be found in the appendix on page 54.]
Mr. HUNTER. Well, Mike, thank you, and, you know, one thing that I think is gratifying to us as members of the committee, and I think all Members of Congress, is we talked earlier with the previous panel, and they brought up base closings, and we talked about how saddened we were that the base closing process had become political at one point. The vast majority of our selection processes with respect to the Navy and the rest of DOD are not political. We make a lot of—we give a lot of political guidance up here, but then we ultimately hand the ball to some people with great integrity like the folks that you have on your selection committee, and you guys go out and do the best you can with the congressional guidelines that you have in terms of what are the important factors and what are your timelines for responding, and Americans have a way of doing a great job at that. So, we really appreciate you and this team that's going to make this evaluation, I guess. And I want to turn this over, quickly, to my colleagues here, but you listed these criteria that are very important in terms of the packages: towing, the mooring—in the proposals—towing, mooring, maintenance, environmental in your museum proposal, and, of course, the financial package is very important. Do you folks have a weighting system for those criteria?
Mr. HAMMES. On Missouri, we did have a weighting system. We have not determined whether we will have a weighting system in terms of points. I'm sure that we will have a low—if it's low quality—medium, high in terms of weighting. We have not determined—the process is these are evaluated, and usually we've only had a weighted situation when we've had a competitive situation. Missouri is the most significant competitive situation we've had, and it looks like New Jersey will be the next or equal to, and if we do a weighting, we will publish it and give a rational on what the weightings are and why.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HUNTER. Okay, so you haven't yet defined the parameters of the competition, but——
Mr. HAMMES. We have only defined what I have given you. The weightings of them have not been defined and any additional criteria——
Mr. HUNTER. So, you haven't done the fine tuning, if you will, on the parameters of the competition?
Mr. HAMMES. No, sir. We're waiting until the President signs the bill, and we're moving on.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Give me an idea of the timeline here now—presuming the President signs the bill in the next week or so—when do you believe you'll probably have a definition of the competition that you can publish so that competitors can begin to focus on that and start to prepare their packages?
Mr. HAMMES. Within two months.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay. So, within a couple of months you'll have—they'll know what they have to show.
Mr. HAMMES. Right.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HUNTER. Okay. What will happen then? And I think you can assume there's going to be three applicants.
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir. They will start their dialog with us. We will meet with them individually to clarify any issues on the weightings, et cetera. Anything that is something that each group should know, like the questions asked, that each group should know, we will publish that. We'll probably use the website to do that. If the offerers would rather not have it done that way, we would not. So, I think it begins with dialog, and they start preparing their proposals, and we ensure that they understand our requirements and weighting.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay, when will the proposals—about what time will they be turning the proposals in?
Mr. HAMMES. Roughly, we have a six-month period that we like to deal with once the ship is announced through the Federal Register that it's available for donation, and that announcement should proceed right after the bill is signed.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay, so you think that they will have—they will be able to submit their packages around May or June of next year?
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Now, how long will it take you, generally, to evaluate those?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HAMMES. Generally, that period is roughly six months.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Are you going to have a formal presentations? Will those be allowed by the various communities, because I can see here a lot of people that are going to want to show what they have? I mean, I don't anticipate this to be a paper exercise. There are going to people involved who want to do a show and tell about what their community's got.
Mr. HAMMES. Our door, our Program Office, and my door is open for whatever presentations or information they need to provide or would like to provide. We're just going to be making sure that all donees know that the door was open and someone came in.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay. So, they submit the packages around May or June. The decision would come about, when?
Mr. HAMMES. About six months after that, sir.
Mr. HUNTER. Six months?
Mr. HAMMES. As to who would get the ship.
Mr. HUNTER. So, basically, around January, 2000.
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HUNTER. Okay, okay. Thank you very much for a very complete testimony in terms of laying out what the situation is, how it's going to shape up and how people are going to need to respond and how the evaluation is going to be made.
