\:y-<rj DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
•ftWf AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997
Y 4.AP 6/1: IN 8/6/997/
PT. 9
Departnent of the Interior and Rela. . . JNGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OP THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES
RALPH REGULA, Ohio, Chairman
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
JEM KOLBE, Arizona NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico TOM BEVILL, Alabama
BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
CHARLES H. TAYLOR. North Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington
JIM BUNN, Oregon
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr Obey, as Ranking
Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Deborah Weatherly, Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, and Christopher Topik,
Staff Assistants
PART 9
Page
Testimony of Members of Congress 1
Woodrow Wilson Center 285
Holocaust Memorial Museum 300
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 327
National Capital Planning Commission 367
FDR Memorial Commission *-««fttit ^^
Printed for the use of the Commiftee on ApprojM^at^
ms
f^=^^^&g„ I
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES
RALPH REGULA, Ohio, Chairman
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
JIM KOLBE, Arizona NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico TOM BEVILL, Alabama
BARBARA F. VXJCANOVICH, Nevada DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
CHARLES H. TAYLOR. North Carohna
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington
JIM BUNN, Oregon
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking
Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Deborah Weatherly, Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, and Christopher Topik,
Staff Assistants
PART 9
Page
Testimony of Members of Congress 1
Woodrow Wilson Center 285
Holocaust Memorial Museum 300
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 327
National Capital Planning Conmiission 367
FDR Memorial Commission 400
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-711 O WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfBce
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-052694-9
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
C. W. BILL YOUNG. Florida
RALPH REGULA, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
TOM Delay, Texas
JIM KOLBE, Arizona
BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada
JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa
RON PACKARD, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama
JAMES T. WALSH, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma
HENRY BONILLA, Texas
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
DAN MILLER, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
FRANK RIGGS, California
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
GEORGE R. NETKERCUTT, Jr., Washington
JIM BUNN, Oregon
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
CHARLES WILSON, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JULIAN C. DDCON, California
VIC FAZIO, California
W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carohna
STEm' H. HO'i'ER, Maryland
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM CHAPMAN, Texas
MARCY KAPTUR, Chio
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
NANCY PELOSI, California
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania
ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ID
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELAT-
ED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1997
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
HOMESTEAD NATIONAL MONUMENT OF AMERICA
FISH AND WILDLIFE COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
WITNESS
HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Regula [presiding]. The lead-off is my friend, Doug Bereu-
ter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the committee. It's my understanding that you proceed on
a first-come, first-served basis on appropriations.
Mr. Regula. That's right. Early bird gets the worm, as they say.
Maybe no money, but a worm. [Laughter.]
Mr. Bereuter. That's what I'm afraid of
Mr. Chairman, I have a two-page summary about three specific
requests, and I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement
and summary be made a part of the record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Bereuter. And I'll summarize it.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and members of this sub-
committee for past successes and for requests that you have ac-
ceded to that I've made in years previous.
The first area that I wanted to mention is the National
AgroForestry Center which is located in Lincoln, Nebraska. I sup-
port the administration's request of a quarter million from State
and private forestry funds for the Center. I'm also requesting the
restoration of research funding to the Center at the previous level,
$1.1 million.
This funding is necessary to help ensure the continuation of vital
research being conducted at the Center. The Center is a key ele-
ment in the agroforestry research and technology transfer for the
Forest Service. The Center's mission is to accelerate the develop-
ment and application of agroforestry techniques to obtain more eco-
nomically, environmentally, and socially sustainable ecosystems.
(1)
The Center seeks to increase the use of agroforestry in order to
fulfill the following purposes, which are really unique to the Great
Plains and western/midwestem States: make agriculture more sus-
tainable, mitigate the adverse environmental side-effects of agri-
culture, convert marginal farmland to high-value tree crops and
wildlife habitat, and enhance human environments.
Second — and I might say this is really the only forestry resource
that exists in the State of Nebraska — we don't have many trees to
start with, so they are very precious. We have had fairly good suc-
cess, beginning in the 1930s, with planting trees that are adaptable
to the climate that make sense
Mr. Regula. Do you have the — what's the name of it, Doug?
Mr. Bereuter. Falcy National Forest, for example?
Mr. Regula. No, no, no, it's a private group.
Mr. Bereuter. The Arbor Day Foundation?
Mr. Regula. The Arbor Day Foundation.
Mr. Bereuter. It's located in my district in Nebraska City, Ne-
braska, and they are doing very well.
Mr. Regula. I send them money.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you. It's where I'd hoped to host, as a mat-
ter of fact, the European Parliament meeting last year. We had to
cancel because of our schedule. The Lead Center Foundation, the
lead Arbor Day Foundation Center, Conference Center, is really
beautiful. This committee helped fund part of that.
Mr. Regula. They do a great job of outreach.
Mr. Bereuter. Secondly, the only National Park Service facility
in my district is the Homestead National Monument of America lo-
cated near Beatrice, Nebraska. I'd like report language directing
the National Park Service to develop a general management plan
for the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice.
I understand that this process normally takes several years and
can be accomplished with base funded staff from the headquarters
of that region located in Omaha. The only anticipated costs would
be about $15,000 for travel and printing of the general manage-
ment plan. All I really need is the report language.
It is supported by the National Park Service personnel, the su-
perintendent. They really need this in order to proceed to meet the
goals that were established by legislation for the Homestead Na-
tional Monument.
The third is a request related to Fish and Wildlife Conservation,
a cooperative research unit at the University of Nebraska. I have
made this request for seven years running. I understand that, in
fact, the administration's request would indicate that one addi-
tional unit would be developed. I hope that it is allocated to Ne-
braska.
Let me give you a couple of the reasons. Nebraska's strategic lo-
cation presents several very special research opportunities particu-
larly related to migratory birds. Nebraska is one of only ten States
without a cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit within the
State. The Platte River in Nebraska is recognized as a major envi-
ronmental curridor, especially as an internationally-significant
staging area for migratory birds. We are located in the largest mi-
gratory bird pattern in the North America continent.
If any of you have seen any of the environmental organizations'
studies of the Platte, you know that not only the goose and the
duck migratory pattern is very impressive, but sandhill cranes are
probably world-renowned in their use of the Platte and their gath-
ering there each spring and fall.
The North American Waterfall Management Plan includes a pro-
tection of rainwater basin and the sandhill wetlands as critical
nesting habitats for migratory waterfowl. Locating a cooperative re-
search unit in Nebraska to develop useful information relating to
these issues upon which to base critical management decisions is
an urgent need. I, along with others, have supported the coopera-
tive research program for many years. Although research efforts
have been conducted in Nebraska by cooperative research units
from other States, time and travel requirements have greatly lim-
ited the effectiveness, the depth, and the breadth of those efforts.
So, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, those are
the three requests that I make, and I hope that you can favorably
act upon them. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Regula. Well, as you know, Doug, we don't know what we'll
have. A lot of these things are going to be driven by the availability
of the funding.
Mr. Bereuter. I do understand, Mr. Chairman. I think that the
least expensive of mine is the request for the management plan.
But my top priority is the fish and wildlife unit, as I've pushed for
it for seven years.
Mr. Regula. That's why it's No. 1?
Mr. Bereuter. It is.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Bereuter follows:]
STAIEViENT OF CXDNGRESSMAN rOUG BEKEUraR
TO THE HOLBE AITROTRLVnONB
SUBCXaVEVirnEE ON INTERBCXl
APRIL 17, 1996
Sumnary of funding requests:
I. NftTICMRL MROgOREtflKY (aMTtK
Request — Support Administraticai's request of $250,000 frotn state and
private forestry funds
SL^jport restoratican of funding for the Agroforestry Center's
Research Vfark Unit frcm the Forest Service Research fund
The Administration has requested $250,000 frcm state and private
forestry funds for the Natioial Agroforestry Center at Lincoln, Nebraska. I
support this request vAiicii is needed to ensure that the valuable research
being ocxxiucted at the Center reaches those v*io will nost benefit from the
research.
I also request that funding for the research ccnponent of the
Agroforestry Center be restored to its previous level of $1.1 million. Ihe
$500,000 reduction in research funding in FY96 has seriously inpaired the
research capabilities of the Center.
n. WMnai'atiD mmtcmm. MaroMEwr of amtoicr
iteguest — I am requesting r^»rt language directing the National Park
Service to develop a General Management Plan for Homestead Naticxial Monument
of America near Beatrice, Nebraska.
III. FISH AND WIIJ3LIFE COaPERKnVE RESStftCH DMIT M ONIVHtSrrY OF MEBRftSKA
i^eqfuest — I remain strongly supportive of the establishment of a new
fish and wildlife cooperative research unit at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln. The Administration's FYS? budget includes an increase of $750,000
for the Cooperative Research Unit program. I am requesting an earmark of
$250,000 from this increcise to establish a new oocperative fish and wildlife
research unit at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
STATtMENT C*^ (XIISORESSMAN DOUG BEKELTTER
TO THE HOUSE AIHW^TOATO«
SUBOOMMTTIEE OSf INimiai
AHOLn, 1996
Chcdrman Regula, Congressman Yates, and menters of the Subocxnnittee: I
would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the of^xjrtunity to
appear before you to request funding for several projects of inportanoe to the
State of Nebraska.
I. NftTIOMM) AgtGFCRESTRY Ca/l'tK
NEED RBQUEffT: I support the AdministratiCTi's request of $250,000 from
state and private forestry funds for the Naticsial Agrof orestry Center at
Lincoln, Nebraska. I am also requesting the restoratiai of research funding
for the Center to the previous level of $1.1 million. TViis funding is
necessctry to help ensure the continuaticai of valuable research being ctMiducted
at the Center.
SB^SCM FCR REQDEST: The Naticxvil Agrof orestry Center (formerly the
Center for Sesmiarid ^rof orestry) wcis authorized by the 1990 Farm Bill, the
Food, Agriculture, Oc«Tservaticai, and Trade Act (FACTA) . Secticxi 1243 of the
FACTA authorized an annual appropriation of v^) to $5 million for the center.
The Naticxial ^roforestry Center is a partnership of the Research, Sate and
Private Forestry, and International Forestry branches of the USDA Forest
Service. The Center ocxiducts research an developing tree varieties,
e^ecially adapted to the Great Plains, that will enhance crop and livestock
production, protect surface and groundwater quality, create wildlife habitat,
and promote envircrmental goeils. The Center is naticaially and intematicnally
renowned as the U.S. flagship for agrof orestry due to its leadership in
agrof orestry research, develc^ment and applicaticais.
The Center, located in Lincoln, Nebraska is a key element of
agrof orestry research and teciinology transfer for the Forest Service. The
Center's mission is to accelerate the developnent and applicaticm of
agrof orestry technologies to attain more ecoronically, envircxTroentally, and
socially sustsdnable ecosystems. To acccnplish its mission, the Center
ccxTducts agroforestry research and interacts with a natiCTial network of
cocperators to coiduct research, develop technologies and tools, establish
dranryistratiaTS, and provide useful informaticxi to natural resource
professicneils naticnwide and glcAally.
The National Agroforestry Center is developing key partnerships with
other agencies and institutions and catalyzing interdisciplinary teanwork.
Since e»grof orestry bridges critical productivity, biodiversity,
susta inability , and socio-econcmic issues, the NatiOTal Agroforestry Center
has beocme a foceil point for interagency cooperaticHi. The multi-agency
initiative being developed inclxxles the Agricultural Reseeuxh Service (ABS) ,
the Cooperative State Reseeuxh, Education, and E)ctensicn Service (CSREES) and
the Elivircraientzd Protection Agency (EPA) .
The Center seeks to increase the use of agroforestry in order to fulfill
the following purposes:
• Make agriculture more sustainable
• Mitigate the adverse environmental side effects of agriculture
• CCHTvert marginal farmlands to high-value tree crops and wildlife habitat
• EiThance human envircsTments
n. HCMESTEM) MATICMMi MCMOMBn' OF AMERICA
KEXD RBQDEST: Report language directing the Naticral Park Service to
develop a General Management Plein for Honestead NaticMial Mcaiuroent of America
near Beatrice, Nebraska.
RSSCM FCR RBQ0E8T:
Honestead Natioial Mcnument of America ccmnenorates the lives and
acocnplishments of all picneers and the changes to the land eind the people as
a result of the Homestead Act of 1862. This Monument was authorized by
legislation enacted in 1936. Hcwever, a General Management Plan is needed to
help ensure that Homestead is able to reach its full potential as a place
where Americans can more effectively z^ipreciate the Homestead Act and its
effects i^xxi the nation.
A General Management Plan is the first st^ in assessing cind planning
for new park development. The plan is used to identify the park's purposes,
eissess current situations, and plan new development and management directions.
A General Management Plan also contains envircaTroental and historical
assessments. Public ccrment an the plan eind proposed alternatives are
required by the Nationad EiTvircMTmental Policy Act and other laws and policies.
Before Homestead could embark \ipor\ any future projects, the General Management
Plan process VKXild have to be ccnpleted to ensure that missicn-bcised
objectives and public corrment were properly ccMisidered. This process normally
takes several years and it is m/ understanding that it can be acoorplished
with base-funded stciff with available funds.
Homestead National Mmument of America is trvily a unique treasure amcxig
the National Paric Service jewels. The authorizing legislation makes it clear
that Homestead was intended to have a special place among Park Service units.
According to the original legislation:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to lay out
said lemd in a suitable and enduring meinner so that the same may
be maintained as an appropriate mcaiument to retain for posterity a
proper memorial emblematic of the hardships eind the picsieer life
through which the early settlers passed in the settlement,
cultivation, and civilizaticxi of the great Vtest. It shall be his
duty to erect suitable buildings to be used as a museum in vAiich
shall be preserved literature c^plying to sucii settlement and
Skgricultural inplements used in bringing the western plains to its
present state of hi^ civilization, and to use the said tract of
land for such other objects and purposes as in his judgement may
perpetuate the history of this country mainly developed by the
homesteekd law."
Clearly, this authorizing legislation sets some lofty goals. I am
requesting r&part language calling for a General Management Plan which would
begin the process of realizing these goals.
HI. FISH MP WTTnr.TPR OOgproftTIVE RESgJtCH QNIT M* UNiyTOSITY OF NEBRASKA
NEH} RBS20E8T: I remain strongly si^jportive of the establishment of a
new fish and wildlife ooc^ierative research unit at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln. I have patiently requested funding for this oooperative research
unit since 1990.
The Administration's FY97 budget includes an increase of $750,000 for
Oooperative Research Units through the U.S. Geological Survey's budget. This
funding increase would provide additic«ial funding to address critical natural
science issues and allow the establishment of one new unit. I am requesting
an earmaric of $250,000 fron this increase to establish a new oocperative fish
and wildlife research unit at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
RBVSCM FCR SEQDBST: Nebraska's strategic locaticai presents several very
^jecial research opportunities, particularly relating to migratory birds.
However, Nebraska is c«>e of c»ily ten states without a cocperative fish and
wildlife research unit within the state.
The Platte River of Nebraska is recognized as a major environmental
oorridcar, especicilly as an intematicaially significant staging area for
migratory birds. The North American Waterfcwl Management Plan includes the
protecticTi of the rainwater basin and sandhills wetlands as critical nesting
habitat for migratory waterfowl. Locating a cooperative research unit in
Nebraska to develop useful infonnaticxi relating to these issues iqxsn v^ch to
base critical management decisions is an urgent need.
I, cilcaTg with others, have si^ported the cocperative research program
for xmny years. This is the seventh year in a row that I have expressed my
strcaxr sutJtxjiL for this project and since 1991 I have testified before this
subocnmittee each year as an advocate for establishing a fish and wildlife
oooperative research unit for the University of Nebraska in Lincoln. Althou^
research efforts have been caiducted in Nebraska by coc^jerative research units
from other state's units, time and travel requirements have greatly limited
the effectiveness, depth and breadth of these efforts.
Again, Chairman Regula, Qaigressman Yates, and members of the
Subocnmittee, thank you for the opportunity to ^leak cm b^ialf of these
projects vAiich are of great iji(X)rtance to Nebraska.
8
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
TRIBAL ISSUES
TIMBER SALES
WITNESS
HON. TIM JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Regula. Okay, Tim?
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and I would ask consent that my oral testimony and statement be
put in the record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank you for this opportunity to express my request for funding
several projects and programs affecting South Dakota. I appreciate
the commitment that you and your staff have shown in the past
in addressing my State's needs. For the sake of time, I'll just sum-
marize South Dakota's request in the written testimony.
First, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to highlight a few of
the major issues which impact South Dakota's Indian community
and others across the country.
Throughout the debate over the Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations,
tribes in my State expressed the impact of the serious reduction in
Tribal Priority Allocations, or TPA funding, on tribal communities.
TPA funds basic self-determination and self-governance programs
on the reservations, such as road maintenance, scholarships, child
protection, law enforcement, welfare assistance, and housing.
Under the Fiscal Year 1996 conference level, the TPA was re-
duced by 11 percent or $85 million from 1995. This funding mecha-
nism gives tribes the greatest flexibility to prioritize programs and
to further tribal self-governance and self-determination outlined in
the Indian Self-Determination Act. I believe that such severe cut-
ting is unfortunate.
For Fiscal Year 1997, the President is requesting $1.78 billion for
BIA programs, $211.1 million over the 1996 conference level. The
greatest share of increase, 51 percent of the BIA operating budget,
is directed at TPA to restore funds needed to provide basic tribal
government operations and services. I strongly support these prior-
ities.
Mr. Chairman, foremost in priority to South Dakota tribes is the
education of Indian youth. Fifty-six percent of the American Indian
population in this country is age 24 or younger. I support the Presi-
dent's request that the increase of $43.5 million over Fiscal Year
1996 for school operations to maintain academic standards at BIA
and provide safe transportation for an increased student enroll-
ment.
I'm also in strong support of the efforts of tribally-controlled com-
munity colleges to take the lead in meeting the higher education
and skills training needs of Indians. I support the request of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium for full funding for
the tribally controlled colleges and approximately $40 million for
Fiscal Year 1997 as authorized under the Tribally Controlled Com-
munity Colleges Act.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, Federal expenditures for social pro-
grams continue to exceed investments for economic growth in In-
dian Country. The role of the Federal Government must be to en-
courage tribal self-sufficiency at every opportunity. Cooperative ef-
forts like the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative develop and support
buffalo business ventures among its 40 tribal members. It serves
as an ideal example of the type of investment the Federal Govern-
ment can make to enhance tribal economies, and I support the re-
quest of $6.63 million for bison enhancement projects in tribal
lands.
The Federal Government must also continue its support of tribal
self-governance through authority over law enforcement and tribal
judicial systems on reservations. Many tribes lack the resources for
adequate law enforcement and just administration in tribal courts.
To this end, I am particularly supportive of the Yankton Sioux
Tribe's request for increased funds for law enforcement at Yankton
in light of the recent U.S. District Court District of South Dakota
judgment in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Southern Missouri Waste
Management District. That ruling found that the exterior bound-
aries of the Yankton Reservation remain intact and mandated that
the reservation boundaries be re-enforced. This increased area of
criminal jurisdiction for the tribe and the Federal Gk)vemment over
Native Americans from 38,000 trust acres to 400,000 acres within
the exterior boundaries. Neither the tribal police nor the BIA have
anything close to the funding or trained personnel necessary to
adequately police this newly expanded reservation area previously
patrolled by the State, county and city police.
I've contacted Attorney General Reno to urge the appropriate co-
operation among the Justice Department, the Yankton Sioux Tribe,
and the State of South Dakota. But your attention to this would
be very much appreciated.
I'd like to just touch base on a non-tribal need very quickly, Mr.
Chairman. In addition to the funding necessary for our Indian
projects, I want to thank you for the 1996 Interior Appropriations
conference report directing the Forest Service to complete a study
using an independent contractor on the merits of using tree meas-
urement or scaled methods of selling timber and report the findings
back in the subcommittee. I would urge that the committee in-
cludes language in this year's appropriation's bill requiring the For-
est Service to complete that study at the earliest possible time to
resolve the unsettled issue of how best to sell Forest Service timber
sales.
So thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the
committee, and thank you, as well, for your work on behalf of
South Dakota's tribal members.
Mr. Regula. We'll do the best we can.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Johnson of South Dakota follows:]
10
^ ask unanimous consent that my oral statement and my written testimony
be included in the record.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to express my support for funding several projects and
programs affecting South Dakota. I appreciate the commitment your
Subcommittee and its staff have shown in addressing my state's needs and
for your efforts on behalf of my constituents. The funding that you
provide is absolutely critical for the promotion of economic development,
health and welfare, and protection of our natural resources.
For the sake of time, I will summarize SD's requests in my written
testimony but I would like my entire statement entered into the record,
^irst, I would like to take a few minutes to highlight a few of the major
issues which impact South Dakota's Indian community and others across
the nation.
While I certainly understand the constraints placed on Congress and this
Subcommittee by our efforts to reduce the deficit, and as always I do not
envy the difficult choices your Subcommittee has to make this year, I feel
strongly that we cannot allow the current budget situation to force us to
renege on our trust responsibilities to the Indian people of this nation.
Throughout the debate over FY 1996 Appropriations, Tribes in my state
expressed to me the impact of the serious reduction in Tribal Priority
Allocations (TPA) funding on tribal communities. TPA funds basic
self-determination and self-governance programs on reservations such as
11
road maintenance, scholarships, child protection, law enforcement,
welfare assistance, and housing. Under the FY 1996 Conference level,
the TPA was reduced 11 percent (-$85 million) from FY 1995. This
funding mechanism gives tribes the greatest flexibility to prioritize
programs that further tribal self-governance and self-determination
outlined in the Indian Self Determination Act, and I believe such severe
cutting is misguided. For FY 1997, the President is requesting $1.78
billion for BIA programs, $211.1 million over the 1996 Conference level.
The greatest share-of the increase, 51% of the BIA operating budget,
is directed at TPA to restore funds needed to provide basic tribal
government operations and services, and I strongly support these
priorities.
Mr. Chairman, foremost in priority for South Dakota tribes is the
education of Indian youth. 56% of the American Indian population in
this country is age 24 or younger. I support the President's requested
increase of $43.5 million over FY '96 for school operations to
maintain academic standards at BIA schools and provide safe
transportation for an increased student enrollment-transportation that is
vital to education in my rural state.
I am also in strong support of the efforts of Tribally Controlled
Community Colleges to take the lead in meeting the higher education
and skills training needs of Indians. I support the request of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium for full funding for the 29
tribally-controUed colleges at approximately $40 million for FY 1997,
as authorized under the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges Act.
12
Mr. Chairman, as you know, federal expenditures for social programs
continue to exceed investments for economic growth in Indian Country.
The role of the federal government must be to encourage tribal self-
sufficiency at every opportunity. Cooperative efforts like the
InterTribal Bison Cooperative^ which develops and supports buffalo
business ventures among its 40 member tribes, serve as ideal examples of
the type of investment the federal government can make to enhance tribal
economies, and I support their request for $6.63 million for bison
enhancement projects on tribal lands.
The federal government must also continue its support of tribal self
governance through authority over law enforcement, and tribal
judicial systems on reservations. Many tribes lack the resources for
adequate law enforcement and just administration of tribal courts. To
that end, I am particularly supportive of the Yankton Sioux Tribe's
request for increased funds for law enforcement at Yankton in light of the
recent U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, judgment in
Yankton Sioux Tribe v Southern Missouri Waste Management District.
The ruling found that the exterior boundaries of the Yankton
reservation remain intact and mandated that the reservation boundaries be
re-enforced. This increased the area of criminal jurisdiction for
the tribe and the federal government over Native Americans from
38,000 trust acres to 400,000 acres within the exterior boundaries.
Neither the tribal police nor the BIA have the funding or trained
personnel necessary to adequately police the reservation area previously
patrolled by the state, county and city police departments. I have
13
contacted Attorney General Reno to urge the appropriate cooperation
among the Justice Department, the Yankton Sioux Tribe, and the State of
South Dakota, but I do not believe the resources currently exist for the
tribe to successfully work toward adequate maintenance of law
enforcement, and I urge the Committee to consider seriously the safety of
Indians and non-Indians alike in this situation, and fund the Yankton
Sioux Tribe's law enforcement efforts accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, while I have illustrated a few of the priorities for tribes,
tribal organizations, and other Interior needs in South Dakota for FY '97,
there are a number of equally meritorious programs in need of support
that I have not mentioned. I will contact the Subcommittee in support of
those programs which I feel should be brought to your attention in the
coming weeks.
NON-TRIBAL NEEDS
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the funding necessary for our Indian people,
I am also requesting appropriations for several other important projects
and programs. My requests are detailed in my written testimony but I did
want to take this opportunity to thank you for including language in the
FY '96 Interior Appropriations Conference Report directing the Forest
Service to complete a study, using an independent contractor, on the
merits of using tree measurement or scaled methods of selling timber and
report the findings back to your Subcommittee. Last year I asked that
you review the language included in past appropriations bills regarding
scaled versus tree measurement sales because I do not think that the past
policy of the Subcommittee is appropriate on all Forests. Personally, I
14
am satisfied that the Forest Service can adequately make the
determination about the appropriate method of seUing timber sales and
should be encouraged to sell scaled sales when appropriate. However, I
recognize that a consensus on this issue does not exist and that the study
will help the Subcommittee make a final decision on this issue. I urge
you to include language in this year's appropriations bill which requires
the Forest Service to complete the study at the earliest possible time to
resolve the unsettled issue of how to best sell Forest Service timber sales.
Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
critical Interior funding needs in South Dakota.
15
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to express to you my support for
funding of several projects and programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service,
the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the US Geological Survey, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
which affect the state of South Dakota. There are nine federally recognized tribes in South Dakota, whose
members collectively make up one of the largest Native American populations in any state. At the same time.
South Dakota has three of the ten poorest counties in the nation, all of which are within reservation boundanes. I
certainly understand the constraints placed on Congress and this Committee by our efforts to reduce the deficit,
and as always I do not envy the difficult choices your Committee has to make this year. Nevertheless, we still
have pressing Tribal and non-Tribal needs that must be addressed. I will divide the remainder of my written
testimony into segments based upon general subject areas of BIA administration, as well as a listing of non-tribal
needs. The Subcommittee has already heard from most if not all of those listed below.
TRIBAL NEEDS
Under the FY 1996 Conference level The Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA), which funds basic self-
determination/self-govemance programs on reservations such as road maintenance, scholarships, child protection,
law enforcement, welfare assistance, and housing, was reduced 1 1 percent (-S85 million) from FY 1995. This
funding mechanism gives tribes the greatest flexibility to prioritize programs that further unbal self-governance and
self-deterrrunation outlined in the Indian Self Determination Act, and I believe such severe cutting is misguided.
For FY 1997. the President is requesting $1.78 billion for BIA programs. $211.1 million over the 1996
Conference level. The greatest share of the increase is directed at TPA to restore funds needed to provide basic
tribal government operations and services. 51% of the President's request for the BIA operating budget has been
designated for TPA, and I strongly support these priorities.
Additionally, I commend the Chnton Administration on their efforts to increase efficiencies at the BIA and ensure
that federal funds go directly to benefit people in need. In 1996, over 1,700 positions within the BIA were
eliminated, including 500 at the Central Office. While BIA had begun the process of downsizing and providing a
portion of the savings to Tribes as "tribal shares", the 1996 Conference report did not make the savings
available to tribal programs. I would encourage the Committee to reconsider this avenue of funding for tribal
programs, and reinvest savings from downsizing into tribal communities in need.
EDUCATION
Foremost m priority for South Dakota tribes is the education of Indian youth. 56% of the American Indian
population in this country is age 24 or younger. Consequently, the need for improved educational programs and
facilities, and for training the American Indian workforce is pressing.
In 1996, School Year 1996-1997 funding is held basically near the 1995 level, $31.2 million below the budget
request, despite a projected five percent increase in enrollment. Because of this reduction, I am concerned that, in
the upcoming (1996-1997) school year, schools will lack the necessary funds to meet State and regional
accreditation standards. I support the President's requested increase of S43.5 million for school operations to
maintain academic standards at BIA schools and provide safe transportation for an increased student enrollment,
transportation vital to education in my rural state.
Tribally Controlled Schools have seen great progress and achievement in the education and retention of Indian
students since Indian control of federally funded schools began in 1966. 15 primary and secondary schools in
South Dakota are tribally controlled grant or contract schools.
I support the Yankton Sioux Tribe's request of $20,042 million to complete construction of the Marty Indian
School, including $14, 042,000 for site development and construction of the school building itself, and
$6,000,000 for dormitories and additional support facilities. Marty Indian School had been awaiting repair since a
1983 needs assessment. Because of BIA school construction backlog, subsequent assessment of the school in
1993 indicated that it is no longer economically feasible to simply renovate the facility, and that reconstruction is
eminent.
16
Additionally, I cannot state strongly enough my support for the Tribally Controlled Communin Colleges. Simply
put, the tribal colleges in my slate and those across the country are success stones and they deserve more funding
from the BIA. I support the request of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium for full funding for the
29 Inbally-controlled colleges at approximately S40 million for FY 1997. as authorized under the Tribally''
Controlled Community Colleges Act.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Federal expenditures for social programs continue to exceed investments for economic growth in Indian Country.
I feel strongly that the role of the federal government must be to encourage tribal self-sufficiency at every
oppominily. While a solid educational base is invaluable to that end. I believe the BIA must prioritize programs
which develop infrastructure on reservations and enhance economic growth for tribal communities.
An excellent example of federal investment in tribal self sufficiency is The Intertribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC).
The ITBC is a cooperative, composed of 40 member tribes located in 17 states, with 100% of its funds going
toward development and support of Indian and tribal buffalo business ventures, apportioned between tribal
projects and funding for the ITBC national office. I strongly support the ITBC's request for continued funding of
S6.63 nullion through the BIA for bison enhancement projects on tnbal lands. Seven tribes in my state (Cheyenne
River, Crow Creek, Flandreau Santee, Lower Brule, Sisseton-Wahpeton, Standing Rock, and Yankton) are
members of the ITBC and would benefit from this funding. The ITBC has made important and impressive strides
since its inception in 1991 and has developed exacting criteria to evaluate tribal projects and applications, and
cooperative membership continues to expand.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Chairman of the BIA's recent actions relative to the FTBC. The
BIA has distributed previous years' FTBC funding to non-ITBC member tribes at the discretion of the BIA, based
on the unclear appropriations language of previous years. Since these funds were secured through annual
appropriations at the request of the FTBC, I believe this action by the BIA violates the intent of the Appropriations
Committees. 1 am requesting that your Subcommittee specifically identify "FFBC designated projects" as the
recipient of appropnated funds for FY '97 and future appropriations.
HEALTH
I support the Yankton Sioux Tribe's request of $9.2 million for construction and $2 million for operating costs to
re-open the Wagner IHS Health Care Facility inpatient services which were closed without sufficient and required
notice in 1992. In addition to a dramatic reduction in the availability of care for this rural region, closure of the
inpatient services has lead to losses in Medicare/Medicaid third party collections exceeding $600,000 so far, which
I believe the IHS can ill afford.
I also support a number of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribes' health related priority funding requests for FY 1997,
including: $185,000 for final design and implementation of a reservation-wide rural water system; $247,200 to
maintain the tribal ambulance program, a basic health necessity that has not been included in the IHS budget for
I^ 1997; and $215,000 for the development of a new solid waste management system.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has also requested funding for the development and maintenance of a solid waste
facility. I support the tribe's request of $1 million for the project.
Additionally, I believe the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's request of $1,735,062 adequately reflects their unmet health
related needs, including funding for the Community Health Representatives program, the tribal ambulance service
which transports a minimum of 9500 patients per year, and the tribe's alcohol program which provides inpatient
and outpatient services. I support full funding of the tribe's request.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/TRIBAL COURTS
The federal govemment must continue its support of tribal self governance, authority over law enforcement, and
tribal judicial systems on reservations. Many tribes lack the resources for adequate law enforcement and just
administration of tribal courts.
I am particularly supportive of the Yankton Sioux Tribe's request for increased funds for law enforcement at
Yankton in the face of the recent U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota judgment in Yankton Sioux Tribe v
Southern Missouri Waste Management District. The ruling found that the exterior boundaries of the Yankton
17
reservation remain intact and mandated that the reser\ation boundaries be re-enforced. This increased the area of
criminal jurisdiction for the tribe and the federal government over Native Amencans from 38.000 trust acres to
400,000 acres within the exterior boundaries. Neither the tribal police nor the BIA have the funding or trained
personnel necessary to adequately police the reser\ ation area previously patrolled by the state, county and city
police departments. I have contacted Attorney General Reno to urge the appropriate cooperation between the
Justice Department, the Yankton Sioux Tribe, and the State of South Dakota, but I do not believe the resources
currently exist for the tribe to successfully work toward adequate maintenance of law enforcement, and I urge the
Committee to seriously consider the safety of Indians and non-Indians alike in this situation, and fund the Yankton
Sioux Tribe's law enforcement efforts accordingly.
I also support the Oglala Sioux Tribal Public Safely Commission's request for fiill funding for equitable police
officer salaries under the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990. increased detention facility staff, and
communications equipment. The OST Public Safety Commission provides law enforcement for the Pine Ridge
Reservation, the second largest reservation in the nation. This reservation has an unemployment rate near 85%
and an alcoholism rate estimated between 65-85%, The extreme underfunding of law enforcement in the FY 1996
Conference placed the safely of Indians and non-Indians in South Dakota in extreme jeopardy. With anything
less than even the most basic funding level, this vast, rural reservation will remain inadequately patrolled.
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
There are roughly 4.5 million acres of land in trust for Indians and tribes in South Dakota. Indian culture has
always involved reverence for land, and I believe the federal government needs to encourage a sound conservation
relationship between tnbal and non-tribal lands through full funding of tribal environmental protection and
resource management efforts.
I specifically support the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's request of S5 10,000 for the continued management of the over I
million acres of tribal land and resources, including wildlife and agriculture.
I also support the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's request of $500,000 for the planning and development of
fisheries, wildlife enhancement and mitigation throughout the reservation.
While the above outline does prioritize the funding requests of many tribes and tribal organizations in South
Dakota for FY '97. there are a number of equally meritorious programs in need of support that I have not
mentioned. I will be contacting the Subcommittee in support of those programs which I feel should be brought to
your attention in the coming weeks.
NON-TRIBAL NEEDS
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attention the Committee has given to South Dakota's needs in recent years. In
addition to the funding necessary for our Indian people, I am also requesting appropriations for several other
important projects and programs.
D.C. BOOTH HISTORIC FISH HATCHERY
I continue to strongly support the DC. Booth Fish Hatchery in Spearfish. South Dakota and appreciate the
support this Subcommittee has given to the facility in the past. The past support of this Subcommittee has allowed
the hatcl'iery to be completely rehabilitated over the last four years. Included in the $3.9 million rehabilitation was
construction of a public use and education center which includes a handicapped fish viewing and study area. Also
included is a one-of-a-kind 10.000 square feet National Historic Fishery Records and Archive Center. The Center
will be used by historians, educators, students and researchers from throughout the U.S. and the world, and is a
truly unique and innovative facility. The DC. Booth site is located in a major tourist area on the Yellowstone
route visited by 150.000 persons annually with public use increasing by 20% annually. With the rehabilitation
effort nearly completed, the D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery urgently needs $300,000 for operating funds. Without
this fianding essential functions at the Hatchery will not be possible. I strongly support this funding request and
am hopeful that this Subcomminee will continue its support of the D.C. Booth Historic Fish Hatchery by
approving these critically important funds.
FOREST SERVICE
18
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely proud of the management of the Black Hills National Forest. As I have reported to
this Subcommillee previously. I believe the Black Hilis National Forest is the crown jewel of the National Forest
System and an outstanding example of multiple use management. The timber program on the Black Hills National
Forest makes money for the United Slates - ever\ S 1 .00 spent on the timber program generates S2.00 in
revenues. In addition, the timber program accomplishes management that is necessary to reduce the risk of in.sect
epidemics and forest fires, as well as providing an essential component of the Black Hills economy.
I am concerned that the timber program on the Forest has not been funded closer to the fortst plan level in recent
years, and I suppon this Subcommittee's efforts to rebuild the Forest Service's timber sale program. I am also
concerned that the Black Hills National Forest has been unable to maintain an adequate level of timber sale
"pipeline" volume. The timber sale pipeline is vital to the stability of the timber sale program and I urge the
Committee to give priority to funding that will ensure pipeline restoration.
In this time of declining budgets. I believe the Forest Service should consider funding timber sale programs on
those units with the most competitive costs and highest levels of accomplishment. The timber sale program in
Region 2 of the Forest Service has one of the lowest costs in the western Regions of the Forest Service, and one
of the highest levels of accomplishment. The Region's efforts should not gounnoticed or unrewarded.
Finally, last year I asked this Subcommittee to carefully review the language included in committee reports
accompanying recent appropriations bills relative to scaled sales versus tree measurement scales. I want to thank
you for including the language in the FY '96 Interior Appropriations Conference Report directing the Forest
Service to complete a study, using an independent contractor, on the merits of using tree measurement or scaled
methods of selling timber and report the findings back to your Subcommittee. Personally. I am satisfied that the
Forest Service can adequately make the determination about the appropriate method of selling timber sales and
should be encouraged to sell scaled sales when appropriate. However, I recognize that a consensus on this issue
does not exist and so I request that the committee require the Forest Service to complete the study at the earliest
possible time to resolve the unsettled issue of how to best sell Forest Service timber sales.
PARK SERVICE
Finally, I would like to reiterate my concern for inadequate budget for our National Park Service facilities. The
deteriorating level of service and basic infrastructure in our National Park System is alarming. Our South Dakota
National Park units, including Mt. Rushmore, the Badlands National Monument. Jewel Cave National
Monument, and Wind Cave National Park, are of particular concern tome. Declining budgets and declining
personnel levels threaten citizen access to these facilities. Maintaining these units to allow a continued quality
expenence is a high priority for me. I appreciate all that the Subcommittee has done in the past to help or National
parks, and I look forward to your continued devotion to this important issue.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
I also want to thank you for rejecting the proposal submitted by the Administration last year to terminate USGS's
Water Resources Research Institutes program. I urge you to support funding for this vital federal/state water
research and education partnership. The $4.5 million appropriated in FY 1996 provides the core resources for the
network of 54 water resources research institutes at the land grant colleges in each of the 50 states. This network
links faculty and students with interests in water resources at virtually every institution of higher education in the
country. The core federal investment is augmented by state and local government as well as private sources to
create a program that leverages the federal investment eleven times over. As you may know, last year the 54
institutes generated approximately $65 million from all sources to support their research, education, and
information transfer activities. I would urge you to increase funding for this important program in the USGS
budget.
Thank you again for this opportunity to submit testimony on the critical Interior funding needs in South Dakota. I
do not envy the tough budgetary decisions facing you, however I hope that my requests will be considered
favorably.
19
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE
WITNESS
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Regula. Peter?
Mr. ViscLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, I under-
stand that my entire statement will be entered into the record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. ViscLOSKY. I also want to thank the Chair and all the mem-
bers of the committee. During my 11 years in Congress, this sub-
committee has been very generous to the Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore, and that's the purpose of my testimony today.
Mr. Chairman, coming from the Midwest, you understand that in
the Midwest, parklands is what water is to western States, a very
scarce commodity. Acre for acre, Indiana's only national park, the
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, has more visitors per acre than
most national parks including Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the
Grand Canyon.
My first request would be for demolition funds. I would like to
express my serious concern about abandoned buildings scattered
throughout the park and to ask for a special $4.4 million appro-
priation to deal with this severe problem. The abandoned struc-
tures were acquired by the National Park Service decades ago
through a lease back reservation of use program.
Abandoned structures are a constant drain on park resources.
They must be monitored and protected from vandals and vagrants.
By the end of Fiscal Year 1996, there will be 103 vacant build-
ings scattered throughout the Indiana Dunes. Funds are urgently
needed to demolish these structures.
In 1988, the Indiana Dunes unveiled plans to reopen Goodfellow
Camp for use as an educational facility. My request for this year
is for $400,000 that would enhance Groodfellow by providing a
workspace for group projects, audiovisual, computer and laboratory
facilities for students at the overnight camp.
I also wanted to discuss land acquisition for a moment. At this
time it is unclear, obviously, how Fiscal Year 1996 land acquisition
funds will be distributed among the parks, but it must provide
funds for continued land acquisition at the National Lakeshore. I
seek $5.5 million for Fiscal Year 1997 land acquisition funds to
allow the Indiana Dunes to acquire high-priority properties in
hardship cases.
As you know, from my previous testimony, the Park Service is
the recipient of numerous hardship requests from homeowners
within the authorized boundaries of the park who are pleading to
be purchased. Many of these individuals are elderly and have no
possible buyer but the National Park Service.
The Park Service estimates that hardship cases will cost approxi-
mately $1 million. There is also great need to acquire the Crescent
Dune property, the subject of last year's testimony. The parcel is
considered a high-priority property acquisition by the National
20
Park Service and for its owner, the Northern Indiana PubHc Serv-
ice Company.
The Park Service estimates $3.7 million will be needed to acquire
Crescent Dune. Additional high-priority properties are expected to
cost $870,000.
Finally, I wish to express my strong support for President Clin-
ton's budget request to increase funding for the Indiana Dunes op-
erations by $790,000 to cover a full-time equivalent increase of
seven employees and provide for increase maintenance needs. Park
interpretative programs now reach less than 10 percent of visitors
and law enforcement personnel contact less than five.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the constraints that you're under with
this committee. I appreciate your courtesy today and the courtesy
and generosity in the past.
Mr. Regula. Just one question. Is there any possibility using ei-
ther State and/or local funds that could match what we do?
Mr. VisCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would not be able to answer
that question now. I'd be happy to get to the committee in writing
on that. I've not made any enquiries beyond
Mr. Regula. Well, more and more, because of the limitation on
what we have available, we try to leverage whatever we do with
State and local funds. Of course, it gives the communities a stake
in it too.
Mr. VisCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, one thing that I would point out
relative to Crescent Dune again, is owned by, the local utility com-
pany. Within the past 12 months, they have made a donation of
property that they owned to the Indiana Dunes National Lake-
shore, as I sit here, I do not know what the value of that property
is.
They have also entered into an agreement with the Park Service
relative to other properties they continue to own, but which the
National Lakeshore will now enjoy an easement for. There is clear-
ly economic value attached to that.
The utility company asked nothing in return from the national
government through that donation. And, again, that's within the
last 12 months.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Visclosky follows:]
21
PETER J. VISCLOSKY ».as»nc>on i
Congregg of tl)e ©nitel) States
J^ousfe of J^cprcgentatibes;
MaSbingtou, mC 20515-1401
Testimony of
Representative Pete Visclosky
Before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior
April 16, 1996
Thank you. Chairman Regula, Mr. Yates, and members of the
Interior Subcommittee, for giving me the opportunity to testify before you
today on the Fiscal Year 1997 National Park Service budget and,
specifically, the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
Park lands are much to the Midwest what water is to Western States;
a very scarce commodity that, when found, is used to the last drop. Acre-
for-acre, Indiana's only national park, the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore,
has more visitors than most national parks, including Yellowstone, Yosemite
and the Grand Canyon. Last year, 1,750,000 people came to take
advantage of the Lakeshore's 15,000 acres. In 1994, the Indiana Dunes
held more that 3,000 education programs for 82,600 elementary school
children. The park's Dunewood campground is full nearly every summer
weekend.
My requests for Fiscal Year 1 997 focus primarily on how we maintain
the integrity of the Indiana Dunes under such rigorous use by the public.
Demolition Funds:
First, I yvould like to express my serious concern about abandoned
buildings scattered throughout the park and to ask for a special $4.4 million
appropriation to deal with this severe problem. The abandoned structures
were acquired by the National Park Service decades ago through leaseback
and reservation of use programs. As the leasebacks expire, the buildings
are vacated and become the full responsibility of the Park Service.
Abandoned houses are a constant drain on park resources. They must be
monitored and protected from vandals and vagrants. Funds, staff time and
materials invested in these structures are wasted resources. Unfortunately,
to protect park visitors and neighbors, significant resources must be put
toward securing and monitoring the structures.
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAP£R MADE Of RECvCLED FIBERS
22
Park officials are struggling to find other equitable and legal options --
including extending some leasebacks - to lighten the load in the near
future. There are, however, more than 65 vacant residential structures
awaiting demolition. By the end of Fiscal Year 1996, there will be 103
vacant buildings scattered throughout the Indiana Dunes. Funds are
urgently needed to demolish these structures.
Based on quotes received for seven of the structures, the Park
Service estimates demolition will average $32,400 per house. I am asking
for an appropriation of $4,434,300 to demolish 103 vacant structures. The
funds will also cover removal and proper disposal of asbestos, and above
and underground storage tanks at some sites. Any funds we can invest
today in demolition saves federal dollars in the future.
Goodfellow Camp:
The Goodfellow Camp is an excellent example of how urban parks
often recycle old facilities and put them to public use. The Goodfellow
Camp was established in 1941 by the Carnegie Illinois Steel Corporation.
The 675-acre 'camp' had been operated by the Gary Works' Good
Fellowship Club and the Gary Works' Welfare Association as a residential
and day camp for employees and their families. The camp ceased operation
in 1975 and was subsequently acquired by the National Park Service.
In 1 988, the Indiana Dunes unveiled plans to reopen Goodfellow for
use as an educational facility. Funds supported by this subcommittee in
Fiscal Year 1995 financed current construction of overnight facilities at
Goodfellow for use by middle school and high school students.
My request for this year, $400,000, would enhance Goodfellow by
providing a project workspace equipped with audiovisual, computer and
laboratory facilities for students at the camp. The workspace will support
in-depth educational opportunities for middle school, high school, special
needs education and adult education groups. The workspace will
complement Goodfellow's high-quality outdoor environment.
The Rostone House:
1 am seeking $24,000 to stabilize the Rostone House, an historic
structure located within the Indiana Dunes. These funds are an important
step towards a substantial public/private partnership in restoring and
maintaining all Century of Progress homes within the Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore.
The 1933 Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago, Illinois, featured
home and industrial arts. Modern materials, building methods and
innovative home appliances were exhibited, all utilizing new techniques of
design, construction, and prefabrication. At the close of the exposition,
Robert Bartlett, a real estate developer, barged seventeen dennonstration
homes across Lake Michigan to Beverly Shores, Indiana. Of the houses
moved, only five remain: the Armco-Ferro-Mayflower House; the Weiboldt-
Rostone House; the Florida Tropical House; the House of Tomorrow; and,
the Cypress Log House. These Century of Progress homes are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
In 1980, the five homes were purchased by the National Park
Service. Over the years, the Park Service and local organizations proposed
different options for the homes. Lack of funding, complicated by staggered
leaseback expirations, prohibited all but the bare minimum of preservation
efforts. In 1993, the five homes were placed on the Historic Landmarks
Foundation of Indiana's "Ten Most Endangered Landmarks" list.
In response, the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana promoted
the Century of Progress homes as candidates for the National Park
Service's historic leasing program, which offers long term (up to 99 years)
leases to the general public for certain historic buildings owned by the
National Park Service. Under this program, private individuals would
renovate a house according to specific guidelines in exchange for free rent.
Work on an initial agreement is in progress for the Florida House.
There is hope that the Rostone House, which is streamlined in
appearance, consisting of long, low, flat-roof rectangular forms, could
attract a candidate for the historic leasing partnership. However,
substantial work must be performed to stabilize the structure in the interim.
An appropriation of $24,000 would remove and replace existing roofing,
repair roof decking, install parapet flashing and close all openings and
windows. This is a valuable program and I hope the subcommittee will
support it.
Land Acquisition:
At this time, it is unclear how Fiscal Year 1996 land acquisition fuhds
will be distributed among parks. Still, I must request funds for continued
land acquisition at the National Lakeshore. I am seeking $5.5 million in
Fiscal Year 1997 land acquisition funds to allow the Indiana Dunes to
acquire high priority property and hardship cases.
As you know from my previous testimonies, the Park Service is the
recipient of numerous "hardship" requests from homeowners within the
authorized boundaries of the park who are pleading to be purchased. Many
of these individuals are elderly and, having no possible buyer but the
National Park Service, are forced to maintain their property on a very limited
income. The Park Service estimates hardship cases will cost approximately
$1 million. There remains a great need to acquire the Crescent Dune
property. This parcel is considered a high priority property acquisition by
24
the National Park Service and by the property's owner, the Northern Indiana
Public Service Company. The Park Service estimates $3.7 million will be
needed to acquire Crescent Dune. Additional high priority properties are
expected to cost approximately $870,000.
Indiana Dunes Operating Budget:
Finally, I must express my strong support for President Clinton's
budget request to increase funding for Indiana Dunes operations by
$790,000 to cover a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) increase of seven
employees and to provide for desperate needs at the park. Flat budgets in
recent years are causing park services to erode. In the past year,
educational services to children had to be cut back drastically -- from
82,000 children served in 1994 to 50,000 children in 1995 -- simply
because the resources were not there to administer the programs. In
addition, increased maintenance needs at the Dunewood Campground, the
new Treemont picnic area, the Inland Marsh Overlook, and the West Unit
hike/bike trail require added FTE's. Currently, there are 1 5,250 annual
visitors for each FTE. Park interpretive programs reach less than 10
percent of visitors and law enforcement personnel contact less than five
percent. The additional $790,000 is critical if the Indiana Dunes is to
continue providing a unique outdoor environment for the American people.
In closing, I greatly appreciate the assistance the Subcommittee has
provided in the past and am grateful for your consideration again this year.
25
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
STEEL INDUSTRY HERITAGE PROJECT
WITNESS
HON. WILLIAM J. COYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Regula. Bill?
Mr. Coyne. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Your statement will be made a part of the record.
Mr. COYNE. Thank you.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today and the committee regarding the Steel Industry Heritage
Project. I'm here today to ask the subcommittee to include $500,000
for continuation of the Steel Industry Heritage Project in its Fiscal
Year 1997 Interior Appropriations Bill.
I also want to thank the members of the committee, and you, Mr.
Chairman, for the support for this important program in the past
years. The Steel Industry Heritage Project was authorized by the
Congress to conserve the industrial and cultural resources of south-
western Pennsylvania. This region, once the steel-making capital of
the world, now contains many historic and cultural resources which
are of national significance. The Steel Industry Heritage Project
was established to preserve important artifacts from this era and
to educate Americans of the important period in our Nation's his-
tory.
The Steel Industry Heritage Project has also been included for
designation as a national heritage area in H.R. 1280.
Since Fiscal Year 1989, the Steel Industry Heritage Project has
received congressional appropriations to develop a heritage area in
the seven counties of southwestern Pennsylvania.
Congressional appropriations of National Park Service funds for
the Steel Industry Heritage Project have leveraged considerable
State and local support for this effort. This investment has led to
many important accomplishments including the development of
more than 35 miles of rail-to-trails projects, preservation of the last
steam-driven rolling mill of its type in the world, development of
a collection of rare industry documents, establishment of a photo-
graphic archive with more than 15,000 historic prints, images and
photographs, and a collection of the oral histories of many residents
and workers from the region.
Since 1993, the Steel Industry Heritage Project has been working
with the National Park Service to develop a management plan that
lays out a strategy for conserving the nationally significant steel in-
dustry of that region.
I hope that the subcommittee will include $500,000 for the Steel
Industry Heritage Project in its Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations
bill. This money would be used for implementing the management
plan, conducting an inventory of the historic and cultural resources
in Armstrong County, and for continued National Park Service
technical assistance.
I thank you for your consideration and your time and that of the
committee today.
26
Mr. Regula. Well, thanks, Bill. As you know, we've been putting
money in within the constraints of our budget. It is a good project,
and I like the fact that a lot of the local communities are involved.
I'm sure that with the rails-to-trails that you've had a lot of local
public interest and that leverages what we have given.
Mr. Coyne. Right. We've had good local cooperation, and that's
committed to continue. The end of this next week we're going to
open, in Pittsburgh, which is not a part of this project, the John
Heinz Regional Historical Museum.
Mr. Regula. Is that financed by the State?
Mr. Coyne. Actually it's financed for the most part by county
and private donations from the Pittsburgh region.
Mr. Regula. Well, I think in the future all of these type of things
will depend on partnership efforts to be successful.
Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Coyne follows:]
27
Statement of the
Honorable William J. Coyne
Subcommittee on Interior
House Committee on Appropriations
Steel Industry Heritage Corporation
April 17, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here before you today to request that
the Subcommittee approve $500,000 for continuation of the Steel Industry
Heritage Project (SIHP) as part of the fiscal year 1997 Interior
Appropriations bill.
The Steel Industry Heritage Project was authorized by the Congress
under Public Law 100-698 to conserve the industrial and cultural resources of
the steel industry in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Since FY 1989, the SIHP has
received funding through Congressional appropriations to develop a heritage
area in the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette, Greene,
Washington, and Westmoreland.
This region, once the steel-making capital of the world, now contains
many historic and cultural resources which are of national significance. The
steel mills, coal mines, coke ovens, glass works, and railroads that made up the
core of the industrial revolution in this country — and propelled the United
States to its status as an economic and military superpower — are an
important part of our country's history. So are the stories of the men and
women who emmigrated from dozens of different foreign countries to work in
the region's mines and factories in search of a better life for themselves and
their children. The Steel Industry Heritage Project was established to
preserve important artifacts from this era and to educate Americans about
this important period in our nation's history.
Congressional appropriations of National Park Service funds for the
Steel Industry Heritage Project have leveraged considerable state and local
support for this effort In conjunction with federal funds, the SIHP has
received over $2.75 million from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, $50,000
from local governments, and more than $3.5 million from private sources or
foundations. The SIHP has also received $1,237,000 from other Federal
28
sources, including NEA, the Department of Transportation, the Department
of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Defense. In all, the
NPS investment has generated a match of more than 275 percent by other
sources.
This investment has led to many important accomplishments, including
the development of more than 35 miles of rail-to-trails projects; preservation
of the 48-inch mill, the last steam-driven rolling mill of its type in the world;
redevelopment of the historic Bost Building as the main visitor's center for
interpreting the Homestead Strike of 1892; documentation of the major steel-
producing sites within the Pittsburgh region; development of a collection of
rare steel mill documents; establishment of a photographic archive with more
than 15,000 historic prints, images and photographs; and the collection of the
oral histories of many residents and workers from the region.
Since 1993, SIHP has been working to develop a management plan that
lays out a strategy for conserving the nationally-significant steel history of the
region. The Management Plan weaves together cultural and historical
resources in a way that makes our heritage visible, exciting, and accessible.
This heritage area will have a major effect on the regional economy by
promoting tourism and economic development. The plan documents the
region's historic legacy, describes a vision for interpreting this legacy, and sets
out an implementation strategy, including specific projects and costs.
The Steel Industry Heritage Project expects to be designated by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a new State Heritage Area, and the SIHP
has been included for designation as a national heritage area in H.R. 1280,
legislation that would establish national heritage areas across the country.
I am requesting that the Subcommittee approve $500,000 for the Steel
Industry Heritage Project in fiscal year 1997. This money would be used for
implementing the management plan I have just described, conducting an
inventory of historic and cultural resources in Armstrong County, and for
continued National Park Service technical assistance.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
29
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
SANDY HOOK UNIT, GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA
CHURCH OF THE SEVEN PRESIDENTS, LONG BRANCH
HISTORICAL MUSEUM DISMAL SWAMP
NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES
WITNESS
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Regula. Okay, Frank, we're ready to go.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, how are you?
Mr. Chairman, I have a full statement that-
Mr. Regula. It will be made part of the record.
Mr. Pallone. I was going to try to summarize it real briefly.
First of all the Sandy Hook unit of Gateway National Recreation
Area is in my district. They have requested $4.2 million for park
operations.
But beyond that there are several infrastructure needs that real-
ly should be addressed, if possible, this fiscal year or over the next
few fiscal years.
One is that a shore protection, beach replenishment project was
done there in 1989. After five or six years, there is a need to do
replenishment again. So I ask for the cost of that. The estimate
would be about $24 million. I don't know if it has to be done all
at once, but I did mention in m.y testimony the need to do a new
beach replenishment project there. Otherwise Sandy Hook becomes
cut off and there's no access any more. Plus it's important for the
beach because it's a huge beach that people use in the summer
from the New York metropolitan area.
In addition to that, the Park Service has come up with a feasibil-
ity project to restore historic structures at Sandy Hook at Fort
Hancock. If I could get about $150,000 in Fiscal Year 1997 to do
a feasibility study on that, I think that we could get a really great
public-private partnership together to restore some of those build-
ings.
The other items I've mentioned under Sandy Hook are basically
infrastructure needs: bike path, utilities rehabilitation, new en-
trance to the park — which gets very backed up in the summer sea-
son. These are things that the committee has, I believe, looked at
before. We haven't been able to get funding for them. If there's
some way that we could start the process of getting the funding for
some of those infrastructure needs, I would certainly appreciate it.
There's also a request for a historical project, the Church of the
Seven Presidents in Long Branch. This was one of the sites that
was identified by a national survey as one of the most endangered,
if you will, historical structures in the country. If we could get a
30
small amount of money to help with the rehabilitation of that facil-
ity.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund, I don't have specific re-
quests for earmarks there, but I would like to see as much money
as possible put into that program. I have two projects, Dismal
Swamp in Edison and Milltown projects also in my district. I'm not
looking for any earmark, but I know that those projects would not
be funded unless there was considerably more funding in the Land
and Water Conservation Fund than there was last year. So my re-
quest generally is to see if we can get significantly more funding
for that program.
The only other thing, funding-wise, I wanted to mention is at
Rutgers University. We do not have what's called a cooperative re-
search unit. We're one of five States that do not. If we could get
that designated with a small amount of seed money, it would allow
Rutgers to tap into a lot of other research programs and research
grants that come under your jurisdiction.
I don't know if you're familiar with this at all, but they really
feel that they are sort of behind the curve in not having that kind
of designation at Rutgers.
The last thing which you've heard from me about probably for
ten years now — or maybe for eight years now — is the OCS morato-
rium. I guess, you and I do not agree on that.
Mr. Regula. Well, that's a bit of a catch-22 because you like the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Mr. Pallone. Exactly, but not strictly. I knew you were going to
catch on that. But there's other sources of funding too, right?
Mr. Regula. That's the biggy, though.
Mr. Pallone. That is the big one, that's true.
But in any case, I, of course, advocate the continuation of the
moratorium and hope that the subcommittee will go in that direc-
tion as they have for the last few years.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you very much. You know we have
short rations. In 1996 we were $1.4 billion under 1995, and that
means we really have got to squeeze. Wherever possible, I look for
partnership packages with State and local participation.
Mr. Pallone. Right.
Mr. Regula. I think that that's the future in a lot of these
projects.
Mr. Pallone. Yes, and particularly that one at Fort Hancock
with the rehabilitation of the historic structures. I think that with
a small amount of Federal funds we could definitely attract private
interests to come in there and restore those buildings.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
31
,£BcecoMM,n« FRANK PALLONE, Jr.
District 0*»»cts
rxAfM. AND *-0-<i BMAMCh. NJ 07T40
«sou»ctscoMM,-H Congress of ttjr ^niteb States
— 'wlZn'r'"""" 2;ousf of ^rprfSfiitatibfS
".."••■ (BU.isliinBH)". ©"C 20313-3000
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, JR.
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
APRIL 17, 1996
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Mr. Yates for allowing me to testify today in support
of Interior Department projects that are of great importance to me and my district.
As you know I represent a densely populated, coastal district that is very
environmentally conscious. Not only does the Sixth District contain significant natural and
historical resources, it is also home to Rutgers University - New Jersey's state university.
As a result, we have very diverse needs with respect to public lands.
In my testimony today, I will be addressing Fiscal Year 1997 funding requests for the
Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area and the Church of the Seven
Presidents at the Long Branch Historical Museum. In addition, I would like to discuss
protection of the Dismal Swamp in Edison, New Jersey, designation of a National Biological
Survey Cooperative Research Unit at Rutgers University, and continuation of the moratorium
on Mid-Atlantic Coast offshore oil and gas lease sales.
SANDY HOOK UNIT. GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
We are very fortunate in the Sixth District of New Jersey to be home to the Sandy
Hook Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area (NRA). The Gateway NRA is visited
by some 9 million people each year and Sandy Hook attracts around 3 million of those
visitors annually. These people come from all over the New Jersey-New York-Philadelphia
metropolitan area to take advantage of Sandy Hook's bathing beaches, fishing areas, and
historic structures. The park provides an opportunity for people of all economic backgrounds
to enjoy a day at the shore.
Like many National Parks, Gateway/Sandy Hook relies on line item spending
appropriated by Congress. I am therefore requesting $4.2 million for park operation at
Gateway/Sandy Hook for Fiscal Year 1997.
In addition, I would like to make requests for several improvement projects at
32
Gateway/Sandy Hook for Fiscal Year 1997. These projects are necessary to continue to
provide visitors at Gateway/Sandy Hook with modern facilities and to maximize access and
use of the historic and natural resources available at Sandy Hook.
Shore Protection
Winter storms have severely eroded ocean beaches on Sandy Hook. At this point,
tides are washing over the roadway near the entrance to the park. Without the necessary
beach nourishment in the "critical zone" at Sandy Hook, the hook will be breached by the
competing wave action of the bay and the ocean.
I strongly urge the Subcommittee to consider an appropriation of $24 million for
beach nourishment for the "critical zone" at Sandy Hook in FY 1997.
In addition, a 30 foot section of the historic sea wall located opposite to Officers'
Row in the Fort Hancock complex collapsed during a storm last month. Unfortunately, this
has added to the critical situation of shore protection at Sandy Hook.
I am in the process of requesting emergency funds for the temporary stabilization of
the sea wall. The sea wall will require permanent stabilization, however, in order to
maintain its viability in the future. For this purpose, I request that $150,000 be appropriated
in FY 1997 for re-stabilization of the historic sea wall at Sandy Hook.
Fort Hancock Historic Structures
The histor>' of Fort Hancock as an important military site goes back to the
Revolutionary War. The original fort was built during the War of 1812. In 1895, the U.S.
Army established Fort Hancock to protect vital shipping lanes into New York Harbor. After
World War II, the Fort was used as the site for anti-aircraft guns and later as a Nike missile
installation. The Fort was deactivated in 1974.
In 1982, the U.S. Department of the Interior designated all of Sandy Hook as a
National Historic Landmark. The Fort area is administered by the National Park Service as
part of the Gateway National Recreation Area.
The Park Service has envisioned a very progressive, adaptive re-use plan for Fort
Hancock which would employ the participation of public and private entities in the
rehabilitation and re-use of Fort Hancock's historic facilities. The study that I am asking for
would evaluate potential uses for the existing buildings and investigate possible funding
mechanisms that could be pursued in order to minimize the need for federal funding.
I strongly believe that an investigation into a public -private partnership for
rehabilitating Fort Hancock will allow the Fort Hancock facilities to be preserved while at
the same time enhancing the current recreation, historicaf interpretation, and environmental
education activities at Sandy Hook.
33
I would therefore like to request that the Subcommittee provide $150,000 in FY 1997
for a "market analysis" of plans to rehabilitate and preserve the 62 historic structures within
Fort Hancock through a public-private partnership
Bike Path
I would also like to request $2.5 million in FY 1997 for planning and construction of
the North/South bike path as envisioned in Gateway's General Management Plan
When completed, this trail will connect all major features along the length of Sandy
Hook. The North/South trail will also join the Sea Bright Trail and the proposed Bayshore
Trail which will run almost half the length of my Congressional district.
Utilities Rehabilitation
According to the Park Service, the utility systems on Sandy Hook are antiquated,
some systems having been installed as early as 1898. As a result, the utilities at Sandy Hook
are subject to frequent malfunction and are in dire need of rehabilitation. The Park Service
has informed me that there are recurrent failures in the electrical system and that existing
phone lines are often out of service. In addition, the water distribution system and waste
water collection systems contain numerous leaks from old faulty lines which include asbestos
and lead joints. These water systems do not provide adequate pressure for fire fighting and
may create environmental and health safety concerns.
I would therefore like to ask the Subcommittee to provide $400,000 for the
preliminary design study of a project to rehabilitate deteriorated utilities at Sandy Hook,
including the water and wastewater systems and the electrical and telecommunications
systems.
New Park Entrance
There is also much needed work to be done on the entrance to the Sandy Hook unit in
order to provide more effective means of handling increased traffic at the park. The existing
entrance plaza needs to be replaced in order to eliminate lines at the park entrance. In
addition, the existing Ranger Station which was constructed in the early 1960s needs to be
replaced or rehabilitated in order to handle an increase in visitation. Finally, the road that
winds through the park — Hartshome Drive -- needs to be resurfaced and its drainage
improved.
For plaiming of these activities, I hope the Subcommittee will seriously consider
providing $200,000 in FY 1997.
CHURCH OF THE SEVEN PRESIDENTS
I would next like to direct the Subcommittee's attention to a project that is very
34
important to me because it highlights the role my hometown of Long Branch, New Jersey has
played in the history of our country.
Built in 1879, the Long Branch Historical Museum has had seven United States
Presidents, from General Ulysses S. Grant to Woodrow Wilson, worship on the premises of
the former church in which it is housed. In addition, other great historical figures have
walked its corridors, including George W. Childs -- the editor and publisher of the
Philadelphia Inquirer, and George Pullman - the great inventor of the pullman car.
The Museum is a landmark of tradition and historical significance, requiring minimal
funding to provide an important snapshot of history for generations to come.
I, therefore, respectfully urge the Subcommittee to give favorable consideration to a
$60,000 appropriation for the Church of the Seven Presidents at the Long Branch Historical
Museum for FY 1997. This small amount of federal funding would provide necessary
monies to match private contributions for rehabilitation of the building, including structural
support and roof repair. SiiKe the Museum is listed on the National Historic Registry,
funding for the project is authorized pursuant to 16 USC Sec. 462(0
THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Although I am not requesting any specific funding for land acquisition for my district
under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in FY 1997, I would like to urge the
Subcommittee to support the highest possible funding level for this program in the coming
fiscal year.
The LWCF is important to me for two reasons. First, I am continuing to working
with the Fish and Wildlife Service on ways to protect the Dismal Swamp in Edison, New
Jersey. The Dismal Swamp is a significant wetland habitat located in a very densely
populated portion of my district. Because this habitat is so unique to this portion of my
district, my constituents and I believe it is worthy of assistance through the LWCF to help
protect it from the mounting pressures of urban development.
I am also seeking funding, through the LWCF, to protect open space and historic
structures in Milltown, New Jersey. This is an extremely worthy project which, I firmly
believe, will receive federal funding provided that Congress provides sufficient appropriation
to the LCWF.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH UNIT. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Currently, New Jersey is one of only five states that do not contain a Cooperative
Research Unit. These units were originally designated as part of the Fish and Wildlife
Service and were recently placed under the jurisdiction of the National Biological Survey
when that entity took over the research functions of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
35
The lack of a Cooperative Research Unit has hindered the ability of my state to
participate in research activities that can only be carried out by a Cooperative Research Unit.
As you know. New Jersey is home to 5 National Wildlife Refuges, the Pinelands National
Reserve, three Wild and Scenic Rivers, and numerous other natural areas that would be
invaluable resources for scieniiTic research.
Rutgers, New Jersey's state university, which is located in my district, is ideally
suited for a designation as a Cooperative Research Unit I hope that the Subcommittee will
give its most serious consideration to designating Rutgers as a cooperative unit in FY 1997.
CONTINUATION OF THE MID-ATLANTIC PCS MORATORIUM
Finally, and most importantly, 1 request that the Subcommittee continue to prohibit
the Department of the Interior from expending any funds for any activities related to a
Mid- Atlantic Coast offshore oil and gas lease sale, including the preparation or conduct of
preleasing and leasing activities.
Because of its sensitive ecosystem, I am a strong opponent of oil and gas drilling off
the coast of New Jersey. New Jersey's marine environment has suffered enough over the
years: sewage sludge dumping, illegal medical waste disposal, and the dumping of dioxin
laden dredged sediments. In the summer of 1988 alone, New Jersey lost some $800 million
as a result of coastal environmental problems.
I strongly urge the Subcommittee to reaffirm its support for the moratorium by
including the necessary language in the Fiscal Year 1997 Interior Appropriations legislation.
CONCLUSION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Yates, and members of the Subcommittee for your
consideration of my requests and your kind assistance in years past. I look forward to
working with the Subcommittee on these and other important proposals throughout the 104th
Congress.
36
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
THE PRESIDIO
OCS MORATORIUM
MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE
MARK PROCESSING CENTER
HETCH HETCHY
WITNESS
HON. NANCY PELOSI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Regula. Nancy?
Ms. Pelosl Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Mr. Regula. Good morning.
Ms. Pelosl Thanks for the opportunity to be here this morning.
Mr. Regula. You're here clutching to vote for the bill.
Ms. Pelosl It's possible, it's possible. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Well, that's progress.
Ms. Pelosl Well, we haven't seen it yet, have we? Whatever the
next version of it is, I'm certain you're going to work it out, Mr.
Chairman, and have a good resolution of it.
Mr. Regula. Well, we're trying hard.
Ms. Pelosl I feel confident to have your leadership.
Mr. Regula. I need the magic of the bible story about the fishes
and the loaves that could feed 5,000.
Ms. Pelosl Well, I'll be praying for you. [Laughter.]
As you know, Mr. Chairman, because of your leadership, the
committee has been very generous in the past to my request. I ap-
preciate your good work and the funding that has made so many
projects possible in the San Francisco Bay Area and in California.
I'm again requesting funding for the Presidio as a top priority.
We're very near Senate consideration of the Presidio Trust bill. As
you know it passed the House 317-111 and enjoys bipartisan sup-
port. You have very generously visited, and you understand the
issue. It is my hope that before we start the next fiscal year, we'll
be able to utilize the authority of the trust legislation in a cost-ef-
fective manner lowering the overall costs of the Presidio as a na-
tional park.
I, too, want to join my colleague, Mr. Pallone, in supporting a
continued moratorium in energy development off the — in my case —
the environmentally-sensitive areas of the California coast.
The appropriations committee has upheld the moratorium for
many years, and I would hope that that would continue because it
is important to our environment and our State's economy.
The Mojave Desert Preserve, the request in the President's budg-
et is for $1.9 million. I support the request with the intent of the
California Deserts Protection Act which designated the preserve as
a unit to be operated as a National Park Service unit.
A small request, relatively speaking, $239,000 for the Mark Proc-
essing Center. The Mark Center is responsible for creating and
maintaining a database for the salmon tagging information col-
37
lected on the West Coast. This would provide fishery managers
with information on the hardest impacts on the variety of West
Coast salmon stocks.
If you were in California these days, Mr. Chairman, you would
see a great deal in the press about what's happening in terms of
salmon. These additional funds would allow the Mark Center to
merge tagging data with harvest statistics in order to track, com-
pile, and utilization information concerning the impact on various
species some of which are now endangered and perilously low in
number. This is very important to the environment and to the fish-
ing industry in our State.
Mr. Chairman, you have in the past brought up the issue of
Hetch Hetchy. The President's budget calls for the payment of
$575,000 by the city of San Francisco. The President's budget uses
an excepted energy regulatory commission formula that is em-
ployed for such projects. As you know, the city is willing to pay
more, but agrees that it should be based on a standard that is ap-
plied broadly to other similar projects. So we'll be going up to
$597,000. And I just mention that, was it $30,000 — no, since it was
an issue that interests you.
Once again, I want to thank the committee's consideration of my
request and hope that you will be helpful.
Mr. Regula. Do you support Jim Watt's idea of putting Hetch
Hetchy back to its natural state?
Ms. Pelosi. No. I know that comes as a surprise to you. [Laugh-
ter.]
Then again, he said that the second coming was imminent. If
that were true, then I could buy into a number of his proposals.
But since I'm not absolutely certain, I'm not ready to make that
stand.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Pelosi follows:]
38
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PELOSI
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
time today and for the opportunity to present my Interior
Appropriations requests for fiscal year 1997.
This Subcommittee has been very generous in the past and I
appreciate your good work and the funding that has made so many
projects possible in California and in the San Francisco Bay
Area .
The Presidio $25 million
National Park Service
Presidio funding is a top priority since we are very near Senate
consideration of the Presidio Trust bill (HR 1296) which would
create a private-sector model for management of the Presidio's
leasable properties. HR 1296 passed the House on September 19 by
a vote of 317 to 111 in an expression of the strong, bipartisan
support that exists for the Presidio Trust.
Chairman Regula and many members of the Subcommittee have visited
the Presidio and come away from their visit with a renewed
understanding of the complexities that a Trust could address. I
support the amount of funding recommended in the President's
budget -- $25 million -- for operation and maintenance of the
Presidio.
It is my hope that a Presidio Trust will exist before the start
or the next fiscal year and be positioned to utilize this funding
in a cost-effective manner that will lower the overall cost of
operating the Presidio as a national park. In anticipation of
this, no long-term leases are being negotiated by the Park
Service; everything is currently "on hold."
CCS Moratorium
Minerals Management Service
I support the continued moratorium on energy development off the
environmentally sensitive areas of the California coast.
California currently produces almost 3.4 billion barrels of oil
from on-shore sources. According to the California Division of
Oil and Gas, only 726 million barrels would be available from the
Outer Continental Shelf. This amount of oil is not worth the
damage that could result from oil drilling, along with the loss
of billions of dollars to the state annually in tourism.
The Appropriations Committee has upheld the moratorium for many
years and I would hope that the same good judgement will prevail
this year in support of our environment and the state's economy.
Moiave National Preserve $1.9 million
National Park Service
The President's Budget requests $1.9 million for operation of the
Mojave National Preserve as a unit of the national park system.
I support this request, in keeping with the intent of the
California Desert Protection Act which designated the Preserve as
a unit to be operated by the National Park Service.
Mark Processing Center $239,000
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
You may have read about the recent salmon crisis on the Pacific
coast involving the winter run chinook salmon. This is a serious
issue that must be addressed, both in order to preserve the
species and to protect our economy. I request that $239,000 be
identified from the Fisheries program budget of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to fund the activities of the Regional Mark
Processing Center.
The Mark Center is responsible for creating and maintaining a
database of the salmon tagging information collected on the West
Coast. The U.S. -Canada Pacific Salmon Commission has asked the
Mark Center to enhance its database by merging harvest statistics
of salmon with the tagging information.
This would provide fishery managers with information on the
harvest impacts of a variety of West Coast salmon stocks. Last
year's appropriation of $150,000 was insufficient to upgrade the
data program to accomplish this important goal. These additional
funds would allow the Mark Center to merge tagging data with
harvest statistics in order to track, compile and utilize
information concerning the impacts on various species, some of
which are now endangered and perilously low in number.
Hetch Hetchv
National Park Service
The President has included a requirement for payment of $597,000
by the City of San Francisco to the Department of Interior for
its use of the Hetch Hetchy water system within Yosemite National
Park. There have been attempts to extract a larger amount from
the City, based on an arbitrary figure that is higher. The City
of San Francisco is willing to reimburse the Yosemite Management
Fund, but the cost should be based on a standard that can be
applied broadly to other similar projects. The President's
budget uses an accepted Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
formula that is employed for such projects and I urge the
Committee to resist efforts to increase the amount .
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate your consideration of my requests today and hope you
will agree that they are important and worthwhile.
40
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
NATIONAL PARKS
NATIONAL LAKESHORES
WITNESS
HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Regula. Okay, Bart?
Mr. Stupak. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to talk to you a little bit about some of the projects in my
district.
As you know, we have two national parks and we have two na-
tional lakeshores that I would like to spend a little time on.
But if I may deviate a moment from my testimony, because, it's
my understanding that while you have jurisdiction over the na-
tional forests. The appropriations for the timber sales really comes
out of this committee.
So I'd like to revise my testimony. I've been waiting for a re-
sponse from Secretary Glickman about the Hiawatha National For-
est in my district. We entered in, by we I mean everybody, the first
ever forest management plan for 50 years, and we just completed
the first decade. We have found, especially in the last five years,
that the agreed upon cutting in the national forest — Hiawatha Na-
tional Forest, is 40 percent less than what we agreed upon. So in
other words, we formed a contract with the government, and the
government said, "We will provide you so many board feet," like 71
million board feet per year to cut in this national forest. What we
are finding is that the government is failing to live up to it, which
is putting a strain on the private forests, on the State forests, and
really on our industry thereby driving up the price of stumpage. So
I'd like to elaborate a little bit more, maybe amend the testimony
on that issue.
Mr. Regula. Without objection we will accept an amendment to
the testimony.
Mr. Stupak. We're hoping to have a meeting with Secretary
Glickman and others on that real soon to try to address that issue.
Mr. Regula. Let's suspend for a moment. Is there anything that
limits the Forest Service in the way of a cut? I think that you need
to talk to Secretary Glickman and the Forest Service. It's not any-
thing what we're doing that's restricting what they can do.
Mr. Stupak. No, but they have come back, in some informal dis-
cussions, and they more or less said that they had cut back on the
money available for timber sales. We're saying that that's not real-
ly the problem. The problem is we're used to having foresters. We
now have anthropologists and everything else. You look at a forest
management plan and they say that that's not their priority.
Mr. Regula. You've identified the problem.
Mr. Stupak. So, we've asked for the background of these people.
How many foresters did they have in 1986 as opposed to 1996? I
think that if we document that — they do not have an appreciation
for what's going on. And if you have no interest you don't follow
through on the commitment. That's what we think is happening —
41
not that this committee is doing things wrong, we think that the
commitment is not there.
So that's a battle we've been dealing with.
But let me, if I may, talk about Isle Royal Park, Keweenaw Na-
tional Historical Park, Sleeping Bear Dunes and Pictured Rocks.
Sleeping Bear Dunes Lakeshore is located in the northwestern
corner of the lower peninsula. It's basically sand dunes. I support
the President's request of $2.45 million. In addition to that, again,
we support the President's proposal. We have a lot of canoeing on
the Platte River there. We have found a real serious problem with
parking, to the point that the State is starting to crack down on
parking along the State highways that go through this national
lakeshore. So we're going to ask for some additional funding for ex-
panding parking. We hope to have a proposal for you a little bit
later. But I support the President's proposal of $2.45 million.
Isle Royal National Park and the Keweenaw National Park — Isle
Royal, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is in the western Lake Supe-
rior. Basically it is a summertime park. In the winter the only
thing you are going to find is gray wolves and moose. But the
President has asked for $2.3 million, and again, I would support
that.
Keweenaw National Park has sort of made the list of being one
of the national parks, one of two that are in very bad conditions
as far as the facilities for the rangers and everything else. What's
happened in northern Michigan, we have joined in with the home-
owners' association and others and started like a trust fund for the
Keweenaw National Park and greatly improved those quarters.
That's a private-government partnership to improve the living con-
ditions and to keep the cost to the Federal Government down. It's
working out extremely well.
With that in mind, when you look at the Keweenaw National
Park, which is one of our newest national parks, the administra-
tion's only requested $270,000 because it is in the infant stages. I'd
like to see the funding go up to $600,000. It is necessary to provide
for additional rangers and technical assistance and preservation
grants.
The Keweenaw Park, I think, is unique, in that with a new
park — and you said it earlier, we have a problem with funding
these parks. For every dollar that the Federal Government puts in,
we have two dollars at the State and local level. So if we could get
$600,000, that's really about $1.8 million. What most of that money
would go for is preservation. This year we've had record snowfall
in northern Michigan, like 300-plus inches up on the Keweenaw pe-
ninsula. Many of these buildings we'd like to preserve for this park
are basically falling and crumbling from the weight of the snow
that we have.
So that's what it's for and there is a degree of urgency there. I
urge that the committee look favorably upon the $600,000 knowing,
of course, that every dollar we put in there will be two dollars
matched.
Pictured Rocks Lakeshore is on the southern shore of Lake Supe-
rior. It's made up of beautiful ancient forests and a rocky shoreline.
The President has requested $1.2 million. Again, I would support
that. But in addition, keeping in mind your earlier comments, I
42
would ask that this committee consider putting in legislation that
I have. In 1966, when Congress created the Pictured Rocks Na-
tional Lakeshore, they said that they shall build a road through
this park. It's never been done. It's going to cost $13 million to
build this road.
I'm asking the committee not to build that road. You're taking
it through some very prime, beautiful area at $13 million for 13
miles. We have a county road H58 that will serve the purpose.
What we're asking for is that we change that language and allow
the Park Service to work with the county road commission and im-
prove H58 and save everyone a lot of money without destroying the
natural beauty of this Pictured Rocks Lakeshore.
I understand that's a request that may not normally come before
the committee, but I'm concerned that we have a shortened legisla-
tive time here — maybe about 45 legislative days left. So if we could
put that in the committee report. I have the language available, it's
attached to my testimony. I certainly would appreciate the commit-
tee looking at that.
And one other, if I may. The Coast Guard and the Fish and Wild-
life Service own Whitefish Point Light Station. They want to divest
themselves of this property. Again, we have the legislation all
drafted. It would go to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Great
Lakes Historical Shipwreck Museum and Whitefish Point Bird Ob-
servatory.
I realize it might be a little strange to come before this commit-
tee, and ask that that transfer be done. I understand that it can
be done with waivers from the Rules Committee. I have language
attached to my testimony, and I'm willing to work with the Rules
Committee to get that thing past. Again, it's for the reason that
we're of a limited time.
Last, but not least, we've identified in the past, in previous testi-
mony, the need to identify uncapped mines. These are underground
mines where you have mine shafts. I'm not asking to do anjrthing
more than just identify
Mr. Regula. Are they on private property?
Mr. Stupak. Abandoned. Well, both. On both public and private.
Northern Michigan was home of the iron boom in the early 1800's
and has copper mines all over. We mined the heck out of northern
Michigan, and what happened is these mining companies have ba-
sically gone out of business and they reverted back to the local ju-
risdictions, being the township or the county or the State of Michi-
gan. No one really knows where the shafts are. About once a year
we lose one of our youngsters who are out exploring in the woods
and falls through an abandoned mine shaft. We really don't have
a good location of where they are. We can't warn people to stay
away. We don't know where they are. So there are old maps avail-
able. It would take some effort. We've done this out West, but we've
never done this in the Midwest where we do have copper mines.
So we've asked that you look favorably upon that request.
And again, we have language for every one of these because it's
things that we have advocated before. We ask that you look favor-
ably upon it. You spoke about the fishes and loaves with Ms.
Pelosi — with the Pictured Rocks and the $13 million, I think that
I can save you some money there. With the Keweenaw National
43
Park for every dollar we put up we get two dollars from State and
private. We are making those fishes and loaves work in northern
Michigan, we just need a Httle help from you.
Mr Regula. That's what the partnerships are designed to do
Ihank you very much.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Stupak follows:]
44
TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN BART STUPAK
BEFORE THE
INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
APRIL 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk to you about funding
for parks and projects in my district. As you may know, my district has two national lakeshores
and two national parks, in addition to sizable National Forest Service - nearly two-thirds of the
2.5 million acres in Michigan - and Fish and Wildlife Service land holdings.
First, I would like to request the Subcommittee support funding for the National Park
Service properties in my district: Isle Royal National Park, Keweenaw National Historical Park,
Sleeping Bear Dunes and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores.
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is located in the northwest comer of the lower
peninsula of Michigan. Sleeping Bear stretches from Benzie County up into northern Leelenau
County, a substantial area in my district. The lakeshore includes large sand dune shores along
Lake Michigan and numerous trails for hiking and camping. I would like to support the
President's request for $2,454,000. In addition, the lakeshore is facing inadequate parking
facilities near the mouth of the Platte River. With the current move towards user fees, visitors
are necessary for the survival of Sleeping Bear Dunes, so I ask the Subconmiittee for additional
funding for the expanded parking.
I would like to request full funding for both Isle Royale National Park and Keweenaw
National Historical Park. Isle Royale is a primitive rustic island located in Western Lake
Superior and is home to moose and grey wolves. I fully support the President's funding request
for $2,393,000. I have testified before this Subcommittee previously about the Keweenaw
National Historical Park, a park commemorating the copper mining that made Michigan's Upper
Peninsula the nation's leading copper mining region in 1800's. Keweenaw is unique in that it
requires two dollars of state and local matching funds for every dollar federal dollar that is
received. Although the Administration has requested $270,000 dollars, I would like to ask the
Subcommittee to raise the funding level to $600,000. This higher funding level is necessary for
Keweenaw to provide additional rangers, technical assistance and preservation grants.
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, located on the southern shore of Lake Superior, is
made up of beautiful ancient forests and picmresque rocky shoreline. I fully support the
President's request for $1,257,000 for the Pictured Rocks.
In addition, I would like to ask the Committee adopt a provision that would save the
government money while saving precious environmental resources. When the Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore was created in 1966, Congress adopted a provision requiring the National
Park Service to build a new scenic road along the lake. Such a road would destroy beautiful
acres of forest while costing an estimated $13 million. I've introduced legislation to delete the
mandate for the Park Service to build this road and, instead, allow the Park Service to upgrade
45
the an existing county road which runs through the park that provides adequate access to park
visitors. I understand the Resources Committee would normally act on this request, but due to
the shortened legislative calendar this year and the need to stop the engineering, planning and
designing of this road, I ask this Subcommittee to include this provision. My proposal has the
support of both local officials and the National Parks and Conservation Association. I pledge
to work with the Chainhan to gain a waiver from the Rules Committee on this point. I have
enclosed a copy of this legislation with along my testimony.
Second, I would like the Subcommittee to transfer a piece of property from the Coast
Guard to the Fish and Wildlife Service and two private non-profit entities. This provision
transfers the Whitefish Point Light Station property from the Coast Guard to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Great Lakes Historical Shipwreck Museum, and the Whitefish Point Bird
Observatory. In addition, this transfer is supported by the township and county governments.
I understand that Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has primary responsibility for this
legislation; however, I must emphasize the short legislative calendar. I have enclosed proposed
language with my statement and will strongly support a waiver from a point of order from the
Rules Committee.
Third, I would like to ask the Subcommittee to adopt a provision that would take the
important step in identifying and capping abandoned mines on non-federal and non-tribal lands.
States need assistance in identifying uncapped mines to avoid health, safety and environmental
risks to citizens residing near these hazards. This provision would create authority for the
appropriate governmental agencies to undertake an inventory of abandoned mine sites.
Unfortunately, in many states, these inactive sites ~ whether shut down or abandoned-
are only discovered after tragedy strikes. A few years ago, a 16 year old boy from Iron
County, Michigan, died after falling into an abandoned mine shaft. Previously to this tragedy,
a young girl was killed when she fell into a similar mine in Houghton County, Michigan. We
have a responsibility to prevent such loss of life and to eliminate the threat these uncapped mines
pose to our citizens.
While some inventories have been conducted, they have been conducted primarily in
western states and have not covered the scope necessary to fully address the problem. In
response to recent tragedies regarding deaths earlier this year, Robert Uram, Director of the
Office of Surface Mining has publicly stated and I quote, "... the best advice we can offer
people is simply to stay away from abandoned mines. " However, people cannot stay away from
these abandon mine shafts if they're not made aware of their location. My provision calls for
a comprehensive inventory of abandoned hard-rock mine sites on all lands. I have enclosed my
proposed language for this provision.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I appreciate any help that
you and the Subcommittee can provide for these very essential projects.
46
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
NATIONAL PARKS
FOREST INVENTORY
TRIBAL ISSUES
WITNESS
HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Regula. Jim.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to
come before you and plead my case. You exhibit enormous patience
in going through this process, and I appreciate it very, very much.
Mr. Regula. Well, there are a lot of good projects here Jim,
yours and many others and we just have to make some tough prior-
ity choices.
Mr. Oberstar. I understand the constraints that you have, and
I have never complained in the past over the priority the commit-
tee that has ultimately had to choose. And we understand that.
If I might just pick up on Mr. Stupak's last statement about
mine shafts. We share the iron ore mining in North America. In
fact, since the
Mr. Regula. Did you do your's in deep shafts?
Mr. Oberstar. At the turn of the century and up until the mid-
1950s, we had a number of active, underground mines. My father
worked 26 years in the Grodfrey underground.
Those mines had the richest ore. They had 64 to 70 percent iron
content ore.
Mr. Regula. How deep?
Mr. Oberstar. Six hundred feet was our deepest. Copper mines
in Upper Peninsula Michigan are as deep as 2,000 feet. In the Ver-
million Range, the northern-most range, the deepest shaft was
2,000 and those mines are just inherently dangerous. The ore was
rich and high-quality. Direct-shipping ores went directly to the fur-
nace. It was very low in sulphur and very low in silica, very high
in iron content. Some manganese which of course added to the de-
sirability for steel making, which you well know from your end of
the steel valley.
But those open mine shafts are a terrible hazard. We've dealt
with them differently in Minnesota. The State legislature has ad-
dressed that matter in a different way.
We've shipped four billion tons of ore from Minnesota and the
Upper Peninsula in 100 years of iron ore mining.
Mr. Regula. Are you still producing?
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, we're still producing. It's a low-grade ore
called tacanite which is a gray, flinty rock harder than granite and
has to be processed into a pellet, a marble-sized pellet that is 64
percent iron uniform silica and improves the productivity of the
blast furnace. You can get a sheet of steel in four hours instead of
what used to take eight hours.
Mr. Regula. These are in open pit mines now?
47
Mr. Oberstar. These are open pit mines now. We've completely
abandoned and shutdown the underground mines.
My appeal — I have six items here. One is the Grand Portage Na-
tional Monuments. The Grand Portage band of Indians ceded prop-
erty to the Federal Government in the 1950s to establish a monu-
ment to celebrate the fur trade with the understanding that a his-
torical center would be built. That historical facility has been de-
signed with the direct, specific appropriations from this subcommit-
tee, but it has not been built. At one time there were two Con-
gresses in which this subcommittee approved appropriations to
build the visitors' center, and the other body, incredibly, did not act
upon that request, and it fell through cracks in conference.
The $3, little over $3.5 million for that visitors' center would be
a tremendous boon as tourism grows along the north shore and
help the Grand Portage Band, which is small, but desperately poor.
Voyaguers National Park, I'm proposing a $2 million acquisition
of the remaining landholders within Voyaguers National Park. The
condition of these folks, the big guys got paid off. Boise-Cascade
and other big landholders, resort owners, all got bought out in the
first five years after establishment or enactment of the park legis-
lation and before it was established. The little guys are sitting
around, and they don't know what to do — can they pass the land
on to their heirs? Should they make improvements? Should they let
the place deteriorate? The Park Service says we're willing to buy
it. Many places they've negotiated a price, but they can't move.
Mr. Regula. We're going to run out of time, Jim, and you have
quite a list here.
Mr. Oberstar. I have — I urge you to keep the funding for the
forest inventory and analysis program. That benefits our Superior
Chippewa National Forests, which are above cost. They're not
below-cost operations. These are above cost. The Crovemment gets
every penny-plus from the forestry operations on these two na-
tional forests, and the basis for keeping those competitive is the
forest inventory and analysis program.
Fond du Lac Indian Reservation in my district is the poorest of
the Indians, along with the Grand Portage. They don't have big-
time Indian gaming. I used to come to this subcommittee and ask
for funds for schools and other facilities. The other reservations
have done very well with gaming. They don't need that support
now. This one does. The Fond du Lac elementary school, elemen-
tary through high school is a shambles. You wouldn't, ghetto kids
wouldn't walk into this. Innercity ghetto kids wouldn't sit in a
school like this. This is desperate.
And the other items, the tribal community college, and then sup-
port for the 1854 territory ceded lands, these funds have, in effect,
bought peace and understanding and a managed environment for
fishery and other wildlife resources. Funding in the past has been
vital to that process. Please continue the level of funding in the fu-
ture.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thanks for your coming here.
[The statement of Mr. Oberstar follows:]
48
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES L. OBERSTAR
OF MINNESOTA
THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR
;^ril 17, 1996
MR. OBERSTAR: MR. CJIAIRMAN, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased
to once again have the opportunity to request appropriations for natural
resources and Native American programs of critical inportance to my
district and the State of Minnesota.
I, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Grand Portage National Monument
For many years now, the Subcommittee has heard me make the strong case
for construction of a visitors' center at Grand Portage National
Monument. The existing Information Center at Grand Portage is woefully
inadequate to deal with the burgeoning number of visitors to this
premier site for the interpretation of fur trade history. The plans
include an information center, an exhibit gallery, an extensive
artifacts display, a library, an audio/visual presentation center and
administrative areas. Each year of delay in construction of the planned
facility increases the ultimate cost of the facility. I ask that the
S\ibcooinittee provide $3.65 million for construction of a long-overdue
visitors center at Grand Portage National Monument.
Voyaguers National Paurk
For the past several years, Voyageurs National Park has suffered from an
unfunded land acquisition program. There are many willing sellers, but
no funds to buy the land. While the Park is still a "young" unit, our
investments to date have unquestionably brought Voyageurs closer to
maturity and promise envisioned at its establishment. In order to
protect as well as realize the full potential of the considerable
federal investment in the unit, I request that the Subccnmittee provide
$2 million for a land acquisition program at Voyageurs National Park.
Kettle Falls Hotel is a unique historical hotel within the boundaries of
Voyageurs National Park. The operation of the hotel is an inportant
destination for recreationists who use the park year-round. I ask that
the SubcoDinittee provide $1.5 million for renovation and developsnent
purposes at Kettle Falls Hotel.
49
II. U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Forest Inventory and Analysis
The USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station is
responsible for Forest Inventory and Analysis in the North Central
Region. As mandated by the Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974,
the Forest Inventory and Analysis objective is to periodically inventory
forest land to determine its extent, condition, and volume of timber and
supply and demand. The information provided by the inventory is vital
to resource management and planning. I respectfully request from the
Subcooimittee, that full FY 1996 funding levels be maintained for the
North Central Forest Experiment Station.
III. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Fond du Lac Ojibwe School
The Subcommittee is very familiar with the deplorable condition of
facilities at the Fond du Lac Ojibwe School. Sadly, Fond du Lac
children are still attending classes in tenporary trailers and an
adapted prefabricated agricultural building in violation of all
applicable building codes and BIA space guidelines. These facilities
are beyond renovation and there is a desperate need for a new facility.
This request is by far, the highest priority to the Fond du Lac Band.
Fond du Lac has proposed construction of a new Fond du Lac Oiibwe
School ■ The school would serve pre-K though 12th grade children. I ask
that the Subcommittee direct the Department of the Interior to amend the
Fond du Lac Band's P.L. 100-297 school gratnt agreement and provide $9
million for construction.
Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College
The Fond du Lac Tribal College in my district is unique in the nation,-
the Fond du Lac Band has worked in conjunction with the State of
Minnesota to establish an institution that is both a tribal college and
a much-needed new unit in the state community college system. Fond du
Lac, like other tribal colleges throughout the nation, however, still
desperately needs and deserves full funding of the Tribally Controlled
Community College Assistance Act if it is to continue to retain faculty
and develop programs vital to the educational needs of its students and
its community. I ask that the Fond du Lac Cannnunity College be
appropriated at its full 1996 Fiscal Year authorized level.
1854 Authority
I, and the people of Minnesota, are very appreciative of the
Subcommittee's support in the past years for the 1854 Authority. That
50
natural resources in the northeastern Minnesota lands ceded by the
Chippewa in the Treaty of 1854 . The funding provided by the
Subcommittee to date has allowed the 1854 Treaty bands to develop the
administrative, enforcement and judicial structure necessary to
effectively regulate their members' of f- reservation rights. The 1854
Authority's funding request for Fiscal Year 1997 will both maintain that
structure and allow the bands to expand its natural resource program. I
ask that the Subccomittee continue to provide base funding for the 1854
Ceded Territory. And, in addition, the 1854 has Identified the need for
$349,000 to allow luplemeDtatlon of the long range resource management
plans based on sound biological data for the protection of natural
resources within the 1854 ceded territory.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my list of funding requests for FY97. I
understand the severe fiscal constraints under which you must work this
year, and I greatly appreciate your past support of the natural
resources and Indian programs benefitting Minnesota and the nation.
Your continued support will allow proper stewardship and preservation of
the abundant natural resources of northeastern Minnesota.
51
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
WITNESS
HON. FRANK D. RIGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Regula. Next on our list, Frank Riggs. Frank?
Mr. RiGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing this
morning?
Mr. Regula. Good.
Your testimony will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Riggs. Okay.
Mr. Regula. If you can summarize, it will be helpful.
Mr. Riggs. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula. We're getting backed up here on Members.
Mr. Riggs. Well, I can be very, very brief, Mr. Chairman. I would
like you and the subcommittee to consider including in the Fiscal
Year 1997 bill the continuing annual moratorium on OCS leasing.
Mr. Regula. I understand that one.
Mr. Riggs. You know all of our arguments.
Mr. Regula. I've heard them.
Mr. Riggs. I see Ms. Lofgren is joining us.
And, of course, the only thing I'd like to point out is that, of
course, we fully debated this, as you very well recall, in the full
committee last year, actually put it to a vote with the outcome
being 33 to 20 to continue the moratorium on OCS leasing activi-
ties. We'll just simply note that our action in extending the annual
moratorium complements California State law, the California
Coastal Sanctuary Act, which was enacted in 1994 by the Califor-
nia State legislature and Governor Wilson, which permanently
bans oil and gas leasing in all California State tidal runs, tide-
lands, rather, I should say.
So I would appreciate again your consideration this year. As the
Representative — and I'll boast for just a moment here — of the north
coast, I represent 300 miles of coastline, probably more, I think,
than any other Member of the California congressional delegation.
I, again, appreciate the opportunity to be with you this morning
and the opportunity to ask your consideration.
Mr. Regula. Well, thank you. The good thing is that what's
down there isn't going away. If we have a crisis, we might consider
getting some of those resources. [Laughter.]
Mr. Riggs. We're certainly willing to work with you under those
circumstances, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. I know Califomians are very restrained in their use
of petroleum resources. [Laughter.]
Mr. Riggs. Well, I want to point out, though, as we discussed
last year at some length, we have a very important tourism indus-
try in northwest California. We truly believe that the prospect of
offshore oil leasing and drilling would threaten that growing indus-
try.
Mr. Regula. I understand.
Mr. Riggs. So we would like you to look at other coastal areas
of the United States, if you must. [Laughter.]
52
And, again, thank you.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. RiGGS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Riggs follows:]
53
TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE FRANK D. RIGGS TO
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR,
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
APRIL 17, 1996
CHAIRMAN REGULA, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY.
I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF MY
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND THE MANY OTHER CALIFORNIANS WHO
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF OIL AND GAS
DEVELOPMENT ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS).
SPECIFICALLY, I REQUEST THAT THE COMMITTEE INCLUDE IN THE FY
1997 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS ACT THE SAME OCS LEASING
MORATORIUM AS IN RECENT YEARS.
AS YOU WILL RECALL, THE FULL HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
VOTED LAST YEAR 33-20 TO CONTINUE THE MORATORIUM ON OCS
LEASING ACTIVITIES. THE FEDERAL ACTION COMPLEMENTS THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SANCTUARY ACT, ENACTED IN 1994 BY THE
54
CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR WILSON, WHICH
PERMANENTLY BANS OIL AND GAS LEASING IN ALL STATE TIDELANDS.
AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF 300 MILES OF THE NORTH COAST OF
CALIFORNIA, I AM KEENLY AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
PROVISION TO COASTAL COMMUNITIES. THE FISHING AND TOURISM
INDUSTRIES IN MY DISTRICT ARE DEPENDENT UPON A HEALTHY AND
VIBRANT SEASHORE. WITH UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE NORTH COAST IN
THE DOUBLE DIGITS, THE OCS MORATORIUM HELPS TO ENSURE THE
PROTECTION OF A NATURAL RESOURCE THAT PROVIDES A STEADY
STREAM OF JOBS.
CALIFORNIA'S TOURISM AND RECREATION INDUSTRY IS THE STATE'S
LARGEST EMPLOYER. COASTAL TOURISM GENERATES OVER $27 BILLION
ANNUALLY AND ACCOUNTS FOR THOUSANDS OF JOBS. IN ADDITION,
THE FISHING INDUSTRY IS THE PRIMARY EMPLOYER FOR MANY SMALL
COMMUNITIES UP AND DOWN THE STATE. THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF
THE FISHERIES OFFSHORE ALASKA, WASHINGTON, OREGON AND
CALIFORNIA ALONE IS TOO GREAT TO PUT AT RISK FOR THE SMALL
AMOUNT OF ESTIMATED RECOVERABLE OIL IN THE PROTECTED AREAS.
THE SPECTER OF DAMAGING OIL SPILLS EFFECTING THE DELICATE
BALANCE OF WILDLIFE AND FAUNA IS OF GREAT CONCERN TO ALL
CALIFORNIANS. FURTHERMORE, THE ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION
CAUSED BY ADDITIONAL OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COULD IMPACT
55
PROTECTED MARINE AREAS IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS,
INCLUDING SANCTUARIES, SEASHORES, RESERVES, PRESERVES,
REFUGES, UNDERWATER PARKS, AND AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL
SIGNIFICANCE.
THE LEASING RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1982 WITHOUT
ANY PERCEPTIBLE IMPACT ON NATIONAL ENERGY SECURITY. EXISTING
LEASING RESTRICTIONS LEAVE MORE THAN THREE-QUARTERS OF THE
NATION'S UNDISCOVERED, ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE OFFSHORE
RESERVES OPEN TO EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT. THESE
RESTRICTIONS AFFECT LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT OF TOTAL
WORLD OIL RESERVES. IN FACT, PROVEN RESERVES IN THE CALIFORNIA
MORATORIUM AREAS WOULD ONLY LAST THE NATION ABOUT 41 DAYS
AT CURRENT RATES OF CONSUMPTION.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONTINUE THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF MORATORIUM IN THE FY 1997 INTERIOR
APPROPRIATIONS BILL. THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO REVERSE FIFTEEN
YEARS OF WISE NATIONAL POLICY.
56
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
WITNESS
HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Regula. Mr. Deutsch?
Mr. Deutsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have pretty extensive
testimony that I'd just Hke to submit for the record.
Mr. Regula. It will be, without objection, part of the record.
Mr. Deutsch. What I would like to focus on is an item in the
administration's budget of a specific line item, which the adminis-
tration is calling the "Everglades Restoration Fund." The adminis-
tration has $100 million that they've put in their budget for that.
Mr. Regula. Let me ask you, you have $200 million in the farm
bill.
Mr. Deutsch. Right.
Mr. Regula. Isn't that going to keep it going for quite a while?
Mr. Deutsch. It really won't. I think it's a really good question
that you're asking. The administration's estimate — and this is a
real number — for Everglades restoration is $1.5 billion. So the $200
million that was in the ag bill is clearly a down payment.
Mr. Regula. But on the short term won't that money cover the
spending required? You can only spend so much a year based on
people, staff, et cetera.
Mr. Deutsch. Right.
Mr. Regula. It would seem to me that that $200 million would
keep you going for at least the next fiscal year.
Mr. Deutsch. Again, I think operationally — and I'd be happy to
spend time with your staff. I just spent some time this morning
with Katie McGinty from the White House in terms of going over
this stuff, and actually spoke with some people in south Florida as
well this morning before I came here before the committee. I don't
believe that's accurate. I believe that if there were a billion dollars
in this year's budget, we could efficiently spend a billion dollars.
And in terms of the time aspect of this, I mean, you're familiar
with the Everglades Restoration Project
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Deutsch [continuing]. Which this committee has funded at
lesser levels, but higher levels than most other issues in increased
funding. I mean, this committee has acknowledged Everglades res-
toration is a critical issue. It's a bipartisan issue. There's a time
factor in the degradation. I mean, there is a plan that's out there
to spend $1.5 billion, which is obviously a lot of money, but
Mr. Regula. How much will Florida contribute?
Mr. Deutsch. Again, you know the issue. You ask some good
questions. Florida, the State of Florida, as well as industries in-
volved, are making significant contributions. You can argue the
exact percentage, but the reality is probably about a 50/50 Federal/
State-type match. I represent three counties, Broward, Dade, and
Monroe County. Even local government has increased property tax
to the actual maximum of their ability to do actual land acquisition
programs. The South Water Management District, all their funding
57
comes from property ad valorem taxation, is at their max to do
land acquisition. They are coordinating with the Federal Govern-
ment which projects they're going to buy, which projects the Fed-
eral Government is going to buy. So a lot of this is going on.
Mr. Regula. Staff advises me that we're trying to get maps and
a breakout of what local government will do.
Mr. Deutsch. Right. And, again, I'd be happy
Mr. Regula. We don't have it yet.
Mr. Deutsch. This is the first formal request. I would be happy
to provide as much information as I possibly can, and
Mr. Regula. Well, keep in touch with the staff.
Mr. Deutsch. Again, your questions are very, very, very much
on point. I think that's something that the burden is sort of on not
just me, but others who are supportive. I know Congressman Goss
and Congressman Shaw are very much involved in this as well.
And I don't know if they've personally made presentations as well,
but this is not
Mr. Regula. This covers a wide spectrum. You get the Corps of
Engineers; you get the USGS
Mr. Deutsch. Right.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Of course, involved; the Park Service.
Mr. Deutsch. Correct.
Mr. Regula. There's a lot of coordination to make this whole
thing work well.
Mr. Deutsch. Right, and I guess that's why I have a long list
of things and a long list of other items.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Deutsch. The only thing I really wanted to focus, though,
is this new line item. This subcommittee, as I said, as you well
know, has been very good. There's a bipartisan effort on the sub-
committee to do Everglades restoration. I would focus that the job
is not done. I mean, the $200 million is a significant amount of
money, but at $1.5 bilHon it's a drop in the bucket. The bucket's
not full, and a drop in the bucket only goes a little bit of the way.
I'd also very quickly mention that there is one request which is
also a bipartisan request dealing with the Seminole Tribe of Flor-
ida on a water issue that they are requesting, which is something
I've been supportive of, as well as all the Members of the south
Florida delegation.
Mr. Regula. Okay, well, we'll look at all of them.
Mr. Deutsch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Deutsch follows:]
58
PETER DEUTSCH
20tm OiStbict. FtomoA
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERCV
Conqttii of tte Winittt ^tatti
i^oude of i&epre^entatibesi
3fia«t)mgton, 3DC 20515-0920
MAIUNGAOOftCSS
4 Cammom Housi 0**<ct 6UK
Wasmwton. DC 30515
<»») 325-7931
<303l 32S-64S6 (Fax»
■itMsmcTOfrtct.
>|43T-4TTeif*jit
I3») 2»«-M1»
TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE PETER DEUTSCH
BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
April 17, 1996
Thank you, Chairman Regula, for this opportunity to
emphasize the importance of the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Initiative, and the Department of Interior's
partnership with the State of Florida and its people. I also
wish to thank the committee for its support in the past and bring
you up to date on present and future needs.
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION INITIATIVE
Strong Bipartisan Support
In South Florida, the environment is the economy. The
Florida Everglades is a cherished national treasure, and
restoration of this endangered ecosystem is one of the most
important investments we can make.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, profound changes to the natural
flow of water from Lake Okeechobee southward have disrupted the
natural flow of water that nourishes the ecosystem through
Florida Bay. Drainage of large areas of South Florida land for
agricultural and real estate development has resulted in a
shortage of fresh water, a collapse of bird populations in
Everglades National Park and local fisheries in Florida Bay.
Restoration of this national resource is critical to Florida's
tourism economy and to the basic quality of life that makes South
Florida a hub of domestic and international commerce. While we
will never be able to return the Everglades to its original
state, we can restore part of the ecosystem by reconfiguring the
water delivery systems and retaining water which is now lost to
the Atlantic Ocean.
It has been an extraordinary year for the Everglades.
Through strong support from key leaders in both the House and the
Senate, we have expanded our bipartisan base that is critical to
our success in South Florida. I look forward to strengthening
and expanding this base even further in the year ahead.
59
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior
April 17, 1996
Everglades Restoration Fund - $ 1 00 million, NPS
The Administration's Everglades Restoration Initiative is
one important way to accomplish this. Once again, the Everglades
is ranked as a "priority investment" for FY' 97. This year, the
plan also calls for accelerated restoration through establishment
of an "Everglades Restoration Fund." This initiative proposes to
appropriate $100 million from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund each year through FY 2000. Monies from the fund would be
used primarily to acquire land needed to restore natural
hydrologic conditions throughout the entire Everglades ecosystem.
Of the $100 million request for FY' 97, $18 million would be
used for land acquisition at Everglades National Park and Big
Cypress National Preserve. Under PL 101-229, the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, and PL 100-
301, the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition Act, the National
Park Service is acquiring land needed to preserve wildlife
habitat and restore fresh water flows to the park.
$75 million of the fund would assist the State of Florida or
the Army Corps of Engineers with purchasing land within the
Everglades Agricultural Area, the C-51 and Stormwater Treatment
Area IE projects, and the Water Preserve Areas. These areas are
critical to storing water in the East Everglades and
reestablishing the link between Lake Okeechobee and lands to the
south.
Finally, $5 million of the fund would be used to increase
storage capacity in areas east of the park commonly known as the
"transition lands." These lands provide a transition zone for
dynamic storage that is essential to restoring natural flows to
the lower end of the Everglades ecosystem through Taylor Slough
into Florida Bay. National Park Service assistance to the state
is authorized through FY' 95, and I am working with other members
of the Florida delegation to extend this authority.
As the committee is well aware, the recently enacted Farm
Bill allocates $200 million for Everglades restoration. The best
science already indicates the potential wise investment of at
least this amount over the next year. Although the Farm Bill is
a significant downpayment on the federal share of restoration
costs, the ultimate public investment in this national treasure
will far exceed $200 million.
Seminole Tribe of Florida - $2.89 million, BIA & NPS
On behalf of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, I support their
request that the committee appropriate $2.89 million to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs for activities related to the Tribe's
Everglades restoration initiative. This initiative is endorsed
by the federal South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
These funds will be used to begin a nine-year, $63.43 million
project to construct a comprehensive management system that will
60
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior
April 17. 1996
treat water flowing from upstream agricultural lands. The
Seminole Tribe's Big Cypress Reservation is located at a pivotal
transfer point for water directly entering the Big Cypress
National Preserve, and ultimately, Everglades National Park. The
initiative is crucial to providing a clean water supply to the
Big Cypress Reservation and to the success of the multi -agency
effort to restore the Florida Everglades.
An Equitable Distribution of Cost
Although the federal government has made a significant
commitment of public funds, it should not bear the full cost of
Everglades restoration. In fact, the state, local governments,
and private entities are already sharing approximately half the
costs. In the spirit of this balanced approach, these entities
are now being asked to do more. That is why I support a greater
role for Florida's sugar industry proposed isy myself and a
bipartisan group of members from both chambers. I also strongly
support this aspect of the Administration's plan, and I urge the
committee to weigh this issue carefully as it looks toward an
ecfuitable distribution of costs.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again
for this opportunity. I look forward to continuing our work to
preserve one of America's most cherished national treasures.
61
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
DOE— FOSSIL ENERGY R&D
WITNESS
HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Regula. Mike?
Mr. Doyle. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be
here this morning with you.
My testimony today is going to focus primarily on the Depart-
ment of Energy programs in this subcommittee's jurisdiction, and
in my written testimony I get into some detail, but I will keep my
oral remarks brief.
Mr. Regula. Sure. Yes, that will be made part of the record.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
I want to begin by thanking you and members of the subcommit-
tee for your efforts to preserve the important energy-related re-
search that's just a small part of your broad jurisdiction. As a
member of the House Science Committee, I've had extensive oppor-
tunity to review the Department of Energy's R&D accounts that
fall within this subcommittee's jurisdiction, and I have some spe-
cific guidance which I'd like to offer regarding these programs. But,
first, I would like to make just a general comment on the structure
of these programs.
Unfortunately, the relationship between fossil energy and energy
conservation programs has become an "either/or scenario." And the
irony of this situation is that the missions of these two programs
are somewhat complementary. Perhaps it would be possible for this
subcommittee to include some sort of language which would put
the idea of a combined program, or at least an integrated imple-
mentation of programs, on the table. I strongly support DOE's ef-
forts to integrate these applied energy programs with each other,
as well as the Department's basic research activities.
On the fossil energy budget, recognizing our overall budget con-
straints and the agreement worked out between this subcommittee
and the authorizing committee, I do reluctantly support the 10 per-
cent overall reduction in funding. I know that the motivation for
this reduction does not lie within the subcommittee, and I want
you to know that I'm greatly appreciative of your maintaining core
programs within the current funding environment that we're living
in. I hope you'll be able to preserve the request of $348.5 million
for fossil R&D.
Beyond specific funding issues, there's the general issue of the
merger of PETC/METC in Bartlesville into a National Energy
Technology Center. I've been supportive of this process and have
been generally happy with its progress, but there's still some areas
which need to be addressed. Foremost is the selection of a director.
It's been roughly a year since the merger was announced, but the
time frame for selection process remains unclear. We've already
completed one budget cycle without a director in place, and I be-
lieve that fossil energy has suffered due to the lack of an advocate
within DOE with hands-on contact with the field operations on a
day-to-day basis. I think the most telling result of this absence of
62
leadership has been the priorities set within the fossil energy budg-
et. Thus, I would like to suggest an alternative funding scenario for
the fossil accounts, one which has slightly different priorities but
retains the same bottom line. I've attached a comprehensive list of
increases and offsets for the subcommittee's consideration.
The final fossil energy issue is the management structure that
will incorporate the $5 million transfer for materials partnership
which was transferred to DOE as part of dismantling the Bureau
of Mines. My recommendation is that this facility be incorporated
into the National Energy Technology Center management structure
and not be an autonomous or singular entity in the field.
And, finally, I would also urge the subcommittee to include
$500,000 in funding for the Steel Industry Heritage Project under
the National Park Service's statutory contractual assistance. A
number of my western Pennsylvania colleagues will be sending the
subcommittee a letter in support of this project which will explain
in greater detail our support for the initiative.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to tes-
tify.
Mr. Regula. Thank you. You could be helpful with the authoriz-
ing legislation, as you know.
Mr. Doyle. And I will be. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
63
Testimony of Representative Mike Doyle
before the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations
April 1 7, 1 996
It is a pleasure for me to be here before you today.
My testimony today focuses primarily on the Department of Energy programs
in this Subcommittee's jurisdiction. I want to begin by thanking the Members
of the Subcommittee for their efforts to preserve the import energy-related
research that is a small part of your broad jurisdiction.
As a member of the House Science Committee, I have had extensive
opportunity to review the Department of Energy's R&D accounts that fall
within this subcommittee's jurisdiction. I have some specific guidance I
would like to offer regarding these programs, but first I would like to make
a general comment on the structure of these programs.
Unfortunately, the relationship between the Fossil Energy and Energy
Conservation programs has become an either/or scenario. People with
limited knowledge of these programs have pitted them against one another,
a situation which is working to the detriment of both. The irony of this
contrived conflict is that the missions of these two programs are somewhat
complimentary. Perhaps it would be possible for this Subcommittee to
include some sort of language which would put the idea of a combined
program, or at least integrated implementation of programs, on the table. I
strongly support DOE's efforts to integrate these applied energy programs
with each other, as well as with the Department's basic research activities.
On the Fossil Energy budget, recognizing our overall budget constraints and
the agreement worked out between this subcommittee and the authorizing
Conmiittee, I reluctantly support the 10% overall reduction in funding. I
understand that the motivation for this reduction does not lie with this
subcommittee, and I am greatly appreciative of your efforts to maintain core
programs within this hostile funding environment. Thus, I am hopeful that
you will be able to preserve the Administration's request of $348.5 million
for Fossil R&D, although I must point out once again. Coal is being asked
to take a disproportionate reduction compared to the Gas and Oil programs.
64
Beyond specific funding issues, there is die general issue of die merger of
PETC, METC, and BarUesville into NETC. I have been supportive of diis
process, and have been generally happy widi its progress. There are still
areas, however, which need to be addressed.
First and foremost, is the selection of a Director. It has been roughly a year
since the merger was announced, but the time frame for the selection process
remains unclear. We will already complete one budget cycle without a
Director in place, and I believe that FE has suffered due to the lack of an
advocate within DOE with hands-on contact with the field operations on a
day-to-day basis. The most telling result of this absence of leadership has
been the priorities set within the FE budget. Thus, I would like to suggest
an alternative funding scenario for the fossil accounts, one which has slightly
different priorities but retains the same bottom line.
Secondly, while we should continue our efforts to maintain for future use the
core competencies that currently exists widiin the NETC. Specifically, I am
proposing that this Subcommittee, along with other interested Congressional
parties, work with DOE to develop mechanisms allowing the funding of
Federal activities at the NETC by other governmental entities and the private
sector.
While I believe that the FE budget deserves an overall increase, I recognize
that budgetary pressure is going to cause severe harm to programs that have
been well-managed, operated at or below cost expectations, and continue to
meet their policy objectives. Thus, if forced to pick and choose between the
various programs, there are some that I believe are the highest priority:
1. Program Direction: Both DOE Headquarters (HQ) and the
NETC will have to meet their respective Strategic Alignment
Initiative personnel reduction goals. By the end of FY 1997,
federal staff at HQ and the NETC will be reduced by 150 FTEs -
98 positions at the NETC and 52 positions at HQ. However, the
success of the NETC is contingent on adequate funding for the
remaining FE staff.
2. Advanced Pulverized Coal-Fired Powerplant: It is essential
that this program receives $11.5 million to ensure the completion
65
of ongoing LEBS activities leading to the mid- 1997 selection of
at least one contractor for Phase 4 proof-of-contract testing.
3. Indirect Liquefaction: This program should be funded at
$7.25 million, which is $3 million more than requested. Of this
increase, $2 million should be for continuing activities at La
Porte, and $1 million for in-house research at PETC.
4. Natural Gas Utilization: An additional $2 million should be
added to the Administration's request for the development of ITM
syngas technology.
I have attached a comprehensive list of increases and offsets for the
subcommittee's consideration, (see Attachment 1)
Regarding the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Program, I urge the
Subcommittee to appropriate funding necessary to realistically complete the
program mission. This primarily entails the complete development of cost-
competitive SOFC materials & manufacturing processes, pressurized SOFC
technology, and the demonstration of a conmiercial prototype 3MWe power
plant.
While I believe that the best way to ensure the successful completion of this
program would be to increase appropriations to adequately fund all three of
the participants in SOFC Program. However, as with many other items in
the FE budget, there simply isn't the funding necessary to do so. Thus,
rather than have three underfinanced efforts, I am forced to suggest that the
Subcommittee consider recompeting this Program from three participants
down to two or one, so that there remains some chance of success.
However, until a down-selection is competed, I urge the Subcommittee to
ensure that DOE funds all participants at equal levels.
On the Advanced Turbine Program, I urge that funding be maintained in
order preserve the core program in order to protect our competitive edge with
this technology. It is important to note that our foreign competitors in this
field are receiving significant support from their governments. We will be
abdicating any hope of leaderhip, or even competitiveness, by underfunding
the Advanced Turbine Program.
66
I also urge the subcommittee to include report language in two areas within
the Crosscutting Advanced Research & Technology Development program.
First, Congress should ensure that for FY 1997 all Materials and
Biotechnology activities shall be implemented by DOE field operations, not
by Headquarters. Secondly, in order to streamline operations and eliminate
possible redundancy, the Historically Black College & University Education
& Training Programs should, while remaining distinct, be implemented and
conducted as part of the FY 1997 University Coal Research Program.
The final FE issue is the management structure that will incorporate the $5
million for materials partnerships, which was transferred to DOE as part of
the dismantling of the Bureau of Mines. My recommendation is that this
facility be incorporated into the NETC management strucnire, and not be an
autonomous and singular entity in the field. Being part of the NETC
management framework would allow the Albany, Oregon facility to benefit
from efficiencies in procurement and other areas, as well as preventing a
rivalry between various field operations. It was the need to prevent such
rivalries that was the driving force behind the unified management framework
that resulted in the development of the NETC. Incorporating Albany into the
NETC is consistent with this mission.
Briefly, in the Energy Conservation Program, I urge the continued support
of the core programs, especially those concerning Natural Gas Vehicle R&D
- both Engines and Storage - and the GAX heat pump partnership. Also,
under Buildings R&D, I am hopeful that Subcommittee will show a strong
commitment to the research being done on desiccant technologies.
Finally, I would also urge the Subcommittee to include $500,000 in funding
for the Steel Industry Heritage Project (SIHP) under the National Park
Service's Statutory and Contractual Assistance. Originally authorized under
Public Law 100-698 to conserve the industrial and cultural resources of the
steel industry in southwestern Pennsylvania, the SIHP has received funding
through this Subcommittee since 1989. This relatively small expendimre has
leveraged considerable state and local support for this effort, and continued
funding is necessary to see the SIHP implementation plan to its conclusion.
A number of my western Pennsylvania colleagues will be sending the
Subcommittee a letter in support of SIHP, which will explain in greater detail
our support for this initiative.
67
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed FE Additions:
$3 million for Indirect Liquefaction
Tlie engineering scale facility at LxiPorte, Texas is an essential link
between bench-scale research and industrial-scale applications for the
production of fuels and chemicals from synthetic gas. It is the only
such Indirect Liquefaction facility available for both direct government
and cost-shared public use. An additional $2 million should be
appropriated for activities at LaPorie, and $1 million for PETC in-
house R&D.
$6 million for Advanced Pulverized Coal-Fired Powerplant
Tlie highly cost-shared Low-Emission Boiler System (LEBS) projects
contribute significantly to the technical competitiveness of U. S. -based
coal equipment manufacturers, and will be used to deliver efficient
low-cost electric power by the end of this decade. The additional $6
million will be used to complete ongoing LEBS activities leading to
mid-1997 selection of at least one contractor for Phase 4 proof-of-
concept testing.
$2 million for Namral Gas Utilization
Ionic Transport Membrane Technology (ITM) technology is being
jointly developed and cost-shared by DOE-Argonne National
Laboratory, AMOCO, Air Products, and Ceramatec. Tfiis
revolutionary approach has received a R&D 100 Award, and promises
to lower the cost of producing hydrogen, oxygen, and other important
gases for industrial use. For FY 1997, an additional $2 million
should be appropriated to accelerate the development of this cutting-
edge technology.
$2 million for Program Direction - Salaries, Benefits & Travel
To cover actual costs relating to reduced staffing consistent with the
goals of the Strategic Alignment Initiative. Despite this add-on, this
line will still be $1 million below FY 1996.
$9 million for Program Direction - Contractor Technical & Management Support
To cover actual costs - taking into account reduced staffing consistent
with the goals of the Strategic Alignment Initiative. Despite this add-
on, this line will still be $9 million below FY 1995, and will be barely
sufficient to maintain contractor staffing at required levels.
68
Proposed FE Offsets:
$6 million for Oil Exploration & Production Supporting Research
Reduce Reservoir Characterization Efforts, National Lab/Industry
Partnerships, and Technology Transfer activities to FY 1995 levels.
$4 million for Natural Gas Resource & Extraction
Reduce Drilling/Competition/Stimulation activities. and
Environmental/Regulatory Technology Development to FY 1995 level.
$4 million for FE Environmental Restoration
Although the restoration at Wilsonville and other facilities is
important, current budget constraints suggest that advance
appropriations for this purpose should be deferred.
$2 million for HQ Program Direction - Contract Services
Reduce contractor support in accordance with Strategic Alignment
Initiative goals.
$6 million for Program Direction - M&O Contract at Bartlesville Projects Office
As in prior years, funding for M&O contractor should be taken
directly from within overall Oil Program appropriations.
Total Increases = $22 million
Total Offsets = $22 million
Total Net Cost = $0
69
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
VIRGINIA BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY INTERPRETATIVE
CENTER
WITNESS
HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Regula. Okay, Bob? Your testimony will be made a part of
the record. I think we're pretty familiar with the issue.
Mr. GoODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I just want to briefly touch on this. I'm appearing today on
behalf of the County of Roanoke, Virginia and surrounding commu-
nities in support of a request for funding in the amount of $600,000
in Fiscal Year 1997 for the construction of an interpretative center
on the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia, in Roanoke County. This
is something that has been an ongoing desire of the Blue Ridge
Parkway administration, as well as of the local area, for many,
many years. This is really the third and final phase of an ongoing
project that was begun by my predecessor, Congressman Olin, who
secured funds from this committee back in 1986 for the construc-
tion of a spur road into the Blue Ridge village, which is a part of
the Explore Park, a State park which adjoins the Blue Ridge Park-
way.
Back at that time, in addition, there were funds appropriated for
the initial work to be done on an interpretative center. Some initial
work on selecting the site was done, but because the road took so
long — in fact, they only began construction on the road last year
after almost a 10-year delay — the money was reprogrammed by the
Interior Department. We at this time are back seeking support to
continue this project.
Mr. Regula. Is it authorized?
Mr. GtoODLATTE. At this point in time I do not believe that it is
authorized, other than what was appropriated back at that time.
Nothing has been done recently.
Mr. Regula. We need to determine whether there's an authoriza-
tion. It might be that the Resources Committee would have to take
some action.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, we'll certainly look into that.
Mr. Regula. Explore that.
Mr. GrOODLATTE. Okay. In addition, the importance of this to the
Virginia portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway is very significant. This
is an approximately 200-mile stretch of the Blue Ridge Parkway on
which there is no major visitor interpretation center. Roanoke Val-
ley is the largest metropolitan area on the Blue Ridge Parkway,
and it would be the logical point for many people to enter and exit
the Parkway as well. Therefore, we would encourage some support
for this on that basis.
70
The local government and the State government are willing to
support this and are proposing that they pay one-half of the total
amount, and are asking the Federal Grovemment to support the
other half of the construction cost. We are making inquiry right
now as to what they can do.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]
\
71
Testimony of Representative Bob Goodlatte
Before the Appropriations Subconnaittee on Interior
on the Virginia Blue Ridge Parkway Interpretive Center
April 17, 1996
I want to thank you Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Yates and
the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Virginia Blue Ridge Parkway Interpretive Center. I am here to
request that the committee appropriate $600,000 in fiscal year 1997
for the construction of this center located on the Roanoke River
Gorge in my district. My testimony will highlight information I
have already submitted to your subcommittee.
This center is the third and final phase of ongoing project
which includes Explore Park, a living history park, and the Roanoke
River Parkway which links Explore to the Blue Ridge Parkway. This
project has been a partnership involving federal, state and local
governments and other committed institutions and agencies. The
interpretive center lends itself to the same type of cooperative
effort.
The center will introduce visitors to the Blue Ridge Parkway
and the center's design will direct them to scenic vistas of the
beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains. It will also direct people to
viewing and sitting areas, hiking trails, and various exhibits and
displays .
A major focus of the center will be the development and history
of the Blue Ridge Parkway from a regional perspective. Themes will
include geography, botany, history and culture. Interpretive
displays will describe the significance of the natural water gap,
historic migration and settlement routes, and the history of the
area as a transportation hub, including the role of the railroads.
Resources will come from the area and the National Park Service
archives .
My constituents are requesting a total of $2.05 million (50
percent of the $4.1 million project cost) over a two-year period.
As noted above, $600,000 is being requested for fiscal year 1997.
For fiscal year 1998, $1.45 million is being requested. The
$600,000 would be used for planning, preliminary design and utility
infrastructure. Next year's request of $1.4 million would be used
for architectural and engineering design and construction, including
building, parking, and landscaping.
All area governments, chambers and travel groups have endorsed
this project. It also has the financial support of local
governments and private organizations in the area. The County of
Roanoke has already made a sizeable contribution to the effort.
The National Park Service has expressed support for a Parkway
interpretive center in the Roanoke Valley. The Blue Ridge Parkway
Master Plan completed in 1976 was the first plan in which
construction of a center to orient and educate visitors was
72
included. I will submit a copy of letter from Mr. Gary Everhardt of
the National Park Service attesting to this fact.
The importance of this project to the economic development of
the Roanoke Valley cannot be overestimated. I strongly urge you to
support this worthwhile request.
Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the opportunity to testify
before this subcommittee and for your consideration of this matter.
73
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
LWCF
WITNESS
HON. ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Regula. Zoe?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Your statement will be made a part of the record.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I will not read it.
I would, however, like to submit Congressman Stark's statement
for the record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection it will be made a part of the
record.
Ms. Lofgren. He could not be here, and he wanted to testify also
on behalf of the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge. I know that you
knew Don Edwards well in his many years here.
Mr. Regula. Oh, yes.
Ms. Lofgren. And the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge is seeking
$10 million for the acquisition of the Bair Island, which is not in
my district, but would be the last easily-restorable piece of wet-
lands for the wildlife refuge.
Years ago, actually in 1970, I was on the staff of Don Edwards,
and I remember very well the effort that he put into this wildlife
refage, calling people every morning for years and years and years.
It's really a credit to him, as well as the local community, that
we've brought it off at all, getting the business community onboard
and the local governments.
The citizens' group for the refiige has collected almost a million
dollars in donations
Mr. Regula. I see that.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. For the acquisition, which I think is
pretty fabulous.
And the amount of wetlands in the Bay has declined
Mr. Regula. Will the State put in any money?
Ms. Lofgren. I do not know whether they would or not, but I
would be happy to check on that.
Mr. Regula. I wonder if you'd check and see if there's any possi-
bihty of State money. We're trying to leverage every dollar we have
wherever possible.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
We're hoping that this could also leverage some private
funds
Mr. Regula. Right, right.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. And we've done this without the pri-
vate funds. So I think it's a fabulous project and really a credit to
him. Even though it's not in my district, I'm here because I think
it would be a great way to honor him. In three weeks we're going
out for the ceremony, the renaming ceremony for Mr. Edwards, and
he will be there. He dropped by the office yesterday to say how ex-
cited he was. It would be lovely to be able to give some good news.
74
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you for coming.
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
75
Wa»««tdn. OC Silt
<303) 22S-30T3
towgrwnOtw hew— fw
CAtSlll
Congreftd of tfje iHnttel) States!
v»c<»— mi o. Tio-oioo> i^ouKt of 3RtprM(Entatit)w( i««)27i:«too
jacoMMfTTti oM Bask (kuamcm '^ '
aBaBtimgton. fiC 20515-0516
Testimony of
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
before the
Appopriations Subcommittee on Interior
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity
to testify on behalf of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge.
This year, we are requesting $10 million from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for the acquisition of Bair Island, a critically important component of the Don
Edwards Refuge and the last easily restorable wetlands left on the Bay.
I have been involved with this project since 1970, when I worked on the Refuge
authorization as a staffer for former Congressman Don Edwards. Mr. Edwards fought
hard for this Refuge, calling committee chairmen every day for months at a time to
secure support; helping local governments address zoning issues; and working with
business and groups in the community to ensure that all the pieces were in place. This
Refuge was Mr. Edward's dream, and I am grateful that we in the 104th Congress chose
to rename it in his honor.
So many of you knew and respected Don Edwards for his insight and his
honorable ways during his tenure here in the House. One way to honor his 32 years of
distinguished service to this House and our country is to carefully consider funding for
this important component of the Refuge renamed earlier this year in his honor. Because,
indeed, the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge is an enduring and concrete legacy that he has
left for our country.
Fifty years ago, Bair Island encompassed 3000 acres of fertile tidal marsh, was
home to several endangered species, and provided flood control, water filtration, clean
air and all of the other benefits of wetlands to the Bay Area. It is now barren land,
unused and cut off from the wildlife refuge by high levees. Removing these levees and
restoring the wetlands is a high priority for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and a life-long
dream for the thousands of community members who have dedicated time and money to
the effort.
76
The Don Edwards Refuge hosts 300,000 visitors per year, including 10,000 local
school children, and biologists from across the globe. My own children have visited the
area, learning about the California clapper rail, the saltwater harvest marsh mouse,
species preservation and nature.
The Bay Area community has really taken the initiative on the Refuge and has
started a fund-raising effort of its own, collecting almost $1 million so far. I hope that
the Committee takes this local commitment into account when allocating funds. I also
want to stress that by 1972, California had lost 91 7o of its historic wetlands. We need to
do everything we can to preserve our unique and special wetlands for our children and
grandchildren.
Don Edwards and the Bay community deserve our thanks for their strong support
of the Refuge and they deserve to acquire Bair Island. I hope that the Committee
responds with a commitment of its own by appropriating $10 million to the project.
I thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
###
77
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
LWCF
WITNESS
HON. PETE STARK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
[The statement of Mr. Stark follows:]
FORTNEY PETE STARK
78
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENfTATTVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN PETE STARK
IN SUPPORT OF
THE ACQUISITION OF BAIR ISLAND FOR THE
DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
APRIL 17, 1996
The residents of the Bay Area are deeply indebted to the members of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies for the years of
support they have given to the Don Edwards San Frandsco Bay Natioiud Wildlife
Refuge.
This outstanding urban wildlife Refuge, established by Congress in 1972, plays host
to 300,000 visitors and 10,000 local school children a year and provides important
habitat for 82 spedes of waterbirds, 44 spedes of landbirds, 13 spedes of mammals, 63
spedes of fish and 41 spedes of plants. If s value to the people, animals and plants of
the Bay Area cannot be overstated espedally when one considers that the San
Francisco Bay Estuary System has already lost a disturbing 82% of its wetlands.
We now have the opportunity to make a significant addition to the Refuge with the
acquisition of Bair Island - the largest remaining unprotected wetland area in the
San Frandsco Bay Estuary System and the single most valuable potential addition to
the San Frandsco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
I strongly request that the Subcommittee appropriate $10 million from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of Bair Island.
Bair Island is the last significant easily-restored wetland left on San Frandsco Bay.
The lands north of Bair Island have been developed for urban uses. The lands
south of Bair Island are active salt evaporator ponds. Bair Island's addition to the
Refuge would bring to fruition the hopes of the people of the Bay Area to return
these lands to their former role in the Bay's ecosystem.
The Bay Area Congressional delegation has unanimously supported efforts to
acquire Bair Island for the Refuge as have the Califonua Department of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Again, let me stress how important the acquisition of Bair Island is for both humaru
and animals alike. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the strong support
they have given the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge over
the years and strongly urge that they do all they can to secure the $10 million in
Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys needed to purchase Bair Island.
79
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
JAMES A. GARFIELD NATIONAL fflSTORIC SITE
WITNESS
HON. STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Regula. Steve?
Mr. LaTourette. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I, first, want to
thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. I'm here to
talk a little bit about, and my written statement talks about, a re-
quest for operating expenses for Lawnfield, Ohio, which I know
you're intimately involved with. I have a special affinity for
Lawnfield in that it's the historic home of President James A. Gar-
field, who was the last fellow with a beard to represent Lake Coun-
ty, Ohio, and I'm now the next. [Laughter.l
This subcommittee, through a bipartisan effort, has been wonder-
fully supportive of this project, as you know. Over the last several
sessions of Congress you have appropriated about $11 million, in-
cluding the $3.6 million in fiscal year 1996.
Mr. Regula. I think we're done with the capital.
Mr. LaTourette. That's correct. The last installment was last
year's Fiscal Year $3.6 million, which will be used for restoration
of the main house. Restoration was started back with my prede-
cessor, Dennis Eckerdt.
A couple of things I wanted to stress, though. It's a unique fund-
ing mechanism for the operation. It's a public/private partnership,
which we're attempting to encourage between the National Park
Service and also the Western Reserve Historical Society. As a mat-
ter of fact, President Garfield's great grandson, James Garfield,
who lives three doors down, still cuts the grass. That's the type of
community involvement.
What we're asking for is $136,000 as an annual operating ex-
penditure, which is one-third of what's anticipated to be required
to operate the facility. The other two-thirds will come from user
fees and donations from the Western Reserve HistoricaJ Society.
This site is expected to draw 20,000 visitors annually, and the won-
derful thing about Lawnfield, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is that
although the home was built in 1832, it has the front porch where
President Garfield announced he was being
Mr. Regula. I might say I've been there.
Mr. LaTourette [continuing]. Okay — he was going to seek the
presidency, and also the telegraph office where he learned that he
had been elected our 20th President. It also has the first presi-
dential library. When we now have presidential libraries being
built at $7 to $10 million of taxpayers' money, Eleanor Garfield, his
widow, built the library after his assassination.
The other unique feature is that, unlike some of our other histor-
ical sites that have sort of retooled period pieces, all of the furnish-
ings, books, and artifacts are originals that have been lovingly re-
stored by the folks at Western Reserve.
Mr. Regula. I know they had a lot of community involvement
there.
Mr. LaTourette. Certainly.
80
Mr. Regula. Without that, it would never have been preserved
initially.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, that's correct. Since the Federal Govern-
ment and this subcommittee and the committee have been so gen-
erous in helping with the restoration, it would be shame not to op-
erate it now. We'd ask you to consider our request.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. LaTourette. Thanks so much.
[The statement of Mr. LaTourette follows:]
81
Congressman Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH)
Statement to the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
April 17. 1996
Funding for President Garfield's Home
I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies on behalf of a request for operating expenses for Lawnfleld, Ohio. This
request is made so the public can enjoy the future operation of a national treasure in Mentor,
Ohio -- the home of President James A. Garfield.
Over the last several sessions of Congress this project has been blessed by the strong
support of the subcommittee, and in particular its current chairman, Ralph Regula of Ohio, who
has been a longtime champion of the Garfield Home restoration project. TTirough strong
bipartisan support, nearly $18 million has been appropriated over the last several years for the
restoration of Lawnfield, which was the home of President Garfield.
The restoration project dates back to the 102nd Congress and my predecessor.
Congressman Dennis EckerL I am pleased to report to the subcommittee that all of the hard
work and effort over the years is about to come to fruition, as the multi-faceted restoration is
nearly finished.
The splendor of Lawnfield lies not just in the beauty and history of this presidential
home, but also in the unique funding mechanism which has allowed this project to proceed. The
National Park Service and the Western Reserve Historical Society have embarked on a public-
private joint partnership to undertake this massive restoration. These two fine entities are ready
to team up again for the operating portion of Lawnfield.
The request we have made is for a $136,000 annual operating appropriation. This sum
represents just a fraction of the cost anticipated to be involved in the operation of Lawnfield.
Prior to the restoration project, the Lawnfield site drew an annual visitor attendance of
approximately 20,000. A like number of visitors are expected following the reopening of the
site. Tlie remainder of the operating costs -- about two-thirds of the costs involved - will be
obtained through user fees and the generosity of the patrons of the Western Reserve Historical
Society. At a time when the federal government is attempting to "smartsize" and live within its
means, we should applaud creative financing efforts such as that proposed for Lawnfield. Our
request is that we provide a helping hand so this wonderful historical site can operate for the
benefit of this and future generations.
The main Garfield home was built in 1832 and was a nine-room farmhouse. Over the
years President Garfield's family made many additions: the farmhouse eventually became a
sprawling, 29-room mansion. Included at the site is the front porch where President Garfield
announced his intention to seek the presidency of the United States, as well as the telegraph
office where he received news that he had in fact been elected our 20th president.
82
Restoration efforts began in 1992. Initial restoration has focused on the 102-year-old
horse bam and carriage house, which has now been converted into a visitors' center. The
visitors' center also contains an auditorium, gift shop and offices. In addition to the
aforementioned restoration, the main home is also being renovated so that it may be restored to
its original splendor. Contained in the main home is the very first presidential library,
constructed by President Garfield's widow following his assassination. The library will house
artifacts of our 20th president.
The Garfield presidential library differs from other presidential libraries in that it
contains almost solely original artifacts. This includes the furnishings, books and fixtures, which
have been lovingly restored by volunteer members of the Western Reserve Historical Society.
The final piece needed for the magnificent restoration project will be an annual operating
appropriation to help pay for the costs of operation. As 1 mentioned earlier, this will be a shared
burden, with the federal government asked to pick up just one-third of the costs. It is indeed,
Mr. Chairman, a small investment that will reap huge dividends, as history will forever be
maintained.
It has been said that our future is secure only when our past is preserved. Lawnfield, the
historical home of President Garfield, is of great historical significance to Northeastern Ohio and
to the United States. I respectfully ask that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies embrace this project, and favorably consider our request.
Again, to you Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your many years of commitment to
this project and for the opportunity to present my case.
83
Mr. Regula. The committee will suspend for a couple of minutes.
[Recess.]
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT
WITNESS
HON. CURT WELDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Regula. Curt?
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today and appreciate your ongoing
support. You have been a real key leader in efforts relative to the
two programs I'd like to speak to today. These are national pro-
grams, and I think both have outstanding track records in taking
relatively small amounts of Federal money and leveraging signifi-
cant amount of private dollars.
The first is the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which I
know you're familiar with. I would just tell you, in terms of
leveraging, the Foundation has matched every dollar appropriated
by this subcommittee with $3.37 on the ground conservation. Over
10 years, they've multiplied $45.7 million in appropriated Federal
dollars to $168.2 million in on-the-ground, cooperative conserva-
tion. The Foundation is involved in a wide variety of issues, seed
money. It's very well supported by members throughout both cau-
cuses.
I would just urge you to provide the $6 million requested in the
budget for Fish and Wildlife Service for this program. It's been a
big help in my own State, but, more importantly, nationwide it's
just had an outstanding track record. As you know, this was an
original Republican initiative created by Republican leadership as
a way to leverage private sector involvement, and it's just an out-
standing success.
The second major issue I'd like to testify on behalf of is the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act. As you know, Mr. Chairman,
I serve as the Republican House Member on the Migratory Bird
Commission; John Dingell is the Democrat. There are four of us
from the Congress and the three Cabinet members who oversee
funding that is used, partly from the sale of Duck Stamps to volun-
tarily preserve open space, and a small amount of appropriated dol-
lars. This was really started and maintained by the late Sil Conte.
It was one of his top priorities.
For Fiscal Year 1997, the program has an authorization level of
$30 million. The President has requested $11.75 million as a part
of the Fish and Wildlife budget. And I would urge your support for
the maximum level possible.
As you know, I've taken great efforts to let Members know how
these projects impact their own districts. Congress has now in the
last year and a half become heavily involved in the selection proc-
ess. This program is supported by the States, supported by farmers
and private landowners, because there's no taking of land. Every-
84
thing that's done through this program is done voluntarily, and it's
done with the cooperation of the States and the members who want
wildlife refuges expanded. It's just been a tremendously positive
program with a rather small amount of Federal money.
So I'm coming today not for any parochial concerns for myself or
my district. These are two national programs that I feel very
strongly about, and would just encourage your continued leader-
ship. You were there when we needed you, and we appreciate that,
and would ask you to again be the godfather of saving the funding
for these two programs.
Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you. Curt.
I'm getting an award Saturday from the Ducks Unlimited.
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. They're big supporters, as you
know, major supporters.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania follows:]
85
TESTIMONY OF REP. CURT WELDON (PA 7-R)
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
the Subcommittee today. I want to focus my comments on two key
programs in the Subcommittee's jurisdiction: the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation and the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act. I support an appropriation of at least $6 million and $11.75
million respectively.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation produces one of the
biggest "bangs for the buck" of any federal conservation program.
Through its leveraging grants program, the Foundation has matched
every dollar appropriated by this Subcommittee with $3.37 for on the
ground conservation. Over 10 years, they have multiplied $4 5.7
million in appropriated federal dollars to $168.2 million in on the
ground cooperative conservation.
The Foundation creates bridges between the business,
conservation, government, and local communities by forming
partnerships between groups that often would otherwise be at odds
with each other on environmental issues. In addition, they foster
proactive, voluntary, cooperative approaches rather than "big
government" command and control.
Federal seed money is essential to keep the government as a
participatory player with the private sector to deliver these
benefits. Without that federal investment, private funding would
not be attracted, and we would see more conflicts on resource and
environmental issues.
I know how tough the Subcommittee's job is -- but this is one
of the best investments you can make to solve the problems and
actually leverage private sector funds and participation to support
natural resources. I strongly urge you to fund the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation at $6 million as requested in the budget for
the Fish and Wildlife Service. This will achieve results that are
three times greater than what would normally be achieved in other
line items from a relatively small investment in federal funds.
Furthermore, by investing in the Foundation now, we may avoid fish
and wildlife conflicts that might otherwise lead to far larger
expenditures and significantly greater management problems in the
future .
Let me give you an example: The Foundation has done 45
projects which address regional problems of concern to Pennsylvania.
A total of $1.35 million in federal funds have been invested in
these projects, and leveraged with nonfederal funds to deliver $7.6
million for conservation. Projects have ranged from playing a key
catalyst role on Chesapeake Bay problems to operating the matching
grant fund to design and build the environmental education center at
the John Heinz National Refuge at Tinicum. Their contribution to
conservation extends to the oceans as well. The Foundation is
involved in stimulating a partnership with a major Pennsylvania
corporation. Concurrent Technologies Corporation of Johnstown, to
86
help the Navy learn how to better avoid at-sea conflicts with
whales .
The Foundation brings people together to forge proactive
cooperative solutions and avoid government command and control
regulation. They look over the horizon to head off potential
problems, such as endangered species issues, that can be expensive
for this Subcommittee and the private sector. This over the horizon
expertise is widely recognized. For example, last year the Speaker
asked the Foundation for some positive alternatives to the current
approach to endangered species management. The Foundation responded
to the request with some incentives to private landowners to enhance
endangered species management. This approach actually creates
incentives that would make having an endangered species on their
land desirable to landowners.
Finally, I want to make a partisan observation. The National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation was created by Republican leadership.
They embrace the conservative principle of private cooperative
rather than regulatory solutions to environmental and resource
issues and do more with less government . The National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation is a key solution, and we should strongly
support it. I urge you to provide at least $6 million in the Fish
and Wildlife Service for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
In addition, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
(NAWCA) is another example of a unique program which uses federal
dollars to leverage private monies to preserve, protect, and enhance
critical wildlife habitat. Unlike the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation which concentrates its efforts on a broad array of
conservation initiatives, NAWCA was created to specifically address
our Nation's declining migratory bird population. Habitat loss has
played a major role in the decline of these birds. Funding from the
NAWCA has led to the enhancement or preservation of over 7 million
acres of prime North American wetlands habitat.
The program effectively offers an array of acquisition,
restoration, and enhancement activities as solutions to protect
wildlife based on wildlife habitat type, geographic area, and land
ownership. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act reaches
outside the normal sphere of partners typically involved in
conservation projects to include major corporations, universities,
local civic groups, and even individuals. In just a few short
years, the program has undertaken over 400 wetland conservation
projects in 42 states involving over 460 separate partners.
For FY' 97, the program has an authorization level of $30
million. This year, the President has requested $11.75 million as
part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget. I urge your
support for the maximum funding level possible for NAWCA.
This program boasts a variety of desirable features that few
other federal programs match:
* The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a non-
recnilatorv conservation program that provides funds to enhance
87
and restore privately owned and public wetlands across the
country.
* This prograun is an economic generator. Migratory bird
hunters and bird watchers generated $19.5 billion in economic
output during 1991. In many cases, this economic activity was
vital to the incomes of rural Americans.
* NAWCA provides an excellent return on a modeat federal
investment. Every dollar of federal money has been matched
by nearly three dollars in private, state, and local funds
making this one of the federal government ' s most cost effective
conservation programs.
* Farmers and other private landowners support the program,
because on private land, work is only done with willing
landowners and it allows them to restore wildlife and
conservation values on their private lands.
* The states support the NAWCA program. The International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which represents
all 50 state fish and game agencies in the country, supports
this program.
* Congress is involved in choosing which proiects get funded
under the program. The final approval body in the project
selection process is the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission. That seven member body includes four Members of
Congress .
* The prograun stimulates conservation efforts from the non-
federal sector. Because of NAWCA's incentives, $191 million
has been contributed for projects by over 400 non-profit,
corporate, small business, state, and local entities.
* Under NAWCA, habitat conservation work has occurred on
breeding grounds and other hadaitat for waterfowl as well as
400 different varieties of other wildlife.
This program represents a reasonable, cost-effective approach
to waterfowl and other wildlife habitat conservation. I urge you to
do what you can to maximize the Subcommittee's financial support of
the North American Wetlands Conservation program.
In closing, I want to thank you again for allowing me to
testify before the Subcommittee today. I look forward to working
with you and the Subcommittee in the future to ensure these two
important programs are funded this year.
88
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
APPALACHIAN TRAIL
fflSTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
WITNESS
HON. NANCY L. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Regula. Nancy?
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man, for giving me this opportunity to testify in support of the Ap-
palachian Trail, the Historic Preservation Trust Fund, and the
Farmington Wild and Scenic River program. It's a pleasure to be
here for the 14th consecutive year. [Laughter.]
As you know, completion of the Appalachian Trail is actually
within our reach and would be a fitting tribute to its founders and
many users.
Mr. Regula. Well, they have a strong friend on this subcommit-
tee.
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. That's right, they have, yes, abso-
lutely.
With $7 million a year, we can complete acquisition by the year
2000. This would represent flat funding for the third consecutive
year, but prudently balances the importance of completing the
project with limited resources.
Mr. Regula. No question.
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. I also want to reiterate my strong
support for the Historic Preservation Trust Fund, which you have
so consistently and steadfastly supported. Like many regions of the
country, mine is blessed with many beautiful, old buildings, and
through the Federal dollars, have been able to leverage literally
millions and millions of dollars for restoration and preservation.
This is a perfect example, really both of these programs are perfect
examples of how the Federal Government can be so instrumental
in assuring our future and the quality of life that our citizens will
enjoy.
Mr. Regula. It does leverage a lot.
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. Yes. And then most dear to me,
after a 10-year struggle to include it in the National Wild and Sce-
nic Rivers System, is the Farmington River in my district. It's hard
to believe it took 10 years to do that, but you may remember be-
cause you worked very closely with me on this, and the staff was
really terrific. This was the first effort that was made in New Eng-
land to include — the first successful operative inclusion of a New
England river in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It took us a
long time to deal with the tradition of local government, local con-
trol, and local concern.
We do have now an excellent governance structure that's able to
protect, conserve, and enhance this segment of the river. The Na-
tional Park Service has been very ably staffed from its Boston of-
fice on this matter. We could not have done it without them. I have
a letter that I want to leave with you in which the National Park
Service agrees that we need a line item of approximately $100,000,
89
so that we're sure to have the resources for their role in this coordi-
nating council, because this segment of the river really reaches mil-
lions of people and will preserve a gem in a densely-populated area.
So I will submit that letter from the Park Service, from the Depart-
ment of Interior.
Mr. Regula. Thus far, have they been giving you professional
advice, the Park Service
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. Absolutely, absolutely, and it is
key because this not only is a beautiful area, but this is also a
tense area. The MPC, which is the Metropolitan District respon-
sible for Hartford receiving its water, has a very big interest in this
river. In fact, we got into this whole designation effort because we
were unable to resolve — and this is such a good example of positive
Federal action — we were unable to resolve the growing war be-
tween the small towns where the reservoirs were and Hartford that
used the water. And out of this has come conservation plans, better
water usage in the urban areas, preservation of the river quality,
its recreational
Mr. Regula. Is the river used for drinking water any place?
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. Part of it further up, another
branch is diverted. We really got into this because we feared that
Hartford had its eye on diverting the rest of this water. Now this
has led to a whole focus on conservation, preservation, sound use,
you know, an environmentally strong river
Mr. Regula. It's a recreational river.
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. Recreational, absolutely, fishing,
canoeing, tubing, and it has come back strongly. We have the best
river study that I think has ever been done on any river, certainly
in the Northeast and maybe in the country, again funded primarily
with Federal dollars because in the end it cost much more, but
State dollars, private dollars, we've got everything in there. So we
have very good management information now. We have a very good
group, but that Federal person does help to keep everybody's eye
on the ball, for this is a national program whose goal is river pres-
ervation and resource conservation. So he is invaluable, and we
have had very, very intelligent, capable, strong leadership from the
Boston office.
Mr. Regula. That's good. Okay.
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The statement of Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut follows:]
90
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
OVtnSlGMT
HEALTH
EXPOflT TASK FORCE
CAUCUS FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES
Congresi£; of t\)t Winittt ^tatti
J^ouie of i^eprei(entatibe£(
aSHastjington, 3BC 20515-0706
Testimony by
The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson
before the
Appropriations subcoiranittee on Interior
13 C^NNOM House Of*m BuiLOMw
Washinotow. OC 20S1&47Q6
TEtiMOMC 1203) 22S-447a
480 MvHru Stucet— Sum 200
New BfNTAiN. CT OOOU
TtLEPHONt. 1203) 223-H12
April 17, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, for giving me this
opportunity to testify in support of the Appalachian Trail, the
Historic Preservation Trust Fund, and the Farmington Wild and Scenic
River. It is a pleasure to appear before you for the 14th
consecutive year.
As you know, completion of the Appalachian Trail is within
reach, and it surely would be a fitting tribute to its founders and
many users to allocate sufficient resources to achieve this goal by
the year 2000. To keep us on track to completion, I urge the
committee to approve $7 million from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for further acquisition of land and rights of way. This would
represent flat funding for at least the third consecutive year, and
prudently balances the importance of completing the project with
limited resources.
I also wish to reiterate my strong support for the Historic
Preservation Trust Fund which you have so graciously supported in the
past. Like many regions of the country, ours is blessed with
thousands of old, historic buildings and, through the Trust Fund, we
are cible to preserve them for future generations. I hope the
committee will continue to endorse this very cost-effective program,
which leverages large amounts of private capital with scarce tax
dollars .
Finally, and most dear to me after a ten-year struggle to
include it in the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System, is the
Farmington River in my district. As part of the enabling
legislation. Public Law 103-313, a citizens' committee was formed to
guide the wild and scenic program and help oversee the long-term
protection, conservation, and enhancement of the designated segment.
An active member of the Farmington River Coordinating Committee
is the National Park Service, ably staffed by its Boston office. In
order to fund the FRCC's operations and Park Service staff
involvement for FY 1997, the Park Service's annual operating budget
must reflect a line item of approximately $100,000. In view of the
important work of the Coordinating Committee, and the relatively
meager amount of funding needed for its success, I urge the committee
to approve this sum. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter that
I recently received from the Park Service on this subject be included
in the record.
On behalf of the people of my Connecticut district, I thank you
for giving me this opportunity to present my views.
91
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Nortiheast Field Area
U. S. CustoB House
200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvsmia 19106
March 27, 1996
(FDO.B-PDE)
Honorable Nancy L. Johnson
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Ms. Johnson;
Thank you for your letter of March 5, 1996, regarding the status of
funding for the Farmington wild and Scenic River. As you mention in
your letter, this river is administered cooperatively by the National
Park Service and local interests using a nontraditional approach which
emphasizes local resp>onsibility for river conservation. In accordance
with the Upper Farmington River Management Plan and the designation
legislation (P.L. 103-313, 8/94), routine management of the river is
the responsibility of the Farmington River Coordinating Committee
(FRCC). The FRCC's duties include the implementation of the
Management Plan, public education, and oversight of State and local
activities that could affect the Farmington 's unique characteristics.
The National Park Service's responsibilities include participation as
a member of the FRCC and implementation of Section 7 of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act (i.e. oversight of Federal activities that could
affect the river or its outstanding resources). In addition, the
designation legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the National Park Service, to offer to enter into cooperative
agreements with the various members of the FRCC. According to this
legislation, such agreements may include provision for financial and
technical assistance to facilitate the long-term protection,
conservation, and enhancement of the designated segment.
As your letter suggests, the appropriate and anticipated means of
funding both the FRCC's operations and National Park Service's staff
involvement is through a line item in the National Park Service's
annual operating budget, or "ONPS." Without this funding, the
Farmington designation represents an unfunded mandate to the NPS — a
situation unaccepteOile to all involved.
I applaud and will do all I can to support your efforts to provide
funding for the Farmington. In addition, the "value added" to the
project's likelihood of long-term success through the mobilization of
92
state and local support for the FRCC should not be ignored. We
encourage all who care about the river and its resources to work with
us in developing new approaches to river conservation that build on
local initiative rather than depending on Federal support.
Thank you for your continued interest and support of the National Park
Service.
0Lrv^
gLw-
Marie Rust
Field Director
93
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
GUAM'S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PRIORITIES
WITNESS
HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Regula. The gentleman from Guam.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning
to you. Thank you for allowing me to testify on Guam's priorities
for Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations for the Department of Interior.
For many years now, Guam has not requested any special assist-
ance from this committee. Today I'm requesting what Guam has
basically consistently requested for a decade, that is. Federal reim-
bursement for the educational and social costs of immigration to
Guam due to the Compacts of Free Association, as authorized in
Public Law
Mr. Regula. This is what we discussed in the past; right?
Mr. UNDERWOOD [continuing]. Yes, we have, right — 992-39. I'm
pleased that the President's Fiscal Year 1997 request includes
$4.58 million for compact impact reimbursement. I know that this
has been crafted, this compromise has been crsifted, with your sup-
port, with Mr. Yates' support, and I'm very appreciative of the sup-
port that you have given to it, as we've worked this process in con-
ference for Fiscal Year 1996.
I want to just, for the record, emphasize that basically what
we're talking about here is unrestricted immigration that is en-
tirely legal. It's a new category of people called habitual residents,
and the fact that they're able to come in huge numbers to Guam
has led to a number of social and educational costs which is au-
thorized for reimbursement.
I would also like to ask if the record could be kept open for per-
haps a statement from the governor.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Underwood. Okay, thank you.
And on one national program, as a former member of the Guam
Review Board for Historic Preservation, I'd like to express my sup-
port and appreciation for your support of the Historical Preserva-
tion Trust Fund. It's a kind of program that I've been personally
interested in for the past couple of decades. Just to reiterate the
point, Guam hasn't for the past 10 years requested any kind of spe-
cial funding for its operations or anything; it's just looking for reim-
bursement for costs that have already been expended.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thanks for coming.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
94
CONGRESSMAN ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
STATEMENT ON THE FY 97 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS
APRIL 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for allowing me to testify on Guam's priorities for the
Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations for the Department of the Interior.
For many years now Guam has not requested any special assistance
from this committee, and today I am requesting what Guam has
consistently requested for ten years — federal reimbursement for the
educational and social costs of the immigration to Guam due to the
Compact of Free Association, as authorized in Public Law 99-239.
I am pleased that the President's Fiscal Year 1997 request includes
$4.58 million for Compact- impact reimbursement. This funding is
contingent on statutory changes that have been included in the
appropriations conference report for Interior for FY 96.
I support the compromises that were agreed to in conference for the
Department of the Interior for FY 96 regarding downsizing the
Office of Insular Affairs, and I hope that the Committee will
continue to view this compromise as good policy. I would be
concerned about any effort to abolish the Office of Insular Affairs
without providing for the needs of the territories in areas such as
technical assistance.
Again, I wish to emphasize Guam's priority — reimbursement for the
costs of immigration due to the Compact of Free Association. The
amount in the President's budget, $4.58 million, represents a
minimum reimbursement to Guam.
Chairman Young, Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Miller and
Ranking member Faleomavaega joined me in sending a letter on March
6, 1996 to Secretary Babbitt requesting an updated report to
Congress on the impact of the Compact on Guam and other U.S. areas.
This information will help Congress to continue our progress in
addressing this issue and we hope that the Secretary's report
details the full amount of costs that should be reimbursed to Guam.
95
(Congifss o( tljf (Unitfl) States
jai.isliingion. DC 20:M.'^
March 6, 1996
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington. DC 20240
Dear Seaetary Babbitt,
We are writing to urge the Department of Interior to issue an updated report on the
impact of the Compact of Free Association as required by Public Law 99-239.
As you know, section 104(e)(2) of P.L 99-239 requires that this report be subnu'tted
annually and that it detail the impact of the Compact on U.S. areas. In addition, this report
is to recommend ways in which these consequences can be eliminated. We are aware of the
efforts of the Department of Interior to acquire reh'able data for this report and we urge you
to continue to dialogue with the Government of Guam to develop mutually acceptable
methodology for assessing Compact-impact.
A report from the Department of Interior would be helpful as Congress continues
to consider the policy issues related to the implementation of the Compact and Guam's
request for reimbursement of educational and social costs incurred as a result of the
Compact. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
GEORGE MILLER
Ranking Member
Committee on Resources
H/FALEOMAVAEGA
Chairman, Subcommitf^e rfh ' Ranking JClember, Subcommittee on
Native American and Insular Affairs Native Anerican and Insular Affairs
(J
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
Member of Congress
^ 96
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
QUINEBAUG AND SHETUCKET RIVERS NATIONAL
HERITAGE CORRIDOR
WITNESS
HON. SAM GEJDENSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Regula. Sam?
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief, and I appreciate you
making time for us.
Mr. Regula. We'll put the statement in the record.
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes, thank you. I just want to say you've been
terrific on this issue, and I know you're trying to do a Heritage
Corridor in your area.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Gejdenson. I think we've finally got the Park Service on our
side for the concept; just as the Smithsonian now recognizes that
it needs to help establish centers around the country, it's the same
thing with this. Not everybody's going to get to the wonderful Na-
tional Parks that are such a great asset. We're, frankly, having
great cooperation from the Interior Department. The local people
have just done a fantastic job; they're staying within your appro-
priation limits. We've just got $75,000, and they're waiting; if the
budget goes through, they'll get the rest. The administration has
requested $200,000 for the next
Mr. Regula. That means you'll help us on the omnibus bill, so
we can get the thing out of the way?
Mr. Gejdenson. Well, it makes sense. I mean, it's just such a
good product for everybody. We talk about decentralizing things
and getting cooperation. I just want to tell one story I may have
told before, but I like telling it because it shows how smart I am.
We started talking about this Heritage Corridor area, old factory
mills and some of the colonial settings; we've got the place George
Washington met Lafayette and the old mills and the rivers, and all
that stuff, and just great stuff. So they're about to do their first
walking weekend through this area, and they come and they show
me their plan. You know, I have 59 towns and I think I've got like
53 now; about 25 of them really fit in this Heritage Corridor, and
that's what's in there. So in 25 towns, really rural eastern Con-
necticut, some of these towns, 2,000, 3,000 people, they've got, I
think, 52 walks, and I'm thinking to myself this is a disaster. I
mean, these people are going to be
Mr. Regula. Fifty-two separate-
Mr. Gejdenson. Separate walks.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Organized walks?
Mr. Gejdenson. Right, walks, tours of old buildings. We've got
a number of National Register — Prudence Crandall house, you
know, just incredible old Civil War — pre-Civil War stuff.
But I bite my tongue because I figure, you know, if you try to
manage everjrthing from Washington, you're going to undercut
their ability to do their own creative work, and so knowing it's
going to be — I just shut up because they've got to learn. They'll find
97
they were too ambitious, and next year they'll cut back. Every one
of these was almost oversolicited. I mean, it was just astounding.
You know, we grew up with so much rural access, and then all
of a sudden it disappeared; people bought it; people got worried
about getting sued; developers did some of it. People just poured
out. Each year they've expanded it, and I get to do three or four
different ones. It's good politics, obviously, but I love to go places
you normally don't get to see. They're doing a great job.
Mr. Regula. What's the length of your corridor totally?
Mr. Gejdenson. Well, I think it's about an hour's drive, about
60 miles long. It's two industrial river valleys, and the great thing
is — I don't know about where you are — we've abandoned the rivers.
I mean, you go down those rivers; you think you're in Montana
without the Freemen [laughter]. Because the rivers were so pol-
luted during that early industrial era people would build a gor-
geous home facing the highway rather than facing a gorgeous bend
in the river. It's back far enough — you know, you go through places
like Willamanek which are old and sometimes beat-up industrial
communities; you can't see anything but gorgeous
Mr. Regula. I presume that the result of the corridor is that the
river is getting cleaned up.
Mr. Gejdenson. The river is getting cleaned up. People are turn-
ing land over to open space in the corridor. Even the Highway De-
partment, generally an enemy of access, redid an intersection in
one of the towns which nobody could get to the river because the
intersection made it impossible. We redid it. We now have a park
along the riverside there which I don't think people have been to
in a hundred years because there was no physical way to get there
without darting across the road.
In Norwich we have a place called Uncus Leap, where the legend
is that the British were chasing Uncus, who was a Mohegan, not
the last of the Mohicans, which is upstate New York, but the Mo-
hegans in our area; that he leapt off this great rock into the water
to safety. I never took my kids there. It was overgrown. You
couldn't get there. You didn't know what was private or public
property. The company that owned about 10 acres around it
cleaned it up. Local bulldozer guys came in, just volunteered — you
know, this could have been a $100,000 contract, if we tried to do
it the old way. I don't think it cost them $50.
Mr. Regula. That's the beauty of the corridors, and we're trying
to get one in my district, as a matter of fact; you get the local in-
volvement.
Mr. Gejdenson. Right, and they're not looking for a big pay-
check or a fee to do it. They're volunteers that make it work.
We've now got canoe trips in places that you couldn't get down
the rivers. It's just great, and great for the people. The kids come
out.
We had Secretary Kennedy who came up and we did the
Willamanek River. There must have been 500 canoes there. Of
course, we were out front. I thought, again, of this nice quiet elder-
ly man, you know; he's not that quiet, but he's up there in years,
and he says, "Do you know how to canoe?"
I said, "Yes, I've canoed. So I'll take the back."
He said, "Sure."
98
He had apparently been part— well, his family owned some
canoe-trekking operation. We took off and I was exhausted by the
time we got to the end.
But it's a wonderful
Mr. Regula. We'll suspend for a couple of minutes
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Gejdenson follows:]
99
WASHINGTON OFFtCE
24TS Ravsukn BuiUmmC
Wasm**oton. DC 20S1S
1707) 235-2076
OCSTBlCT OfFKXS:
'>4 Wist Mam ST«crr
■cMtwo*. CT oeaeo
(703) 886-019
94 Comrr Snarr
MooifTOWM. CT 00457
t203)3i«-n73
SAM GEJDENSON
TOOlSTBlCT
CONNECTtCUT
COMMnru o- fUaouMCKs
CongresiSi of t\)t ®niteli ^tatti
^ouse of 3^epregentatibes
(Eaasbington, 1B€ 20515 """"""-""^
statement of Representative houu o»f n^U
S2un Gejdenson
Concerning the
Qulnebaug and Shetucket Rivers
National Heritage Corridor
J^rll 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in
support of the request of the National Park Service (NFS) for
$200,000 for the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers National Heritage
Corridor in eastern Connecticut. I greatly appreciate the
Subcommittee's support for funding the Corridor in Fiscal Year
1996.
I would like to commend you Mr. Chairman for your efforts on
behalf of the Heritage Corridor concept over the past several
years. As you are well aware, this innovative approach can assist
local communities in protecting and promoting a wide range of
nationally significant resources. Land remains in local ownership
and local governments and residents retain full authority over all
zoning and land-use decisions. Federal involvement is usually
limited to providing technical assistance and a small amount of
funding to help local entities meet their goals. While federal
assistance is limited, it is vitally important because entities
such as the Park Service have expertise in the areas of historic
preservation, planning, recreational development and interpretation
which can not be equalled at the local and state level. Federal
funds work to leverage state, local and private resources which
often significantly exceed the federal contribution.
The Quinebaug and Shetucket National Heritage Corridor is one
of four in the nation. Designated in November, 1994, it covers 25
towns in eastern Connecticut stretching from Thompson in the north
to Norwich in the south. This area has a rich Native American,
colonial and industrial history as well as an incredible variety of
natural resources and recreational assets. Unlike many other areas
across New England, the history of the region remains evident on
the landscape. The area's river valleys are dotted with textile
mills which fueled the economy of the region, and the nation, for
much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The hills rising above
the rivers continue to be covered with farms and town greens. Many
of the mill villages and town centers are listed in the National
Register of Historic Places as are more than 100 properties
throughout the region. The Quinebaug and Shetucket rivers and
THIS STATIONEHY PAINTED ON PAPJH MADE WITH RECYCLED F18ERS
100
their many tributaries offer a wide range c3f recreational
opportunities for canoeists, hikers, bird watchers and others. In
addition, this area contains some of the last large areas of open
space and agricultural land between New York and Boston.
In Fiscal Year 1996, the Congress has allocated $200,000 to
the Corridor through the NPS. As I stressed at the outset of my
testimony. Heritage Corridors are locally-based initiatives. In
keeping with this premise, the Park Service is in the process of
transferring these funds to the recently formed non-profit
Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor Corporation. Unlike previous
Heritage Corridors, the Quinebaug and Shetucket does not have a
federally-appointed commission charged with developing and
implementing a management plan. As a result, a group of dedicated
local residents, who have been working in support of the Corridor
for more than 6 years, has estciblished a non-profit entity which
will serve some of the functions of a commission. By transferring
these funds to the Corporation, the Service is demonstrating a
commitment to getting resources to the local level where I believe
they can be most effective. It is important to note the Corridor
Corporation must match the federal contribution on a dollar- for-
dollar basis.
The Park Service and the local group have developed a detailed
work plan which will guide their actions over the remainder of the
year. This plan will help us achieve the goals of the legislation
establishing the Corridor and ensure we derive the greatest benefit
from federal, state and local financial contributions. The work
plan focuses on developing an overall management plan for the
region which will identify historic, culture and natural resources,
suggest methods to protect these assets, and develop and
disseminate an interpretive vision of the region. In addition, the
strategy developed by the Service and local partners calls for
providing a series of small grants to support local projects which
contribute to Corridor development .
It is important to note the Park Service is only making a
portion of the $200,000 allocation available to the Corporation in
accordance with directions from the Appropriations Committee.
Provided total funding in the National Recreation and Preservation
account in the final version of the FY 1996 continuing resolution
equals the level provided in conference report 104-402, the Park
Service will allocate the remaining funds prior to the end of the
Fiscal Year.
I urge the Subcommittee to provide $200,000 for this important
effort in FY 1997. This level is authorized by the statute which
designated the Corridor -- Public Law 103-449 -- and has been
requested by the Park Service. The law also requires local
entities to equally match any federal contribution. The new
Corporation is actively working to raise matching funds and the
state and local governments are making important financial and in-
kind contributions as well.
101
I appreciate your willingness to consider my request. The
Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers National Heritage Corridor will
allow us to preserve, protect and promote a wide range of
nationally significant resources in the eastern United States. I
look forward to working with the Subcommittee on this issue in the
coming months .
102
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
HON. PETE GEREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Regula. Okay, your statement will be a part of the record.
Mr. Geren. All right, thank you very much.
I appear today on behalf of the National Fish and Wildlife Foun-
dation, which is an organization created by Congress and
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Geren [continuing]. One that's been funded over the years.
We have in the Sportsmen's Caucus had an opportunity to work
with them some. In fact, they made a presentation to us yesterday,
and they're really doing excellent work around the country. Where
so many of the groups that have tried to build habitat for fish and
wildlife — ^you tend to have groups that gravitate toward the ex-
tremes, and you have the far right and the far left fight. The Fish
and Wildlife Foundation has done a great job really in finding mid-
dle ground and bringing people together and have come up with
some very innovative initiatives that have brought tremendous
amount of private resources to bear. They've gotten groups to co-
operate. They've gotten farmers to cooperate with environmental-
ists. They've gotten cities and water districts to cooperate with en-
vironmentalists and had some very innovative projects.
Another very appealing part of what they do, the law under the
congressional guidelines requires a $1 match for every dollar of
Federal funds. They operate with a $2-plus match. So for every dol-
lar that you appropriate
Mr. Regula. Yes. Curt Weldon was here and made the case.
Mr. Geren [continuing]. They put over $3 actually into conserva-
tion. So it's a way to stretch Federal dollars in the environmental
area.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Geren. And certainly that's important, but I think really
where they are making their mark is bringing together previously
competing groups. In the Mississippi Delta, for example, working
with rice farmers, historically opponents of the environmental
movement, they come up with some programs where the farmers
can manage their rice fields during the winter months in a way
that supports the migratory waterfowl. They've shown how that
saves money for these farmers. So the Rice Foundation is now put-
ting money into this effort, and some of these farmers, that have
over the years fought any environmental initiative, actually have
realized that this makes sense.
So it's a group that is very innovative in its approach, brought
a lot of creative thinking, and has found some middle ground in
working with previously warring parties, that I think most folks
never knew existed. I think it's a great group and a great way to
stretch Federal dollars as well.
Mr. Regula. We'll do the best we can.
Mr. Geren. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[The statement of Mr. Geren follows:]
103
STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE PETE GEREN
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
APRIL 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am testifying on
behalf of the National Pish and Wildlife Foxmdation and urge you
to fund them at the $6 million requested as part of the Pish and
Wildlife Service budget.
Yesterday, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation made a
presentation before the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. As you
may know, I have the honor to co- chair the Caucus with Don Young
of Alaska. The Caucus, a bipartisan group dedicated to
protecting the rights of Americans to pursue outdoor activities,
boasts 204 members in the House and 47 in the Senate.
During this presentation, the Foundation arranged for a few of
the groups that they have worked with to talk about projects
dealing with wildlife management. Without the help and support
of the Foundation, these organizations would never have been able
to engage in these important projects. I will provide some
detail of these types of projects later in my testimony; however,
I first want to talk in general about the value of supporting the
work of the Foundation.
I commend this Subcommittee for the excellent work that they have
done to trim government spending. I know your task has not been
easy, but I applaud your commitment to balancing our federal
budget. In light of your efforts to balance our budget, I think
programs like the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are
extremely valuable because of the private dollars they use to
leverage federal tax dollars.
The Foundation delivers over $3 of on the ground conservation for
every $1 appropriated to it by this Subcommittee. They stretch
scare federal funds to promote natural resource conservation and
management further than any other organization that I am aware
of. In these times of shrinking budgets, we can deliver more
through support of the Foundation than through other sources.
Additionally, the Foundation works in partnership with the
private sector to develop the best solutions to properly manage
our natural resources. This is a welcome change to the
Washington knows best mentality of many government programs in
this area.
Finally, the Foundation has worked closely with many sportsmen's
104
organizations around our nation. Sportsmen were the first true
conservationists in this country and continue to put their money
where there mouth is to support conservation of our natural
resources. The Foundation, through its programs, have brought
these sportsmen groups together with environmental groups for
work on projects of mutual interest. Whether its working with
Ducks Unlimited and proponents of song birds, or the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation and proponents of endangered species, the
Foundation's hallmark has been to design projects supported by
both constituencies.
Let me close by giving you some examples of the fine work of the
Foundation in my own state of Texas. In Texas, the Foundation
has funded over 80 projects, stretching $4 million in federal
funds to almost $16 million of on the ground conservation. Some
of these projects have included:
The High Island Sanctuary, one of the most important
migratory bird landing areas in the country. This is
the location where migratory birds come ashore after
crossing the Gulf of Mexico during their annual spring
migration from the tropics. This project was done in
partnership with the petroleum industry and local
environmental groups.
A Partners for Wildlife program that helped create and
manage 75,000 acres of wetlands on private lands.
A program with the Rice Producers Federation to
encourage rice farmers to manage their lands for
wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl.
The Foundation does not engage in advocacy or litigation. Their
grants are designed to draw participants into cooperative
solutions, and specifically prohibit funding advocacy and
litigation.
With this in mind, I strongly urge you to support the work of
this organization and fully fund them in the Fish and Wildlife
Service at the Administration request of $6 million.
I appreciate your consideration and the opportunity to appear
before you today.
105
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST
ACID MINE DRAINAGE CLEANUP
WITNESS
HON. WILLJAM F. CLINGER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Regula. Mr. Schumer?
[No response.]
Mr. Regula. He's not here.
Bill? We'll put your statement in the record.
Mr. Clinger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. If you'll summarize, it will help.
Mr. Clinger. I sure will.
The first thing I really wanted to bring to your attention is a
budget problem, and one that is, I think, causing some problems
not just in my neck of the woods, but in a number of areas, which
is the FA&O fire, administrative, and other construction appropria-
tion level, which has been pretty low over the years. I gather that
it's been averaging about $12 million annually for the past five
years. The President this year has requested a cut, to only do about
half of that. It's estimated at about, there's a need to really deal
with the project and maintenance backlog created by the under-
funding of the FA&O account, would be about $29 million.
Mr. Regula. There's no question that all these maintenance
needs are real.
Mr. Clinger. Are really hurting.
Mr. Regula. It's an easy thing to put off.
Mr. Clinger. The one thing that really does seem to be sort of
counterproductive, right now there's a limit, and I guess it's been
there for some time, on minor facility construction of $100,000. In
talking with the Forest Service in my area, they would like to see
that increase because what they are faced with. They're downsizing
and they're trying to combine two facilities that presently are
there, but with that limitation on it, they're going to really have
difficulty combining. The ultimate savings would probably be about
$2 million, if they were able to combine those, but because of the
arbitrary figure of $100,000, they can't do that. So if that could be
increased, it might ultimately result in a savings, if the thing could
be increased.
I would just mention briefly three projects for the Forest Service
since the Allegheny National Forest is entirely within my district,
so obviously, that's my main pitch. In priority, the first priority
would be $150,000 for what is called the Willow Bay Recreation
Area. This is the fourth phase of that project. This would finish the
thing. It would include campgrounds, road improvement, campsite
rehabilitation
Mr. Regula. Do you get heavy multiple use?
Mr. Clinger. A lot, yes. We did a very major
Mr. Regula. Because you're close to population centers.
106
Mr. Clinger. Yes, we get them from Pittsburgh, from Buffalo,
from Cleveland, and so forth. It gets very heavy use across the
board.
Mr. Regula. Something that people don't recognize is that the
National Forests are really
Mr. Clinger. Major recreation areas.
Mr. Regula. They really are.
Mr. Clinger. And this is the only National Forest in Pennsylva-
nia.
Mr. Regula. Is there any harvesting that takes place there?
Mr. Clinger. Yes, yes, we do — we have the finest stand of black
cherry in the world.
Mr. Regula. Are they doing a good job of regeneration?
Mr. Clinger. Regenerating it. It makes money for the Grovem-
ment. We really do quite well.
The two other requests would be $112,000 for a Hearts Content
Campground and $150,000 for a Rimrock Recreation Area, but in
that priority consideration.
The only final thing I would mention is the Office of Surface
Mining's Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative. I understand that
the Little Toby Creek is one of 12 clean stream projects that have
been developed in eight States to deal with issues of stream pollu-
tion from acid drainage. I would submit a request that that might
be considered.
Mr. Regula. Are the States doing some effort there, too?
Mr. Clinger. They are, indeed, yes. So this is a joint effort.
Mr. Regula. We're sure paying the price for our carelessness in
years past, aren't we?
Mr. Clinger. Unbelievable. I mean we're really paying and pay-
ing for the past.
Mr. Regula. We heard testimony on the Everglades, $1.5 billion.
Mr. Clinger. I know.
Mr. Regula. If we had just
Mr. Clinger. Realized what we were — the hole we were digging
ourselves into.
Mr. Regula. I know.