Mr. HAMMES. Thank you.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Saxton.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hammes, while Chairman Hunter was helping us to understand the timeline, I thought I would just ask you this question first, both Chairman Azzolina and in discussions with Senator Matheussen, we were a little bit concerned about the tow because of the seasons when it can be towed and also because of access to and through the Panama Canal, and the quicker we get to the point where we can tow, the less likelihood that we will have problems we think, maybe.
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. SAXTON. If all of the applicants agree, can you work with us to speed up the process somehow?
Mr. HAMMES. We're flexible. We're work with—just so all applicants are being treated fairly.
Mr. SAXTON. Okay, thank you.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to can be found in the appendix beginning on page 69.]
Mr. SAXTON. General Gardner, I don't think I'm going to ask you a question where we're going to learn anything new, but I would like to try to put some things that you said into context.
First, knowing that we recently appropriated $13 million to provide the financing to redeck the Intrepid, it would be fair for me to assume, then, that that was necessary because the Intrepid is not producing enough revenue on its own to provide for that kind of maintenance money. Is that correct?
General GARDNER. That's correct, sir. My $9 million operating budget I do myself, and we are—we've done the groundwork for a capital fund drive which we hope to kick off shortly to raise approximately $50 million, so that we have a new museum for the new millennium after 2000. But my operating budget would not allow me to do the flight deck replacement and the kind of ship preservation which the 105th Congress has allowed us to do.
Mr. SAXTON. How much, in terms of a percentage of your budget—you mentioned $8.5 million for, I guess, Fiscal Year 1998 and $9 million operating budget for——
General GARDNER. Nineteen ninety-eight, and 1999.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SAXTON. Nineteen ninety-eight and 1999. What percentage of that goes to other types of maintenance, obviously smaller dollars? Do you have that information?
General GARDNER. I don't do very much capital improvement within my $9 million budget, but the——
Mr. SAXTON. The question—let me just ask this whole question and get it right out, and then you can respond to it the way you want to. As I said in my opening statement, we don't have a lot of millions of dollars to appropriate around here for preservation of museums, because we've got our national security to worry about, and we're short on cash. And, so we're very concerned about future museums that we don't find ourselves in a position where we're creating additional expense for ourselves where we don't have the money to do it, and you also mentioned that you're concerned about the New Jersey being located in too close a proximity, because it may siphon off some of the revenue that you currently use for operational purposes and small amounts of maintenance, is that correct? Therefore, how much—I guess the question is how much are you afraid you might lose if the New Jersey is berthed too closely? Or is that an unfair question?
General GARDNER. It's not an unfair question, but I don't know that I can give you a precise answer. I can see the mooring site from my office porthole, and the question is then, will they visit two ships and everything else that's there available for them to visit and still be able to pay the fees to do all of that? To do the Statue of Liberty, it costs about $7.50, so a ferry ride out, you've got to do some parking, have some lunch. If you come to Intrepid, it's another $10. The next thing you know, the accumulation of that makes it difficult for the average person who visits ship museums to do all of that in one day either timewise or moneywise, and I am concerned about it.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
New York has an incredible population. We are not presently getting our fair share of the tourists who come to New York, and I'm working to improve that. We have dramatically improved it; 7 percent my first year, and we're headed toward a 10 percent improvement for this next year. The studies I've seen for the New Jersey suggest that there's 3.8 million people in the vicinity of that site that come to visit. We presently get half a million visitors. I really don't know, Congressman, at what point we break the bank, but in theory, at least, there's sufficient people there that if they all bought a ticket we wouldn't need an endowment; we wouldn't need congressional support; we could all do it ourselves and take care of both ships. The truth is they don't all visit.
Mr. SAXTON. I suppose a case could be made—or a case is made in some marketing situations—and I'm thinking, I guess, of my—I think of my auto dealers who all line up in a row up along route 206 in Bordentown, New Jersey, and they all line up together, because when somebody goes to shop for a car, he not only shops the first, but the theory is that it's convenient to shop all the other stops along the way, and, therefore, the auto dealers all think they each do better if they're located together. Do you think that theory applies at all to ship museums?