Mr. Clinger. Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Clinger follows:]
107
CHAIMMAN
GOVERNMENT REFORK^
(2021225-5121 ^ ^BIIK.' Qt AND OVERSIGHT
2™'1_ Congregg of tf)f Bniteli ^tateg
".rr^/i;,^" ' l^ousc of iRtprcscntatitots so,.'«^^;.^;s;
aaaashtngton, SC 20515-3805
Statement of
The Honorable William F. dinger, Jr.
before
The Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior
April 17, 1996
Chairman Regula, Ranking Minority Member Yates, and members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for providing me with the opportunity to testify today.
I will briefly discuss one piece of legislation and four priority projects (three of which are
under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service and one under the Office of Surface Mining
for a total of $762,000) that I believe are worthy of your support
The three projects are located on the Allegheny National Forest, the only National Forest in
Pennsylvania The Forest's 5 13,000 acres lie entirely within my district, in the counties of Elk,
McKean, Forest, and Warren. With nearly one-third of the nation's population within a day's drive, the
Allegheny is one of the most heavily used National Forests in the United States
The legislation involves the dollar limitations on minor facility construction authority.
Let us first address the request for a change in legislation I consider this to be a top priority
for our consideration and support.
The level of funding provided in the Fire, Administrative and Other (FA&O) construction
appropriation for the past 10 years has not allowed the National Forests to address current or future
facility needs For Fiscal Year 1997, the President has proposed funding of only $6 million for this
program.
Nationally, FA&O construction flinding has averaged about SI 2 million annually for the past
five years. At this rate, it would take an additional S29 million each year for the next ten years to just
eliminate the backlog of projects that lack adequate flinding
In this time of budget austerity, I understand the need to appropriate dollars with discretion
But the funding of FA&O construction at arguably inadequate levels is actually preventing actions that
would save money in the long run.
The problem lies in the flinding authority level for minor facility construction on our National
108
Forests At present, there is a $100,000 authority limitation per minor &cility project funded by non-
FA&O funds This, coupled with the limited amount of money appropriated under the FA&O
program, has created a backlog of fecility construction needs that exceeds $400 million nationally,
excluding recreation facilities.
When FA&O dollars are so limited, managers of the National Forests must resort to other
appropriated dollars to address their most pressing facility needs In many cases on the National
Forests today, managers have made organizational decisions to close offices and co-locate field units
at one administrative location
But as is the case with the Allegheny National Forest, the decision to combine two field units
cannot be implemented because they do not have adequate facilities and because FA&O dollars are so
difficult to obtain.
On the Allegheny, combining two field units into one will save about two million dollars in
administrative costs over 20 years and improve management efficiencies. If the minor facility
construction authority using non-FA&O funds was increased to $250,000, the Allegheny could move
ahead with its cost-savings, co-location decision In short, common-sense approaches to make
operations more efficient and cost-effective are unable to be implemented as a direct result of the
stifling authority limit.
I believe that many other National Forests across the country face the same situation. That is
why I urge the Committee to adopt the following report language:
The Committee recognizes that construction costs have escalated considerably during the late
1980s and mid-1990s, reducing the buying power of the minor facility construction authority limitation
of $100,000 per project. Therefore, the Committee has decided to increase the authority limitation to
$250, 000 per project. The Committee expects the Forest Service to use this increased authority and
flexibility as additional tools to begin addressing the facility construction backlog.
Administrative Provisions. Forest Service:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any appropriations or funds available to the
Forest Service may be used to construct or reconstruct Fire, Administrative or Other facilities and
research facilities: PROVIDED, that $250,000 is the maximum amount per project, exclusive of
planning and design: and PROVIDED FURTHEIR, that the Forest Service shall report annually to the
Committee the dollars expended per project, and the total dollars expended during each fiscal year.
Moving on to the three priority projects, I respectfully request the Subcommittee's support for
three recreation facility improvement projects on the Allegheny National Forest for Fiscal Year 1997.
The requests are listed in order of priority:
WILLOW BAY RECREATION AREA - Phase IV
First, my highest priority of three projects is a request of $1 50,000 for Phase FV of the Willow
Bay Recreation Area Rehabilitation Projea which is is located on the northern end of the 12,000-acre
Allegheny Reservoir, just below the New York state line.
109
This project request is a continuation in the rehabilitation of this extetjsive recreation area.
Safety is a major factor, but the project will also improve customer service, reduce future annual
maintenance needs, reduce backlog maintenance, increase the revenue potential, and increase viability
for concession or possible privatization Work in Phase IV includes campground road improvement,
campsite rehabilitation, some campsite construction, and construction of additional parking facilities
HEARTS CONTE^r^ CAMPGRC UND
Second, I am requesting $1 12,000 for the Hearts Content Campground in order to provide a
universally accessible, rustic camping experience (currently not available on the Forest), eithance
health and safety, an improve customer service. This will open this very special type of camping
experience to many people with disabilities The project is expected to increase use, and will reduce
backlog maintenance and future annual maintenance costs
This campground receives about 7.000 visitors annually With the proposed improvements,
users will benefit for nwny years to come as restrooms will undergo modenuzation, a failing water
system will be replaced, and existing campsites will be rehabilitated to a more accessible standard.
RIMROCK RECREATION AREA
The Rimrock Recreation Area is the only scenic area overlooking the Kinzua Aim of the
Allegheny Reservoir, and represents my third project request for $150,000.
1
This project will also improve customer service and safety by reconstructing unsafe wooden
stairways and railings to the overlook and by reconstructing a landing, railing, and path below the
overlook. It is essential that we refurbish and seal stonework at the overlook as the stone is beginiung
to erode and fall apart, creating very hazardous conditions.
This facility receives about 5,000 visits annually, and the proposed efforts are expected to
increase use and create safer conditions for visitors. The backlog maintenance will be lessened, further
annual maintenance costs will be reduced, restroom facilities will be modernized, as well as accessible
paths to restrooms and nearby picnic sites The entrance road will be chip-sealed to create safer
driving conditions and preserve the pavement.
LITTLE TOBY CREEK - ACID MINE DRAINAGE CLEANUP
Finally, I have one request under the category of abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation
programs - $350,000 to clean up acid mine drainage in the Little Toby Creek through the Office
of Surface Mining's Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI).
Little Toby Creek is one of twelve ACSI pilot projects that have been developed in eight
states in coordination with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and
grassroots coalitions. One such coalition from my district, the Toby Creek Watershed Association,
Inc., has been a continual driving force in the pursuit of cleaning up Little Toby Creek for nearly
30 years. Their efforts have helped identify Little Toby Creek as Pennsylvania's priority
watershed.
no
Despite their successes, though, much work remains to be done to restore nearly 12 miles
of stream and improve habitat quality on an additional 12 miles of stream to a level that supports
the natural reproduction of wild trout and other recreational activities.
Little Toby Creek is a tributary of the Clarion and Allegheny Rivers, and restoration of this
fast-flowing stream would support area inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System - an
effort 1 strongly support - and provide numerous recreational benefits.
For decades, the issue of stream pollution from acid drainage has been recognized as a
serious problem in the eastern United States. Over the years, many local programs have met with
great success, but there had never been a coordinated effort on a national scale with a primary
focus on eliminating acid drainage until the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative was introduced in
1994.
The Office of Surface Mining's Fiscal Year 1997 budget request includes $4.3 million for
the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative to clean up streams harmed by acid mine drainage.
Again, I strongly support funding this worthwhile program at a level that will make available
$350,000 for Little Toby Creek.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, that concludes my testimony. I would
be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. Again, thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
Ill
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
fflSTORIC PRESERVATION
WITNESSES
HON. L.F. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA
LAVERNE REDD PERVALL, MARTHA E. FORRESTER COUNCIL OF
WOMEN
GRACE MOTON, MARTHA E. FORRESTER COUNCIL OF WOMEN
CLARA LIGON, MARTHA E. FORRESTER COUNCIL OF WOMEN
GRACE WARD, MARTHA E. FORRESTER COUNCIL OF WOMEN
Mr. Regula. Let's see, Mr. Payne? Good afternoon.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thanks for coming down.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, Fd like for some of my
constituents to join me at the table, if I might.
Mr. Regula. That's perfectly all right.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. We're happy to have you here.
Just briefly, this committee is responsible for all the Federal
lands, the forests, parks, grazing lands, and so on. We also fund
the Smithsonian, the Kennedy Center, the National Galleries. So
we have a wide range of responsibilities, and we're pleased to have
your Congressman here to point out some of the needs in your
area.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. We'll put your statement in the record.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you in this subcommit-
tee.
I'm here not to ask for money, but to ask to include language in
the report accompanying the Interior Appropriations bill for Fiscal
Year 1997 directing that the National Park Service prepare a study
regarding the condition, preservation, use, and historic interpreta-
tion of the Robert Russa Moton High School in Prince Edward
County.
And I have with me today from Prince Edward County members
of the Martha E. Forrester Council of Women. Ms. Laverne Redd
Pervall is with us today. She served in the Prince Edward County
public school, as a teacher, administrator, and board member from
1937 to 1990. Ms. Grace Moton is here with us today; Ms. Clara
Ligon, who is a graduate, a 1947 graduate, of Moton High School,
and Mrs. Grace Ward who's a 1948 graduate of the Moton School.
And they've done a lot of work on this project.
Mr. Regula. Is this an empty building that you want preserved?
Mr. Payne of Virginia. This is an empty building at the present
time. It was a school. It's now in the process of being preserved,
and that's why we're here today, to see how it is that we might
have the National Park Service help us do something similar to
some other schools, which I'll talk about in just a second.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. This Council of Women was featured in
the January/February issue of Historic Preservation, which is a
112
magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I've
added, provided a copy for that to be included in the record.
And this council has a 76-year history of working in our commu-
nity, recognized the need for this school, which was a high school
for the county's African-American students. They lobbied and they
got the school built. It opened in 1939. It was the county's first
high school building for African-American students. And now in
1996, the council finds itself leading this effort to preserve the
Moton School.
The Moton School holds a unique place in the history of Ameri-
ca's struggle for the civil rights in education. The school was the
site of the first, one of the first, demonstrations of civil disobe-
dience on April 23, 1951, when students struck in protest of the in-
adequate and unequal facilities that existed for blacks at that time
in Virginia. This led to the court case Davis v. Prince Edward
County, and this case, combined with others before the Supreme
Court, became then the Brown v. Board of Education. The case
Brown v. Board of Education was the basis for the landmark deci-
sion which struck down the separate-but-equal doctrine governing
public policy with regard to race.
Now in response to Brown, Moton found itself a victim of Vir-
ginia's policy of massive resistance. The strike and the resulting
Court decision precipitated the long struggle between Federal
courts and governments of both Prince Edward County and the
State of Virginia over desegregation of the public schools. As an af-
front to the Supreme Court decision. Prince Edward County public
schools closed in 1959 rather than integrate and didn't open again
until 1964.
Precedent exists for the National Park Service involvement in
this project. Of the five school systems that were combined in the
Brown case, at least two have been protected through previous con-
gressional action. Public Law 102-525 provided for the establish-
ment of Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site which
is at the Monroe Elementary School in Topeka, Kansas. More re-
cently, language has included-
Mr. Regula. Let me ask you
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Yes?
Mr. Regula [continuing]. If this building were restored, what do
you anticipate doing with it? Would you use it as a visitor facility,
a place people could visit that would have artifacts relating to the
history of the building?
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Well, as it related to the history of the
civil rights movement
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Payne of Virginia [continuing]. And the fact that this was
one of the Brown v. Board of Education
Mr. Regula. Who would operate it, if it were restored?
Mr. Payne of Virginia. It would be operated by the women's or-
ganization that is represented here.
Mr. Regula. Would you anticipate any Federal cost in operating
it, once it was restored?
Mr. Payne of Virginia. At this time there's no intended cost of
Federal funds for operation nor for restoration.
113
Mr. Regula. What are we talking about there? Would there be
some State money and local money as an addition to Federal
money to do the restoration?
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Well, at the present time what we are at-
tempting to do is to have a — we managed to save the building
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Payne of Virginia [continuing]. And we now have the build-
ing.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. What we're attempting to do now is have
this study done so that we can talk about how it is that we can
best preserve and maintain this
Mr. Regula. So you need funding for a study on what's involved
in preserving the building; is that correct?
Mr. Payne of Virginia. That's correct. And we need report lan-
guage in your bill in order for the National Park Service to do a
study, not unlike studies they've done at at least two of the five
other schools.
Mr. Regula. So you just want the language authorizing the Park
Service to do the study?
Mr. Payne of Virginia. That's correct.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. And then, with that, that would be a tre-
mendous plus in terms of then being able to raise private funds,
and so forth, in order to get this accomplished in Farmville, Vir-
ginia.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Well, thank you all for coming up here. Do
any of you want to make a comment? I'll give you a minute or two.
Ms. LiGON. We just hope that we may save the building. It's of
utmost importance to us who grew up in Prince Edward County.
We know that the school was closed for five years and the children
were without any educational opportunities during that time. It
would be a monument to what we have gone through and what we
would like to have for the future. It will be operated as a civil
rights museum and also as an educational museum, and, hopefully,
it would be a legacy that we pass on to our children.
Mr. Regula. Hopefully, it would be an inspiration to future gen-
erations.
How many rooms in this building?
Ms. LiGON. There were only eight rooms in the building, but I
came from a two-room school, and when I walked into that build-
ing, I thought I had walked into heaven. [Laughter.]
We didn't have outdoor toilets there, and neither did we have
coal. So it was like heaven.
Mr. Regula. I can understand, having grown up in a rural area.
Ms. Pervall. There was an auditorium type of thing there, and
we are thinking in terms of this being an answer to the Prince Ed-
ward community, as there are so many possibilities for this build-
ing that it could well be an effort in the community in helping to
really — helping to cement some of the ties accompanying some of
the problems that we met.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Well, we'll talk to the Park Service and see
if they can spare some people to help you.
Ms. LiGON. We appreciate that very much.
114
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Because once you've got a plan, then you can gen-
erate local community support, too.
Ms. LiGON. Right.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thanks, and thanks for coming.
Mr. Payne of Virginia. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Payne of Virginia follows:]
115
Testimony of Rep. L.F. Payne
In Support of the Robert Russa Moton High School
House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before your Subcommittee today in support of including language
in the Report accompanying the FY' 97 Interior Appropriations bill
which would direct the National Park Service to prepare a study
regarding the condition, preservation, use, and historic
interpretation of the Robert Russa Moton High School in Prince
Edward County, Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I have with me today, from Farmville,
Virginia, members of The Martha E. Forrester Council of Women. I
would like to introduce them at this time. Mrs. LaVerne Redd
Pervall served the Prince Edward County Public Schools as a
teacher, administrator, and school board member from 1937 to
1990. Ms. Clara Ligon is a 1947 graduate of Robert R. Moton High
School, Mrs. Grace Scott Ward is a 1948 graduate. They are here
today representing the organizations 3 0 members who are leading a
community effort to preserve the Moton School.
Mr. Chairman, The Martha E. Forrester Council of Women was
featured in the January/February issue of Historic Preservation,
the magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
The six page article chronicled the efforts of The Council to
assure the preservation of the former Robert Russa Moton High
School. I include a copy of that article for the Subcommittee's
official record. The building, which is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, was in use until last June as an
elementary school by the Prince Edward County Public Schools.
The building is now vacant and ownership has reverted to the
county. The county, not having identified an alternate use for
the building, elected to dispose of it as surplus property. I am
happy to inform you that the county government and The Council
have now reached agreement on transfer of the property to The
Council for preservation purposes. It is The Council's hope that
the building will be converted to a museum center for the study
of civil rights in education.
Mr. Chairman, The Martha E. Forester Council of Women has a
76 year history of service to the Farmville community. From the
beginning they have been involved in improving educational
opportunities for area students. In the 193 0s, recognizing the
need for a High School for the county's African-American
students. The Council lobbied local officials to build the
school. Prior to Moton' s construction, the African-American high
school and elementary school had been housed in the same
building. Moton opened in 1939 as the county's first high school
building for African-American students. The Council had been
successful in their effort. Now, in the 1990s, The Council finds
itself leading the effort to preserve Moton.
116
Mr. Chairman, the Moton School holds a unique place in the
history of America's struggle for civil rights in education. The
school was the site of one of the first demonstrations of civil
disobedience when, on April 23, 1951, students struck in protest
of the inadequate and unequal educational facilities that existed
for blacks at the time. This strike led to the court case Davis
V. Prince Edward County School Board. The case was combined with
others before the United States Supreme Court as Brown v. Board
of Education. That case, as you know, was the basis for the
landmark decision on May 17, 1954, which struck down the
"separate but equal" doctrine governing public policy with regard
to race. In response to Brown. Moton later found itself victim
to the Virginia policy of Massive Resistance. The strike and
resulting court decision precipitated the long struggle between
the federal courts and the governments of both Prince Edward
County and the State of Virginia over desegregation of the public
schools. As an affront to the Supreme Court decision. Prince
Edward County public schools closed in the fall of 1959 rather
than integrate. The schools did not reopen until the fall of
1964.
Mr. Chairman, precedent exists for the National Park
Service's involvement in this project. Of the five school
systems that were combined in the Brown case, at least two have
been protected through previous Congressional action. Public Law
102-525 provided for the establishment of the Brown v. Board of
Education National Historic Site at the Monroe Elementary School
in Topeka, Kansas. More recently, language was included in
Senate Report 103-294 accompanying the FY' 95 Interior
Appropriations bill providing for a study of the Summerton High
School in South Carolina. I request, on behalf of my
constituents, language similar to that contained in Senate Report
103-294.
Mr. Chairman, we would all agree that the sites of each of
the five systems included in the Brown decision are historically
significant on a national scale. It is wonderful that the
National Park Service will be charged with interpreting and
preserving that legacy at the Monroe School in Topeka, Kansas.
However we are aware that current fiscal reality does not allow
inclusion of each of these sites on the roles of the National
Park Service. Interpretation and preservation efforts at other
sites must fall to the private sector. However, here exists an
excellent opportunity for the government to carry out its role as
enabler--providing guidance to assist the private sector in
carrying out projects for the public good. The National Park
Service employs many of the nation's most respected
preservationists and historians. Their opinions on these matters
are highly respected by academians, preservation professionals,
and philanthropic organizations. Their recommendations will
significantly affect the ability of The Council to solicit
117
private support. Completion of this study by the National Park
Service will provide the necessary guidance for The Council to
successfully implement their vision for the Moton School.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the historic role played by the
Moton School and its students in the long struggle for
desegregation of Virginia's and the nation's schools fully
justifies current efforts to preserve the landmark, and is
deserving of Congressional support. I strongly support language
in the your Subcommittee's report directing the National Park
Service to prepare a study regarding the condition, preservation,
use, and historic interpretation of the Robert Russa Moton High
School in Prince Edward County, Virginia.
Thank you.
118
fj J 3 r 0 Ji J c
119
F EAT U RES
Uncommon A'larket - - -
SaiKifnmi granjiose rtneual idxrim. Pikt Plan iMarka mJimdu btnimSeattU's
leading taurtit attraction. Now tourum tbrtatem to ende its authtntu character.
BY JOHN Pastier
50
Taking Stock — 56
The National Trust is asiesiing its copious, fascinating — and dxidedly ttsejiil —
collation of historical dociititetits.
BY ARNOLD BERKE
Farmville: A Burden of History 62
Will J small coinmiinily in rural Virginia prtserie its syinbot — an otherwise ordinary
brick sclioollsoiise — (if America's struggle for ciiil rights?
BY ALLEN FREEMAN
ON THE OOVOl
Tht Po'tixi Houst
hut u w llx Cr.3itd
P,i-j,Hih,t996
Grtal AiNericj
HamAi,
,rJi
ACC5<
Glorious Revivals
68
Tlx uiHiKn of the i<utioiul Trust't 1 996 dxjt .\"terican Houte AuarJi Ixtix
turncti Ltit^imhin^ hmm tutn c<etiipUn nftlx mtoraHoa arts.
Bv Rachels. Cox
--:??:
120
Farm
B U R D £
Will a small
communitY in
rural Virginia
preserve its
symbol -a
humble brick
schoolhouse-
of America's
struggle for
civil rights?
Y ALLEN FREEMAN
121
ville
of HISTORY
ILt THE ifH
QRCUiT COUPJ
CONTINU[S TO
EDUC^flON'rOK
, NE&KO
CHILDREN
SUFFOMLS
Unrest over schools in
Fannvillc spanned thirteen
years. CounterclocJcwisc firom
lower leA: Students pose drca
1951; the Reverend Goodwin
Douglas demonstrates in J»''v
1963; children head Tor
temporarY classroom
buijdinss in 1953: ceremonies
open Prince Edward Free
Schools in September 1963.
122
Classrooms, above. !n tempormrY
tmildings were hestcd by coal
stoves. Students assembled in
frost of the temporary buildings,
below, for 1 1953 UFE Magazine
photograph. Moton School
today, top right, is Ulde changed
from its appearance in 1951.
..2sa&
WE VALUE NEW ENGLAND'S FRAME
houses and Ellis Island's immigration
buildings for the themes they evoke.
We preserve Fallingwater, San Xavier
del Bac, and the Golden Gate Bridge in
large measure because of their beauty.
We venerace Mount Vernon and the house
in which Martin Luther King, Jr., was born
for their associations with important people.
And we honor some places — Independence Hall,
Gettysburg. Wounded Knct, Dcalcy Plaza — because ihcy
connote momentous events. Such is the cose, say most black
citizens and many whites in Pnnce Edward County, Virginia,
of a modest 1 939 eight-toom brick schoolhouse m the coun-
ty seat of FarmviUe. To them Robert Russa Moton High
School is as important to the nation as Appomattox Coun-
house, which happetis to lie just thirty miles west. Fighting
to preserve the school, they believe that, no less than the place
of Lee's surrender. Moton witnessed a profoundly resonant
event in American history.
"The events of that day in 1951 made a difference. They
should not be taken lightly." says Clara Ligon, who gradu-
ated fiom Moton in 19-iT And Grace S. Ward, a 19-tS grad-
uate, says, "It may be |ust an old building to some people.
But it really is much more than that. "
On Apnl 23. 1951. Motons -450 black students walked
out to protest the fact that their schtxjl was substantially in-
ferior to the one provided for white students under the coun-
ty's segregated system Their protest, which only sought par-
ity with white students — not desegregation — moved out ol
the school two weeks later when the school year closed. A
month to the day after the start of the walkout the Nation-
al AsstKiation for the .Advancement of Colored People on
behalf of the Moton students, brought suit in Djris v. The
Canity Bcarti of Pnrce Eiiuard Coiimy. Virginia. Named for
Dorothy E. Davis, a fourteen-year-old Moton ninth grader
who happened lo be the first on a list of 1 17 student plain-
tiffs, the lawsuit petitioned not for facilities eqiul to those
provided for white students but for racial integration of
Prince Edwards public schools. Tlie NAACP lost D.un in the
Federal District Court in Richmond and then combined that
suit with similar suits originating in South Carolina.
Delaware. Washington, DC .ind Kansas and appealed
them as one. Btf»tii v. Tlx BtkiniofEJiicution ofTnpck,!. K^imji.
to the Supreme Court on the basis of the cciuai protection
123
No Americans experienced the white baddash against the Brown decision
more acutely than families in Prince Edward County.
cLuiv.M)* the Fijuratntli AmcnJmcnc Tlirtv yean .i(tcr chc
.\(»>t<Hi walkiHic ciic liii;licimrt iidc-d with Dnn{it,i)ucUwm\;
clu- (.Idctnnc t»t'M.ptiniCf Ixic cquoJ sclwol fjtilitics jltou rhc
<.<Mintrv and vtrm^u otK.i |xirTi(.ut.irly kir^li ptruxl of vxalttrd
m.L\sivc rcsiicjnce in Vtrjjinia policies jnJ «k:ijI hisiory.
No Americans expcricnttd the whitt- backlash Ji;.tmsc tiK*
Ci'MtndccMon more atutcly than fiimihcs m Prince EJword
County. Rather than comply with the federal court ordcr.the
counc\' supervisors closed all PnrKe Edw"afd public schools in
1959 and kept chem closed until 1964 During those five
yean, a period ot" public schools closings iinequalcd anywhere
in the nation, white parents enrolled cheir children in a pri-
vate schixil in Farmvillc thar sprang
to lite almost immediately after the
public schools closed. All black stu-
dents and some poor white students
had to make do. The most fortunate
Icix their tamilies to attend schools in
other counties or out of the state;
many others dropped out, and most
of those nc\cr went back, even after
the schools reopened.
And so the school chat black stu-
dents demonstrated against forT>--fnc
years ago is today \-alued by many in
(he community as the symbol of the
chain of e\ent5 that its shortcomings
precipicaced. The building is very lit-
tle changed from the time of the
walkout. Although us original in-
candescent ceiling lights have been
replaced with Huorescenc tubes, its
ceilings have not been lowered, its
windows have not been replaced, and most of its original
matenals and finishes are untouched
The schools V-shaped site on the south side of Farmvillc
along US. 15 presumably would attract developers. Already
at this intersection, where NUin Street becomes a highway
leading south to 1 four-lane bypass, a strip shopping center
and a Dairv' Queen Hank one side of the school and a Burger
King and in iuto trim shop nse on the other side. Moton
most recently ser\ed as the county s Man. E. Branch Ele-
mentar\ School until it was replaced by a new building on
another site last fall. The Prince Edward County Board of
Supcr^■lSot^ has placed a price of iS'KJ.OOO on the old school
structure to partially cover the construction costs of the new
oneandhasagreed that a service club, the Martha E Forrester
Council ot Women, may purchase the building Two-chirds
nt the purchase price is due in two year^. and the remaining
S UXJ.IXM) IS to be hnanced over a tw-o-yeor period at six per-
cent interest (The county is negotiating separately with
LongwiKxJ College for the purchase of Moton s athletic field
behind the sthoolhouse J The Forrester Councils two dozen
determined members, most of whom .ittended Moton or
Concla RawUns wu 1 history icachcr at
RJt. Moioa ta the 19S0*. After Prtacs Edward
CountY do«cd lu pvbOc tehools bi 1959 chc
fovad wort tiXTf miles from home
taught Its students during the twenty yean it was a segre-
gated high stboid. .ire raiiing additiorul fiiod^ to endow a
community history center and museum witlun the ichoi>l
Their organi^tion. which has just bt.'gun raising fiir^Js, wa^
rumcd tot a Farmville woman who (bunded tlwctub in 1920
to tmpro\c education for the communit\ s blatk children.
Fifty -seven years ago the ctxinty board of supervisors bujlt
Moton in response to petitions by the Manha Forrester
Council md by other black leaders in the rural county Last
year the same county body opposed the rmmirution of the
schoolhouse to the Natiorul Register of Historic Places, fear-
ing that should the Forrester Council fail to collect the pur-
chase price such a listing would dis-
courage other potential buyers or
prompt them to make low purchase
offers — this despite the fact that a
National Register listing of a private
building has no legal bearing on an
owner's rights. The Virginia State
Review Board, at the request of the
Pnnce Edward School Beard, first ap-
proved study of the sch(x>l building
for National Register nomination in
1990 and worked with the county
through completion of the nomiru-
iion in 199^ Despite the county su-
pervisors' request to defer coruidera-
aon. the State Review Board voted
to send the nomirution to the Na-
tional Register The Register listed
Moton School on October 24. 1995.
as a building of rutional importance.
Farmvilles ordinariness makes chc
town. With a population of lust 7.000, seem an unlikely place
for a presovantxi battle bom out of a deftrung monwnt of civ-
il disobedience. Although established in 1 798. Farmville re-
mained unincorporated until 1912. A community history
published in 1948 by The FarmmlU Hcw/t/ depicted a quiet
forming and timber center and college town, the home of
Hampden-Sydney College, founded in 17~6. and of Long-
wotxd. Virginias first sate teacher college, chartered in 1839-
The 1948 Farmville history also portrayed a town dominat-
ed by white people in which race relations were defined as
'excellent" following "the unpleasant >ears of Reconstruc-
tion. * OfK holdover of Recorutruccion — an attitude com-
mon in the South — was an unwillingness to prtjvidc more
than a primary educarion for black citizens. That had erxJcd
in Farmville in 1 959 with the opening of Robert RussaNtt>-
ton High School.
The new school for blacks was named for a native son. the
man who succeeded Booker T Washington as president ok
Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Similar to other rural-area
public schools built m Virginia imt prior to World War 11.
Moton IS a one-stotT,'. hipped rtwt building ot eight closs-
65
124
Virgina's Southside region in which Farmville lies became the state's center
of resistance to federal integration court orders.
riK.ms. .1 Mn.tll lihr.irv. -iris .in.i Nm s re^t^x^ms, .md .. prm-
cip-il's i>()ke. tlu-M- nmnis .irc C(mfii;urc(l .is .i i; that lolJs
..rniinJ thru- mJ(.-s ..f .in .Uklitiinum. There is no lunch rtwrn
.in«.i n<t i:\mn.ismm. Desiirnt^ toatcommiKlatc ISO students
.itnfKftt. thfschixjlenrolltrti I6~ dunni; rrs first year, in 1947
the enrollment had climbed to i""'. By then three classes
I'requcntly were held .it one time in the small auditorium,
and another in a school bus.
County nthcials responded toovercrowdmy in the 19-48-
■49 school yr.ir by constructing temporary freestanding class-
room buildiOLisadiacent to the school. The three lont;. low.
wood-frame stmctures were covered with tar paper and were
uninsulated. Each cl^
temporary buildinijs was heatt
coal stove tended b\ studen
teachers. By 1951 "the stov
developed holes from overlie
and dunni; classes hot coals
lump out and whoe\er was i
m the
■dbya
:s and
-shad
uld
had to grab it and throw it back m. '
recalls Edwilda Allen I&a.ic. who was
a .Moton eighth grader that year
and today teaches chorus and band
in Prince Edward schools, "We
thought It was fun, but of course it
was dangerous and distracting."
Tlie tar-paper shacks, as [he black
community called them, were con-
st.ont reminders that thequality of the
county's public school faciUcies was
determined by race The matter
moved into the forefront of the white
community's consciousness when a
handful of student leaders precipitated the walkout on that
April morning First the>- drew tlie principal away from school
on tlie ^llse prete.\t that two Moton students at the Greyhound
bus station would soon be m trouble with the police if he did
not rush over to mediate. Then the walkout leaders called an
assembly in the auditorium where they asked the faculty
members to leave and explained their plan to their fellow stu-
dents. One of the leaders. Barbara Johns, told Bob Smith m
Tlky C/osa/ Tfjeir SJjf'^'/s (University- of North Orolina Press,
1965) that on that morning she stated with "heated empha-
sis the tacts they knew to be chetmth" including having to en-
dure leaking roofs and make-do lunchroom facilities and in-
tirrior t'otxi and the need to wear coacs all day in winter and to
t.ike gymnasium cl.isses in the auditoraim. "It never entered
mv mind that this would turn out to be a school desegrega-
tion Milt. We didn't know o[ such things. We were thinking
lut the schi><)l would be improved or at best that we would
,Lt .1 new wliool." (Johns, who died several years ago, w.is a
iiai-enfdK- Reverend Vernon Johns, who because of A/Jout-
Npikenness lost the |'K>sition of p,istor of tiff Dexter Avenue
H.iptist Church in Montgomery. Alabama, to a younger
The Reverend WUIlc Boldcn was alicndlng
Moion ScJiooI when the county shot It down.
The American Friends Service Commlllec
helped him to find schools In Dsytoo. Ohio.
minister with a different style, Martin Luther King. Jr)
During the two-week walkout tlie county's black com-
munity united behind the students. Tlie Revetend Leslie
Francis Gritfin, the thirty-four-year-ojd .ictivtst pastor of
First Baptist Church. Farmvilles leading church for blacks,
arranged for the students to meet with NA-ACP attorneys.
The NAACP insisted that any suit that the civil rights orga-
nization might enter from Prince Edward County would
have to seek scht>ol desegregation, and the students quick-
ly agreed.
In the fall of 1955 Prince Edward County opened a new,
well-equipped high school for blacks; it was everything that
the students had originally hoped
for. The following spring the Brouv
decision was handed down, and Sen-
ator Harry Flood Byrd, the leader of
Virginia's Democratic Party, set a
stage for defiance in the Old Do-
minion when he said that the deci-
sion would bring "implications and
dangers of the greatest consequence."
Virginias Southside region m which
Farmville lies became the state's cen-
ter of resistance to the ensumg feder-
al court orders, and Farmville itself
was the home ot most of the leaders
of a little segregationist group that
called Itself the Defenders of State
Sovereignty and Individual Liber-
ties— the Defenders for short. They
sought to tap Virginias wealth of po
lite segregationist sentiment among
whites while distancing themselves
from such groups as the White Citizens Councils that were
advocating race hatred and violence. States' rights was the
concept and rationale for keeping the schcwls segregated.
The Defenders' president was Robert Ctawford. a Farmville
laundry owner and former Prince Edward scht>oI board
chairman, who like many others believed Communists were
infiltrating the federal government in an attempt to divide
Americans, Barrye Wall, the editor and publisher of The
FanmilU Herald, was another Defenders leader; his Herald
editofials alleged a long-standing NAACP conspiracy against
Prince Edward County
"Although the student walkout had occurred^rly [in
the chain of events leading up to the massive resistance
movement], Farmville became )ust one of many communi-
ties that were complaining about Broun :xu6 tr\ing to iden-
tify ways of evading the decision." observes Ronald Heinc-
mann, a professor of history at Hampden-Sydney. "The state
had closed schools m a few [urisdictions by the fall of 195S.
Tlien m January of 1959 both the Virginia Supreme Court
and a federal district court threw- out the m.xssive resistance
l.iws. and those schools were reopened. And so Farmville
125
**The Moton-Branch school is a rare piece of American history. Its preservation
should be pursued.... We can't rewrite history. But we can make it."
Jul not athifvc us jjr»»niinciH.f unctl .itar the m.Ls«vc rwii-
c.intci.jmp;ii^n ti>lt.»(»setl in Viri;iniii."
Tlic Pnotc CJw.)ril Cmiiuy Lxurd ot 'supcrvisiirs cUwixl
die schooU by a-lusmi; m .lssl-ss taxes co operate chcm in chc
tjll ot 19^9 While the county s white leaders moved npid-
ly to see that most white children would continue their ed-
ucations unabated in the new pnvntc school. t.7(X) black
children and their parents and teachers were left to fend for
themselves. One displaced student, Willie Boldcn. a ninth
grader when the schools closed, was sent to live with rela-
nves m Philadelphia and then Baltimore, and then to Day-
ton. Ohio, where with the aid o( the American Friends Ser-
vice Committee he graduated from
high sch<x>l and attended college.
Now returned to Farmville to serve
as minister of New W.tt Baptist
Church, he resolutely supported the
nomination of Ntoton School to the
National Register and continues to
support the efforts ot the Martha
Forrester Council to save the school.
Another advocate. Connie Rawhrs,
was similarly uprooted. She had
taught high school history m Farm-
viHc since 19-46 and had been one of
the teachers asked to leave Moton au-
ditorium on the day of the walkout
in 1951. In 1959 her ,ob was elimi-
nated just as her son was to begin the
eighth grade. She found a high
school teaching |ob in Charltxtesville,
Sixty miles from Farmville. and with
her son commuted there weekly
while her husband, a physician, con
Farmville. Now retired, Rawlins is a
president of the Martha Forrester Council who is deter-
mined that Moton Schtwl not be torn down.
In a 1965 press conference. President Kennedy said.
"There are only (our places m the world where children are
denied the right to attend school: North Vietrum. Om-
bodia. North Korea, and Prince Edward County. Some-
thing has got to be done about Prince Edward County. "
Kennedy ordered the Justice Department to look into the
Situation, and from that was bom the Prince Edward Free
School Association, financed by foundations and private
contributions. The so-called Free Schools operated tor one
year. In May 1964. ten years after the Bfvun decision was
handed down, the Supreme Court ruled chat the county
must reopen its schools.
Tliree decades later Prince Edward County is at once very
different and the same. Like the rest of the countn.-. Farm-
ville IS stratified by race, income, and education Tlie pub-
lic schools are perhaps the point ot greatebt contact among
the rat.es. While the private school that sprang up in 1959
:ill .i|x-n and i
Vera AUca (seated) la the pnMtat of the
FofTCitcr Coandl. wfakb U attcmptliig to uv«
Motofi SchooL Edwflda Isaac, her elder
daughter, (eachca In FarmvtDe s pabfic acfaoob.
[inued his pra
member and 3
ment mchKlL-s evm a few bLitk
students.thepiihlicschoolsenroll black. ind white stlldent^
in .1 ratio tlut jppnuchcN 50- 5t). One adcx|iutc library ser\t-s
b<ith r.ices instead of two meager <incN The tacutties of
H.impden -Sydney and Longwood colleges and the clergy
comprise a core ofloc.nl white support for saving the build-
ing For some am<jng tlut group. preserMtionot the school-
house lias as much to do with lialting the haphazard growth
of Farmville as it does with preserving history.
In the pages of the once segregationist Farir.ulU HerjlJ.
which IS still owned by the Wall family. Editor Ken Wood-
ley has written with some eloquence on the point of saving
this reminder of Farmvilles past.
"Lets put this in perspective...
Dozens of the Civil War battle sites
are state or national parks. There are
hundreds of acres set aside to com-
memorate the Civij War in the
Farmville area alone Dedicating less
than one acre to the other — but no
less significant — civil war' fought
for civil rights is certainly not ask-
ing t(X) much. The Moton-Branch
school IS a rare piece of American his-
tor>-. Its preservation should be pur-
sued.... We cant rewrite history.
But we can iriake it "
Those in Farmville who oppose
saving the building include many
who are well-to-do and politically
conservative Some have interests m
real estate development Othets want
to balance the county's ledgers and
would lusc as soon erase this particular part of its histor>--
And there are thoughchal citizens, like former county super-
visor William Hendle>-. who support the building s preser-
vation but question if it is truly a national monument.
"■Thifty-.h\e years removed is a total generation." says the
Reverend William Thompson, the pastor of the College
Prc-sbvtenan Church and the chaplain of Hampden-Sydnev.
"It IS difficult for some people, despite all thedifhcultiesand
ambiguities of integrated education these days, to imagine
when we had separate but allegedly equal systems ' Thomp-
son belle^'es, howe\er. that the community still bears scars.
"Soon after I came to Farmville se\en years ago I made some
cautious observation about the burden of history, and one of
my more conservative people said. Come on. that really wa^
true then, but we have gotten bc>ond that.' I dont know
that we have, but I think we like to think that \vc have." ▼
T.ix-xiuhiiibUiVMrwiitwmtouarihlypfmiKtujmi.hLiptMiati-'i
M"i<ia SJjou/ M .1 mnuuin unci stiuh ,oihr »u\ U huM t'l tl\
M.irtkiB. FofTa.\rCo/mi/'/\X:w,t,/. P.O. G-avW/ FjnuiilU.
126
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
GATEWAY NRA
WITNESS
HON. CHARLES SCHUMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Regula. Mr. Schumer?
Mr. BUNN [presiding]. Good morning and welcome.
Mr. Schumer. Thank you. I'm here to argue for the Gateway Na-
tional Recreation Area, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
I'd ask that my statement be made part of the record.
Mr. BUNN. Certainly.
Mr. Schumer. And just let me say — I'm going to summarize it
briefly — this is one of the most used parts of the National Park
Service. It's the only thing in New York City that is there. It's in
my district. Seventeen million visitors used it between 1993 and
1995. So it's jammed and it's falling apart.
It was the old Riis Park built by Robert Moses, taken over by the
Federal Government in the sixties, and there's been an ongoing
program of rehabilitation. Last year it was cut back rather dra-
matically, and I'm coming here asking that the program be contin-
ued.
What is needed to be done is exterior work on the beach pavilion.
It's in the middle of rehabilitation — that's sort of stopped — rehabili-
tation to the bathhouse and repair to the utility systems, you know,
just the water fountains and all of that.
It's amazing; I saw a couple of young kids who live in the center
of Brooklyn two or three miles from the beach. Had they ever seen
the ocean? They had never seen it in the innercity of Brooklyn, and
Gateway had programs to bring them there — private programs, by
the way, not government programs. So this is the only, for millions
of people, this is the only kind of look at the ocean, look at the
beach they get.
All we're asking for is bathrooms, changing house, things like
that that are now there, but are so deteriorated that it needs reha-
bilitation.
And we need some stuff for Floyd Bennett Field as well, but I'll
just submit my whole statement to the record and hope you can
give it some consideration. As I say, the bang for the buck, this
gets more use than just about any other part of the National Park
Service and needs help.
Mr. BUNN. All right, thank you very much. And we will include
the full statement for the record.
Mr. Schumer. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[The statement of Mr. Schumer follows:]
CHARLES E SCHUMER
WHIP AT LAJ1G6
127
dongrcBS of the Idnitcd ^DtCB
» iiousc ofUqjitscnutiots
^ masliinBton. ©£ 20515
"""^ April 17, 1996
REP. CHARLES SCHUMER TESTIMOTVY
INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS: National Park Service Construction
$9.3 MILLION
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to testify about
Gateway National Recreation Area in my district in New York City. Gateway encompasses
parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island in New York. Millions of people go to
Gateway every year to swim in the ocean, play on the ballfields, the basketball and tennis
courts, and stroll the boardwalk. Between 1993 and 1995, for example, nearly 17 million
visitors entered Gateway National Recreation Area.
I am here today to specifically address the fiinding requests related to the Brooklyn
and Queens sites. The Jacob Riis Park in Queens, developed in 1930 aiKl a National
Register site, is 220 acres in size, consisting of a mile of ocean beach, a boardwalk, play
courts, ballfields, and a 9,000 car parking lot. Visitor counts range between a million and a
million-and-a-half people each year. Because of the heavy use by New Yorkers from all
five boroughs and visitors from around the world, the facilities and utilities at Riis Park
have been sorely tested, and the park is requesting 54. 3 million in fiinding to continue with
its modest modernization and rehabilitation project that has been underway for several years.
The funding requested will support exterior work on the central beach pavilion,
recently stabilized and in the midst of rehabilitation, scheduled for completion. After
rehabilitation to the bathhouse is completed, repair lo the aging and strained utility systems
is critically needed this year. Finally, the central bathhouse is flanked by recreation courts
and play areas as well as food corKessions and restrooms. Planned work on the site this
year includes the repair of tennis, basketball and other game courts and lighting for the
ballfields and the boardwalk area. The community has been anxious to have Riis Park
rehabilitation completed so that they may fully enjoy the park, and repair and improvement
to the courts and field is the first immediate benefit to the millions of constituents who have
patiently endured re-development of much of the site. This modest and very necessary
request was included in the President's FY 1997 budget request.
I would also like to ask the Committee's consideration of the needs of Floyd Bennett
Field in the Jamaica Bay District of Gateway National Recreation Area. Historic Floyd
Bennett Field, an integral part of most Brooklyn youngsters' lives and visited by more than
1.5 million people annually, is in dangerous disrepair. The utility systems — including
water, electrical, sewer, and fu'e protection - need total rehabilitation or replacement in
order to provide uninterrupted service to New Yorkers, the resident Park Service and
coexisting tenant agencies. The Field's telephone system is archaic — existing lines are
frequently out of service, and there are no additional lines available.
Intermittent failures have forced the shutdown of sections of various electrical, water,
sewer and telephone systems. This is a critical situation. In FY 93, Gateway received
$70,000 to investigate the condition of the water supply and telephone systems on the field.
An additional $5 million in FY 97 will fund the first year construction and planning costs of
what is expected to be a three year reconstruction effort.
I appreciate the Committee's consideration of these priorities aixl welcome any
questions.
PWNTtD ON fitCVCUO PArtB
128
April 17. 1996
REP. CHARLES SCHUMER TESTIMONY
INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS: National Park Service Construction
$9.3 MILLION
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee
today to testify about Gateway National Recreation Area in my
district in New York City. Gateway encompasses parts of Brooklyn,
Queens, and Staten Island in New York. Millions of people go to
Gateway every year to swim in the ocean, play on the ballfields,
basketball and tennis courts, and stroll the boardwalk. Between 1993
and 1995, for example, nearly 17 million visitors entered Gateway
National Recreation Area.
I am here today to specifically address the funding requests
related to the Brooklyn and Queens sites. The Jacob Riis Park in
Queens, developed in 1930».jis a National Register site is 220 acres
in size, consisting of a mile of ocean beach, a boardwalk, play
courts, ballfields, and a 9,000 car parking lot. Visitor counts range
between a million and a million-and-a-half people each year.
Because of the heavy use by New Yorkers firom all five boroughs
and visitors from around the world, the facilities and utilities at Riis
Park have been sorely tested, and the park is requesting $4.3 million
in funding to continue with its modest modernization and
129
rehabilitation project that has been underway for several years.
The funding requested will support exterior work on the central
beach pavilion, recently stabilized and in the midst of rehabilitation,
seliedated-fef completion. After rehabilitation to the bathhouse is
completed, repair to the aging and strained utility systems is critically
needed this year. Finally, the central bathhouse is flanked by
recreation courts and play areas as well as food concessions and
restrooms. Planned work on the site this year includes the repair of
tennis, basketball and other game courts and lighting for the
ballfields and the boardwalk area. The community has been anxious
to have Riis Park rehabilitation completed so that they may fully
enjoy the park, and repair and improvement to the courts and field is
the first immediate benefit to the millions of constituents who have
patiently endured re-development of much of the site. This modest
and very necessary request was included in the President's FY 1997
budget request.
I would also like to ask the Committee's consideration of the
needs of Floyd Bennett Field in the Jamaica Bay District of Gateway
National Recreation Area. Historic Floyd Bennett Field, an integral
part of most Brooklyn youngsters' lives and visited by more than 1.5
million people annually, is in dangerous disrepair. The utility
130
systems ~ including water, electrical, sewer, and fire protection ~
need total rehabilitation or replacement in order to provide
uninterrupted service to New Yorkers, the resident Park Service and
coexisting tenant agencies. The Field's telephone system is archaic -
- existing lines are frequently out of service, and there are no
additional lines available.
Intermittent failures have forced the shutdown of sections of
various electrical, water, sewer and telephone systems. This is a
critical situation. In FY 93, Gateway received $70,000 to investigate
the condition of the water supply and telephone systems on the field.
An additional $5 million in FY 97 will fund the first year
construction and plaiming costs of what is expected to be a three year
reconstruction effort.
I appreciate the Committee's consideration of these priorities
and welcome any questions.
131
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
OSC/LAND CONSERVATION
WITNESS
HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. BuNN. Mr. Farr?
Mr. Farr. How are you doing?
Mr. BuNN. Good.
Mr. Farr. I brought a prop. It's a beautiful area.
Mr. SCHUMER. The Gateway doesn't look like that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. It will. It will.
Mr. Chairman, I really have two issues. The first issue deals
with renewed moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf explo-
ration. Congress, for the last, I think, 15 years, has been placing
this moratorium on the development of offshore oil and gas in the
most environmentally-sensitive and economically-important coastal
areas, and it's interesting that this always has bipartisan support.
I notice that both Frank Riggs, Porter Goss from Florida, and
Bryan Bilbray, also from California, are coming in to this commit-
tee to talk about it.
In essence, what a lot of people don't understand is that the
coastal economy is really dependent on good fishing and tourism,
and we're all for — California, frankly, feels it ought to do its fair
share with development of oil and gas and energy production.
We're the most diversified State in the United States in the produc-
tion of alternatives to oil and gas. We have solar, wind, geothermal,
hydro, nuclear. And so there's feeling that the coast is doing its —
the State is doing its fair share, and we don't need to continue —
we don't need to drill, particularly in areas where we've never
drilled before. And there's a slogan in California that says, "on-
shore before offshore."
And I'm here to ask the committee, as you did last year — it was
a little controversial in the committee last year, and hopefully with
bipartisan support it will be less controversial this year — to con-
tinue the old 15-year moratorium on the DCS oil exploration.
Just in closing on that one, it's also strongly supported by the
governor, Pete Wilson, of California; by Florida Governor Lawton
Chiles; by the coastal tourism industry; by the fishing industry,
and by our cities up and down the California coast, including the
California League of Cities, and, as I understand, local govern-
ments up and down the West and East Coast as well.
The second issue, if I may get into it, is an issue regarding
money to the Forest Service to be earmarked for the Los Padres
National Forest. The Los Padres National Forest is one of the old-
est forests in the West. It comes up to the coastline in California,
but not quite. And what this picture displays is essentially what's
happening to this remarkable coastline, which is a national treas-
ure. But a lot of the land between the top of the mountains and
the ocean is still in private ownership.
And so what we've tried to do, through land use planning, is pro-
tect viewsheds, prohibit develop on viewsheds. Houses like you see
here wouldn't be allowed to be developed now. But then you get
132
into a takings issue, and so what we have been trying to do is buy
property from willing sellers. There never have been controversial
sales in this at all. Congress has earmarked in the past money to
do that, and this subcommittee has been very supportive of that.
In fact, the subcommittee in the past several years allowed the For-
est Service to protect 1,700 acres in what they called the Sur
Ranch and the Baldwin Ranch. We need, again, reauthorization
and appropriations for — the authorization is there; we need the ap-
propriation for this from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
We're asking that the subcommittee appropriate $2 million this
year. I understand that the balance in that account is somewhere
around $12 billion. I know that the Budget Committee likes to take
the difference between what you appropriate and earmark it for
deficit reduction, but, frankly, as members of this committee, I
think that's money that's in the bank. That's not money you have
to deficit spend or money that you have to collect new fees to get.
The Big Sur Coast is of national significance, just like your Or-
egon coast is, and I'm asking that they appropriate $2 million in
Fiscal Year 1997 for acquisition to allow the Forest Service to com-
plete its acquisition of the Baldwin Ranch and a place called Cozy
Cove Properties. The amount will also allow the Forest Service to
initiate acquisition on several new priority projects.
I'm told that Big Sur ecosystems rank in a second priority with
the Forest Service, which is very good. The only way I think we're
going to be able to protect this national heritage is to allow those
willing sellers, who are farmers actually who kept the land in open
space, would love to see it that way, don't want to see it developed,
and they will go to the Forest Service in the first instance and say:
we'd like to make our first offer to you. The difficulty is we've never
had enough money in the bank to accept the offer and to negotiate
a deal, and I'd appreciate your support on that.
Mr. BUNN. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
133
COMMITTIE ON aORpCUITUM
OtSTRtCTOfFtaS
Congress! of rtje Winitttt States!
.S.lLZ.TSc^c.^c-o^ l^oufie of Repregfntatibefl i.«7«^»
'°""3o^"»"""' JSMaBljington, BC 20515-0517 ^Z'^^tZ,
F>»>4I«*. WiLM*! AXO OCIAMS
REP. Sam Farr w.*^ ««.
Statement before the I>aERioR Appropriations "<»i .zK^e
Subcommittee
17 April 1996
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity to testify
before you today. I want to address two issues that are of crucial importance to the people of
my Central Coast district: the OCS offshore oil moratorium and Big Sur land conservation.
Rpnew the IS- Year Old Moratorium on Outpr Continental Shelf Oil Exploration
Every year for the past fifteen years. Congress has placed a moratorium on the
development of oil off of our nations most environmentally sensitive and economically
important coast lines. This moratorium has become an article of faith for the people of my
district who see any prospect of oil development off their coast as a threat to the beauty of
their surroundings, their own quality of life and their economy. So it is on their behalf that I
ask this Subcommittee to renew this moratorium.
As you know, during the 1980s the oil industry tried to open federal waters along the
California coast to offshore oil development. Congress derailed those efforts by attaching a
ban on new offshore oil activity on every Interior Department spending bill for the past 15
years. This year should be no exception.
Continuing the OCS moratorium is strongly supported by:
— California Governor Pete Wilson
— Florida Governor Lawton Chiles
— The coastal tourism industry
The Ashing industry
The City and County of Monterey, the City and County of Santa Cruz, the
California League of Cities, and local govenunents up and down the west and
east coasts.
In addition to the constant risk of minor and major spills, offshore drilling brings
onshore development, air and water pollution, and the disruption of fishing grounds. It
jeopardizes coastal tourism which is a $27 billion dollar per year industry in California. In
my district alone, coastal tourism generates over $1.5 billion per year and directly
employs over 20,000 people.
134
Lifting the OCS moratorium would risk California's coastal treasures and their
dependent coastal economies for just 60 days worth of oil. The estimated oil reserves off the
California Coast would supply US oil demands for only 60 days at current rates of
consumption. That oil is clearly not worth the potential risks to California's economy and
environment.
In 1994, the State of California permanently banned new offshore oil rigs in the 3 mile
limit under the State's control. I urge the Subcommittee to ensure that the Federal
Government continue to respect California's lead and reject new offshore oil development
along our nation's most fragile coasts.
Big Sur Land Coniicryation - Los Padres National Forest
I also respectfully request the Subcommittee's support for funds to continue the land
protection efforts along the world-renowned Big Sur coastline.
The strong support of the Subcommittee in the past several years has allowed the Forest
Service to protect the 1,700-acre Sur Sur Ranch, much of the Baldwin Ranch and many other
crucial properties fiDm development. This has complemented on-going state, county and private
conservation efforts to protect Big Sur's resources for the millions of visitors who are drawn to
this scenic area each year.
Prior to the FY96 cycle, the Subcomminee regularly appropriated $2 million per year out
of the Land and Water Fund to fiind successive land acquisitions by the Los Padres National
Forest along the Big Sur Coast. While the FY 1996 Interior Appropriations bill broke fhim the
tradition of earmarking Land and Water Conservation Fund monies for specific projects, it
provided sufficient resources for the Forest Service to cany out its top priority Big Sur projects.
However, I believe that some projects, particularly Big Sur land acquisition, have such
high national significance we should ensure their success by singling them out for particular
anention. I urge the Subcommittee to appropriate $2 million in FY 97 for Forest Service Big Sur
land acquisition. This funding will allow the Forest Service to complete acquisition of the
Baldwin Ranch and Cozy Cove properties. This amount will also allow the Forest Service to
initiate acquisition on several new priority projects.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
135
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
LWCF/FWS-ESA
WITNESS
HON. SONNY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. BUNN. Mr. Bono? , ^ i
Mr. Farr. This is prettier than Palm Springs. [Laughter.]
Mr. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BuNN. Welcome and good afternoon.
Mr. Bono. Thank you, sir.
We have four things here that I'd like to bring to your attention,
and I have some testimony, as everybody always does, but maybe
I can give you a condensed version of this.
First of all, the Torres-Martinez Indians. What happened was
their land got flooded, and for many, many years they were in a
type of litigation with the BIA or in an effort with the BIA to settle
out this loss of their land. So with the office and working through
the BIA, we finally got a settlement for them which was acceptable
by everybody. And the settlement is complete. They get $14 million
for the loss of their property.
Where's the cost broken down here? Okay, they get $14 million
goes to the tribe; $4 million from local water districts; $10 million
from the Federal Government; $4 from the Department of Justice.
So to complete that, which has been going on forever, to close the
deal, the request there would be for $6 million for the Torres-Mar-
tinez settlement agreement. That would be wonderful, to put that
to bed. That has been open for years, and if we can put that to bed,
that would be great. I'll leave the documentation here, so you can
clear it up. ^ , .
The other thing, the other two issues are environmental issues.
We have a K-rat in our district, a kangaroo rat that plagues every-
one. Finally, the district was to come up with $30 million and pur-
chase enough land to settle the deal. So the district has raised al-
most all of that $30 million with the exception of $1.5 million. So
that would allow them to finally go ahead and start building, get
into commerce and move forward, and not have to deal with that
environmental K-rat pest, which we have to deal with. So Riverside
is asking for $1.5 million for the Bureau of Land Management, Riv-
erside County Habitat Conservation Agency's Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. That is basically that.
The other — these are where we have been pushed to the mat
over years of talking with these people. Fish and Wildlife again has
a very similar situation, and we've raised all we can and we're
down needing assistance for $250,000. That's for Fish and Wildlife
Service section 6 funding assistance for multi-species habitat con-
servation programs. California has just been put to the wall on this
conservation — on these consen-ation issues, and there just is no
more money for them to dig up anywhere else.
And then finally is the $1.8 million to the Bureau of Land Man-
agement and Land and Water Conservation Fund for the purchase
of parcels in Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area, sup-
136
ported by developers, local government, conservation groups, pri-
vate property owners, and BLM National Priority List.
Now all of these issues pretty much have the blessing of every-
body, both sides, and so if these were all completed, it would prob-
ably make everyone happy. There are years of working on these is-
sues.
So I thank you very much for hearing me, and I'll give you the
written testimony. If you have any questions you'd like to ask or
anything else you'd like to know
Mr. BUNN. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Bono. The only point I want to make is that I have, as a
mayor, worked on these issues for years and now as a Congress-
man for years. So the/re finally — this can put them all to bed,
which would be a wonderful thing. So I thank you, sir.
Mr. BUNN. Okay, thank you, and we'll enter the complete com-
ments in the record.
Mr, Bono. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Bono follows:]
137
CONGRESSMAN SONNY BONO
TESTIMONY FOR INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
APRIL 17, 19%
THANK YOU CHAIRMAN REGULA, FOR GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO VERY BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT FOUR PROJECTS FOR WHICH
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COMMITTEES SUPPORT.
FIRST I JOIN THE ADMINISTRATION IN REQUESTING $6 MILLION FOR THE BUREAU OF
INDLVN AFFAIRS FOR THE UNITED STATES' PORTION OF THE TORRES-MARTINEZ TRIBAL
LAND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
EARLY IN THIS CENTURY, FLOOD WATERS FROM THE COLORADO RIVER BROKE THROUGH A
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WATER PRO^CT, FLOODING MUCH OF THE TORRES-MARTINEZ
INDIAN RESERVATION LOCAL WATER DISTRICTS HAVE USED THIS AS DRAINAGE, CAUSING
II 800 ACRES OF TRIBAL LAND - APPROXIMATELY 2/3RDS OF THE TRIBAL LAND - TO BE
PERMANENTLY FLOODED UNDER WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE SALTON SEA. SINCE THE
EARLY 1980s THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SUED THE WATER DISTRICTS AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE TRIBE AFTER 80 YEARS OF DISPUTE AND 14 YEARS OF LITIGATION, ALL THE PARTIES
.WOLVED INCLUDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT,
IMPERLU. IRRIGATION DISTRICT, AND THE TRIBE, HAVE REACHED A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT.
THE SETTLEMENT COMPENSATES THE TRIBE FAIRLY, ALLOWS THEM TO USE THE
COMPENSATION TO PURCHASE 11,800 ACRES OF REPLACEMENT LANDS, AND PROVIDES A
MUCH-NEEDED PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR THE LOCAL WATER DISTRICTS.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR $14 MILLION TO THE TRIBE. $4
MILUON FROM THE LOCAL WATER DISTRICTS AS DETERMINED BY THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT,
AND $10 MILUON FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. OF THE GOVERNMENTS $10 MILLION,
$4 MILLION WILL COME FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JUDGMENT FUND. THE
REMAINING $6 MILLION MUST COME FROM FY 1997 APPROPRIATIONS OR THE SETTLEMENT
WILL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE. I WILL INTRODUCE THE RATIFYING LEGISLATION AT THE END
OF THIS MONTH. AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT TO MAKE THIS SETTLEMENT
A SUCCESS.
IN ADDITION, I HAVE TWO REQUESTS FOR THE BLM'S LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION
FUND. THE FIRST IS FOR $1.5 MILLION FOR THE RTVERSmE COUNTY HABITAT
CONSERVATION AGENCY'S STEPHEN'S KANGAROO RAT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN.
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITIES HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED BY THE K-RAT CRITICAL
HABITAT DESIGNATION. IT HAS HALTED ALL MEANINGFUL DEVELOPMENT AND PROHIBITED
ARMERS AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS FROM USING THEIR LAND TO EARN THEIR
LIVELIHOOD. mS THE ULTIMATE EXAMPLE OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT GONE AWRY.
138
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE PROPERTY
OWNERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED OVER $30 MILUON FROM AN ASSESSMENT FEE OF $1 950 PER
ACRE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT FOR AN H.C.P. THE HSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE HAS
NDICATED THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE H.C.P. WILL COST $35.6 MILLION, LEAVING A $5 6
MILUON SHORTFALL. THE STATE HAS CONTRIBUTED I MILLION. AND THE ADMINISTRATION
HAS COMMITTED I MILLION EACH YEAR FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS. THIS STILL LEAVES
THE COMMUNITY, ALREADY TOTALLY DEVASTATED BY THE K-RAT PROBLEM WITH AN
ADDITIONAL $1.6 MILLION BILL, IN ADDITION TO THE $30 MILUON THEY HAVE ALREADY
CONTRIBUTED.
THOUGH I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION S $1 MILLION REQUEST FOR FY 1997 I
ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE MUST COMMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS FAIR SHARE FOR THE
ASTOUNDING FINANCIAL BURDEN OF THIS PROGRAM. AFTER ALL, AN ADDITIONAL $1 6
MILUON OUT OF $35 MILUON IS A RELATIVELY SMALL CONTRIBUTION COMPARED TO WHAT
THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES HAVE GIVEN IN TIME, MONEY AND FOREGONE EARNINGS
THEREFORE, I REQUEST THAT THE COMMnTEE SUPPORT THE $1 MILUON REQUEST OF THE
ADMINISTRATION, AND ADD TO THAT $500,000. THIS ADDITIONAL MONEY WILL HELP THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY COMPLETE THE H.C.P.. AND PROVE THAT WE IN WASHINGTON ARE
SERIOUS ABOUT ENDING UNFUNDED MANDATES.
THE SECOND L.W.C.F. REQUEST IS FOR $1.8 MILLION FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE
PARCELS IN THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL SCENIC AREA. THESE PARCELS ARE
LOCATED IN THE MOUNTAINS WHICH SURROUND THE COACHELLA VALLEY. AND PROVIDE
OUR NATION WriH UNIQUE NATURAL BEAUTY AND CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL
ESOURCES. THE MOUNTAINS ARE A MAIN ATTRACTION TO VISITORS WHO COME TO THE
VALLEY FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. THEY OFFER OASES. INDL\N CANYONS. ENDANGERED
SPECIES HABITAT AND SCENIC BEAUTY THE ENTIRE AREA. THESE PARCELS ARE UNDER
IMMINENT THREAT OF DEVELOPMENT. THE LOCAL CITIES. BUILDING ASSOCUTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS HAVE TEAMED TOGETHER TO TRY TO PURCHASE THE PARCELS.
BUT DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES. THE PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPORT SELLING THESE
PARCELS TO THE BLM, AND THE BLM HAS MADE THIS ONE OF THEIR PRIORITY PURCHASES.
HOWEVER, AS YOU KNOW, THE CONSERVATION FUND HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE. I
STRONGLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMTFTEE JOIN THE BLM IN SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT
WITH $1.8 MILUON IN THE L.W.C.F. FOR THIS LAND PRESERVATION.
FINALLY, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COMMnTEE'S SUPPORT FOR $250,000 FOR THE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SECTION 6 PROGRAM FOR E>fDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN PLANNING ASSISTANCE. THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCL^TION OF
GOVERNMENTS (CVAG) IS WORKING WTTH LOCAL CmES. THE BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCL\TION, PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, FARMERS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS TO
DESIGN A MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR OVER 30 SPECIES. FOR THE
PAST TWO YEARS, THE PLAN HAS BEEN FUNDED BY GRANTS, PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS,
MITIGATION FEES FROM LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND IN-KIND LOCAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES. THIS YEAR. CVAG WILL RECEIVE $250,000 FROM LOCAL SOURCES, AND
REQUESTS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTE THE REMAINING $250,000 FOR THE
LAN TO MOVE TOWARD COMPLETION THIS YEAR. THIS IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
rEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT LOCAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT DECIMATING THE AFFECTED
COMMUNITY. FOR THIS REASON, IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL JOIN ME IN
139
SUPPORTING THIS EFFORT BY SPECinCALLY EARMARKING $250,000 FOR THE COACHELLA
VALLEY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN WITHIN SECTION 6 PROGRAM OF THE
nSH AND WILDUFE SERVICE.
I WILL PROVIDE THE COMMFTTEE WITH ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON ALL OF THESE IMPORTANT
PROJECTS IN MY WRITTEN REQUEST. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF THESE
PROJECTS HAVE STRONG BROAD-BASED, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SUPPORT FROM THE LOCAL
COMMUNITIES IN THE FORM OF FUNDING, TIME AND IN-KIND SERVICES.
AGAIN MR CHAIRMAN, I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO TESTIFY BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THESE INVALUABLE PROJECTS. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
140
Mr. BUNN. The committee is in recess until 1:30.
[Recess.]
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
WEATHERIZATION
APPALACHIAN TRAIL
WITNESS
HON. BERNARD SANDERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Mr. Regula. Bernie's here.
Mr. Sanders. Okay. Thank you for allowing me to come up
today.
Mr. Regula. Your statement is part of the record and you may
summarize it.
Mr. Sanders. Essentially there are three issues that we want to
talk about. No. 1 is Payment in Lieu of Taxes; we have some 45
towns who have Green Mountain National Forest within their area.
Mr. Regula. This is interesting; it's usually a western issue.
Mr. Sanders. I know it is primarily, but it does affect us and it
is a real concern. We are probably, even more than the west, de-
pendent on the property tax.
Mr. Regula. Well, we'll do as much as we can.
Mr. Sanders. Okay, that's an important issue for us. Also of con-
cern to us is the Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Sanders. Yes, in Vermont the weather gets 30 degrees below
zero. It means a lot to a lot of people. People are hurting and we
would very much appreciate your support for that.
Mr. Regula. Your observation is they administer these programs
in a cost-effective way?
Mr. Sanders. I think they do. I mean I'm sure it's not perfect,
but I think they do the job and they hire local people who know
the area who can use the money as a matter of fact and it is really
a cost-effective program. Because if it is 20 degrees below zero and
your home is not weatherized, you're just putting out money right
through the cracks in the wall. So to weatherize a house means the
person can save significant amounts of money on their fuel.
And the last point that we'd like to do is to request that the
Mr. Regula. I support that.
Mr. Sanders [continuingl. The land and water conservation fund
appropriation for the Appalachian Trail. I want to invite you up to
hike the trail, how's that?
Mr. Regula. Have you hiked it?
Mr. Sanders. I've been on a little bit of it, yes.
Mr. Regula. We'll probably never get it done, but it will be one
of my goals to do a good part of it.
Mr. Sanders. Do you do much hiking? Yes, it's a beautiful trail
and people utilize it a lot.
141
Mr. Regula. Yes, it's very popular. I've been pushing over the
past several years to keep funding in this committee for land acqui-
sition so we can hopefully and ultimately have it all public.
Mr. Sanders. I think it's a very good investment.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I agree with you 100 percent.
Mr. Sanders. Any other questions that I can answer?
Mr. Regula. Okay, I think that covers it. Thank you.
Mr. Sanders. Thanks very much.
[The statement of Mr. Sanders follows:]
142
HI Cmvnom Hou« 0*m3 Bu«J»
w*SMw«oTOM. oc m«i%-«soi
TlLKn<Mt 12031 22S-4nS
F« 1202) 22S-«790
Congress of the Bnittd States
fiouse of Rtpresentanots
Washington, ©£ i«i5-wi
April 17, 1996
Statement of Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
FY97 Interior Appropriations Bill
BANKING ANO FINANCUM. SCflVKES
GOVUNMENT REFORM ANO OVERSfGHT
1 OnjmcM STUtfT. SCCONO Ftoo«
BuMLMOrO**. VT 0S401-4417
Tf Lf p<«MK (fl03) 802-OWT
Tou. fnce <aooi xa-9Ki*
Fm. (8021 asfr-UTO
Payment in lieu of Taixes
Mr. Chairman, I am testifying to request that the Payment in
lieu of Taxes (PILT) prograun receive an appropriation of $150
million. This is the level suggested in the authorization which
was passed in 1994.
As you know, the PILT progrcun began 20 years ago as an
attempt to compensate local governments for losses to their tout
bases due the presence of certain federally-owned land. However,
PILT payments fall far short of the revenue that would normally
be generated through private property tcuces. Moreover, due to
inflation, PILT payments have decreased in real dollars.
In my state of Vermont, the 45 towns which fall within the
Gteen Mountain National Forest are severely impacted by these
decreasing PILT payments. These communities, like others all
over the country, have seen their property taixes rise as a
result. Yet, at the same time, we provide corporate welfare in
the form of below- cost timber sales or dirt-cheap mining
royalties. We need to change these priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the PILT program
receive funding equal to the level authorized in 1994.
PnXTCD ON KCYCUO rAHK
143
Weather! zat ion
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request an increase in funding
for the Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program. As you
know, funding for this program was significantly cut last year,
and LIHEAP funding is in constant jeopardy. Over 4.4 million
homes have been weatherized nationwide with these and other
weatherization funds. Energy efficiency is vital to thousands of
low income citizens in Vermont, who are just now beginning to
recover from what was a severely cold and harsh winter. The
weatherization progrcun in Vermont is recognized as one of the
best, and weatherizes about 1200 Vermont homes each year. I urge
you to significantly increase funding for this vital program.
Appalachian Trail
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to request a fiscal year
1997 Land and Water Conservation Fund Appropriation of $7.0
million for the Appalachiam National Scenic Trail Isuid
accjuisition prograun. Mr. Chairman, I want to thaxik you for your
past help in ensuring adecjuate appropriations for the Appalachian
Trail progroun. Today, the Trail is within two percent of
completion. Only 35 miles of the entire Trail remain unprotected
and threatened by incompatible development such as road
construction, second home development, or, as in my state of
Vermont, ski area expansion. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to
continue to fund the prograim to ensure that we reach the goal of
con^lete public ownership by fiscal year 1999.
144
Mr. Chairman, I urge your support on all three of these
important items in the appropriations bill. Thank you for your
consideration of my views.
145
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE
CORRIDOR
WITNESS
HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Regula. Patrick? Mr. Saxon isn't here yet.
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Blackstone River Valley Corridor.
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Yes, it's a great heritage corridor.
Mr. Regula. You need some additional authorization, don't you?
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Yes, but we expect to get it and,
thanks to your help, we're moving it along.
Mr. Regula. I know; we're all in the same boat over there.
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. That's right, that's right. And as
you'll see from the funding request, we doubled the amount of
money requested for operation and maintenance because we're in-
creasing the size by 60 percent to accommodate the entry of five
new communities into this heritage corridor.
Mr. Regula. Do you get good local participation?
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Fantastic. The Heritage Corridor
Commission has been a boon to the area. They love it; they feel it's
a really good synergy for both Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In
fact, they share
Mr. Regula. How much do you have now in distance?
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. We go from Worcester down to
Providence.
Mr. Regula. Which is 50 miles?
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Yes, 50-some-odd miles.
Mr. Regula. So you're going to add, what, another 30 or 40
miles?
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Yes. Mostly in Massachusetts, but
in fact in northern Rhode Island we're adding a couple of commu-
nities. But it follows the old Blackstone River which was the birth-
place of the Industrial Revolution. Pawtucket, Rhode Island was
the first industrial mill in the Nation, and the beauty of it is they
used to have barges that would go from Worcester down to Provi-
dence; that was the mode of transportation until, of course, rail-
roads took over. But that riverbank area is loaded with industrial
mill sites because they
Mr. Regula. How did you get a corridor? Did you have to acquire
any private lands or did you have an adequate existing public cor-
ridor?
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Well, what happened was it was
just sort of rights-of-way and the State knew these areas to be val-
uable for their historic preservation and the Park Service manages
all those historic sites and since there are so many of them — you
know they thread themselves up the banks — really it's all because
of this Blackstone River. We've had river boats take people up and
down the river and they're saying to themselves, I can't believe this
is our own State because it's such an industrial State, and up until
the Clean Water Act the river was polluted as can be — no fish, no
146
swimming, no anything, and they let it be overgrown. And so no
one could see the banks of the river.
Now they're clearing the riverways. More businesses want to
have businesses along the banks, they've had steamboat musters,
they want to do a bike path along the riverbank, which is some-
thing I think is going to be a real boon to the area. Recreational
use of this area has just blossomed, so in essence we were author-
ized $2 million for an interpretive development program. What that
is is the signage because the whole idea of the heritage corridor is
so that the communities can work in unison together. And then
they have a statutory funding and because it's double what it was
last year because if we get the double authorization
Mr. Regula. The match.
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island [continuing]. For additional land
and then the Park Service funds: $236,000 for technical assistance
which represents flat funding from last year. But thanks to you for
all of your help to get this reauthorized, because it was authorized
for 10 years and we just had our 10-year celebration, and we really
need the reauthorization.
Mr. Regula. Well, we're working on it.
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. I know you are.
Mr. Regula. We've got a package together over in Resources and
we've just got to keep working.
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Well, I know I've spoken to Chair-
man Young and he's actually, I think, going to be a friend to us
on this too. So thanks for your help. I'll be happy to keep pushing
along with you.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. Thank you very much, and thank
you for signing the letter to the President.
Mr. Regula. Yes, they mentioned that yesterday at the remem-
brance program.
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. And Dr. Walter Reisch was up in
my State just the other day and he speaks very highly of you and
your participation at the museum.
Mr. Regula. It's a good cause. Okay, thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island follows:]
147
The Honorable Patrick J. Kennedy
Statement before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior
April 17, 1996
Thank you Chairman Regula and Congressman Yates for giving me the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corndor I am requesting that a total of
$1,346,000 for Fiscal Year 1997 be made available to the National Park Service in funds for the
Blackstone.
I think it would be preaching to the choir to recite the merits of our nation's heritage areas
Because time is short, I will refrain from doing so, except to say that in Rhode Island we are
reaching new heights Many of the projects have resulted in as much as a 30 to 1 return of the
government's investment, and everyone is participating Private industry is working with
government in a way that should be considered a model for other federal programs Simply put.
the Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor has given new life to the economy of northern Rhode
Island and South-centeral Massachusetts
I speak for all of my constituents when I say that this Committee's participation and support is
greatly appreciated
I want to thank you. Chairman Regula, for all your assistance in the reauthorization of our
national heritage areas. As a member of the authorizing committee I can safely say that without
your leadership we would probably have nothing to appropriate for next year
In the authorizing bill, the Blackstone River Valley is expected to increase in size by 60 percent
to accommodate the entry of five new communities into the program It is easy to see why, for
the past 10 years, these cities and towns have wanted to be a part of the Heritage Corridor They
have seen prosperity return to their neighbors and they want similar results
In light of this, I respectfully request that the following funds be appropriated for the Blackstone
in Rhode Island and Massachusetts
1) $460,000 which would complete the previously authorized $2 million for the interpretive
development program for special projects.
2) $650,000 in statutory aid funding for operational expenses
3) $236,000 in Operations, National Park Service (ONPS) funds for technical assistance, which
represents flat funding from last year
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify I hope you share my position on these various
funding levels. Clearly, if we want to continue the level of success and partnership within the
Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor, then we must do our small, but important part I will be
happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have
148
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
E.B. FORSYTHE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
WITNESS
HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Regula. Jim?
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to come over and chat with you for a minute. I've got some
fairly specific and detailed testimony which was prepared by my
able assistant, Katherine Gilmore, who is here with me, and I
would just like to submit it for the record. If I may just say that
we are requesting $5 million this year for the continuation of the
expansion
Mr. Regula. This is land acquisition?
Mr. Saxton. Correct. It's with regards specifically to the Edwin
B. Forsythe Refuge system which is located in its entirety east of
the parkway along the Atlantic coast parcels between Sandy Hook
and Atlantic City. It's a stretch of probably close to 100 miles. This
is of great importance that we continue this program in our view,
not for any economic reason so much as it is for environmental rea-
sons. It's on the Atlantic Flyway, it's used by migratory species on
a continuing basis.
Mr. Regula. What kind of prices are we paying up there? Is this
land getting valuable?
Mr. Saxton. Well, it is getting valuable and there has been
somewhat of a slowdown in construction in the area and, therefore,
some of this land has leveled off in price or in some cases has even
taken a dip in price. That is why we are anxious to get as much
of it under Federal control as we can while the cost is reasonable.
Mr. Regula. What's the existing acreage? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Saxton. The existing acreage is just over 8,000 acres, most
of which, the biggest parcel of which is in the southern part of the
refuge system along the Mullaca River.
Mr. Regula. It's one contiguous piece, though.
Mr. Saxton. No, it's not. As individual landowners who have en-
vironmentally sensitive land decide they want to sell, the Fish &
Wildlife Service negotiates
Mr. Regula. Filling in the pieces.
Mr. Saxton [continuing]. The deal. Right. And so we have filled
in from the northern-most piece which is known as Reedy Creek to
the southern-most piece which is known as the old Briganteen
Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Regula. But you have some private land holdings between
the north and south.
Mr. Saxton. Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, the refuge system itself
is more like between private holdings; in other words, these are
pieces
Mr. Regula. So the money would be used to eliminate, wherever
possible, in holdings.
Mr. Saxton. That's correct.
Mr. Regula. Okay, it's just a matter of how much we have.
Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir.
149
Mr. Regula. Are you on the budget committee?
Mr. Saxton. No, I wish I was.
Mr. Regula. I wish you were, too. You could help us there.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Okay, see you, Jim.
[The statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
150
Testimony of
Congressman Jim Saxton
Interior Appropriations Requests
Subcommittee on Interior
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
April 17, 1996
Since Fiscal Year 1990, Congress has invested an average of $4 million a
year to maintain the E.B. FORSYTHE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.
The Forsythe National Wildlife Reflige is a land acquisition program of national
importance.
The Forsythe Refiige contains critical feeding and nesting habitat for many
species of birds on the Atlantic Fly way. The State of New Jersey is the most
urbanized State in the country and wetlands and upland habitat areas are quickly
disappearing. We must act now to acquire the last vestiges of critical habitat areas
along the Bamegat Bay coastline.
There are some critical habitat pieces of land in the Bamegat Beach Inland
area, as well as the Manahawkin Watershed, many of which are subject to the
imminent threat of development. There is ongoing progress with negotiations
between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and property owners in these areas.
These critical habitat areas have become increasingly important as other habitat
areas in the State are being developed.
The Forsythe Refuge has great environmental, aesthetic, recreational and
economic value, and the Federal government is not alone in this endeavor of land
acquisition. The State of New Jersey has also maintained an aggressive campaign
to obtain critical habitat in the Bamegat Bay area. As part of their commitment,
local jurisdictions cooperatively manage and donate properties to the Refuge.
Through the invaluable efforts of the Tmst for Public Land, a non-profit
conservancy, the Federal government has been able to acquire many acres of
critical habitat.
151
I REQUEST $5 MILLION FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE FORSYTHE
REFUGE, AS WELL AS THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE REMAINING
UPLAND COMPLEX AREAS OF THIS HISTORIC REFUGE.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
152
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY
WITNESS
HON. JAN MEYERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Regula. Clear the decks for you.
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. Well you've heard from me before on
this subject so I don't have to do a lot of background.
Mr. Regula. We'll put your statement in the record and you can
send out your press release.
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. All right. Haskell, of course, is a
Mr. Regula. That's a junior college for the Indians, isn't it?
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. It is a community college for Indians.
It's now called All Nations University because to the two-year pro-
gram that they have always had, they have added a baccalaureate
program for teachers. They were having a very difficult time get-
ting teachers to return to the reservations to teach in grade school
and in high school. So they are in their second or third year of that
program. It's been enormously helpful to them. Haskell, I think,
has really tried to find the needs of the Indian communities on the
reservations, particularly, and respond to them. They have been
flat-funded for the last two or three years. Last year, for the first
time in over 10 years, the Office of Management and Budget pro-
posed a $209,000 increase to Haskell's baseline and this year 0MB
requests a $300,000 increase in the operating budget for Fiscal
Year 1997.
Mr. Regula. Do they get their students to go back to reserva-
tions? It seems like so much of the time those who get skills go
elsewhere.
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. I think probably that is a positive thing
for the most part. In other words, some return to the reservation
there if they can be helpful there. It's positive in many respects:
if they can move into the community, get a job, make a living and
have a successful and happy life. They do want to get teachers who
will spend at least a few years on the reservation because it's ter-
ribly important that they have the teachers there. That's what they
have not been able to get.
They also have innovative research programs. They continue to
conduct research, long-term and short-term, relating to key hazard-
ous substance problems on Native American lands. This is probably
for several reasons. I do think there are some Indian lands that
have been polluted and I don't know exactly why; maybe it's min-
ing activity in some cases, a lot of different reasons.
Mr. Regula. It's probably a host of things.
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. But another reason that I think this is
positive is that it trains young men and women for a specific occu-
pation and I think that that's important. Cooperative research
agreements exist with NASA, Sandia Labs and the National
Science Foundation, as well as with other major universities and
tribal colleges to strengthen that science curriculum.
Mr. Regula. You said it's a community college; does it have
transfer credits as well as a terminal program?
153
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. I know that some of the students do go
on to KU, which is in the same community of Lawrence, Kansas,
and I presume, then, that means if their credits transfer to K.U.
that they transfer to other places. But that's a good question to
which I will have to get an answer.
Mr. Regula. Well, most community colleges have two sides. They
have the technical institute type of thing where you get a two-year
degree and then they have the two years which transfer on to a
State university or whatever the case might be.
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. Yes, I'm sure that's the case here. The
reason I'm not answering you more specifically is that the students
at Haskell come from 35 different States, so there's tremendous di-
versity there. They are not just from tribes in Kansas. I do know
that some of the students go on to K.U., but a great many of them
return home and how well those credits transfer I am not positive.
But I know that the baccalaureate program is accredited by North
Central Accrediting Association and the Kansas State Board of
Education, so I presume that the teaching is of high enough quality
and that there is the kind of variety in subjects so that they can
transfer.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Jim Slattery used to have this jurisdiction,
didn't he?
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. Yes, he did, and they re-drew the lines.
You'll remember a few years ago Kansas lost one representative
and it meant that we all had to expand our territory and I acquired
Lawrence of Douglas County which I was very pleased about be-
cause it does have both K.U. and Haskell University.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mrs. Meyers of Kansas. All right, I thank you very much for
your consideration.
[The statement of Mrs. Meyers follows:]
154
statement of the
Honorable Jan Meyers
before the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior
on
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you once again on behalf of Haskell Indian Nations University,
located in Lawrence, KS. Haskell is now in its third year of
their first baccalaureate degree program, which will train
elementary and secondary teachers who can then teach on
reservations in a culturally sensitive manner. The program is
now accredited by the North Central Accrediting Association and
the Kansas State Board of Education, and currently seven students
are enrolled in their junior year of the program. Twelve more
students are anticipated as declared majors next year.
The existence of Haskell's teacher degree program is a
testament of their committment to creating programs that answer
the needs of Native American communities. There has been little,
if any, addition to Haskell's annual operating funds for the
development and implementation the degree program, even though
this represents an enormous expansion of Haskell's mission.
In FY 95, Haskell received $7.5 million, as it did in FY 96.
Haskell currently has 809 students representing 155 tribes and 35
states. Last year, for the first time in over ten years, the
Office of Management and Budget (0MB) proposed a $209,000
increase to Haskell's baseline. This year, 0MB requests a
$300,000 increase in the operating budget for FY 97. It is
important to note that had their budget been adjusted for
inflation, last year's appropriation would have been over $10
million.
Nonetheless, Haskell continues to pursue innovative research
programs. The Haskell Environmental Research Studies Center
(HERS) continues to conduct research in long-term and short-term
research relating to key hazardous substance problems on Native
American lands. Cooperative research agreements exist with NASA,
Sandia labs and the National Science Foundation, as well as other
major universities and tribal colleges to strengthen the science
curriculum. The Board of Regents and administrators of Haskell
continue to build on the success of these programs so that the
next baccalaureate program can incorporate an emphasis on science
and environmental studies.
155
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE
CORRIDOR
WITNESS
HON. JACK REED, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Regula. Jack?
Mr. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Your statement will be a part of the record. Patrick
Kennedy was in and I assume it's the same topic, Blackstone, and
I'm very familiar with it.
Mr. Reed. It is, Mr. Chairman, yes, sir. Of course I want to
thank you for your support in the past and your consideration.
Mr. Regula. Well, we're trying to get you into that package over
at the Resources Committee. You want to expand it another 40
miles or so.
Mr. Reed. We do. That would be excellent and I, again, thank
you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm here to support the appropriation for
this year, the request of $1.3 million. It would help us to renovate
and restore the area which was the birthplace of the Industrial
Revolution in the United States.
Mr. Regula. How much do you think locally is being put into
this?
Mr. Reed. My estimate would be about one-third, I believe.
Mr. Regula. I think that the legislation package they're talking
about in Resources is a 50-50 match.
Mr. Reed. We've been back in Rhode Island as you know trying
to scramble to make our share of these matches and 50-50 is some-
thing that seems to be the common denominator these days. I'm
sure, again, that if you were able to do that through the Resources
Committee then we would endeavor and succeed on it.
Mr. Regula. Well, we're working on it. We've got to get them
moving on it.
Mr. Reed. It would be very beneficial to, in particular, my dis-
trict, because it would include more area in my district. It would
also touch on some of the places where there is very strong local
support.
Mr. Regula. These things are very popular because it gets a
wide diversity of community people involved: Boy Scouts, Kiwanis
Clubs, you name it.
Mr. Reed. We've got some companies that are very active.
Mr. Regula. Yes, they want to add their support, too.
Mr. Reed. There's one in particular, Polytop
Mr. Regula. I saw that in your testimony.
Mr. Reed [continuing]. Which is a very good company. I was
there last week and they're are keen to renovate or redevelop all
of the old industrial buildings around. This type of project, to the
corridor, would give them the type of planning and just the support
they need to continue.
Mr. Regula. Well, we're going to try to do them.
156
Mr. Reed. Thank you. And as long as my statement is part of
the record, I just want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Reed follows:]
PUASE RESPOND TO:
&10 L0*MWOin>t SuKOnKI
4.-.OTON. DC nsiVXKtt
iI02t Z2S-2r»
Qamoih CiTv CiMTia
100 Mom** PuWX
Ciuu(ST(yf. Rl 02920
157
Congresfsf of ttjc ©niteU States
J^ouse of i^epretsentatibts
aaaatjington, S£ 20515-3902
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK REED
INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
HEARING OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
APRIL 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
I cun pleased to appear before you to urge your continued support
of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. For
fiscal year 1997, I endorse a $1,346,000 allocation for this
affiliated area of the National Park System, which is a model
partnership between our nation's private and public sectors. I
would also like to thank Chairman Regula and Mr. Yates for their
support .
The Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is
home to the birthplace of the American industrial revolution. In
this region some 200 years ago, the hard work and ingenuity of
thousands of immigrants produced economic success that spurred
unprecedented changes across the country and around the world.
For many years prior to the Corridor's creation, neglect and
decline threatened the rich historic traditions, as well as the
cultural and natural resources, of the Blackstone Valley. In the
decade since the Corridor's esteU>lishment, however, private and
public partners have come together to revive this precious area.
I would like to tell you more about one such partner, whose
efforts demonstrate that businesses, as well as strong and vital
communities, cam prosper in the Blackstone Valley. Under the
leadership of Dr. Bob Harding, the Polytop Corporation of North
Smithfield, Rhode Island is prospering. Joining forces with
historic, environmental, and economic development officials. Dr.
Harding purchased the historic mill buildings of Slatersville,
Rhode Island for Polytop. The coir^any has restored these
structures, which were standing vacant, for industrial re-use,
helping Polytop to provide good jobs for hard-working people.
But economic development is not the only goal for Dr.
Harding and for Polytop. The company is also helping to preserve
the illustrious heritage of the Blackstone Valley by compiling
the oral histories of former workers in the Slatersville mills.
As these and similarly impressive restoration efforts
continue, I urge the federal government to renew its commitment
to Blackstone. In the next year, this commitment will have three
complimentary parts.
158
The first component of the Blackstone Corridor's request is
$236,000 in National Park Service technical assistance, which
covers rangers, project management, and historical preservation.
Second, the Corridor requires $460,000 in National Park Service
construction funds to complete exhibits and signs at the many-
emerging interpretive and tourism sites throughout the region.
Finally, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor Commission requests $650,000 for its operations. The
Commission supports critical planning and technical assistance
that helps the area's communities to obtain funding from other
sources. These funds, and the further expansion of partnerships
with businesses in the region, are particularly important in
light of possible increases in the Corridor's boundaries, an
issue that I hope and expect Congress to debate later this year.
Congress should pass H.R. 1447 to expand the Blackstone
River Valley National Heritage Corridor to include five
communities with strong historic, economic, and ecological ties
to the area. These communities include Burrillville, Glocester,
and Smithfield in Rhode Island, and Leicester and Worcester in
Massachusetts. This expansion will encourage additional revival
and restoration. For example, if we approve the boundary
expansion. Dr. Harding hopes to install historic exhibits in the
revitalized mills of Slatersville, which would be brought inside
the Corridor.
Plans to extend the Corridor's boundaries enjoy wide support
in the region as the next logical step in the area's efforts. In
most of the instances where the Corridor's requests exceed fiscal
year 1996 funding, the additional resources would make possible
the partnerships needed to expand the achievements of restoration
into the five communities that would be added to the Corridor.
The hard-working, civic-minded people of the Blackstone
Valley have made great strides to revive a region in which all of
our nation's citizens can take pride. As you consider the
Interior Department's appropriations for the next fiscal year, I
urge the Subcommittee to continue its support for this endeavor.
159
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTING MORATORIUM USFWS
CHESAPEAKE BAY FIELD OFFICE
WITNESS
HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Regula. Wayne?
Mr. GiLCHREST. Fm next?
Mr. Regula. Yes, that's the order we have here so we'll stay on
track. I guess Bart will wait a couple of minutes.
Mr. GiLCHREST. But he was here first.
Mr. Regula. Well, we have a list here so I'm following that. Go
ahead.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Mr. Nethercutt, Ms. Vucanovich, Mr. Skeen, Mr.
Bunn — is that you Ralph?
Mr. Regula. Okay, your statement on the endangered species
listing moratorium is part of the record, if you could summarize it
would be helpful.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Well, I'm up and talking to the choir.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I think you are.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Baritone, bass, tenor.
Mr. Regula. You're going to get us an endangered species reau-
thorization, I trust.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Ralph, I think we have a pretty good bill. It's ba-
sically done and if it could hit the House floor I think it could be
explained in a way that we would get enough votes in the House
and the Senate side.
Mr. Regula. Is there some impediment to getting it to rhe floor?
Mr. GiLCHREST. Maybe the impediment is that it's so appealing
to a wide array
Mr. Regula. Why on the other side and not our side of the aisle?
Mr. GiLCHREST. Well, I think it's a mixture of a lot of different
people. Anyway, since this is going on the record, Ralph, I guess
we're here to try to express our feeling on why the moratorium on
listing should be lifted. Given the fact that there will be large num-
bers of Members reading this testimony I'll try to express my per-
spective on why the moratorium should be lifted.
Mr. Regula. I might tell you we did it for emergencies on the
Omnibus.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Well, that's good.
Mr. Regula. And the de-listing, too.
Mr. GiLCHREST. So listing and de-listing has been — what's emer-
gency listing as opposed to just general listing?
Mr. Regula. It's a step in that direction.
Mr. GiLCHRESl. So if it's critical — you know, I think in the long-
run, whether it's the taxpayer, State taxpayers through State agen-
cies and the private landowner, or timber companies or mining
companies or whoever is out there, if we continue to allow them to
stay in this state of limbo not knowing whether or not there's going
to be a moratorium in the next couple of months, will it be lifted
pretty soon, there's a lot of projects that are being held up.
160
Mr. Regula. As you understand, in the absence of an authoriza-
tion we have a problem because if we put up the money to go for-
ward, then we are subject to a point-of-order.
Mr. GiLCHREST. You're subject to a point-of-order if you put
money
Mr. Regula. And try to go forward with the Endangered Species
program because there is no authorization at this point to do any-
thing on Endangered Species: the Act has expired and you're not
able to get a new authorization.
Mr. GiLCHREST. So, more than just lifting the moratorium
Mr. Regula. If you want to solve the problem.
Mr. GiLCHREST [continuing]. We need an authorization.
Mr. Regula. You absolutely do. I've written the chairman of your
committee asking him to do that so that we can have the authority
to fund this program.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Asking for authority to fund the program the
way it exists?
Mr. Regula. I need a reauthorization of the Endangered Species
Act.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Short of that, you mean there may be no money
appropriated?
Mr. Regula. In theory, if we go to the floor with money to oper-
ate the Endangered Species Act we are
Mr. GiLCHREST. Subject to a point-of-order.
Mr. Regula. Subject to a point-of-order which takes it all out.
Mr. GiLCHREST. And there's no way that there can be, I guess
there's no such thing as a short-term authorization of the existing
law until it's reauthorized?
Mr. Regula. You can get a waiver from the Rules Committee
which eliminates the point-of-order, but it's pretty tough to do.
Mr. GiLCHREST. In essence, somewhat risky.
Mr. Regula. It's extremely important that we get an authoriza-
tion in this area.
Mr. GiLCHREST. I think there's probably, I think you have mul-
tiple schools of thought out there.
Mr. Regula. Oh, I understand.
Mr. GiLCHREST. But you generally have two schools of thought.
One school of thought is, which is mine, if you bring a bad bill to
the floor we would have to work to defeat it. If you brought a good
bill to the floor, the other side would work to not allow it to come
to the floor.
Mr. Regula. There's no question that there's an impasse.
Mr. GiLCHREST. You know, Ralph, there is an impasse but I
think we've allowed democracy to work long enough with all our
ideas and inputs and now somebody has to make a decision to
bring some type of legislation to the floor.
Mr. Regula. Well, I think you need to talk with our leadership
as you probably already know. And, of course, we have this new en-
vironmental task force
Mr. GiLCHREST. Which is subject to debate as is its effectiveness.
Mr. Regula. Democracy is a wonderful thing.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Well, let me just— democracy is great, I wouldn't
want to have it any other way, but I've tried to talk to the leader-
ship in the past. What I'd like to do, Ralph, is to hook up with you,
161
Saxton and a few other people, the four or five of us, so we can go
in and talk to the leadership. But if I just say it, nothing ever hap-
pens.
Mr. Regula. Well, I would suggest you try to arrange such a
meeting.
Mr. GiLCHREST. And I could use your name?
Mr. Regula. Putting an exception in for emergency listings
doesn't really solve the problem because then you get into the ques-
tion of definition of "emergency". A., and B., "long-term." We need
a practical Endangered Species Act so we don't have extinctions of
species, but on the other hand, as you well appreciate, there are
quite a number of instances where the act has been used to prob-
ably go beyond what people would think is fair.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Right. I think we have a goal that is going to
meet everybody's needs. I think if we got in to see the leadership
they'd recognize
Mr. Regula. There's always bringing it to the floor — the majority
rules.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Let me ask you a quick question, Ralph. What
we're doing right now as far as the moratorium on the listing: Is
this to lift it before October or not put it back in in October?
Mr. Regula. Right now the 1996 Interior bill, which has not yet
been signed, is in the Omnibus package and the language in there
on the moratorium allows for emergency listings and de-listing.
Now that's not law, because, of course, it hasn't been signed.
Mr. GiLCHREST. But right now there is a moratorium on the list-
ing and it is in effect until October. What you're trying to do here
is to have emergency listings.
Mr. Regula. But that isn't a long-term solution. What we need
is a reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Okay, Ralph, I'll make that a priority.
Mr. Regula. It really needs to be done. Chesapeake Bay field of-
fice needs some extra money or just keep it going?
Mr. GiLCHREST. Keep it going. The amount of money that's on
there is pretty adequate. There are 13 refuges in our region and
the Chesapeake Bay office is probably one of the prime examples —
I'd like to bring some of the people down there and see how they
work with all of the other Federal agencies on a daily basis
Mr. Regula. It's working well.
Mr. GiLCHREST. It's working extremely well. They work with pri-
vate landowners to the degree that the private landowner wants to
be a part of the program and very often the private owner that
comes through these agencies say. How can we help? So it's a good
program.
Mr. Regula. Okay, we'll look at it.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Thanks, Ralph.
Mr. Regula. Let me know when you get the meeting arranged.
Mr. GiLCHREST. Okay.
[The statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
162
WAYNE T. GILCHREST
COMMrTTEE ON RESOURCES
Congre£(g of t\)t Winitttt States "^'"*"'
J^oviit of i^eprrfiirntattbed
Testimony of the Honorable Wayne T. Cilchrest
before the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
on the Budget for the Department of Interior
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to request that the moratorium on listing activities under the
Endangered Species Act not be renewed and that the Ecological Services Program under the Fish
and Wildlife Service receive adequate funding, ideally in the amount of the Administration's
request of $7.4 million, for listing and prelisting activities. 1 would also like to request that the
Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office be level funded at the requested $2,636
million.
Endangered Species Listing Moratorium
Much controversy has surrounded the Endangered Species Act in this Congress. The extent to
which the Act affects private and federal land and water use, and whether this is appropriate has
been hotly debated by my colleagues on the Resources Committee. The Act has successfully
protected species. 960 species currently listed might otherwise be extinct or severely depleted
today. Four species were delisted in 1995 bringing the total delisted to 23. Two species were
proposed for delisting in 1996.
The listing program has three specific objectives. It is intended to complete regulatory listing
actions and associated public involvement processes for those species most in need of legal
protection, to conduct required 5 year reviews of listed species and to assess the need for
reclassification or delisting of species (sec. 4(c)(2)), and to implement multi-species approaches
to protection in order to maximize efficiency and minimize conflicts.
The Act provides substantial protection for species that have been added to the list. Listing
imposes prohibitions on take, requires federal agencies to consult with the relevant agency (either
Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service) to ensure that their action will
not result in jeopardy to the species. It requires that habitat critical for the survival of the species
be acknowledged, although the take prohibition applies wherever the species occurs, whether it is
critical habitat or not. It provides substantial protection for the habitat on which the species
depends and requires the development of a recovery plan.
It has been alleged that listing species has been used as a tool to influence and control land use
decisions. This allegation may be acciu-ate to the extent that the primary cause of species decline
is loss of habitat. The focus of reforming the Endangered Species should not be on reducing
miNTlD ON MCYCUO PAPER
163
protection for species that are or should be listed. Reform of the F.SA should address the causes
of endangerment and seek to minimize those. Species are not helped by a moratorium on listing,
neither are landowners. Listing should be ihc option of last resort Landowners and species will
be helped by a program thai looks at species in decline and enlists the help of landowners and
federal agencies to thwart that decline.
The elimination of funds represented in the listing moratorium has resulted in a tremendous
backlog of work for the lish and Wildlife Service. Currently. 238 domestic species await listing
decisions. Without the protection of the Act. these species will continue to decline while the cost
of recovery will continue to increase. 100 species should have been proposed for listing in FY
1996. Prelisting activities would allow FWS to evaluate the threats to these species and perhaps
devise ways to conserve them without listing, determine that state level programs provide
adequate protection, determine that listing is not warranted, or find that without immediate action
the species in question might go extinct.
Restoration of funding will reduce the regulatory burden placed on the private sector by allowing
the Service to protect species before they become endangered; when management options are
reduced and the time to recovery, as well as the resources required to achieve recovery, is
increased.
Mr. Chairman, 1 have committed myself to work with my colleagues as well as members of the
regulated and environmental communities to craft a reauthorization to the Endangered Species
Act that will provide regulatory relief and certainty on one hand yet will not diminish the
protections of the Act on the other. I firmly believe that an approach that utilizes a more
voluntary, incentive-based approach to species protection without compromising the
responsibility of state and federal governments to conserve public trust resources is a viable one.
An important aspect of this approach, however, involves allowing the Fish and Wildlife Service
to work with States and large landowners to preserve our natural heritage before it becomes
endangered. Continuing the moratorium on species listing will put more species on the slippery
slope to extinction and will further erode our ability to undertake proactive wildlife management.
U.S. F.W.S. Chesapeake Bay Field Office
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the Chesapeake Bay field office be funded at the level
requested in the President's budget.
The Chesapeake Bay Field Office is the largest Coastal Programs office of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. In additional to managing 13 National Wildlife Refuges, 2 National Fish
Hatcheries, and a National Fisheries Center, encompassing a combined total of over 45,370
acres in the watershed of our nation's largest estuary, the field office participates in the
restoration and protection of the Bay by providing technical assistance in the areas of wetlands,
anadromous fish research and protection, biological monitoring, non-point source pollution, and
public awareness.
164
The Chesapeake Bay Field Office has a lead role in several nationally significant initiatives.
Besides the outstanding work restoring bald eagle populations in the Chesapeake Bay region
from 93 pairs in 1981 to 300 pairs in 1994. the men and women in the Chesapeake Bay field
office have been major players in the restoration of striped bass, known in Maryland as the
"rockfish". Populations on the East Coast. The fishery for rockfish collapsed in 1 985 as a result
of excessive fishing pressure. A moratorium was in effect for 10 years. In 1995 Amendment 5
to the striped bass management plan declared the population completely recovered and reopened
valuable recreational and commercial fisheries up and down the East Coast. This success is
largely due to the efforts of the Chesapeake Bay office. The Bay represents the single largest
portion of striped bass spawning grounds on the East Coast. Aggressive "catch and release"
tagging efforts and release of hatchery-reared wild-caught fish brought rockfish back from the
brink of extinction.
Completing the tagging efforts to restore rockfish, have provided the Office the understanding to
restore other depleted species such as shad, sturgeon and weakfish. FWS hopes to duplicate their
rockfish success with as many as 10 or 12 other commercially valuable species that rely on the
Bay. The restoration of fish passage and habitat in upstream reaches of Bay tributaries is a
priority for FWS. Coordinated efforts with state and federal agencies have successfully removed
blockages and provided for fish passage at major dams, opening up more than 200 miles of
critical spawning ground and habitat along the James and Susquehanna Rivers.
The Chesapeake Bay Office biologists, working with the Army Corps of Engineers, have
pioneered the concept of using material dredged from navigation channel maintenance projects
for the creation of wetland and forested habitat for fish and wildlife. The Bay Field Office is
also responsible for advising EPA on 30 Superfund sites in the mid-Atlantic region, and plays a
major role in hazardous material and oil spill response.
USFWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office has monitored the health and abundance of SAV in the
Bay for a decade. The Partners for Wildlife Program encourages private landowners to protect
and restore degraded habitats on their property. The Bayscapes Program encourages
envirorunentally sound landscaping techniques for backyard habitats in an effort to reduce non-
point pollution. The field office works cooperatively with numerous state and federal agencies
and local governments and organizations to restore and protect the natural resources that make
the Bay such a unique and important ecosystem. Maintaining full funding for the Chesapeake
Bay Field Office is vital to the continuation of ongoing research, monitoring, response readiness,
and education in the Bay watershed and the mid-Atlantic region.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me or my staff at x5-53 1 1 .
165
Wednesday, April 17, 1996
STONES RIVER NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD
WITNESS
HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Regula. Bart?
Mr. Gk)RDON. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you caught
my cold or I caught yours, but we sound similar.
Mr. Regula. We sound about the same.
Mr. Gordon. I want to first thank you for your patience and help
in the past. I'm here, once again, on a very personal topic to me
and that's Stones River Battlefield. To give you a quick recap — and
I have submitted a longer presentation for the record here — there
were over 10,500 battles and skirmishes during the Civil War.
Only 45 of those had a direct impact on the outcome of the war and
Stones River Battlefield was one of those. But, uniquely, it is the
smallest of those 45. It was set up real quickly back in the 1920's
and I think there were southern Democratic chairmen who were
tired of additional battlefields for Union victories and so they did
a little bit
Mr. Regula. Weren't there some that were Confederate vic-
tories?
Mr. Gordon. Well, at least not during that period. Apparently
they felt like they were honoring too many Union victories. As a
matter of fact, the State of Ohio has a monument there for some
of the troops that they sent down. The first monument of the Civil
War was built there.
Mr. Regula. At Stones River.
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. There were almost 50,000 casualties and
so right after, not the day after, they built some monuments to the
cause of these casualties. So, it's significant in that regard and it's
significant in that Secretary Lujan put it on his list of the 25 most
endangered battlefields. I see, really, a combination of it being too
small to start off with and, secondly, it's in the middle of the fast-
est growing community in Tennessee.
Mr. Regula. You're asking for money to buy additional land?
Mr. Gordon. Two things, yes, sir. That's one. I know you had a
moratorium last year on that. I hope that that's off this year. But
there are two things and I'll try to be real quick. Right after the
battle the largest earthen fort ever built in the United States — and
they think maybe in the world — was constructed by the Union
forces as a supply depot. It encompasses over 200 acres. It's called
Fortress Rosecrans after General Rosecrans. There's a small part
of that left that they have now restored as the overall fortress of
the battle and then there's a small redoubt there. Over the last five
years this committee has helped to make that possible. They need
$188,887 more to complete that. They have it planned very specifi-
cally. We asked to round it off to $190,000.
Mr. Regula. This is to improve existing structures?
Mr. Gordon. To finish the work on the fortress, then that's it.
No more, it's done. We don't knock on your door on that one any-
more. The second item is that, with this committee's help over the
166
last several years, they are building a trail along the Stones River
connecting the battlefield with this fortress. This was a unique op-
eration in that long before, I guess, we got to the frugalness that
we are now, the city agreed that if the park were to build this, they
would maintain it. So there would be absolutely no expense to the
park as this is being built. As a matter of fact, the city is helping
with the construction of it. To complete that job it looks like that
is $675,000 construction and $75,000 for planning.
And then, finally, to complete, well, not complete — the land ac-
quisition is two-pronged: One, there's one more parcels on the trail
that need to be taken care of, which is probably in the $100,000
range, and then all the money for the expense of the battlefield
within approved boundaries is obligated. So we would like to con-
tinue with that. So, rather than having two different land acquisi-
tions I thought we could make those consolidated. That is after
they purchase this one little piece for the trail, then that money
would go on over into the battlefield so that you don't have to guess
exactly what this would be and what that would be. But all of the
funds are obligated on our land acquisitions so that does need to
go forward. These others, construction will take care of the work
over the last five years and I can foresee no additional construction
there at the battlefield.
Mr. Regula. We'll see what our money is.
Mr. Gordon. Do you expect to have any land acquisition money
this year?
Mr. Regula. We'll probably have some but it's not likely well
earmark it. What we had in the 1996, which of course has not yet
been signed, was just a lump sum.
Mr. Gordon. Oh, you do? Okay.
Mr. Regula. That is subject to being allocated by the Secretary
and the members of the subcommittee.
Mr. GrORDON. Well, if there are going to be no earmarks, and, if
there are going to be some I'd like have it, and if there aren't going
to be any, I know this is a priority thing but I'll take my chances.
Mr. Regula. Well, what I think you should do, even in terms of
1996, is enter your plea with the Secretary of Interior so whenever
he brings his priority list for 1996 funds, assuming we get it even-
tually, we can look at that one along with the others.
Mr. Gordon. Well, now, if they're earmarked as a procedure, will
he come to this committee for a sign-off on them? Is that what will
happen?
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Gordon. You'll give him $100 and then he'll come to you and
say here's how we want to spend $100?
Mr. Regula. There's $140 million total in the bill, assuming that
it gets signed at some point.
Mr. Gordon. And I voted for the over-ride.
Mr. Regula. Good. We'll keep that in mind.
Mr. Gordon. As well as the bill.
Mr. Regula. The Secretary, in fact probably within the next cou-
ple of weeks, will come with a list of his earmarks and then we in
the Senate and House subcommittee people have to sign it. Basi-
cally, the chairman and the ranking member have to sign off. So
167
it's not earmarked in the bill to try to get the high priority acquisi-
tions.
Mr. Gk)RDON. That's good information. I appreciate it.
Mr. Regula. So I'd suggest you call the Secretary.
Mr. Gk)RDON. I will. Again, I thank you for your generosity. I've
tried to reciprocate the best way that I could.
Mr. Regula. We really appreciate your support.
Mr. Gordon. This is an important committee and hopefully we
can continue as a team.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Gordon follows:!
168
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Interior
Appropriations, It's good to see you once again regradlng
National Park Service Funding for the Stones River National
Battlefield. I appreciate your affording me the opportunity to
testify in support of a very important project, for which I
reguest three appropriations — $190,000, $750,000 and $850,000.
Over the past several years the subcommittee has provided
funding for various expansion, stabilization and interpretation
projects at Stones River National Battlefield in my hometown of
Murfreesboro, Tennessee. I want to once again thank the Chairman
and Mr. Yates for all of your past support and advice.
I am pleased to report that things are moving along well at
the Battlefield. In October of 1994, National Park Service
Director Roger Kennedy travelled to Murfreesboro to preside over
the official opening of Fortress Rosecrans. As we speak, crews
are working on stabilizing Redoubt Brannan and finalizing the
restoration of Fortress Rosecrans. As you recall. Fortress
Rosecrans was the largest earthen fortress constructed during the
Civil War. Redoubt Brannan was part of the overall fortress
complex which played the important, strategic role of protecting
the Stones River, the railroad tracks and the main road leading
into Nashville.
The cost estimates to stabilize and interpret Redoubt
Brannan and restore Fortress Rosecrans, from which I based my
funding request in 1991, have proven to be generally accurate.
We have, however, run into some unexpected costs which
necessitate an additional appropriation of $190,000.
The price of real estate is the primary reason for the
increased costs. Every time I have testified before this
subcommittee I have said the number one problem we face is
commercial and residential development and that our worst enemy
is time.
I am also pleased to report that the City of Murfreesboro
signed the contract for the construction of the historic river
trail on April 7, 1995. Tennessee currently has a 4 percent
unemployment rate. While a healthy economy and low unemployment
are normally great news, it has increased labor costs and the
price of construction. At the current time, 90% of the trail has
been completed. An additional appropriation of $675,000 in
construction funds and $75,000 in planning funds is needed to
complete the river trail project. Because we are so close to
final completion, I do not want to see all the progress made fall
short of realization due to lack of funds.
As you may know, Stones River National Battlefield is
located in Rutherford County which is the fastest growing county
in the state and one of the fifty fastest growing in the country.
169
Every month that goes by the cost of property Increases and the
chances of losing very historically significant land to
development multiplies. Additionally, the fact that former
Secretary of the Interior Lujan placed Stones River on his list
of 25 battlefields most endangered by development, and that
Stones River was one of 45 battles which had a determining effect
on the final outcome of the Civil War only heightens the
importance of my efforts.
For these reason, it is imperative that we take action now
to secure the remaining parcels of the Stones River National
Battlefield. Accordingly, I am requesting an appropriation of
$850,000 for land acquisition to preserve this historic Civil War
sight.
Nearly every chance I get I visit the Battlefield. I am
really pleased with the progress, and I'm encouraged by the
number and variety of out of state license plates I see on cars
in the parking lots. I am told attendance was up 21% during 1995
and I fully expect that to continue this year.
On one additional note, I would also rec[uest that report
language be included that allows the appropriations for the river
trail and the land acquisition be fungible.
Finally, I would like to compliment the Superintendent of
Stones River National Battlefield, Mary Ann Peckham, and her
staff for all of their hard work and dedication to making the
battlefield the best it can be. They are truly professional
people who are tremendous assets to the National Park Service.
Completing work at Stones River is of great personal
importance to me. Murfreesboro is my home and I want to make
this cultural resource as educational and enjoyable as possible
for Rutherford countians and visitors from all over the United
States and foreign countries.
Thank you again for all of your past help and support. I'll
be glad to answer any questions.
170
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
LASSEN VOLCANIC PARK VISITOR CENTER
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION
WITNESS
HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herger. No one's here?
Mr. Regula. Come on up. We're glad to have you.
Mr. Herger. It's good to be here. We had a broken copier ma-
chine.
Mr. Regula. Oh, shame.
Mr. Herger. I've got an original if you'd like it and I can bring
copies later.
Mr. Regula. Just send it down, we'll put it in the record. Tell
me what you want.
Mr. Herger. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Regula. Your full statement will be in the record, but just
summarize it for us.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank you
for your efforts during this past year to bring balance and common
sense back to the way we manage our national forests. Mr. Chair-
man, one of the principle charters of the U.S. Forest Service is to
manage our forests on a sustained yield basis. That is in a way
that would provide an adequate supply of timber and wood prod-
ucts for our country while at the same time insuring that we never
harvest more trees than we grow. This has been the agency's man-
date since 1960, yet, in recent years the Forest Service has made
a dramatic policy shift away from sustained yield. The impact has
been devastating to our forests. Over the last several years an in-
creasingly smaller fraction of national forest land is actually used
for harvesting timber.
Today the Forest Service manages 130 million acres of forest na-
tionwide of which only 37 percent is set aside for timber produc-
tion. In California only 19 percent of Forest Service land is des-
ignated for timber production; by comparison, 21 percent is set
aside in the State for wilderness and other preservation purposes.
This dwindling timber base has been accompanied by a steep de-
cline in annual timber harvest. Harvests in California, for example,
have decreased by an astounding 81 percent since 1988. The de-
crease nationwide over the same period has been over 60 percent.
The shrinking timber program has compounded the effects of a
century of aggressive fire prevention. As a result our forests are
now becoming unnaturally dense. California's, for example, are 82
percent denser today than they were just 70 years ago. Net annual
growth in our forests nationwide now exceeds 17 billion board feet.
This unmitigated growth has become a severe threat to forest
171
health. Overstocked timber stands have become unnaturally sus-
ceptible to the effects of drought, disease and insect infestations
and are dying at unprecedented rates.
Mr. Regula. Do you think this results from excessive planting?
Too many trees per acre?
Mr. Herger. No, just the natural process of the forests regen-
erate themselves and historically, prior to about 150 years ago, to
the 1850's, particularly in California, natural fires would come
through, Indians set fires and it would tend to do its own thinning.
With the Smokey the Bear campaigns, where we don't allow fires,
we have these very dense, unnatural types of stands, and without
going in and managing them by thinning them then we have for-
ests that are far denser than they normally would be. Therefore,
when there is a fire, rather than just burn the undergrowth and
do some thinning, the entire forests are destroyed.
Mr. Regula. That would be prime for salvage, would it not, be-
cause the salvage just falls over and becomes a fuel for the fire.
Mr. Herger. Well, if a salvage is done properly and, again, we
can dictate how salvages are done.
Mr. Regula. I mean if no salvages are done.
Mr. Herger. Exactly. With no salvage we get situations as we
have in California and, again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for coming out and seeing first-hand just this last year. But we've
had these 7 out of 10 years now that are drought and then you
have these trees that fall over and then again you just have it
compounded. In some areas of northern California over 60 to 70
percent of the standing timber is dead or dying. These severe con-
ditions dramatically increase the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire
that can burn as hot as 2,000 degrees and literally consume every-
thing in their path, including the soil.
In 1994 wildfires fueled by dead and dying trees and other natu-
ral fuels incinerated over 545,000 acres of forest in California alone
and 4 million acres nationwide. I urge this subcommittee to take
several steps to prevent this tragic destruction of our national for-
ests and reinstate the policy of sustained yield. First I urge the
committee to increase funding for the Federal timber program and
put it on a path that will make annual harvest more compatible
with annual growth. The salvage law began this process; now it is
time to take the next step.
Second, I urge the subcommittee to provide adequate appropria-
tions for Forest Service roads. These roads are the arteries of forest
management, providing access to overstocked timber stands, fire-
burned areas and other places where management is sorely needed.
Third, I request that the subcommittee insure adequate funding
for wildfire protection. Recently, the Forest Service in California
announced its plans to drastically reduce fire suppression programs
due to budget shortfalls and rising overhead costs. Such a move
would severely jeopardize the safety of our forests and forest com-
munities and can't be allowed to happen.
Finally, I ask the subcommittee to fully support community ini-
tiatives, like the Quincy Library Group, to improve forest health
through localized, adaptive management plans. Last year Secretary
Glickman promised the group $4.7 million to implement his plan
in California. I ask the subcommittee to follow through on this
172
commitment by earmarking funds within the Department of Agri-
culture budget, preferably from accounts in Washington.
In conclusion, I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the sub-
committee for your dedicated efforts to improve forest management
in our country. I look forward to continuing our joint efforts to
make our forests healthy and productive for future generations.
Mr. Regula. Okay, we could talk all afternoon on forest issues.
Thank you, Wally.
[The statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
173
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on the Interior
The Hon. Ralph Regula, Chairman
April 17, 1996
Statement by the Honorable Wally Herger
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify. Thank you also for your
tremendous leadership over the past year as chairman of this subcommittee. Your
personal efforts were indispensable in passing last year's historic timber salvage law. You
have also been a great leader in the efforts of this Congress to bring balance and common
sense back to the way we manage our country's natural resources.
I wish to address a number of issues before the subcommittee today, namely (1)
national forest management, (2) Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), (3) the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), (4) federal land acquisitions and (5) the Lassen National Park Visitors
Center. I will address each subject in the order mentioned.
Forest Management
Trees are our nation's most important and valuable natural resources. Wood, for
example, is the only building material on earth that is renewable, recyclable and
biodegradable. It is also energy efficient. For example, it takes one-third as much total
energy to construct a wall assembly for a house using wood studs as it does steel studs.
When timber harvests are vigorous, the cost of wood products is also much less than that
of metal So are the corresponding costs of homes, furniture and paper products
Because of the clear benefits that come to our country from using wood, it is
incumbent on us to make sure that our nation's forests continue to produce a plentifiil yet
sustainable harvest of timber both now and in the future. One of the principal charters of
the U.S. Forest Service is to manage our forests on a sustained yield basis, that is, in a
way that will provide an adequate supply of timber and wood products for our country
while at the same time ensuring that we never harvest more trees than we grow This has
been the agency's mandate since I960. Yet in recent years the Forest Service has made a
dramatic policy shift away from sustained yield. The impact has been devastating to our
forests
Over the last several years an increasingly smaller fraction of national forest land is
actually used for harvesting timber Today the Forest Service manages 140 million acres
forest nationwide of which only thirty-seven percent is set aside for timber production In
California, only nineteen percent of Forest Service land is designated for timber
production By comparison, 21% is set aside in the state for wilderness and other
preservation purposes.
174
This dwindling timber base has been accompanied by a steep decline in annual
timber harvests Harvests in California, for example, have decreased by an astounding
eighty-one percent since 1988. The decrease nationwide over this same period has been
over sixty percent.
The shrinking timber program has compounded the effects of a century of
aggressive fire prevention As a result, our forests are now becoming unnaturally dense.
California forests, for example, are 82% denser today than they were just 70 years ago
Net annual growth in our Forests nationwide now exceeds 17 billion board feet
Unmitigated growth has become a severe threat to forest health. Overstocked
timber stands have become unnaturally susceptible to the effects of drought, disease and
insect infestation and are dying at unprecedented rates. In some areas of northern
California, over 60-70% of the standing timber is dead or dying. These severe conditions
dramatically increase the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires that can bum as hot as
2,000 degrees and literally consume everything in their path, including the soil. In 1994
wildfires fueled by dead and dying trees and other natural fuels incinerated over 545,000
acres of forest in California and 4 million acres nationwide.
At the same time our forests are suffering fi-om over-density, epidemic mortality,
and fire, our timber-dependent communities and the forest products industry that support
them are withering and dying. Several weeks ago Sierra Pacific Industries announced the
closure of its sawmill mill in Hayfork, California marking the 30th mill closure in my
district in recent years. The tragedy of Hayfork is that 134 people will lose their jobs and
the economy will virtually shut down in a community that is literally surrounded by over a
million acres of prime timber land that is suffering the effects of over-density, bug-kill,
disease and fire
I urge this subcommittee to take several steps to reverse this tragic trend of
destruction in our national forests and forest communities. First, I urge the committee to
increase appropriations for the green and salvage harvest nationwide and begin to put the
federal timber sale program on a track that is more in harmony with the principle of
sustained yield The current program volume, particularly in California, is grossly
inadequate For example, even with the recently-enacted salvage law, the Forest Service
plans to harvest only 353 million board feet of salvage in California in 1996, a mere 13%
of the total volume of dead and dying trees in the state and only 22% of the total volume
of trees that will likely die in 1996 We desperately need an aggressive timber sale
program that will slow the rate of annual tree mortality in the near term and more
appropriately balance harvest and growth in the long term The salvage law began this
process Now it is time to take the next step.
Second, I urge the subcommittee to provide adequate appropriations for the
construction and maintenance of Forest Service roads These roads are the arteries of
forest management, providing access to overstocked timber stands, fire burned areas and
other places where management is sorely needed. In addition, they provide an important
175
infrastructure which supports fire suppression, habitat and watershed restoration, and
recreation.
Third, I request that the subcommittee take steps to ensure that adequate funding
is allocated to protect our forests from the destructive forces of wildfire Recently the
Forest Service in California has reported its plans to drastically reduce fire suppression
personnel and equipment in the state due to budget shortfalls and rising overhead costs.
Given the history of serious fire seasons in the state, such a plan, if fully implemented,
would severely jeopardize the protection of our forests and forest communities. It is,
therefore, crucial that an adequate fire prevention program remains in place in the state.
I ask the subcommittee to analyze the fire budget in California and take whatever
corrective steps are needed to ensure that it is adequate. I further suggest that the
subcommittee to explore how administrative overhead might be reduced within the state
without negatively impacting on-the-ground services.
Fourth, I ask the Subcommittee to give its full support to local community efforts
to improve forest health and reduce fire risk through the development and implementation
of localized adaptive management plans. The Quincy Library Group (QLG) in my district
is a prime example of this kind of effort. Last year Secretary Glickman promised the QLG
$4.7 million to begin implementing its plan for natural fuels reduction and enhanced
uneven-aged management on the Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe National Forests. I request
that the Subcommittee help the QLG realize the benefits of this promise by ensuring that
the designated amount is appropriately earmarked within the Department of Agriculture I
further ask the Subcommittee to do so in a way that will not divert funding from any other
unit in the National Forest System.
Finally, I request that the Subcommittee work with the authorizing committees to
explore methods of introducing market incentives to forest management. Recent studies
in Montana and Minnesota conducted by the Political Economy Research Center indicate
that state forests which utilize market incentives as a management tool perform better than
adjacent federal forests both environmentally and economically I firmly believe that many
of our problems with forest health and economic stability within timber dependent
communities in California could be remedied by placing in law the proper incentives to
maximize both harvests and environmental protection.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
In 1976 Congress enacted the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act. The
purpose of the Act was to require the federal government to make payments to counties
containing large concentrations of federal lands to help compensate for the loss of the
property tax base and to defray the cost of county services provided to federal land
managers. The law is particulariy important in western states where over 40% of the total
land base is owned by the federal government. The law also complement statutes
176
requiring the federal government to share 25% of the gross receipts from federal timber
sales with local governments to help pay for schools and roads.
Since 1 976, PELT payments to counties have never been indexed to reflect the
impact of inflation Consequently, counties are being pressured to meet an increasing •
demand for services on federal land from a dwindling pool of funds. This is an unfunded
mandate. Shasta County in my district, for example, is 40% owned by the federal
government, yet annual PILT payments to the county total only $103,000. By
comparison, the remaining 60% of the county that is privately owned generates $12.5
million in property tax revenue for the county.
Likewise, in recent years 25% payments generated from federal timber sales in
California have dwindled with the downward spiral of the federal timber sale program. In
1992, for example, 25% payments from timber harvests from the Plumas National Forest
generated over $9 million in 25% payments to the local counties. Two years later, after
the timber harvests on the forest were reduced by over 60% to protect habitat for the non-
endangered California spotted owl, these payments had plummeted by neariy two-thirds to
$3.5 million dollars. This sent shock waves through local school districts, many of which
were required to discontinue some of the most basic programs normally offered to their
students.
In 1 994 Congress authorized an increase in PILT payments to local government
units. To date none of the additional money authorized has been appropriated. I urge the
subcommittee to fully consider an increase in funding for the PILT program
commensurate with the 1994 law. At a minimum, I request that funding levels for 1997
not be reduced from those levels appropriated for prior fiscal years. In addition, I again
strongly urge the subcommittee to take aggressive steps to increase timber harvesting on
our national forests in order to enhance 25% payment receipts to local governments. Our
schools and the fragile infrastructures of our counties desperately need this relief
Lassen Volcanic Park Visitor Center
The Lassen Volcanic National Park in my district is one of the great treasures of
California and my district. In 1994 Congress appropriated $384,000 for the design and
engineering of a visitor center at the north end of this park in Shasta County. Further
appropriations for construction of the facility under a 50/50 cost share agreement will be
requested of this subcommittee next year.
Because the funding appropriated for 1995 has not yet been spent, the Lassen
Volcanic National Park Foundation has requested that Congress take steps to ensure that
these funds will remain earmarked within the National Park Service (NPS) budget until
they are expended. Although the NPS has given no indication that these funds are no
longer available, I request the help of this subcommittee to provide oversight as might be
needed to ensure that all moneys appropriated for the Lassen visitor center are actually
expended by the NPS for that purpose.
177
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act is a law which has as its objective a goal that is fully
embraced by all Americans — to protect our country's rich variety offish, wildlife and
natural vegetation. In recent years, however, the law has been implemented in a way that
has created tremendous burdens on private property owners, consumers and taxpayers
while providing very few corresponding benefits to protected species.
Efforts to protect the northern spotted owl illustrate this point. In 1990 the owl
was listed as a threatened species, because it was believed that these populations were
declining due to a loss of suitable owl habitat. At that time scientists determined that a
population of 2,400 birds was needed to ensure the viability of the species.
Since that time scientific studies have confirmed the presence of more than 7,000
total owls throughout California and the Pacific Northwest or nearly three times the
number experts originally reported were needed for a viable population. In addition, the
U.S. Forest Service, in January of 1995, reported that in northern California there were an
additional 2,600 to 4,000 California spotted owls. According to Forest Service biologists,
California spotted owls are genetically identical to northern spotted owls and are fully
capable of interbreeding with the northern owl. The only difference is that the California
owl lives in the Sierra Mountain range, while the northern owl lives in the Cascade
Mountain range. By every biological standard, the northern and California spotted owl is
the same bird.
This means that presently there are between 9,600 and 1 1,000 total spotted owls in
California and the Pacific Northwest — between four and five times the number that
scientists have stated are needed to keep the species viable. Each year the total number
increases as new nesting sites are confirmed. Yet the species is still listed as threatened
and the federal government continues to require that public and private land be managed
as though it were in decline.
The social and economic impacts of habitat protection for the spotted owl —
particularly the President's Northwest Forest Plan (Option 9) have been devastating. A
professor at the University of California at Berkley, for example, has estimated that the
aggregate national losses due to decreases in regional income and losses to consumers
from higher wood product prices have amounted to approximately $4 6 billion per year in
the initial years of implementation of the President's Option 9 plan — $4.6 billion dollars
per year to protect an owl that is flourishing at levels four to five time greater than what is
needed to ensure its viability. We have moved far beyond reason in the implementation of
the Endangered Species Act. What we are doing now defies the most basic common
sense.
Legislation is now pending before this Congress to restore balance and common
sense to the ESA. Until this legislation has been signed into law, we must make every
178
effort to stem the tide of over-regulation, private property rights violations, costs without
benefits, and blatant disregard for sound science.
For this reason I ask this subcommittee to extend the moratorium on the listing of
new species until the ESA has been reauthorized. I also request that the subcommittee
cooperate with the appropriate authorizing committees to provide the oversight necessary
to control the actual costs of species protection and to bring federal regulations more in
line with what is actually necessary to protect species.
Federal Land Acquisition
The federal government owns over 700 million acres of land in our country. To
put this into perspective, this is an area larger than Alaska, Texas, California and Arizona
combined Experience has taught us that, whether looking at national forests in northern
California or rangelands in Nevada, the federal government does not have sufficient
resources to manage such an enormous land base. This has resulted in the deterioration
and waste of some of our country's most valued natural resources.
Nowhere is the contrast between federally and privately managed land more stark
than in northern California. I have personally flown over stretches of forest where the
property line between federal and private land is delineated by where the live healthy trees
end and where the dead and dying trees begin. I am certain that this is an experience that
could be relived in state after state in the West.
Our country does not need more federal property. Rather, it needs more federal
property in private ownership. Private property owners have a stake in keeping their
resources healthy and productive in perpetuity. Federal property owners do not, and our
natural resources are suffering because of it. For this reason I strongly urge the
subcommittee to continue its efforts to prevent the acquisition of new public lands by the
federal government. 1 further request that the subcommittee explore ways of privatizing
more federal land.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the Chairman again for his dedicated personal
leadership in each of the areas that I have touched on today. I also wish to thank the
subcommittee for its commitment to bringing about meaningful government reform during
the Fiscal Year '96 appropriations process. Your efforts are bringing hope and vision to
people throughout the West and particulariy to the citizens of northern California
179
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
OCS AND OTHER PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. PORTER GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Regula. Porter?
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. You want to lift the moratorium, right?
Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, I've been in Congress eight years and
I've been eight times and I'm very pleased with the support we've
received from you and this committee. We are here one more time
and I would ask that my total statement be included in the record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Goss. Thank you. I will not bore you with the details. I think
you are very well familiar with them. Needless to say, the full floor
delegation is still very much behind the idea of continuing the mor-
atorium. I would like to say, however, that we have not been idle;
there has been a lawsuit that has cleared some of the problems
down around the Keys area, at least that's brought us some
progress.
Mr. Regula. Do you have some in Florida where we would have
to buy back the leases?
Mr. Gk)SS. There are some where that could happen in the east-
ern Gulf of Mexico. That's a possibility. My suggestion is that we
head to the H.R. 72, which is the Johnston-CJoss bill, which I guess
would now be the CJoss-Johnston bill, since the last year-and-a-half.
Anyway, the idea is that we're trying to get together on a biparti-
san basis in Florida to deal with a scientific approach to the ques-
tion of what's out there, the leasing, the shore site support, and in-
stead of having a moratorium have a direction to go that's based
on scientific fact.
Mr. Regula. What do you think about going into deep water
drilling? I notice Shell's going to put one down in the Gulf that's
7,000 feet.
Mr. Goss. That's probably not in our area. Is it west or east of
86 West? It depends where it is. 26 North and 86 West, we have
sort of one set of circumstances, and then above 26 North we have
another set of circumstances. There are a series of leaseholds out
there. They're estimated to have cost about $100 million. What
they're actually worth and what the buyback on them would be has
been the subject of a lot of discussion. What State participation, et
cetera, is a subject that I consider wide open.
The one area where they have done something is up in Chevron.
They've done something with gas up off the Pensacola area, but I
understand that they are using Shore Side and Mobile, and they've
connected in that way. I don't know all the details. Perhaps the
Congressman from that area — it would be Mr. Scarborough — could
fill you in more.
We're together on this because we'd like to get to the bottom of
it, and I keep troubling you. I don't know if I'll be here many more
years, but I don't think that myself or my successor should keep
180
coming back and asking you for a moratorium because there clearly
needs to be a verification.
A couple of other areas may I bring up, please? The south Flor-
ida ecosystem restoration we obviously support. There's a lot going
on there, many partners, the Federal Grovemment being one of sev-
eral; $105 million on that.
Mr. Regula. Yes, we have $200 miUion in the farm bill. The
query is, how much can they spend in one year?
Mr. Goss. That is probably a question that the managers of the
program could better answer than I can.
Mr. Regula. I think we need to examine that because we've got
a lot of players here.
Mr. Goss. I don't have any problem with
Mr. Regula. We've got USGS.
Mr. Goss. That, presumably, was particularly land acquisition,
probably specifically for
Mr. Regula. Was it earmarked for that?
Mr. Ck)SS. Yes, I believe so. And I think I know the piece of land,
and I think I know the purpose, and I know that there will be more
beyond that. My staff tells me that that's, in fact, correct. So that's
what the focus would be. Could we spend it all? Yes. Will we need
more? Yes, if we're going to do all the land acquisition that called
for in
Mr. Regula. I assume the State's going to make some contribu-
tion here?
Mr. GrOSS. Yes, and the taxpayers of my county, and the visitors
to my part of the State also get to pay because we are in a special
taxing district to buy back, even though we get very little benefit
and we are not the polluters, because we are downstream people.
Mr. Regula. I was in Indian Rocks; they were going to levy a
tax on rental cars.
Mr. Goss. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Somehow that sounds like the people that don't live
there are paying.
Mr. Gk)SS. The court has actually — we tried some innovative rev-
enue-raising in Florida that the court did not think was very inno-
vative. [Laughter.]
And we're not doing that anymore. In fact, we're sending
checks
Mr. Regula. To translate means "on those northerners." [Laugh-
ter.]
Mr. Goss. I think we're sending checks out right now to pay peo-
ple back for several close States and the State of Florida. It was
a good try. [Laughter.]
The point of dealing with south Florida, the Everglades area and
Florida Bay — it's a natural treasure. It's legitimate and there are
multi-partners.
Mr. Regula. Oh, I understand.
Mr. Gk)SS. Historic preservation is another area that you have
here. We support it. Florida does have a very proud record of lots
of State money. Much more than most other places, and we're al-
most in that funny position of, if we're doing such a good job of it,
then why would the Government help us? Why wouldn't they go to
the places where there are other areas of need? And you get caught
181
in that balance of, shall we reward the people who are playing the
game the right way or shall we reward the people who are not
playing the game the right way, because they have the need in
their area because they haven't done it? It's one of those binds
we're in. Florida has done a proud job. We have a request in and
I hope it can be honored.
The Fish and Wildlife Foundation we also think is a good new
approach that deserves attention as well because it brings in more
partners.
Mr. Regula. Thanks for coming over.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
[The statement of Mr, Gross follows:]
182
■AftOS OF OffiCIAl CONDUC
Congress of tlic (Linitft) ^t.itcs
Ijoiisr of l\rprfsciUiUi»)fs ■"/'.,
ililastiington. uS^ 20313-0014 ..TTT;,
^"""""'" STATEMENT OF PORTER J GOSSiFLUi
BEFORE THE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
17 APRIL 1996
Summary of Depariment ot Inierior Reuuesis
OCS: Renewal ot [he current moraioria on leasins! and pre-leasing aetiMlies tor lease sales m the
Eastern Gult ot Mexico.
A moratorium on drilling in the area north ot 26 degrees north latitude pending the tmdinss o\ an
environmental sciences review panel
South Florida Initiative: Full funding for DOI's South Florida restoration initiative, which includes
some S105 million for the overall ecosystem management and recovery program.
Historic Preservation: Full funding for the state grants: S32.5 million.
National Fish And Wildlife Foundation: S6 million.
Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and the Subcommittee
today to express the concerns of the Florida delegation over outer continental shelf (OCSi oil and
gas activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, to support the Department of the Interior's South
Florida initiative, to speak to the issue of historic preservation, and to suppon the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation
I am heartened to see that the President, in his Tiscal 1997 budget, again supports the
restrictions on oil and gas activities in the region south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86
degrees west longitude, and that he has asked for the continuation of leasing and pre-leasmg
moratoria for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico north of 26 degrees north latitude
I am also pleased that the lawsuit surrounding the cancellation of the existing leases around
the Florida Keys was sealed last year This removes the immediate threat of oil and gas drillmg in
a most sensitive and pristine area. However, I still believe that a long-term strategy is needed for
the entire Florida coastline, and together with my Florida colleague Harry Johnston I tiave introduced
a bill -- H,R. 72 -- to address this need
H R 72, which was introduced in January 1995, provides for a "ume out" period during
which no new leasing or drilling could take place in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico During this
period, several scientific studies that have been specifically requested by the state of Florida would
be completed A joint federal-state task force would then review these soidies. and (if necessary)
recommend further ones. Once the joint task force determines that an adequate base of scientil'ic and
environmental data exists, it would recommend what areas (if any) of the Eastern Gulf could safely
sustain oil and gas exploration and production.
The benefits of this approach are clear: it provides a long-term strategy for safe and
environmentally sound development of the natural resources off of Florida's coast. Once the
necessary studies have been completed, the questions over whether or not to allow development on
existing leases could be answered quickly and comprehensively, and any new lease sales would be
183
iuiiied hy (he bt^t >cientitic knowlcdiic available
Bui in the meaniime I must ask your indulgence as in previous years to consider (he merits
ot extending the one-year moratoria I would also like to call your attention to a letter signed by
the entire Florida House delegation in support ot continuing the OCS moratorium
Floridians oppose offshore oil drilling because of the threat it presents to the state's greatest
natural and economic resource: our coastal environment. Florida's beaches, fisheries, and wildlife
draw millions of tourists each year from all over the globe, supporting our state's largest industry.
Tourism supports, directly or indirectly, millions of jobs all across Florida, and the industry
generates billions of dollars every year .A 1990 study by Lee County estimates that a major
blowout/oil spill could cost the economy of Lee County alone some $590 million in lost revenue
This translates into a loss of 12.J00 jobs
.■\lso. tlie on-shore facilities required to process the oil would be an eyesore at best. More
likely, these facilities would change the character of the Florida coast, contribute to the pollution of
the environment, and pose serious problems for Florida s tourism and real esute industries
The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine areas m the world. These brackish
waters, with their mangrove forests and seagrass beds provide an irreplaceable link in the life cycle
of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's commercial fishing industry relies on these
estuaries because they support the nurseries for most commercially harvested fish. Perhaps the most
environmentally delicate regions in the Gulf estuaries could be damaged beyond repair by a
relatively small oil spill.
Thank you for allowmg me to speak to an issue that is of great importarKe to Southwest
Floridians I appreciate this Subcommittee s previous attention to Florida OCS issues, and I hope
this year's request can be considered favorably
Another issue I would like to address this year is the DOI budget request for the Soutli
Rorida Exosystem Restoration initiative This endeavor iiicludes restoration efforts in the
Everglades. Big Cypress, and Florida Bay areas, as well as improvement of the fresh water flow
throughout the southern part of the state
As you are aware, southern Florida has undergone extensive development over the last 80
years, particularly the draining of marshlands to accommodate agricultural and urban land uses, and
the development of a massive flood contfol project that constructed nearly 800 miles of levees and
500 miles of canals. Severe ecological problems have also been imposed on the fragile ecosystem
by rapid population growth and its effect upon fresh water levels and quality
The Department of Interior has made significant strides in its efforts to fix what has been
"broken" by coordinating the efforts of four agencies within the department, including: the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Service, and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. This year Interior hopes to build of these efforts, and I support the full request
of $105 million for this effort.
Within that total. 1 would like to call attention to the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge -
- a site that receives many visitors from all over the world. Ding Darling provides a great example
of environmental stewardship and cooperation with the local community This year's budget includes
a request for funding to purchase a few acres of land - "inholdings" - that are being held
temporarily by die local government and community groups until they can be purchased by the
refuge. I support this cooperative effort and hope your panel looks favorably on this request.
Again this year. I want to briefly mention the importance of historic preservation. Our
national heritage deserves protection and preservation for future generations: in addition, preservation
IS important to liKal and state economies
184
The stale i)t Fioriila has a strong preservation program thai contributes to neighborhooO
revitahzatioii. provides rental housing units, and enhances the tourism industry. Florida's
participation in the joint tederal/staie historic preservation program demonstrates its conunitmem to
preservation efforts: last year Florida matched the federal grant of $670,861 with $15 million in state
funds
I understand the importance of making ends meet and eliminating the budget deficit. I realize
that worthy programs will have to take some cuts -- but out of the total historic preservation funding,
the state grants are perhaps the most important and the most effective
Finally. I would also like to support the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the
request tor $6 million in FY l*J97 Through the Foundation, we make a solid and sensible
investmeni in conservation Through partnership agreements, a triples the federal investment.
providing a mechanism lo engage the private sector and liKal units of government in resource
management.
Again, thank you for your consideration of these requests.
185
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY NWR
WITNESS
HON. ANNA ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Regula. Anna, I think you're next here.
Ms. EsHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to say, "and
members of the subcommittee," but I'm looking at the whole com-
mittee in addressing you.
Mr. Regula. Well, we haven't exactly had a big turnout today.
Ms. EsHOO. Well, I appreciate
Mr. Regula. No offense.
Ms. ESHOO. No, absolutely not. [Laughter.]
I appreciate
Mr. Regula. Your statement's in the record.
Ms. EsHOO. All right. And I want to thank you for allowing me
to testify today regarding the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Regula. We had testimony on it. So we're familiar with it.
Ms. ESHOQ. Yes, thank you.
I'm here, of course, to express my support for a request from the
citizens' committee to complete the refuge for $10 million from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire the last significant
wetlands parcel on San Francisco Bay for addition to the refuge.
The citizens in the area, Mr. Chairman, have already contributed
just shy of a million dollars to this important project, and the State
of California has committed approximately $8 million.
As you know, our distinguished former colleague, Don Edwards,
was instrumental in making this refuge a reality. This year the ref-
uge will be dedicated to him, in recognition of his leadership, and
I can't think of a more opportune time to fulfill our longstanding
goal of adding Bier Island in Redwood City to the refuge.
Bier Island's 1,680 acres are the last easily-restorable wetlands
left on the Bay.
Mr. Regula. Is it an island?
Ms. EsHOO. Yes, it is.
Mr. Regula. What's there now?
Ms. ESHOO. It is owned right now, Mr. Chairman, by a Japanese
corporation. And one may, with legitimacy, raise the issue, well, if
it's owned by the private sector, why would the public sector and
citizens be committed to raising the dollars for acquisition? It's be-
cause of its value. I couldn't help but notice when I came into the
hearing room the Cuyahoga Valley picture. While I don't think that
that's your district, it's not too far from it.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Ms. ESHOO. And the movement that was in place, along with the
legislative leadership that helped to make it happen. So this is
something that is of high priority to people in the area. There is
much — and I will give my testimony for the record without going
through all of it, but it is known as the people's refuge. It's host
to 300,000 visitors a year. We should bring you out, so you could
see it.
186
Mr. Regula. Why would they buy it initially? It obviously has
some wetlands in it and marsh, and so on.
Ms. ESHOO. Well, the species that are there are really a labora-
tory, as it were. That's why there are visitors from all over the
world, representatives of foreign governments
Mr. Regula. Why would the Japanese company buy it to begin
with?
Ms. ESHOO. Oh, it's been in private ownership, and now we are
trying to acquire it to make it part of
Mr. Regula. No, I understand that.
Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Of the publicly-held lands.
Mr. Regula. Are there any buildings on it or is it still raw land?
Ms. ESHOO. No, it is without human construction on it; only what
God created is on it.
But 300,000 visitors a year, over 10,000 local school children —
it's so attractive to fishers that they line up every morning before
the gates are open.
Mr. Regula. One last question.
Ms. EsHOO. Sure.
Mr. Regula. You say in your testimony it's not clear what the
eventual selling price will be and you're talking about $10 million
in federal appropriations. There's no guarantee that we get it for
$10 million, is it?
Ms. EsHOO. That's absolutely right. What we are attempting to
do, Mr. Chairman — and I'm sure sitting in the seat that you're in
that you hear the word "partnership" an awful lot
Mr. Regula. Right. I use it a lot.
Ms. EsHOO [continuing]. To essentially develop — right — to essen-
tially develop the magnet of funds that would make it, then, attrac-
tive to those that now privately hold the lands to sell it. It is on
the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Priority List. It's ranked,
I believe. No. 7 out of 124 sites. So that's pretty top-tier.
I know that there's not a great deal in the President's budget,
but there are dollars, and we want to be competitive for it. Is the
authorization, the appropriation authorized? It is. There is a sec-
tion under which it is. And so, again, I'm bringing forward the case
where it is a magnificent part of the crown, essentially, of the Bay
Area. We call ourselves a Bay Area people, and this wildlife refuge
I think is an extraordinary example of
Mr. Regula. What's the access now, solely by water?
Ms. ESHOO. Yes. It is. It is, but very heavily made use of. It's not
something that
Mr. Regula. So the Japanese corporation that owns it lets others
have access?
Ms. EsHOO. Yes. Yes, but we want to have it again acquired, so
that it is part of the national preserve that is already in place in
San Francisco Bay, and what we are naming after, most appro-
priately, after Don Edwards, and make it part of this national wild-
life refuse.
So while I understand and have, I think, a pretty good apprecia-
tion of all the requests that come before you, it always takes some
leadership and vision to create these things for future generations
to say: that must have been an easy thing for them to do, because
it was such a great idea.
187
So I'm going to submit the rest of my testimony for the record,
Mr. Chairman. I know that there are others that are here to speak
to you today, and we will shortly be submitting to you members of
the California delegation that support this. I think it's important
for you to see that as well.
And I want to thank you for your time and your interest. And
if the committee has any questions that you want to follow up with,
we stand poised to answer them for you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you for coming.
Ms. ESHOO. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:]
188
TESTIMONY
The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo
April 17, 1996
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
Mr. Chainnan and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for allowing
me to testify today regarding the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
I am here to express my support for a request from the Citizens Committee to
Complete the Refuge for $10 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire
the last significant wetlands parcel on San Francisco Bay for addition to the refuge. Citizens
in the area have already contributed almost $1 million to this important project. The State
of California has committed approximately $8 million.
As most of you know, our distinguished former colleague Don Edwards was
instrumental in making this Refuge a reality. This year, the Refuge will be dedicated to him
in recognition of his leadership. 1 can't think of a more opportune time to fulfill our long-
standing goal of adding Bair Island in Redwood City to the Refuge.
Bair Island's 1,680 acres are the last easily restorable wetlands left on the Bay, and
their addition will go far to redress the harmful effects of 150 years of degradation. The
Fish and Wildlife Service's recovery plan for the California clapper rail and the salt marsh
harvest mouse identifies the acquisition and restoration of Bair Island as essential. In fact,
the restoration of Bair Island is the single most important action we could take to see these
species removed from the Endangered Species List.
The Refuge has really lived up to its billing as the "peoples Refuge". It is host to
300,000 visitors a year, educates 10.000 local school children, and is so attractive to fishers
that they line up every morning before the gates are open.
The Refuge has been valuable to the international community as well. Within the last
few years, representatives of countries from around the world, including Mongolia, Japan,
Russia, China, Sri Lanka, Korea, Ukraine, and Costa Rica, have sent their wildlife experts
to our Refuge to learn management techniques. The acquisition and restoration of Bair
Island would provide the focal point for these international training sessions.
The citizens of the Bay Area are grateful for this Subcommittee's support of the San
Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge. I urge you to continue your support by honoring this
request.
189
Questions and Answers on the Acquisition of Bair Island
Who owns the land now? A Japanese finn named Kuma-Gai Kumi.
How much will the acquisition cost? It's not clear what the eventual selling price of the Bair
Island might be. The $10 million appropriation will be helpful in convincing the current
owners that the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge has the ability to make a major
purchase.
How much has been raised in the region? Citizens of the region have raised almost $1
million. The citizen fundraising efforts will continue. About $8 million is available ftx)m
the State, and about $S million is available from San Jose.
What if the current owners do not agree to sell the property? Heretofore, they have been
unwilling to do so: Again, the $10 million appropriation will help convince the current
owners that the region has the ability to make a major purchase. The citizens of the region
are 100% behind the acquisition of the property for the region and are working to everything
possible on a local level to induce a sale. As a last resort, the legislation expanding the Don
Edwards refuge includes the power of condenmation.
Is the Appropriation Authorized? Yes. Under PL 100-556, such sums as may be necessary
were authorized, to remain available until expended.
Where is this on the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Priority List for acquisition? San
Francisco Bay is number 7 on the NPL this year, out of 124 sites.
190
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
DOE AND FS
WITNESS
HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Regula. Next on our list is Joel Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Your testimony will be made part of the record.
Mr. Hefley. Good. I'll try to be brief.
Mr. Regula. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of
two requests that are in my district, one for $37,000 for minor con-
struction at a National Park Service unit and another for report
language directed toward the Forest Service.
My first request is that $37,000 be appropriated for construction
of some stump shelters at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monu-
ment. This site is characterized by a wealth of fossilized insects,
plants, and petrified tree stumps. Two of these stumps have been
exposed to allow for interpretation, and this has resulted in un-
avoidable weathering and damage to the resource. They can
Mr. Regula. So if we put in the $37,000, will they match it? I
see you've got $23,000.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, they
Mr. Regula. Would that be an incentive for them to get the bal-
ance?
Mr. Hefley. Yes, I'm sure it would. And they think that this will
do the job to protect these stumps.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Hefley. And you'd be interested in this, Ralph. That's just
a picture of it.
We don't want to lose the resource. They can cover it up with
dirt, but then no one can see it. And so they want to build these
shelters.
The second request is for report language directing the Forest
Service to undertake a study to determine whether the Summit
House, which is on top of Pike's Peak — and you're probably familiar
with that
Mr. Regula. I've been there, yes.
Mr. Hefley [continuing]. Mr. Chairman — can be repaired or if
it's necessary to construct a new facility. The 32-year-old Summit
House serves as a visitors' center to a million tourists each year.
The building is owned by the Park Service under a Memorandum
of Understanding with the Forest Service. It's privately operated
and funded through a variety of government, municipal, and pri-
vate funds.
A preliminary assessment by the city of Colorado Springs, in con-
sultation with the Forest Service, has determined that mere re-
pairs to the Summit House just won't get it done. And we want to
finalize what actually needs to be done with that Summit House.
We don't want to let it just fall down around our ears. It's a very
important resource, and people do enjoy going to the top of Pike's
Peak, as you well know.
So we're not asking for additional money
191
Mr. Regula. Would the State put in any money on a new one?
Mr. Hefley. It's mainly been the city and private funds, and so
forth. I don't know whether we could get money from the State for
a new one. But the city has been
Mr. Regula. You don't think you can rehab the existing facility?
Mr. Hefley. Their preliminary findings are that it would cost
more money to rehab it than it's worth, and then you would have
a toggled-up deal. But, again, what we're asking for is the lan-
guage, so that we can finalize that and see if that's true or not.
Mr. Regula. So what you want to do is examine the options?
Mr. Hefley. Yes, examine the options.
Mr. Regula. Okay, we'll see what we can do.
Mr. Hefley. All right, super.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
192
STATEMENT
OF
U.S. REP. JOEL HEFLEY (R-CO-5)
Before The
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
Wednesday, April 17, 1996
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to testify today in support of a $37,000 appropriations
for a minor construction project at a National Park Service unit in
my district and for report language dealing with that project and
another request involving the U.S. Forest Service.
The first of these is a request for $37,000 to aid in the
construction of shelters to protect two petrified stumps at the
Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. A wealth of fossil
insects, seeds and leaves are preserved here in great detail, as
well as the petrified tree stumps. Despite its relatively remote
location, the site has attracted up to 100,000 visitors per year
for the past eight year.
Two of the stumps have been exposed to the elements, to better
interpret the unit's resources. While such a display aids in part
of the unit's mission — interpreting such displays for the
enjoyment of the general public — it results in unavoidable damage
to the resource. Exposure to high altitude, rain and snow have
resulted in a growing weathering problem.
At least eight years ago, a public support group, the Friends
of the Florissant Fossil Beds, began a campaign to raise money to
build shelters for these two stumps. To date, the group has
managed to raise approximately $23,000 toward that goal. According
to the unit superintendent, a federal appropriation of $37,000 to
the unit and language directing its use would enable the
construction of these two shelters and protection of the resource.
The National Park Service has taken no position on my request.
The NPS philosophy has been that, if a problem is serious enough,
it will be added to the agency's priority list, which this has not.
Further, the agency feels that, if a problem is serious enough, the
unit manager should be able to find money in the unit's operating
budget to effect repairs. However, Florissant's operating budget
totals $21,000 a year. Utilizing those funds would result in
drastic staff cuts and little progress toward protecting the
resource. Thus, Florissant appears to fall between a rock and a
hard place — not important enough to rate inclusion on the Park
Service priorities list yet too expensive to been handled by the
unit itself.
193
Hefley Testimony — Page Two
In past years, I have appeared before this subcommittee to
testify on behalf of a much larger request, for $9 million to $12
million to construct a new visitors' center, an amphitheater and
stump shelters, and provide parking and improved sewerage at the
unit.
Given current and projected constraints on the federal budget,
it appears unlikely this time of funding will be made available in
the near or even more distant future. Meanwhile, the problem with
these stumps continues to worsen and this $37,000 investment seems
a prudent one.
My second request is not for money at all but for language
directing the U.S. Forest Service to undertake a study to determine
whether, in its judgment, the existing Summit House visitors'
center atop Pikes Peak can be repaired or if it is necessary to
construct a new facility. The Forest Service should be further
directed to provide cost estimate for either option.
As you know. Pikes Peak is an important landmark, not only to
Colorado but to the nation as a whole, and the 32-year-old Summit
House serves as a visitors' center to millions of tourists each
year. Unfortunately, the building has severe structural and safety
problems, the repair of which cannot be economically justified
according to the preliminary results of an environmental assessment
by a design team organized by the City of Colorado Springs and
working with the Forest Service.
The Summit House is currently owned by the National Park
Service under a memorandum of understanding with the Forest
Service. It is privately operated but receives operations and
maintenance funding from a variety of government, municipal and
private sources. These parties recognize that future federal
outlays for construction are likely to be extremely constrained and
agree that replacement of the Summit House will be accomplished
only through a public-private partnership. These parties hope to
hold future federal financial involvement to far less than 50
percent .
Local officials state that nearly 90 percent of the work
needed for the requested study has been completed. The city and
design team have agreed to make the results of their previous work
available and generally to assist the Forest Service in any way
needed. This should ensure that any costs beyond normal
administrative costs incurred by the Forest Service should be
minimal.
This concludes my testimony. Again, thank you for giving me
the time and I hope that you will give serious consideration to
these requests. I look forward to working with you.
194
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS
NRA LAND ACQUISITION
WITNESS
HON. ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CAUFORNIA
Mr. Regula. Tony?
Mr. Beilenson. Apropos of nothing much in particular, I spent
two summers when I was younger trekking around the country,
and I found myself during one of them in Colorado Springs, worked
there for a month, and toward the end of that time I was offered
a job driving people from the Broadmoor up to the top of Pike's
Peak. I never did take the job, never got to the top of Pike's Peak.
I support Mr. Hefley in fixing it up; in case I ever get up there,
there vill be a place to stop. [Laughter.]
I'm here
Mr. Regula. When you have time on your hands. [Laughter.]
Mr. Beilenson. I shall.
Mr. Chairman, I've submitted to you, and you've got, I'm
sure
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Beilenson [continuing]. A nine-page statement on the Santa
Monicas and a six-page statement on elephants and tigers and
rhinos.
Mr. Regula. That's why I wore this tie today.
Mr. Beilenson. I forgot to wear my elephant tie. I'm sorry.
Mr. Regula. I was ready for you.
Mr. Beilenson. That's sweet of you. That's really sweet of you.
Thanks. [Laughter.]
I'll wear mine tomorrow.
May I have about three minutes? And I'll just give a very brief
overview of this.
Mr. Regula. Sure.
Mr. Beilenson. We're asking, as you can see on the first page,
for the Santa Monicas, for at least $10 million for land acquisition.
I know that's more than you can give. At the same time
Mr. Regula. We'll do as much as we can.
Mr. Beilenson. I understand. At the same time, it's less than we
need, and I didn't know what figure to put in there, quite frankly.
I just
Mr. Regula. Did we ever get Bob Hope to give some of that land
he has?
Mr. Beilenson. I can't talk about this in public, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. All right. Talk to me about it privately. [Laughter.]
Mr. Beilenson. We can't even not only not get him to give it;
we can't get him to sell it at decent prices.
Mr. Regula. I remember when he wanted an easement, but
there was no quid.
Mr. Beilenson. Yes, exactly.
Anyway, as I don't need to remind you, sir, you all have been ter-
ribly helpful. We own 21,000 acres in the Santa Monicas. We're
195
hopeful of, over the next few years, picking up another 15,000 acres
or so. A lot of the properties that the National Park Service is fo-
cusing on now are in-holdings where people are anxious to sell to
us, and we don't have adequate amount of money.
So, anyway, we need more than the $10 million. As I said, I
know that's more than you can give us, but I thought I'd ask for
it just to give you some feel for it.
Mr. Regula. Are California and the National Park Service work-
ing together to avoid duplicating facilities?
Mr. Beilenson. Yes, yes.
Mr. Regula. When I was there, why, it was obvious that they
overlapped a great deal.
Mr. Beilenson. But it's hugely helpful, too. I mean, partially be-
cause of the exigencies, you know, budget requirements both here
and at the State level as well, as the chairman knows — especially
in the last three or four or five years, I've never seen State agen-
cies and Federal agencies and some local agencies work so closely
together as they have there.
Mr. Regula. That's good.
Mr. Beilenson. It's wonderful.
The State owns some properties. As you know, there are three
State parks
Mr. Regula. Yes, right.
Mr. Beilenson [continuing]. Which I was instrumental in help-
ing to set up 25, 30 years ago, when I was in the legislature, and,
of course, the Santa Monicas here. Eventually there may well be
some shifting around of properties, so that the State can manage
and provide the rangers for some in their own area, and the Fed-
eral maybe move out to another area.
Most recently, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, you may recall
there's been an argument over the past three or four years about
a possible condemnation suit against Silka, the Japanese-based
university
Mr. Regula. Yes, right.
Mr. Beilenson [continuing]. That owns some land which we've
always wanted. It's right in the heart of the thing. We've reached
a tentative agreement with them which will involve spending no
money from the Federal Government or the State. They're going to
stay there in a small forum. We wish they weren't there. We wish
we could have the property, but we can't afford it. But there will
be 375 acres-plus turned over to one public agency or another with
public access to add both to the State and to the Federal. So we're
making real progress. We're being forced to, and we're making real
progress.
At the same time, we do have 15 million people who live within
10 miles or
Mr. Regula. Oh, yes.
Mr. Beilenson [continuing]. Excuse me, within about 50 miles
of the park, and California's population is going to double in the
next 35 years. So there's still a lot of pressure on it.
One final word on that: in a sense, it's a silly argument in some
respects. I shouldn't say that, but it's a strange argument, but it's
true. We end up, peculiarly, saving huge amounts of money by
spending even a few tens of millions of dollars to acquire land be-
196
cause it's then taken out of private ownership and inappropriate
uses of it are not made; that is, to build houses and things in a
fire-and-flood-prone area.
Six thousand acres of our park were burned over two-and-a-half
years ago in the big Malibu fires. It didn't cost us anjrthing. It's all
coming back. We've got new flowers we've never seen before. It's
wonderful. We lost some trees and things.
Right next to it, hundreds upon hundreds of homes were de-
stroyed, where they really shouldn't have been built in the first
place. And the Federal Government is reimbursing homeowners
there billions of dollars. I mean, we saved billions of dollars by hav-
ing bought some, for other purposes, parkland. It's interesting, but
it's true.
And the final thing I just wanted to say to you with respect to
the Santa Monicas is, obviously, I'm a pleader for that particular —
and I don't need to tell you this. I sure hope that you all can find
some additional monies for parks in general. Where everyone goes
around the country — and I know you spend a great deal of your
time, Mr. Chairman, doing it — it's clear that all of the parks, in-
cluding the old-line biggest parks, need an awful lot of money for
fixing up and for buffer zones, and so on, and we simply don't have
enough money for them. The administration isn't asking enough. I
wish somehow we could dig deeper into the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund
Mr. Regula. Well, we're pushing. The problem is there isn't any
fund. It's a little bit like what we're debating today, on taking the
Highway Trust Fund off budget.
Mr. Beilenson. I know.
Mr. Regula. It's just not there.
Mr. Beilenson. I know.
Mr. Regula. But we're trying to get a fee bill with a proviso that
the fee goes right back to the source of collection.
Mr. Beilenson. That would be wonderful. That's what the park
people themselves would
Mr. Regula. I think we have to do it in the long run.
Mr. Beilenson. I think people would strongly support it. People
love the parks.
Mr. Regula. Right, they do.
Mr. Beilenson. They're willing you know, they don't mind pay-
ing a little bit more if they think the money will go back into the
parks.
Mr. Regula. I think you're right.
Mr. Beilenson. One final word on that is that the population of
this country, Mr. Chairman, is going to double to half a billion peo-
ple in the next 45 years, and the pressures on our parks, as well
as other things, is going to at least double, too. So we've got to keep
that in mind.
Mr. Regula. I agree, and we neglect maintenance. That's the
easy one to put off.
Mr. Beilenson. Oh, I know it. We were just up at the C&O
Canal headquarters right across from Shepherdstown right near
Antietem. I can't even think of the name of the town — Sharpsberg,
I guess. It looks like the place hasn't been painted for the last 50
197
years. I mean, it's just pathetic. It wasn't even a visitors' place, just
a park.
May I have one more minute on elephants, rhinos, and tigers?
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Beilenson. We're asking — and you've got this in front of
you — for at least $1.2 million for the African elephant conservation
fund and at least $400,000 for the rhino/tiger conservation fund.
The administration, although they strongly support these things, is
asking for less money, about half as much, because that's what you
were able to give last year. I would urge you to give serious consid-
eration to putting a little bit more in. We're talking about peanuts
here, and we're talking about two things: one, elephants, where
this country's actions, with your help four or five years ago, has
turned the tide on the decimation of the African elephant, where
they've gone down from a million and a half during the 1980s down
to about 400,000. Now it seems to have leveled off and it's begin-
ning to grow again. For the first time, the money, the seed money,
through the U.S. and now through other contributory countries and
through NGOs, nongovernmental organizations
Mr. Regula. Well, we'll do as much as we can because I think
it's an important program.
Mr. Beilenson. It's been a wonderful successful, Mr. Chairman,
with almost no money, and it's worth it.
The other thing is rhinos and tigers. I know that people back
home don't appreciate this, although if you go out and talk to kids
or even to grownups about it — there are 11,000 rhinoceroses left in
the world outside of zoos and 5,000 or 6,000 tigers. In our chil-
dren's lifetimes, or our grandchildren's lifetimes, they are liable to
become extinct on our watch, as it were.
It is so sad. I mean, it's really pathetic. With modest amounts
of contributions, first from us, and then that again catalyzes money
elsewhere, as we did with elephants, we can save them. I think it's
worth doing. And if it takes a million dollars a year or half a mil-
lion dollars a year, you know, we can find that somewhere.
Mr. Regula. I agree.
Mr. Beilenson. I know you do.
Mr. Regula. We'll do as much as we can.
Mr. Beilenson. I know you will. Thanks a lot.
Mr. Regula. As you may recall, last year the Speaker very forc-
ibly opposed the amendment to delete the money.
Mr. Beilenson. I know it. So we were left; with the $400,000,
and it was wonderfully helpful, but, you know
Mr. Regula [continuing]. It's tight budgets.
Mr. Beilenson. I know, sir.
Mr. Regula. Yes, okay. Thank you.
Mr. Beilenson. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[The statement of Mr. Beilenson follows:]
198
STATEMENT OP HON. ANTHONY C. BEILENSON
BEFORE THE
SXTBCOMMZTTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to express
my support for at least $1.2 million for the African Elephant
Conservation Fund, and for at least $400,000 for the Rhino/Tiger
Conservation Fund, both of which are administered by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
We appreciate the support this subcommittee showed for those
two programs last year by providing half of the Administration's
request in each case. Of course, we wish the entire amounts had
been provided. Although the Administration's FY 97 request calls
for continuing funding at the levels they expect to receive in FY
96--$600,000 for the elephant fund, and $200,000 for the
rhino/tiger fund- -I believe a more appropriate amount would be
the one that the Administration requested last year- -about $1.2
million for the elephant fund, and $400,000 for the rhino/tiger
fund.
The African Elephant Conservation Fund, authorized by the
African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988, provides federal grant
assistance to African wildlife agencies, organizations, and
individuals to pay for approved projects for research,
conservation, management and protection of African elephants.
Four years ago, we reauthorized the African Elephant Conservation
Act for $5 million a year through FY 97.
The Rhino/Tiger Conservation Fund, authorized by the
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, is modeled on the
elephant conservation fund. Congress established this program to
try to halt the alarming decline of the world's rhinoceros and
tiger populations. Less than 11,000 rhinos and 5,000 tigers are
still in existence, and their survival is becoming increasingly
imperiled each year. But, if the United States is as successful
with the rhino/tiger program as it has been with the elephant
program, we have a fighting chance of saving these two
magnificent animals from extinction.
The elephant conservation program, for its size, has been
one of the most successful efforts ever undertaken by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service outside the United States to ensure the
preservation of a species in its native habitat. Because of U.S.
leadership and contributions to the International African
Elephant Conservation Coordinating Group, every range country now
has a specific short-term and long-term conservation plan, and we
are actively engaged in efforts to implement those plans.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also continues to work with
199
African wildlife departments and non- governmental organizations
in developing and implementing measures to address the persistent
poaching that remains the number one threat facing the species.
In addition, we are continuing to increase our efforts to
address the other threats to the African elephant- -in particular,
the growing conflict between humans and wildlife for space and
resources. Essential to the success of our efforts will be the
ability of local communities to manage their wildlife as a
renewable resource- -valucible for the tourist dollars they attract
--and thus have an incentive to protect the animals from poachers
and to share their land and water supplies. Until very recently,
all national park and tourist revenues were channelled back to
the national governments, and local communities were given no
stake at all in preserving their own wildlife. That is beginning
to change, but if African countries are going to succeed in
implementing effective elephant conservation programs, more
incentives for local commitment will be necessary.
Because elephants play an enormous role in the ecosystems
they inhabit, funds spent on elephant conservation provide a
tremendous boost to environmental protection activities in the
affected communities by promoting sound ecological management
practices, resource conservation, preservation of threatened
ecosystems and, perhaps most importantly, the conservation of
many other threatened and endangered species.
Moreover, the U.S. commitment has acted as a catalyst,
generating major contributions and technical assistance from
NGO's, and from other donor nations, such as Japan and several
European countries. The Administration's requested appropriation
would go a long way toward saving many elephant populations by
training staff, buying spare parts for vehicles and aircraft, and
providing technical assistance in setting up and expanding
national parks.
For a very modest amount of funding, the United States can
continue to exercise its leadership in saving three of the
world's most venerated animals from extinction. I strongly urge
this subcommittee to provide, at the very least, the
Administration's request for funding for these two critically
iii^>ortcint programs.
200
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
GULF OF THE FARALLONES NATIONAL MARINE
SANCTUARY
WITNESS
HON. TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Regula. Mr. Lantos? Tom?
Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before Tony leaves, I want to pay tribute to his fight for the ele-
phants and other wild animals and creatures.
Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you personally for your partici-
pation yesterday at the Yomosho ceremony, for your continued sup-
port for museum.
Mr. Regula. It was very, very impressive, a very impressive
ceremony.
Mr. Lantos. I'm very, very deeply grateful to you.
I have two items, Mr. Chairman. One
Mr. Regula. I might tell you I've heard two previous witnesses
on Don Edwards. So we're pretty much up to speed on that one.
Mr. Lantos. Exactly. I would merely indicate, obviously, that
along with the delegation, I also support the Don Edwards.
Mr. Regula. It's an interesting thing in that apparently this
Japanese firm owns the island
Mr. Lantos. Yes.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. And lets the public access it.
Mr. Lantos. That's right.
Mr. Regula. I wonder if there's any potential there of getting
them to make a contribution of a portion of it, if we would match
it.
Mr. Lantos. Well, I've begun to explore that.
Mr. Regula. I wish you would
Mr. Lantos. It's a possibility.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Because we could leverage our dol-
lars
Mr. Lantos. Exactly.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Considerably, and maybe you would
get the State to come in for some. The watch word's got to be, with
the budget reductions we're faced with, that we've got to leverage
our dollars as much as possible
Mr. Lantos. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. With State and/or private or local
funds, and that's, I think, what we're going to be looking toward
in determining what we can fund.
Mr. Lantos. Absolutely. I have another appointment set with the
Japanese.
Mr. Regula. Good.
Mr. Lantos. And I'll go out and I'll try to. So I won't say any-
thing more about that, Mr. Chairman.
201
I would like to request a modest amount of funding, $1.2 million,
for the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
Mr. Regula. Where is that?
Mr. Lantos. It's — the Farallones are
Mr. Regula. I mean, is it north of San Francisco, south, or
Mr. Lantos. It's west.
Mr. Regula. West?
Mr. Lantos. It's almost due west.
Mr. Regula. Is it on the coast? Is it a gulf actually?
Mr. Lantos. Yes, we would very much like to take you out there
next time you come out our way. It's a beautiful area. We'd love
to take you out there. You can go out by boat or by helicopter.
Mr. Regula. So is that also an island?
Mr. Lantos. Yes.
Mr. Regula. The Farallones?
Mr. Lantos. Yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Is it presently a marine sanctuary?
Mr. Lantos. It is, and it is under management of the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. What our problem is, that
with the downsizing, military downsizing, the U.S. Coast Guard,
which is operating facilities out there, will no longer need that.
What we are attempting to do is to have these buildings and struc-
tures transferred from the Coast Guard. We have two structures,
one operated by the Coast Guard, one by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Both are in need of extensive repair and maintenance, and
we are working on putting together a nonprofit that would continue
the maintenance on an indefinite basis.
Mr. Regula. Is the Coast Guard going to vacate it?
Mr. Lantos. Yes, yes.
Mr. Regula. Could the two buildings — could the functions be
consolidated into one?
Mr. Lantos. Well
Mr. Regula. Do one instead of-
Mr. Lantos. We would hate to lose either of these buildings.
These are beautiful structures, and we intend to, as I indicated in
my testimony, to have a living library and laboratory created in
this area.
Mr. Regula. Is this Federal property now?
Mr. Lantos. Yes.
Mr. Regula. The whole thing?
Mr. Lantos. Yes, the whole thing.
Mr. Regula. So the Coast Guard would contemplate turning it
over to the National Park Service?
Mr. Lantos. Yes, yes, yes, yes. But the structures and buildings,
without maintenance, would vanish in no time, and, obviously, the
replacement costs would be astronomical and we could never un-
dertake them.
Mr. Regula. What are we talking about in acreage?
Mr. Lantos. One point two million.
Mr. Regula. No, no, in acreage.
Mr. Lantos. I will submit that to you. I wouldn't care to guess.
I wouldn't care to guess.
[The information follows:]
202
400 Ei C»tmtO Rut,
s^mco
Sam kUTio. CA ••«&
M1»>O4aD0
MTaNATKMAL WLAT10NS aMMnrCE
OOVBVMSn- nSOMM AND OVBtSKJKT COMMrTTH
(EmtgreBs of tlie finite^ i^tatea
Ibntae of fiqnreBentatiueB
VaBlfington. B.dl. 20515
May 20, 1996
The Honorable Ralph Regula
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior
B-308 Raybum HOB
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
On ^ril 17, 1996 I testified before your subcommittee. During my testimony on behalf of the
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, you inquired about the size of the island. Per
your request, I am providing you with that information.
The Fatallone Island, relevant to this project, consists of 102 acres of land (or 45 hectares).
I appreciate your attention to this important project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may
be of any assistance.
Most cotdiaUy,
/^7^
Tom Lantos
Member of Congress
203
Mr. Regula. Now the $1.2 million, would that be to rehab the
buildings?
Mr. Lantos. It would be to rehab. It would be to restore, rehab
the building, to remove hazardous waste. There is quite a bit of
hazardous — I was out there — hazardous waste removal, which is
required, and initial maintenance until this nonprofit is created.
Mr. Regula. Will the nonprofit operate it then?
Mr. Lantos. Yes, the nonprofit would operate it.
Mr. Regula. So there would not be a continuing Federal role?
Mr. Lantos. There would be no continuing Federal responsibil-
ity.
Mr. Regula. Well, we'll look at it.
Mr. Lantos. We're deeply grateful to you. You have been very
understanding and helpful to our area, Mr. Chairman, through the
years. Let me only say that this is a very serious time bind because
it will take some time to put a nonprofit together. There is every
indication several foundations are going to come in.
Mr. Regula. When do you contemplate the Coast Guard
vacating?
Mr. Lantos. It's imminent. It's imminent.
Mr. Regula. So it's part of their downsizing?
Mr. Lantos. That's correct. That's correct. And if the buildings
are allowed, the structures are allowed to deteriorate, they will just
be gone.
Mr. Regula. Does the public have access to it now?
Mr. Lantos. They do have access to it now. It's not easy to reach
it, but there is access to it.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Lantos. I'm very grateful, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see
you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
[The statement of Mr. Lantos follows:]
204
El. Camu«o Real
Matto CAM«tt
'ONAL RELATIOhS COMMITTEE
GOVERNMCNT REFORM ANO OVERSIGHT COMMrTTEE
(EongrEHH of tifz Inteii Btatea
House of RcpreHEntatiuEH
»aHl|ington. fi.OI. 2D515
CONGRESSMAN TOM LANTOS
12TH DISTRICT - CALIFORNIA
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you
today as you prepare the appropriations legislation for FY '97. I am here to urge
your support for two projects most worthy of funding from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. I would like to respectfully request $10 million for The San
Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge and $1.2 million for the Gulf of the Faraliones
National Marine Sanctuary.
The San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge is a particularly noteworthy
project. As you know, it was recently renamed in honor of our distinguished
colleague. The Honorable Don Edwards, and is now known as The Don Edwards
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. While serving in Congress, Don
Edwards was committed to protecting the environment and remains dedicated
to preserving this land for use as a wildlife refuge.
This 1,600 acres of land, the final segment needed to complete the
Refuge, is the last significant easily-restorable wetland left on the San Francisco
Bay. If this land is not acquired for preservation very soon, it will be developed
and lost as a natural resource forever
This refuge project is widely supported by people throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area, the Northern California Congressional delegation, the
California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and is recognized by resource agencies and environmental organizations as a
top priority acquisition.
205
It is important to acknowledge the efforts made by The Citizens
Committee to Complete the Refuge, a local advocacy group, in securing nearly
$1 million of local funds for the acquisition of this land. This impressive display
of private support indicates the level of local support for the Refuge.
The benefits of The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
Refuge are enormous and will only be augmented by adding this final parcel of
land. The Refuge welcomes 300,000 visitors over the course of a year,
including 10,000 school children, who participate in educational programs
sponsored by the Refuge. In addition, local fishermen frequent the Refuge and
wildlife experts from ail over the world come to this Refuge to study refuge
management techniques.
Completion of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
Refuge is a truly important project for the Bay Area and indeed the world.
Aside from its own merit, this would be a meaningful tribute to our colleague,
Don Edwards, whose efforts to preserve this land were unsurpassed.
The second request I would like to make is for funding in the amount of
$1.2 million for the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. This
funding would provide for the restoration, hazardous waste removal, and
maintenance of two houses located on the South East Farallone Island. These
houses would be used as a living library and laboratory unit for the National
Wildlife Refuge, under the management of the Gulf of the Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary.
Located just off the coast of San Francisco, the Farallone Islands are the
most important and largest seabird breeding colony in the U.S., outside Alaska.
In addition to the sea birds, sea lions migrate from Ano Nuevo (approximately
50 miles south), during the fall and winter, to take advantage of the more
productive feeding ground around the Farallone Islands.
More than 20 years of wildlife monitoring has been conducted from this
sight, providing important data for researchers. In addition, it is also a vital
location to conduct research on the water circulation and the continental shelf
of the San Francisco Bay.
With technological advancements and military downsizing, the U.S. Coast
Guard no longer needs the house on the South East Farallone Island, which had
been previously used while performing maintenance on the light used to guide
206
boats in the San Francisco Bay. Solar technology is now used, leaving the
house vacant and falling into disrepair. Currently the Gulf of the Farallone
National Marine Sanctuary is working to acquire this house under a transfer
from the Coast Guard. While the second house is operated by the
Fish and Wildlife Service, both are in need of extensive repairs and will require
maintenance, to be useful for the Gulf of the Farallone Sanctuary. The $1.2
million I am requesting would assure the utilization of these buildings, which is
a small price to pay to preserve these useful buildings.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attention given by this committee to these
worthy projects and strongly urge the committee to provide full funding for
both; The wildlife refuge bearing the name of our colleague. The Don Edwards
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the Gulf of the Farallones
National Marine Sanctuary.
207
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
FS LAND AQUISITION
WITNESS
HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Regula. The gentleman from New Hampshire to discuss
Forest Service land acquisition in the White Mountains.
Mr. Bass. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and, as you know, this
is not the first time; I guess I'm coming to find out that you see
a lot of people on a regular basis.
I regret the fact that I don't have a map here to show you pre-
cisely where — I do have a map. The first thing you asked the per-
son who preceded me was, where is this piece of property, and I
think it would be helpful for you to have a quick look.
This is the State of New Hampshire, and the property that we
are talking about is right here.
Mr. Regula. Near the south end; I assume the north end would
be
Mr. Bass. No, district is like this: I have all of this, all of this,
and all of that. Bill Zeliff has this little — this area right here. He
has the city of Manchester, the city of Portsmouth, but I have most
of two-thirds of the land area of the State.
Mr. Regula. So you go to the north end?
Mr. Bass. That's right; I have all of Coos County. I have all of
the White Mountain National Forest in my district except Bill
Zeliff lives right here. He has a little tiny piece
Mr. Regula. Is that where his lodge is located?
Mr. Bass. Yes. He has this much of it. This is his, this part of
it here. But I have all of this, all of this, basically all the way
down — everything where my hand is and all the way around.
Mr. Regula. So you have the bulk of the White Mountains?
Mr. Bass. That's correct. I have about 90 percent of the White
Mountain National Forest.
Mr. Regula. And you want to buy some more land?
Mr. Bass. The property that we are talking about — I'm tr3ang to
find it. Matt, where is — oh, here. It's right here. It's this piece of
property right here. It abuts the western boundary of the White
Mountain National Forest. It's in three different towns. Ninety-
eight percent of it is in two towns. I have been there before. It's
really one of the most spectacular, very spectacular piece of prop-
erty. It's the largest lake in the White Mountains, Lake Tarleton.
We're looking for an appropriation of $4.22 million
Mr. Regula. Is this privately owned?
Mr. Bass. Yes, it is. Yes, it's privately-owned property. Total
acreage is 3,608 acres. As I said, it has a common boundary, three
towns. There are actually four separate lakes associated with this.
It is a priority acquisition for the Forest Service.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Bass. We would provide public access. It's part of the Con-
necticut River Basin, and it has excellent road access, and that's
the reason why it's endangered for development. There's a major
road that runs quite near this lake. So, on the one hand, there
208
would be great access for the public. On the other hand, the poten-
tial for development is extensive. As you can well imagine, all of
the environmental groups in New Hampshire strongly support this
purchase, as does the Department of Forest and Parks and the
AMC
Mr. Regula. Do the White Mountains get a lot of multiple use?
Mr. Bass. Absolutely. We have two ski areas in the White Moun-
tains. We have a lot — all sorts of hiking trails. The Appalachian
Mountain Society operates all of the extensive trail system. We
have a number of these grand old hotels that used to be very popu-
lar in the late 19th century. A couple of them are still in existence.
You may recall the Breton Woods purchase from last year
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Bass [continuing]. Actually abutted the Breton Woods Mount
Washington Hotel, which is one of these huge
Mr. Regula. Are they on the Federal land or are they in-hold-
ings?
Mr. Bass. The Breton Woods facility is an in-holding. I'm going,
if I could, to submit this map for the record here, and you'll be able
to see that these little white spots here in the White Mountains are
in-holdings.