General GARDNER. I've got some concern that—we put them too close together—that one or both of us will have a problem.
Mr. SAXTON. Okay, thank you. Chairman Azzolina, I just, along with Chairman Hunter and all of us who have watched you pursue the New Jersey for 12——
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. AZZOLINA. Twenty years.
Mr. SAXTON. Twenty years. We appreciate what you did. I talked to the governor's deputy chief of staff the other day about this subject, and he said, ''You know, Jim, without Joe Azzolina, we wouldn't be where we are now,'' and we know that, and we appreciate very much everything you've done. But I have to ask you a couple of questions, and, first, let me say that there is kind of a feeling in the southern part of the State that maybe we didn't get as much full consideration as maybe the other sites did, and, you know, I say that just to be up front, because I'm sure you've heard those comments, and I hear them everyday when I'm at home. And I have here a copy of the statute that created the New Jersey Battleship commission, and it's a well written law—there's no question about that—and it provides for 15 members, and my staff has done a little research—I guess it wasn't hard to do, probably with some others from the southern part of the State—and we found that only 1 member of the 15 was from the southern part of the State. Does that match the recollection that you have?
Mr. AZZOLINA. That was true.
Mr. SAXTON. That's true. And——
Mr. AZZOLINA. I had nothing to do with that.
Mr. SAXTON. I understand, the governor's makes the appointments.
Mr. AZZOLINA. By the way, I don't live the easiest——
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HUNTER. Sounds like a pretty good tactic to me. [Laughter.]
Mr. AZZOLINA. By the way, I don't live in the south Jersey; I don't live near the Bayonne. I live in the middle of the State. My constituents would want it in Sandy Hook. I think they're crazy; I told them so. [Laughter.]
Mr. SAXTON. Here's the problem—here's my concern: the New Jersey Battleship Commission has laid out as its duties to promote, plan, and coordinate fundraising activities for the purpose of obtaining the battleship; to act as a liaison with the Navy; to collect and maintain files and information relative to this project; to provide assistance and advice and planning an appropriate birthplace for the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY, and, frankly, I thought and I think most people thought until we started to get ready—I thought until I started to get ready for this hearing and I think most people thought and maybe still do today that the New Jersey Battleship Commission was going to make the decision about where this battleship was going to be berthed, and we outsiders all thought that ''Gee, I guess this is a done deal,'' and that's why this membership issue is so important, because as I look at the way the members voted—there were 13 people that voted—12 of the people that voted, voted for north Jersey sites, and they were all from north Jersey, and the one guy from south Jersey voted for Camden, and that doesn't set right with people from my neighborhood.
Mr. AZZOLINA. Mr. Congressman, we are not from north Jersey, a number is from central Jersey. Several members, we are central Jersey—Monmouth, Mercer—and there's one member from the Princeton area. Several of us are from central Jersey, the shore area, and so——
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SAXTON. I appreciate——
Mr. AZZOLINA. And nobody's from Hudson County, by the way.
Mr. HUNTER. Well, I can testify that Joe is from Monmouth, because I remember campaigning for him in his congressional campaign there.
Mr. SAXTON. I remember.
Mr. HUNTER. I think you did too.
Mr. SAXTON. I did. We had a good experience there, that's right.
Well, I'm not going—I just wanted to make that point, because I am concerned that we all walk away from this process, whatever the result is, thinking that everybody got a fair shake all the way along the way, and I fully intend to make sure that while, obviously, I have a parochial interest, but I think it's extremely important that this process is fair and that everybody thinks it's fair at the end, and when Mr. Hammes came over to my office the other day to brief me and to help me get ready for this meeting, he assured me that the Navy process is objective and that all applicants will get equal and fair consideration, so we appreciate that. But I guess I don't want to push that any further, because you and I are good buddies, and I want to make sure it ends up that way.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. AZZOLINA. We are.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Andrews, just let me ask you a couple of questions. I understand that the Delaware Valley community has some key economic and political support from individuals and groups fairly extensive?