[The information follows:]
209
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CXDNGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
Lake Tarleton
(See Attache Map)
210
211
Mr. Bass. Some of them we're moving toward purchase. For ex-
ample, here in Pinkham Notch here, this is a new purchase along
here. But the key is Lake Tarleton over here, here's Route 91,
which has direct access to New York City; Route 93 to Boston over
here. It has excellent
Mr. Regula. You must have some university areas around there,
too.
Mr. Bass. We have the Dartmouth Mountain — ^the Dartmouth
College purchase, which is right up here. It's a whole town, as you
know, a township in size.
I don't believe UNH has any holdings up — the University of New
Hampshire, but the Dartmouth College grant is very extensive.
Lake Umbagog was a major purchase that was made through a
combination of funding from the State of New Hampshire, the pur-
chase from the James
Mr. Regula. Will they contribute an3rthing here, do you think?
Mr. Bass. In this particular purchase? In fact, I was one of the
sponsors of the legislation. The State established a $50 million
fund during the good times to purchase easements and fee simple
property. We used it all up. At this point the State is looking at
a $60 million deficit on a $5 billion budget. There's a lot of con-
troversy actually with that. I don't know how much money would
be available for land acquisition.
Mr. Regula. Is there any forestry cutting at all in the White
Mountains?
Mr. Bass. Yes, extensive forestry cutting. It's a forest manage-
ment plan, very much so, yes, and there is anticipated to be some
controversy associated with it, a significant cut over here in the
eastern side of the State in the town of Ladden. So this is definitely
a multiple-use
Mr. Regula. Is there hunting?
Mr. Bass. Lots — hunting is — absolutely. We have moose hunting.
Mr. Regula. Are there snowmobiles?
Mr. Bass. Snowmobiling is allowed as well, yes. I don't know of
any activity that is not allowed in this forest. And, of course, it's
quite close to major population centers.
Mr. Regula. I was going to say, you must be getting the subur-
ban-type dweller from Boston?
Mr. Bass. Well, there's a very major second-residence market up
here. And the fact is that Boston is not on the map. It's right here,
and this is a very, very quick road that goes up there. It takes
about two hours to get from Boston to
Mr. Regula. Is there commuter rail? I'm just curious.
Mr. Bass. No commuter rail, none whatsoever. There used to
be — in my lifetime there was rail to Nashua and that was it.
And Sherm Adams, you may remember him, he came from Lin-
coln, which is right here. After he left the White House, he founded
Loon Mountain Ski Area, which is now arguably the most success-
ful ski area in the State. It's built upon Federal land, and the ski
area itself is leased from the Federal Government.
Mr. Regula. It's very interesting. Well, I know it's a high prior-
ity with the Forest Service.
Mr. Bass. Yes.
Mr. Regula. So we'll see what we can do.
212
Mr. Bass. Thank you. Would you like me to leave this map here,
so we could put it in a file, so that you could
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Bass. Do you want me to circle Lake Tarleton so you can
find out?
Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Bass follows:]
213
CHARLES F. BASS, M.C committee on the budget
2o0i4'"«:' H,y.H^n~m COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMEN'
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
1 72S LONCWOHTH BUIiOl^lC ^^ q,^^^
WVASMINGTON DC :0515-2gO2 /*!*-* «-*-*-*,..^w -*f fl«A 71llMifA>k ^3k#--1#-a«' su«COMM«nil 0* Civil mkvci
,202 »^5206 CongrcsiS ot ttjc (Mniteo s>iaics s„«:o-.m. «.=<«»«.«,
il?ou3C of JRcprescntatibfg "°"~°°*
JBHaaliington. UC 20515-2902
Statement of
HON. CHARLES F. BASS
of New Hampshire
before the
Subcommittee on Interior
Lake Tarleton acquisition in the White Mountain National Forest
April 17, 1996
Mr Chairman, I am here today to testify in support of a $4.22 million appropriation for
the United States Forest Service to acquire approximately 3,608 acres of land in my New
Hampshire Congressional district.
The Lake Tarleton property abuts the White Mountain National Forest in the towns of
Warren, Piermont and Benton The 20,000 feet of undeveloped lake frontage contained within
the property encompasses four separate lakes Of this frontage, 9,830 feet lie along Lake
Tarleton, the largest lake in the White Mountains and the site of a 1 920's resort. Additionally,
6,000 feet of shoreline along Lake Katherine and the 25-acre Lake Constance, and 4,000 feet
along Lake Armington would be protected by this acquisition
The property has been identified as a priority acquisition by the US Forest Service, the
New Hampshire Department of Forests and Parks, and several local groups, including the
Appalachian Mountain Club and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests The
property offers diverse recreational opportunities and, if acquired, will provide critical public
access to the water-borne recreational opportunities afforded by the property's four lakes
In terms of wildlife, the lakes and surrounding property provide habitat to nesting loons
and osprey, lake trout, beaver, moose, bobcat, white-tailed deer, and numerous species of
migratory songbirds and waterfowl Furthermore, these lakes eventually drain into the
Connecticut River, one of the most ecologically important rivers in New England
All of these factors combine to make the protection of the Lake Tarieton property a
priority in my legislative agenda Unfortunately, these same factors, combined with 1 5,000 feet
of road access, make this property an attractive option for extensive development.
Therefore, I request that the subcommittee allocate $4.22 million to protect this valuable
natural resource from the threat of development. By granting my request, the land could be
protected for the public use of the seven million yearly visitors to the White Mountain National
Forest.
Thank you for your attention to this request
142 NO«TM MAIN STREET 170 MAIN STREET
CONCORD. NH 03301 NASHUA. NH 0306O
(6031 226-0249 16031 88»^7T2
^fjfpQf' C'^ ONE WEST STREET
SUITE 2
KEENE. NH 03431
(6031 3S8-4094
214
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
EAST CENTRAL FLORmA LAND ACQUISITION
WITNESS
HON. JOHN L. MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Regula. John Mica, where are you? I saw you come in.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, how are you today?
Mr. Regula. We've heard a lot about the Everglades today.
Mr. Mica. Well, I'm here to talk about — and, without objection,
I hope that I could submit my entire statement for the record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Mica. Okay, sir. I know you've heard a lot about the Ever-
glades, and the Republican majority has made a great commitment
for the restoration of the Everglades, and I support that effort.
However, I've told many folks that I was raised in south Florida
and I saw the problems there that started, when we moved there
in the fifties. With the growth, we now have 25 percent of the land
surface either paved or built on in some of those areas, and it will
be a costly restoration project for many years to come.
But what I'm here to do — and that's a huge dollar ticket. We're
talking multi-billion. What I'm here to do is I live now in central
Florida and represent part of central Florida, and part of this
project is in my district. But I represent a rapidly-growing area,
like south Florida was in the fifties, sixties, seventies.
And we have the Ocala National Forest to the north. I don't
know if you've got a copy of this little map, but if you look at Flor-
ida, the Ocala National Forest is to the north of us. Then down to-
ward Orlando, on the north end of Orlando, we have the Wekiva
State Park. It runs along the Wekiva River that flows into the St.
Johns, a really beautiful, pristine area that the State has pre-
served.
In between is the St. Johns River that connects these areas, and
the map that I gave you shows the project. And the project is basi-
cally to connect the Ocala National Forest with a seamless environ-
mental reserve and preserve and protection area to the Wekiva
State Park. Now we have a St. Johns Water Management District
which we have been working with the last couple of years. I had
originally met with — and the delegation had with — Secretary Bab-
bitt, and he said, bring us projects where there's a 50/50 match. We
had originally proposed — this was a $30 million project to acquire
18,000 acres, and I had asked before for a 50/50 match on that.
The good news is that we have already a State commitment of
$20 million. We're asking for $10 million. They've acquired 14,000
of the 18,000 acres. The entire delegation has signed on this.
Mr. Regula. The State has already acquired that?
Mr. Mica. Yes, and this is not a case where we have anyone who
is a unwilling seller. There are no property rights. There's no con-
testing this.
But, again, the growth in this area is explosive. I have, Mr.
Chairman, in my district two new cities in the last 24 months. I
have one city, Deltona, which is the third largest city in central
Florida, over 60,000, probably 65,000 people; another one, Duberry.
215
And they're located right on the other side of this. If we don't pre-
serve this now, we will be paying millions or billions later to re-
serve and preserve this. So it is such an infinitesimal amount of
money.
I met with Secretary Babbitt during this past recess, and he was
most cordial. He's considering some of this possibly. You know, he
has many demands out of the $140 million, but I don't think we'll
get the whole thing.
So we would like to do it. It's a great example of cooperation, of
prevention, and of an investment for the future. So I plead with
you all to give this serious consideration. You'll get my support. I
spoke on the floor last time trying to help you with funding for
your programs, and we'll work with you, because I know this is im-
portant.
I know there are questions out West where people don't want
lands acquired by the Feds and things of that sort, but this is the
kind of thing that makes so much sense, and Florida has such a
fragile and more and more burdened ecosystem.
So those are my comments. Any questions?
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Mica. And you've seen my picture before? This is the area
that I'm talking about, St. Johns River. You know, once you get a
few developments along here — and there are a couple already — and
then a few condominiums, forget it. It will never — £ind you will
have runoff problems. You will never keep this natural, and future
generations will be in the same strait we're in with the Everglades.
It's coming.
Thank you,
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Mica follows:]
216
JOHN L. MICA •w'lvTo
Wa5m>noton. OC 30
COMMtTTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM '^2' 22S-4035
Congregg of tJje ?ianitel) ^tatcg
J^mit of i^epreseentatibest
Cassclkmv. FL 32707
(4071 657-8080
?!IKasf)inBton, MC 20515-0907 o,.rZ^..2^n
(407) aw- 1499
1396 DuNLAWTOM Ave
Sum 2B
PortOnancc. FL 33127
(9041 756-9796
STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN JOHN L. MICA
Before the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Interior
In Support of Funding for
Land Acquisition along the St. Johns River, Florida
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity
to testify in support of Fiscal Year 1997 funding for a vital land acquisition project in east
central Florida along the St. Johns River. This $10 million request will impact counties
in my district as well as other counties throughout the State.
The St. Johns River is Florida's largest river, flowing for over 300 miles across
approximately two-thirds of the Florida peninsula, from northeast of Lake Okeechobee to
just south of the Georgia border. Located near the heart of this watershed in east central
Florida, south of the 430,000 acre Ocala National Forest and the 22,370 acre Lake
Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge, is a core area of environmentally sensitive natural
resource lands known as the Wekiva River Basin.
Land has been identified within this region as missing links in what is known as
the Wekiva-Ocala Connector. This tract covers a 1 0-mile corridor of St. Johns shoreline
and joins the Wekiva River junction with the Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Reftige
Extensive efforts of state, regional and local land acquisition programs have established
key centers of protection along this sensitive ecological system. These areas should be
strategically connected to ensure the continued protection of water resources, fish and
wildlife, and natural resource based recreational activities despite extreme pressures from
nearby growth and development.
217
Statement by the Honorable John L. Mica
April 17, 1996
Page 2
Urban encroachment is now a threat to the continued preservation of the St. Johns
River basin. Over the last two decades, the Orlando metropolitan area has expanded into
regions just south of the Ocala National Forest and west of the St Johns River. In just
the last two years, two new cities with populations totaling 80,000 have formed in this
area. The acquisition of lands along the Wekiva-Ocala Coimector offers a tremendous
opportunity to preserve and maintain a natural resource system of national significance.
This project is perhaps even more valuable in its potential to link numerous but separate
protected areas, expand animal habitat and prevent the isolation and demise of small
populations of species.
With relatively intact natural systems and extensive wetlands and water resources,
this region is critical habitat for a number of species listed by the federal and state
governments as endangered and threatened. These species include migrating waterfowl,
the Florida black bear, Florida sandhill crane, Florida scrub jay, bald eagle, gopher
tortoise, indigo snake and Florida pine snake. While rarely observed by the public, the
Florida black bear maintain one of their largest concentrations in the state within this
region. Natural communities in excellent condition include floodplain swamps, marshes,
hydric hammocks, upland mixed forests, sandhill and scrub. Alligators, deer and a wide
variety of birds are commonly seen in the area as well.
^This land is also critical to providing flood protection for existing and fiiture
Central Florida populations, and to protecting surface and ground water quality for local
residents. Furthermore, with a growing number of over 14 million Floridian and 38
million out-of-state annual tourists, and with the close proximity to large urban areas and
major transportation corridors, east central Florida is facing increased demand for
recreational opportimities. The proposed land acquisitions possess excellent recreational
potential for fishing, boating, hiking, camping, horseback riding and nature studies. In
addition, the Florida Scenic Trail system traverses the region and provides further
opportimities for public access and recreation.
The total request for this federal land acquisition grant Is SIO million. The
State of Florida has already been working to acquire and preserve these lands. Five
parcels of land have been purchased by state agencies for $18,617,919, but an additional
four pieces of property, totaling 3,270 acres, are still needed to complete this project. A
cooperative agreement has been reached with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to manage
lands adjacent to Lake Woodruff, and the State is willing to manage the rest.
218
Statement by the Honorable John L. Mica
April 17, 1996
Page 3
The entire Florida Congressional delegation, the Secretary of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the directors of the Lake Woodruff National
Wildlife Refiige and the St. Johns River Water Management District have all indicated
their support for this project. Experience has taught us that it is much easier and less
costly to protect a resource than attempt to restore one. With the support of Congress,
Florida public agencies are prepared to move forward with the acquisition and
preservation of this critical area.
The requested funding for this land acquisition is $10 million and I urge the
Subcommittee to fully support the completion of this important project.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your time and
consideration of this matter.
219
Central Florida
Land Acquisition Priorities
220
Central Florida
Land Acquisition Priorities
(Updated March 1996)
Lands Already Acquired
Map
Key
Acres
Land
Management
Projected
Costs
Actual
Costs
Year
A
2,007
USF&W
$1,950,000
$1,825,419
1995
B
899
State of Florida
$4,500,000
$4,197,500
1995
F
2,650
State of Florida
$2,900,000
1996
G
9,229
State of Florida
$7,500,000
1996
I
716
State of Florida
$2,150,000
1996
Total
15,501
$19,000,000
$18,617,919
Lands Remaining To Be Acquired
Map
Key
Acres
Current
Status
Land
Management
Projected
Costs
Year
*
C
156
Negotiations
State of Florida
♦ ♦
1996
D
1,522
Pre-appraisal
State of Florida
**
1996
E
1,096
Pre-appraisal
State of Florida
♦ ♦
1997
H
496
Pre-appraisal
State of Florida
♦ *
1997
Total
3,270
$10,000,000
* - Proposed year for acquisition
** - Individual parcel cost estimates are not included in order to maintain
confidentiality
221
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE
CORRIDOR
WITNESS
HON. PETER BLUTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Regula. The gentlemen — plural — from Massachusetts.
Blackstone River Valley, we've had testimony on it earlier. So
whatever you'd like to add
Mr. Neal. Mr. Chairman, this used to be known, respectfully, as
the Neal/Blute bill. Bowing to the new reality of the House, it is
now known as the Blute/Neal bill. [Laughter.]
I'll defer to Mr. Blute on this occasion.
Mr. Blute. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate
the opportunity. You've been very good to us. We know you're a
leader in this area.
Mr. Neal and myself were sajdng that, before we came up here,
that other than the Erie Canal project, I think this one has the
most meritorious components to it. There's been a tremendous
amount
Mr. Regula. Well, you've already demonstrated that it's popular.
[Laughter.]
You're just adding on to an existing corridor.
Mr. Blute. Right, we're trying to add on to an existing corridor.
It's been very successful, and there's so much volunteerism along
the corridor. It's really incredible.
I have been stunned myself, when we attend those meetings, to
see hundreds and hundreds of people who work with this Corridor
Commission
Mr. Regula. Yes, you have the same situation we do on the Ohio
and Erie. Our problem is getting the Resources Committee to get
the bill moved.
Mr. Blute. Exactly.
Mr. Regula. And we'll depend on you to do that.
Mr. Blute. Well, we're pushing Chairman Young and Chairman
Hansen to try to move this.
Mr. Regula. And I am.
Mr. Blute. I know you are also. Some of the property rights
questions that we faced the last time and that we've
Mr. Regula. I think we've addressed those.
Mr. Blute. Well, I certainly think we did the last Congress,
where with your leadership and Ritchie Neal's, very much so, we
were able to fight off
Mr. Regula. We had a floor debate on that and won it.
Mr. Blute. We won it; that's right. So I'm optimistic that Chair-
man Young can work that out before we get to the floor with those
Members who have concerns on the private property
Mr. Regula. Well, I'm speaking to the Western Caucus at 4:30
or 4:45, and I'm going to raise this issue with them and point out
the language. It's already in these bills.
Mr. Blute. That's exactly right, which we adopted last year.
222
Mr. Regula. Yes, which clearly says there's no incursion whatso-
ever on private property.
[The statement of Mr. Blute follows:]
223
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER BLUTE
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS
APRIL 17, 1996
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS TODAY TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED FUNDING FOR THE
BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR. I
WOULD FIRST LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE FOR ALL THE SUPPORT THEY HAVE PROVIDED THE
BLACKSTONE OVER THE YEARS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK
OUR COLLEAGUE RICHIE NEAL FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE.
I HAVE VISITED THE BLACKSTONE HERITAGE CORRIDOR A
NUMBER OF TIMES, AND HAVE MET WITH VARIOUS PARTIES WHO
HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE CORRIDOR. AND MY REPORT TO YOU
IS THAT THE CORRIDOR PROJECT IS, IN EVERY WAY, A
TREMENDOUS SUCCESS.
THE BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY IS A REAL NATIONAL
TREASURE. NOT ONLY IS IT BREATHTAKING FROM A SCENIC
PERSPECTIVE, BUT IT IS SO RICH IN CULTURE AND HISTORY. THE
MILLS, CANALS AND OLD NEW ENGLAND FARMS TAKE VISITORS
BACK TO A CRITICAL STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS
NATION -- BACK TO THE BIRTH OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
WHEN ONE TOURS THE BUILDINGS AND WALKS ALONG THE
ROADS OF THE CORRIDOR, THEY CAN ALMOST HEAR THE
CHURNING OF THE VERY ENGINES THAT DROVE AMERICA INTO
THE INDUSTRIAL AGE, CHANGING THE FACE OF THIS COUNTRY.
AND THE WORLD, FOREVER.
WHILE THE AREA CAN NO LONGER LAY CLAIM TO ITS
POSITION AS A WORLD LEADER IN TEXTILE MANUFACTURING, NO
ONE CAN DENY THAT THE BLACKSTONE VALLEY IS WHERE IT
ALL BEGAN. THIS SIGNIFICANT PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY IS
DEFINITELY WORTH PRESERVING.
THANKS TO THE COMMITMENT OF THE CITIZENS WHO
RESIDE IN AND AROUND THE BLACKSTONE VALLEY, THIS
HISTORIC ARE IS NOW A CLEANER, MORE BEAUTIFUL AREA, AS
WELL. BUT MORE WORK REMAINS.
IN MY VIEW, NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDORS ARE
EXACTLY THE KIND OF MODEL THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR AS IT TRIES TO GET THE
BIGGEST BANG FOR ITS BUCK. THE CREATION OF THE
BLACKSTONE CORRIDOR HAS RESULTED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WHICH GIVES THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT EXCELLENT LEVERAGE AGAINST ITS OWN
224
INVESTMENT. EACH DOLLAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CONTRIBUTES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CORRIDOR ATTRACTS
BETTER THAN THREE DOLLARS IN NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS,
WHILE ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE THE RATIO OF NON-FEDERAL
TO FEDERAL DOLLARS IS BETTER THAN 5-TO-l. A FANTASTIC
RETURN ON INVESTMENT BY ANY STANDARD.
IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY IN THE BLACKSTONE CORRIDOR. MORE
AND MORE PEOPLE ARE GIVING OF THEIR TIME AND EFFORT TO
ASSIST WITH THE PHYSICAL CLEANUP AND REVITALIZATION OF
THE CORRIDOR, AND MORE AND MORE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
ARE GIVING FINANCIALLY TO HELP DO THE THINGS THAT ARE
NECESSARY TO RESTORE THE "BIRTHPLACE OF THE INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION". MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE FLOWING INTO THE
PROJECT FROM STATE, LOCAL AND PRIVATE SOURCES, ALL AS A
RESULT OF THE CONTINUING COMMITMENT OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE FORM OF A NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
PRESENCE
WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINDS A WAY TO
GENERATE THREE TO FIVE TIMES ITS OWN INVESTMENT IN
STATE, LOCAL AND PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS, IT OUGHT TO DO
EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO KEEP THE VENTURE GOING
STRONG. NOT DECLARE VICTORY AND WALK AWAY.
AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR THE CONTINUED
SUPPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. THIS IMPORTANT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT HAS EARNED IT.
225
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE
CORRIDOR
WITNESS
HON. RICHARD NEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Neal. I want to thank you for the manner in which you
treated this project and proposal. You've been more than courteous,
and I promise to leave you alone if we're successful in the future.
But I would like to highlight another, I think, interesting aspect
of this proposal that you might bring to the attention of those who
might be perceived as opponents down the road. And that is that
the leveraging ratio here of private investment is up to 20 to 1
Mr. Regula. Yes, it's enormous.
Mr. Neal [continuing]. In private versus public dollars. And it
not only highlights the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, but
for Congressman Blute here — and we work hand in glove on this;
I want to acknowledge that — that Congressman Blute would add
the city of Wooster to it, and I would add a neighboring community
called Lester to the project.
Mr. Regula. Now I assume that the area you're talking about is
already public land?
Mr. Neal. Much of it, yes. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Blute. Much of it, but a lot of private land also.
Mr. Neal. Right.
Mr. Regula. They would give easements?
Mr. Neal. They would give easements.
Mr. Blute. Companies along the route have a lot of their prop-
erty on the weekends, their parking lots, for example, to be opened
up to canoers, and it's really a great public-private partnership.
Mr. Regula. Well, I think it's very much in keeping with the era
of small government — of large government being over.
Mr. Blute. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula. So we go to small government.
Mr. Blute. That's right. It really does work, and we've worked
on it. Ritchie Neal started this ball a number of years ago, and it's
just been so successful that I just
Mr. Regula. Well, people love these things.
Mr. Blute. The public loves it, and the private sector is very in-
volved.
Mr. Regula. And the population pressures are really going to
grow.
Mr. Blute. That's right.
Mr. Regula. I mean, we're making the decisions for the next 50
years or 100, and whatever we say will be there for them. Every
time I see Central Park, I think somebody really had a vision in
it. I mean, imagine what New York City would be like without it.
Mr. Blute. How large that is.
Mr. Regula. I don't know who did it, but, they deserve a lot of
credit for that.
Mr. Blute. That's right.
Mr. Regula. And that's what we're talking about here.
226
Mr. Blute. That's right.
Mr. Neal. I would commend to your reading, if you ever have the
chance, Mr. Chairman, The Power Broker, about Robert Moses.
Mr. Regula. I did; I've read it.
Mr. Neal. It's a remarkable discussion about vision.
Mr. Regula. Exactly right.
Mr. Blute. Looking ahead.
Mr. Regula. He really did.
Mr. Blute. On that point, in Massachusetts we have a very good
example of that visionary. Back in the 1920s, the State of Massa-
chusetts, by eminent domain, took, what, four towns out in the
western part of the State and turned it into a reservoir for Boston.
To this day, it provides drinking water for millions and millions
and millions of people. They couldn't have envisioned how much
burden it would have been, but it really has worked out tremen-
dously.
Mr. Regula. That's right.
Mr. Blute. It was a visionary project that allowed Massachu-
setts to grow.
Mr. Regula. Well, as I say, we're shaping what the legacy will
be for the next 100 years in how we deal with these things.
Mr. Blute. May I just make one last point about this Blackstone
Valley? The State government and the Federal transportation offi-
cials are adding a 146-connector to the Mass Turnpike. That means
these places are going to grow.
Mr. Regula. Oh, yes, yes.
Mr. Blute. Housing values are going up. There will be lots of
new development. We think that with this Heritage Corridor, with
some of the Federal dollars combined with private dollars, these
small communities can maintain some of their bucolic nature like
Grafton's Common and Sutton, and these are beautiful towns, but
they think they could be overwhelmed by the next growth spur un-
less efforts are made by public/private partnerships to maintain the
old flrehouse, which we did in Grafton under this bill, and it's just
a tremendous opportunity.
Mr. Regula. Well, we'll hope that we can get it out of Resources.
Mr. Neal. I would just close on this note: that you have a special
responsibility, I know, because in many ways you have been custo-
dian of our memory here in terms of these projects.
Mr. Regula. I'm very aware of that.
Mr. Neal. And you've done a great job, and you've been more
than supportive of Congressman Blute and myself on this, and I
am, indeed, grateful for the manner in which you have received me.
Mr. Blute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Well, we're hoping we can get that authorization
moved.
Mr. Blute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd like to submit this
for the record, without objection.
Mr. Regula. Okay, yes, your statements will be made a part of
the record.
Mr. Neal. Thank you.
Mr. Blute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Neal follows:]
227
RICH/^RD E NEAL /^Ss COmmitteeon ways and means
Second District. MASSACnuserrs
WHIP AT-LARCE
Congregg of ttje ^nitcb ^tatcg
tou£>e of Eeprtsicntatibeg
Mastjmgton, SC 20515
April 17, 1996
Testimony by Congressman Richard E Neal
Before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior
on Behalf of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, 1 would like to thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today and speak on behalf of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor and urge your continued support for this outstanding program The Blackstone River
Valley is an area rich in history that stretches from Central Massachusetts down into Rhode Island
and is home to the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution This is a project that means
a great deal not only to the citizens of the corridor, but to citizens across the country, because it is
an excellent example of how to achieve historic preservation and economic revitalLzation through
responsible federal investment.
The Blackstone river Valley National Heritage Corridor was established in 1986 as an
afBliated area of the National Park Service. The project featured an innovative approach by the
National Park Service that allowed it to form partnerships with the state and local governments as
well as the business community and a number of historic preservation groups This was a stark
contrast to previous Park Service projects where the NPS bought the land and ran the operation
exclusively The federal dollars appropriated for this project have been used as seed money and
are leveraged with flinds provide by the partnership groups. The legislation required that the
2431 RAyeuBN House OFficE Building 1550 MAiN Street «Congbess Street
Washington, DC 20515 Federal Building Post OkiCE Building
(2021225-5601 Springeielo, MA 01103 MiLfORD, MA 01757
1413)785-0325 (508)634-8198
228
partners match each federal dollar at a 1:1 ratio but that ratio was ofken exceeded, sometimes as
high 20 1 Thus the federal investment in this project has yielded a tremendous return and
provided a model for future preservation projects.
The original authorization for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
only provided for funding for a ten year period Due to the tremendous success of the Corridor
and the strong response from the citizens of the region, however, I have introduced legislation
that will extend the commitment another ten years and expand the boundaries to include an
additional five communities This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support in both the House
and Senate I am optimistic the success record of the Corridor w\\ be recognized and the
outstanding work that has been done in the Blackstone Valley will continue
When I travel through the eight communities in my district that fall within the Blackstone
River Corridor it is quite easy to find evidence of the outstanding contribution that the funds from
this project have made to the region One example that leaps to mind is the restoration project
that involved the Blackstone Federated Church in the Town of Blackstone The church at one
time played a key role in the religious integration of Blackstone region by housing religious
services for the different religions of the area mill workers in the early 18th century Earlier this
century, however, it fell into disrepair and was in tremendous need of renovation
The citizens of Blackstone supported the renovation project but lacked the resources and
direction to secured the flinds necessary to complete it. The Corridor Commission was able to
229
provide the necessary assistance that helped secure funds from both the state and private sector
that allowed for the renovations to take place Today the church is a tremendous source of civic
pride as well as an integral part of a burgeoning tourism trade in the area This is just one of the
many examples of the outstanding work that the Corridor Commission has been able to do with
the funds provided by this committee
Finally, Mr Chairman, let me state some simple truths about this project: the Blackstone
Heritage project worked and is a fine example of an outstanding federal investment It has a
tremendous record of accomplishment It enjoys bipartisan support on the federal, state and local
level as well as strong support in the business community The combinations of these elements
have created a sound program which has achieved economic revitalization through historic
preservation. But while great strides have been made mush remains to be done Funding for this
program should be imitated not eliminated and I would urge this subcommittee to continue its
support for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor This will ensure that the
historical relevance of this region will not be lost but rather it will remain for future generations to
experience and enjoy
230
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
OCS AND OTHER PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Regula. The gentleman from California.
Mr. BiLBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to really thank
you and the staff for allowing me to testify today on such short no-
tice.
Mr. Regula. Well, that's why we're here.
Mr. BiLBRAY. Well, I appreciate it.
Really, keeping on the theme of creating an environment that
will be remembered for the next 100 years, in 1991, in San Diego
County, the business community, the environmental community,
the Federal Government, State government, and local government
got together and looked at our environmental strategies when it
comes to endangered species and came to a very clear consensus
that this single-species approach to the Endangered Species Act
was basically obsolete, and that we needed to expand it and be
more holistic in having multi-species strategy.
So what we did in 1991 is we got local government. State govern-
ment, and the Federal Government together in a partnership work-
ing with the landowners at developing a balance between resource
protection and economic growth, but also looking at the big picture:
that one-species habitat also can serve for the species — a habitat
for many other species.
So what we've done is developed a plan that, in my opinion, is
going to be the prototype for the next generation of endangered
species strategies, and that is looking at multi-species manage-
ment.
Mr. Regula. Now this would be the county and the local commu-
nity
Mr. BiLBRAY. The county and the cities and the State. The city
has put up $6 million for the process already. The EPA is — I mean,
the Fish and Wildlife has been working with Fish and Game of the
State, with local governments, in developing the strategy.
The real thing it comes down to now is that it's sort of time for
us to invest in this new strategy, a prototype, with the local land
use people and the local property owners at placing our part of par-
ticipation into the program. There's like three or four different sec-
tions of this.
And I would just ask that we recognize that it is not just — I
know you hear this a lot, but, as somebody who has worked on spe-
cies management issues since 1976 in local government, this one
really has potential of being the prototype of what we do from now
on as a national policy of how we address this
Mr. Regula. Have you talked to Mr. Pombo about this?
Mr. BiLBRAY. Yes, I have. This makes us a proactive species
management rather than reactive. We're able to manage the habi-
tat for all the species, not just one at a time, and always having
to be reactive. It helps the property owners because they then are
able to manage and avoid crisis to where they're then not stepped
231
on. So this will allow us to develop that strategy and expand it,
and I think it really is going to be something that you and I and
a lot of people are going to say, okay, San Diego started this in
1991; now we need to start some more of these programs.
Mr. Regula. So should this be incorporated in the reauthoriza-
tion of the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. BiLBRAY. I think that it should be incorporated — the entire
issue is that we should be encouraging, if not mandating, that all
the agencies take a look at this multi-species rather than this
piecemeal.
The other issue that I'd like to address is a proposed land swap
involving the closure of the naval base in San Diego. The Naval
Training Center is slated to close in 1997, and
Mr. Regula. I spent a few months there.
Mr. BiLBRAY. Yes. The Reuse Committee, the local community,
has been working on this.
Mr. Regula. Is this the one in Coronado?
Mr. BiLBRAY. This is actually across from Coronado. It's not
North Island. That's where I was bom. This is across the bay next
to the Naval Training Center/Marine Corps. In August I'll show it
to you.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. BiLBRAY. The one thing that concerns us is we've heard talk
about some kind of land swap for mineral rights under the Ever-
glades to a private operation, to be able to turn this land back over.
In fact, there were two articles which I'd like to include in the
record discussing about this.
Mr. Regula. Without objection,
Mr. BiLBRAY. And let me just say, quite frankly, this land was
given to the Federal Grovemment by the vote of the people of San
Diego for the use of the military base.
Mr. Regula. You're talking about the naval land; right?
Mr. BiLBRAY. The navy land. It was voted on by the people to
turn it over for military use. If it is not going to be used for mili-
tary use, Mr. Chairman, it should be given back to the people.
Mr. Regula. Is there a reversionary clause?
Mr. BiLBRAY. I don't know if there's a reversionary clause, but
I know that there was — when the people of San Diego turned this
over, they turned it over for national defense purposes.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. BiLBRAY. And I think that for Babbitt or anybody else to be
trjdng to, let's just say bluntly, cut a deal for mineral rights under
Florida by giving over land that is right in a central part of the
49th district of California, right next to the bay — so I'd appreciate
if we'd take that.
The other issue is the moratorium
Mr. Regula. That's probably a Resource Committee issue. He
can do it unilaterally?
Mr. BiLBRAY. No, I heard that it takes an act of Congress.
Mr. Regula. Okay, because it's Florida and California.
Mr. BiLBRAY. Yes.
Mr. Regula. So I would assume it would require legislation
232
Mr. BiLBRAY. It would and I would really ask you to be sensitive
to the situation because it could be stuck in somewhere to where
we weren't quite aware of it.
Mr. Regula. We'll watch for it.
Mr. BiLBRAY. Okay. And I appreciate that, because the commu-
nity is really looking at a reuse here of public access, utilizing it
for — some of it includes tidal lands, which under the State of Cali-
fornia's article 20 must be publicly owned, not privately owned.
And so it is really a good example of reuse of an ex-military facil-
ity.
Mr. Regula. How many acres would be in this? It's a pretty good
piece of land, isn't it?
Mr. BiLBRAY. It's not huge. We're talking a few hundred — it is
sort of a confined area in an urban area up against the bay. So it's
not a real large area, but we've been working for like two or three
years on this use, the planning, reuse issue. Part of it's going to
be set aside for navy housing, and that's good. If it's used for mili-
tary use, it stays in the Federal plans.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. BiLBRAY. We're just afraid that somebody may try to work
out a deal to be able to do it under the guise of environmental pres-
ervation— to give up, to acquire rights in one State and then to ac-
tually destroy a reuse plan in another.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. BiLBRAY. The moratorium on drilling on offshore oil is the
other issue, and I just want to point out to you there are two major
industries in San Diego. One is tourism, which you understand the
"V" to the ocean is an absolutely central thing, and we happen to
be — I'll say this to you as I said it to Billy Tauzin: there's a whole
lot of difference between California and Louisiana. The one thing
about California is you build offshore oil drillers rigs in California;
everybody sees it for miles, because we've got a topography that is
quite different than Louisiana.
But the other issue is the fact that we are also a naval installa-
tion and a site of the new concentrated military capabilities. San
Diego Harbor is becoming the megaport for our military capabili-
ties. BRACK is bringing all the bases to us.
One of the major concerns of offshore oil drilling that has been
raised is that the listening devices to know if enemy submarines
are in the area would be totally eliminated by offshore oil drilling,
and it's something that we don't think about that much until your
sonar people sit there and say, "We wouldn't know if somebody was
right in close off our port if we had these operations."
I support, you know, resource extraction when it's appropriate at
appropriate locations, and I have done that. Elk Hills was a good
example. But this one is one that is just the wrong place at the
wrong time, and there's other issues that are tied to this.
So I'd ask you that the coastal resources and the military re-
sources that are recognized there, and the economic benefit that we
get from that, is very important
Mr. Regula. Have you had any offshore prior to the moratorium?
Mr. BiLBRAY. No, none at all.
Mr. Regula. So it's not a Santa Barbara issue?
233
Mr. BiLBRAY. It's all north of us, and that is one of the big con-
cerns that the military raises. We've got a quiet zone, so they can
listen when the Russian submarines or any other submarines will
come in the area. Up north they couldn't do that because the con-
stant equipment causes a background noise. So that issue is still
a very real issue, especially in San Diego.
I would thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the time to be
able to address this issue. I think we've got some real opportuni-
ties, and especially in the fact that the multi-species plan which
has been worked on for a long time, now has everybody's agreeing
that this is the thing of the future. If we can get enough funding
to prove the Federal participation with the cities and the county
and the State on this thing, it really will set an example for other
multi-species plans that haven't evolved as far, like Riverside.
There's some of them that have seen our program and really are
moving forward. This will encourage them to keep going, their
work, and that way everybody, the species benefits and the private
property owner will finally not have to be jacked around reacting
to, you know, crisis.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]
COMMCRCE COMMITTEE
234
cotJ'ME?«"TMM°AND ttnnnrcdti nf Hip TRltiifrh ^f.ifrrt sand«goca«,o.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ~ f*x i6i9i »i ant
NTEflNCT
Congres!£( of tte ?&initeli Stated
jl^ousie of i^epresentatibed
^DUasbington, ^C 20515
Testimony of the Honorable Brian Bilbray
before the Subcommittee on the Interior
Committee on Appropriations
April 17, 1996
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to address you
today on several issues of great importance to my San Diego district In the interests of time, and
because the Subcommittee still must hear from other Members, I will be as brief as possible.
I would like to express my support for funding of San Diego's unique Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) in the FY 1997 Interior Appropriations bill The City of San
Diego, the Department of the Interior, and the State California have been working to develop the
MSCP since 1991 It is a partnership between local, state, and federal government, geared to
providing a workable solution to the challenge of balancing sound natural resource conservation
with economic stability.
The MSCP as drafted seeks to preserve roughly 164,000 acres and in the process protect 87
species currently listed as threatened or endangered, along with their habitats, while
accommodating regional growth and development needs. The draft MSCP was distributed in
March of 199S, and is scheduled for consideration before the San Diego City Council on April 23,
1996, for additional discussion in anticipation of final approval of the plan sometime this summer.
As the Subcommittee is aware, a regional funding roundtable has been established to determine
and coordinate specific requests for support in FY 1997, at this point, the details of this process
are in the final stages of negotiation The roundtable is designed to share financing
responsibilities, in order to present a comprehensive funding proposal which is fair and feasible for
all participants It is my understanding that the conclusions of the roundtable will be finalized and
presented to the Subcommittee in the very near future
Mr Chairman, I am very aware of the significant challenges faced by your Subcommittee, at a
time in which you are increasingly being asked to do more with less, and 1 appreciate the tough
choices which must be made I would like to point out and emphasize that the City of San Diego
has contributed over $6 million during the MSCP planning process, and will continue its support
as the plan is implemented. Nonetheless, federal assistance has been and remains central to the
success of the MSCP experiment, continued demonstration of federal commitment to this process
is a vital pillar of the carefully crafted MSCP partnership
IHISS1ATI0Nrn\ PHINIIUON ''.M'f n MADl Ot Rirvcif DflBEHS
235
Mr Chairman, 1 appreciate your consideration of this project, and compliment the Subcommittee
for its past support I would like to say that such support goes far beyond the ideology and
partisanship which has so often clouded discussion of these habitat and species conservation
issues If we are to ultimately succeed in moving beyond, or "evolving out of, what most of us
agree is a flawed status quo, we need to be able to make reasoned, sound decisions as to what
effective alternatives might be The habitat conservation process, as embodied in the MSCP, has
tremendous promise and potential, and we should make every effort possible to encourage these
efforts to move into new and improved environmental strategies
Another issue I would like to bring to your attention, Mr Chairman, is a proposed land swap
involving an exchange of mineral rights on 400,000 acres of land in Florida's Big Cypress National
Preserve for lands at one of several closed military bases, including San Diego's Naval Training
Center (NTC) The NTC is slated for closure at the end of April 1997, and for the last three
years, a base reuse commission has been considering possible future uses for the property once it
has been turned over to the City
I have made it clear to the proponents of this land swap that I would not be supportive of any
circumvention of the ongoing local planning process. I am told that other Members of the House
and Senate have expressed similar sentiments, and Secretary Babbitt stated last week while in San
Diego that he would not support a transfer involving the NTC without the support of the San
Diego community Nonetheless, there are concerns locally that despite assurances to the
contrary, it is possible that somehow an "end run" might be made to accomplish a land swap I
wanted to share this information with the Subcommittee, and make it aware of the strong local
sentiment that exists, in the unlikely event such a proposal were to come before you I have with
me two recent articles from the San Diego Union-Tribune which describe this situation in some
detail, and which I would ask be included in the hearing record
Finally, Mr Chairman, I would like to express my strong support for continuing the moratorium
on oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in FY 1997 This is an issue of
extreme importance to the people of San Diego and California, and one which cannot be
overemphasized California's abundant coastal resources provide both environmental and
economic assets which are of inestimable value On behalf of my own constituents, and the great
majority of Califomians, I would respectfully urge that the existing moratorium on such mineral
exploration be maintained in FY 1997
Mr Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify today I appreciate your
consideration, and am at your disposal should you or any Members of the Subcommittee have anv
questions or would like additional information
236
'^^'^n
I^ C CJ
C -D ■—
c = o
o
-r ;^ =x -c I > -
c I
i< = •
£ V S « £
•/: E ac a.
. -C a MJ= f
n ? 5 > "-£ £
4) C.* OO ^ ^
(0
J2
o
o
ti
■ MM
(0
!--2'^i. 3 V ij v: 7. '^
i ;j d, w ^ g"^ * lu > 3:
■■■ia; ./• - » -^
= u
S « Z "2 V 2?= " -
i X s - :i •_ = s
•- S u <« ■S
■ '• S = sU
Si !-,
^ T3 ej *> 4> 2
9 ^ '
^ ID
Wis
I « a>
ILl S
I a c M
;;; i I.
ft** «
I ■ ra a.
3 C
J= ■- TSU.
*" S../i2 u
e o *; 3 «
o I- 5 -o «J
= °"-S J 2"
i; >. ui 4,
= = "«! =
S t;:= --
nj — -o 06 S
w y l1 C 4(
^ -C oj c V
-c r£ S-S
Si c o i: -
^ re _ 'S
<» 5 <» ti -o
=S S 5 5
£ 2 >c w
1^1
;^2
y - n
5 5 -a
ajr^ S
:££
*> = ?
J a _<->
" -^ U W = ■"
* S " 5! 2 o _g
"* - S el o ji jr
= § § _ " S ^
5 e^ S If £
3 Z o "^ 5 u
m n — ^ _ </ ^
-n — i = -r
•J E ■'■ V
2 2 £ "2 -f
237
IS
2 ^ c S = o p
c — .-• ^ n. "::
r 5 o •
r; J: f~ -£
4) u =^
5 «J -5
v •_; jc ill j= _ cT S
- i i- •i 'C > "^ — r.
Ut
I o =
- > o =
- -c _- ^
"J i ^ V. i^ .i: ■" «
^ =f j: o *' JJ >. S c -
o
a
o
yorto !§ ~=J
■.^ V ^ — a.
g3
± s: * = v5
3 — V o >» c
■o = 2 tX - iS
= "=• >-^ 5
■J s ■•= - >
, So c
; _ _c -■ -: O
20-
O. u
^ :S"g-
iiPil ll^l'
■ CI
i-
i-o -'?r o^
gSJ^i:£E t
? g "I s ^ -■ «^ 2
ii^-I'
~ > l;^
S — -"
;2 l-^?^"?£ =
-2 O i S 00
o 2 _C ^ ;2 i=
e; Z . 3 v^
■r .- 60
if- anji
o g -
^ & .
a.^ (I. M^
o ^
o o
"3 cT
r' ^ CO 3 r-
= = a-c 3
* i; c c"
^ y c
c — e ? o
h " V ~ c
= s o
»- c " •
o ^ — r :;
'2 J2 C S-S-5
u « u "= i
= 5 c A -C
>-ci 3-0 ^ o.S: 3
■9r2<fl •;; = '=
" k. 3 ~ "
e ? , «;££ ^ -
2 E 9- -c - 3 -a"
o. ;;; ^S ^ i
o 2
3 =iS i= -O
^ 2c5£s- is-
3s -^ c r
238
'
es
ot t^
fla
»:
>
o
c
: :
UJ
j:
s s
g "*' «
3 2 2
S S 3
"2 J O
©
^ 1^1 ii
^«« Mo oe^
— « 2 c O *" •£
« go o'r:H-
S ™ S ° sE ^
Si ? « «^ S
3 K S 5 2
2S^^S"
2gJ^o
■5— « " »
^ ^ J3 j:
DCS
<j .u. y
■O C Sf Q. p
4j (^ .2: II r
4> --*< — _ fc* fc*
?£r-
^S!
o V S
CM 0£
C C k.
£■5 2
3 = c
?ic3
239
o
o
z .
;
^:
2B
LUOC
era
:■
O
<o
"
:
o
u
3
= = 04,
"»?? 7
*•
n
1
^?^
ill
ill
^ ace
Ills ^ill = ts Jggl^lii^J ^|l| fS^s!|lf5lliS|l||ll|Hl|a^
cat
3ara.a».>S -1.1 S'^i |=-2, e « fe-S ,
"~^"-°>5 jj-j= o <_o a » „ S a'=- « «
■= - -J
:0s3- = -
is lsiil'^=l "u|*c3^j:^ s»-2':^;ss| Jo|s-3
8! "
IIIIIP 1^1
M c c " ^5 >* 9
.2 c^ ^. » tZO
c a.
c ^ x^ G u 3 j:
. r *
•I '
3 -a Si S:=:
5 X ,i i" 3
?S
^ o
O oEo-SHS
o ^ " " i[ a ^Q i,
240
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
PARTNERSfflP FOR THE SOUNDS
WITNESS
HON. WALTER JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Regula. Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have
submitted my prepared remarks for the committee.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Jones. And I am here to
Mr. Regula. For the record.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I am here today to pursue the assistance for the Center for the
Sounds. As you probably remember or know, this goes back to leg-
islation that my father in 1992 submitted to the Congress, which
authorized the Center for the Sounds. And I don't regret that the
Center for the Sounds — the Congress, after my father died, named
the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds, which located in Tyrrell
County.
Tyrrell County is a very small county in eastern North Carolina
which is in my district, and from an economic standpoint they have
very little going for them. The per capita income in Tyrrell County
is approximately $7,000
Mr. Regula. Is this a visitors' center? —
Mr. Jones. It's an educational visitors' center. It's off Highway
64; 64 is a road that is traveled in North Carolina to the Outer
Banks, and the State of North Carolina estimates 6 million people
visit the Outer Banks each year.
Mr. Regula. Would this be a Federal facility? —
Mr. Jones. Federal and State — the State — it's a State and Fed-
eral partnership. The State has already spent about $800,000 to
build an adjoining center to the Walter B. Jones Center for the
Sounds.
Mr. Regula. So Walter B. Jones is not built then?
Mr. Jones. No, sir. The land is there. This is on the State/Fed-
eral property, and this would be an educational center for the tour-
ists as well as for educational groups throughout North Carolina
that would be visiting the Outer Banks.
And the reason that I have taken this on to champion, so to
speak, is not because of my father's name, but because these coun-
ties are pretty — the majority of the county is wetlands; it's been
designated as wetlands, and it's a small county that has very little
going for it economically speaking.
Mr. Regula. What do you mean by Center for the Sounds?
Mr. Jones. The ecosystem is what the State and the Federal
Government for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife had been working to-
gether to create, and the economic opportunity, because of the wet-
lands in that county, and the fact that the ecosystem is one that
is very well respected
Mr. Regula. In other words, this center would interpret the eco-
system?
Mr. Jones. Yes, right.
241
Mr. Regula. Would there be any State money?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, the State has already spent about $800,000.
And let me very quickly find that in my notes. The State of North
Carolina Department of Transportation is in the process now of
constructing an $830,000 visitors' center/rest area adjacent to the
Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds. And the monies, if the Con-
gress decides that it can appropriate between a million and $3 mil-
lion to help get the Center for the Sounds started, it would be a
15,000-square-foot museum and visitors' center which would pro-
vide indoor and outdoor exhibits about the area's plants and ani-
mals and classroom space for multiple educational purposes.
Mr. Regula. What do you estimate the total cost to be?
Mr. Jones. The information that we have, it would be between
$2 and $3 million.
Mr. Regula. Who would operate it? Which agency?
Mr. Jones. Well, it would be operated primarily by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife.
Mr. Regula. So it would be a Federal operation?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. On the State, it's State and Federal property
that this area is on it.
Mr. Regula. Well, we've been reluctant to start any visitors' cen-
ters simply because we haven't had the funding and we have to
take care of what we have.
Mr. Jones. Right. You explained that to me last year. [Laugh-
ter.]
Mr. Regula. Yes. Well, we didn't do any last year, either.
Mr. Jones. Right.
Mr. Regula. Here in 1996 we just don't have the money.
Mr. Jones. Right. Well, I just wanted to again — to make the ef-
fort again because, if time should change as we get to a balanced
budget
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Jones. I think that the new direction of the Congress is cer-
tainly one that is the right direction of trying to work with the
local municipalities and the local areas to help build the economies,
and I know that, talking to Speaker Gingrich, that we do in this
Congress understand that rural America does need attention, and
my district primarily is rural America. So
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you for coming.
Mr. Jones. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
242
C*t-HON MowS( Orrcs BuiLOfvC
W*»HiN0TO.. DC 20515
Tiici^<0*«( I202I33&-341S
coMMirree on national securitv
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
Congrcgfi of rtjc Wimttfj States
l^ousc of iRtprestntatibfs
(laasliinBton. 2D(C 20515-3303
Statement of the Honorable Walter B. Jones, Jr.
to the
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations
on
the FT 1997 Interior Appropriations Act
regarding the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds
CWTBlCTOfF^s
102-C E*9TMoo* Owivl
G«ii~viui,Nci)a5e
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of the Walter
B. Jones Center for the Sounds located in Tyrrell County, North Carolina.
The Partnership for the Sounds, Inc., is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting
local economic development through responsible nature-based tourism in the Albermarle-Pamlico
region of northeastern North Carolina, using as its primary tourism attractions the area's unique
natural, historic, and cultural resources. The Partnership was conceived in the early I990's. It
arose from a situation where several localities on the Albermarle-Pamlico peiunsula were
independently developing plans for educational facilities that would interpret various aspects of
the regional ecosystem. When representatives from these localities realized the parallel nature of
their efforts, they decided to join together in developing a single broad-based program rather than
to compete as separate entities for funding and support.
The mission of the Partnership is to stimulate sustainable economic development in the
northeastern North Carolina region by promoting nature-based tourism, environmental education
and conservation. The organization is designing and developing a series of "gateway centers" to
attract eco-tourists to the area, to interpret the unique local natural history and resources, and to
orient the visitors to outdoor activities and programs available.
These "gateway centers," which form a rough frame around the peninsula, will attract
tourists and stimulate visitation to regional parks, refuges and other points of interest. The four
planned centers are; the Center for the Sounds, the North Carolina Estuarium, the Lake
Mattamuskeet Education Center, and the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Center. Before
my father's death in 1992, Congressman Walter B. Jones, Sr., secured House passage of
legislation authorizing the Center for the Sounds facility in Tyrell County. After his death.
Congress amended the bill to name the facility in his honor.
The Center for the Sounds, a 15,000 square foot museum and visitor center, will provide
indoor and outdoor exhibits about (he area's plants and animals and classroom space for multiple
education purposes. Also, the center will house the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
243
headquarters, which is located in part of Tynell County. The Partnership for the Sounds have
been in negotiations to assist the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFW) in staffing the federal
facility.
The law authorizing the Center for the Sounds calls for a cost-sharing agreement between
the Department of Interior, specifically the USFW, the State of North Carolina and local sponsors.
The North Carolina General Assembly has appropriated state funds to design the federal facility as
well as 2300 feet of interpretive-boardwalk in the adjacent wetlands. In addition, ongoing
operational cost for the Partnership for the Sounds. The partnership is an organization funded
through the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
In addition, the Department of Transportation is constructing an $830,000 visitor
center/rest area adjacent to the Walter B. Jones, Sr. Center for the Sounds site. It is estimated that
federal monies to construct the center would be approximately between S2.S - S3 million.
Again, I understand the importance in balancing the budget and returning regional projects
back to the states. However, I believe this partnership, specifically the Center for the Sounds, is
justifiable at the federal level for two important reasons. First, the necessity for new and diverse
economic opportunities in the Albermarle-Pamlico region is evident by the area's startlingly poor
socio-economic conditions. The two involved counties, Tyrrell and Hyde, were the first and third
poorest in the state respectively in 1990. The average f)er capita income for Tyrrell is only
S7,884 and for Hyde County it is S9,434. In both counties approximately 25 percent of their
residents are below the poverty line. The annual unemployment rates of the two counties are more
than twice the state rate, and non-farm employment opportunities throughout the region are
limited. However, the partnership is intended to provide an economic boom to the area due the
growing attraction of the North Carolina beaches. Specifically, the Center for the Sound site is
located along Highway 64 - the main artery to the CXiter Banks, which receives approximately 6
million visitors a year.
Second, as mentioned early, the program is a partnership between the federal government
and state and local government — a perfect example of the new direction Congress is headed.
North Carolina has honored its agreement to supply the project with $836,615. This is an
opportunity for the Congress partner in helping rural America.
In closing, I believe this project is essential to the economic development of northeastern
North Carolina.
244
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
MroEWIN NATIONAL TALLGRASS PRAIRIE
WITNESS
HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Regula. Jerry?
Mr. Weller. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appre-
ciate the opportunity to appear before you and your subcommittee
and would ask that my entire statement be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Weller. And, as I have spoken with you personally — and, of
course, Mr. Yates, the ranking Democrat has also been very ac-
tively involved in this particular project — I want to discuss with
you today. What I wanted to talk with you briefly about today, Mr.
Chairman, is Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, which will soon
be part, the newest addition to the United States Forest Service.
I have a map here with me today which is a map of what was
formerly known as the Joliet Arsenal, the Joliet Arsenal Ammuni-
tion Plant.
Mr. Regula. This is going from the military to the
Mr. Weller. That's right. This was a
Mr. Regula. Excuse me, the Forest Service.
Mr. Weller. It's a surplus military facility. In many cases some
consider this a model for base conversion, where we took 24,000
acres, set aside 19,000 acres for conservation, 3,000 acres for eco-
nomic development, 1,000 for a national veterans' cemetery.
The portion that I wanted to discuss with you today is the 19,000
acres that's known as the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. It's
already been nicknamed by many conservation and environmental
organizations "The Yellowstone of the Midwest."
This past year, thanks to the strong bipartisan support we've had
from Governor Edgar, the Illinois delegation, and conservation,
business, labor, education, environmental groups, veterans' organi-
zations, we were successful in passing the redevelopment legisla-
tion. This past year, with your assistance, as well as Mr. Yates and
other members of the Appropriations Committee, we were able to
obtain $400,000 in initial development funding, and it was a good
investment. I want to thank you for that initial investment.
Well, now we've succeeded in moving the legislation forward. The
development is starting this year. What I'm here to talk to you
about today is the funding for the operations now of the Midewin
National Tallgrass Prairie.
I would like to point out the importance of treating this site sep-
arate, as a separate, distinct entity from the Shawnee National
Forest. Currently, the Forest Service is in the process of reassess-
ing how they're going to manage this property, and it's currently
being managed through the Shawnee National Forest. The Shaw-
nee National Forest is six hours away. It's in the far reaches of
southern Illinois. The Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie is in sub-
urban Chicago. And because of that, we wanted to request a spe-
245
cific earmarking of $1.6 million for operation and development
costs for Fiscal Year 1997.
Mr. Regula. You contemplate eventually a headquarters and
what else?
Mr. Weller. Well, there are existing buildings out there, former
military buildings that they have. The Forest Service is still deter-
mining what the actual improvement costs would be to existing —
redoing the wiring, rehabbing existing buildings, but they do be-
lieve that there are existing buildings they can use.
The funds that I'm asking for are for the development as well as
operating costs. I do want to point out that what's been exciting
about this particular project for all of us in Illinois is it's been a
win/wia/win for everybody — for conservation, for economic develop-
ment, and for veterans. That's why it's had such broad-based sup-
port, and particularly from Mr. Yates and other members of the
delegation, which I support, and do ask your continued investment
in this particular project.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Weller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Weller follows:]
246
TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN JERRY WELLER
BEFORE THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
APRIL 17. 1996
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to talk briefly today about the Midewin
National Tallgrass Prairie, which is soon to be the newest edition to the U.S.
Forest Service. This prairie is expected to be so grand that many have begun
referring to it as the "Yellowstone of the East." As many of you know, I
introduced legislation early last year to re-develop the former Joliet Army
Ammunition Plant for several peace-time productive uses. My bill was
incorporated into the Department of Defense Authorization Act which was signed
into law on February 10th of this year. The largest portion of the land,
approximately 19,000 acres will be transferred to the Forest Service for creation
of the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie. This prairie will have enormous
environmental, economic, and educational benefits not only for the state of
Illinois, but for the entire country. This plan has broad bi-partisan support from
virtually the entire Illinois delegation, as well as the dean of our delegation, Sid
Yates. We were ably assisted by your subcommittee in securing $400,000 in
initial development costs for this fiscal year.
My purpose here today is to talk, obviously, about the upcoming funding needs
of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. First I would like to stress the
247
importance of treating this site as a separate and distinct entity from the Shawnee
National Forest, as far as appropriations and management go. Currently, the
management of the Prairie will fall under the jurisdiction of the Shawnee, and it
is important that Midewin is given the resources necessary to thrive on its own. I
would like to point out that Midewin is in suburban Chicago and Shawnee is over
6 hours away in the farthest reaches of Southern Illinois. On that note, I would
like to request an appropriation of $1 .6 million for operation and development
costs for Fiscal Year 1997. This is the amount the Forest Service estimated it
would cost to operate Midewin for an entire year. The prairie will also need
construction money to equip existing buildings with electricity and plumbing in
order to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of visitors who will come to
Midewin. At this time, it is unclear what amount will be required, as Forest
Service is still assessing their needs. I am disappointed that the Administration
did not include a specific earmark in their budget request, and I anxiously await
the Forest Service's response.
I would like to close by emphasizing the importance and broad-based support of
the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. As I mentioned, it has bi-partisan
support and is supported by many environmental, conservation, education,
busmess and labor groups. This is a model for base conversion which will
provide public benefit for generations to come and I appreciate your help with
securing the necessary funding.
248
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE
CORRIDOR
WITNESS
HON. E "KIKA" DE LA GARZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Regula. Kika, I think you were here.
Mr. DE LA Garza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appear once again in behalf of the Lower Rio Grande National
Wildlife Corridor, which you have worked with us before. I would
like to begin by requesting that money be specifically earmarked
for this project.
This year, as every other year, we're asking for the total amount,
as you can well understand, which is in your volume, $3 million,
a very small appropriation.
Mr. Regula. Is that land acquisition or development?
Mr. DE LA Garza. It's land acquisition and development.
Mr. Regula. It's to add to an existing refuge?
Mr. DE LA Garza. Yes, the corridor will be from Falcon Dam
down to the Gulf, and they're buying parcels here and there to fill
up the corridor. The area hass over 1,200 species of clams, over 400
species of birds, more than 330 types of butterflies, and animals.
Your contribution. Chairman Yates, and you, and Chairman
Skeen, has been very, very helpful in the past. I don't know how
many million people come down there because we have birds that
are not found any other place in the world. It's a joint endeavor
with the local people, that there is local fund-gathering, and I don't
know where we are now, but it's substantial.
The wildlife corridor comes, of course, from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. This will be, Mr. Chairman, if it means any-
thing, this will be the last time that I appear before you to ask for
funds, and, hopefully, we can complete this endeavor and continue
the heritage for future generations. I've championed this cause for
many years over a lot of others, and I hope that, after this session,
some of you who remain will remember me and the corridor kindly.
We submitted the testimony
Mr. Regula. These are presently privately-owned lands?
Mr. DE LA Garza. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Are they willing sellers?
Mr. DE LA Garza. Yes, all of it has been by willing sellers. It's
nooks and crannies, pieces, no large farming endeavor. Basically
what it is was little triangles or corners of brush that wouldn't help
anyone. So to square off a farm, for example, 3 acres or 5 acres
Mr. Regula. Well, some of it is in-holdings in the existing refuge;
is that right?
Mr. DE LA Garza. Very few. There's about a couple of — three or
four that are now being used for farming. The largest one of those
they're willing to sell. The others, parallel with what we call the
floodway that up above the valley, as we call it, there's a floodway
that, when the river is at its highest, so that it won't endanger the
cities below it, takes the water and brings it down to the Gulf.
Some of this is in the floodways.
249
The floodway is a Federal International Boundary and Water
Commission, but people have easements in the floodway. You may
have heard some of that, that the IBWC doesn't want them to clear
because, if you put water in the floodway, you have an obstruction,
and they went to court. Finally, they reached a settlement, but if
we could buy some of those easements, then you won't have to
worry about that problem. It's not necessarily the Federal Govern-
ment; it's the government of the U.S. and Mexico. That way you
can provide the refuge with land that can be conserved, and the
IBWC can cut when they see the need for it and not have to worry
about the farmer.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. DE LA Garza. It will be helpful.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. DE LA Garza. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. de la Garza follows:]
250
KIKA OE LA GARZA
Congrrdg of tt)e ?Hnitel) ^tatr£(
i}ouit of i^fprrerntatibrs
fflastjington. S£ 20515-4315
Statement By
E (Kika) de la Garza
regarding
FY '97 Appropriations
Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Corridor
17 April 1997
Mr Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify in
support of funding for the Lower Rio Grande Valley National
Wildlife Refuge which is located in South Texas. I would like to
begin by requesting that money be specifically earmarked for this
project. The appropriation I am seeking for Fiscal Year '97 is $3
million .
As I mentioned in my testimony last year, this refuge, begun
back in 1979, is more than halfway completed. Over 75,000 acres
are to date protected. The eventual goal is 132,500 acres.
When finished the Corridor will have preserved a greater
amount of biological diversity than exists in such a small area
anywhere else in North America -- over 1,200 species of plants,
over 450 species of birds, more than 330 types of butterflies. In
addition, the corridor includes many types of habitat and plant and
animal communities, including dry thorn forest, ramaderos, baretta
groves, riparian woods, tidal flats and lomas, rare salt lakes,
coastal marsh and wetlands.
251
2 -
Brush and forest habitat along the edge of the Lower Rio
Grande itself is arguably the most important and most threatened
habitat anywhere in the country. In fact, the U S Department of
the Interior has included this refuge among its top priorities for
the past decade.
With regard to budget concerns which I know are first and
foremost on all of our minds, I want to say that the funding to
complete the Wildlife Corridor comes from the Land & Water
Conservation Fund -- money designated by law for land acquisition
from offshore oil and gas royalties and leases.
This will be my last year appearing before you on Members'
Day. In years past I have sought to make my voice heard on behalf
of Valley wildlife. I do so more today than at any time in the
past for the very simple reason that we are at a critical junction.
By continuing to provide the funds to see this project through
to completion we are saying we are dedicated to passing on a great
heritage to future generations. While I will not be here to
continue to champion something I believe in so much, many of you
will. It is my hope you will provide a $3 million appropriation
and that you will continue in future years to fund this project to
completion.
Thank you Mr Chairman.
tt « #
252
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
STEWART McKINNEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
WITNESS
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Regula. Rosa?
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Your statement will be made part of the record.
Ms. DeLauro. Wonderful, and we're going to do this together to
kill two birds with one stone. I guess we shouldn't say that in the
context of this wildlife refuge anyway. [Laughter.]
We'll have to save two birds with one stone.
I'm delighted to be here with my colleague, Chris Shays. What
we're requesting is that the adequate funding be provided in Fiscal
Year 1997 for the continued purchase of the Great Meadows Salt
Marsh in Stratford, Connecticut, the remaining parcel of land
which is needed to complete the Steward McKinney National Wild-
life Refuge.
Just one or two points, Mr. Chairman: Congress has so far appro-
priated $3.6 million — over the past two Fiscal Years — for the pur-
chase of the land. To date, we have purchased 391 acres out of the
454 acres that make up the Great Meadows Marsh. So completing
this acquisition would maximize the effectiveness of the funds al-
ready spent.
A little bit of context here: the Senate-passed version of Interior
Appropriations bill contained $4 million for the continued acquisi-
tion of the Great Meadows Marsh in 1996. However, the Interior
conference agreement did not specify use of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service funds for the current Fiscal Year.
Mr. Regula. We didn't earmark it.
Ms. DeLauro. Pardon?
Mr. Regula. I said we didn't earmark it.
Ms. DeLauro. Right. No, I understand. And then, further, as you
know, the Interior Approps bill was not signed into law. Fish and
Wildlife has been operating under the series of Continuing Resolu-
tions.
Mr. Regula. Right, right.
Ms. DeLauro. So, for this reason, I want to express the support
for inclusion of the funding levels in the Fiscal Year 1997. For the
next Fiscal Year, Fish and Wildlife will need $4.2 million for its
Land and Water Conservation Fund in order to purchase 27.2 acres
of the Great Meadows Marsh. This is the next of the three phases
to complete the purchase, and this was — the figure was negotiated
between Nature Conservancy, the Connecticut Chapter, the Strat-
ford Development Company, the owners of Great Meadows, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It's a final step. It's a critical step.
This is — the McKinney refuge is one of only two national
Mr. Regula. Are they willing sellers?
Ms. DeLauro. Yes, they are willing sellers, yes.
This is — I mean, its importance in terms of what it does in terms
of endangered migratory birds, I think we've stated before, and
253
that's on the record. There are 270 species of birds that have been
recorded in the marsh.
Just to let you know two more points, Mr. Chairman, the State
of Connecticut supports this effort. The State has donated staff to
manage the piping plover population, put up construction equip-
ment, staffed to implement the restoration efforts
Mr. Regula. Are you getting money out of them for the land ac-
quisition?
Ms. DeLauro. I'm not sure whether the State has put up money
for land acquisition. I don't think so. That's what my sense is as
well.
The Stratford Development Company, though, which has worked
with the groups over the last 20 years
Mr. Regula. That's a private group?
Ms. DeLauro. Yes, yes. They have worked out the efforts with
the developers. What they are doing is — their development includes
1.2 million square feet of office space to support the activities for
the refuge.
Mr. Regula. Is this development adjacent to this marsh?
Ms. DeLauro. No, what they're doing is making available edu-
cational facilities and that kind of an effort, walkways and park-
ways, in order to access the marsh and to make it an educational —
Mr. Regula. The private group is doing this?
Ms. DeLauro. Stratford Development Company, yes.
This, by the way, the activity would really help to create about
3,000 to 5,000 jobs in the greater Bridgeport area, which both Con-
gressman Shays and I have responsibility for, and it would create
about $15 to $21 million in annual tax revenues for the area.
Let me just conclude and say thank you. Thank you for acconi-
modating the schedules as well. I appreciate what you've done in
the past, and I hope you all will look favorably on this.
[TTie statement of Ms. DeLauro follows:]
254
THE HONORABLE ROSA L. DELAURO
STATEMENT TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
StJBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 FUNDING FOR
THE STEWART MCKINNEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Thank you Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Yates, and members
of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for providing me with
the opportunity to testify about an issue of great importance to
the region I represent, and the State of Connecticut. Today I am
requesting that adequate funding be provided in fiscal year 1997
for the continued purchase of the Great Meadows Salt Marsh in
Stratford, Connecticut -- the remaining parcel of land needed to
complete the Stewart McKinney National Wildlife Refuge.
Congress has appropriated $3.6 million over the past two
fiscal years for the purchase of this land. To date 391 of the
454 acres that make up the Great Meadows Marsh have been
purchased. Completing this acquisition will maximize the
effectiveness of federal funds already invested.
The Senate passed version of the Interior Appropriations
bill contained $4 million for the continued acquisition of Great
Meadows in fiscal year 1996. However, the Interior conference
agreement did not specify the use of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service funds for the current fiscal year. Further, as you know,
because the Interior Appropriations bill was not signed into law.
Fish and Wildlife has been operating under a series of continuing
appropriations resolutions, preventing the release of funds for
the purchase. For this reason, I want to express my strong
support for inclusion of funding levels capable of supporting
this acquisition project in fiscal year 1997.
For the next fiscal year, the Fish and Wildlife Service will
need $4.2 million for its Land and Water Conservation fund in
order to purchase 27.2 acres of the Great Meadows Salt Marsh.
This is the next of three phases to complete the purchase of the
Great Meadows Salt Marsh. This figure was derived out of
negotiations between the Nature Conservancy's Connecticut
Chapter, the Stratford Development Company, the owners of Great
Meadows, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Acquisition of the Great Meadows Salt Marsh is the final and
critical step necessary for completing the McKinney Wildlife
Refuge, which is one of only two national wildlife refuges in
Connecticut. With the addition of Great Meadows and its mix of
habitats, the McKinney Refuge will be of sufficient size and
ecological variety and complexity to become a valuable preserve
for generations to come.
Although only minutes away from some of the most densely
populated areas of our country. Great Meadows offers a refuge and
a critical habitat for many important and potentially endangered
migratory birds and species of fish and wildlife, including the
255
federally listed Piping plover. There are currently 270 species
of birds that have been recorded in the Great ^4arsh. It is also
a vital feeding area for the threatened bald eagle and serves as
a major link for migratory birds using the North Atlantic Flyway.
The State of Connecticut also supports the Great Meadows
project. The State has donated staff to manage the piping plover
population and committed both construction equipment and staff to
implement important wetlands restoration efforts.
In addition, the Stratford Development Company, which
negotiated with community groups for 20 years to develop Great
Meadows is now moving ahead with its planned development on
portions of Great Meadows that are not considered ecologically
critical. This development includes 1.2 million square feet of
office space that would support activities related to the refuge
such as educational facilities, pedestrian walkways, and parking.
The complex would also contain unrelated businesses that would
benefit from visitors to Great Meadows. This activity is
expected to create 3,000 to 5,000 new jobs in the economically
troubled Bridgeport area and create $15 to $21 million in annual
tax revenues .
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Yates, thank you for your
consideration of funding for acquisition of the Great Meadows
Salt Marsh.
256
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
THE STEWART McKINNEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
WITNESS
HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This salt marsh is in the district represented by Rosa DeLauro.
It is absolutely essential, though, for the entire salvation, candidly,
of Long Island Sound. It represents a major filtering process, and
we found that, no matter how terrible, frankly, the population, and
so on, has been on the sound, it has the ability to rejuvenate itself
far greater than we can ever imagine because of this marsh.
Just in response to your question about the State, the Migratory
Bird Commission is a private organization that has donated
$627,000. We expect that there will be further efforts by private or-
ganizations because this is considered
Mr. Regula. What's happened to that $627,000?
Mr. Shays. That's been used for purchasing.
Mr. Regula. It's already been used?
Mr. Shays. Yes. So that's been committed.
Mr. Regula. When you say it's a salt marsh, is this a backwater
from tide water? How do you get the salt in it?
Mr. Shays. Long Island Sound is a salt body. It's right along the
edge of the sound, and it becomes a filter, and as the tides go up
and down, it basically cleans
Mr. Regula. So the tides affect this?
Mr. Shays. Oh, definitely.
Ms. DeLauro. Oh, yes.
Mr. Regula. It's sea water in fact, yes.
Mr. Shays. This is viewed by almost everyone as probably one
of the most important environmental projects in the State of Con-
necticut. So the State has been very supportive and has provided
resources.
Mr. Regula. Okay. I thank you both for coming.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. I just one apology to my assistant: she wrote a great
statement, and I'm just sorry I couldn't read it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Well, we'll let the staff read it.
Ms. DeLauro. Put a star next to it. [Laughter,]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Shays follows:]
257
Testimony of Congressman Christopher Shays
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
April 17, 1996
Chairman Regula, Congressman Yates and members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify before your subcommittee to
request up to $4.2 million be provided, either through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund or the Fish and Wildlife Service, to acquire additional land for the
Great Meadows Salt Marsh, on Long Island Sound in Stratford, Connecticut.
The Great Meadows Salt Marsh is the largest unditched high salt marsh in Connecticut,
and is habitat to a wonderfully diverse range of wildlife. Included among the marsh's
inhabitants are species deemed by the federal government to be threatened, such as
the piping plover. It serves as a feeding area for the bald eagle, and its tidal flats ana
waters both feed and breed many species of finned fish. In addition, the marsh is a
prime birdwatching site, attracting ornithologists and nature lovers from afar to see the
more than 270 species of birds which have been observed there.
The majority of acres in the marsh have been owned since 1951 by a small comoanv.
the Stratford Development Company (SDC), which has been contesting plans for
development of the property with local environmental groups and thousands of the
groups' members since 1969.
As you may know, in 1988 the SDC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) began discussing the idea of dividing the property and attempting to obtain
federal funds to add the most ecologically critical portions of the marsh to the Stewan
B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, named in memory of the much admired
Congressman I succeeded. Preservation of the most sensitive parts of the propeny
would then presumably facilitate the agreement of local environmentalists and state
and federal agencies to develop the less biologically important parts of the property -
to more quickly provide desperately needed economic stimulation the impoverisheo
Bridgeport area.
In 1990, Congress authorized the FWS to enter into negotiations with SDC No funaing
was earmarked for this purpose, however, and it was understood that the monies wouia
come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the federal fund for refuge
and park acquisition financed by offshore oil leases.
258
The FWS, with the assistance of The Nature Conservancy, negotiated with SDC for
four successive options, which after corrections due to ownership research and surveys
were made, covered 453.9 acres for $13.1 million.
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I, and the constituents we represent, greatly
appreciate the total of $5 million that this committee has appropriated in fiscal years 94
and 95 (FY 94 and FY 95) for this project. This appropriation was reduced to a total of
$3.6 million by the conference committee, and then combined with $627,000 from the
U.S. Migratory Bird Commission to acquire 391.3 aaes, including all of the tidal
wetlands owried by SDC and important upland parcels. These include the largest pond
on the property and host one of Connecticut's largest concentrations of state
endangered birds.
Last year, as you know, the Committee opted to provide a lump sum to four agencies,
rather than allocate money to specific projects. While we requested $4.2 million be
appropriated to acquire 27.2 additional acres in the Stratford Great Meadows, because
of delays caused by the President's veto of the legislation, we do not yet know what will
ultimately tje provided. We are currently waiting to hear from the FWS how much
money, if any, will be allocated for this project in FY 96. In addition, we do not know
what the committee's plans are for the LWCF in FY 97.
Understanding the fiscal restraints you face, we urge you to provide up to $4.2 million.
depending on how much is ultimately provided in FY 96, to acquire the 27.2 acres, J
you again opt to provide funds directly to the agencies, we urge you to appropriate an
adequate amount so that the Great Meadows Salt Marsh and other important lana
acquisition projects can be fulfilled.
The LWCF is a good program, which helps preserve many important pieces of prooenv
in addition to the Great Meadows Salt Marsh. In New England, for example, the funa
has helped acquire land along the Appalachian Trail - an excellent public/private
conservation project. In my judgment, the LWCF is a sound, conservative program that
should be preserved.
The acres we are hoping to purchase contain the best possible habitat for the rare bird
species which depend on the site. They also would provide proper public access to the
site. Finally, this acquisition would enable the FWS to most effectively restore formerly
productive wetlands on the site.
Due to its location next to the City of Bridgeport, in a very densely populated county,
proper access to the Great Meadows is an integral part of the refuge concept. This site
has been regarded as one of the best coastal birding habitats in the New
YorWSouthem New England region since the beginning of this century. It was
trespassed on extensively when it was in private ownership, and it is anticioatea that ::
will be in great demand by school groups from nearby cities and towns.
259
With more than 14.5 million people living within Long Island Sound's drainage basin,
there are tremendous burdens on this estuary. In 1988, the Sound was designated an
"estuary of national significance" and as such the EPA and the states of Connecticut
and New York have formed and implemented a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) to coordinate conservation and clean up efforts. It is
important to note the CCMP identifies the Sound's most pressing problem as low
dissolved oxygen or "hypoxia." As non-point source pollution is a primary cause of
hypoxia, it will be reduced by preserving the marsh's integrity as a natural pollution
filter for the Sound.
Mr. Chairman, we are proud of the years of hard work and commitment contributed by
citizens and the state and federal governments, in devotion to preserving the Stewart
B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. We urge you to look favorably on our request
for continued support.
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.
260
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ISSUES
WITNESS
HON. SUSAN MOLINARI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Regula. Susan?
Ms. MOLINARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll make the same
apologies to my staff assistant and move very quickly.
Mr. Regula. Let me get my licks in first. You're on the Budget
Committee.
Ms. MOLINARI. Yes, sir.
Mr. Regula. Make sure we get a decent allocation because it's
pretty hard for us to do much extra with declining budgets.
Ms. MOLINARI. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula. We had a 10 percent from 1995 to 1996, and given
the fact that we've got all the good things to deal with, we'd better
do better this year.
Mr. Shays. It's really all up to her. It's her decision.
Ms. MOLINARI. Chris is on the Budget Committee, too. [Laugh-
ter.]
Mr. Regula. Oh-oh, come on, Chris, come back here. [Laughter.]
We're counting on you.
Ms. MOLINARI. Oh, Christopher. [Laughter.]
Mr. Shays. Your point is well taken.
Ms. MOLINARI. And he is correct; your point is — we understand
that, and Chris and I, and particularly those of us, I think, that
come from more urban areas, where oftentimes we have to make
our case a little more explicitly to some of our colleagues
Mr. Regula. And it's more expensive.
Ms. MOLINARI [continuing]. Because it is more expensive, and
they don't sometimes understand the need for Department of Inte-
rior participation
Mr. Regula. Right.
Ms. MOLINARI [continuing]. In areas like ours. So your point is
well taken. It is something that we fight for every year, and we're
just going through that process right now.
Mr. Regula. I know that.
Ms. MOLINARI. So you have our commitment in that regard.
Mr. Regula. Okay, how can we help you?
Ms. MOLINARI. Very briefly, I am here representing the Gateway
National Recreation Area, which is the urban park system. It's a
system that is widely used for many of us. Staten Island, is the
only place where my constituents can have their kids play ball,
play soccer.
What happened last year, just very briefly, we weren't looking
additionally for an increase in funds, and then, as a result of base
closure at Ft. Wadsworth, which was the home for the navy home
port, had to be, by virtue of law, turned back over to parks. So the
Department of Interior had to take it over.
In the long run in the overall budget to the United States, it
saves money because the Coast Guard, which is moving off Gov-
261
ernor's Island, is going to be moving into Staten Island, freeing up
that piece of property. Defense Logistics is moving from down
Mr. Regula. Are they leaving Governor's Island?
Ms. MOLINARI. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, within the next year and a half,
the Federal Government is
Mr. Regula. What's the anticipated use of Governor's Island?
Ms. MOLINARI. Well, right now we are asking that New York
State and New York City have right of first refusal, but it will
bring in at least a half of billion dollars, if not more, to the Federal
Treasury and get people back on tax rolls, both Federal, State, and
city, because what every
Mr. Regula. It's a fine piece of property.
Ms. MOLINARL It's a magnificent piece of property.
Mr. Regula. Right, right.
Ms. MOLINARL So, obviously, it has great potential for apart-
ments, for hotels. Whatever it is — and Lord knows our Coast Guard
deserves the best accommodations, but it's a magnificent revenue-
generator for all three levels of government once we bring it back
into the private sector.
Anyway, so what happened is now we have this extra piece of
property that the Department of Interior has to basically play land-
lord over. They were given no additional funds, and we found our-
selves in a situation that most Members of Congress dread, and
that was threats that the ball fields wouldn't be open, that the kids
couldn't play soccer, that their permits were going to be revoked,
because without any additional funds to run this entire new piece
of property from a security and maintenance standpoint, they
would have to stretch their dollars.
So our request today is for $2.3 million to be able to secure Ft.
Wadsworth and start then to undertake the historic renovations
there and move and adjust the property boundary lines for base
closure without detracting from the participation and the activities
there.
Mr. Regula. Is the $2.3 million operating costs?
Ms. MOLINARL Yes. Above last year's, just operating
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Ms. MOLINARI [continuing]. Because they assumed responsibility
for the property. It didn't cost them anything; it's just operating.
So that's it.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. MOLINARL Thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. Depending on the allocation from the Budget Com-
mittee.
Ms. MOLINARL Yes. [Laughter.]
This collar of this dress is getting a little tighter up here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Well, that's just reality.
Ms. MOLINARL I understand. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
[The statement of Ms. Molinari follows:]
262
Chairman Regula and Members of the Committee, thanlc you for the opportunity to
testify before you today regarding National Park Service issues which are very important to my
constituents in New York City. As you know, much of the Gateway National Recreation Area is
in my district, including the headquarters of the Park at Fort Wadsworth.
Let me say from the outset that I applaud the efforts of this committee over the past year
for the job you've done to fund many worthwhile national park service and other environmental
programs while also working to reduce our budget deficit. As a member of the House Budget
Committee I know just how difHcult your task has been and I want to assure members that I will
continue to do what I can to provide a fair overall fiscal year alottment.
Today, the Gateway National Recreation area serves over 8 million visitors a year In
Staten Island, over 1.3 million visitors used the many beaches, trails, ballfields, playgrounds and
fishing areas last year Gateway is the only location for my constituents to use for junior
baseball and soccor leagues, as well as picnic and fishing areas In addition. Fort Wadsworth ~ a
former military installation which contains many valuable and historical sites — is going to be
opened to the public for the first time as part of the Gateway National Recreation area this year
Fort Wadsworth
By way of a quick background, in 1972, Fort Wadsworth was identified as part of the
Gateway National Recreation area which would be transferred to the National Park Service when
the active military installation vacated the site. This is exactly what happened last year after the
Base Closure Commission closed our local Navy base Today, plans are ongoing to preserve the
Fort's significant historical sites — including two army batteries used to defend New York harbor
during the Revolutionary and Civil wars — while also maintaining many of the modem structures
263
for administrative and maintenance staff for all of Gateway
Unfortunately, last year's budget did not take into account that Gateway's responsibility
had grown significantly with the addition of Fort Wadsworth While funding at Fort Wadsworth
was provided — as required by law ~ for the full-time security, maintenance and overall upkeep
of the historical area, the rest of the Staten Island recreation areas were not provided for
Members of this committee can well imagine how many calls my office must have received
because their children were not going to be able to play little league baseball To their credit, the
National Park Service worked out a quick, one-year fix to the situation, but this major budget
problem still exists today
To avoid such an untenable situation again this year, I respectfully request that this
Committee increase overall operation funding for Gateway by $2.3 million I have been told by
the Park Service budget office here in Washington that this increase to $19.5 million for FY 97
will ensure that Staten Island operations as well as Ft. Wadsworth operations are fiilly provided
for 1 am, of course, very concerned that a lack of adequate funding again this year will
ultimately put my constituents and the National Park Service in a position of having to choose
between preserving Fort Wadsworth, or continuing regular use of the other Staten Island parks
and recreation areas.
Let me again thank the Members of this committee for the opportunity to testify about
these important funding requests, and I ask you to give them careful consideration as you move
forward
264
Wednesday, April 17, 1996.
SOUTHWESTERN FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER
USGS/RIO RANCHO WATER TABLE STUDY
TRIBAL ISSUES
LADD S. GORDON NWR
GLORIETA BATTLEFIELD/PECOS NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK
WITNESS
HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Regula. Mr. Richardson, you're the last one on my Hst. So
I'm glad to see you.
Mr. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, thank you. [Laughter.]
Thank you also for accommodating me this morning. I returned
at 4:00 a.m. I was supposed to testity this morning, and you very
generously changed my testimony. So I'll be very brief. Mr. Chair-
man, I'll do the easy one first and then the real tough one at the
end, but I'll be very brief.
As you know, I have a substantial Native American district
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. And I have made some sugges-
tions here in the paper that I have before you. I want to con-
centrate right now on two projects. One, the main priority I have
is a fish hatchery that is funded out of Fish and Wildlife called the
Mora Fish Hatchery, that over the years your committee has been
funding. And I am requesting $2.7 million to finish it.
Last year an appropriation went — we put in Mora or Dexter,
which is — Dexter is in New Mexico also. It's another fish hatchery.
Unfortunately, all the money went to Dexter. And I believe that if
we can just finish-
Mr. Regula. Are you talking about finishing construction or
Mr. Richardson. Finishing construction, yes.
Mr. Regula. This is not one we're turning back to the State?
Mr. Richardson. No. It's Federal, and it's had support from the
State and Fish and Wildlife; unfortunately, there's not enough
funds to finish it. This would finish it and it's for threatened and
endangered fish, and that's my No. 1 priority.
Mr. Regula. How far along is it now?
Mr. Richardson. I'd say it's about 70 percent.
Mr. Regula. Construction?
Mr. Richardson. Seventy percent; they bought the land. Yes, 70
percent construction.
Mr. Regula. It seems almost that you have to finish it if it's that
far along.
Mr. Richardson. Yes. That's — $2.7 million would finish it. I'd
never ask you again.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Richardson. I'd never ask you again for another dime. Well,
amend that.
265
Mr. Regula. I wouldn't count on that, but go ahead. [Laughter.]
Mr. Richardson. For that project.
Mr. Chairman, the second project is one of your favorites, the In-
stitute for American Indian Art. What I'm asking for is they've got-
ten the message, and I think you've been seeing the clippings that
they're now charging tuition; they're now undertaking substantial
fundraising.
What I'm asking for is funds for the phaseout. I think if we just
cut them out altogether, that would be very, very drastic.
Mr. Regula. You want to give them time to become self-support-
ing?
Mr. Richardson. Yes. So I think if you give us a phaseout num-
ber
Mr. Regula. Three years?
Mr. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Regula. I think
Mr. Richardson. How about five-
Mr. Regula. I think one of the members of our subcommittee
has an interest in this, too.
Mr. Richardson. Yes. Three to five years, five preferably, but
whatever you can do.
But they're moving. They got the message. I think if we ended
it, it would be very hard.
Mr. Regula. Well, I am sympathetic to a phaseout. It's just that
what we're trying to do here is structure things to not have con-
tinuing large downstream cost. I've heard the term "the era of big
government" is over.
Mr. Richardson. Now who said that?
Mr. Regula. I don't know; somewhere along the line I heard it.
[Laughter.]
Given that fact, we have to assume that includes our committee,
too. But, seriously, we do, I think, need to be concerned about long-
term costs and we also need to force these institutions to reevalu-
ate their mission and make sure that it's relevant.
Mr. Richardson. Well, I think three years' phaseout period, just
something over the next three years.
Mr. Regula. Well, we're S3rmpathetic to giving them some
breathing room, but I think they need to understand where we're
headed.
Mr. Richardson. Right.
Mr. Chairman, there are two other projects which are very mod-
est: USGS, a water table study, and a $50,000 feasibility study for
a wildlife refuge. They're in this statement which I don't think you
have.
But thank you again.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Richardson follows:]
266
Testimony of Congressman Bill Richardson
Before the House Appropriations Committee
Subcommittee on Interior
AprU 17, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify today on several projects of the utmost importance to my Congressional district in New
Mexico.
SOUTHWESTERN nSHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER (SFTQ-One of my highest
priorities for the past several years has been to secure funding for the completion of the Mora
National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center in New Mexico which is a part of the
Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center. Your past support and assistance in securing funds
for this project is deeply appreciated. The Mora facility will serve as a shelter for threatened
and endangered fish, and propagate rare species and sport fish. It will also develop technology
to recycle water and clean effluent from fish hatcheries. As you may recall, I have requested
money for the Mora National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center for the past several years.
The bipartisan New Mexico congressional delegation has supported this project from its
inception in 1991 and we have actively sought funding for its completion. I respectfully
request the Committee provide $2.7 million to the Southwestern Fisheries Technology
Center spedfically for the completion of construction at the Mora National Fish Hatchery
and Technology Center (with $650,000 of this funding to be speciHcally allocated for
operating funds).
USGS/RIO RANCHO WATER TABLE STUDY FUNDING-The rapid growth of the greater
Albuquerque area, which is fueled in large part by the expansion of the computer and electronics
industries' expanding presence in the state, has created severe pressures on the region's already
strained water usage. In fact, water use on Albuquerque's West Mesa (where many plant
expansions and new homes have been construaed) has underscored the need for accurate,
independent information on water usage by all sectors of the community. Unfortunately, the
U.S. Geological Service is unable to perform necessary water table studies because of a lack of
funds. With the appropriate funding, the USGS would be able to fund the necessary evaluations
of water use in the area and assist municipal officials in land and water use planning for the
fiimre. I respectfully request the Committee speciTically allocate $130,000 of the USGS F)f
1997 budget for the evaluation and study of the water table on the West Mesa for the
purpose of providing residents, local ofTicials and businesses with an accurate accounting of
water usage and availability.
TOWN OF TAOS/TAOS PUEBLO SETTLEMENT FUNDING-The Town of Taos and the
Taos Pueblo have been locked in an ongoing dispute about ownership of, and responsibility for,
many of the roads and alleyways within the Town of Taos which were once part of the Taos
Pueblo. This long-standing dispute, which centered around which entity had jurisdiction over
roads and alleyways, has been resolved with the agreement that the Town of Taos will
compensate the Taos Pueblo for the ownership and control of the streets and alleyways in
question in the future. I respectfully request the Committee provide $1,450,000 in funding
for the payment of the settlement.
LADD S. GORDON NWR FEASIBILITY STUDY-The Ladd S. Gordon Wildlife Area near
Tucumcari is a natural area now administered by the State of New Mexico. I believe the area
has great potential as a National Wildlife Refuge. I respectfully request $50,000 for a
feasibility study for the establbhment of the Ladd S. Gordon National Wildlife Refuge near
Tucumcari, New Mexico.
JEMEZ SPRINGS COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUNDING-The establishment of the Jemez
267
National Recreation Area in northern New Mexico has resulted in concerns in the nearby
community of Jemez Springs that the new designation will lead to increased traffic, pollution and
crime in the area. To assure that the Jemez Springs Sheriff and other public officials are
prepared to deal with these potential problems, I would like to request community assistance
funds from the U.S. Forest Service. I respectfully request $100,000 from the U.S. Forest
Service Rural Community Assistance program for the community of Jemez Springs.