Mr. ANDREWS. It is extremely extensive. On the governmental level, every level of government in south Jersey—municipal, county, State, Federal, both political parties—is fully supportive of this. Perhaps, more importantly, the mayor of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, is a member of the alliance that's attempting the bring the New Jersey to Camden, and that has both financial and tourism consequences.
The empowerment zone in which Camden is located is a bi-State, two-city empowerment zone; it's the only one in the country that was created for two cities: Camden and Philadelphia. The active, supportive Mayor Rendell which then, quite frankly, engages the Pennsylvania legislature, the Delaware River Port Authority, many of the bi-State organizations are very, very important.
Beyond the governmental level—and, Jim, I know you know this—that essentially every veterans group, every historical group, the business community, organized labor, there is unanimity in our region for this idea and not just for the idea but for the money and the tangible support necessary to make it work.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Can you elaborate on the—it's my understanding that there is—that it will take about 400,000 visitors a year to make the battleship break even over the long haul. Do you believe that that is something that's got a good likelihood of happening?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ANDREWS. I do for a couple of reasons. One is, our indication is on the Camden waterfront alone the current visitor volume on an annual basis is about 1.2 million people, and if you're going to break that down, the New Jersey State Aquarium, which is immediately adjacent to the battleship site, is attracting half a million people a year. The Sony Music Center, which is a privately run and held concert facility is attracting hundreds of thousands of people a year, and then we look at the proximate historic sites in Philadelphia—the Liberty Bell, the other attractions in the historic district—and the very easy transportation access by an existing ferry system between Camden and Philadelphia, an existing high-speed rail system, an existing bridge, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.
This really has to be looked at on a regional basis, and, again, I'm not interested in saying anything negative about any proposal, but let me just make this point about Bayonne and its proximity to other New York City area attractions: I don't know this for a fact, but from common experience most people I know who go to New York to visit the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, the attractions in Manhattan, would probably board a ferry or some form of transportation in New York, or perhaps up in Jersey City at the Path Station. Very few people I know go to Bayonne first and then go to New York City. The opposite traffic pattern is true in Philadelphia and Camden. So, I think that it is demonstrably clear that the tourism dollars would be there particularly in light of what Major General Gardner says: we're not competing against another museum facility. There is no such facility proximate to the Camden site.
Mr. SAXTON. Can you describe briefly what kind of a financial package are freeholders and other governmental institutions——
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ANDREWS. Already on the table in binding legal commitments from the improvement authority of the county government in Camden County and the Urban Empowerment Zone Corporation that was set up to run the UEZ—already on the table is approximately $4.5 million. I say already on the table because there has not yet been an identification of the specific need that would be necessary to flush out the package, but certainly allies and persons we've worked with at the Delaware River Port Authority are interested in this project, and certainly there are other financial resources that would be available. So, already at this stage, there's approximately $4.5 million on the table.
Mr. SAXTON. And the Delaware River Port Authority has a stable source of income?
Mr. ANDREWS. One of the more stable sources of income—the Delaware River Port Authority was created by this Congress. It is an interstate contact between Pennsylvania and New Jersey that operates bridges and a rail system. My understanding is the annual revenues of the authority now exceed a quarter of a billion dollars a year. It is from toll revenues and fares on the commuter train. It is not dedicated revenue.
The compact amendment that Congressman Bill Hughes—our predecessor in south Jersey—sponsored in 1992 broadened the charter of the authority so it has the legal right to spend money on this project, and, frankly, when we talk about politics—which is relevant here—the leader of the authority on the New Jersey is a mutual friend of ours, Mr. Paulson, from Burlington County who I know you work with all the time, and the Pennsylvania side is a very close ally of Mayor Rendell, and we can certainly count on very specific support from the Delaware River Port Authority.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SAXTON. Has an organization been formed for the purpose of promoting this project?