GLORIETA BATTLEFIELD/PECOS NATIONAL fflSTORICAL PARK-The Pecos
National Historical Park was expanded in 1990 to include the Glorieta battlefield, a Civil War
site dating back to a battle in March of 1862 which marked the turning point in the Civil War.
The urban growth of the City of Santa Fe threatens the integrity of the Park. Funding is
urgently needed to acquire those lands in the Glorieta unit that are owned by willing sellers as
soon as possible. I respectfully request $1.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for the acquisition of land within the Glorieta battlefield unit of the Pecos National
Historical Park from willing sellers.
ZUNI MIDDLE VILLAGE PROJECT-Within the Middle Plaza area of the Pueblo of Zuni,
the above surface modem dwellings are built upon the walls and footings of the ancient Pueblo.
Rains, poor drainage and the weight of the above surface dwellings have caused severe erosion
and caused problems with the walls and footings. This situation, which extends throughout the
Middle Plaza area, has led to the imminent threat of collapse. If this happens, serious injury to
people and infrastructure will result. I respectfully request $2.5 million to assist the Pueblo
of Zuni in repairing and stabilizing the sub-surface footings and walls as well as to
completely renovate the Middle Plaza area to resemble the ancient Pueblo.
PL^BLQ OF LAGUNA
PAGUATE RESERVOIR--In 1988, a 100 year storm occurred at Laguna Pueblo which
resulted in severe damage to the pueblo's roads, homes, and fanning area. Due to dam safety
deficiencies, it was determined that it would be best to combine the two dams into one dam.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has committed $684,000 to the total project cost of $1,638,565.
When restored, the dam will be used for agricultural activities as well as business opportunities
for the 900 residents of the Village of Paguate. I respectfully request $954,565 to cover the
shortfall for the restoration of the dam.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS-The Pueblo of Laguna, in compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has constructed a solid waste transfer station.
Currently, the transfer station is operating in a limited capacity without electrical power, water
and sewer services. To complete the transfer station as designed, the Pueblo needs an additional
$80,000 to install three-phase electrical power, water and sewer lines. The three-phase power is
for a trash compactor. I respectfully request $80,000 to install three-phase electrical power,
water and sewer lines for the Pueblo of Laguna.
JUVENILE DETENTION AND REHABILITATION CENTER-The juvenile crime rate and
lack of adequate rehabilitation facilities on or near the pueblo continue to be a serious problem.
When offenders are sentenced, there is no place to house juvenile offenders for counseling and
rehabilitation except in the tribal jail which is inadequate. The Pueblo of Laguna was selected
by the Department of Justice as one of two tribes for a pilot program designal to permit tribes
to develop culturally-sensitive programs for reservation communities. I respectfully request
$250,000 for the planning and design of a comprehensive program for the youth of the
Pueblo.
SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY-The Pueblo needs to provide nursing home care, elderly
housing rental units, assisted living and day care for its elderly population. I respectfully
request $500,000 to ensure the continuation of services vital to the support and well-being
of its elderly citizens.
PUEBLO OF JEMEZ WALATOWA CULTURAL CENTER-The Pueblo of Jemez seeks to
268
develop the Walatowa Cultural Center to manage and benefit from its growing number of
visitors. The Cultural Center will house a museum, arts and crafts sales and demonstrations
areas, a visitor's center, a retreat and conference center, a library/archival center for
archaeological/anthropological/historical research, and an outdoor Indian dance plaza and pow
wow grounds. The Center will enhance the employment and business opportunities for Towa
people while also educating visitors and preserving tribal traditions and cultures. I respectfully
request $2 million to fund construction of the Walatowa Cultural Center.
PUEBLO OF ACOMA
ACOMITA LAKE-Acomita Lake, a resource for agricultural and recreational use, has been in
the rehabilitation process for 10 years. It has been determined that the Lake has to be refilled
immediately for its dormancy which resulted in income losses to the tribe and has created
hardship for surrounding farmers due to the lack of irrigation water. I respectfully request
$1,127,112 for construction costs for installing a membrane liner and rehabilitation of the
spillway, construction management, and repairs for adjunct facilities.
IRRIGATION NEEDS-Crops that are harvested by the Acoma people are generally limited to
self-consumption. However, the possibility of growing marketable crops does exist. Future
development of agricultural produce can become a reality and add to strengthening the self-
sufficiency among the Acoma people with improvement to the present irrigation system.
However, there is a critical need for funds to renovate the existing 35 mile irrigation system. I
respectfully request $4,242,000 for the removal of old concrete lining, for the installation of
new concrete lining, for the purchase of turnout gates, and other essential hardware.
INFRASTRUCTURAL NEEDS/BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT NEEDS-The Pueblo of Acoma
has testified before this Subcommittee on a variety of requests which will assist in providing the
pueblo with an equitable standard of living for its people: Water/Waste - The Pueblo requests
funding to bring its systems in line with various regulations. Law and Order - Because of the
increasing risks that drugs are being trafficked in the outlying areas by plane and helicopter, the
Pueblo of Acoma requests adequate and continue funding for law enforcement. Housing - The
Pueblo of Acoma requests funding to correct its critical shortage of housing.
Infrastructure/Economic Development - The Pueblo of Acoma has also requested funding for
water, liquid, and solid waste systems, as well as electricity, gas and roads development. I
want to extend my support for the programs specified in the testimony of the Pueblo of
Acoma.
NATIVE AMERICAN nSH AND WILDLIFE SOCIETY-The Society is a national non-
profit organization dedicated to the sound management and prudent use of tribal fish and wildlife
resources. To date, the Society has provided technical services and assistance to over 115 tribes
in the areas of fish and wildlife management, education, and environmental protection. The
Society is currently the only natior<il Native American organization that provides technical
assistance to American Indian tribes, federal, state and local governments as well as private
industry to develop and implement sound policies, ordinances, regulations, and laws to protect,
preserve, conserve, and prudently use and manage fish, wildlife and other natural resources. I
respectfully request $488,000 for the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society.
NATIVE AMERICAN ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES-The City of Santa Fe, New Mexico is
pursuing a project called "Native American Art in Public Places." The purpose of this project is
to honor and recognize the contributions that Native Americans have made in shaping the culture
of the city of Santa Fe and the state of New Mexico. The total budget for this project is
$750,000. The city has secured funding from state and private sources. I respectfully request
that the committee consider $100,000 for the "Native American Art in Public Places"
project.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS-I would like to stress my support for the
National Endowment for the Arts. In New Mexico the National Endowment for the Arts has
269
provided essential seed money for successful organizations that feed our local rural economies.
My state is a prime example of how art can stimulate rural and depressed communities which
have few other resources. From the small seed dollars the NEA provides New Mexico creates
jobs and fuels local economies. According to a study conducted by the New Mexico Arts
Division, the arts industry in New Mexico contributes over $500 million to the State's economy
and provides over 3,700 full- and part-time jobs. The NEA dollars are an investment in our
local communities and our people. I respectfully request that the NEA budget is no less than
FY 1996 conference report funding.
NATIVE AMERICAN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION-The majority of Native American
schools were built in our country in the I950's and 1960's. These facilities which are now
almost 50 years old are deteriorating at a rapid rate. Shiprock Alternative School, in my
district, uses 44 year old dormitories whose interior walls have been knocked down as
classrooms. The classrooms do not have direct exits to the outside or ventilation windows, the
schools corridors are too narrow to meet fire standards, and room is so limited that indoor
physical education classes are held in the hallway lobby. Although I understand and support the
BIA's priority funding list, I strongly urge the committee to fund at least two New School
Construction Projects per year to bring relief to overcrowded, substandard. Native American
schools across the country.
NAVAJO COMMUNITY COLLEGE-The Navajo Community College (NCC) Shiprock
campus is in dire need of funding. Last year the Shiprock building was condemned by BLA
inspectors because of its dangerous condition. I support any efforts to help renovate the existing
Shiprock campus to come into compliance with safety standards. Furthermore, I believe that
renovating the existing building is a temporary solution to NCC's growing needs. The
Mathematics and Natural Sciences Division, for example, has been growing steadily over the
years and is now one of the strongest programs in the region, providing students with necessary
academic preparation to continue their math and science studies at a four-year institution. I
respectfully request $300,000 for planning a new Naviyo Community College Campus in
Shiprock, New Mexico.
NAVAJO INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECT (NIIP)-The Navajo Indian Irrigation Project
was established by Congress in 1962 to create resources for the Navajo Nation in agriculture
development. B«:ause of significant funding setbacks the project has yet to be finished and is
almost 20 years behind scheduled completion dates. This project has the potential to be a major
employer for the poorest reservation in the United States. Farm revenues, value added products,
food processing, and economic development have all been delayed because of construction
setbacks. I fully support the Navajo Indian Irrigation project in its request for $46.5
million in construction funds and Operations and Maintenance funds of $8 million.
NORTHERN NAVAJO MEDICAL CENTER~The Northern Navajo Medical Center in
Shiprock, New Mexico was built to replace the old Shiprock Hospital which was too crowded to
adequately provide services. I have significant concerns that after one year into the new
hospital's operation, the facility is only funded at 70% of its needs for staff which means patient
services are still limited. Full staffing and full funding are essential to utilize the new hospital to
its maximum potential. I respectfully request $4 million for the Shiprock hospital to hire the
remaining 72 FTEs of the 357 FTEs that were approved for NNMC.
PINON HEALTH CENTER and FT. DEHANCE HEALTH CARE CENTER
I fully support the Administration's request for $2.9 million for Pinon, Ft. Defiance and
Hopi health facility design. These areas are in desperate need of modem health care facilities.
270
Mr. Regula. Okay, the committee's adjourned.
The following members were unable to attend the hearing, but
submitted their statements for the record.
[The statements follow:]
271
m* liayauMK Bu«omc
COMMITTEES
"MMITTEE OH INTERNATIONAL R£LATK}NS
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Congresid of tte United States!
f^oMt oC ^t9rtitntati\iti
8Bast)ington, B€ 20313-1409
THE HONORABLE LEE H. HAMILTON
Statement for the Record
House Appropriations Conunittee
Subcommittee on Interior
April 22, 1995
Fax 11)31 288-3877
Mr. Chairman and members of the Interior Subcommittee. Thank
you for providing me with an opportunity to submit testimony for
the record in support of a project of particular importance to the
Ninth Congressional District of Indiana.
I am requesting your assistance in approving the $500,000 in
the President's FY 1997 budget for land acquisition in the Hoosier
National Forest.
The proposed land acquisition would involve land purchases on
a willing seller basis at appraised values. The U.S. Forest
Service has advised that it has already been offered many tracts
from willing sellers. The acc[uisition would not entail any
condemnations .
This funding request would further the efforts of the Forest
Service to implement the Hoosier 's 1991 land management plan. The
Forest is formed from a very fragmented ownership pattern and
consists of only 30% of the land within its borders.
The Forest Service has worked with state agencies, interested
groups, and individuals to develop land acquisition criteria for
the Hoosier that meet the plan's goals and ensure that priority is
given to lands with special ecological or public recreation values.
The Hoosier National Forest is a rich and wonderful asset to
the people of Indiana and to all Americans. I want to do all I can
to help preserve and protect the Hoosier National Forest for future
generations .
I have appreciated your support in recent years to provide
funding for land acquisition in the Hoosier, and urge your approval
of the $500,000 request in the President's budget.
THtS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MAOC Of RECYCUO FISCRS
272
Congresis; of ttje ^nitcb States! "'^irrrr'
Jt)ouit of i^cpre£(rntatibeg
Was\mslon, 1B€ 20515
TESTIMONY OF U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JERROLD NADLER
BEFORE THE
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR & RELATED AGENCIES
APRIL 22, 1996
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in
support of the maximum funding level possible for the fiscal year
1997 budget for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) , the
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) , and for the
Institute of Museum Services (IMS) .
The appropriations for these agencies represent a fraction
of 1% of the entire federal budget. Once again, however, this
funding will be attacked this year by those who say public money
should not be invested in the arts. But, in reality, this
relatively small investment yields billions of dollars for our
economy - not to mention a very real and sometimes intangible
benefit to every American.
Champions of the Endowments quote impressive statistics
about the positive impact that federal support of culture and
arts has on jobs, services and contracts. They note, for
example, that for every dollar the NEA invests in communities,
there is a 20-fold return to the U.S. Treasury. Expenditures in
the not-for-profit arts sector alone, which is greatly reliant on
NEA support, contribute an estimated $30 billion to the U.S.
economy annually.
In addition to the direct positive impact that the not-for-
profit arts sector has on the economy, funding for Endowments is ■
often the stimulus from which the more popular, commercial art
and cultural projects, which are less dependent on government
support, are made possible. For example, a number of highly
successful, now internationally well-known productions were
initially funded through the NEA. The ultimate commercial
success of these once-obscure productions has led to the creation
of literally thousands of jobs across our nation.
Many opponents of federal funding for the arts and
humanities consistently mention the half-dozen controversial
273
grants that have been awarded by the NEA. Personally, I am
amazed that with a record of more than 100,000 grants, there have
been so few that have raised eyebrows. There are few, if any,
other federal agencies that can boast such a fine record.
Through the Endowments, American art and culture have
reached into every state in the nation, benefitting each state's
economy and bringing a sense of community that nothing else can
satisfy. Millions of Americans have heard NEA-funded concerts
and have seen NEA-funded exhibitions. We have also watched the
free arts programming on public television that is partially NEA
and NEH funded. In the past 30 years, millions of our students
and teachers have been reached through the NEA artist-in-
residence programs.
A New York Times article vividly described the difference
NEA funding can make in rural areas like western Montana. As The
Times reported, "People drive through blizzards and over mountain
passes for a chance to see art and to be a part of it. Many talk
about a yearning to be connected to a larger world, to see and
hear creations apart from the overwhelming western sky." The NEA
gave Montana approximately $700,000 in Fiscal Year 1995 to pay
for writers' workshops, art museums, community centers, dance
troupes, Indian tribal singers, quilting bees and woodwind
quintets. As the article said, the federal money seems to do
what the rural electrical cooperatives of the 1930's did: "It
electrifies remote regions, creating a kind of wiring to connect
them." Montana's Governor is quoted as saying that, "Regardless
of political ideology, our identity and our spiritual health
depend on the arts."
As for the NEH's broad national outreach, in one year alone,
the NEH sponsored 29 teacher institutes and 69 seminars for over
3,000 school teachers from 49 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and the
district of Columbia. These teachers in turn reached over
500,000 students in one academic year. The NEH media awards will
culminate in 70 hours of television and 69 hours of radio
reaching close to 244 million Americans.
Additionally, the IMS provides essential general operating
support to the full range of museums throughout the country,
including aquariums, arboretums and botanical gardens, art, youth
and general museums, historic houses and sites, nature centers,
natural history and anthropology museums and zoos.
We must not let political ideology blind us to the
overwhelming evidence that support for our art and culture is for
the benefit of all of us. We must not let extremists use our
great cultural diversity as a wedge issue to divide us. The
truth is that those of us who enjoy the "popular" arts are no
different from those who like what some call the "serious" arts.
American art and culture is the Grand Ole Opry and grand opera,
symphonies and Sinatra. What makes America great is that we are
a spectacularly diverse group of people.
274
It is important for us to remember, too, that — based on
past experiences — there is every possibility that some of what
we reject today may prove to be of lasting value to later
generations. That is why we need a federal commitment to our
nation's art and culture. Just look at the Vietnam Memorial here
in Washington D.C. It probably would never have been built
without NEA funding. It was once very controversial; now, it is
a source of wonder and comfort to untold numbers of Americans.
Other countries recognize the importance of government
financial support for culture and the arts, and are making
necessary investments. Canada and France spend $32.00 per person
for arts and humanities programs. In the United States, NEA
funding works out to just 64 cents per person and the NEH is
funded at 68 cents per person.
I realize this is a time of budget constraints, but the
endowments have already taken serious cuts. As I mentioned
earlier, the NEA has undergone a massive restructuring. Part of
that restructuring necessitated laying off 50% of its employees.
The 40% cut the endowments took last year have hit small arts
agencies particularly hard. Congress should continue its
important role in supporting art, culture and the humanities in
America.
We need only to look at the impact of cuts to the NEA that
Congress made last year to recognize the true value of the
Endowments. The NEA is currently functioning at a funding level
39% lower than in FY95. That the NEA is able to continue so much
of its work with vigor at this reduced level is a tribute to the
leadership of Jane Alexander. Still, these cuts are felt deeply
by Americans across the nation - artists, audiences, small
business owners and entire communities have felt the effect of
these cuts. For example, grants to states were cut by 30%.
Artists-in-residence sent to schools to inspire and educate
children were cut. Small symphonies are no longer able to
provide rural Americans access to the arts and culture. It is
important to note that some FY95 grants are still being
processed, so the full effect of FY96 cuts have only begun to be
realized. The effects that will be felt as FY95 funds become
unavailable will certainly be even more wide-reaching than those
already being felt by hundreds of programs, thousands of
communities, and millions of Americans. Let us not continue to
cut these valuable programs.
Thank you.
275
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ
I7~ 0«T-c> lou NATIONAL SECURITY
RANKING MINORITY MIUTAflV
rr^s;:^ Congress of the Idnitcd States -«:««»^^r;^s^.
aa-MS-7743 ■WWIi^^WA*** W| VIBW «h^lMVV«« ^^^ V4« VVAf MORALE VWL/Aitf ANO «CMATK)N PANEL
3649Lco»*MoSuircS10
Cofvu* CHMsn. ntrMOS
Congress of the Idnited States
ilousc of Kcprtscntanocs
Washington, B£ 20515-4327
Wntten Testimony of
NATURAL RESOURCES
9aoc.c«<e<xu«.«o sunm Congressman Solomon P Ortiz
■~';;nir-.?4r'' before the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior
April 17. 1996
Mr Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony regarding my support for the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife
Refuge (LRGVNWR) 1 also thank you for the support this Subcommittee has given this
important wildlife refuge over the past years
Today I am requesting $3 0 million to be appropriated and specifically targeted for the
LRGVNWR These funds are needed for the Department of the Interior (DOI) to purchase
targeted lands before they are lost to development Currently the DOI has options, with
willing sellers, on more than 5 times this amount of targeted lands
This refiige was approved by Congress in 1979, and first funded in FY 1980
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the LRGVNWR is their fourth most
important land acquisition project in the country When it is completed, this refuge wiU
preserve a greater amount of biological diversity than exists in such a small area anywhere in
the United States The four county area is home to over 1 100 species of plants, over 700
species of vertebrates, with some 400 species of birds; and an estimated 330 species of
butterflies Also, two major migratory flyways converge over the southern tip of Texas — the
Central and the Mississippi Flyways The result is an incredible diversity of bird life which
overwinter or layover during fall and spring migrations. Some of these species can be found
nowhere else in the United States The temperate, subtropic, and desert climatic influences
converge here to create a wide variety of habitats
There is concern that current growth in population and industrialization along the
border will make it impossible to incorporate the needed, remaining land and complete the
refijge For this reason. I am asking the Committee to include the LRGVNWR in the Land
and Water Conservation Fund and appropriate $3 0 million for FY 1997 This is one of the
top land acquisition priorities of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and a project which
deserves your support
Thank you. Mr Chairman, for your time and consideration of this request.
276
The Statement of
Congresswoman Marge Roukema
before
the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations
April 17,1996
Mr. Regula. Members of the Subcommittee:
I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to bring to your attention
several issues of paramount importance to my district and the state of New Jersey.
First and foremost, as we have discussed many times, I am committed to the
preservation of Sterling Forest and am today asking that you include appropriate to
facilitate the purchase of Sterling Forest as part of the Interior Appropriations bill.
In March Speaker Gingrich visited Sterling Forest and promised that Congress
would pass legislation by June to protect Sterling Forest. What better way to show
our commitment to environmental protection than to pass legislation to preserve
this important tract of land?
As you know, Sterling Forest is one of the largest tracts of privately-owned,
undeveloped forest land in the mid- Atlantic United States. This is heavily-forested
land - 10 percent of which is located in my district in northern New Jersey and
the remaining 90 percent of which is located in Orange County, New York (our
colleague Ben Oilman's district). It currently provides countless recreational
opportunities to millions of nearby residents and visitors.
For example, the Appalachian Trail runs right through Sterling Forest, and
thousands of hikers travel its ridges, slopes, lakes, valleys, and rivers each year as
they head either up or down the Trail.
277
However, it is not recreation that brings me here today, but something far
more fundamental - water.
Mr. Chairman, Sterling Forest is the primary source of drinking water to over
3 million residents of my State. Numerous tributaries and feeder streams flow
south from Sterling Forest right into the Wanaque Reservoir, which supplies
drinking water for 25 percent of all residents of New Jersey.
Consequently, the protection of this unique natural resource in a region
struggling to grapple with urban sprawl is a matter of utmost importance. Please
keep in mind that this is a critical issue for the most densely-populated area of the
nation's most densely-populated state, northern New Jersey.
Simply put: preserving Sterling Forest protects the drinking water supply
of northern New Jersey and New York, and it is imperative for the 104th
Congress to take action.
Legislation authorizing federal funds has already passed the Senate, and the
House Resource Subcommittee is scheduled to mark up my authorizing legislation,
H.R. 194, tomorrow.
At the state level, you should know that support is very strong for preserving
Sterling Forest. This effort to protect Sterling Forest represents a public-private
partnership.
You should know that Governor Whitman has already signed into law
legislation, passed by the State's Legislature, that commits our State to spending
$10 million lO help with the purchase of the Forest. In addition. Governor Pataki
has committed his Administration in Albany to match New Jersey's contribution
dollar-for-dollar.
278
Here in Congress, legislation to protect Sterling Forest enjoys bi-partisan
support in both the New Jersey and New York delegations, as witnessed by the
presence of those Members who are here testifying today.
The coalition behind these efforts firmly believes that the best method to use in
preserving and protecting Sterling Forest is a public-private partnership, with its
purchase price being funded using private, state and federal fiinds.
This encompasses an approach that I have long advocated, namely having the
public sector and private sector work together to achieve this goal, because in these
times it is simply unrealistic to expect the government to carry the burden by itself.
To date, at least $5 million in private contributions have been conmiitted
towards helping protect Sterling Forest. These efforts will continue, and private
funds are expected to play an important role in the purchase of this land.
And, as I've already mentioned. New Jersey and New York have conmiitted to
spending $10 million each.
I want to emphasize something about these federal funds: this is a one-
time funding request, because our plan provides for the Palisades Interstate
Park Commission (PIPC) and the State of New York to accept flnancial
responsibility for the long-term management of the Sterling Forest.
For these reasons, I urge the Subcommittee to include funding for Sterling
Forest as part of the FY 97 Interior appropriations bill.
I want to bring to your attention another important project in my district -
the Wallkill River NWR. The support of your subcommittee in past years has .
279
allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect hundreds of acres of valuable
wetlands and forested uplands at this refuge that is habitat for large numbers of
waterfowl and a diversity of wildlife, including bald eagle, river otter, cooper
hawk, wild turkey, great homed owl, deer and black bear.
In FY96, I requested $1.5 million for the Van Althuis property, one of the
largest remaining inholding at the refuge that contains over 1 ,000 feet of river
frontage on both sides of the Wallkill River. While we are still awaiting the final
determination of land acquisition priority for FY96, I first wanted to thank you for
your attention to my request for funding and to update you on the status of that
property. The Van Althuises are a dairy farming family, and it is extremely
difficult financially for them to phase the acquisition of their property, so a full
appropriation this year is critical to the protection of this valuable parcel. In
addition, the Van Althuises find themselves in even greater financial difficulty
because a fire several weeks ago destroyed their bams and all of their milking .
equipment. At this time, they are facing the difficult decision of whether to invest
in additional dairy farming equipment while waiting to leam whether their will be
any funding to purchase their property this year. As you can imagine, the family
is facing a severe financial hardship and property this year. As you can imagine,
the family is facing a severe financial hardship aiKl the availability of funds to
purchase their property this year would be extremely helpful.
For FY97, an appropriation of $2 million would allow for the continuation of
the Wallkill River protection program, ensuring the protection of additional
wetlands, the preservation of the viewshed towards High Point State Park, and the
availability of public access to the refuge, which remains strongly supported by my
constituents.
Finally, I want to conmiend the Subcommittee for including emergency storm
damage relief funding as part of the Onmibus Continuing Resolution that the
280
Conference Committee is currently considering. While I know there was
significant damage in the West due to the severe winter, I would respectfully ask
the Chairman to make sure that the northeastern states receive appropriate
consideration. I am particularly interested in relief for the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area which endured extensive damage due to winter blizzards
and severe flooding.
Again, I want to thank the Chairman for this opportunity to testify, and I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
281
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
B308 RAYBURN HOB
May 1, 1996
Mr. Chairman, it is indeed an honor to submit written
testimony with regard to Alaska Native and Department of Interior
programs within the Interior Appropriations bill to my friends on
this distinguished Subcommittee.
Alaska Nat-iv* Progi-iimn
' Indian Health Service
Mr. Chairman, since Congress amended the Indian Self
Determination Act, the Indian Health Service (IHS) has entered
into Self -Governance Compacts with tribes. This was in response
to tribal leaders desire to have more control of their own health
care delivery programs and resources. The tribes entered into
"Compacts" with the IHS to set their own priorities and designs
for their own health care delivery system. Alaska entered into
an "All-Alaska Compact" with the IHS in 1995 and I fully support
their funding for their fiscal year 1997 budget. Compacting has
provided a jnore direct and improved service to Alaska Natives and
has greatly reduced the administrative costs of having the IHS
administer these services. I fully support the appropriations
within the IHS's Self -Governance Compact fund to continue funding
for the "All-Alaska Compact".
I greatly appreciate the funding allocated for the staffing
of the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage, Alaska which is
scheduled for completion later this year and for staff positions
at the Kotzebue hospital in Kotzebue, Alaska. These two
facilities needed to be replaced and I fully support the
appropriation of $18,259,00 for the Alaska Native Medical Center
in Anchorage, Alaska and the appropriations of $2,283,000 for the
Kotzebue hospital. I urge my colleagues on this Subcommittee to
approve these appropriations to provide much needed staff to
these two facilities.
The Alaska Native Health Board, the Norton Sound Health
Corporation, the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation and the
Maniilaq Association all support the IHS's increased budget of
$2.4 billion however, feel very strongly that there continues to
be unmet needs in Alaska in contract support costs, sanitation
facilities and other construction needs, and in patient travel
costs. I concur and support the views of these groups and urge
this Subcommittee to respectfully provide appropriations to fully
fund contract support costs with the increase of $46,115,000, the
282
appropriation increase of $43,000,000 to address sanitation
facilities needs nationwide, and to appropriate additional funds
for patient travel.
Reports have stated that Alaska has an identified unmet
sanitation need exceeding $1 billion. This is based on the non-
existence of water and sewer facilities in more than 85% of the
rural villages in Alaska. As one of the leading nations of the
world, our 49th state should not be experiencing such third world
conditions.
Patient travel is an expensive cost which Alaska much incur
each year due to the geographic and non-existent of an interstate
road system in the state. Rural Alaska natives must travel to
regional centers or to the Alaska Native Medical Center in
Anchorage, Alaska when they require additional medical care and
the only transportation available is air travel. Many patients
forego care until an easily treatable condition has become a
full-blown emergency. I respectfully urge this Subcommittee to
review the IHS's budget to include a separate appropriation for
patient travel costs in Alaska.
Lastly, I support the $1,352,00 for the Hepatitis B
Immunization program in Alaska. The program has proven
successful since it began in 1982 when Hepatitis B was at an all
time risk factor in rural Alaska. I urge my colleagues to
continue this successful program in eradicating the presence of
Hepatitis B in Alaska.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bering Sea Fishermen^ s Association
Last year, the Committee on Appropriations included an
earmark of $600,000 for the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
(BSFA) within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) FY96 budget to
address the Chum Salmon fishery disaster in the Arctic-Yukon-
Kuskokwim areas of Alaska . BSFA continues to successfully
administer the Western Alaska Salmon restoration efforts on
behalf of the tribes affected and its membership. In addition to
the $600,000 earmarked for the BSFA, Congress added an additional
$204,500 to address the salmon restoration and BSFA successfully
managed the remainder funds for all the restoration projects in
western Alaska. The BSFA is requesting $1,000,000 to continue
coordination of the salmon monitoring and enhancement projects in
western Alaska and Interior river systems. I support their
request for $1,000,000 to refocus the Western Alaska Salmon
Investigations Program as intended by past appropriations for the
chum salmon disaster and restoration funding. I respectfully
urge this Subcommittee to honor their request to help fund
fisheries development in economically deprived regions of my
state.
283
Alaska Legal 8ervic«» Corporation
Mr. Chairman, my record indicates I rarely support any
project with attorneys involved; however, I strongly feel that
the representation Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC)
provides for people who cannot afford their own attorneys is
justified. In the past, the Alaska Legal Services Corporation
has contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to represent
Alaska Native allottees at administrative hearings and government
contests with Native Allotment land disputes. I want to again
support the efforts of Alaska Legal Services Corporation to
resolve some of these land disputes. ALSC is requesting $250,000
to provide legal services for Native allottees and I fully
support this effort. I respectfully ask that this Subcommittee
fund their request.
Kawerak. Inc.
Mr. Chairman, I have a one time appropriations request from
the Kawerak, Inc. native organization of Nome, Alaska. Kawerak,
Inc. administers P.L. 93-638 contracts on behalf of its twenty
tribal villages in western Alaska and is requesting a one time
appropriation of $1.5 million to replace the Reindeer plant
destroyed by fire in January of this year. The Nome Reindeer
Plant had been the main meat outlet for the reindeer industry for
the past 20 years for the villages of this region and has proven
to be one of the major economic opportunities available for these
communities. I respectfully request that the Subcommittee honor
this one time request of $1.5 million to rebuild the Reindeer
plant in Nome.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to announce the State of Alaska
is appreciative that the lease of the North Aleutian Basin Sale
92 leases near Bristol Bay were purchased and I will not have to
request another moratorium on the development of these leases
near Bristol Bay. I thank the Chairman for the moratoriums
extended in the past and hope we will never have to experience
any others in the near future.
Mr. Chairman, I have received numerous requests from my
constituents in Alaska; however, I did want to briefly outline
the most urgent appropriations requests. You have heard me state
the importance of these requests — the IHS All-Alaska Compact
with Alaska tribes, the Alaska Native Medical Center in
Anchorage, the Kotzebue hospital in Kotzebue, Alaska, the Alaska
Legal Services Native Allotment representation, funding to
develop and improve a fisheries in the more economically deprived
regions in my state and the rebuilding of the Reindeer plant
destroyed by fire this year. Additionally, I am briefly listing
the requests I have received from Alaska and ask this
Subcommittee to consider each of these requests.
Lastly, I would like to add my support to the Institute of
American Indian and Alaska Native Arts for their appropriations
284
request. They are continuing in their efforts towards a move to
their own campus. I support these efforts and respectfully ask
that this Subcommittee honor their appropriations request of $5.5
million for operations.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Programs
Kawerak, Inc. $300,000 for fisheries restoration
Alaska Sea Otter Commission $122,500 Management, Information
& Educational program
Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission $100,000 Harbor Seal
Restoration
Stevens Village Council $100,000 Natural Resources Office
Chugach Regional Resources Commission $565,000 Fisheries
Development
Chugach Regional Resources Commission $150,000 Resource
Management Program
Kwethluk IRA Council $407,000 Fisheries Management/Training
Yupiit Nation $175,000 Form Regional Government for
Management of Resources/Delivery Health services
Alaska Inter Tribal Council $500,000 for Statewide Convention
Indian Health Service Programs
1.
2.
Maniilaq Association $2.2 Million for staffing of the
Kotzebue Replacement Hospital
Southcentral Foundation $875,000 for Equipment for new
Health Center at the new Alaska Native Medical Center
Metlalcatla Indian Community
1. Funding for construction of Metlakatla Clinic
2 . Oppose Transfer of BIA Contract Support to the Tribal
Priority Allocations Account
3. Increase Funding for BIA Tribal Priority Allocations Account
STATEMENT OF CHARLES BLITZER
Director of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars
for the
Subcommittee on Appropriations
for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies
U.S. House of Representatives
March 18. 1996
(285)
286
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Yates, Members of the Subcommittee,
It is my pleasure to submit herewith the Woodrow Wilson Center's Federal Budget
Request for the Fiscal Year 1997.
Since you and your colleagues are familiar with the Wilson Center and its various
activities, and since we are requesting only the amount originally appropriated by the Congress
for the current fiscal year, this statement need not be lengthy. I shall simply attempt to highlight
a few of the points made in the full document and mention at the end one additional matter.
If there is a single theme that runs throughout our submission, it is clearly: How to
sustain the integrity and the quality of the Woodrow Wilson Center in the face of shrinking
federal resources. The answer, as spelled out in our submission, is twofold: to attempt
simultaneously to enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of what is already a small and
lean operation, and to redouble our efforts to secure non-federal funding to supplement the
nearly 50 percent that we already raise. We pledge to do both.
As to the amount of our request, I would point out that particularly after the severe cuts
the Center experienced in FY 1995, the "level funding" we are seeking for next year is in fact
nothing of the sort. (As you will recall, it is $300,000 less than your Subcommittee and the full
House Appropriations Committee had recommended for the current year.) Even with a modest
rate of inflation, we calculate that the combination of mandatory pay raises, the cost of scholarly
books and journals (which far outstrips any calculation of inflation), the need to fund one of our
most valued and effective staff members who is on leave during the current year, the
extraordinary rise in the cost of paper and postage, and similar factors will require the Center
to fmd additional savings of 6 percent simply to maintain its current, reduced program at the
level of excellence that both befits an official presidential memorial and has served the nation
so well for the past 28 years. The details of the strategies we have already adopted and those
we have in mind for next year are, I hope, adequately spelled out in our submission to yoiu"
Subcommittee. Again, it consists of a degree of shrinkage consistent with the Center's legislated
mission combined with efforts to increase even further our support from the private sector.
I would particularly emphasize that for the foreseeable future a minimal amount of
federal support — a minimum that we believe we have now reached — is absolutely essential to
our private fund-raising efforts. To cite a single example, we have succeeded in raising more
than $1 million in the private sector for our Cold War International History Project. There is
no question in my mind that these funds would not have come to us were it not for the efforts
of several federally-funded employees and the intellectual and administrative infrastructiue you
have funded. This Project has received uniformly positive attention by virtually all the media,
including most recently the U.S. and international editions of Time magazine, and serves the
needs of scholars and policymakers alike. I would estimate that the cost to the taxpayer for this
Project amounts to substantially less than 10 percent of the non-appropriated funds it has
attracted.
287
Knowing of your special interest in the Center's proposed move to the Ronald Reagan
Building on Pennsylvania Avenue, I can only report that we have been working as diligently as
possible with the General Services Administration to produce the document guaranteeing a
waiver of rent for at least 30 years. I must confess a certain frustration about this delay, but
would point out that it is due in some measure to the appointment of a new GSA Administrator
and a new Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service. Since the arrival of Robert Peck in
the latter position, the pace of our negotiations has improved markedly, and I am encouraged
to believe that we will finally have a document to submit to you within the next few weeks. We
very much appreciate your urging us to achieve this goal, and would point out in return that if
achieved it will save your Subcommittee approximately $1 million each year in funds
appropriated to the Smithsonian and the Wilson Center for the lease of commercial space in and
around Washington.
In past years our communications with your Subcommittee have focussed largely on the
Center's activities and the pride my predecessors and I have taken in them. It has become
increasingly clear to me in the past year that we must pay more attention to answering the
question of why the taxpayers should contribute - no matter how modestly - to the support of
the Center. The answer, I believe, is twofold. The first is that the Center performs, with
distinction, a range of activities that are simply not duplicated in any other institution. In
seeking to fulfill our legislated mandate of strengthening relations between the world of learning
and the world of public affairs, we have over the years deliberately and successfully attempted
to reach the widest possible audience - scholars, public officials, concerned readers and radio
listeners, and college and high school students. In a more indirect maimer, the books and
articles written by our more than 1,300 Fellows and Guest Scholars will affect not only those
who read them, but will (and indeed have) influence school and college textbooks and thus help
to shape and reshape millions of students' views of the past, the present, and even the future.
I might add that in everything it does, the Center has scrupulously avoided partisanship, and will
continue to do so.
The second reason why the taxpayers can properly be asked to provide modest support
to the Wilson Center is, quite simply, that it is the nation's official memorial to its 28th
President. Other institutions, even some in Washington, bear the name of various presidents,
but I can say with some confidence that none was created with more care, consideration and
deliberation than the Woodrow Wilson Center. I caimot imagine a serious proposal to privatize
or deface the Washington Monument or the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials (soon to be joined
by Franklin Roosevelt's); these are our true counterparts, and I find the notion of privatizing or
crippling the Woodrow Wilson Center no more thinkable.
Finally, as the FY 1997 appropriations cycle begins, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is
incumbent upon me to set the record straight on two serious and damaging misuixlerstaixlings
that were expressed on the House floor last year during consideration of the Interior
Appropriations Bill, giving us no opportunity to respond. Specifically, I refer to the colloquy
between Mrs. Smith of Washington and Mr. Stenhobn of Texas on July 17, 1995. You may
recall that Mrs. Smith had offered an amendment to the Bill reported by your Subcommittee and
288
the full Appropriation Committee, reducing the recommended appropriation for the Woodrow
Wilson Center by $1 million.
In her comments in support of this amendment Mrs. Smith said:
In the well is a graph that will show my colleagues how different
the Woodrow Wilson International Center is from other centers,
Presidential centers, that have been established. The Woodrow
Wilson Center started with a good idea, but became very heavily
federally funded. I say to my colleagues, if you'll look, 76
percent of its budget is Federal funding, while all of the other
Presidential foundations are totally private-funded. If you look at
the staffmg, you'll also see that it is very helpfully staffed with
very little money going out to grants.
For his part, Mr. Stenholm added the following:
Several other foundations similar to the Woodrow Wilson Center,
such as the James Madison Memorial Fellowship and the Harry S.
Truman Scholarship, do not rely on the Federal Government for
their existence. They have sought, and found, significant outside
support. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage the
Woodrow Wilson Center to follow the example set by these other
foundations and seek support from outside organizations as their
primary source of funding.
The four "Presidential centers" or "Presidential foundations" Mrs. Smith and Mr.
Stenholm referred to are the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation, the Barry Goldwater
Foundation, the James Madison Memorial Fellowship, and the Harry S. Truman Scholarship.
All are worthy organizations, each established by Congress to accomplish a specific task
~ to provide college students in a variety of fields with undergraduate scholarships: to fund high
school teachers' pursuit of graduate degrees in American history and social studies; and to
encourage useful new discoveries for the benefit of mankind.
Unlike the Wilson Center, none brings people together in residential fellowship to interact
with each other; none conducts systematic outreach programs for the general public; none
publishes or broadcasts. As single-purpose granting agencies, operating no in-house public
programs, they need very few staff. Appropriate to their missions, most of their annual funds
are devoted to grants to others. If the Wilson Center simply awarded funds to others, its staff
could be drastically reduced, but it would not begin to fulfill its legislated mandate. In short,
these other organizations have little in common programmatically with the Woodrow Wilson
Center ~ aside from memorializing a distinguished person important to our nation's history ~
and provide scant basis for fair comparison.
289
The comparison is equally inappropriate where financial matters are concerned. Each
of the four other organizations was provided a permanent federal endowment in its enabling
legislation and subsequent enactments. Ranging from $29,200,000 to $51,500,000, these total
over $150 million. These funds, deriving from direct appropriation and earmarked receipts from
the government's sale of commemorative coins through the U.S. Mint, provide perpetual
endowments whose earnings (from Treasury interest payments on the federal debt) flnance each
of the other four institutions. In effect, all four of these other memorials enjoy a
Congressionally-guaranteed entitlement to taxpayer fimding in the form of permanent
appropriations of federal funds.
Only one of these agencies, the James Madison Memorial Fellowship, raised any money
from other sources in FY 1994, the most recent accounting period for which annual reports are
available. The amount -- $391,000 -- is less than one-seventh the level raised by the Woodrow
Wilson Center to complement funding provided by this Subcommittee for the same period.
You will gather from these comments, Mr. Chairman, that it is neither accurate nor
helpful to maintain that these four worthy organizations are "totally private-funded," or that they
"do not rely on the federal government for their existence." To the contrary, they rely much
more heavily on the taxpayer than do we, while raising much less from outside sources. To be
blunt, Mrs. Smith and Mr. Stenhohn are simply wrong.
It would be splendid if Congress in 1968 had taken Mr. Stenholm's advice by following
"the example set by those other organizations" and providing the Wilson Center an initial
endowment. Thanks to the wonders of compound interest, had the Center been granted in its
1968 legislation just one-tenth the total endowment provided to the other four memorials, we
would have no need today for any aimual appropriation. Regrettably, this was not done for us
as it was for the others.
While we cannot make up in a brief period for 27 years of lost reinvested income, as
encouraged by your guidance we have undertaken a capital fund drive to increase our
endowment through contributions from private donors. It is long, slow, hard work. But it will
serve the fumre well, and in the meanwhile we continue to raise substantial sums apart from
those appropriated by your Subcommittee. You will recall that in FY 1993 and FY 1994 such
funds accounted for almost precisely half our overall budget.
I would respectfully suggest that Mrs. Smith's statement that "The Woodrow Wilson
Center started with a good idea, but became very heavily federally funded," reflects a profound
misunderstanding of the Center's history. The 1968 Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act spelled out
the mandate of the Center and authorized the appropriation of "such funds as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes" of the Act. Rather than relying upon this authorization for fiill
federal funding of all its activities, since its earliest days the Center has, with increasing success,
sought funding from sources other than your Subcommittee. It would have been more accurate
for Mrs. Smith to have said that the Center started with a good idea, and has consistently
supplemented or replaced federal with private funding.
290
We expect close scrutiny from the Congress and we expect to be asked to justify the
funds we request from it. In return, we only ask that the judgment of Congress be based upon
facts rather than misinformation.
We appreciate your Subcommittee's consideration of our FY 1997 request and the
personal attention you have devoted to the Center. We shall be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
291
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Given the restrictions on federal budgets, the Committee commends the Center for requesting
level funding. How have you restructured your programs and activities to operate with the same
fiinding as the current fiscal year while absorbing fixed costs?
As outlined on page 2 of our budget justification materials, the Center has had to take
major steps to cope not just with the absorption of fixed costs, which next year will total some
6% of our total budget, but also absolute reductions from previously appropriated levels of over
41% of base. No agency or activity can sustain such reductions without serious disruption.
Steps that we have taken to date include the following:
cut federal employment levels 1 1 %.
cut federal conference funding 50%.
cut Fellows' typing services 50%.
eliminated federal funding for radio production costs through privatization.
eliminated federal funding for internships through privatization.
cut fellowship awards 1 0%.
cut publication funding 1 2%.
cut supplies by 8% and equipment replacement by 1 0%.
eliminated all training funds and staff bonuses.
eliminated rent costs at the new building site.
eliminated all federal funding for ftimishings for its quarters in the Ronald Reagan
Building through privatization.
Was there an effort to concentrate on your highest priorities and eliminate other programs?
Because all the Center's programs are interrelated and interdependent, we have depended
upon maximum reductions, privatization, and combination rather than eliminations except in a
few cases. In each of these areas of reduction, elimination, or privatization, the Center has
attempted to protect — and even enhance ~ the public's access to and benefit from our programs.
Our ability to absorb any further reductions, while still honoring this principal objective, has
been exhausted.
What private funds were available to you in the last and current fiscal years?
The Center has been successfiil in the last two years raising a wide variety of project
fionds from an impressively diverse assortment of foundations, corporations, individuals, and
granting agencies. Foundation support has included major grants from the Harriman Foundation,
The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Smith Richardson Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, the
Goldsmith Foundation, the Ford Foundation, The Tinker Foundation, the Atlantis Foundation,
and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Corporate support has included donations from The Upjohn
Company, Pfizer, Siemens Corporation, and the Bank of Cyprus. Other granting organizations
include the Japan-US. Friendship Commission, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the United Nations
Center for Human Settlements, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Flom Family
292
Philanthropic Fund, the World Bank, FLACSO, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S.
Information Agency. Finally, some 36 contributions have been received from individuals
totaling over $80,000.
This variety is typical of Wilson Center efforts to leverage the annual appropriation
provided by the Congress to provide enhanced levels of programming for the public. As
summarized each year in the Appendices to the budget justification materials provided to the
Subcommittee, these raised funds nearly double the amounts provided through direct
appropriation. For FY 1995, we raised from all sources over $5.7 million, as summarized
beginning on page 19 of this year's budget. We anticipate that our success in FY 1996 will be no
less impressive.
Rounding out the Center's private fund sources are the approximately 70,000 subscribers
to The Wilson Quarterly whose subscription payments provide the income stream that supports
the production and staff cost for our journal. Finally, as summarized below, the Center's
endowment funds complete the private funding picture; the approximate $1 million yield it
provides is a direct off-set to the support which would otherwise be required from the taxpayer
for Wilson Center programming.
WTiat programs are solely supported with the private funds?
Nearly all programs of the Wilson Center are supported at least in part with funds raised
elsewhere. Those programs which now are financed solely with private funds include the
following: all salary and production costs of The Wilson Quarterly: similarly, all production
costs of our radio program. Dialogue; both staff support and stipends for the Fellows' research
assistants; all manufacturing costs for the publication of Woodrow Wilson Center Press books;
all of the Center's food and beverage costs attendant to special events to the public; and finally,
special projects, such as our Cold War History Project and our Environmental Change and
Security Project. Each of these activities confers large benefits to the public, while being
supported with dollars derived from sources other than the United States Treasury. It must be
emphasized, however, that our ability to launch and sustain such programs and projects is
directly dependent on the infrastructure of basic staff equipment, and systems which this
Subcommittee supports. In other words, the leaves and branches are dependent upon a healthy
trunk and roots. Without federal funding for the latter, the entire enterprise would soon fail.
In light of continued constraints on federal dollars, what steps have you taken to raise additional
non-federal dollars? To set up an endowment?
The Center has consistently raised several million dollars annually to augment and extend
the value and reach of our federal appropriation. Qur fund raising has included an emphasis as
well on the creation of an endowment whose gradual growth has been reported to the
Subcommittee each year in our budget justification materials. The market value of the Center's
endowment funds now approaches $20 million, four times its value in 1988. Five percent of this
principal amount is available annually for expenditure. The $1 million so produced each year
funds very specific activities - many as dictated by the binding restrictions imposed by the
293
original donors. Funds raised which are not restricted as to end use have also consistently been
deployed to reduce the Center's requirement for federal funds. (For example, a variety of key
administrative staff, including the Director of the Center, are paid from these funds.) Mindflil of
the commitment of both the Administration and the Congress to balance the federal budget, and
the attendant downward pressure on discretionary domestic spending, the Center has taken major
additional steps to raise even more fiands and grow our endowment even faster. The Wilson
Center's Board of Trustees and advisory Council have created a joint Development Committee to
oversee and provide additional leadership for fund raising, including a $300,000 privately-funded
contract with a highly respected fund-raising firm to spearhead the effort. Central to these
activities is progress toward and subsequent occupancy of the Center's new space in the Ronald
Reagan Building, which will provide a broad range of "naming opportunities" for the recognition
of major donors, as well as the visibility so important in such efforts.
In addition to the normal fixed costs increases, are there any additional requirements placed on
the Center?
In addition to absorbing pay raise costs, associated benefits increases, rent escalation at
L'Enfant Plaza, and general inflation in other object class expenditures, the Center faces one
additional base reprogramming challenge for FY 1997 — the return to our payroll of the Director
of our International Studies Division who has been on special assignment to the National
Security Council, and funded by U.S. Institute of Peace. Taken together, these costs total 6% of
the Center's overall federal appropriation, and their absorption will stretch our ability to fiinction
as a viable scholarly center and public memorial to the limit. Exacerbating these problems is the
fact that the Center's applications for competitively awarded grants from the State Department
and USIA — while fully meritorious and worthy of full funding — will meet with reduced success
in the current grant cycle, due to uncertain (and at best reduced) appropriations for those
agencies. This will require yet further program shrinkage unless and until alternative fimd-
raising efforts make up the difference.
Your statement and budget request indicates that you have received verbal approval from the
Administration via the General Services Administration for a 30-year rent-ft-ee lease at the new
Ronald Reagan Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. When are your expecting to receive the
official contract?
We have indeed received fi-om GSA many assurances that the Center's occupancy of its
space at the new Ronald Reagan Building on Pennsylvania Avenue, fulfilling the intention of
Congress in the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968, would be made available for a term of
not less than 30 years for an amount not to exceed $1 annually. In advising the Wilson Center of
the amounts it could request of Congress for FY 1 997, the Office of Management and Budget
urged that we conclude our formal arrangements with GSA "before the submission of the
President's FY 1997 budget to the Congress."
We have worked diligently to comply with OMB's timetable; and with new leadership
recently appointed at GSA, we are reasonably confident that a draft lease should be available for
review soon. As soon as we have a document which we feel adequately protects the interests of
294
the Woodrow Wilson Center and the concerns of the Subcommittee, we will bring that document
to the immediate attention of the Chairman, and his counterpart in the Senate, for their approval.
The Committee assumes that the $2.3 million that GSA has set aside for the move to the Federal
Triangle Building has not yet been obligated. Is this accurate?
This is indeed accurate. As promised in writing to the Subcommittee and its Chairman
by both the Center's Director and Deputy Director for Planning and Management, not one penny
of these funds has been obligated - nor will they be until both House and Senate Subcommittees
are satisfied with the financial protections provided by GSA for our space in the Ronald Reagan
Building.
Please restate for the record how these one-time fxmds will be used?
Of the one-time costs GSA identified for finishing our space, only some $40,000 is
earmarked for non-public areas -- and that for enhanced sound-proofing of our Fellows' studies.
(Staff areas will be finished only to minimal government standard.) The remainder of the fimds
already appropriated and set aside at GSA would pay for such essential matters as a telephone
system; seats for a small auditorium; shelving for our reference library; restrooms for the public;
fire walls, smoke containment, stair rails and other safety code compliance items; and those
portions of the building's inherent structure (long since specified by the original architect as
integral to the very fabric of the space ~ such as stairways and light wells in the public areas)
which depart from the typical "government staff cubicle" interior space fit-out that GSA
routinely builds. The funding in question was provided in the Center's FY 1995 appropriation
and, as stated above, will not be spent to finish our space in the Ronald Reagan Building until
both House and Senate Subcommittees have approved the terms of the Center's future
occupancy.
How does the Center plan to equip and furnish the new office space should the Committee
approve the move?
The Center will attempt to raise cash and in-kind contributions to equip this new space
with durable and dignified, but not lavish or ostentatious, fiamishings. Current electronic
equipment ~ computers, printers, copiers and the like - will be moved with us. Fund-raising for
furnishings will commence as soon as the Center has gained final permissions from its
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairmen to move. Any shortfall in this effort will be bridged by
the use of current furnishings, with the permission of the Smithsonian Institution which owns
them, and with such other "excess" government equipment as we may require. In either case,
fund-raising efforts would continue until all such used materials had been replaced.
Will the Center incur any additional expenses, either one time or long term associated with the
move? If so how do you intend to fimd these costs?
One-time costs may (depending upon negotiations with GSA) include the expenses of
moving existing files and equipment, and such other ftimishings as we may need temporarily.
295
across town. Longer-range costs will be minimal, with the promised (and binding) waiver of
rent. Indeed, the Subcommittee will enjoy a net budget reduction as occasioned by this move:
both the Wilson Center and Smithsonian Institution will generate federal budget savings totaling
approximately $1 million annually in their space rental accounts which will accrue to the benefit
and relief of the taxpayer. Meanwhile, the one-time costs of moving can and will be met through
the careful application of base resources available to the Center. For example, we would appoint
fewer Guest Scholars to be in residence during the brief but disruptive period of the Center's
actual physical move from the Castle and L'Enfant Plaza to the Ronald Reagan Building. These
modest savings, well within the Subcommittees' reprogramming guidelines, would be deployed
to pay costs associated with the move, augmented as necessary with Center trust funds.
Are there any costs charged to the participants of your conferences to defray costs?
Over the years the Center has explored a wide variety of methods to increase its non-
federal funding, by experimentation, by consultation with similar institutions, and by seeking the
advice of professional fund-raisers. The charging of fees for our meetings turns out to be one of
the least attractive and least cost effective of these methods. A fee sufficient to cover the added
costs of collecting and keeping track of funds, while still producing any significant surplus,
would reduce attendance in general, and particularly attendance of those for whom the meetings
are particularly intended; government officials. Congressional members and staff, the press,
academics, and students. It is for this reason above all that the Center has chosen instead to seek
fiinds from foundations, corporations and other institutions rather than limiting participation to
those who are willing and able to pay an admissions fee. In particular, we have used our federal
conference fund — now unfortunately but necessarily reduced by 50 percent — as matching
money to attract such outside support. As the list below shows, this effort has met with
considerable success, but it should be noted that many of the donors on that list would not
contribute to the support of a meeting for which admission was charged. There can be little
doubt that the funds raised in this manner are far greater than those that might be raised by
charging participants, and do not discourage attendance.
There are a few exceptions to this pattern, the most notable of which is the biennial
meeting of our European Aluitmi Association. Although no fee is charged, scores of former
Fellows and Guest Scholars from an area embracing the British Isles, the former Soviet Union,
and the Middle East manage to find thousands of dollars to travel to these meetings and pay for
their own accommodations. Although the same may be said on a smaller scale of numerous
meetings we hold in Washington, the Center does not keep track of the cost to individuals for
their participation.
Finally, I would add that the fruits of many of our meetings find their way either into
books the Center publishes or articles that appear in The Wilson Quarterly. For these, of course,
the Center does charge.
Cost-sharing underwriters of Wilson Center conferences during FY 1 995 included the
following:
296
Conference
Human Rights & Values
Ethnic Conflict and Governance
in Comparative Perspective
Problems & Prospects of
Local Self-Govemment in the
U.S. project
Habitat II Seminar "Changes in
the Urban Landscape"
The Collapse of Commimism and
Social Science Theory
Religion in Contemporary
China
Co-sponsor
The Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation
The Pew Charitable Trusts
Smith Richardson
Foundation
World Bank Urban
Development Division
Rockefeller Brothers
Fund
Henry Luce Foundation
Comparative Perspectives on
Regional Economic Development:
Local Resources and the Role
Governments
Russian Political Elite Today
Policy Forum: Stability and
Change in Russian Politics
Policy Forum, US Dept. of State
"Policy Forum: Health and the
Environment"
Policy Forum, US Dept. of State
"Policy Forum: Economics"
Autonomous Province of
Trenton; International
Research and Exchanges
Board (IREX); and the
University of Trenton, Italy
Michigan State University
IREX
IREX
IREX
The Crisis in Chech'nia and the
Russian Federation
Congressional Staff Briefmg-
"The United States and the New
Russia: How High are the Stakes?"
Georgetown University
Stanley Foundation
297
Policy Forum, US Department of State
"Policy Forum: Ethnic Relations in
Kazakhstan and Ukraine"
IREX
The Function of Regional Chambers
of Commerce in Russia's Economic
Transition
Center for International
Private Enterprise;
U.S. Information Agency
Regions in Russia
Centre for Research on
Canadian-Russian Relations;
Institute of Central/East
European and Russian
Area Studies;
Carleton University, Ottawa
International Perspectives on
U.S. Counterproliferation
Doctrine
Ford Foundation
New Evidence on the Polish
Crisis and the Cold War
Institute of Political
Studies, Warsaw; National
Security Archive; MacArthur
Foundation
Churchill the Peacemaker
International Churchill
Society
The Revival of Moral Inquiry
in the Disciplines
The Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation
War and Democracy: A
Comparative Approach
The Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation
Project on Comparative Peace
Processes
Ford Foundation
Peace and Security in the
Americas Project Confidence
Building Measures
MacArthur Foundation
Redefining Regional Relations in
Southeastern Europe
Sudosteuropa Gesellschaft;
Bank of Cyprus; University
of Cyprus
Appraising Western Aid to
Eastern Europe
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
298
Your budget mentions the Center's new World Wide Web site and describes it as an
"inexpensive and well-organized" way to communicate world-wide. Some federal agencies have
sizable costs associated with this service, how were you able to accomplish this task so
inexpensively? What were your costs?
In creating the site, we were able to draw extensively on existing resources rather than
procure new ones. Existing staff at Dialogue and the Woodrow Wilson Center Press worked
hard to learn and implement this new technology, devoting evenings and weekends at no cost to
the effort so as not to interfere with their regular duties. The basic infrastructure of our site - the
hardware, Internet communications link, and underlying programming — was developed by the
Smithsonian Institution which was gracious to share the fruits of their considerable efforts. The
information in our site is mostly drawn from existing Woodrow Wilson Center documentation ~
calendars, press releases, newsletters, and reports - that is fairly easy to transfer from word
processing formats to World Wide Web formats.
The principal expenditure in fashioning the site was creation of an electronic indexing
and retrieval capacity that allows name and subject searches for all books written at the Center,
all major Wilson Quarterly articles, all Dialogue broadcasts, and current news of the Center. The
fashioning of this electronic research guide required only modest expenditure (less than $50,000)
most of which was required for retrospective indexing through outside contract. It will cost an
estimated $5,000 per year to update and maintain.
What specific type of information is available to the general public?
In addition to the search facility just described, the site provides calendars of forthcoming
events and of forthcoming radio broadcasts, reports on meetings at the Center, information on
fellowships and how to apply for them, a thorough description of the structure and activities of
the Center along with its Fellows and key staff, and information on the Wilson Quarterly and the
Wilson Center Press and how to place orders or subscribe.
Do you have any sense of how your principal audience has expanded?
We will arrange to count electronic visits to our site and will report those findings in
future budget submissions. For now, however, we already have some telling anecdotes, such as
this: at a meeting in Buenos Aires for Argentinian federal judges in training, one of our program
directors was asked for information about the Woodrow Wilson Center. When he responded that
he did not have materials with him but would send them, another participant said that was not
necessary because he had gotten that information already from the Web site, and showed the
sizeable printout he had just downloaded from our "home page." Such stories will likely
proliferate as information about our web site is widely distributed. This will begin with our radio
programming in late spring, when each broadcast will include our electronic address. Recent
"Arbitron" surveys indicate a weekly audience of some 200,000 listeners, resulting in over 10
million received broadcasts per year. Happily, several major new stations have just signed on in
California, Texas, Utah and Tennessee, which will expand this coverage even further. All of
299
these outreach efforts effectively leapfrog the Washington beltway and directly deliver Wilson
Center programming to the public in their own hometowns.
How is this related to the Smithsonian's system?
Our site currently resides on the Smithsonian's system. It is designed, however, to be
portable to another base should that become desirable in the future.
300
statement by Dr. Walter Reich, Director,
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
For the House Committee on Appropriations
Siibcommlttee on Interior and Related Agencies
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
submit this report on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, and to
present for your consideration the fund requirements for the U.S.
Holocaust Museum and its programs .
As a new institution, we take great pride in our progress over the
first two years of operation. Substantive progress has been made in
each area identified in or implied by the enabling legislation. Still,
much remains to be done. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has
continued to undergo a normal "shake-down" period since its opening.
During this time, the needs of the Museum have been reevaluated in view
of actual operating data. The most urgent problems which emerged in
the first two years of operation were the needs for enhanced security
and for additional visitor services to assure that the overwhelming
number of visitors are adequately serviced and that the safety of our
visitors, staff, and property is guaranteed.
This budget request attempts to address all of the most essential and
basic needs of this new museum, with an eye towards assuring that the
Museum begins its tenure as a Federal institution on a firm footing
and, at the same time, taking a realistic approach to the funding
necessary to accomplish this objective.
The Fiscal 1997 request is $31,262,000 of which $1,575,000 for the
Museum's repair and rehabilitation program, and $1,264,000 for the
Museum's exhibition program shall remain available until expended.
The Museum possesses the world's most diverse collection of
Holocaust-related artifacts and the largest collection of such
artifacts outside the camp sites in Europe. The collections are
central to our educational, academic and memorial functions.
The 30,000-object collection, as well as the 9,000 artifacts on
long-term loan to the Museum, are the documentary proof of the Nazis'
crimes. As such, they provide compelling and powerful evidence of the
Holocaust throughout the Museum's various exhibitions, and a vital
resource for scholarly research. Because of the unique nature of the
collection, the Museum has faced unusual challenges regarding its care.
Although our diverse holdings include fine art that was created during
the Holocaust in camps, ghettos or in hiding places, this represents a
small part of the holdings. The majority of the artifacts -- made of
paper, wood, leather, metals -- are everyday objects that were not
created for, or ever treated as, museum- quality material. These
artifacts include items ranging from the prayer shawls, crutches and
family photos the victims brought to the camps (not knowing they would
never need them because they would be gassed after arrival) to military
medals, shoes, concentration camp barracks, inmate uniforms,
cobblestones, rxxbble from destroyed ghettos, Zyklon B crystals, and
tree trunks from forests where Jewish partisans organized themselves
for attacks on the Germans.
Furthermore, most of the objects entered the Museum's collections in a
degraded condition, having languished for upwards of 50 years in musty
attics, damp basements or former camps under Communist rule, where the
care of collections was not a high priority. The majority of artifacts
in the Museum collections must undergo some conservation treatment
before they can be used for exhibition, research and educational
purposes .
The Museum holds these objects in trust for the American people. Its
obligation to insure that these fragile objects will be available in
301
perpetuity poses enormous challenges for our conservators. Retarding
the deterioration process is a daily problem whether the objects are on
display or in storage and requires --in addition to treatment --
constant monitoring of, and attempts to control, environmental
conditions .
The highly-acclaimed open-case design of the Museum's Permanent
Exhibition, compounded by the unanticipated high visitation, presents
many very unusual conservation difficulties. For example, since
opening, approximately 4,000 of the 9,000 objects on display have been
removed for special conservation treatment, and because of staff
shortages, each of these objects has been off display for an average of
seven months. Moreover, on-site treatment of artifacts on exhibit --
for example, surface cleaning -- represents a very substantial
institutional expenditure because these processes can only be done when
the Museum is closed to the public.
It is of interest that the analysis of the dust in the Permanent
Exhibition reveals a very high content of blue-dyed cotton. This is
the airborne remnant of the thousands of pairs of blue jeans passing
through the exhibition each week.
Given the size, scope and frequency of collections maintenance needs,
increased in-house capability for collections and exhibitions care is
essential. Done right, it will enable the Museum to provide a
comprehensive and educationally valuable experience for current
visitors and future generations.
The institution's budget submission describes in detail the growing
demand from scholars and the lay public for access to the institution's
various archives and library. I want to call to your attention to one
way in which these remarkable resources are put to good use. What
began as an oral history last year became a Museum-HBO co-produced
film, "One Survivor Remembers: Gerda Weissman Klein." This film was
nominated for four Emmys, winning one for Outstanding Informational
Special, and winning as well a Cable Ace Award. Just this month it won
an Oscar for best short documentary film.
The Museum has made a concerted effort to secure as much authentic
documentation of the Holocaust as is humanly possible and feasible.
And, while it has had considerable success, the institution is
concerned that it will miss the opportunity to reach two unique sources
-- eyewitness accounts and as-yet untapped archival material, much of
it in an advanced state of deterioration.
To obtain eyewitness testimonies, we have jointly undertaken interviews
along with Yale University, which has the largest Holocaust oral
history collection in the world, in Poland, the Ukraine and Israel and
are currently in the process of organizing interviews with Holocaust
perpetrators in Germany.
In addition to these personal accounts, there are invaluable archival
holdings that, up to very recently, have been inaccessible since the
end of World War II. The Museum, in part because of its unique Federal
standing as the United States' memorial museum to the Holocaust, is
being allowed to microfilm in Russia, the Ukraine, Estonia, Moldavia,
Poland, former East Germany, the Slovak Republic, Czechoslovakia,
Rumania and Hungary. In addition, we have just concluded an agreement
with the French National Archives, for example, that will enable us to
microfilm what may prove to be over three million pages of documents
related to the Holocaust in France and elsewhere in Europe. Once we
obtain copies of these documents, scholars from around the world will
be able to study them in order to understand ever more about this
painful episode in human history. These documents will join the vast
number of documents we have already collected, which have brought us
recognition as the central repository of Holocaust related
documentation .
302
As I have stated earlier, the interest among the public has been much
broader and deeper than anticipated. While now better prepared for
ongoing, heavy visitor traffic, t^e Museum is still coming to grips
with the effects of this popularity on the building and its
exhibitions. During the last year a computerized maintenance program
for all heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment was
instituted, enabling the Museum to better control humidity and
temperature in the exhibition areas. This was critical in order to
protect the fragile, delicate items in the collection which are on
display.
When one hears the term visitation, the first thing that comes to mind
is not VIPs but the general public. And Americans and foreign visitors
alike continue to come to the Museum in numbers that strain our
resources but sustain, invigorate and challenge us. Indeed, across all
of Museum's visitor surveys, the complaint voiced most often is that
the exhibitions are too crowded.
To those who predicted that interest in the Holocaust and a United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum would be ephemeral and would be
restricted to a small segment of the public, we have three years of
experience that says they are wrong. As in past years, aggregate
attendance in FY95 remained at about the 2.0 million level,- and
approximately nine out of every ten visitors surveyed rated the quality
of the visit as extremely or very positive.
And to those who assumed the Holocaust Museum' s audience would be
limited to the Jewish community, I should report that, according to our
most recent survey, the vast majority of our visitors -- about 80% --
are non- Jewish.
Before turning to school groups and our efforts to address their needs,
both at the Museum and via outreach, I want to note one very pleasing
and xinanticipated dimension of our visitation, namely the emerging role
the Museum plays in the continuing education of more than 1,000 senior
diplomatic, military, and intelligence officials who came to the Museum
in Fy95 as part of their official duties.
I am delighted to be able to report that the Museum is in huge demand
by our nation's schools. In terms of visitation, secondary school
groups, last year, comprised 60 percent of the pre-scheduled groups we
could accommodate, and this does not account for those that pulled up
in buses and just walked in. (Groups represent approximately 25
percent of the daily visitation.)
School group visitation, however, poses serious scheduling and
maintenance problems that we will have to continue to address. School
groups have traditionally sought spring visits, which means that for
this period the Museum turns down nearly two out of every three school
group requests. Our staff works hard to encourage school groups
wanting organized visits to plan their trips for less hectic months.
Concerning the impact of high visitation by the young on the Museum's
maintenance, there are no cure-alls. Extensive supervision is
necessary but not always provided by staff, teachers and parents.
While the Museum struggles to serve better the general student
population, it has been developing, thanks to a five-year grant from
the Fannie Mae Foundation, an in-depth program for District of Columbia
area schools- and communities. The Museum has also received a grant
from the Flom Foundation to conduct a similar program on a smaller
scale with the Baltimore City School System. These programs use the
Museum to teach students about the Holocaust and to train them in turn
to act as tour guides at the Museum for their family and friends.
303
Last year, 67 students completed the 11-week course and 43 worked as
interns. This year 75 students are enrolled in the course. In fact,
one of the students, having successfully competed, in accordance with
Federal regulations, is now a member of the Museum's full-time Visitor
Services Staff.
Demand for educational materials is also very much on the rise . Last
year, the Museum responded to more than 100 requests a day. In
addition, with private funding, the Museum has established the Belfer
National Educators Conferences designed for teachers with limited
experience in teaching the Holocaust. In FY 1995, 440 teachers from 43
states participated in two three-day conferences. Applications rose
from 1,200 last year to over 1,400 this year from 49 States. And
grants from the Beitler and Schusterman families are making it possible
for Museum staff to meet regularly with officials from various state
departments of education and to sponsor a special conference for
educational administrators.
A new source of extraordinary demand emanates from the Internet . We
created a node on the World Wide Web in the fall of 1994 and instantly
found it receiving over 8,000 queries each week. By the end of 1995,
the volume was up to 40,000 queries a week, and I fully anticipate the
traffic to continue to climb because of our efforts to put more and
more of our resources on-line. The Museum sees the on-line mode as a
powerful and effective means of extending its service.
Again in FY 1995, as in past years, the annual Days of Remembrance
commemoration was held in the Rotunda of the Capitol . This time it
honored the liberators of the camps and featured an address by Senator
Strom Thurmond, the only serving member of Congress to have
participated in the Allied liberation initiatives. The Museum hosted
three other major 50th anniversairy commemorations: the disappearance
of Raoul Wallenberg, the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and V-E Day,
which represents the end of the Holocaust. At the latter, the Medal of
Remembrance was awarded posthumously to Earl G. Harrison who, as
President Truman's special envoy played an instrumental role in
alleviating conditions in post-war displaced person camps.
As I know the Committee is aware, running a museum means living with
foot traffic and the attendant matters of worn carpets, stopped-up rest
rooms, elevator repairs and pest control. It also requires not putting
off structural repairs such as leaks in the roof, which can destroy
priceless artifacts, or failing to adjust the heating and cooling
systems, which are necessary for the comfort and safety of the visiting
public. And it requires constant attention to security. During this
past year, a number of changes in security arrangements have been
instituted: package scanners and walk- through metal detectors were
placed at all of the Museum and Annex entrances, roving security
officers were added, the identification card system was upgraded,
arrangements were made with the Army Corps of Engineers to design and
oversee the reinforcement of the Museum's critical areas. Construction
will begin in December 1996.
In addition, museums routinely need to fabricate, install, repair and
maintain, and take apart exhibitions. Later this spring, for example,
we will be dismantling a temporary exhibition, "Liberation 1945," which
tells the story of the Allied liberation of the camps and the immediate
post-war issues facing this countjry, such as war crimes trials and the
repatriation of displaced persons. We also will be installing an
exhibition on the 1936 Berlin Olympics. This latter exhibition
describes the role Nazi propaganda and racial policies played in the
1936 Olympics and America's responses to the controversy surrounding
those Olympic games .
The Museum has learned from its and others' experience that it is most
effective and efficient to rely on a composite of on-site staff and
on-contract personnel to maintain the building and support the
304
activities that take place within it. For tasks such as custodial
services, it is cost-effective and safe to rely on contractors. The
institution also will continue to rely on contracted individuals and
teams with the specialized licenses and skills for security and to
maintain the fire alarms, elevators, and heating and cooling systems,
to provide quality pest control and refuse collection, to oversee a
whole host of engineering, design and construction projects, and, under
the supervision of our staff legal council, to prepare appropriate
legal documents regarding a variety of issues such as contracts, loan
agreements, and complex copyright issues.
For other skills, the Museum is best served by having on staff
sufficient personnel to handle the daily servicing of basic electrical,
plumbing, and carpentry and security needs. It also needs in-house
personnel to give appropriate attention to the conservation,
registrarial, archival, and cataloging needs that are the essential
core activities that differentiate a museum from other institutions.
These well-trained professionals give the Museum a first line of
service and protection for our visitors and staff and the invaluable --
and, in many instances, irreplaceable -- assets we have in our
possession.
Of course all of these activities require the attention of payroll,
contracting, human resources and finance personnel, which constitute
the core administrative infrastructure of the Museum. I would like to
note here the fine support the Council and Museum have received in
these areas over the past 15 years from the National Park Service
(NPS) .
When our relationship with NPS began in FY 1981, our budget was
$722,000 with 10 FTEs . In FY 1995, our budget was $26,562,000 with 218
FTEs . Obviously, the amount of support that we require from NPS has
expanded considerably. NPS, like other Federal agencies is downsizing.
Therefore, payroll, contracting, and budget formulation, three of the
administrative entities for which we rely on the support of NPS, are
affected by these changes. NPS has found that it is not able to
provide the level of support that is required in all of these areas.
In the past, we were able to obtain the services of a variety of
administrative staff, in a variety of disciplines, on a reimbursable
basis. However, with the growth of our organization and the
significant reduction in the administrative staff at the NPS, the
available resources have been severely strained. As we have looked
toward developing in-house expertise in these areas, we have discussed
the situation with our contacts at NPS. All involved agree that the
situation has become overwhelming as available personnel resources
continue to diminish at NPS. The Museum is grateful for the expertise
and guidance we have received from NPS over the years, and we hope to
continue this relationship at a reduced level in the future. However,
this downsizing at NPS has made it necessary for us to expand our
in-house capabilities.
In closing, I want to emphasize the Museum's commitment to fulfilling
its responsibilities to match public support with private funds. The
most compelling indication of our success should come in FY97, when the
institution will pay off its construction loan, thus honoring a Federal
challenge to meet all of its construction costs with private donations.
The Capital Campaign, which officially ended in FY 1994, raised $194
million in cash and pledges. We have also raised to date $8.5 million
in restricted gifts and endowment funds and, each year, raise $13.5
million towards our operating needs.
With the chapter closed on construction, the Museum will be in a
position to turn more of its fundraising attention to restricted and
unrestricted giving and to mounting an endowment campaign. The
Presidentially-appointed Holocaust Council already has committed the
institution to raising a $250 million endowment as the first major
cornerstone toward a more secure institutional future.
305
I thank you for this opportunity to report on the outstanding success
of this preeminent institution. We are grateful for the support of the
Committee and the Administration without which we could not have
achieved the unexpected and most gratifying success we enjoy today.
306
U. S. HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL COUNCIL
FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET REQUEST
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question: The Committee provided the Holocaust Council with their
budget request for Fiscal Year 1996 which represented a $2 million increase over
the previous fiscal year. This was done despite the fact that the Committee's
allocation was over $1 billion less than Fiscal Year 1995. In fact, the Holocaust
Council was the only account in the entire bill that received an increase. This
budget requests an additional increase of $2.5 million. Why should the
Committee consider another increase at the expense of the other agencies in the
bill such as the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife or Geological
Survey?
Answer: The Holocaust Council is extraordinarily grateful for the support
it has received from the government -- support without which it would have been
impossible to open and would be impossible to operate the Museum. It is
unfortunate - because of the significant needs that are central to a new institution
- that the opening of the Museum three years ago coincided with the push for
downsizing in Federal agencies. It puts this institution in a difficult situation since
we have been working with the Congress over the past several years to achieve,
through a series of incremental increases, what we felt would be a base-line of
operational support. The Fiscal Year 1997 request achieves this support. We are
confident, barring unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances, that we have come
through our "shake-down" period - a period where we have learned the basic
necessities for operating this institution.
Gaining an understanding of what many of the Museum's operational expenses
would be could only be learned through the experience of actually running the
Museum after its opening. For example, security - because of terrorist attacks in
different parts of the world including the United States - is far more costly than
the Museum ever could have anticipated. Similarly, visitorship has been nearly
four times what was predicted by experts we consulted - 2 million visitors each
year rather than 500,000 individuals. This unexpected popularity has made it
necessary to hire additional visitor services staff and more contracted guards than
had been planned; it has also added significantly to maintenance costs becau.se of
wear and tear to the building. Although the building is new, its award-winning
architecmre is complicated and costly to maintain with the more than 5,000 people
who come through its doors each day.
Question: It is likely that the Committee's allocation for Fiscal Year 1997
will be less than the current year's 602 b. Should this occur and the committee be
faced with reducing accounts, which areas would you consider your lower priority
programs?
307
Answer: There are certain increases in our request which cannot be
deferred. These include the additional funds for the security contract, climate-
controlled archival storage space and additional staff office space. These are
critical to the operational infrastructure of the Museum; and they are not the type
of activities that can be covered by raising targeted endowment funds or restricted
grants. Increases amounting to $1.2 million are associated with much needed
FTE's for maintaining our current level of operations and preservation.
We realize we would still have to cover significant Fiscal Year 1997 amounts for
uncontrollable increases and fixed costs (e.g. pay adjustments and non-pay
inflationary costs, on-line accounting charges, Bureau of Reclamation payroll
processing charges, and the early retirement buyout tax). These fixed costs would
be covered by forcing savings mainly through staggering hiring throughout the
fiscal year.
The areas we would defer until our Fiscal Year 1998 request would include the
direct line-items for the uncontrollable, fixed increases enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, as well as the on-line library system, the FTE for an
archivist/records manager. Council-related travel, a legal services contract, and
educational outreach materials. We would attempt raising private funds to cover
the costs of the educational outreach materials. All of these items would amount
to a $1.32 million request for Fiscal Year 1998, or - should we be successful
raising the $50,000 for outreach materials - to a $1.27 million request.
Question: Your justification states that the Museum is fully committed to
its status as a public-private partnership. Since the Capital Campaign has
officially ended having successfully raised $194 million and you are committed to
paying off your building debt by the end of calendar year 1997, what are your
plans for raising restricted fiinds for programs and unrestricted and endowment
funds for general use?
Answer: The opening of the Museum in April 1993 generated a
groundswell of interest and support that was captured through the establishment of
the annual, two-tiered Education and Remembrance Fund to support the Museum's
overall operating budget. In Fiscal Year 1995, the fund generated $6 million in
major gifts, and $12 million in broad-based membership gifts. The net profit on
the membership program was $8 million.
Many of the major gifts are part of new five-year pledges for aimual support. The
largest such gift to date is $1 million. Gifts in amounts such as $100,000 and
$50,000 are not uncommon. In Fiscal Year 1995, the Education and
Remembrance Fund raised $4.5 million more than the $13.5 million targeted for
operating costs.
Our aggressive planned giving program solicits bequests and tax beneficial gift
arrangements such as trusts, that also generate substantial income for the
Education and Remembrance Fund and for the "21st Century Fund" endowment.
308
The endowment goal is $250 million. The "21st Century Fund," already has
more than $8.5 million in hand.
As it grows, the endowment will become the source of a regular armual pool of
restricted and unrestricted income. At this time, approximately $1 million of this
fund is unrestricted endowment and the remaining $7.5 million is restricted for
special uses. In addition to the current $8.5 million corpus, a new $5 million
pledge has just been obtained, and another $5 million in gifts are now in
negotiation. Any residual income from the capital campaign also will be added to
the endowment corpus.
Additionally, a restricted grants program works to solicit commitments for
exhibitions, education and academic programs, and special projects. More than
$2 million in cash and pledges has been raised so far in Fiscal Year 1996.
Question: How effective is your membership program?
Answer: The Membership Program is highly effective. It consists of
225,000 individuals, foundations and businesses all over the United States. Its
retention rate is considered among the highest in the museum field, and its total is
the second largest museum membership in the country. As stated in answer to the
previous question, $12 million (gross, which includes $4 million in direct-mail
costs) was raised in Fiscal Year 1995 in broad-based membership gifts.
The largest gift solicited is $1,000, of which 50 to 100 are made weekly. Larger
dollar responses are not uncommon.
We are now in the process of conducting an upgrade campaign designed to
identify higher potential donors in this pool and to solicit personally, or by other
more direct means than the mail, for greater support.
Question: How many members do you currently have?
Answer: The Museum total membership consists of 225,000 individuals,
foundations, and businesses.
Question: Of all your new requests for increases, which programs might
be the easiest to raise private dollars to support?
Answer: Of all the requests for increases, only educational outreach
materials ($50,000) would be likely to attract private funding support. The on-
line library system ($250,000) might attract outside support but would be a much
more difficult "sell" because of its cost and because research tools do not meet the
usual criteria of interest for most donors.
309
Question: Your request includes programmatic increases totaling $1,851
million and fixed costs of $731,000. The program requests are divided into the
following major categories: security; transition costs associated with performing
your own budgetary functions instead of reliance on the Park Service, maintenance
and other "enhancements". Of these, please prioritize your greatest needs.
Answer: As was outlined in the answer to question 2, apart from
uncontrollable costs such as pay adjustments, non-pay inflation, on-line accounting
charges, early retirement buyout tax, etc., our greatest needs include the security
contract increase, several new FTE positions that support basic operations of the
Museum, and additional space for storage and staff offices.
Again, the Museum would list the following areas of priorities that could be
deferred until Fiscal Year 1998: the legal services contract, educational outreach
materials, and the on-line library services.
Question: The Committee has provided additional funds over the last
several years to enhance security needs. This year's request contains an increase
of $350,000. Can you give the Committee a detailed description of this specific
request and please prioritize the list?
Answer: The security request in Fiscal Year 1997 increases our security
contract by adding Public Safety Officers (PSO) to operate four magnetometers
(metal detectors), guard the special exhibitions gallery, conduct exterior perimeter
patrols, and provide temporary additional services for activities such as a visit by
a head of state, after-hours educational or academic programs, and special events.
All of these needs are of the highest priority. The costs break down as follows:
Magnetometers:
14th St.: 2 PSO's x 8 hr./day x 363 days x $20.00 = $116,200
15th St.: 1 PSO X 8 hr./day x 363 days x $20.00 = $ 58,100
Annex: IPSO x 8 hr./day x 363 days x $20.00 = $ 58,100
Special Exhibition Gallery:
1 PSO X 8 hr./day x 363 days x $20.00 = $ 58,100
Exterior Patrol:
1 PSO X 8 hr./day x 310 days x $20.00 = $ 49,600
Temporary Additional Services:
1 PSO X 4 hr./day x 100 days x $24.35 = $ 10,000
TOTAL: $ 350,100
310
Question: Your maintenance requests involve additional FTEs.
Considering the additional costs involved with hiring permanent staff, why did you
decide to request additional FTSs instead of contracting privately for these needs?
Answer: The most efficient organization for facility management combines
the use of federal maintenance personnel and contract personnel. Certain aspects
of operations and maintenance lend themselves well to the use of contracted
employees. Tasks that require lower skilled employees, such as custodial and
snow removal work, are easily contracted out. When the contractors are replaced
through the bid process, start-up time for a new contractor is relatively short and
the impact on the Museum is minimum. Certain maintenance and repair tasks are
highly specialized or require unique training, licensing, equipment, education and
experience. These include fire alarm maintenance, elevator maintenance, energy
monitoring, computer controls system maintenance, pest control, refuse collection,
large engineering and architectural design projects, and construction projects.
These usually are done more efficiently by a private contractor because of the
special requirements. The Museum does in fact contract these maintenance and
repair tasks.
The remaining group of maintenance and repair tasks are performed by skilled
Federal employees at the Museum. These craftpersons include heating, air
conditioning, plumbing, painting, woodworking and electrical specialists. Having
employees on staff is the most efficient and effective method of accomplishing
these tasks. A well trained and loyal staff creates a bank of in-house knowledge
and history. This group operates in a multi-skilled, multi-craft shop which allows
for flexibility, craft coverage and emergency response that meets the needs of the
Museum. Having an in-house maintenance staff gives the Museum the resources
necessary to meet any emergency in the minimum amount of time because the
craftpersons are on site and are familiar with the complex systems this facility
operates. It takes years to develop the comprehensive knowledge of these
systems. We increase responsiveness and reduce the opportunity of loss or damage
of valuable artifacts and property, and increase the safety for staff and visitors.
Normal maintenance and repair tasks are done more quickly and inexpensively
because the employees are knowledgeable and on site, with tools and parts on
hand. This is an efficient and safe way to operate. The three additional FTE's
being requested in this area for Fiscal Year 1997 fall into this category. They are
for a pipefitter/plumber, a maintenance work leader, and an architect/mechanical
engineer.
The combination of Federal employees and contracted resources to accomplish
maintenance and repair is used throughout the public sector. An all-contract
operation presents serious problems: many firms providing contracting services
prove unreliable or unstable, moreover, their workforce requires constant
education to our systems.
311
Question: If you separate security, maintenance and fixed costs from your
request, the balance of $1.3 million is basically for program enhancements.
Considering the federal deficit, and the Committee's expected "lower" allocation,
could the Museum consider either slowing the pace of development at the Museum
or raising private dollars to support these requests?
Answer: The Museum will pay off the remainder of its construction loan
by December 1997.
The Museum has recently launched a $250 million endowment drive. It already
has used private monies to pay for an increasing percentage of its operating
budget. In Fiscal Year 1995 nearly one-third and in Fiscal Year 1996,
approximately 40 percent of the operating budget came from private sources.
Because of these already ambitious activities and initiatives, it is unrealistic to
expect the Museum to raise unrestricted private donations to support the requests
in Fiscal Year 1997 submission. These requests ~ with the one exception of
$50,000 for educational outreach materials - are unglamorous, basic infrastructure
needs of a museum with collections, archives and a library to maintain and make
accessible to the public. These requests do not lend themselves to outside
support. The majority of these requests have nothing to do with an expansion of
programming. Rather they all (with the one exception of the request for
educational outreach materials) support the basic infrastructure of the Museum,
and represent the needs of a new institution reaching its base-line of operational
support.
Question: The budget indicates that the Museum is attempting to comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other Federal statutes. Since
the structure is only three years old, why was the building not adapted in
accordance with ADA when it was constructed?
Answer: GSA declined jurisdiction over construction of the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum. As an independent Federal agency, the Museum
did its best to adhere to the 1984 Building Officials and Code Administration
(BOCA) Code and the 1987 DC Building and Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards (UFAS) Code. UFAS, as you may know, was subsequently replaced in
large measure by ADA.
From the beginning of planning, the Museum intended to create an accessible
building which was welcoming to all. The Museum's National Council directed
that the institution, as standard practice, adhere to the strictest code.
Just three months before opening in the winter of 1993, senior officials, who were
then worried that the building might not even be finished on time, learned from
the Museum's consulting architect that he had discovered that some of the
building's public restrooms did not meet Federal accessibility standards. The
312
Museum's director ordered a complete review which revealed many problem
areas, some of which were easy to fix while others were more serious.
The Museum's board leadership quickly approved the use of donated funds to
bring together a team of expert consultants, and informed the U.S. Access Board
of these deficiencies and requested the Board's guidance. The design architect's
firm hired its own expert as well.
At the time, determining fault was put aside so that all efforts could be
concentrated on the task of correcting the problems. The question of "fault" was
never pursued because access experts on the team acknowledged that many
government accessibility standards are a matter of interpretation and difficult to
sort out. David Capozzi, the U.S. Access Board official who dealt with the
Museum, acknowledged that there can be ambiguity in the codes in some cases.
The guidelines are specific, but they do not anticipate every architect's design.
However, since the accessibility review by the team of experts, the Museum has
worked diligently to correct its ADA shortcomings. Only the two handi-lift
elevators (one at the Meyerhoff Theater; the other in the Hall of Remembrance)
remain to be corrected.
Question: What are the other Federal statutes that you are referring to and
when did these requirements become law?
Answer: The Federal Records Act (FRA) is a collection of statutes
governing the duties of Federal agencies for the creation, arrangement,
maintenance and disposal of records. Congress has held that the intent of the
FRA is to:
o assure "accurate and complete documentation of the policies and
transactions of the Federal Government; "
o "control ... the quantity and quality of records produced by the
Federal Government;"
0 "judicious preservation and disposal of records."
Under the rules of the FRA, all agencies are required to meet the requirements of
the Act within a limited period of time. To date, the United States Holocaust
Memorial Council has not been able to meet these requirements due to the lack of
a skilled archivist to accumulate, evaluate, and catalogue all the materials already
produced, since the Council's inception in 1980. The records manager would also
act as the liaison to the National Archives for the agency and provide ongoing
supervision of the processes mandated under the FRA.
Question: What enhancements to security have been made this past year
and how effective have they been?
313
Answer: The Museum has installed magnetometers (metal detectors) at
the Museum's 14th & 15th Street and Annex Building entrances during Fiscal
Year 1996.
As a result of the installation of the magnetometers the Department of Protection
Services (DPS) has confiscated in excess of seventy (70) weapons (e.g. knifes,
ammunition, guns, etc.) from visitors prior to entry of the Museum facilities.
This effort has substantially improved the safety and security of the Museum staff
and visiting public as well as of the exhibitions, collections, and facility.
The Museum also developed and awarded a new security officer/services contract
for the Museum.
As a result of the newly awarded security officer/services contract, the officer
candidates are more highly trained and better qualified to perform the services
required by the Museum. The quality control measures requested under the new
contract will also provide continued enhanced performance of assigned security
personnel.
The Department of Protection Service has met the newly proposed minimum
security requirements mandated under the June 28, 1995 Vulnerability
Assessment. U.S. Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service.
As a result of the security and access control enhancements implemented in Fiscal
Year 1996, which includes x-ray machines, magnetometers, package and parcel
screening, escorting of staff visitors, enhanced closed circuit television (CCTV)
security surveillance of building(s) perimeter, and increased exterior security
roving patrols, the Department of Protection Services has met the protection
requirements of the Vulnerability Assessment.
Question: Are there any new threats to security that have occurred this
past year?
Answer: As a result of the increased terrorist activities of "militia groups"
and associated organizations (e.g. Oklahoma City Bombing, white supremacists,
hate groups, etc.), the resultant threat level to the Museum as a potential target
has increased. Also the increased Islamic/Hamas terrorist bombings in the Middle
East, specifically in Israel, have direct security implications for all major U.S.
Jewish organizations. Although the Museum is not a Jewish organization, it may
be perceived as a possible target, because it deals with a primarily Jewish event.
Furthermore, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has a high public profile and
respected reputation within the United States and abroad.
Question: Your request states that there is an increasing demand for new
staff to deal with the rapid growth of the collection, requirements for temporary
314
exhibitions and demands from other institutions to borrow objects. Is the
collection growth due to acquisitions or donations (please give percentage)?
Answer: In 1995, the Collection acquired 3,304 new objects, of which
1,277 were purchased and 2,027 were donated. These statistics, however,
represent a highly unusual situation since they include a single collection of 1,100
objects that was purchased for the Kovno Ghetto exhibition. In general, we
estimate that approximately 5 percent of new acquisitions are purchased and 95
percent are donated to the Museum.