Mr. ANDREWS. There is indeed, and it's called the Home Port Alliance. It is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. Its membership fully reflects the business, labor, governmental, veterans community in the area, and it is fully qualified to receive the ship as a donee.
Mr. SAXTON. One final question: you mentioned $4.5 million as being currently available. The New Jersey Battleship Commission has also raised a very significant amount of money. Have you calculated that as part of the $4.5 million?
Mr. ANDREWS. I have not, Jim. That is above and beyond the amount of money that has been talked about from the commission for which Mr. Azzolina deserves an awful lot of credit.
Can I just add one other comment, sort of the south Jersey, north Jersey in which I have some experience. I have no doubt that the individuals who served on this commission acted in good faith. They did what they thought was right, and I don't think they were driven by geographic considerations. The fact of the matter is though that of the—and I assume it's 13 people who cast votes—one of them lives in the south Jersey area, and that, frankly, is a person from Salem County which is a different economic region than the one that we're talking about here.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SAXTON. That's way south.
Mr. ANDREWS. It's south of the Mason-Dixon line, actually, truth be told. So, it really it is not—now, that is not Chairman——
Mr. SAXTON. Chairman Hunter doesn't believe this, but the Mason-Dixon line was the southern border of the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland, and if you extrapolate straight out to the Atlantic Ocean, it's true——
Mr. ANDREWS. It is true.
Mr. SAXTON [continuing]. Salem County is considered below that line.
Mr. ANDREWS. And sometime we will take you there.
Mr. SAXTON. But they had the good sense to stay with the north.
Mr. ANDREWS. Sometime we will take you there, Duncan, and you will feel right at home, I assure you. [Laughter.]
Mr. HUNTER. Well, I'm from southern California; that's south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ANDREWS. I've heard of some of these hunting expeditions from our mutual friend, Mr. Saxton; you would feel right at home.
So, I would just say to you that there are geographic considerations that we're not taking into account. That is not Chairman Azzolina's responsibility, but is a fact, indeed, and it's one that—I just want to close my comments by reiterating something that we heard from the Navy and from you, Congressman Saxton: we are respectful of the effort that the New Jersey Commission has done to this point; it certainly is worthy of praise and attention. But the process, by law, begins here, and it should be an objective, merit-driven process. We intend to fight with all the facts that we can muster. We don't expect favored treatment as a result of that, but we are pleased that there is a merit-driven process, and I just wanted the committee to know that to the extent that I can be a resource in that process I stand willing, and I am, again, very grateful that you gave us this time today.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.
Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Saxton, and, Mr. Pappas, I'm sure you've got a few questions, sir.
Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you very much.
Mr. HUNTER. Incidentally, as you asked these questions, too, if anybody else wants to respond to any particular points, we've got a very small panel here, so jump right in. We may make it a little tough on our—the recording of this session, but we can do that. And, Rob, incidentally, that was a—we really appreciate your interest in this situation, and you really—you and everybody else—were great to bear with us here, because it's kind of late in the day here. Go ahead, Mike.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PAPPAS. Good evening. In my opening comments, I talked about the process that I wanted to be sure was fair. Several months ago, Joe Azzolina approached me and asked me if I would make the commitment that I could agree to, and he said, ''Would you just agree?'' And I said, ''Okay, I'll try.'' He said, ''Would you please not get involved in the process as to where it should be located; don't take a side?'' And I agreed to do that. I felt that the process that had been established seemed to be fair. People from all around the State—I know Joe Dyer when he was a freeholder in Salem County and know him as being a very strong advocate in whatever he believes in.
But I have to express here that the folks from Bayonne and that interest and the folks from Jersey City don't seem to have been given the opportunity to express their views, so I certainly, Mr. Chairman, would like to have inserted in the record any documents—I know I had been forwarded something from Jersey City—that could be included as a permanent part of the record.