Question: How many temporary exhibitions have you had the past two
years and what were the costs involved in installation and dismantling them?
Answer: The special exhibition "Assignment Rescue: The Story of Varian
Fry and the Emergency Rescue Committee" ran from June 1993 through January
1995. This 5,300 square foot exhibition cost approximately $1.7 million (of
which $4(X),0(X) was privately donated) for research, design, fabrication and
installation. De-installation costs totalled $165,000 including storage. The
exhibition will be re-designed to be shown at the Jewish Museum in New York in
1997. The cost of this re-design and re-installation is estimated at $300,000
which has been funded through restricted gifts.
"Liberation 1945" opened May 8, 1995 and will close on May 8, 1996. This
5,300 square foot exhibition cost $1.8 million in private fiinds. De-installation
costs are estimated at an additional $125,000.
"THE NAZI OLYMPICS Berlin 1936," designed as a travelling exhibition, will
open in July 1996 at the Museum before beginning a nationwide tour. Total
development, fabrication and installation costs are estimated at $950,000. This
does not include travel costs.
Question: What is the demand for lending objects to other institutions and
what are the costs to the Museum? Are there costs to the recipient instimtion?
Answer: The Museum has processed outgoing loans for 20 institutions.
Each loan includes several objects, with an average of six artifacts per loan. The
Museum does not bear any of the direct costs of the loan. These costs — such as
special packing (if necessary), transportation and insurance - are covered by the
borrowing institution. Each loan involves substantial time from the registrarial,
curatorial and conservation staff. We estimate that an average loan costs the
Museum approximately $1,200 in indirect costs (e.g. staff time and incidental
expenses).
Question: During tight fiscal times, doesn't it make good sense to care for
what you have and slow the pace of growth including acquisitions, programming
etc.?
315
Answer: The focus of the Museum is on a limited period in history, from
Hitler's assumption of power in 1933 through the liberation of the concentration
camps in 1945 and the immediate aftermath of war crimes trials and displaced
persons camps. The relatively open political atmosphere in Eastern Europe, the
Russian Republic, and the former republics of the U.S.S.R. give the Museum an
ui^jrecedented opportunity to acquire artifacts and archival materials that will be
lost should political conditions change. Therefore, it is imperative that the
Museum not defer these opportunities. In addition, only a very limited amount of
time remains to capture the testimony of eyewitnesses to the Holocaust and to
acquire from them donations of artifacts and documentary materials related to the
Holocaust. Again, this is an activity the Museum cannot afford to defer.
Concerning programming, the Museum is reviewing all its program initiatives to
emphasize quality rather than quantity and to make economies where possible.
And we always seek private funds to augment our slate of programming. For
instance, we have raised $1 million dollars to fund the re-design of the travelling
exhibition. Remember the Children: Daniel's Story, and have raised more than $3
million to fund national conferences for educators on teaching the Holocaust.
Question: How many volunteers does the Museum have and is this an
increase from previous years?
Answer: The Museum currently has 300 active volunteers which is down
from a high of 350 volunteers. Most of these volunteers have been with the
Museum since the opening and we are experiencing a normal attrition process.
Question: How are volunteers used at the Museum?
Answer: Most volunteers work in the Visitor Services Department
providing direct services to the public, such as group orientations. Permanent
Exhibition timed-pass distribution and collection, information desk, etc.
Volunteers also work with: Development (assisting with fundraising); Collections,
oral history, and archival holdings (doing translations); Survivors Registry
(helping visitors); Library (cataloguing and shelving); Education (assisting
program planning); Historian's Office (conducting minor research tasks) and they
provide general assistance for Communications, Special Events, and Group
Scheduling.
The Museum also has dozens of volunteers across the United States who assist the
Museum in fundraising efforts.
Question: If fiinds cannot be provided for some of the new FTE requests,
can volunteers be used effectively for some of these purposes? If so, which ones?
Answer: The FTE requested for Fiscal Year 1997 are for highly technical
positions that require both specialized expertise and full-time availability for the
316
institution. Many of these positions involve public safety, financial integrity, legal
liabilities, and fiduciary obligations. Volunteers contribute four hours of work per
week, and often miss weeks due to holidays, travel and personal needs. The
institution, while it depends on volunteers, cannot place them in positions
requiring daily availability, public safety, accountability, or technical expertise.
Question: What is the increase in visitation over the previous year?
Answer: Museum visitation has remained level. We project that visitation
in our third year of operation (May 1995- April 1996) will remain approximately
the same, near the 2 million mark.
Question: The Committee commends the Museum on their outreach and
education programs. For those who cannot visit the Museum, what is offered on
the INTERNET?
Answer: The Museum currently maintains two Internet World Wide Web
sites.
The first is a public site which contains institutional information including visiting
the Museum (hours - tickets - groups - directions), joining the Museum
(memberships - gifts), learning about the Museum (background -departments -
architecture), accessing Museum resources (library - archives - exhibits), learning
about the Holocaust (educational resources; teaching guidelines), activities at the
Museum (calendars - conferences - school programs), related organizations
(Holocaust Organizations - other sites).
This site provides users with tools to do on-line searches of the Museum's library
and document archive. It presents the full texts of a series of papers prepared by
the Museum's Education Department of the teaching of Holocaust history.
We are also preparing for this site, electronic versions of Museum exhibitions and
transcripts of papers, lectures, and conferences which occur at the Museum.
A second Web site, developed for use by high school students and their teachers
(as part of program funded by the FannieMae Foundation), is in its demonstration
phase. It is in use at a high school in New Jersey, a high school in Concord,
Massachusetts, and in the District of Columbia high schools. During this
demonstration phase, students and teachers are providing feedback to the Museum
about the usefulness and effectiveness of the materials presented. The Museum is
making modifications based upon this feedback. At the end of the demonstration
period, this resource will be made available to any school which wishes to use it.
It contains text, historic photographs, artifacts, documents, maps, audio testimony
of survivors and chronologies. It is all bound together in a narrative and thematic
317
structure to make comprehensible to high school students the history of these
events.
An additional feature of this resource is that its users can communicate with one
another about their observations and insights. This communications process will
be available within schools and across schools (for example between inner city
District of Columbia schools and suburban schools in Massachusetts).
Question: How much private funds were used during Fiscal Years 1995
and 1996 to date, and what were they used to fund?
Answer: A total of $31.3 million in private funds supported the Museum's
efforts in Fiscal Year 1995. Included in this total is $16.2 million for repayment
of the Museum's construction loan and interest expense. Approximately $1.7
million was expended to operate the Museum Shop, which generated $2 million
during the year. A total of $12.7 million went toward Museum general
operations. Of this amount, $6.23 million was used for fundraising activities, of
which $4 million covered the costs of the Museum's successful direct mail
campaign; $2.27 million supported administrative services, including the costs of
special commemorative events, bank fees for donations, the annual audit and the
Director's salary; $1.53 million supported building maintenance and operations;
$1.09 million supported the work of the Research Institute, including support of
archival projects abroad such as the copying of Holocaust-related materials in the
archives of the SSB (formerly KGB) in Russia; $2.03 million supported public
programs and exhibitions, including some funds for the design and fabrication of
the Museum's second special exhibition, "Liberation 1945." Additionally,
$636,000 in restricted donations made possible specific programs such as the Pearl
Resnick Post-Doctoral Fellowship program which sponsors young scholars doing
research in Holocaust and genocide studies and a program sponsored by the
FaimieMae Foundation, "Bringing the Lessons Home," that works with District of
Columbia public school children.
In Fiscal Year 1996, the Museum expects to spend a total of $29.5 million in
private funds. Through February of FY 96, the Museum has spent $4.2 million in
private funds for operational purposes. Of this total, $2.6 million has been spent
to date on the Museum's fund-raising efforts, including the commencement of an
endowment campaign with a $250 million target; $877,000 for administrative
services, including the cost of commemorative events, bank fees for donations, the
annual audit and the Director's salary; $274,000 for support of public programs;
$376,000 for support of the Research Institute; and $87,000 for building
maintenance and operations. Projects made possible through private funding
include oral history and audio/visual programs for the upcoming exhibition, "THE
NAZI OLYMPICS Berlin 1936" (scheduled to open this Spring).
Additionally, the Museum repaid approximately $11.2 million of its construction
debt, including interest expense; $8()0,000 was spent by the Museum Shop; and
318
$416,000 in restricted funds have made possible special programs. These
programs include a medical conference sponsored by Ruth Meltzer entitled,
"Hippocrates Revisited: Medicine in the Third Reich," for which physicians
received Continuing Medical Education accreditation for their participation.
Questions: How many conference and VIP events were funded during
Fiscal Year 1995 and planned for 1996? What are the costs and are they paid
with federal or private dollars?
Answer: The following is a summary of major activities held in Fiscal
Year 1995 (including estimated costs):
Special Events
-- Tribute to Raoul Wallenberg ($35,000 private)
~ Commemoration of the Liberation of Auschwitz ($30,000 private)
- Days of Remembrance ($30,000 federal/$15,000 private)
~ VE Day Commemoration ($40,000 private)
Development
13 fiindraising events ($77,000 private)
Special Visits to the Museum
President of Eritrea, Isaias Afwerki
President of the Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma ($200 private)
President of Bulgaria, Zhelev Zhelyu ($4,000 private)
President of Albania, Sali Berisha
President of Romania, Ion Iliescu
Prime Minister of Poland, Waldemar Pawlak
President George Bush
Prince Joachim of Denmark
U.S. House of Representatives Freshman Night ($4,400 private)
Japanese Government Officials ($250 private)
Comelio Sommaruga, President, Int'l Red Cross ($300 private)
Int'l Criminal Tribunal Justices of the former Yugoslavia ($200 private)
Democratic National Committee (2 events/$5,000 private)
"To Bear Witness: An Ecumenical Gathering for the Living and the
Suffering in the former Yugoslavia"
Ambassador Schallenberger, Secretary General of the Austrian Ministry for
Foreign Affairs
Polish Foreign Minister Bartoszewski ($2,500 private)
Educational and Academic Conferences
why?
319
Belfer Teachers Conferences ($78,000 private)
The following is a summary of major activities that were (or will be) held
in Fiscal Year 1996 (including estimated costs):
Special Events
~ Candle-lighting ceremony ending 50th Anniversary of World War II
commemorations with the Department of Defense World War II Committee
($2000 private)
-- Days of Remembrance ($35,000 federal/$15.000 private)
-- THE NAZI OLYMPICS Berlin 1936 exhibition ($11,000 private)
Development
21 events ($131,000 private)
VIP's Visits or Events
President of Rwanda, Pasteur Bizimungu
President of Austria, Thomas Klestil
President of Paraguay, Juan Carlos Wasmosy
President of Chad, Idriss Deby
Educational and Academic Conferences
Schusterman Educational Administrators Conference ($27,000 private)
Belfer Teachers Conferences (two) ($99,000 private)
The Holocaust and American Culture Conference ($7,8(X) federal)
Hippocrates Betrayed: Medicine in the Third Reich Conference ($30,975
private)
Impact of Memories Teleconference ($68,200 private)
Hitler's Willing Executioners ($3,900 private)
Holocaust Precedents and the Obligations of Medicine Conference ($28,000
private)
Tragedy of Romanian Jewry International Conference ($15,000 private)
Prejudice in Historical Memory and Present Reality: Case Studies
Conference (w/ Woodrow Wilson Center; $12,500 private)
Question: Are there any conference fees charged to deflect costs, if not
Answer: To date, no fees have been charged individuals who participate in
conferences of the United States Holocaust Research Institute. The Museum has
been following a policy of making its programs available without charge in order
to make them accessible to the widest possible public. Those large conferences
for which attendees have the possibility of receiving professional accreditation
320
(e.g., CME - Continuing Medical Education - credit), and for which it might be
appropriate to charge fees, are being funded by restricted private grants that cover
the costs of these conferences.
Question: What percentage of the Research program needs are funded
with private dollars?
Answer: In Fiscal Year 1995 the estimated total cost of the activities of
the United States Holocaust Research Institute was $4,654,856. Of this sum, 63.6
percent was paid with appropriated funds, 26.9 percent with unrestricted
donations, and 9.5 percent with restricted grant monies (including distributions
from restricted endowments). The use of appropriated funds is gradually
becoming proportionally less over time: the total cost of the planned Fiscal Year
1996 activities of the Research Institute is $5,955,919, of which 58.1 percent is to
come from appropriated funds, 26.8 percent from unrestricted donations, and 15.1
percent from restricted grant monies (including distributions from restricted
endowments). The appropriated funds are used primarily for the staffing and
basic support activities needed to serve the public on a daily basis: the materials
and reference services of the Library, the various Archives (documentary,
photographic, oral history, film and video), and the Historian's office. Lectures,
conferences, and other programs open to the public but aimed primarily at
specialist audiences are funded heavily, though not exclusively, by restricted
grants and income from endowments.
Question: The largest increase is Council Direction and Museum Support.
While some of these categories fund operation and maintenance, an increase of
$215,000 is for the Council itself, including +$115,000 for travel expenses. In
FY 1996, the Committee provided increases in travel, fixed costs and approved a
Council Relations position. In addition to the administrative staff on sight, there
seems to be a large separate structure of committees and subcommittees. In fact,
many new committees have been formed of late. Despite the fact that these are
authorized, should dollars continue to be tight, and increases not funded, can the
Council consider ways to reduce committees or their costs so that items such as
security, maintenance and collections care can be considered for scarce federal
dollars?
Answer: We will be discussing with the Council the concerns raised by
the Conunittee. It should be noted that the Council has already begun to hold
more meetings by conference call. It could continue this trend to cut further into
the amount budgeted for travel and per diem for Council.
At the same time, it must be said that the enabling legislation has created a very
large governing body and for it to fulfill its responsiblity requires substantial
public funding.
321
Question: What were the specific travel costs associated with the Council
during Fiscal Year 1995 and planned for Fiscal Year 1996?
Answer: In Fiscal Year 1995, the travel costs associated with the Council
were $127,000 ($49,800 appropriated, $77,200 non-appropriated) which included
29 committee meetings, 10 meetings of the Executive Committee, and two full
Council meetings. In addition, it included weekly trips to the Museum by the
Council Chairman who is extremely active in the everyday rurming of the
Museum.
In Fiscal Year 1996, the planned costs for Council travel are $260,000 ($53,000
appropriated, $207, (X)0 non-appropriated). This includes 10 meetings of the
Executive Committee, an estimated 40 committee meetings (as a result of the
creation of a Committee on Conscience, as well as Council involvement in a
strategic planning process, and the further implementation of the Council's
governance processes and committee structure), and two full Council meetings.
This also includes estimated travel costs for the Chairperson of the Council who
comes to the Museum almost weekly to meet with staff regarding the daily
business of the Museum.
Question: How many meetings occurred for these same periods?
Answer: In Fiscal Year 1995, there were a total of 41 meetings. For
Fiscal Year 1996, the estimated number of meetings is 52 for the reasons stated in
paragraph two of the answer to the previous question.
Question: New staff is requested to hire an in-house budget analyst,
contract specialist and payroll technician. The Committee assumes that this is an
attempt to become self-sufficient and reduce reliance on the National Park Service;
is this the case?
Answer: Yes. When our relationship with the National Park Service
(NPS) began in Fiscal Year 1981, our budget was $722,000 with 10 FTE's. In
Fiscal Year 1995, our budget was $26,562,000 with 218 FTE's. Obviously, the
amount of support that we require from the National Park Service has expanded
considerably. The NPS, like other Federal agencies is downsizing — payroll,
contracting, and budget formulation, three of the administrative entities for which
we rely on their support - are all affected by these changes. NPS has found it is
no longer able to provide the level of support which is required in all of these
areas.
Question: Is the Museum ready to assume this responsibility or is this
partially because the Park Service, as a result of the downsizing of their
Washington cifice, caimot adequately support the Museum's needs?
322
Answer: Essentially it is both. In the past, we were able to obtain the
services of a variety of administrative staff, in a variety of disciplines, on a
reimbursable basis. However, with the growth of our organization and the
significant reduction in the administrative staff at NPS, the available resources
have been severely strained. As we have looked towards developing expertise in
these areas, we also see the benefits of having in-house staff on site to handle the
daily needs of the Museum. As available administrative resources continue to
decrease at NPS, the recruitment of in-house staff seems the most appropriate and
feasible step. We have discussed the situation with our contacts at NPS. All
involved agree that the situation has become overwhelming, as available personnel
resources continue to diminish at the NPS. The Museum is grateful for the
expertise and guidance we have received from the NPS over the years, and we
hope to continue this relationship at a reduced level in the future.
Question: The budget reflects an increase for additional space rental of
nearly $300,000. Of that, over $200,000 is for new office space. Can you
provide a detailed list of each FTE, grade level, title and associated activity?
Please be sure to list separately any SES positions.
Answer: The increased space request is necessary because of extreme
over-crowding in the office space at the Museum and the Annex Building, in part
due to the increase of positions through donated funds or restricted grants. The
Museum hopes to move the Departments of Procurement, Technology Initiative,
Oral History, Film and Video, and Wexner Learning Center, to 4,500 square feet
of off-site office space. These departments contain 40 employees. A list of titles
and grades follows:
323
Job Title
Pay Schedule
DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT
Contracling Officer
Purchasing Agent
Contract Specialist
Purchasing Agent
Contract Specialist
'Contract Specialist
*Clerk Typist
•Purchasing Agent
•Contract Specialist
•Contract Specialist
GS-14
GS07
GS-13
GS-09
GS-14
GS-12
GS-04
GS-05
GS-12
GS-12
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES
Supervisory Computer Specialist
•Administrative Assistant
Supervisory Computer Specialist
Computer Specialist (Systems)
Computer Specialist (Programmer)
Computer Technician
Computer Specialist
Applications Programmer
Production Assistant
GS-15
GS-09
GS-14
GS-13
GS-11
GS-09
GS-13
8a Contractor
8a Contractor
FILM AND VIDEO
Director, Film and Video
•Administrative Assistant
•Program Coordinator
•Consultant (Federal)
GS-14
GS-05
GS-09
GS-12
WEXNER LEARNING CENTER
Supervisory Computer Specialist
•Graphics Artist/Cartographer
•Cartographer
•Production Editor
•Historian/Researcher
•Researcher
•Photographic Scanner
•Historian
•Text Editor
•Consultant
•Consultant
GS-12
GS-05
GS-11
GS-09
GS-11
GS-05
GS-05
GS-12
GS-07
GS-13
GS-13
ORAL HISTORY
Historian
Program Assistant
•Program Coordinator
•Researcher
•Consultant
•Consultant
•Consultant
•Consultant
GS-13
GS-06
GS-07
GS-07
GS-13
GS-13
GS-13
GS-09
• These positions are supponed by private donations. Pay is equal to the General Schedule (GS) rate.
324
Question: Please also list any grade or SES promotions since your opening
in April of 1993.
Answer: When the U. S. Holocaust Memorial Museum opened in 1993,
most of its positions and its organization, were undergoing a transition from the
planning phase to the operational phase. In 1993, as directed by legislation, those
positions which were responsible for "inherently governmental functions.. [to]
continue after the opening of the Museum" were brought into the Federal service.
Beginning in 1994, as the Museum's true organizational functioning began to
become more clear, a concentrated personnel management effort was made to
determine actual duties and career patterns for these positions in relation to the
nanjre of the work being performed. Also, these promotions represent a response
to changes in the scope of work required to support the operational Museum.
PROMOTIONS SINCE APRIL 1993
New Title
Promoted
Promoted to
Effective
from Grade:
Grade:
Date
Executive Office
Deputy Assistant,
Museum Director, Admin
GS-0301-13
GS-0301-14
01/23/94
Personnel
Personnel Mgmt Spec
GS-0201-12
GS-0201-13
02/18/96
Personnel Mgmt Spec
GS-0201-07
GS-0201-09
02/19/95
Personnel Mgmt Spec
GS-0201-07
GS-0201-09
02/19/95
Personnel Act Clerk
GS-0203-05
GS-0203-06
05/28/95
Administration
Office of Administration
Administrative Officer
GS-0341-07
GS-0341-09
01/07/96
Office of Technical Services
Dep Dir of Operations
GS-0334-13
GS-0334-14
04/02/95
Computer Specialist
GS-0334-12
GS-0334-13
11/12/95
Computer Specialist
GS-0334-09
GS-0334-11
12/25/94
Computer Specialist
GS-0334-09
GS-0334-11
12/25/94
Computer Specialist
GS-0334-09
GS-0334-11
12/25/94
Computer Specialist
GS-0334-09
GS-0334-11
12/25/94
Computer Specialist
GS-0334-07
GS-0334-09
04/30/95
Administrative Officer
GS-0341-07
GS-0341-09
11/13/94
Photographer
GS- 1060-05
GS- 1060-07
11/13/94
Office of Support Services
Support Srvcs Super
GS-0342-12
GS-0342-13
01/08/95
325
Tele Specialist GS-0391-06 GS-0391-07 12/19/95
Office of Building Management
Rigger WG-5210-09 WG-5210-10 02/19/95
Laborer WG-5210-07 WG-5210-08 01/23/95
Office of Contracting and Procurement
Purchasing Agent GS-1 105-07 GS-1 105-08 10/01/95
Office of Protection Services
Security Specialist GS-0080-11 GS-0080-12 04/30/95
Security Specialist GS-0080-07 GS-0080-09 06/11/95
Office of Financial Services
Budget Analyst GS-0560-07 GS-0460-09 10/01/95
Accounting Technician GS-0525-07 GS-0525-09 07/23/95
Research Institute
Office of the Deputy Director for Research Institute
Research Prog Spec GS-1701-12 GS-1701-13 09/04/94
Administrative Officer GS-0341-07 GS-0341-09 01/07/96
Senior Historian's Office
Historian GS-0170-07 GS-0170-09 08/20/95
Department of Archives
Archivist GS-1420-11 GS-1420-12 07/24/94
Archivist GS-1420-09 GS-1420-11 02/24/96
Archivist GS- 1420-07 GS-1420-09 12/02/94
Department of Oral History
Program Mgmt Asst (OA) GS-0303-05 GS-0303-06 01/21/96
Registry of Holocaust Survivors
Registrar GS-0301-12 GS-0301-13 09/04/94
Historian GS-0170-11 GS-0170-12 03/05/95
Department of Photo Archives
Supvr Archivist GS-1420-12 GS-1420-13 09/18/94
Wexner Learning Center
Supvr Comp Spec GS-0334-11 GS-0334-12 09/04/94
326
Public
Programs
Education
Director
GS-1701-I4
GS-1701-15
10/16/94
Program Coord
GS-1701-11
GS-1701-12
10/01/95
Training Spec
GS-1712-09
GS-1712-11
11/26/95
Training Spec
GS-1712-09
GS-1712-11
10/15/95
Training Spec
GS-1712-09
GS-1712-11
11/27/94
Volunteer Coord
GS-0301-09
GS-0301-11
08/21/94
Program Asst
GS-0301-07
GS-0301-09
03/17/96
Supv Museum Spec
GS- 1016-07
GS-1016-09
01/08/95
Supv Museum Spec
GS- 1016-07
GS-1016-09
01/08/95
Supv Museum Tech
GS-1016-06
GS- 101 6-08
04/02/95
Supv Museum Tech
GS-I016-06
GS-1016-08
04/02/95
Museum Technician
GS-1016-05
GS-1016-07
04/02/95
Training Spec
GS-1712-05
GS- 17 12-07
02/10/96
Museum Technician
GS-1016-05
GS-1016-07
10/29/95
Museum Technician
GS-1016-05
GS-1016-07
10/29/95
Museum Technician
GS-1016-05
GS-1016-07
10/29/95
Museum Technician
GS-1016-05
GS-1016-07
10/29/95
Museum Technician
GS-1016-05
GS-1016-07
10/29/95
Admin Assistant
GS-0303-05
GS-0303-06
07/09/95
Collections
Museum Spec
GS-1016-12
GS-1016-13
08/07/94
Museum Spec
GS-1016-09
GS-1016-11
10/16/94
Museum Spec
GS-1016-07
GS-1016-09
01/07/96
Exhibitions and Publications
Program Manager GS-1701-11
GS-1701-12 10/01/95
Community Programs
Admin Assistant GS-0303-05
GS-0303-07 07/10/94
327
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW. #809
Washington. DC 20004
Statement Submitted by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
to the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
March 27, 1996
Agency Mission and Functions. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent Federal
agency created by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, plays a pivotal role in the public-private
partnership to plan for, manage, protect, and use historic resources in the United States. Federal agencies.
State Historic Preservation Officers, state, local, and tribal governments, applicants for Federal assistance,
the National Park Service, the business community, citizens' groups, and members of the general public all
participate in these efforts and all have important roles to play. The Council itself is a cabinet-level body
composed of private citizens and experts in the field appointed by the President, along with Federal agency
heads and representatives of State, local, and tribal government. It provides a forum for influencing
Federal policy, programs, and decisions as they affect historic properties in communities and on public
lands nationwide. The Council is served by a small professional staff, with offices in Washington and
Denver.
TTie Council's primary statutory role is to advise and assist Federal agencies so that the agencies can and
will do a better job of planning and making decisions about the fate of historic properties when carrying
out their programs. TTie vision of the National Historic Preservation Act is to have Federal agencies
operate as responsible stewards of the Nation's cultural heritage. Development and implementation of
effective policies and program initiatives supporting this vision is the key. With continued Council
involvement, we believe that agencies will ultimately succeed in fully meeting their responsibilities under
the law. However, in the interim before this long-term goal is achieved, there needs to be a process to
ensure that historic preservation needs are balanced with Federal project requirements. The principal
mechanism to achieve this balance is known as the Section 106 review process (see below).
As directed by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Council:
• Advocates fill! consideration of historic values in Federal decisionmaking;
• Oversees Federal agency planning and review of actions which may affect significant
historic resources, and mediates in controversial cases;
• Evaluates Federal programs and policies to further preservation;
• Provides essential training, guidance and information to make the planning and review of
Federal actions operate efficiently and with effective citizen involvement; and
• Recommends administrative and legislative improvements for balancing
protection of the Nation's heritage with other national needs and priorities.
328
Level of Operations and FY 1997 Request. Under the current continuing budget resolution for the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies, the Council is funded at $2.5 million for FY 1996,
supporting a staff of 34. This represents a 15% downsizing of the Council from its operating level in prior
years. The President's budget for FY 1997 requests $2.5 million to continue the FY 1996 funding level.
Our current estimates indicate that continuation of Council operations in a number of key areas will have
substantial challenges to meet at this funding level. Due to additional costs of doing business, the $2.5
million figure will occasion a further 12% reduction in the Council's operations in FY 1997. Staff level
will shrink to 30 FTEs, a 25% reduction from FY 1995 for a small agency in which 81% of the budget is
personnel costs due to the labor intensive nature of our workload.
Program Commitinents at Projected Budget Level. Recognizing Congress' desire for downsizing the
Federal government, and the Administration's 'reinvention' objectives, the Council is seriously re-
examining both its duties under the National Historic Preservation Act, and the manner in which it
conducts business, to determine how best to ensure efficient yet effective participation in the Federal
preservation program at this budget level.
Given current and likely future budget constraints, the Council will concentrate on developing more
efficient ways to monitor and improve Federal agency program performance, devising more cost-effective
means for tracking and overseeing system operation of the Section 106 review process, and focusing its
limited personnel and other resources on the most critical, controversial, or precedent-setting historic
preservation cases and issues.
The Council's principal program objectives in FY 1997, in particular through the implementation of
proposed revisions to the Council's regulations that are currently under development, will include:
— Greater deference to local solutions in individual situations arising under Section 106, while attempting
to ensure quality control, consistency, adequate public involvement, and necessary conflict resolution to
the extent feasible
— Better focus on truly significant properties at all levels of significance, as well as due attention to historic
resources that members of the public care about and value
— Development and provision of necessary advice, guidance, training, and other assistance, especially for
other Federal agencies and State Historic Preservation Officers, through electronic media,
teleconferencing, desktop publishing, and other more limited means than in past years
— Gathering of information on creative, precedential, or otherwise successful solutions to preservation
problems that can be made available to parties to the Section 106 process for broader application, in order
to use the lessons learned in individual cases, and to avoid "reinventing the wheel"
— Cooperative work with agencies to assist them in developing better ways to integrate historic
preservation into agency planning, resource management, and decisionmaking
— Examination of ways to effect better coordination of preservation activities among Federal agencies, and
of Federal agency preservation activities with State and local priorities
329
"Continued assurance of public access to Federal decisions affecting historic resources at the state, local,
and tribal level, to the extent that time and financial resources allow
In a positive vein, the Council is responding to the projected FY 1997 budget level with the following
strategies:
Simplify the Section 106 process. Within the next few months, the Council will publish for comment
revised draft regulations governing compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
This is the culmination of several years effort to make its regulations more 'user friendly,' efficient, and
streamlined. An anticipated achievement of these revisions is that more Federal activities will be reviewed
and resolved at the State level rather than automatically elevated to the Council level. This will speed the
process and involve fewer staff at all levels, although the approach certainly runs the risk of sacrificing
consistency, sufficient expertise, or adequate public involvement in some instances, any of which could
lead to costly administrative delays, disputes, or litigation..
The Council has long played a central and unique role in carrying out Section 106. Through the
government-wide procedures it prescribes, the guidance and interpretations it provides, and the training,
information and technical assistance it offers, the Council has ensured the smooth functioning of Section
106. Questions of application to a wide diversity of Federal programs have been addressed and effective
information to the public made available so that citizens across the country can effectively participate in
the planning of Federal actions that affect their cherished heritage. This program area will continue to
receive attention to the extent practicable.
Shift focus of review. With diminished resources the Council has become more selective in case review,
and concentrated its efforts and involvement on those projects affecting the most important resources,
setting an essential precedent, or raising a major public controversy. This trend will continue and intensify
under the FY 1997 level.
While much of the interaction with Federal agencies in the Section 106 process involves the State Historic
Preservation Officers, the Council serves an irreplaceable function in assuring consistency between States
and coordinating historic preservation reviews for multi-state undertakings such as pipelines, transmission
lines, and interstate highways. Without the Council's substantive involvement, such projects would risk
delays and conflicts in the environmental review process. This role is expected to continue, but is likely to
be further restricted by declining resources.
The Council has also played an important role in large, complex, controversial development projects,
involving diverse parties with differing concerns and agendas. Hundreds, or even thousands, of citizens
may show up at public hearings or otherwise make their views known. The Council has demonstrated
repeatedly that it can serve as a facilitator, mediator, and catalyst for helping to resolve these sorts of
conflicts and make sure that the diverse concerns of various parties are considered and addressed in that
solution. The Council will continue to play the role of mediator in a small percentage of Section 106 cases
that fit these characteristics.
Seek cost-sharing arrangements and reimbursable agreements. In an effort to compensate for budget
deficiencies, the Council has pursued reimbursable agreements with several Federal agencies in FY 1996,
including the Department of the Army and the General Services Administration. While these are helping
to meet our immediate fiscal shortfall and will result in program improvements for the Federal agencies
330
involved, they are not without cost. Development of such arrangements is time consuming, often yields no
results, and creates pressures to choose programs to assist on the basis of immediate, short-term fiscal
realities rather than on the long-term potential to advance historic preservation needs, good government
practice, or the broader purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The projected budget levels will result in the following adverse impacts:
Personnel cuts. The 15% cut in FY 1996 appropriations has necessitated a personnel reduction from an
authorized level of 40 in FY 1995 to an actual level of 34, a loss of 4 professional historic preservation
specialists and 2 clerical positions. As professional staff diminishes and workload remains heavy, some
Section 106 projects deserving more substantial staff involvement get only cursory review. Some historic
properties are undoubtedly being compromised or lost because of this, but perhaps more important,
agencies and project proponents from business and private industry are unable to take advantage of
Council staff recommendations that could save them both time and money. In addition, the likelihood that
a percentage of projects will be challenged, and either stopped or delayed, in court will undoubtedly
increase. In the thirty years of the Council's existence to date, the courts have never overturned a Section
106 agreement document. With reduced secretarial and administrative support, professionals must perform
much clerical and adminstrative work themselves, an obvious inefficient use of resources. A further 12%
reduction necessitated by the FY 1997 level of $2.5 million will require removal of additional
professionals from work on both individual cases and programmatic issues, where agencies and project
proponents could benefit fixim the Council's advice and could otherwise avoid time delays, increased costs,
or duplicative efforts.
External communications. While adoption of revised regulations is expected to vastly improve the
overall process, the Council will not be in a position to publish and distribute the new documents and
supporting guidance to the extent desirable or necessary. Training for State Historic Preservation Officers,
local governments. Federal agency personnel, private industry, contracting firms, and other parties on
implementation of the new regulations may have to be curtailed, undermining their effectiveness.
Conclusion. The Council is committed to ensuring effectiveness and efficiency in the implementation of
Section 106 by removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy or redundant review, and promoting
programmatic solutions to recurring planning and resource management problems. The Council and the
Section 106 process stand as a successfiil example of an alternative dispute resolution process availabe at
the national level. At the same time, the Council remains committed to ensuring quality control,
consistency, coordination, and public access to the process to the extent that limited budgetary resources
will permit. We appreciate the Committee's support for our program and our efforts.
331
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Fiscal Year 1996 Reductions
Question. What has been the impact of the reductions taken in FY 1996?
Answer. The reduction of $447,000 from FY 1995 to FY 1996, approximately 18% of the
Council's budget, has occasioned a downsizing of the agency and a reduction of activity in those
areas where the Council has some discretion over how it commits its resources. At the outset, it
should be noted that the uncertainty of FY 1 996 funding levels greatly hindered planning for
these changes. The prospects ranged from having only enough funds to shut down the agency in
FY 1996 to continued funding sufficient to maintain the FY 1995 level of operations.
Accordingly, the Council approached FY 1996 with a variety of contingency plans. The series
of continuing resolutions and the protracted government shutdown ftirther complicated planning.
A management decision was made late in the summer of FY 1995 to trim the staff by four
positions, from 38 to 34. Two positions were eliminated by attrition; the other two required
reduction in force procedures. Recognizing that the strength of the Council lies in its
professional staff, every effort was made to retain experienced professionals. However, at the
same time, we acknowledged that the $2,500,000 level was insufficient to maintain 34 positions
and also provide necessary associated costs of doing business, such as travel, printing,
equipment, supplies and administrative services. Encouraged by the report language to pursue
reimbursable activities, we entered FY 1996 gambling that we could make further cost savings in
our operation and generate sufficient income to meet a shortfall of approximately $150,000.
Our strategy required examining every element of the Council program and eliminating or
deferring expenditures wherever we could. Where possible, FY 1996 needs were met with FY
1995 monies. For example, we rescheduled our fall Council meeting from October to
September, saving about $15,000 in FY 1996 money. We purchased equipment with FY 1995
ftmds and have not spent any money in FY 1996. Our normal budget is around $30,000 for these
essential needs. Our annual report, required by statute and widely praised by its readers, was
turned into a biennial report and funded out of FY 1995 monies. This saved $10,000 in our FY
1996 printing budget. Supplies were pre-bought in FY 1995, so that we have committed only
$200 so far this year. A normal year sees $20,000 spent on necessary office supplies.
After October 1, travel has been restricted to that reimbursed by other agencies, with virtually no
Council-funded travel. As a result, we have spent only $13,000 in the first half of this year;
nearly half of that was member travel for the one Council meeting that has been held this fiscal
year. Our normal annual travel budget is $ 1 00,000. Likewise, all printing has been held to a
minimum; less than $4,000 has been obligated, compared to a normal annual expenditure of
$40,000. The same effort has been made in all accounts, large and small.
332
Combined with the successful closing of a reimbursable agreement with the Army, we have been
able to make ends meet for FY 1996. However, this has not been without its costs. Priorities
have been redirected, not on the basis of what is best for the National Historic Preservation
Program, but rather by what will either provide funds to maintain the essential staff to do our
work or what can be trimmed so that we do not have to cut further into our most precious
resource. Deferred expenditures cannot be put off indefinitely; we will have to return to a budget
that adequately provides for the essentials of supporting the Council and its staff.
Underlying this was the hope that we could weather FY 1 996 and then stabilize our operation at
the downsized level of FY 1996 for FY 1997 and beyond. Our budget request of $2,888,000
reflects the needs for maintaining that level, with a staff of 34, and restoring the travel, other
services, equipment, printing and supplies accoimts that have been diverted in FY 1996 to meet
basic salary and benefit needs.
Question. What services were you unable to provide as a result of this reduction? What
programs or activities were delayed? Which were eliminated?
Answer. Because we are legally obligated to respond to request for project reviews imder
Section 106, most cuts fell in other areas. It should be noted, though, that the travel restrictions
have impeded our ability to assist Federal agencies. State Historic Preservation Officers,
applicants and the concerned public in expediting Section 106 reviews. We cannot accurately
assess the effect of this, but it is clear that numerous problems and conflicts could have been
better and more promptly resolved had we the fimds to travel in those case where our presence
could make a difference.
The burden of the reductions fell on our efforts to improve Federal agency preservation
programs. This was ironic, as the entire thrust of our regulatory revision efforts and our program
initiatives is to invest more Council resources in this vital area. Likewise, users of the Section
106 process, ranging firom SHPOs to Federal agencies and industry, universally see the most
important long-term contribution of the Council to be its work to improve Federal agency
historic preservation programs. However, because these activities do not have statutory or
regulatory time deadlines, we have^more flexibility in pursuing them. At the outset, we
determined that we would only spend time on Federal agency program where an agency was
willing to reimburse us for our time and costs. As a limited exception, we agreed to continue
efforts that were well-advanced and a few particularly high-priority endeavors that we could
afford. As a result, we did not proceed with a number of important efforts. These include review
of the Department of Veterans Affairs preservation program and development of regional
programmatic approaches for the General Services Administration.
Likewise, we cut back on a variety of other services we have traditionally provided Federal
agencies, preservation partners and the public. Two positions lost were in the office that
produces publications and manages the Council's training program. This has had serious
repercussions. We have had to cut back on the development of guidance publications, including
333
Council FedNotes. a periodic publication aimed at bringing information on a variety of topics to
users of the Section 1 06 process. These are important components of our efforts to improve
agency preservation programs. FedNote topics from 1994 included Militar>' Base Realignment
and Closure and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Home Partnership
Reinvestment Program. We have been unable to produce any this year.
The reductions have also impacted the training program. The development of needed workshops
on Section 1 06 for State departments of transportation has ceased. Staff cuts and the extended
shutdown made it impossible to deliver materials to the GSA Interagency Training Center on
time for scheduled training courses. The ensuing rush printing increased GSA's cost by about
$10,000. More importantly for the long run, the loss of staff in this area has hindered our ability
to cultivate opportunities for new cooperative initiatives with other agencies and institutions.
This imdercuts our effort to build cost-effective reimbursable arrangements.
While no project reviews were actually delayed, those without time frames, such as the
development of programmatic agreements that reap long-term benefits in the saving of time and
money for both agencies and the Council, have taken longer to advance. Further development of
a programmatic agreement for the activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority has been delayed,
as has creation of State-based programmatic agreements for enhancement projects funded under
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act. Revision of the Council Section 106
regulations has also suffered as essential human resources were diverted to meet immediate
program needs related to our legally-mandated Section 106 obligations.
Project Delays
Question. To what extent were Federal or private projects delayed by the reduction in Council
staffmg? Which major projects do you know of that were delayed due to personnel shortages?
What is the economic impact on developers or the Federal government of these delays?
Answer. As stated in the answer to the previous question, we have sought in our response to
budget reductions to safeguard those personnel resources committed to carrying out our review
functions imder Section 106. We took this course of action to ensure that we remained capable
of meeting our legal obligations under the Section 106 regulations and to minimize impact to
other parties. Failure of the Council to meet these obligations could unfairly penalize Federal
agencies, local and State governments attempting to carry out projects with Federal assistance, or
private parties engaged in some form of development activities requiring Federal approvals or
licenses. Because of this programming decision we believe that the Council's budget reductions
have not to date been responsible for the delay of any projects. However, those activities without
specific regulatory timeframes, such as the development of programmatic agreements for multi-
state projects, may move ahead somewhat slower than they have. That is why our budget
justification shows an increase in the number of cases carried over into the following fiscal year.
334
Question. You indicate in your prepared testimony that level funding at the $2.5 million mark
would occasion a further 12% reduction in Council operations. Why would there be such a large
reduction given level funding?
Answer. In an agency as small as the Council, there are virtually no places to absorb the normal
increases in the cost of doing business. Salaries and benefits take up 81% of our budget and
fixed costs such as rent, administrative services from the Department of the Interior and
equipment maintenance diminish our discretionary funds even more. Accordingly, something
seemingly minor such as the 3% classified Federal pay raise scheduled for January, 1997, will
cost us $46,000. This translates into the annual salary of a Historic Preservation Specialist
position at the GS-12 level.
It is also critical to acknowledge that, because we had slashed non-personnel costs to the bone in
FY 1996 and met our deficit by reimbursables, we have no other funding categories to draw
upon. We believe that, while we were able to make ends meet by concluding the Army
agreement in FY 1 996, we caimot, and should not, base our core staff level on the hope that
future reimbursables may come along. Reimbursable agreements have good potential for
expanding our capabilities; they should not be relied on to fund our basic operation.
The other major factor affecting the impact of level or reduced funding is based on our response
to the FY 1 996 reduction. As noted, this year the Council has disproportionately slashed
spending in non-personnel areas that are essential to supporting the work of our members and
professional staff. We cannot continue to run the agency this way over the long run. If the
Congress decides to keep our funding level or reduce it even further, we will have to downsize
permanently to a level below 34 FTEs. As demonstrated in our FY 1997 justification for the $2.5
million level, we will reduce staff to a number that we can afford and still have the funds to meet
travel, printing, equipment, administrative services, maintenance, supplies and communication
costs properly associated with that staffing level. This would mean a reduction to 30 FTEs from
the current 34.
Personnel Cuts
Question. You state that labor and expert personnel are key to your functions. Why does this
level funding result in a 25% reduction in personnel? What priorities come before the need to
keep this persormel? Are you able to outsource some of your personnel needs?
Answer. The 25% reduction in personnel represents the reduction from our authorized level in
FY 1995 of 40 to our projection for FY 1997 at the $2.5 million level, 30 people. Frankly, there
is no priority that comes before maintaining our capable professional staff. The hard truth is that
we have nowhere else to cut now. All the discretionary expenditures have been cut to the bone-
travel, printing, equipment, maintenance, supplies and so on. We are unable to achieve any more
efficiencies without reducing staff. Our one experience with outsourcing is our ongoing
administrative services agreement with the Department of the Interior to provide certain
335
administrative services that are uneconomic to provide in-house. These include fiscal, personnel,
procurement and some other administrative services. We pay $1 17,000 annually, demonstrating
that outsourcing still requires the wherewithal to pay for the service. Our assessments show no
cost savings by going that route in other areas. We have some concern that we might actually be
better served by using the $11 7,000 to hire the in-house expertise to provide administrative
services.
Possible Savings
Question. What potential is there to achieve clerical and administrative savings by collocating
with other federal or planning agencies so you could centralize this support?
Answer. The staff reductions of FY 1995 fell most heavily on the clerical and administrative
staff. The Administrative Officer position (GS-15) was left vacant upon retirement of the
incumbent; two administrative support and clerical positions (GS-6 & 7) were eliminated, out of
a total of 6 in the entire agency. One professional staff position (GS-12) was left unfilled. While
we had not given serious thought to possible collocation until this question was posed, our
assessment is negative. There are few services we currently provide that could be shared. Our
current clerical staff is one receptionist, who handles the telephones for the Washington office as
well as providing clerical services to the bulk of the professional staff; an administrative assistant
who provides secretarial services to the Executive Directorate and supports the members; an
administrative assistant who handles publications and information support; an administrative
assistant who supports the training and education program; and a secretary for the Denver office.
As noted, we already draw on the Interior Department for administrative support in the fiscal,
procurement and personnel area. This is conducted on a reimbursable basis per Section 205 of
the Act. Renegotiation of the Interior charge, reflecting the downsizing of the Council, is
underway. We hope to realize some savings, possibly as much as $25,000.
Collocation could possibly provide us with more service, but it is doubtful that we could cut back
on the current support staff. Offsetting any savings would be the significant costs of relocating
the agency to a site where collocation could occur. This includes moving, telephone and
computer wiring, and the purchase and installation of fiimiture. Our current Washington office is
furnished with modular furniture that belongs to GSA and would remain in the Old Post Office
were we to move.
Question. Is there potential for a closer cooperative relationship, including administrative
services with either the National Park Service or the National Trust for Historic Preservation?
Answer. Section 205 of the Act says that financial and administrative services "shall be provided
the Council by the Department of the Interior." We believe that this language restricts our ability
to arrange for the provision of such services elsewhere. Were that not the case, it is possible that
336
we could transfer our arrangement for administrative services to another agency, such as the
National Park Service. However, it is doubtful that significant cost savings could be achieved,
unless the provider agency were to underwrite the cost of the service as a form of contribution to
the Council. We are not optimistic in the current fiscal climate that another agency would see fit
to do that. Likewise, the National Trust, besides being a non-Federal entity and therefore not
really able to meet all the needs of a small Federal agency such as ours in personnel, procurement
and fiscal matters, could not be expected to do the job for appreciably less than Interior currently
charges us.
We can be more successfial in specific program areas. For example, the Council is developing a
closer cooperative relationship with NPS in its educational efforts. Our respective areas of
expertise and jurisdiction complement each other in presenting a comprehensive course in the
full range of Federal historic preservation laws. In FY 1993-94, the Council and NPS jointly
developed a new and greatly needed course, "Introduction to Cultural Resource Management
Laws & Regulations." Course development was supported by funds from NPS and the
Department of Defense's Legacy Resource Management Program, with assistance from the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and NPS and Council staff. In FY
1995, the Coimcil and NPS jointly undertook revising and upgrading the course for DoD, which
provided funding. The Council and NPS are presently working to institutionalize the course
within DoD.
In addition, NPS and the Council, in partnership with the Coast Guard, jointly undertook
tailoring the new course in FY 1995 for the Coast Guard as part of a multi-faceted project to
initiate a comprehensive historic preservation program for the Coast Guard. Funding was
provided by the Coast Guard. Continuation is dependent upon Coast Guard funding priorities.
Likewise, NPS and the Council are presently seeking means to adapt this course for NPS
personnel, as well as for a general audience.
While this has been a successful ongoing partnership, the Council has contributed most of the
staff time and effort for developing curriculum and instructional materials and overall course
administration. NPS has been an essential partner, but the initiative added work for Council
staff. As with most of the Council's joint initiatives, such partnerships supplement rather than
replace Council resources and efforts, and provide ways for the Council to leverage assistance
and support for mutually beneficial goals.
Question. You have both an eastern and a western office of review. What cost savings could you
realize by combining these offices? Given modem means of communications, is there still a need
to maintain an office in the west? What communications system do you use to link offices?
Answer. About the only cost saving would be in the area of rent, which would be partially offset
by adding space in Washington. Employee costs, communication, other services, equipment and
supplies would remain about the same, with slight savings in some offset by increases in others.
For example, we might save on equipment maintenance contracts by having a single one in
337
Washington, but would spend more in telephone and express services to communicate with other
Federal offices located in Denver and currently within the local area of our Denver office. The
big increase would be in travel costs, as much business is now transacted with other agencies that
have regional offices in Denver or are located in cities more cheaply reached from Denver .
The Council has occasionally considered whether there are benefits to closing its one field office.
Each time, including our current assessment as we contemplated downsizing for FY 1996 and
beyond, we have determined that the level of service we can provide Section 1 06 users in the
West would suffer inordinately and outweigh any possible cost savings. Not only does the
Council's western office offer a geographic proximity to western SHPOs, Indian tribes. Federal
agencies and the public, but it also brings an important regional perspective to our work that
cannot be quantified in dollar terms.
The western office connects electronically to the Washington office using a communication
router providing a direct line between our two local area networks. Also, hardware and software
is currently being installed to connect to the Washington office and other Federal agencies via the
Internet. Fax communications are used on a daily basis.
Legal Services
Question. Why do you need to maintain your own legal services office? Given the substantial
experience of other Federal departments, such as the Department of the Interior, in historic
preservation issues, could you not utilize such services?
Answer. When the Council was given its independence from the National Park Service in 1 976,
one of the reasons for that was the problem of getting independent legal advice and counsel. At
that time, the Council received legal services from the Solicitor's Office, which was also
advising the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other Interior agencies
that had cases pending regularly before the Council for review. Using the legal services of the
Department, or for that matter, any other Federal agency, presents inherent conflicts of interest
that undermine the essential independence of the Council. For example, it is not unusual for the
Council's attorneys to be advancing before the Justice Department the Council position on a
lawsuit against another Federal agency. The Council's legal staff reflects the policy positions
taken by the independent membership of the Council, positions that sometimes are at odds with
an agency accused of violating Section 106; it is doubtful the Council could rely on legal counsel
from another agency to provide this kind of independent representation.
These conflicts become even more apparent in the day-to-day workings of the Council. Most
legal work occurs in the informal advice provided to staff on Section 106 case reviews and
reviewing agreements for legal sufficiency. This requires two abilities: first, a familiarity with
the workings of the Section 1 06 process; and, second, freedom from the duty to advise other
clients who also may be engaged in the Section 106 process, but on the other side of the table. It
is possible that skilled lawyers could be found, possibly even without the taint of conflicting
338
clients. However, it is doubtful there would be any cost savings and there is not a doubt that the
quality and timeliness of service to our staff and members would diminish greatly.
The Congress recognized the ftill range of this problem when it passed the 1976 amendments
creating the Council as an independent agency. Section 205(g) of the Act specifically enabled
the Council to have its own General Counsel, charged with advising the members and staff and
given the express authority to represent the Council in court. Our experience over the past
twenty years has confirmed the wisdom of that action.
Question. What was the cost of your Office of General Council in FY 1995 and what is
anticipated in FY 1996? What do you anticipate the cost would be in FY 1997 if you are funded
at (1 ) the budget request, (2) at the FY 1996 level, and (3) at a 10% reduction below the FY
1996 level?
The Office of General Counsel is made up of three individuals. However, it is important to
understand how their time is spent. First, the Assistant General Counsel (GS- 1 2) is part-time,
working 26 hours a week. She is planning to go on maternity leave in October, 1996. Second,
the General Counsel serves as the Deputy Executive Director, the number two management and
policy position in the agency. Roughly 70% of his time is devoted to senior executive matters for
the Council, including the lead role in budget formulation and fiscal oversight now that the
Administrative Officer position has been eliminated. Only one attorney, the Associate General
Counsel (GS-14), is devoted full-time to legal work.
Recognizing this, the cost (salaries and benefits) of staff devoted to legal matters in FY 1995 was
$1 74,000; in FY 1996, it is projected at $1 78,500, but this does not reflect the maternity leave. If
we were funded at the requested level of $2,888 million, we would anticipate the cost to remain
about the same. The $2.5 million level would necessitate a reduction, ranging from $35,000 to
$65,000, depending on exactly how legal staff was cut back. At $2.25 million (10% below FY
1996), we anticipate the higher figure would have to be cut, resulting in $1 13,500 allocated to
legal services.
Cuts of this nature would be particularly problematic in FY 1 997, as we plan to put revised
Section 106 regulations into place. Loss of legal staff would delay getting new regulations
published, as legal staff has led the regulation drafting effort. Also, our experience with the last
round of regulatory revision has shown us that many questions of application arise with new
regulatory provisions. If the Council can anticipate these and provide guidance and
interpretations in advance, we can ease the transition for all users and reduce potentially
significant costs borne by agencies and other users.
Question. What opportunities are there for you to receive legal assistance from outside sources,
either private or other Federal?
As noted previously, there are inherent difficulties in obtaining the necessary legal services from
outside the agency on a timely and cost-effective basis. Our work requires daily contact between
the professional staff, as well as the members, and the legal staff. Litigation, counseling on cases
and program improvement activities, ethics, legislative issues, the myriad requirements of such
Federal laws as the Freedom of Information Act and recently-enacted regulatory reform
legislation, and administrative law issues, such as procurement, persormel and reimbursements,
demand a legal expertise that is well versed in the unique attributes of the Council. Our
experience in the 1970s of relying on able but detached lawyers confirms the wisdom of the
NHPA in giving the Council this critical in-house capability.
Increased Efficiencies
Question. What specific steps are you undertaking to increase your efficiency in monitoring
Federal agency implementation of Section 106?
Answer. As the agency responsible for administration of the Section 106 process, the Council
has a primary responsibility to oversee the overall operation of the Section 106 process to ensure
that it is being carried out consistent with the purposes of the Act in a cost-effective and
reasonable manner. Under the Council's existing regulations this oversight is largely
accomplished through our review of individual cases submitted for Council review. These
regulations require that when a Federal agency reaches, in consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer, the threshold determination that an undertaking will have an effect to
historic properties then subsequent review by the Council is required. This case review enables
the Council to monitor how well each Federal agency is meeting the requirements of Section 106.
Likewise, the absence of cases from an agency informs us of potential problems with how it is
considering project effects to historic properties. As resources permit, we are then able to
address these program deficiencies through staff contacts, or more general training approaches.
Changes the Council is now proposing to its regulations will fundamentally alter the role of the
Council in individual case review. Under the proposed changes the requirement that an agency
submit to the Council for review a finding of "no adverse effect" has been eliminated. The
proposed revisions would also require only that an agency file a copy of a memorandum of
agreement it has executed with the State Historic Preservation Officer; no action on the
agreement by the Council will be required.
Thus, as the Council steps back from engagement in the more routine individual project reviews
new techniques will need to be developed to enable the Council to monitor how well the Section
106 process is operating. Frankly, at the present we do not have specific proposals on how this
will be achieved, and we are somewhat concerned about reduced funding levels impairing our
ability to operate an effective monitoring system that is premised on an entirely different
340
10
relationship between the Council and individual cases. We do anticipate that we will develop
methods by consulting with Federal agencies and SHPOs. We would hope to realize the
maximum benefit from recordkeeping and reporting systems already in place within a given
agency, thus avoiding the costs of establishing and maintaining a separate and duplicative
datakeeping system.
Question. What savings do you anticipate from increased efficiency at tracking the Section 1 06
process? Are you establishing a computer database, or modifying existing systems?
Answer. We anticipate increased efficiency for Federal agencies, and thus for the Section 1 06
system as a whole, through revisions to the Section 1 06 process that would shorten review times
and eliminate Council review for routine cases. By shifting the Council's monitoring strategy
away from individual case review, we will produce savings government-wide.
Our current Section 1 06 database records closed cases we have reviewed with minimal
information regarding agency, project, location, properties affected, and nature of closure (No
Adverse Effect determination. Memorandum of Agreement, etc.) In the future, as we adjust to
downsizing, revised regulations and new technology, we intend to put into place a system that
will provide fundamental information on pending and closed cases and allow us to track the
status of the case at the Council. Our ability to do this will, of course, depend on the availability
of adequate resources.
From a technical perspective, the Council is currently using Microsoft Access software on our
Local Area Network that connects all Council staff users. We anticipate adapting our current
case database system to meet the changing needs in accordance with changes in the Section 1 06
process and the further evolution of the Council's monitoring methodology. We believe our
current technology will support our needs for the foreseeable future, recognizing the rapid
advances being made in computer technology may present us with more efficient options if we
have the resources to invest in them.
Question. What computerized systems do you have for tracking your activities? Can these
systems be checked and utilized by the States, private concerns, or other Federal agencies? What
privacy measures would be needed on such systems?
Answer. As stated above, the current system records only closed Section 1 06 cases. It does not
provide current status information. When we shift to a revised system, one of its objectives will
be to provide up to date information on pending cases. At present, we have not given detailed
consideration to the design of such a system, other than establishing some general objectives.
We would not anticipate privacy problems, as the information included would be derived from
material in our files that is a matter of public record. It is unlikely that sensitive information of
concern from a proprietary, national security, archeological, or Native American perspective
would be included.
341
11
The case data base is only one aspect of useful information within the Council's possession. As
we move more toward Federal program improvement, the opportunity exists to organize and
share valuable information on Federal agency historic preservation programs. We anticipate that
in the course of working with Federal agency programs on a government-wide basis, the Council
could serve as a clearinghouse for others. We will soon have our Home Page on the Internet in
full operation. Initially, it will include information about the Council, the National Historic
Preservation Program, the Section 106 process, training and publications, policy papers and
studies, news and preservation information. It will be a valuable resource for the users of the
Section 106 process and the public, permitting access to essential information and documents to
promote greater understanding of the system.
Its long-term potential for assisting the Coimcil in improving the Federal preservation program is
even greater. For example, the Council's home page could feature a collection of information
about the historic preservation programs of any Federal agency wishing to participate. In addition
to identifying the agency's Federal Preservation Officer and other descriptive information about
the agency's historic preservation program or initiatives, each agency could submit reports from
its own data tracking systems, as appropriate for public dissemination and interest. With links to
other home pages, the opportunity exists to significantly improve the public's understanding of
and access to Federal preservation activities. The potential for cooperative activities with other
Federal agencies is substantial.
The critical ingredient to realizing the potential, of course, is adequate resources for both the
technology and the operation of a useful system.
Significant Properties
Question. Your testimony suggests that you may be able to incur savings by focusing more on
"truly significant" properties and projects. This suggests that some of your dealings are for
projects which are not truly significant. What consistency is there among the states at
determining the levels of significance for properties to achieve protection? What role does the
Council have or is this primarily a National Park Service function?
Answer. The meaning of the statement is that the current process often involves the Coimcil in
cases where the nature of the resource and the degree of impact does not really require Council
attention. These can be effectively resolved by consultation between the Federal agency and the
SHPO. Our regulatory revisions will address that situation. However, this should not be
construed to mean that the Council should concern itself with only properties of exceptional
significance. The Council seeks to ensure that the Section 106 process carries out the intent of
the NHPA, that the Federal government avoid unnecessary harm to historic properties held in
regard by local citizens. Accordingly, it is involved in many cases where the property in question
is one of purely local significance, but highly valued within the community as a prime element of
its heritage. The Council's role is to ensure that the Federal agency gives adequate consideration
to those values and the public concern about them.
342
12
In order to be considered in the Section 106 process, a property must have sufficient historic
significance to be listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
This fundamental requirement was designed to ensure that the review process is triggered only by
properties important enough to merit the resulting expenditure of public resources by Federal
agencies. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service, which has
established objective criteria against which properties are evaluated. If correctly applied, these
criteria ensure that only historic properties that merit consideration are addressed in the Section
106 process.
The process, though, is highly decentralized. Individual SHPOs make judgments on specific
properties by interpreting and applying the criteria. At a conference held last fall jointly by the
Council and the NPS, it appeared that there are differing views regarding the application of the
criteria, suggesting a lack of consistency among the States. While the Council does not play a
role in determining the eligibility of properties, we have observed through our administration of
the Section 1 06 process numerous instances in which Federal agencies and SHPOs accept
marginal properties as eligible for the National Register. This is an unfortunate byproduct of the
increasing decentralization of the National Historic Preservation Program.
Currently, we are engaged in an effort with the NPS and our State partners to address this issue.
We all agree that while the statutory basis for the National Register program is sound, steps need
to be taken to ensure greater consistency and predictability in judging properties to be eligible for
the National Register. We hope to jointly issue guidance with the NPS later this year to clarify
the application of the criteria in the Section 106 process and thereby improve consistency.
Preservation Coordination
Question. Given the proliferation of federal historic activities in the various agencies what
coordinating committees or bodies exist and what is the role of the Council in these?
Answer. The success of the National Historic Preservation Program is dependent on close
coordination among Federal agencies, our partners in State and local governments, and related
interests in the professional and private sectors. The Council itself was created to serve as a
means of coordinating the views and interests of important players in the program. In many
ways, its membership is a vehicle for cooperation and exchange. The members are appointed by
the President or assigned by statute, and represent a range of Federal, State, and professional
backgrounds. The twenty members are the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture; four other
Federal agency heads; the Architect of the Capitol; four members of the general public, one
Native American or Native Hawaiian, four historic preservation experts, and one governor and
one mayor; the chairman of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the president of the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.
Council members meet several times a year to discuss and consider the impact of Federal
activities on historic properties, formulate recommendations concerning administration of
343
13
Federal programs that impact historic properties, and develop Federal policy positions on historic
preservation issues. Often these meetings seek the input of others with an interest in the
preservation program. Over the past few years, we have met with Native Americans, industry
representatives and citizens across the Nation to get input on the issues before the members.
The Council is also a member of, and participates in, several committees and organizations
whose express purpose is to facilitate an exchange of ideas and communicate information
concerning historic preservation issues. A sampling of these include:
National Preservation Coordinating Council (NPCC) provides a forum for discussion and
consensus building among the nation's preservation organizations and agencies. Members of the
Coordinating Council are the American Institute of Architects, American Association for State
and Local History, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, National Alliance of
Statewide Preservation Organization, National Center for Preservation Law, National Conference
of State Historic Preservation Officers, National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of
History, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Action, Society for American
Archaeology, Society for Historic Archaeology, US Committee/International Council on
Monuments and Sites. The Council and National Park Service have been granted observer status
and attend monthly meetings of this group.
Federal Preservation Forum seeks to enhance the quality, efficiency, economy, and cooperation
among all aspects of federal historic preservation programs. These goals are achieved through
dialogue among the participants in the federal historic preservation program, information
exchange at meetings, tniining, and workshops. It also seeks to improve lines of communications
between field persormel implementing federal programs and policy-making personnel in
headquarters offices. The Council is a participating member of the Forum, and one Council staff
member is a past member of the Forum's Board of Directors.
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers; Standing Committee on the
Council. The Council attends and participates in the NCSHPO quarterly Board meetings and
annual meeting. Individual states can bring issues to the Council, request clarification of Coimcil
policy, and report on Federal agency activities in their states. The Council provides information
on new federal programs and policies that impact historic properties, and emerging trends within
existing federal programs.
National Task Force on Emergency Response. The Council is an active participant in the
National Task Force on Emergency Response, a partnership of Federal agencies, national service
organizations and private institutions representing a wide range of cultural and historic
preservation interests. The goals of the Task Force are to safeguard the nation's heritage from
natural disasters and other emergencies and to use its expertise to help the general public recover
from disasters. Members are committed to working together to meet future emergencies, with a
swift and coordinated response. The Council's Executive Director chairs the FEMA Liaison
Working Group. More detail on these activities is found in the answer to question 3 1 .
344
14
Transportation Research Board; Committee on Historic and Archaeological Preservation in
Transportation. The Council serves on this Committee with representatives of State
Departments of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Divisions, and private
consultants. The Committee provides a National forum for concerns about cultural resources in
transportation planning and implementation, and to advance state-of-the-art research and
evaluation of cultural resource practice and policies. A recent TRB study addressed
rehabilitation of historic bridges.
Task Force on Historic Urban Neighborhoods was organized to address ways to implement the
Council's policy statement on affordable housing and historic preservation. It is comprised of
the Council, the National Trust, NCSHPO, NPS and HUD. Using private foundation funding,
the Task Force will sponsor demonstration projects to serve as models for the use of preservation
techniques to advance affordable housing goals.
Council staff also serve on numerous Federal interagency committees and professional panels.
These include: the National Maritime Heritage Grants Advisory Committee; the FHWA
Committee for selection of innovative technological methods to rehabilitate and maintain the
historic quality of roads; DOI Historic Preservation Fund Grants to Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives
and Native Hawaiian; and various Federal awards committees and selection panels. These
bodies provide a forum for the exchange of information and ideas that reduce duplication of
effort and disseminate new techniques and technologies.
Failure To Agree
Question. You state that few projects ever fail to reach final agreement on historic preservation.
How many projects failed in FY 1995 and how many to date in FY 1996? What percent of
projects are delayed due to Council oversight and involvement?
Answer. Cases which have failed to reach agreement through consultation and thus require
comment by the Council membership have traditionally been an extremely small percentage of
the Council's caseload. In recent years this number has been further declining. In FY 1992 the
Council had 8 such cases, 2 in FY 1993, 2 again in FY 1994, and only one case requiring full
Council comment in FY 1995. For FY 1996, we are projecting 3 Council comment cases.
We do not have any quantitative figures that would enable us to provide a specific answer to the
second question. It is our sense, however, that no projects are delayed as a direct result of
Council oversight and involvement. The Council is constrained to act with specific timeframes
(usually 30 days) under the Section 106 regulations. If it fails to meet those deadlines, the
Federal agency is free to proceed, having afforded the Council its "reasonable opportimity to
comment."
Certainly there are projects that are delayed because of the need to complete the Section 1 06
process. In our experience these delays are most often the result of agencies, contrary to the
345
15
advice in our regulations, initiating the Section 106 process late—rather than early—in project
planning or failing to carry out the steps in a careful manner. In such instances, agencies may
find, perhaps as a project is moving toward construction, that historic resource issues remain
unresolved or members of the public may raise grievances that effects on certain historic
properties were not addressed. Having to resolve these issues late in project planning certainly
can result in project delays. Likewise, a Federal agency's failure to properly do the Section 106
process can result in court-imposed injunctions, delaying a project fiirther. Fortunately, these
cases are few, particularly in comparison to projects subject to other review requirements, such as
the National Environmental Policy Act.
Often, of course, such planning shortcomings by an agency are inadvertent or honest mistakes
and the agency or project sponsor could face serious problems if steps are not taken immediately
to bring the Section 106 process to closure. Other times, a project may simply be on a fast track,
requiring a quick response. Regardless, the Council always tries to be responsive to such
situations, often adjusting our priorities in order to be helpful. We believe, if the number and
sincerity of letters of appreciation we receive from agencies, local governments, and developers
are an accurate indicator, that our performance record in this regard is quite good. We cite as just
one example of our efforts the work we have recently done with the Corporation for Olympic
Development in Atlanta to accommodate the extremely tight schedule to prepare for the 1 996
Olympics this summer.
We would also like to add that a concern for timely completion of the Section 106 process is for
us, as well as agencies, a principal motivation in the development of programmatic agreements.
By stepping back from the press of project schedules and looking at an agency's programs, it is
frequently possible to develop programmatic agreements that help to better integrate
consideration of historic properties, and thus Section 106 concerns, into program
implementation. In our experience, programmatic agreements are extremely effective in ensuring
that needless project delays are avoided.
Section 106 Case Litigation
Question. What is, the level of court involvement in historic preservation cases? How many
projects were delayed by litigation during FY 1995? Does the Council or its staff participate in
litigation or testify in court on occasion?
Answer. On average, each year about a half dozen federally-funded or -permitted projects are
challenged in Federal court under Section 106 (and occasionally, under Section 1 10 as well).
The suits are brought by private citizens, Indian tribes, private historic preservation
organizations, or occasionally State Historic Preservation Officers. To our knowledge, two
projects were delayed in FY 1995 because of litigation.
The Council's legal staff provides litigation reports and other legal guidance about the NHPA to
the Department of Justice and to United States Attorneys' Offices. Often Council legal staff
346
16
works closely with Justice attorneys and counsel for defendant Federal agencies to craft the
government's answer to a complaint or prepare an appellate brief A frequent outcome of our
involvement is the Federal agency agreeing to take the steps necessary to complete the Section
106 process, thereby making the lawsuit moot and ensuring that the NHPA is followed.
On occasion, the Council's professional staff has provided affidavits for the record or, rarely,
been deposed during the discovery process about the extent of compliance with the NHPA in the
case. Very seldom have the staff ever been required to testify in court proceedings.
Training Activity
Question.. What training programs did you develop, implement or participate in during FY 1995
and FY 1996? What were the audiences and roughly how many persons did you serve?
Answer. Training programs developed, implemented, or participated in FY 1995 and FY 1996
include the following:
Continuing the program of introductory Section 106 courses (open enrollment). The Council
offered 18 introductory Section 106 courses in FY 1995 for 695 persons. To date, we
have held 6 such sessions in FY 1 996 for 222 persons, with 7 additional sessions
scheduled. We also expect to hold 2-3 additional "overflow" sessions this year, as most
of the 1996 classes have had waiting lists. In FY 1995, the audience was 54% Federal,
14% State, 7% local, 20% private sector, and 5% Native American. The FY 1996
audience to date has been 50% Federal (nearly 3/4 from the Departments of Agriculture,
Defense, Interior, and Transportation), 15% State (representing 13 States), 6% local, 23%
private sector, and 6% Native American (representing 8 tribes).
Continuing the program of advanced seminars on preparing agreement documents under Section
106 (open enrollment). The Council offered 6 advanced seminars in FY 1995 to 163
persons, with an audience that was 39% Federal, 30% State. 2% local, 26% private sector,
and 3% Native American. Three seminars have been held to date in FY 1996 for about
66 persons; the composition of the FY 1996 audience is likely to be close to that of FY
1995.
Upgrading and presenting a new course for Department of Defen.se officials. Building on an FY
1993-94 joint initiative with the National Park Service, DoD, and NCSHPO to develop
and pilot a new course on Federal cultural resource management laws and regulations, the
Council in FY 1995-96 revised and upgraded the new course and offered it twice for DoD
audiences. The Council took the lead in revising curriculum materials and coordination
and administration of the multi-agency initiative. Fifty-five DoD personnel attended
"Introduction to Cultural Resource Laws & Regulations" in 1995. This training initiative
has been an important component of the Council's efforts to help DoD personnel
understand DoD's preservation responsibilities and integrate preservation planning and
347
17
compliance into DoD's programs and procedures. The Council and NPS are working
with DoD to develop the means and venue to continue offering this course for DoD
officials.
Adapting and presenting a new course for the Coast Guard. As part of an effort to initiate a
comprehensive historic preservation program for the Coast Guard, the Council, in
partnership with NPS and NCSHPO, adapted the course on Federal cultural resource
management laws and regulations for the Coast Guard. Sixty-five Coast Guard persormel
attended two sessions. The Coast Guard is seeking means to support additional sessions
in FY 1997,
NPS has assessed e the course's suitability for Park personnel and is now working with
the Council to adapt and offer the course for NPS personnel. This is particularly needed
as NPS Section 1 06 responsibilities have become decentralized.
Special courses. The Council also provided special courses in 1995 and early 1996 for the BIA,
northern Indian tribes, and California's Department of Parks and Recreation. The 1995
course on Federal historic preservation law for Native Americans included 23 BIA
officials and 24 representatives of tribes in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa.
Twenty persons with the California Department of Parks and Recreation participated in a
special session of our introductory Section 106 course that incorporated information
about relevant California environmental statutes and tailored the curriculum for State
officials. Several requests for additional special courses are pending, and the Council
expects to add at least two, one for the Air Force and one for the NPS, to its summer
training schedule. All these courses were or will be conducted on a reimbursable basis.
Workshops. The Council, NPS, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers cosponsored a 2-day workshop in October 1995 for over 60 staff of State
Historic Preservation Offices. After assessing responses to a 1 994 Council survey of
SHPO needs and priorities that clearly identified a need for training that addressed
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and its relationship to the Section
106 process, the Council initiated the cooperative effort and played an active role in its
development and implementation.
In addition, the Council has on numerous occasions provided speakers for workshops,
seminars, and conferences sponsored by a broad range of agencies, organizations, and
institutions. The audiences are very diverse, including Federal, State, and local
government officials. Native Americans, industry organizations and citizen groups.
Examples include a one-day session in Vermont on Section 1 06 that drew 1 70 Federal,
State and local officials and consultants and participation in conferences held by the
Utilities Roundtable on Cultural Resources in Boise, a group of 30 electric companies
primarily in the Northwest and by the Eastern Mineral Law Foundation in Baltimore,
348
where 175 mining attorneys were present. This year's constraints on travel funding has
severely limited the Council's ability to provide guest speakers and instructors.
Question. What would be the training program activity for FY 1997 at (1) the requested funding
level, (2) the FY 1996 conference action level, and (3) a further 10% reduction below that FY
1996 level?
Answer. At $2,888,000, the Council could maintain a slightly reduced level of special courses
and "scheduled" introductory and advanced courses, as well as develop and coordinate the
considerable training and retraining activities that will be necessary to implement anticipated new
regulations.
At the $2,500,000 level of FY 1996, the Council would need to drastically reduce its program of
"scheduled" introductory and advanced courses and suspend availability of special courses in
order to develop and coordinate the training and retraining activities necessary to implement new
regulations. The timing of issuance of new regulations would affect exactly how far back normal
training activities would be cut. If they come late in the year, some regular courses might be
held.
A further reduction of 10% ($2,250,000), would at a minimum greatly reduce and more likely
postpone any "scheduled" courses for FY 1997, eliminate any possibility of special courses, and
seriously impede the Council's ability to provide sufficient and timely training and retraining to
implement new regulations.
Question. Have you developed or explored the use of computerized training modules to replace
or supplement your training programs?
Answer. Certainly, computerized or other "exportable" training modules would be valuable
supplements to our training program, especially for those who cannot travel, and we would very
much like to develop them and make them available. Developing and marketing such items,
though, requires a substantial up-front investment in staff time and technology. At present, the
Council lacks funds either to enable its education staff to acquire the training and expertise
necessary for developing computerized training modules, or to out source such development. We
have begun dialogue with the National Center for Preservation Training and Technology to
explore whatever resources or expertise the Center might be able to make available for
developing such modules. Indeed, one of the Council's expert members chairs the Center's
training committee, and is most interested in partnership initiatives that might support such
activity.
349
19
Internet Activity
Question. What is tlie progress of your Internet home page? If implemented, how many hits is it
getting per month? What time and expense is involved in establishing the home page and in
answering inquiries that it generates?
Answer. The Internet Home Page is in the final editorial review stages and we expect to be in
operation by the end of May. We have been regularly receiving requests from the public for our
home page site address and our agency e-mail addresses, but have not kept detailed records of
them.
We started working with a contractor last fall, carrying out a contract that had been put into place
in FY 1995. A staff working group, led by the director of our Information and Technology
Center has coordinated the effort. The contract was for $24,500 and covers hardware upgrades,
installation of an ISDN line, software installation, setup, programming, and training. The actual
development of the home page includes materials (mainly existing documents, but some
revisions of these are being done and some new materials are being written expressly for the
electronic medium), editing, layout and design. The contract cost includes one-year connection
costs for thirty accounts and home page hosting for the year. Longer term costs will include
monitoring by a Librarian, and regular maintenance and modification to keep materials up to date
and responsive to user needs.
It should be noted that the contract to develop the Council's home page, establish the connection
to the Internet, and provide e-mail for all staff was paid for with FY 1995 funds. No FY 1996
monies have been available for these purposes. Approximately $10,000 will be needed to
maintain our home page and Internet accounts for the office.
Question. To what extent might on-line services supplement or replace training and public
outreach efforts? What publication or training cost savings do you anticipate eventually getting
from enhanced on-line service?
Answer. Because the Council is only this spring coming fiilly on-line, it is too early to be able to
predict with any precision to what extent on-line services might supplement or replace our
training and public outreach efforts. We anticipate that on-line services may partially substitute
for and supplement, but not replace, existing training and public outreach efforts. Certainly, the
on-line services will make information about the Council, as well as many of the Council's
publications and educational materials, available to a lot of people, streamline transmittal of
information to those who have access to the Internet, and reduce some of our costs. We will
eventually be able to realize some savings on postage and handling and personal telephone
contact time. Making documents available on-line will allow us to reduce print runs. We are
particularly optimistic about using on-line services to provide ready access to Section 1 06
informational material.
350
20
Training is somewhat different. On-line access may slightly reduce the number of persons who
need to attend formal training courses, although it is not yet clear how effectively we can use on-
line services for training purposes. The number of persons and offices with such access is
presently small enough (current estimates run about 5%) that we are unlikely to realize many
such savings in FY 1997. Also, although on-line capabilities present many possibilities for
transmitting information to distant users and constituents, we are not presently aware of any on-
line means of replacing the kind of multi-person dialogue, interaction, and group applications
that are possible in a classroom.
As mentioned earlier, we plan to explore some distant training options that could include
computerized modules, on-line services, or other possible technologies that might be pursued in
cooperation with other agencies or organizations. Academic institutions that participate in the
National Council on Preservation Education, as well as the National Park Service-affiliated
National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, represent possible partners in such
endeavors.
Question. What involvement do you have in Geographic Information Systems? What additional
hardware, software, or training needs do you anticipate in the GIS arena during FY 1997 and FY
1998?
Answer. We have no direct involvement in either the use or development of Geographic
Information Systems, although we believe GIS can be extremely useful for Federal agencies and
SHPOs locating historic properties and using that information in Section 106 plaiming. Our
experience with GIS has been limited to examining its potential application by individual
agencies for planning and management purposes at Federal facilities or on Federal lands, usually
under a specific Programmatic Agreement. This is the kind of Federal program improvement
activity that we would like to have the resources to pursue. It involves cooperation with NPS and
other agencies, but the Council would bring its unique perspective as administrator of the Section
106 process and have the capability to widely disseminate information on the use of GIS and
related technologies for preservation planning. If the budget picture brightens for FY 1997 and
beyond, we could invest some time assessing how best to use this technology and what we would
need to commit to its application.
Question. Are you involved in the Federal Geographic Data Committee? Are you helping to
develop national standards for geographic data regarding historic properties or landscapes?
Answer. The recordation and retrieval of information regarding the location of historic
properties is of primary importance to users of the Section 106 process. As such, the Council has
a great interest in systems that can be used to improve the use of this information. However, it is
primarily the responsibility of the National Park Service, in its role as administrator of the
National Register and State survey requirements, to address these issues. We have worked with
them in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
351
21
With this said, we are not a member of the Federal Geographic Data Committee, nor have we
been directly involved in its work on national standards for the comparability of geographic data.
Frankly, it is not an area where we had chosen to expend our resources. However, we are well
aware of the potential pitfalls of collecting geographic information for GIS uses, and of
computer-assisted land-use planning that approaches its task with varying scales and
incomparable data elements. As GIS and related technology becomes more widely used for land-
use and resource management planning for purposes like Section 1 06 review, it would naturally
become more important for information to be collected, presented, and interpreted in comparable
ways between jurisdictions, from agency to agency, and across different levels of government.
Better ways to include and use information from historic maps and other archival sources for
current planning needs also need to be developed. Cost-effectiveness argues for more
intergovernmental attention to these approaches, and we will attempt to stay attuned to these
developments and their implications for improving historic resource planning to the extent that
our own fiscal and staffing resources allow.
We have worked with the NPS on related activities that bear more directly on the Section 1 06
process. We have periodically joined in discussions on its National Archeological Data Base ,
which is a computerized listing of archeological inventory projects and some of the results of
those inventories, as well as NPS' development of standards for identifying and evaluating
significant cultural landscapes. We have also participated in forums with the Corps of Engineers,
BLM, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Forest Service, and the Army on their
uses of GIS and related technology, and discussed these same issues informally with State
Historic Preservation Officers as such systems might be used for Section 1 06 and related
planning purposes. On occasion, individual Council staff have been asked to participate in
professional peer review of methodological and technical publications and guidelines being
developed by individual agencies on these issues.
Council Members
Question. Council members have sjjecial expertise and backgrounds in historic preservation.
Are they able to provide objective solutions for the greater public good even when that may
cause reductions in historic preservation?
Answer. The unique attribute of the Council is the diversity of views and experience the
members bring to the table. This was the original intent of the National Historic Preservation
Act. The Council was not to be a single-issue, preservation advocacy group. Rather, it was
designed to balance the often competing interests of Federal program agencies, preservation
experts and advocates such as the National Trust, State and local government, Native Americans
and just plain citizens. Over its history, the Council has sought to find and advance the public
interest in historic preservation. This does not mean preservation at all costs. It means finding
the public benefit in a particular preservation issue, measuring the costs, financial and social, and
making recommendations that acknowledge the important, but not overarching, role the
preservation of our heritage plays in today's society.
OA-T^ 1 e\c
352
22
Two examples demonstrate this characteristic and its value to the National Historic Preservation
Program. The first involves Council concern that efforts to rebuild communities and provide
affordable housing have failed to use preservation techniques to meet these goals and have often
worked at cross purposes with local preservation initiatives. Building on staff work and initial
Council recommendations to HUD in FY 1994, in FY 1995 Council members adopted a major
policy statement to guide planning and review of federally-funded housing projects, in order to
totally revamp and streamline review and procedural handling of affordable housing projects.
The strategy is intended to improve the relationship between historic preservation and housing
needs, by introducing more flexibility to the application of historic preservation standards so that
housing rehabilitation becomes less costly and the product is more in keeping with contemporary
lifestyles of residents. Eventually, plans call for broad dissemination of information on
mechanisms for streamlined review to target communities, and tailoring of the approach to such
areas as designated Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities, in partnership with HUD,
SHPOs, and the affected communities. We are pleased to note that the policy statement and its
related implementation strategies are being increasingly adopted and used by a growing number
of communities throughout the country, who are eager to make historic preservation work to help
meet their affordable housing needs.
The second example is the current rewriting of the Council's Section 106 regulations. These
guide the involvement of Federal agencies. State, tribal and local governments, applicants, and
the public when the effects of Federal actions on historic properties are assessed and dealt with.
The path to the draft now being prepared for public comment has been marked by sharp
differences of opinion regarding the nature and extent of a revised Section 106 process. In public
meetings and through written comment on questionnaires and earlier proposals, the Council
received a tremendous amount of input and opinion. Federal agencies argued for greater
autonomy in meeting Section 106 obligations. State Historic Preservation Officers expressed
concern about a diminishing Council presence in the process and increasing burdens on their
offices. Native Americans voiced objections to a greater role for SHPOs and less access to the
Council. Industry and business asked for a bigger role in the process and a reduction in the
requirements for considering historic properties. Local government sought a place at the Section
106 table. Preservation professionals and citizen groups decried anything that could be construed
as a reduction of the Council's, and the Federal government's, commitment to preserving historic
properties.
As policy makers, the Council members tackled these tough issues. Through meetings of the
members' Task Force on Regulations and at sessions of the full Council, a consensus emerged
among the various members on how to strike a balance among all these competing views. The
position, conveyed to the staff in policy direction and now embodied in the current draft,
reflected the middle ground among the parties, carefully refined and crafted to carry out the
policies and purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act. The resulting proposal will not
be a "preservation at all costs" solution. However, it will reflect the thoughtful consideration of
353
23
the full range of forces and players that shape historic preservation decisions involving Federal
undertakings. Efficiency will be balanced with public access and ensuring the rights of various
parties to participate in Federal decisionmaking.
The reason that this balanced approach will prevail can be traced directly to the composition of
the Council membership. It lies not just in having members with preservation expertise and
backgrounds. It lies in the mix of those members with Federal agency leaders, their State and
local counterparts and general public members. This attribute has served the Council and the
National Historic Preservation Program well for 30 years.
State Involvement
Question. Which States did you have the most involvement with in FY 1995 and FY 1996? Are
there States that are not anxious to have Council involvement?
Answer. The Coimcil enjoys involvement with virtually all States and their respective State
Historic Preservation Offices through conduct of Section 1 06 reviews. States with the largest
annua] number of Section 106 reviews include Pennsylvania, Virginia, California, Michigan,
Illinois, New Jersey, and Georgia. When viewing these numbers it is important to note that
Council/State involvement is roughly proportionate to a State's level of federally-assisted
activity; it is also determined by how well Federal agencies conform to their Section 106
obligations. Some agencies, or certain regional or area offices, are less than conscientious about
following the procedures. As a result, cases the Council should be notified of and involved in are
often not brought to our attention.
Any State not anxious to have Council involvement has always had the option found in Section
800.7 of our regulations which allows states to substitute a State review process for the
procedures contained in the Council's regulations. New Mexico is the only State to exercise this
option, and it provides for Council involvement should the SHPO reach an impasse in
negotiations with a federal agency.
A good indicator of SHPO attitudes towards the Council can be found in their written comments
on our October, 1994, draft of revisions to the Section 106 regulations. Of 43 commenting
SHPOs, 37 were supportive of the draft, finding it responsive to recent amendments to NHPA.
One frequent SHPO observation regarding our draft regulations was "removal of Council from
meaningful review of individual Agency undertakings will leave SHPOs vulnerable to local
political pressures within the context of Federal law." Two SHPOs would rather keep the
existing regulations, and another wanted to shift more responsibility back to the Federal agencies.
Three foimd the draft regulations overly burdensome and advocated major revisions.
This high proportion of SHPO concern was echoed in comments on the July, 1995, informal
discussion draft, which revamped the October draft substantially. Again, while SHPOs wanted
to be able to reach agreements bilaterally with Federal agencies, a sizable majority still felt it was
354
24
essential that the Council review the outcomes. This was felt necessary to ensure accountability
among Federal agencies, to promote national consistency and to prevent undue political pressure
being placed on SHPOs.
While SHPOs are generally supportive of less Council involvement in 'routine' cases, the
overwhelming majority of SHPOs welcome the Council's involvement, particularly in complex,
controversial cases. Our current working draft of regulatory revisions respects this sentiment and
significantly reduces the Council's involvement in project review while retaining a role in those
cases where it is truly needed.
Federal Involvement
Question. Which Federal agencies did you have the most involvement with in FY 1995 and FY
1996? Are there Federal agencies that are not anxious to have Council involvement?
Answer. Agencies with which the Council had the most involvement during FY 1995 and FY
1996 include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HOME, Hope III, Section 8
and Community Development Block Grant programs carried out by local governments), the
Federal Highway Administration, the Corps of Engineers (civil works construction and Section
10/404 permitting), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (hydropower relicensing and
natural gas pipeline certification), the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service,
the General Services Administration, the Forest Service, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the Resolution Trust Corporation/Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the
Department of the Army, the Air Force, and the Department of the Navy.
Asking what agencies "are not anxious to have Council involvement" might be better stated as
"What agencies would like more autonomy over their cultural resource decisionmaking?" These
fall into two categories. The first would be those agencies that wish to better integrate Section
106 with their normal planning processes, recognizing the particular attributes of their own
programs. This would lead to less involvement by the Council, or the SHPO for that matter,
involved in their routine Section 106 compliance.
Some agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the National
Park Service, are making progress internalizing cultural resource management practices. Other
agencies are generally satisfied with the regular Section 106 process, but would like to resolve
most cases at the State level. These agencies customarily act through a capable State counterpart
agency and the Federal agency objective is to encourage the State agencies to resolve Section 1 06
issues with the SHPO. The leading example here would be the Federal Highway Administration,
which encourages State transportation and highway departments to work with SHPOs.
Both of these approaches are desirable objectives for an agency's Section 1 10 program and ones
that the Council supports. To meet the purposes of the NHPA, such agencies will have to adopt
sound procedures, maintain suitable in-house expertise and demonstrate a commitment to give
355
25
historic preservation concerns their proper due in agency decisionmaking. The Council's role in
these situations is threefold; first, it works with the agencies to assist them in establishing
internal processes that achieve their goals while honoring the principles and requirements of the
NHPA; after such procedures are in place, it continues to be involved in those cases where thorny
problems resist resolution or the outside advice of the Council is sought by the agency; and
finally, the Council, through its oversight role for the Section 106 process, monitors performance
to ensure that the agency's process continues to meet the requirements of the NHPA..
There is another group of agencies that are not "anxious" to have the Council involved: the
agencies that just do not want to be troubled with Section 106 and the Council. Not surprisingly,
such agencies have not expressed this opinion to us. There are certainly some Federal agencies
fi-om which we seldom hear. While this silence could be interpreted as a result of active policies
to exclude the Council from involvement, it more likely reflects a poor understanding of the
agency's legal obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Question. Can you tell us which agencies you will be focusing on in 1997?
Answer. This answer is highly dependent on completion of revisions to the Section 1 06
regulations, interest on the part of particular agencies to work with us to develop better internal
procedures, the level of the Council's FY 1997 appropriation, and the ability of those agencies to
reimburse the Council for its efforts in this regard. As noted, program improvement activities are
discretionary for the Council, so the brunt of any budgetary reductions will have to fall there.
To offset the decline in Council ftinding, we expect to continue the arrangements that we have
begun with the Army under an interagency agreement this year, and are pursuing discussions
with other Federal land managers (notably, BLM and the Forest Service) about nationwide
programmatic agreements or similar mechanisms to better integrate historic preservation needs
into their ongoing mission activities. If these materialize, those agencies will be priorities for FY
1997.
There are a number of other agencies that could benefit from review of their programs and
recommendations for improvement, as well as training and guidance tailored to their program
needs, but we cannot predict at this time which such agencies might be willing cooperators.
Question.. Which Federal agencies have the most well-developed programs for historic
preservation?
Answer. We recently prepared a lengthy answer to this question for the Subconunittee on
National Parks and Public Lands of the House Resources Committee. A copy of that response,
number one of the questions, has been provided to you. Rather than reprint that in its entirety
here, we would refer you to it as the answer to this question.
356
26
Question. What involvement did you have during the past 2 years in disaster assistance and
disaster-related projects?
Answer. The Council has worked closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), providing advice and assistance when historic properties are threatened or damaged by
disasters. The Council and FEMA have developed a series of innovative Programmatic
Agreements (PAs) that have enabled FEMA to meet historic preservation responsibilities for its
Disaster Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs. Successful implementation
of individual PAs following the Midwest Floods of 1993 and the Northridge Earthquake of 1994
have led to the joint development of a model PA now available to States to provide reasoned and
prompt consideration of historic properties in the aftermath of presidentially-declared disasters.