I guess I have a series of questions, but, first of all, for Mr. Hammes, Hammes?
Mr. HAMMES. Hammes.
Mr. PAPPAS. I'll get it; we'll get it right eventually here. What process is usually used before it gets to you? Are there similar commissions that are established to what we had established in New Jersey?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HAMMES. The process before it gets to me——
Mr. PAPPAS. I understand that the clock sort of starts ticking when you get the signed document from the President, but before that, you gave us the map of the United States showing various vessels. Is what we've done to New Jersey what the commission has done? Is that unique to New Jersey or is that——
Mr. HAMMES. I think that's unique to New Jersey. How these ships are donated, in some cases its cities, some cases it's private organizations. And we know—we've been aware of the commission for a good while, and we visit its website every now and then, and so we're ready to start the process. It really starts for the donees when we announce that the ship's available in the Federal Register, and then what happens is as the proposals start coming in, the Program Office starts the process of dialoging with the donees to ensure that the donees are meeting all of the requirements, and that lasts about six months.
Mr. PAPPAS. So, any decision of the Battleship Commission for New Jersey would not necessarily influence or provide any more or less weight in the decision that the Navy will make.
Mr. HAMMES. I'm not sure I understood the question, Congressman Pappas.
Mr. PAPPAS. The fact that there is a Battleship Commission that has been established in New Jersey which seems to have been—and I'm not as familiar as Mr. Saxton is to legislation—but it seems to have been delegated some decisionmaking or advisory role. Will the Navy give that any more or less weight since there was a Battleship Commission established?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HAMMES. We have to address each and every offer fairly in the same basis.
Mr. PAPPAS. So, the answer is no, then.
Mr. HAMMES. That's correct. Clearly, if there's some advantage that that offer has inherently because of commission that results in the better aspect of the seven criteria and any additional criteria, we take that into account. But the fact that the commission has been there, if another proposal shows up, we have to look at it in the same manner.
Mr. PAPPAS. Okay. Do you have any minimum requirements as to what an application is? Is there a certain——
Mr. HAMMES. It has to have those seven plans, and there's more detail to what's in those plans on our website. It has to meet title 10 requirements—no cost to the Government, et cetera.
Mr. HUNTER. On that point, Mike, would the gentleman yield for a second? If you need an expansion of information in one of those seven given areas, I take it you communicate back with the proposers and say, ''Hey, we need more information in this particular area.''
Mr. HAMMES. Yes, sir, that goes on for roughly a six-month period. Whatever they require in that timeframe, we have the dialog within each individual donee.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HUNTER. So, you go out of your way to let them understand what you need in terms of information.
Mr. HAMMES. That's correct.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay.
Mr. PAPPAS. For whoever can answer this question, Mr. Azzolina, Congressman Andrews, what length of time would it take to prepare each of these sites for receipt of this ship?
Mr. AZZOLINA. At Bayonne, we need a minimal amount of time. We just have to do the modification for the 100-year storm. Most of it's already there. There's minimum amount of time needed; we could be ready by spring. We hoped we could tow the ship here this year, because the Panama Canal is going to be problems after this year, and the ideal time to tow a ship is between March and May of this year, and then the window opens up again—but it's not as good a window as the March to May would be in the fall—about September. We have to avoid, hopefully, all the hurricanes and bad weather and the transit of the canal, and it's very difficult to get permission to go through the canal. I've got some experts working on it right now, and, hopefully, we were hoping that we could move this process by some time in May, but it appears we may not be able to because next year, we don't own the canal, we don't have anything to do with the canal, and it could be a tougher time. So, gentleman, we may never get the ship.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Azzolina.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. AZZOLINA. We're never going to be able to tow it around the horn.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Azzolina, do you know about Jersey City, how long that would take?
Mr. AZZOLINA. Jersey City? They have to build a facility; it's not there.
Mr. PAPPAS. So, how long would that take, do you think?
Mr. AZZOLINA. Oh, you're talking $8 million, $9 million, $10 million. They say they're going to put a couple of million up, but then they want us to pay for it later in our budget or they're going to raise the money later. I don't think the Navy can go—I don't know, I'm not speaking for the Navy, but you just don't do it. When you have a dock and you can come to it right away and it's there in any site—I don't care where we go; if it doesn't work, you move it later on; you get permission from the Navy, but we think it's going to work. It may not work—the problem with Jersey City is you're 800 feet out into the Hudson River or New York Bay. There's no parking nearby, very little. Most of it is away from there, and behind the Science Center or some paid areas are the places.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Azzolina, I'm going to have to interrupt you, because we're going to have another vote, and I want to wrap this up, okay?
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. AZZOLINA. I have to catch a train, by the way, if I may for just a minute?
Mr. PAPPAS. Yes, sure.
Mr. AZZOLINA. If I may, I do have to take the 8:20 train, because I have to go—and the reason I want to say it is—I'm chairing a meeting in south Jersey tomorrow for the speaker with 200 manufacturers businessmen to see what we can do to help in the legislature. [Laughter.]
Mr. ANDREWS. Mike, if I could just quickly answer your question. The materials I submitted for the record earlier have a complete estimate of the—order of magnitude estimate of the infrastructure work necessary in Camden. The number comes to $3 million. The money is there; the land is already owned by the members of the alliance, and I believe it has a specific timetable. It would not in any way impair the timetable the Navy laid out, and it's part of the record that we submitted earlier, thanks
Mr. PAPPAS. Okay. General Gardner, I think you spoke of your concern about just the number of people to support this financially, and I certainly can understand that, but I would also point out that in the New York metropolitan area, you have a lot of, you know, the New York Rangers; you have the Islanders; you have the Mets; you have the Giants; you have the Jets, and I think, while this is not the same thing, putting things together don't necessarily mean that you won't have the financial support and the people to support it. But you did mention a 50-mile radius, and I'm wondering how you derived that?
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
General GARDNER. Just an officer's view of where the competition ought to be. [Laughter.]
Mr. AZZOLINA. May I jump in one second? They have the Olympia right across the way where they want to put the ships; that's competition right there, the U.S.S. Olympia in Philadelphia.
Mr. PAPPAS. Could I also ask, would that—General, would that also mean that if the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY were in Camden, then there shouldn't be any similar vessel in Philadelphia? You may not want to answer that, but, I mean, that's the suggestion.
General GARDNER. Congressman, there's no Navy policy on the 50-mile rule; that's my own personal and professional opinion based on two years as the president and CEO of a museum that was $3.2 million in the red when I took over and is now in the black. I don't want to have to repeat that process, and I would certainly encourage the Navy to develop a 50-mile rule. Personally, if it went to Philadelphia and one at Camden, it still wouldn't compete with the Intrepid, so I don't vote New Jersey, and I'm trying to stay on the moral high ground. I don't want to name a city; I just would like to say 50 miles is a good rule of thumb.
Mr. PAPPAS. Okay. Mr. Hammes, do you know of any similar situation where there may be similar to what we're—the General's concern about the Intrepid and the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY being placed at the Bayonne? There are more than one vessel located in close proximity.
Mr. HAMMES. There are several sites——
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PAPPAS. And what affect that may have.
Mr. HAMMES. Well, they're still operational. I can't name them all, but they're on the map, and you can see them.
Mr. PAPPAS. Okay. And the last thing, Mr. Chairman, then I'm going to conclude——
General GARDNER. Congressman, there is one site where I know the executive director of the submarine in Hawaii is concerned about the arrival of the Missouri and the financial impact it may have on him, and the Massachusetts executive director was concerned about the Saratoga, but the Navy has informally advised me tonight that Saratoga will only be open for visitors and not be turned into a museum.
Mr. PAPPAS. Well, that's concerned being raised, but if anyone can provide us with information as to if concern has turned out to be a valid concern based upon a visitor ship.
The first is senate resolution 115, and the other is assembly resolution number 5 that were both introduced December of 1997, and I know that the—according to the cover letter from the secretary of the senate—that the resolution was adopted by the senate, and the senators that were cosponsors were Bennett, O'Connor, Latell, Cody, Adler, DeFrancesco, and Corrilos, and then in the assembly, Assemblyman Collins, Duria, and Azzolina, and each of them speak for themselves as to not mentioning—and I'm surprised that it's not mentioned in Camden—just speaking of both the site in north Jersey, and while that doesn't carry any effective law—I recognize that—there does seem to be some support as well from the State legislature.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, may I also add just one comment and ask for unanimous consent to submit it to the record. On the issue of the proximity of the Olympia in Philadelphia, I'd like to submit for the record a letter dated September 29th, 1998 from the vice president for operations of the Olympia to Congressman Saxton in which he says on behalf of the Olympia, ''We would not object to the location of another historic naval vessel so close to those we operate.''
[The information referred to can be found in the appendix beginning on page 69.]
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I want to say is that, again, I want to thank you and Mr. Saxton and the leadership of this House and the committee for helping us get to this point when this—we're even having this discussion that the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY is coming to New Jersey; that's what I'm most concerned about. But I want to be sure that this process is fair and that the U.S.S. NEW JERSEY Battleship Commission is not, I think, unfairly criticized for maybe making a decision that others may have a different decision if they were in that what turns out to be advisory role. And I'd like to think that those that were there were not just making decisions based on geography but based upon what they deemed to be the best decision for this ship and for its future, and I thank you.
Mr. HUNTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Pappas, and I think we can presume good faith and good intentions all the way around, and I certainly do that, and it's been a great hearing. You have here—I think we've—it's clear we've discussed and now understand that there's a fair process here. We have great contestants, all of whom have made excellent statements and I think all of whom have excellent credentials. We have a wonderful project and whichever place the Battleship New Jersey, it's going to live forever in the hearts of everyone that's worn the uniform of the United States.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, let's move forward joyfully on this program and, Mr. Hammes, the ball is in your court. I know you've got a team with a lot of integrity, and I'm sure this will be a very vigorous analysis that you're going to make, and you're going to have lots of great interaction with all these wonderful New Jersey folks. And, Mr. Pappas, thanks for driving this thing and breaking it free from in the conference, and under the great tutelage of Jim Saxton, of course, my dear friend who pointed out that I wear paper clips in my glasses. [Laughter.]
And to Congressman, my colleague, Rob Andrews, thank you so much for being part of this presentation and bearing with us.
Thanks to everyone here, and one last thing before we go. Steve Thompson, our great staff person, helped to put on this initial hearing that we had, and this particular hearing, Noah Simon and John Sullivan to my left, Ethan Cooper and Bill Mark have been of great value. We thank you.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 7:52 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]
The official Committee record contains additional material here.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SAXTON
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SAXTON. Navy, please identify the impacts, if any, in towing the Battleship New Jersey through the Panama Canal after the exchange of authority from the United States to the Government of Panama. Identify any additional regulations or restrictions as such.
Mr. HAMMES. The Navy does not know, and does not have authority with respect to, specific changes in regulations and restrictions that would affect tow of the Battleship NEW JERSEY that the Government of Panama could make after exchange of authority from the United States to the Government of Panama.
The Navy understands that there are current restrictions in existing regulations that apply to towing the Battleship NEW JERSEY. The Navy further understands that the U.S.S. New Jersey Battleship Commission has hired a contractor to develop a tow plan, and that a request for waiver of current restrictions, based on this tow plan, has been sent to the Panama Canal Commission for action. Navy understands that the Panama Canal Commission has not yet acted on this request.