Versions of the PAs have been applied on a case by case basis to meet the needs of each State
and the circumstances associated with each disaster. During the past two years, agreements have
been developed for Georgia, Texas, Missouri, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Florida, Oregon,
Idaho, Washington, California and Pennsylvania. These and similar PAs executed prior to FY
1995 include provisions to exclude specific routine activities from Section 106 review and
streamline project evaluation during various phases of emergency response. They recognize the
key role of the SHPO and earmark funds so the SHPO can actively help FEMA save a devastated
community's historic landmarks. The agreements encourage early coordination among FEMA,
the SHPO and State Emergency Management Office to exchange information regarding historic
properties in the disaster area and allow SHPO participation in initial recovery efforts.
The PAs recognize FEMA's responsibility to perform emergency actions in response to an
immediate threat to human life or property and specifically allow FEMA to conduct such
activities without the SHPO or Council review. To avoid unnecessary demolitions, however, the
PAs provide an expedited review process for emergency actions immediately following the
disaster. They also set out procedures for the review of non-emergency stabilization, demolition,
and repair activities. In recognition of the SHPO's expertise and FEMA's commitment to
consider historic preservation concerns, the PAs waive Council reviews on routine projects.
The Council works regularly with FEMA in other areas. The Council's Executive Director chairs
the FEMA Liaison Working Group of the National Task Force on Emergency Response and
participates in other activities of the Task Force as requested by FEMA. The Council and FEMA
are also pursuing a nationwide approach to Section 106 with the FEMA Historic Preservation
Consultation Forum, a vehicle for involving each and every FEMA Directorate in historic
preservation issues, and FEMA's Federal Preservation Officer. The goal is to establish a
National system overseen by FEMA and the Council, relying on State Disaster Plans for a state-
based approach to historic preservation concerns following a disaster.
357
27
At FEMA's request, Council staff have served as instructors for agency training sessions at their
training facility in Emmitsburg, Maryland in 1995, and have been invited to do so again in 1996.
In addition, training has been provided on several occasions at FEMA's Northridge Disaster Field
Office.
The success of programmatic agreements in a number of states recently prompted unanimous
passage of a Resolution of Thanks to FEMA by the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers. FEMA's appreciation for the Council's assistance was, in turn, expressed
by letter to the Council's Chairman. FEMA's reiteration of its firm commitment to their
partnership with the Council and SHPOs, stands as testimony to that partnership's importance to
Federal disaster recovery policies that recognize the public's appreciation for their historic
communities.
Not all disaster work has been with FEMA. For example, the Coimcil worked closely with the
Oklahoma SHPO to develop a Programmatic Agreement for the City of Oklahoma City's
Community Development Block Grant Emergency Supplemental Fund. This fiind was
established for projects for the recovery from the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building. Congress has appropriated $39 million and additional sums of State, local, and private
monies will be committed. The Agreement provides an expedited process for identifying
historic properties and exempts numerous projects from review by the SHPO or Council. The
SHPO has reviewed nearly 425 eligibility determinations under the Agreement and is confident
that the Agreement will greatly assist the recovery of downtown Oklahoma City.
Base Closure
Question. What is your on-going involvement in military base closures? What is the cost of this
involvement? Is there an opportunity for reimbursement for this work?
Answer. The Council has been working closely with the Army to develop a comprehensive
approach to base closures that includes a prototype programmatic agreement, implementing
guidance, training for Army staff, and community outreach. The agreement will expedite the
consultation process, ensure that historic properties do not deteriorate, and provide recipients
with reasonable flexibility in marketing and reusing historic properties. Subsequent guidance
and training will assist the Army in maximizing benefits from the agreement. Community
outreach, intended to inform and empower communities to participate in the Section 1 06 process
and to fiilly realize the redevelopment potential for military historic properties, has included
presentations at conferences sponsored by the Army and DoD's Office of Economic Adjustment
and training and reference material for the DoD Base Transition Office.
These ongoing efforts have contributed to the timely and successful resolution of historic
preservation issues for Army base closures. Much of the draft language has already been
included in agreements. Published materials have helped both Army staff and communities in
understanding historic preservation issues. The consultation process, even where standard
358
28
resolutions have been applied, has provided a forum for interested parties, especially
communities and other local groups, to express their views. Recent examples of successful
resolutions that accommodate viable reuse of historic properties and the need of local
communities include Fort Des Moines, lA, Fort Sheridan, IL, Fort Devens, MA, Fort Ben
Harrison, IN, and Lexington Army Depot, KY.
The Council has invested staff time and effort over the past two years to address military base
closures. We estimate the expense of providing this assistance to be about $125,000. To enable
us to make a meaningful contribution to this important Federal program we have researched the
base closure process, reviewed DoD regulations, policies, and guidance, consulted with DoD and
Army offices, and consulted with communities and private groups such as the National
Association of Installation Developers. Thus, we have developed a thorough working knowledge
of the Base Realignment and Closure Program (BRAC) and integrated this with our experience
with historic preservation in Federal programs such as community development to develop
sensible solutions that benefit both the Army and the local communities affected by base
closures.
Our assistance to the Army and our successful resolution of a number of significant Army BRAC
actions has been largely responsible for our success in negotiating an Interagency Agreement
with the Army. Under this agreement, the Army provides the Council with full reimbursement
for staff time and expenses for base closure assistance and a broad range of other historic
preservation program assistance to the Army
Technical Preservtion Solutions
Question. What is the importance and value of technical solutions to historic preservation? What
are you doing to enhance technology and applications in preservation?
Answer. New technical solutions to preservation problems can increase efficiency and
effectiveness, provide a more cost-effective (and therefore more attractive and "saleable")
solution to balancing preservation with other needs, and result in net cost-savings over the long-
term. As noted in the responses to earlier questions, Council staff keep abreast of advances in
technology and their application to historic preservation problems in their particular disciplines,
and advocate use of such technologies when appropriate in guidance, Section 1 06 consultation,
and agreement documents. Staff members have been involved on a professional basis in
researching and advising on such technical applications as sampling and predictive modeling for
identification of archaeological resources, energy efficiency studies for historic buildings,
window repair and replacement, lead-based paint abatement, birdproofing, bridge repair and
replacement standards, remote sensing and non-invasive site investigation procedures, and a
variety of other technical approaches and tools.
We work closely with such research and development organizations as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), the various technical
359
29
branches of the National Park Service, and the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and stay
attuned to programs and projects of the National Center for Preservation Technology and
Training (NCPTT). The unique perspective the Council brings to these endeavors is a real-world
understanding of how certain technical solutions relate to solving problems arising in the Section
106 process and the competing factors of cost, viability and project demands.
Cooperative Agreements
Question. You describe an important agency cooperative agreement being established with the
BLM. Given the substantially similar missions and lands administered between the ELM and the
USA-Forest Service, have you considered including the Forest Service in this agreement with the
BLM?
Answer. We have had discussions with both the Forest Service and BLM about cooperative
activities. However, our understanding is that currently both the Forest Service and BLM are
considering rather different approaches to addressing their historic preservation program needs,
and that the Forest Service is placing a high priority on developing internal policy and guidance
documents. Likewise, any final agreement reached with either agency will reflect the unique
internal structure, policies and procedures that distinguish the two agencies. The principles of
such arrangements will certainly be similar, but application through the respective administrative
structures of the two agencies will require differences. Of course, due to the overlapping
interests and commonalities of land and resource management mandates and needs, particularly
in the western states, we will be working with both agencies in parallel fashion
Question. At what point of Federal program development is the need for Coimcil assistance,
involvement, or monitoring reduced to the point where the Council is better served by
concentrating on other higher priority agencies?
Answer. Given the scope of Federal programs and the diversity of historic preservation
challenges they face and given the Council's very limited fiscal resources, the Council must
exercise great care in how it allocates its assistance to Federal agencies. Without doing so, it is
quite likely that the Council could be consumed by the needs of a few Federal programs at the
risk of being unable to assist others. To help ensure maximum success for our investment of
time and resources, our program initiatives are guided by a number of priority-setting principles,
e.g., the likelihood of substantial impacts to historic properties fi-om a program, the degree of
agency commitment to improvement, the adequacy of agency resources to ensure that
improvements are carried out, the effect of our involvement, the priority of the program as seen
by State Historic Preservation Officers, and the availability of Council staff resources to
complete the initiative. An additional issue, necessitated by our reduced budgetary resources is
whether or not the agency is able to reimburse the Council for expenses it may incur.
Unfortunately, this latter factor may outweigh many of the preceding.
360
30
Of course, circumstances for each Federal program are different and making judgments regarding
beginning or terminating our involvement are usually difficult. There are, however, some
benchmarks that are useful. For example, the successful development of a programmatic
agreement is often the occasion for the Council to remove itself from active engagement in a
situation. The programmatic agreement sets into place a system that the agency can then carry
out; only in the need to resolve a disagreement or amend the programmatic agreement is further
involvement b\' the Council necessary. It should also be noted that much of the assistance the
Council provides to agencies is of an informal nature; responding to specific issues, proving
suggestions, and sharing information about how similar issues have been handled by other
Federal agencies, what seems to work and what doesn't.
Question. Could monitoring, oversight and technical assistance functions be implemented by
one of the more advanced Federal agencies? What legislative changes would be needed? What
would be the fiscal and service implications of such a change?
Answer. In 1976, the Congress recognized that effective oversight of the National Historic
Preservation Program really required an independent agency that had historic preservation as its
sole responsibility. The Council's previous status of being staffed by the National Park Service
had led to conflicts of interest when the Council sought to review actions taken by the Park
Service affecting historic properties.
Twenty years of evolution of the program has not changed that fundamental problem. It will not
work to entrust project and program oversight to an agency or department that has its primary
mission something else, whether it is national defense, building highways or managing the
National Park System. Preservation will always take a back seat, in resource commitment and in
policy decisions, to the agency's primary mission. One need only look at the way agency
commitments of resources to carrying out preservation obligations has diminished as budgets
have shrunk to realize that this Avill always be viewed as a secondary responsibility.
We cannot responsibly suggest legislative language to implement such changes.
Federal Leadership
Question. Now that the values of historic preservation are widely recognized, why should the
Federal government still desire to be the leader in the movement?
Answer. While many of the values of historic preservation are recognized, the best, most
effective, and most efficient ways to protect and enhance those values in the public interest are
not necessarily obvious or widely recognized. The Federal government is one player in the
partnership that has evolved with States, localities, Indian tribes, and the private sector to address
these needs. As a principal owner, manager, and steward of the Nation's lands and resources, as
a highly visible presence (through post offices, courthouses, national parks and forests, military
installations, and other facilities) in local communities, and as a principal planner and shaper
361
31
(through housing, transportation and development funding and environmental and economic
permitting) of the Nation's land-use patterns, the Federal government's responsibility to historic
preservation and the public interest remains as it was so clearly articulated by the Congress in the
preamble to the National Historic Preservation Act thirty years ago.
Preservation Benefits and Limits
Question. What are some of the economic benefits of preservation?
Answer. The benefits are myriad and permeate all segments of the American economy.
Numerous lengthy studies have been done on just certain aspects; we would be pleased to
provide a bibliography if the Committee so desires. The following brief discussion highlights
several broad categories of economic benefits derived fi-om historic preservation.
Cost-effectiveness of managing and maintaining federally-owned property. Federal agencies
have an affirmative responsibility under Section 1 10(a)(1) of NHPA to preserve and use historic
buildings and the Council facilitates their realization of that mandate. Particular success has
been achieved with the Department of Defense that has resulted in substantial savings to the
Federal government. For example, Department of Defense studies have found rehabilitation
costs to be about one quarter to one third of replacement costs. Also, the process of
rehabilitating a historic facility consiunes less energy and resources than new construction.
Generation of investment through Federal tax incentives. Federal tax law offers a 20% tax credit
for the rehabilitation of historic buildings either listed on the National Register of Historic Places
of those certified as contributing to a state or local registered historic district. The credits are
dollar-for-dollar reductions of taxes owed. Since 1976, despite a significant reduction in the tax
benefits in 1986, over 25,000 buildings have been preserved using the historic preservation tax
credit. This represents an investment of over $16 billion in our nation's historic resources that
yield phenomenal financial benefits to all segments of the economy. These advantages are
illustrated in the comparison of rehabilitation and new construction that follows.
Rehabilitation vs. new construction. When comparing the impact of $ 1 million in rehabilitation
to $1 million in new construction, it is foimd rehabilitation provides that (1) $120,000 more will
initially stay in the community (2) five to nine more construction jobs will be created (3) 4.7 new
jobs will be created elsewhere (4) $34,000 more retail sales will be realized in the community (5)
$107,000 more in household incomes will be created.
There is a typical cost savings of about 4% to rehabilitate than to build new with no demolition.
However, if the old building is razed and replaced with a new one, the cost savings can reach
16%.
362
32
Job creation and other economic development through heritage tourism. Heritage tourism is one
of the fastest growing segments of what is becoming the worlds largest industry; the Travel
Industry. One-third of all vacationing families in the United States visit historic sites. The
heritage traveler visits one-half day longer and spends $62 more per day than other tourists. In
addition to obvious economic benefits to local business, between 10% and 20% of every dollar
spent by the heritage tourist goes into the coffers of state and local governments.
Local economic development. There are many examples of historic preservation assisting in
economic revitalization of towns, cities, and rural areas, and improving the quality of life for
local residents. One such example that is supported by local-private partnership is The Main
Street Program administered by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Main Street
Program has involved more than 1,100 towns, cities and neighborhoods in 41 states since 1980.
In addition, hundreds of communities have independently adopted the Main Street strategy for
revitalizing their commercial core. Cumulatively, these communities have realized (1) more than
$27 of new investment for every $1 spent to support the local Main Street program (2) more than
$5 billion has been reinvested in physical improvements (3) over 36,000 building rehabilitation
projects have been completed (4) a net gain of more than 102,000 new jobs (5) a net gain of
more than 28,000 new businesses.
Question. There are occasional reports of historic preservation being required of unwitting
property owners who seek to rehabilitate or modernize their properties but are prevented by
persons who are accustomed to seeing the property the way it is. What are some of the limits to
preservation? At what point does something no longer new become historic and when is it junk?
Answer. At the outset, let us emphasize that the Section 106 process, or, for that matter, any
other provision of Federal law, cannot prevent a property owner from altering or demolishing a
historic property. The NHPA extends only to Federal actions and can only influence, not direct,
a FederaJ agency decision that might affect privately-owned historic properties. This is a critical
and often misunderstood aspect of the Federal historic preservation program. It leads to much
unfounded criticism of Section 106, the National Register and the Council.
When we hear these reports, most of the time the problems stem from a local jurisdiction
establishing and enforcing a local ordinance that is based on locally established standards, using
criteria that are applied too inflexibly by local historic preservation review boards, or have arisen
because of poor communication with local property owners or die desires of local property
owners to do whatever they want on their properties no matter how it may affect their neighbors'
interests. Use of clearly established standards, agreed-upon criteria, a recognized process, and
adequate public involvement, as well as public education, can alleviate many of these conflicts.
In the national preservation program, the National Register criteria and evaluation guidelines
provide a yardstick to separate historic resources from "junk" when properly applied. Historic
resources must not only have demonstrated significance in American history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, or culture; they must possess integrity of design, setting, materials.
363
33
workmanship, feeling, and association, and they must normally be at least 50 years old. Federal
agencies, SHPOs and local governments carrying out Federal legal responsibilities use these
criteria daily to evalxiate the eligibility of properties for the National Register. Eligibility
determinations follow a set procedure prescribed by Council and NPS regulations and result in
decisions whether a particular property is given consideration in the Section 106 process.
There are occasions, albeit rare, where the criteria are not properly applied . This is an
unavoidable side-effect of the generally desirable trend of decentralization in the National
Historic Preservation Program. It must be noted that mechanisms exist for those who feel that a
wrong decision has been made. However, the proper recourse is not always known by the party
in question and the result is the addition of another "horror story" about misguided government
programs and bureaucratic misdeeds.
Section 106 Regulations
Question. What is the status of the reworked Section 106 regulatory guidelines? When will they
be released yet again? What has been the cost of reworking these guidelines? How many staff
members have been engaged in this process?
Answer. Revision of the regulations is now back on track, after the unexpected diversion of
resources to deal with the threat of closure of the Council last summer, the necessity of
accommodating the significant downsizing of FY 1 996 and the protracted government shutdown
last winter. The Task Force of Council members met on March 21 and resolved several
fundamental policy issues that had arisen from comments on the July, 1995, discussion draft and
the need to rethink the Council's role in the process due to reduced resources. Based on this
direction, a new draft has been circulated to the Task Force members this week. The Chairman
hopes to submit a proposed rule in May to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance to
publish for comment in the Federal Register. The time it will take for clearance is uncertain, but
we have been working with Federal agencies and 0MB to expedite this review. When published,
we anticipate a 60-day public comment period. After that, it is difficult to predict the progress of
putting final regulations into place. That is largely dependent upon the content of the comments.
New requirements for congressional review of final regulations will also add time to getting
these revisions into effect. For that reason, we have projected new regulations in place during
FY 1997, but probably in the latter part of the fiscal year.
The cost is difficult to estimate. Council member time and meetings, both task force and ftill
Council, have probably involved about $80,000 since 1993. The full professional staff" has been
involved in varying degrees over the course of the revisions. Their role has ranged from work
groups to devise new approaches to Section 106 to reviewing public comments to review of
innumerable internal drafts. The General Counsel has taken the lead on this effort, assisted by
the Assistant General Counsel and about four senior staff. We reported to the House Resources
364
34
Committee an expenditure of $146,755 in FY 1995 alone. Overall, the cost of this has probably
exceeded $300,000. Fortunately, much of these costs were incurred when the Council was
operating at a higher funding level in FY 1994 and FY 1995.
Question. How many public and external comments do you anticipate when you release the
reworked regulatory guidelines? What will be the cost of dealing with this input?
Answer. When we first published the regulations for comment in October, 1 994, we received
nearly four hundred comments. These ranged from Federal agencies and State Historic
Preservation Officers to affected businesses, Indian tribes, local governments, preservation and
professional groups and the concerned public. Last summer we sent a revised discussion draft to
those commenters for informal review. We received nearly 100 responses. We believe the lower
response rate was due in part to a much more positive reception of the revised draft; people are
less inclined to comment on something they do not find objectionable. Based on this, we would
expect public comments on the current proposal to be in the 200-300 range. The cost of dealing
with this input, based on previous experience, will be about $30,000 in staff and member time.
This assumes a comparable amount of involvement as before from the staff that has been
working on reviewing comments and developing changes in response.
Question. Who was able to provide informal comment on the Section 1 06 regulatory guidelines
before they again go out for public comment? Have you had any problems with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act in limiting your ability to work with the public, the preservation
community, and the States at enhancing these regulations?
Answer. Due to the Administration's commitment to work closely with those non-Federal
parties affected by Federal regulations, we were able to solicit comment for the full range of
Section 1 06 users. As noted earlier, this included written comments from all kinds of
governmental and private sector users. We were also able to meet with Federal agencies. State
Historic Preservation Officers, representatives of industries with an interest in the Section 106
process, Indian tribes and the preservation community. We have experienced no problems with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (from which we are statutorily exempt) or any other
impediment to communicating with concerned Section 1 06 participants.
Question. What is the status of efforts and regulations that protect Native American cultural
sites? Do you also have involvement in protecting landscapes with cultural and historic value?
Answer. The revised regulations will include special provisions for consultation with Indian
tribes. Native Hawaiians, and other Native Americans, as anticipated and directed by the 1992
amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act. Guidance on these subjects is on hold
pending regulatory revisions. We have also participated in consultation with the National Park
Service as they have finalized the regulations implementing the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; regulations published at 43 CFR Part 10), and have
also discussed their guidelines for tribal preservation programs that remain in draft. We are
365
35
involved with protection of landscapes of cultural and historic values, to the extent that such
landscapes meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and are
potentially affected by Federal undertakings subject to Section 106. Consideration of these
historic resources would occur in the normal course of the Section 1 06 process.
Reimbursable Agreements
Question. What ability do you now have to cost-share your activities or provide technical
services on a reimbursable basis? What legislative changes would be desirable to enhance your
abilities in these areas?
Answer. At the request of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, we provided a full
report on this question in March of this year. Rather than restate the conclusions here, we refer
you to the report itself It contains some specific legislative recommendations.
Question. Is the Council continuing its efforts to enter into agreements with States? What
progress has been made in the past year?
Answer. Due to the preoccupation with revising the Section 1 06 regulations over the past three
years, the Council has not pursued further agreements with States. Nor have any States pursued
such agreements. The revisions in the Council's regulations which are now pending will serve to
address many of the same issues that have arisen in past discussions with States. New Mexico
remains the only State with a State-substitution agreement, and Federal agency participation with
New Mexico under that agreement as a substitute for following the Council's regulations remains
volimtary.
Council Meetings
Question. How often will the Council meet in 1 996, where, and what are the agenda topics?
Answer. The Council normally meets quarterly, which, depending on the precise scheduling,
may be either three or four times a fiscal year. Council meetings have been restricted to only two
this year because of cost, primarily a lack of travel funds to bring the members to a meeting site
from various points around the country. Each Council meeting (travel, salary and per diem) costs
an average of $ 1 6,000-20,000, depending upon location, related business (such as pre-meeting
task force deliberations) and any special itineraries for site visits to gain knowledge of local
preservation issues or problems. Staff preparation time is not included in these figures. Our
October, 1995, meeting was moved back into September, to avoid obligating FY 1996 monies.
The Council met in March of 1996, and the main focus of the agenda was on working with
Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. The Army hosted the meeting at Fort Myer, in
Arlington, Virginia. Other agenda topics included action on the reimbursable activities report to
366
36
the Congress, status reports on the regulations, endorsement of a proposed preservation
Executive Order, planning for the Council's future, and activities to commemorate the thirtieth
anniversary of the NHPA.
The next Council meeting will be held in late summer or early fall, at a place and with an agenda
yet to be determined. It timing and content will likely be determined by the progress of the
regulatory revisions and the decisions made by the Congress on reauthorization and
appropriations. The meeting will likely be scheduled so that it can be moved to either side of
October 1 , depending on the availability of funds.
367
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
HARVEY GANTT, CHAIRMAN
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE RSCAL YEAR 1997
APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
MARCH 26, 1996
To the Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for an opportunity to submit
this prepared statement for the record in support of our 1997 Justification for Appropriation. I
am excited to again present the National Capital Planning Commission's (NCPC) program to
you.
During fiscal year 1996, the Commission unveiled the draft Monumental Core Framework Plan,
and presented it to the American public for comment. The draft plan was presented to the
President on March 19, 1996 and, was applauded in the Oval office for its inspiring 21st century
vision of Washington. President Clinton released the following statement after his review of the
draft plan:
"This nation has the resources and imagination to create a more
efficient and beautiful capital and to enhance its position as one
of the world's great cities. This draft plan for Washington 's
Monumental Core can be a key instrument in this continuing
transformation. I commend the National Capital Planning
Commission for its leadership in preparing our nation's capital
to be a vital city in the twenty-first century and invite all
Americans to participate in the process."
Since the creation of the Commission in 1924 as a park agency and its expansion as a park and
planning agency in 1926, the Commission under the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, was
designated as the central planning agency for the Federal and District of Columbia (D.C.)
governments. The Act was amended in 1973 by the D.C. Home Rule Act which made the Mayor
of D.C. the chief planner for DC, while the Commission continued to serve as the central
planning agency for the Federal government in the Washington area. The Commission takes its
responsibility to protect, preserve, and enhance the functioning and image of our national capital
very seriously, and this Monumental Core plan ~ the first in a series of major sector plans ~
provides a guide for our capital's development well into the next century.
368
As Chairman of this small federal government agency, I am extremely proud to present an
accomplishment which enjoys support at the Federal, State, and local levels of government, and
on both sides of the aisle. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has released the following
comments on the draft Monumental Core Plan:
"This Draft Plan embodies exactly the kind of inclusive planning
and new thinking we need to create the best capital city in the
world, a capital city all Americans can take great pride in. The
vision is a bold one, blending urban pragmatism with majestic
architectural design, promising to move Washington towards
being the urban jewel it should be in the 21st century. America's
capital belongs to the American people, and I encourage all
Americans to learn about this plan, to comment on it, and to
participate in the process to define their capital's fiiture."
During fiscal year 1997 the Commission will complete its review of comments received from the
American public, revise the plan, and adopt related policies in the Comprehensive Plan for the
National Capital to initiate implementation of this long-range vision. The Comprehensive Plan
guides Commission approval or rejection of all Federal projects throughout the District. The
Commission also uses the plan to advise on federal projects in those areas.
Faced with the challenges during fiscal year 1996 of operating under several continuing
resolutions, and of doing more with less, NCPC has continued its work on the development of
the next sector plan, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center area which comprises 16,000
acres and includes 14 Federal agencies engaged in national and international activities;
reparation, adoption, and submission to the OMB of the 1996-2001 Federal Capital
Improvements Program for the region which totaled more than $ 5.1 billion; review and approval
of plans for new Federal buildings in the District of Columbia; and coordination of Federal plans
with local, state, and regional programs.
In addition, with the sunset of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation on April 1,
1996, NCPC will be entrusted with the responsibility of reviewing development proposals and
proposed plan amendments to ensure that development and redevelopment in the Pennsylvania
Avenue area is carried out in accordance with the PADC plan - 1974. With this responsibility.
NCPC has been granted an additional Fib.
NCPC strives to maintain its reputation for planning excellence and, in fiscal year 1997, will
focus on fostering partnerships in the development of geospatial data for use in decision-making.
The Commission staff is in the process of collecting data, in consultation with other Federal
agencies. State and local governments, and will participate in the standardization of this data
making it electronically accessible to all interested and affected parties. The Commission
supports the Administration's goal of coordinating geographic data acquisition and access and
369
believes that, with public and private sector application of geospatial data in such areas as
transportation planning, coinmunity development, emergency response, and environmental
management, we will avoid wasteful duplication of effort and promote effective and economical
management of resources by Federal, State, and local governments.
I am also pleased to report that the Commission has achieved its goal of streamlining many of its
administrative processes and looks forward to strengthening and enhancing the professional
planning programs during the next fiscal year. We have recently completed the second five-year
organizational review resulting in an increased use of information technology and the re-
engineering of several manual business and planning processes. With an increased and effective
use on technology. Commission presentations have been propelled into the 21st century. This
effort has reduced the amount of time for project review and approvals and has substantially
improved the quality of staff analysis for each of the Federal projects presented.
As the Congress and the Administration continue to "re-size and redefine" the Federal
government, we stand ready to provide professional planning advice. As professional planners
we are already familiar with the fundamental issues associated with right sizing and
consolidating government functions and facilities.
The Commission's 1997 budget justification is consistent with the Office of Management and
Budget's 1996 planning guidance. It reflects a net increase of $795,000 over the FY 1996
operating level and only $256,000 over the approved 1995 level.
I thank, you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. The members and staff of
the National Capital Planning Commission will be happy to answer your questions.
370
INTERIOR and RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
FY97 REQUEST
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
FY 1995 Appropriations $5,655,000
FY 1996 Conference Level $5,090,000
FY 1997 Request $5,885,000
Difference +$795,000
FY 1996 Staffing 54
FY 1997 Staffing 55
Difference +1
Proposed Funding Increases
OUESTION
1 . Your request for FY97 represents an increase of more than 1 5% over the FY96 conference
level. What activities will be enhanced by such an increase?
ANSWER
1. While the FY97 request represents an increase of 15% over the FY96 conference level, the
Commission operated at more than a 10% reduction in the FY95 enacted level with a 50% reduction
in several object classes cumulatively (travel, consultants, other services, supplies, and equipment).
The FY97 request reflects less than a 10% increase over the FT95 enacted level. This increase,
along with many of the cost-saving measures taken during FY96, will allow the Commission to
restore operations to its FY95 level.
OUESTION
2. Please prioritize the increases that you have requested.
ANSWER
2. Among the Commission's priorities for FY97, are the startup of Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center sector plan, and a joint photogrammetric geographic information system. These
projects will require expertise in highly specialized areas on a temporary contractual basis.
371
Because much of the Commission's 1996 work plan was severely impacted by operating under
continuing resolutions, the contracts and consulting object class (25.1) has been assigned the highest
priority. Other increases are prioritized as follows:
1 1 .0 Personnel Compensation
1 2. 1 Personnel Benefits
24.0 Printing & Reproduction
2 1 .0 Travel & Transportation of Persons
23.1 Rental Payments to GS A
The increases are necessary in order for the Commission to meet its mandated responsibilities.
QUESTION
3. Are there any decreases in your proposed budget?
ANSWER
3. There are no decreases in the FY97 proposed budget when compared to the FY96 conference
level, however there are decreases in the following object classes when compared to the FY95
enacted levels:
Object Classification Decrease
21.0
Travel & Transportation of Persons
$ 18,944.00
23.3
Communications, Utilities & Misc. Charges
$ 36,934.00
24.0
Printing & Reproduction
$ 15,620.00
25.1
Contracts with Experts & Consultants
$ 52,485.00
25.2
Other Services
$ 60,295.00
26.0
Supplies & Materials
$ 35,999.00
31.0
Equipment
$ 40,323.00
QUESTION
4. Please explain the proposed increase for personnel compensation and for personnel benefits.
What would be the result if the FY97 allocation is insufficient to fund this requested increase?
ANSWER
4. The increase for personnel compensation reflects full funding for 55 FTEs and assumes no
vacant positions. It also includes funding for the general pay increase. The actual costs for FY95
for personnel compensation ($ 2.6M) and benefits ($.45M) supported only 5 1 FTEs. While the
Commission is planning to fill positions during FY97 at the lowest possible grade and pay levels,
several career ladder promotions scheduled for FY96 which have been delayed due to budgetary
constraints, are now rescheduled for FY97. Several vacancies which were targeted for immediate
fill during FY96 have been reprogrammed for recruitment during late FY96 with reporting dates in
372
early FY97. The filling of vacant positions will be staggered and prioritized during the fiscal year
to lessen the impact and/or eliminate the need for furloughs or reduction in force actions.
If delaying promotions, staggering recruitment for vacant positions, and normal attrition do
not result in the Commission being able to fund personnel compensation and personnel benefits, a
second reduction-in-force may be necessary.
Potential Savings
QUESTION
5. To what extent were savings obtained during 1996 by: ( 1 ) leaving vacant positions unfilled;
(2) eliminating personnel and positions; (3) furloughs?
ANSWER
5. NCPC saved an estimated $146,320 (less than 6% of total salaries expense) by leaving vacant
positions unfilled during FY96. By eliminating 3 positions, NCPC saved an additional $84,437
(totaling less than 10% of total salaries expense). There were no savings as a result of furloughs
during FY96.
QUESTION
6. What would be the impact of leaving unfilled positions vacant during FY97?
ANSWER
6. The 4 positions left vacant during FY96 must be filled in order to restore NCPC to its FY97
operating level and accommodate additional program requirements which have resulted from the
sunsetting of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (P.ADC). During FY96 and early
FY95, there are several voluntary retirements planned. These positions must be filled immediately
to provide required services in several of the Commission's major program areas.
QUESTION
7. What is the status of your reinvention and downsizing efforts? Were any savings obtained,
and if so, where?
ANSWER
7. NCPC has just completed the second of its five-year total organizational reviews which
resulted in the elimination of several personnel and positions. A new organizational chart is attached
for your review. The Office of Administration and the Intergovemmental Planning & Public Affairs
Office were reduced by 3 and 1 respectively. The separation actions were effective April 15, 1996
and resulted in an estimated savings of $ 84,437.
373
QUESTION
8. What is the status of your streamlining study? What opportunities does it suggest for fiscal
and/or personnel savings?
ANSWER
8. During FY96, the streamlining of administrative processes was given top priority by the
Commission. Utilization studies for human resources are conducted periodically by the
Commission. The most recent organization review completed at the end of Januar>', 1996 resulted
in 4 positions being abolished. The FTEs will be programmed to support central mission related
activities and distributed among the planning operations divisions. Our efforts are now focused on
identifying and acquiring the critical skills needed in order to operate in a streamlined environment.
We plan to realize additional personnel savings by using intra-agency detailees selected for
developmental assignments and Intergovernmental Personnel Assignments (IP As), where possible
to supplement the planning staff..
QUESTION
9. Have you investigated the opportunities for obtaining outside service for certain of your
administrative or legal functions, such as personnel, procurement, budget, or legal offices? What
savings, and what changed services, might you [sic] expect to obtain from outsourcing these
functions to another Department, agency or the private sector?
ANSWER
9. With more than a 30% reduction in the staff of the Office of Administration, we are
investigating the use of extended cross-servicing with the Department of Treasury, General Services
Administration, and the Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center to provide
personnel/payroll support. With the elimination of the Procurement/Contracting position, we will
again rely on the Department of Transportation's contracting offices for assistance with competitive
contracting. Many administrative functions have been consolidated and are now being performed
by the same staff person with the use of information technology. Our experience in 1 994 with using
outside legal counsel for issues and advice proved extremely costly, inefficient, and ineffective.
QUESTION
10. To what extent are you able to recoup some of our [sic] expenses by charging fees for goods
or services you provide the public and other government agencies?
ANSWER
1 0. The National Capital Planning Commission has few goods or services of a commercial nature
for which we could charge either the public or other government agencies. We do currently provide,
at reproduction cost, maps of various parts of the National Capital Region when requested, but these
funds are deposited in the U. S. Treasury's general fund account. With the completion of several
early tasks under the current (digitizing) contract, we will have data to produce on demand, i.e.
374
several electronic mapping products which will be available to the public and other government
agencies.
At the present time, NCPC has no statutory authority which would permit us to retain the
proceeds of the sale of any of these products. Such authority would be helpful, but since such maps
and geospacial data products constitute only a small part of our workload, their sale would permit
the recoupment of only a very small portion of our expenses.
QUESTION
1 1 . What opportunities are there for you to either solicit or to accept funds as either fees or grants
to further accomplish some of your long range planning functions?
ANSWER
11. As noted in the response to 10, above, this agency has no statutory authority to solicit or
retain fees for certain goods and services which we provide to the public and other government
agencies. We do, however, have limited statutory authority to accept gifts from outside sources for
the making or modification of a general of comprehensive plan and the making or modification of
project area redevelopment plans and for surveys . . .and other administrative expenses in connection
therewith (D.C. Code §5-815).
In addition, that same code section authorizes the Commission to receive from states,
municipalities and the District of Columbia, any grant funds appropriated by Congress to those
entities for comprehensive planning and survey purposes.
The agency has no gift or grant authority beyond those set out above. In addition, the statute
is silent on the Commission's ability to solicit funds for such activities. Although the rules on
solicitation, generally, are somewhat unclear, any solicitation done would have to be accomplished
very carefully to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
QUESTION
12. Your FY96 allocation was a 10% cut below the FY95 funding level. What services and
activities were cut back to achieve this savings? What personnel reduction or alterations were
involved in achieving these savings?
ANSWER
12. Most of the non-fixed object classes were frozen for the first half of the fiscal year. Some
remain frozen. Included in these object classes are staff training, travel, awards, transit subsidy,
supplies, and equipment. Several staff promotions were delayed and 4 positions were abolished.
The Commission instituted an immediate hiring freeze on October 1, 1996. Instead of incurring
travel costs Commissioners have conducted meetings using teleconferencing and have on occasion
personally assumed the full cost of traveling to Washington, DC for the monthly Commission
meeting.
375
QUESTION
13. Your rental payments to GSA constitute fully 22% of your FY96 allocation. What
opportunities are there for you to achieve savings in this category?
ANSWER
13. We have investigated the possibility of exchanging office space with the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), who are rumored to be relocating to their headquarters location. When contacted,
GSA was not aware of any proposed move by the small IRS office that shares space on the third
floor with the Commission. We are still investigating the possibility of reducing the amount of space
needed by the Commission and hope that, if the small offices of the IRS do move, the Commission's
request to exchange office spaces will be seriously considered.
QUESTION
14. Your request for other services, supplies and materials, and equipment remain substantially
below the levels that were funded in FY95. What kinds of items are included in these categories?
How have you been able to achieve these substantial savings in these areas? Are you accumulating
a backlog of maintenance, purchases or other items that will need to be rectified in the near future?
ANSWER
14. These categories include training, a variety of maintenance agreements, agreements for
various government services, supplies, and equipment. Completion of initial computer technology
training, and a freeze on computer hardware and software purchases for systems' upgrades have
produced substantial savings in these categories. Additional savings were achieved by canceling
several subscriptions and annual maintenance agreements. We have also reduced the number of
telephone lines used by the Commission by more than 30%, and are currently investigating a transfer
to the GSA WITS system for telecommunication services. While we do not anticipate a significant
backlog of purchases, we do recognize that future purchases to support increased use of information
technology will have to be made in order to restore efficient operations.
QUESTION
15. You are a small agency with just 54 FTEs yet your organization is split up into 9 different
administrative units, each of which has a director or lead person. Have you considered reducing this
organization and consolidating the supervisory responsibilities of the various directors and section
heads?
ANSWER
15. In order to delegate day-to-day management responsibilities down to the lowest possible
level, each of the divisions have assigned directors. These directors manage the employees who
perform planning review and support activities. This allows the Executive Director to focus
primarily on the external environment and the statutory requirements to coordinate comprehensive
planning in the National Capital Region.
376
We have considered, and are considering, the possibility of consolidating two of the
operations divisions. We are examining the potential adverse impacts on the staff and the resulting
costs to effect the change.
QUESTION
16. You have 4 persons providing executive director office functions, and in addition have an
executive officer in your administration office and an executive assistant in your Secretariat office.
What opportunities are there for savings in your executive director office or other executive
functions?
ANSWER
1 6. The Office of the Executive Director was reorganized three years ago resulting in the transfer
of three positions to operational areas experiencing increasing workload, particularly in the area of
planning information technology. Although four positions were retained in the office in the interest
of maximizing efficiency, two are assigned functions that extend across the operational divisions of
the staff The Deputy Executive Director, who represents the Executive Director on occasions as
required, also serves as Director of Operations. In this capacity, the deputy is responsible for
coordinating the work of the four line divisions, making assignments that cross unit lines, and
assigning personnel on temporary bases to cover particular staff needs. The Assistant Executive
Director for Special Projects is a temporary time-limited position for managing a number of projects
that employ teams of staff members from the operating divisions, while also requiring high level
representations on behalf of the Executive Director. For example, the incumbent manages the
Commission's geospatial data acquisition and coordination program. This effort has required
coordination at the highest levels of the District of Columbia Government and with senior officials
of several Federal departments. The incumbent is also assigned responsibility to coordinate and
guide initial implementation steps in the Monumental Core Plan with Federal and District agencies,
and with the private sector. This position was not placed in an operating division, because it requires
guidance for senior level staff members from various divisions, and close collaboration with the
Executive Director, i.e. greater efficiency is achieved by its placement in the Office of the Executive
Director.
The Executive Officer is the Director of the Office of Administration and serves as the top
administrator for the Commission. Full authority and responsibility to act on the behalf of the
Executive Director are delegated to this position in all matters of financial management, budget,
personnel, organization and staff utilization, space and facilities, procurement and supply.
The Executive Assistant in the Office of the Secretariat serves as the primary staff liaison and
Secretary to the Commission. This position is responsible for coordinating Commission meeting
agendas, serving as Commission parliamentarian, and responding to all Commissioner scheduling,
information, and coordination needs. This is historically a critical function and one of such
importance that the appointment is made by the Commission.
377
To streamline administrative processes, the staff of the Office of Administration has recently
been reduced by three (3) positions. These slots will be transferred to the program areas to handle
the increasing workload in the operational divisions. This "right-sizing" was accomplished since the
submission of the budget justifications and is not reflected in the organization chart accompanying
the justification.
PADC Responsibilities
QUESTION
17. The Office of Management and Budget has allocated an additional FTE for you to help with
your new duties regarding responsibilities of the former Pennsylvania Avenue Development
Commission. To what extent will this FTE provide adequate coverage for these duties? Does your
funding request provide for coverage of these duties? What is the additional cost of these duties?"
ANSWER
17. With only three city squares within the PADC area still requiring redevelopment, it is
estimated that one FTE can deal with all possible plan change and project change requests, as well
as all building permit applications referred by the District govemment. The Commission is currently
entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with GSA and the National Park Service, for
the purpose of ensuring that the development and redevelopment within the PADC area complies
with the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan of 1974, as amended, and the PADC's General Guidelines and
Square Guidelines. One FTE is adequate (working with the existing Review and Technical Planning
Services staffs) to ensure that the supervision of the plan is carried out in a responsible and efficient
manner and with appropriate public participation.
The Commission was given an additional $70K to fund an additional FTE. It is anticipated
that this position to support the newly assigned PADC responsibilities will be a j)ermanent full-time
position. The cost will not exceed the requested amount.
Monumental Core Framework Plan
QUESTION
18. The release of the Monumental Core Framework Plan and model has precipitated a
tremendous amount of publicity and public interest. Please provide a brief summary of the initial
press coverage and public response.
ANSWER
A DREAM THAT CLINTON AND GINGRICH AGREE ON
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
A CAPITAL THAT IMPROVES WITH AGE - PROPOSAL'S UNBUNKING VISION
BRINGS THE FUTURE INTO FOCUS
WASHINGTON POST
Get Thee to Union Station [to] see the provocative, beautifully presented Monumental Core
Framework plan, 'a proposed vision for the Nation 's Capital in the 2 1st Century. '
ROGER LEWIS
378
18. The above quotes and the attached chart and articles highlight the unqualified success of
Extending the Legacy since it was publicly unveiled in a standing room only ceremony at Union
Station on March 26. Planners, architects and engineers, recognizing that something important
is happening, have rallied behind the plan through letters, articles and endorsements. At the
request of Union Station, the exhibit was extended for an additional week because of the
noticeably high level of interest in the project.
And most important of all, the public has embraced it. In three weeks NCPC received
over 2,300 responses to its questionnaire, many of them written on both sides, and up and down
the margins. They express broad support for the plan's specific recommendations as well as
excitement about its promise. It is clearly striking a cord regarding how Americans, locals and
tourists alike, feel about their National Capital. A summary of press coverage follows:
379
Summary of 1996 News Coverage of Monumental Core
PRINT MEDIA
OuUet/Reporter
TiUe
Date
Washington Post/Ben Forgey
"Plan for a 21st Century Capital;
Commission's Blueprint would Affect all
Quadrants of the City"
March 19.1996
Washington Times / Brian
Bloomquist
"Clinton Hails Futuristic Plan: But Others
Discount Loopy City Design"
March 20. 1996
Roll Call/Duncan Spencer
"In the Neighborhood" (regular column)
March 21. 1996
Montgomery Journal/Matt Hamblin
"A Planning Report that Dares to Dream" (op-
ed)
March 21, 1996
Dayton Daily News & Times
Union /Marianne Means
"A Monumental Waste: Beautiful Plan Ignores
D.C.'s Needs" (op-ed)
March 22. 1996
The Washington Post / Ben Forgey
"A Capital that Improves with Age:
Proposal's Unblinking Vision Brings the
Future into Focus"
March 23. 1996
Associated Press/ LeRoy Tillman
"Plans to Revitalize Nation's Capital
Overlooks Current Problems"
March 26. 1996
AP/LeRoy Tillman
"Proposal Unveiled to Remove Urban Blight
fi-om Nation's Capital"
March 26, 1996
USA Today
Untitled-part of "States" section
March 26. 1996
The Washington Times /Lisa
Nevans
"City Plan Panel to Ask for More Muscle;
Want Federal Leaders to Ensure its Future""
March 26.1996
The Washington Times/Adrienne
Washington
""Better"" Capital City Often Leaves Residents
Out" (column)
March 26.1996
AP/Prince George's Joumal/LeRoy
Tillman
"Washington Restoration Planned"
March 27. 1996
380
Outlet/Reporter
Title
Date
The Washington Post/No author
"Around the Region: D.C. in the 21st
Century"
March 27, 1996
The Bond Buyer/Amy Resnick
"Federal Commission Announces Plan to
Revamp D.C.'s Layout"
March 27, 1996
Investor's Business Daily
From wire reports
March 27. 1996
Atlanta Journal & Constitution and
Palm Beach Post Bob Dart
"Washington's Future Could be Rosy,
Planners Say"
March 27, 1996
The Times-Picayune/Wire Reports
"Panel Proposes Washington Make-over "
March 27, 1996
The Washington Post/ Roger K.
Lewis
"Fine-Tunmg a Vision for DCs Next
Century"
March 30, 1996
The Washington Times / Tom
Sullivan
"Commission Lays Out Plans for 21st-century
Washington"
April 6, 1996
US News & World Repoit/Wire
Report
"A Dream that Clinton and Gingrich Agree
On"
April 8, 1996
Architecture / Deborah K. Dienur
"Make No Small Plans"
April 1996
City Paper/Mark Jenkins
"From the White House to Your House: The
NCPC's Vision"
April 11, 1996
Historic Preservation/Allan
Freeman
Capital for a New Century
May/June, 1996
381
MEDIA RESULTS REPORT
(AS OF 4/2/96)
Outlet
Story Date
Notes
TELEVISION
C-SPAN 1
3/26, 7: 10 pm
46 minute - full coverage of press conference
C-SPAN 2
3/26, 6:00 pm
WRC-TV (NBC)
Channel 4
3/26, 12:00 pm
5:00 pm (re-run)
1 minute stor>', includes clips from Eleanor
Holmes Norton
WRC-TV (NBC)
Channel 4
3/26, 6:00 pm
1 minute story, includes graphics of plan, Tom
Davis quote
WJLA-T\' (ABC)
Channel 7
3/26, 5:00 pm
3/27, 6:00 am
(re-run)
2 minute story, includes visuals, clips of Tom
Davis, Reg Griffith, Marion Barr>'
WJLA-TV (ABC)
Channel 7
3/26, 1 1 :00 pm
Anchor reader, includes visuals of plan
WUSA-TV (CBS)
Channel 9
3/26, 5:00 am
30 second story, includes graphics
WUSA-TV (CBS)
Channel 9
3/26, 5:00 pm
1.5 minute story, includes visuals of plan, clips
of Marion Barrv
WUSA-TV (CBS)
3/26, 6:00 pm
1 minute story, includes visuals
Channel 9
WTTG-TV (FOX)
Channel 5
3/26, 6:00 am to
7:00 am
Live shots throughout am news broadcast,
including visuals of plan and Union Station
WTTG-T\' (FOX)
3/26, 12:00 pm
20 second anchor reader, includes visuals
WDCA-TV (UPN)
Channel 20
3/26. 10:00 pm
Newschannel 8
3/26, 1 :00 pm
6:00 pm (re-run)
3 minute stor>' includes interview with Reg
Griffith, clips of Tom Davis, Marion Barry
C-SPAN 1
Washington Journal
3/27, 9:00 am
Interview with Reg Griffith
382
Outlet
Story Date
Notes
C-SPAN 2
3/27, 5:30 am
35 minutes-partia] coverage of press conference
C-SPAN 2
3/27, 6:15 am
15 minute story, clips from press conference
Newschannel 8
3/27, 6:00 am
RADIO
National Public
Radio (on WET A)
3/19
25 second mention during classical show
WAMU
3/26
Story reported by Danielle Karson
WTOP
3/26, 7:00 am,
8:00 am, 5:00 pm
(re-run)
Story includes focus of future of transportation
WAMU
3/27, 7:00 am
4 minute, very positive
ONLINE SERVICES
Washington Post
Digital Ink
3/26 to present
Graphics and text of 25-page Extending the
Legacy digitized
383
QUESTION
19. Your public outreach efforts have resulted in a large number of persons sending in a
survey form giving their opinions of the new plan framework. How many written comments
have you received so far and how many do you anticipate receiving. For what time span will this
public input continue? What amount of staffing is required to assemble, analyze and respond
to this large amount of public input? What do you anticipate this public comment analysis will
end up costing? Have you interacted with other agencies with more extensive experience in
public comment analysis to leam of cost saving or efficiency procedures to enhance your ability
to leam from and respond to the input?
ANSWER
19. From March 26 through April 17, NCPC has received over 2,500 public comments
(2,300 questionnaires plus 200 letters, e-mails, voice-mail, etc.). The public comment period
will continue until October, 1996. Comments will be entered into a database for analysis and
response and will be used in preparing the final document. This analysis will be done by
NCPC's existing staff and outside experts as required. Using existing resources supplemented
by part-time student interns, and experts in specialized fields of planning, it is estimated that the
direct cost of this analysis and the planning work to make necessary changes and refinements in
the draft plan that respond to the comments are estimated at approximately $140,076 through the
end of October. We have discussed public comment activity with experienced agencies such as
the Smithsonian Institution, and will continue to explore additional sources to assist in the
analysis and statistical modelling of the responses to the survey.
QUESTION
20. When do you anticipate completing and releasing the final Monumental Core Framework
Plan? What amount of staffing and funding will be required to prepare the final version and
what distribution and printing costs are you anticipating?
ANSWER
20. After the public comment period ends in October and the responses have been analyzed by
the staff with the assistance of several experts in each of the specialized planning fields, NCPC
hopes to prepare the final plan for release by the end of this year (or early in 1997). In addition
to NCPC staff assigned to this task, the agency will use outside experts on a limited basis to
support the final plan. Total cost for the preparation, (including the formulation of proposals that
respond to the public comments) printing, and distribution of the final plan is currently
programmed at approximately $500,000.
QUESTION
2 1 . The framework provides a dramatic vision for the future. How will the NCPC work with
other federal agencies, the District of Columbia, states, counties and the private sector to help
realize some of this plan?
384
ANSWER
21 . NCPC has worked closely with other federal agencies, the District of Columbia, states,
counties and the private sector in formulating the Monumental Core Framework Plan and will
continue to work closely with these parties in the effort to help realize the plan. Given the 50-to-
100 year time horizon of the plan, the implementation effort will last many years. The
Commission will work with these agencies and jurisdictions through a variety of mechanisms,
including regular consultations and discussions, exchanges of information, collaboration on
specific projects, and public meetings. As stated in the Extending the Legacy booklet (pg. 24):
Local governments and federal agencies will be responsible for implementing the
plan, with technical and financial help from the federal government for
extraordinary public expenditures such as transportation or major parks and river
improvements.
Projects that straddle jurisdictions, or that are simply too complex for one agency
to manage, will require a new development partnership of local, federal and
private interests. ..Other projects could be carried out by coalitions of existing
agencies. Reconfiguring the highways around the Kennedy Center, for example,
could be a joint venture of the National Park Service and the District of
Columbia's Department of Public Works.
QUESTION
22. What has been the role of the District of Columbia government in formulating the
Monumental Core Framework Plan?
ANSWER
22. The District of Columbia has had an active role in formulating the plan. The District has four
seats on the Commission, the Mayor, the Chairman of the City Council of the District of Columbia,
and two mayoral appointees. All have contributed their views and suggestions during the
formulation of the plan. One of the mayoral appointees is the Vice Chair of the Commission, who
as Chairwoman of the Monumental Core Task Force, has been particularly involved in staff strategy
sessions, major briefings and discussions at Commission meetings. In addition. District government
officials were participants in several work sessions that the Commission organized to solicit ideas and
suggestions for various aspects of the plan. We have also regularly briefed and consulted with
District agencies such as the Office of Economic Development, Tourism, Department of Public
Works, and the City Administrator.
QUESTION
23. How do you expect to be able to link the comprehensive planning you do with the output of
the Monumental Core Framework Plan?
385
ANSWER
23. As a sector plan of the Comprehensive plan for the Nation's Capital, the Monumental Core
Framework plan is inherently linked to the Commission's comprehensive planning. As the
framework plan is completed and approved by the Commission it will become part of the overall
Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital and will be used as a guide for orderly development in
the central downtown area.
Other Major Activities
QUESTION
24. Your budget justification mentions that you will be starting new major sector plans soon.
What plans do you anticipate attempting during the next ten years?
ANSWER
24. Following the completion of the Monumental Core and Beltsville plans, we anticipate
initiating sector plans for Boiling Anacostia Federal sector area in the District of Columbia and the
Quantico Federal sector area in Virginia.
QUESTION
25. The Beltsville area plan has made slow progress. What actions do you anticipate taking
during FY97 if you receive the allocation for outside contracts and consultants as requested. If this
category is reduced to its FY96 level, how much activity on the Beltsville Plan will result?
ANSWER
25. The Commission requested funds primarily for outside consultants in the areas of the
transportation and environmental assessment. If these funds are not available, the Commission's
work on the Beltsville project will continue to be slow, but somewhat facilitated through cooperative
agreements with other agencies conducting environmental studies in the same sector and perhaps by
creating detail assignments with other federal agencies to supplement the staff resulting in completion
of the plan much later than originally scheduled.
QUESTION
26. Do you have the ability to use in-house planning expertise to get the Beltsville area project
underway. What are the opportunities to obtain detailees from other federal agencies or other
jurisdictions with specialized skills to move this planning project along?
ANSWER
26. The Commission does have in-house planning expertise, and the Beltsville project is already
underway. The Long-Range Planning staff has begun to collect data and develop working
relationships with other agencies for the project. Because we were successful in obtaining detailees
from other agencies to work on the Monumental Core plan, we will look for similar opportunities to
detail specialists from other agencies to work on the BARC plan as needed.
QUESTION
27. What geographic area is covered by this Beltsville effort? What jurisdictions are involved?
Are they all collaborating with you on this effort? To what extent are there opportunities to develop
a shared project work fund so the various agencies and jurisdictions could help support this effort?
Are there opportunities to share personnel of equipment in lieu of exchanging funds?
ANSWER
27. The Beltsville Sector generally includes the federal facilities and their environs in northern
Prince George's County, Maryland with portions in Montgomery County (White Oak). These
facilities include: the USDA's Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, The National Park Service's
Greenbelt Park and Baltimore Washington Parkway, a State Department facility, NASA's Goddard
Space Flight Center, Department of the Army's Laurel Armory, U.S. Secret Service Training Center,
Patuxent Environmental Science Center, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, Adelphi Laboratory
Center and the FDA Consolidation at White Oak in Montgomery County. We are collaborating with
other agencies to make our data collection more efficient. For example, we have already begun
working with the US Army Corps of Engineers who are collecting data on the Anacostia watershed.
We are presently negotiating an agreement with the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning
Commission (PG County) to share digital mapping data.
In addition, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is providing substantial digital
information on their site as part of the update of their current master plan. On May 9 we will meet
with a task force of agencies in the Beltsville sector that will be affected by planning efforts to brief
them on the work program and the issues we have uncovered so far in our data collection effort. We
will look for every opportunity to partner with other federal agencies in this effort and will pursue
interagency cost-sharing agreements to fund the project.
QUESTION
28. What is the status of the 2050 Plan?
ANSWER
28. What began as the 2050 project/plan has now become an important part of the long range
planning effort. The Commission has completed initial stages of work, including identifying five
regional development scenarios that should be tested in the development of long-range planning
guidance for the Federal government in the National Capital Region. In addition, basic methodology
for the collection and coordination of planning data from important public and private sources
throughout the region has been developed. Successive stages should include developing computer
models for applying the regional scenarios, testing altemative Federal employment levels and
deployment patterns through the scenario models, and developing region-wide policy guidance for
the Federal establishment well into the 21st Century. Projected 2050 plan work also includes
completing and implementing models for coordinating planning data through advances in planning
information technology from various public and private levels throughout the region, including
387
satellite photography, aerial photogrqjhy, land use and transportation data, socio-economic data, and
related information.
QUESTION
29. Please provide some examples of how the current budget problems faced by the District of
Columbia have directly and indirectly affected your planning activities.
ANSWER
29. As part of its statutory responsibilities in approving plans for the MCI Arena, the Commission
was required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which involved
a requirement that the Commission negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement with the District of
Columbia incorporating measures to mitigate impacts of the arena project on surrounding historic
resources. Because of District budget limitations, many worthwhile measures could only be
incorporated in prospective or general terms, limiting, in some cases, the extent of possible
mitigation.
QUESTION
30. What is the situation regarding federal office space availability in the planning area? To what
extent are you able to control the overall migration of federal office space out of the District of
Columbia and into neighboring jurisdictions?
ANSWER
30. One of the issues to be addressed in the Beltsville Sector plan is whether additional office
space is needed and suitable in the sector. There appears to be some current demand by some
agencies to place headquarters facilities in an area that is not well served by public transit and has
previously been devoted largely to lower density research use. The Commission has a policy in its
Comprehensive Plan to maintain a ratio of 60 percent federal employment within the District and the
other 40 percent outside the District in the National Capital Region. Our recommendations are only
advisory outside the District. The ratio has been falling for many years. Recently large installations
such as the Internal Revenue Service office complex have been built outside the District under
congressional mandate. We hope that our efforts with the Monumental Core Plan, particularly in the
South Capitol Street area will promote an increase in this ratio in the District in the future.
QUESTION
3 1 . Please provide some examples of projects which have been rejected by the NCPC this past
year.
388
ANSWER
31. The Commission rejected a proposed $27,000,000 campus-type office complex at the
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Prince George's County, Maryland. This action
(recommendation) was contained in a report to the Department of Agriculture dated May 4, 1 995 and
in the Commission's Federal Capital Improvement recommendations for FY 1996-2000 and FY
1997-2001.
- Excerpt from Federal Capital Improvements Program -
PROJECT NOT RECOMMENDED IN THE PROGRAM
Although submitted by the respective agency for inclusion in the FY's 1997-2001 program,
the Commission does not recommend funding and construction of the following project because it
is inconsistent with Commission policies.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
I ). USDA Office Facility, Prince George's County, Maryland
$5,000,000 additional construction fiinds for a campus-type office complex consisting of (4)
low-rise buildings totaling 350,000 square feet of space. The proposed site consists of 45 acres of
land located within the boundaries of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Prince George's
County, Maryland. This project is a major element of the USDA's Washington Area Strategic Space
Plan to consolidate and reorganize USDA Headquarters. The proposed facility is to be used as swing
space for the modernization of the USDA's South Building in the District of Columbia, and to
permanently house 1,500 personnel from leased space in buildings in the Washington area. Total
Project Cost: $56,000,000; Prior Funding: $46,000,000; Parking: 878 automobile spaces;
Employment: 1,500 to be transferred from other locations.
Comment: Not recommended. The Commission, at its May 4, 1995 meeting, reviewed the
master plan modification and location, program and design concepts for the Office Comp'ex, and had
a number of concerns as follows: 1) the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as an important regional open space resource whose green open space character
should be maintained, with limited building development and employment density; 2) the need for
this proposed facility is unclear in view of current plans to "downsize" the Department of Agriculture;
and 3) the transfer of employees to the complex from the District of Columbia, in conjunction with
the modernization of USDA's South Building is inconsistent with Commission policies which call
for retaining 60% of regional Federal employment in the District, the established seat of the National
government.
Although staff has had a number of meetings with USDA and its representatives, USDA let
a design/build contract for the site at BARC without formal action by the Commission. The National
Capital Planning Act of 1952, as amended (40) U.S.C. 7 Id (a) ("Planning Act") requires each
Federal agency, prior to the preparation of construction plans or to commitments for acquisition of
land in the region, to advise and consult with the Commission in its preliminary and successive stages
of planning. The Planning Act outlines the required procedure for agencies to follow which do not
agree with the Commission's advice, including giving suitable consideration to the views of the
389
Commission before pursuing a different course of action. The Department of Agriculture has not
advised the Commission of its intent in response to the disapproval of the office complex proposal.
Therefore, no final action by the Commission on the project has been taken at this time, and the
Commission continues to recommend against funding for this project as part of the FYs 1 997-200 1
Federal capital improvements program.
Other proposed capital projects that the Commission has recommended for deferral include:
$ 1 ,600,000 construction funds for six new family housing units at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center - Main Section, Washington, D.C. (Disapproved because of unresolved historic
preservation issues.)
$3,000,000 in design costs related to the replacement of aging medical and
pathological incinerators at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. (Disapproved
because of unresolved environmental issues.)
QUESTION
32. Besides the Beltsville area plan, what other activities or plans do you anticipate working
on with contracts for experts and consultants if ( I ) you get your request, and (2) if your funding
for this category is held at the FY96 conference level.
ANSWER
32. Funding at the requested level will allow NCPC to accelerate the development of
standardized digital cartographic data for use by Federal agencies in the National Capital Region
and the District of Columbia. In the spirit of Executive Order 12906, NCPC and the District of
Columbia are sponsoring partners under contract with PhotoScience, Inc. to acquire, distribute
and utilize geographic data and mapping for use in community planning. We will coordinate,
and assist other Federal and local partners (see question #34) in the identification of geographic
location and characteristics of natural or constructed features and boundaries in the National
Capital Region. Digital files of all geographic data, digital plot files of all area plots (in both
computer assisted design (CAD) and geographic information systems (GIS) formats) showing
certain identified features in three dimensions against an otherwise two-dimensional background
are critical for testing in the preliminary stages of this project. Successful testing will lead to
immediate implementation, resulting in a more effective and economical system of acquiring,
processing, storing, and distributing geographic data.
Geospatial Data
QUESTION
33. What efforts do you have underway to collaborate and coordinate the acquisition of
geospatial data for the National Capital planning area?
390
ANSWER
33. NCPC's need for geospatial data varies across the National Capital Region. As a result
NCPC's role in acquiring geospatial data and coordinating with other agencies also varies.
In suburban areas NCPC's current requirements for geospatial data can generally by met
by small-scale data from the Census Bureau and U.S. Geological Survey. In the vicinity of
federal installations it is desirable to have more detailed geospatial data. Fortunately, such large-
scale data is rapidly becoming available. All of the major suburban local governments are in the
process of creating large-scale geospatial databases. In a few cases federal installations have also
produced geospatial data for their own facilities management purposes. Thus, in the suburbs
NCPC has not taken a lead in data acquisition. Rather we have focused on standardizing,
exchanging, and coordinating information and data with both local governments and other
federal agencies. For example, NCPC will meet the geospatial data requirements of the
Beltsville sector plan by cooperating with the installations and with local governments and
without buying significant amounts of new data.
Within the District of Columbia, however, NCPC's need for large scale data is greater
because of the Federal presence, and the District Government does not have a program in place
to create and maintain such data. NCPC has formed a partnership with the District of Columbia
Government to jointly build and maintain a large scale geospatial database for the Nation's
Capital. The project is called the Washington Geographic Information System (WGIS). A one-
page technical description of the WGIS mapping contract is attached. A full briefing on the
WGIS can be provided.
The District of Columbia Department of Administrative Services (DCDAS) and the
Department of Public Works (DCDPW) have the leading role on the District side, but numerous
other District agencies participate.
QUESTION
34. What partners have you worked with to date and what additional partners do you
anticipate working on with respect to geospatial data?
ANSWER
34. In addition to our relationship with the District of Columbia government (described
above), NCPC is seeking to share the costs and benefits of the WGIS project among several
Federal Agencies and the private sector. We have already briefed and are encouraged by the
responses of:
391
Organization
Technical
Staff
Contact
Technical
Staff
Briefing
Policy
level
Briefing
Partnership
Agreement
in Process
Federal
Archiieci of the Capitol
XX
Department of Defense
XX
Military District of Washington
Naval District of Washington
XX
Arlington Cemetery
XX
Corps of Engineers
XX
General Services Administration - NCR
XX
Library of Congress - Mapping division.
National Park Service
XX
XX
Smithsonian Institution
XX
State Department
U.S. Department of Agricultiire - Arboretum
U.S. Department of Transportation
XX
U.S. Postal Service
U.S. Department of Justice
XX
XX
XX
XX
U.S. Geological Survey
XX
United States Secret Service
XX
Local and Regional (non District of Colombia)
Arlington County Virginia
XX
D.C. Financial Control Authority
Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments
XX
XX
Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority.
XX
XX
Private Sector
Bell Atlantic
XX
Environmental Systems Research Institute
XX
XX
Evans and Sutherland
XX
XX
XX
Local Universities
XX
Lusk/TRW/Ready
XX
1 Potomac Electric Power Company
XX
XX
392
Organization
Technical
Staff
Contact
Technical
Staff
Briefing
Policy
level
Briefing
Partnership
Agreement
in Process
VARGIS Inc.
Xx
XX
XX
XX
Washington Gas
XX
QUESTION
35. What hardware and software do you already have in place, and what additional needs are
you anticipating for FY97 and for FY98 to help you in the GIS arena?
ANSWER
35. Current GIS Hardware
3 Sun SPARC Workstations
Digitizing Table
Pen Plotter
10 gigabytes of storage
FY97 & FY98 Major Hardware Acquisitions
3 Sun Ultra Workstations
Silicon Graphics (or comparable workstation)
Data warehouse system with at least 120 gigabytes of storage
Access to District of Columbia Government Wide Area Network
CDROM publishing hardware
Networked Inkjet plotter
Large format full-color scanner
High-resolution digital camera
Current GIS Software
ESRI ArcView 2.1 (1 1 seats)
ESRI Arclnfo 7.4 (9 seats)
ESRI Arclnfo Network, TIN, and Grid packages (1 seat each)
ARRIS CAD 6.0
FY97 & FY98 Major GIS software acquisitions
Keep ail software up-to-date by upgrading as new versions become available.
ESRI ArcScan and ArcPress packages
AutoCAD (1 seat)
Real-time 3D data creation and simulation software
ESRI/Oracle SDBE
Develop Applications
393
QUESTION
36. Have you established a system to share geospatial data? Have you established meta data
standards? To what extent are you involved with the Federal Geographic Data Committee and
how is that group assisting the coordination functions that you have with regard to planning data
in your area of responsibility?
ANSWER
36. Public access to WGIS data will be via the World Wide Web (WWW). Data and meta
data from the WGIS mapping project will begin arriving this spring. NCPC's WWW home page
will be linked to the FGDC and other relevant sites. NCPC will employ FGDC standards for
meta data and geospatial data transfer. Both meta data and base mapping data will be available
on the Web. The one exception will be the Digital Orthophoto layer. The large file sizes
associated with this layer will make distribution over the Internet impractical until technology
improves. NCPC is developing a method of handling requests for and distribution of the
orthophotos.
NCPC is a member of the FGDC's subcommittee on base cartographic data, but as a
small agency with a regional interest it is not practical for NCPC to extensively participate in
many of the FGDCs activities. In particular it is not practical for NCPC to participate in the
setting of standards for the nationwide mapping programs run by USGS and other agencies.
However, once the standards are adopted by the FGDC, NCPC benefits by not having to
"reinvent the wheel" for such things as meta data. NCPC also benefits when other agencies
follow the standards and make their data available. FGDC provides a forum (face to face and
online) for NCPC to make contacts and exchange data and information with the appropriate
people.
The District of Columbia Wide Area Network (DCWAN) will be used to exchange data
with our partners in the District government. A similar network or high band width Internet
connections will be used to exchange data with partner federal agencies and private firms.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Center of Expertise in Photogrammetric Mapping has
been particularly helpfull to NCPC and the District Government. The Corps provided NCPC
with a technical expert who helped negotiate our mapping contract.
QUESTION
37. Do you anticipate that there will be some opportunities to retrieve costs associated with
sharing geospatial data?
394
ANSWER
37. If NCPC were granted authority to accept funds, a user fee schedule would he estabUshed
for gaining access to this valuable information and the ability to manipulate the data for use in
producing maps, etc. These fees would be used to support the cost of maintaining and updating
the databases which store the geospatial data.
QUESTION
38. What involvement with the Internet and World Wide Web do you have at this time? How
do you anticipate this changing during the next two years? Do you anticipate making some of
your planning data, information, or geospatial data available over the WWW during the next two
years?
ANSWER
38. NCPC has direct access to the Internet. With a high bandwidth connection to the
Internet, all users have access through the agency's wide area network. This gives every staff
member direct access to the WWW, FTP, Telnet, and extemal E-mail. NCPC is now emerging
as a provider of Internet content. As a prelude to publishing data, NCPC recently installed a
firewall security system and a dedicated WWW server. Work on NCPC's homepage is well
underway and is expected to be released within the next two months.
In addition to the geospatial data content described in the answer to question #36, NCPC
will be posting basic information about the agency's mission and function, the Comprehensive
Plan for the National Capital, the Draft Monumental Core Framework Plan, and the Federal
Capital Improvements Program on the Web.
QUESTION
39. How are you able to track open-space or natural areas values within the planning area?
What other agencies or partners are you working with in these areas?
ANSWER
39. NCPC does not currently maintain an inventory of all regional open space. However, we
do maintain an inventory of Federal land which accounts for much of the region's open space.
NCPC collects and uses environmental data from various sources such as topography and
hydrography from USGS, soils from the Soil Conservation Service, flood areas from FEMA, and
wetlands from the National Wetlands Inventory. In the early stages of the WGIS mapping
project, WGIS will be generating a variety of environmental data in a level of detail never before
available for the District of Columbia including a database of parks. It is expected that data
sharing with local governments will provide a regional coverage for open space and other GIS
layers. If it is determined by our customers, that a regional open space inventory is needed, we
would use remote sensing to develop such data.
QUESTION
40. What additional training or personnel needs will you have as you increase your activities
in GIS?
ANSWER
40. NCPC currently has the equivalent of one full-time employee dedicated to GIS. In
addition to administering the mapping project, he is in the process of training the agency's
professional staff to be able to analyze and output GIS data using ESRI's Arc View software.
The entire professional staff will have been trained by the end of July 1996. Two additional full-
time entry-level technicians will be needed to support the professional staff and to check the
quality of WGIS geospatial data as it is produced by the partners and forwarded electronically
to NCPC.
Miscellaneous
QUESTION
4 1 . What has been your involvement in the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the
White House and the subsequent planning effort? How does this effort fit into the broader
downtown and regional plans?
ANSWER
41 . At the request of the Department of the Treasury, U.S. Secret Service, the Commission
provided professional advice and consultation on possible implications of the closing on traffic
circulation in the area. Subsequent to the closing, the National Park Service was assigned
responsibility for preparation of interim and permanent improvement proposals for the closed
portion of the avenue. At the Park Service's request, the Commission has served, along with ten
other agencies, on an advisory group formed to provide input into the planning process and to
react to proposals that emerged from the process. The Park Service is expected to release a
report in the near future outlining various alternatives for landscape treatment of the closed street
space. Following a public comment period, the Park Service expects to select a development
option and then proceed with preparation of plans for avenue improvements. The Commission
will comment on the "alternatives" report and will subsequently review plans prepared to
implement the selected option. As it has proceeded, the planning effort is not inconsistent with
applicable plans, and the Commission will focus its comments on continued compatibility with
plans for the surrounding downtown area and the region.
QUESTION
42. What has been your involvement in the downtown revitalization efforts of the District
govemment? To what extent has NCPC has been involved in the planning of the MCI Arena and
supporting facilities? What is the cost and NCPC time involvement in these efforts?
396
ANSWER
42. The Commission has no responsibilities in connection with private downtown
revitalization efforts underway through the District government. If rezoning proposals are
involved in the revitalization effort, the Commission has a Federal interest advisor role.
With respect to public (District) buildings such as the MCI Center, on public land and
partial public funding (public improvements), the Commission must be consulted. The location
of the proposed MCI Center is in the "Central Area" of the city in which the Commission has
in-lieu-of-zoning authority (pursuant to D.C. Code, 1981 edition, sec. 5-432), and Downtown
Urban Renewal Plan revision approval (D.C. Code sec. 5-801 et seq.).
The Commission staff has been working on the MCI Arena with the District government
(Office of Planning, Department of Housing and Community Development, Department of
Public Works, Corporation Counsel and the Office of Economic Development) for over the past
year and a half. In October, 1995, the Commission approved the site and building plans for the
Arena along with associated modifications to the Downtown Urban Renewal Area Plan and the
closing of the 600 block of G Street, NW. As the "lead" Federal agency involved in the arena
project, the Commission was responsible for compliance with Federal environmental and historic
preservation statutes. NCPC time devoted to the process was 4, 1 10 hours at an approximate total
cost of $120,000.
QUESTION
43. How does your planning role fit into and coordinate with the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Government (COG) coordination efforts? What has been your involvement with the
COG 25-year transportation and land-u.se planning effort? What do you anticipate your
involvement in this effort will cost, and what personnel time is required, for FY97 and FY98?
ANSWER
43. As the central planning agency for the Federal government in the National Capital Region
(NCR), NCPC has responsibility for coordinating Federal policies, plans and programs with the
District and the Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions. Our operating procedures are to coordinate
directly with the affected local jurisdictions and COG, since COG traditionally has served as the
regional clearinghouse for such matters with the local elected officials.
In an effort to better coordinate planning and development activities in the region, NCPC
and COG entered into a cooperative agreement in 1982 reinforcing and clarifying the general
policies under which planning and development coordination should occur. Under this
agreement, COG serves as the regional development and planning mechanism on regional
development issues for the local elected officials, and NCPC is recognized by COG and the state
and local jurisdictions as the agency that represents the Federal interest, i.e., our mandate
pursuant to the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, as amended, and the concerns of the
Federal departments and agencies who may be impacted by state and local plans and proposals.
This agreement has been effective in ensuring efficient coordination of both Federal and non-
Federal development activities in the NCR.
397
The Commission's involvement in the COG/Transportation Planning Board's
(COG/TPB) Vision Planning effort includes formal briefing by COG/TPB on the overall goals
and objectives, and the process for developing a new long range transportation plan for the
region, participation by Commission members and staff in the initial Vision Workshop, and staff
participation in the monthly Vision Planning Task Force meetings that will provide the basis for
a draft plan later this year. COG/TPB is aware of our ongoing Monumental Core planning work.
As part of our process, we have briefed the COG and TPB leadership and their staffs on the
proposals contained in our Monumental Core Framework. Within the next month, we will
formally present our Monumental Core proposals to the COG Board, TPB and Vision Planning
Task Force for comment and consideration as part of the draft Vision Plan. We do not envision
our involvement in the COG/TPB Vision Plan to require additional funds or personnel time
above our normal budget requirements for FY 97 and FY 98.
QUESTION
44. Please explain how you do, or do not have duplication of planning effort with the Council
of Governments, the DC Public Works department, or other institutions?
ANSWER
44. NCPC does not have duplicative planning efforts with COG, DC Department of Public
Works (DCDPW) or any other instinjtion. As mentioned, NCPC is the central planning agency
for the Federal government in this region with responsible to do comprehensive planning for the
Federal establishment. No other agency, body or institution has this responsibility.
This planning is manifested in the adoption and updating by NCPC of the Federal
elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital, the annual adoption of the Federal
Capital Improvements Program (FCIP), and the review and approval of Federal development
activities in the NCR. The Comprehensive Plan and FCEP documents contain planning and
development policies and recommendations for the Federal departments and agencies who have
or need to establish physical facilities in the NCR. They also serve as an effective means of
planning coordination with COG and the state and local jurisdictions.
COG/TPB planning responsibility, as demonstrated in its proposed new Vision Plan, is
applicable primarily to the state and local governments, and the DCDPW proposed transportation
vision plan will establish long range transportation policies and guidelines for the District. Both
are important to the Federal establishment. Plans of this type are necessary as the region
continues to grow and new problems and issues emerge. The Commission's role in coordination
is a critical component in comprehensive planning for the region.
398
o
u
is
<
p
z
H
<
Q£
<
H
g
^11
U
< -5 E
u
ri £
b
O
,^
U
c ^ !i
U
— 0 ^
b<
b
Z CO Q
O
a: Q ^
^ Q a.
lis s
if"!
U Q < U
^ i
u
u
■g t-
fe
J5
o
^
•<
0 "=
o
s. c
u
_2 —
-)
t/1 a.
^ I
is
^ ;^
z ('•
O U
iliiJ
3 1 i s s -o
UJ < u. Q. S C/1
5 O! 10 J -i _;
u < Q < ? ui
^ 5i ^ S I
. I = < :
2 S - - ■
S -o 2 P S
5 u 1 1 P
i« X _ d 1^
d o: J u S
5Z
§2
S o
o o
z a
z u
< w
08 Q
Z 0.
is
u z
zO
z ffi
z >
^5
a. __
J w
<y
u >
Z B^
u
&d
H
z
o
w|
z S
21
E v: ^ "■ "- 5 £ w
^oa.tt.u££Eo.
g£.EEEES!sE
E S g- „ .? g
0. E
^ £0.0.0.0.0. £
SoeeeeeI
gUEEEEES
O § i I g g II
x>J^SJ<a:
db<-;irta:o:5
0-2 ^^ ^
^ I 3 o^ «i ]c E
§ = I E iS i E p
qJ;<ux>cjJ
ui S uj i<: » -i O
a: O Q S z < S
00.0.0.
5 trt u u u
§ a
uiS
ill! i
t ■= 5 T S
'^x-JSo:
-; d vi ui
399
Washington Geographic Informalion System (WGIS;
Funding Partners:
- National Capital Planning Commission
- DC. Department ol Public Works
- D.C. Department of Administrative
Services
WGIS Committee Participants:
- DC. Board of Elections and Ethics
- D.C. Department of Consumer and
Regulatoiy AITairs
- D.C. Department of Finance and Revenue
- DC. Department of Human Services
- DC. Metropolitan Police
- DC, Office of Emeigency Preparedness
- DC. Office of Planning
- DC. Public Library
- Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
Coverage Area:
-The District of Columbia ,
- Plus predominately Federal areas of Arlington County including: Arlington Cemetery. Fort
Mycr. and the Pentagon.
- Pilot area includes 14 map tiles running from the United States Capitol
south to the Anacostia River
Map Products:
- 1 : MMX) True Color Digital Orthoimagcs
-l:l(HX) Detail Plannemuics
-Land Ownership Map
-3D CAD of Pilot Area and the Monumental Core
-Test of Raster Intensive 3D GIS
Graphic & Attribute Data Integration Products:
- Public Utilities Map and Database
- DC Street Inventoiy System
- Land Ownership Database
- Computer Aided Mass Apprai.sal Databa.se and Images
- Building Address
Contractors:
- Photo Science Incoiporalcd: Piime/Photogrammclry
- Dewberry & Davis: Subcontractor for Data Integration
- Bryant. Biyant. & Williams; Subcontractor lor 3D CAD
To Be Complete In 1996:
- Control and Aerotriangulation
- Pilot Study Map Production
- Digital Orlhoimage & DEM Production Entin; Coverage Area
- Detailed System Design
400
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT MEMORLU. COMMISSION
BUDGET FOR $125,000 FY 1997 REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATION
FDR
MEMORIAL
PsANKLiN Delano
BOOSEVELT MEMOUAL
Commission
Honorary Co-Chairs
Presidcni
WUliam J. dintoa
Fonncf Presidenci
George Bush
Jimmy Carter
Gerald R. Ford
Rofiald Reagan
COMMISSONEJtS
Co-Chain
Mark O. Hatfield
Oanie) K. Inoufc
Seimon
Alibnsc M. DAmato
Carl Levin
Represcntadvei
Maurice D. Hindtex
jerry Lewis
Proidcnoal Appointeei
Irving Berlin
Barbara A. Handmao
Lester S. Hyman
OavidB. RooKvelt
Capttal Campaign
Co-Chain
David B. Roowdt
jackValend
Intematiortal Chair
Anna C. Chenitault
ExBOTTTVE Director
Dorann H. Gundcrson
S2^-A Han Senate
Office Buiidinc
^a^aiinfton. DC 20510
202.228.2491
FAX 202.224.1010
Donor Recognition
$ 2,000
Equipment
1,500
Phone
1,000
Photo Services
1,500
Postage & Courier
1,500
Printing
5,000
Salaries
107,000
Supplies
3,000
Travel & Expenses
2,500
TOTAL
$125,000
BUDGET FOR $375,000 FY 1997 ONE-TIME
REQUEST FOR MEMORIAL DEDICATION
Two-Day Celebration
Security
$175,000
Equipment
125,000
(sound, lights, tents.
chairs, etc.)
Overtime
40,000
Printing/banners/signs
30,000
Photographers,
Video record
5.000
TOTAL
$375,000
nSCAL YEAR 1997 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
Project Description: The FDR Memorial Conmiission was created by Public
Law 372, August 1 1, 1955, as amended or supplemented by Public Law 86-214,
87-842, 89-305, 91-398, and 97-224 to plan, design and constiuct a permanent
memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the nation's 32nd president, in the city
of Washington. In addition, the FDR Memorial Commission was mandated by
the Congress in 1992 to raise $10 million from non- federal sources to
supplement federal appropriations for Memorial construction.
401
The business of the Commission continues in high gear as the construction schedule of the
$52 million Memorial is approximately at the half-way point.
As of March 1, 1996 the Commission's Capital Campaign has raised $3.9 million in cash
and $520,000 in pledges from non-federal sources.
Assuming that the full funding of $147,000 for Fiscal Year 1996 takes place, the following
can be deemed valid:
Appropriation of the current request of $125,000 plus approximately $10,000
(available for Fiscal Year 1997 from the original one-time appropriation of
$500,000 granted Fiscal year 1993 for Commission office expenditures and
fundraising), will enable the Commission to complete it's authorized mission
and to work towards fulfilling the Congressional mandate of raising $10
million from non-federal sources to supplement federal appropriations for
Memorial construction.
The dedication of this presidential memorial will be only the third of its kind in the
twentieth century. It is anticipated that Americans from across the nation will join in the
dedication events which will honor an entire generation, as well as our 32nd president.
Completion and dedication of the FDR Memorial is expected in the Spring of 1997;
therefore, the Commission anticipates it will conclude it's activities at the end of the third
quarter of the fiscal yeai'.
402
May 1, 1996
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission
Committee Questions, FY 1997 Appropriations
Subcommittee on the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies
1 . What date do you anticipate the Memorial will be completed and on what dates will
the dedication be held?
Answer: Barring conditions similar to that which were experienced in Washington, D.C. and
other material resource areas for the Memorial during the winter of 1995-96, the National
Park Service expects the Memorial will be completed sometime within the projected
timeframe between the end of April and the first half of May 1997. It is anticipated that a
Memorial dedication/public opening date will be set for sometime after the completion of
constructon, therefore, it will probably take place in the last half of May or early June 1997.
This will provide time to test all electric and water pumping systems and other equipment.
2. On what date do you anticipate turning the Memoriid over to the National Park
Service and what date do you anticipate closing the Memorial Commission office and
terminating personnel?
Answer: Upon completion of the Memorial construction and after the dedication/public
opening, the Commission will officially turn the Memorial over to the National Park Service.
The Commission anticipates wrapping up activities after completion of the Memorial
construction and as soon as records are transferred to the National Archives and vendors from
the dedication/public opening have been paid, which will probably be in July 1997; however,
the actual timing of plans to close down the Commission will be based on the construction
schedule of the Memorial and the dedication/public opening.
3. How much of the $42 million appropriated by the Congress for the Memorial
construction has been spent?
Answer: All of the appropriated funds have been obligated.
4. The Commission was mandated to raise $10 million from non-federal sources for the
Memorial construction. How much has been raised to date? How much additional is
currently pledged? How much of this money has been obligated?
Answer: To date, $4,400,000 in cash has been raised, and $420,000 in pledges. None of the
funds from non-federal sources has been obligated.
5. You indicate that the Commission has raised $3.9 million as of March 1, 1996 and has
an additional $520,000 in pledges. How much was raised during the past 12 months?
To date the Commission has raised $4,400,000 in cash and $420,000 in pledges. A year ago
in the Commission's FY 1996 statement to the appropriations subcommittee, it was reported
that $3,100,000 in cash and $1,100,000 in pledges had been raised.(A pledge of $500,000 was
subsequently recinded from the $1,100,000 amount.) A total of $1,300,000 additional cash
has been raised in the last year.
6. Have you undertaken a direct mail campaign for fimdraising?
403
Answer: Over the last several months the Commi^Jion has undertaken a test program of
direct mail conducted by Steve Cram & Associates. The Commission will decide the
feasibility of whether to move forward with a full-scale direct mail program as soon as all
results from the tests are in and an assessment can be made.
7. What are the prospects of other fundraising tools, such as the commemorative coin?
Answer: To date, effort to enact a commemorative coin bill for the FDR Memorial have not
been seccessftil. The House and Senate Banking Committees and the Administration have
expressed concern over the proliferation of commemorative coin programs and pending coin
legislation. Currently, there are two bills pending in the Senate: S. 446, the FDR Memorial
Commemorative Coin Act, and S. 885, the United States Commemorative Coin Act of 1995,
which includes the FDR Commemorative Coin Act plus five other commemorative coin
programs. A companion bill to S. 885 is also pending the House. The Senate Banking
Committee is withholding consideration of any commemorative coin legislation pending
review of a report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) on the commemorative coin
program. GAO expects to release their report some time in May.
Highlights of the Capital Campaign, including prospects of other fundraising tools are as
follows:
• The Blum-Kovler Foundation contributed $500,000 to the Memorial fund.
• The government of Great Britain made a major contribution to the Memorial fund.
• The AFL-CIO Executive Council fulfilled their three-year pledge to the Memorial
fund.
• 1 he Commission conducted two mail solicitation appeals to its "house" list (previous
donors) with profitable results.
• A major fundraiser will take place April 30, 1996, with activities throughout the day,
culminating with dinner at the White House, hosted by the President and Mrs. Clinton.
• Mr. Jack Valenti continues to meet one-on-one with CEOs of major corporations to
solicit contributions.
• The National Association of Civilian Conservation Corps laimched a national
fundraising campaign for the Memorial called "March of Dollars for FDR" and
contributions continue to come in.
8. Will the Memorial construction be completed if you are unable to fulfill your
$10 million in fundraising? How might this impact the dedication date?
Answer: Yes. Memorial construction will be completed without reaching the $10 million
fundraising level.
9. If there are delays will you need to request additional salary to maintain your staff
beyond the third quarter, FY 1997 termination date you now predict?
Answer: Yes. If there are delays the Commission will need to request additional
administrative funds, including salaries, to maintain the Commission office beyond the third
quarter, FY 1997 termination date predicted.
10. What costs will be involved in shutting down the Commisson office and in transferring
the Memorial to the National Park Service?
Answer: The National Park Service is not aware of any transfer costs. Historically, the site
has been maintained by the National Park Service, and it will assume Memorial operation and
404
maintenance upon dedication/public opening. The National Park Service budget request for
the Memorial is $825,000 and fifteen FTE's. In preparation for shutting down the
Commission office, the Commission anticipates additional costs in the area of sorting, labeling
and packing old and current records and artwork and coordinating these efforts with the
National Archives, the National Park Service and the Memorial designer's office in San
Francisco. An estimated $11,000 in additional costs for salaries has been included in the FY
1997 request.
1 1. The Commission received a large increase in funding for FY 1996 for additional salary
costs. How has this increase aided the raising of funds for the construction, facilitated the
construction or aided planning the dedication of the Memorial and subsequent activities?
Answer: Funding for FY 1996 has not been available to the Commission due to the impasse
over the passage of the FY 1996 Department of Interior appropriations bill. As of April 1,
1996 through a series of continuing resolutions, an aggregate of $21,355 has been made
available to the Commission based on the FY 1995 appropriation of $48,000. Salary costs
and the number of personnel have remained constant since 1993. The FY 1993 one-time
appropriation of $500,000 for salaries and expenses (P.L. 102-381, Oct. 5, 1992, amended to
be available until expended), has been utilized for administrative expenses, including salaries.
This seed money has supplemented the FY 1 994 appropriation of $49,000 and the FY 1 995
appropriation of $48,000 ($3,000 recinded for "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Additional Disaster Assistance, for Anti-terrorism Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery
from the Tragedy that Occurred at Oklahoma City, and recissions act, 1995"). The requests
for FY 1996 of $147,00 and for FY 1997 of $125,000 will enable the Commission to
maintain a constant level of oversight for this multi-million dollar Memorial project.
12. The Commission requested a one-time request for $375,000 to fiind the Memorial
dedication. This request is not part of the President's budget. Why was this request rejected
by the 0MB?
Answer: The Commission's one-time request for $375,000 to fund the Memorial
dedication/public opening was sent to OMB as an amendment (December 11, 1995) to be
attached to the Commission's original request for FY 1997 of $125,000 (August 30, 1995) for
administrative expenses. It is possible OMB failed to match up the two separate requests.
13. Are there no other Federal funds available to cover the security costs of the
dedication?
Answer: The Commission is unaware of other Federal ftmd to cover the security costs of the
dedication/public opening. The National Park Service offers no response, given the unknowns
of the scope of the ceremony.
14. Your dedication celebration request includes projected overtime costs of $40,000. To
whom will these funds be paid?
Answer: The projected overtime costs of $40,000 would be paid as reimbursements to the
U.S. Park Police, the Department of State security service, the Metropolitan Police and other
federal security departments.
15. What private ftinds are available or will be raised to pay for the dedication?
Answer: The Commission was mandated by the Congress to raise private, non-federal ftinds
to help offset the cost of Memorial construction. The Commission's Capital Campaign is
405
actively engaged to meet that goal. Until the goal is reached, the Commission deems it
counter-productive to also solicit private, non-federal funds for the dedication/public opening.
Any private, non-federal funds raised in excess of the goal will be turned over to the federal
government and could be used for the Memorial dedication/public opening.
16. Have you undertaken any special fundraising efforts, or solicitation of donations of
goods and services, to support the Memorial dedication?
Answer: Until the goal to help offset cost of the Memorial construction is reached, the
Commission deems it counter-productive to also solicit private, non-federal funds for the
dedication/public opening. The Commission has not, therefore, undertaken any special
fundraising efforts, or solicitation of donations of goods and services, to support the Memorial
dedicatiori/public opening.
17. Why is the dedication ceremony expected to cover 2 days? What cost savings would
be realized by having a one-day dedication?
Aiiswer: The dedication/public opening celebration for the FDR Memorial will be only the
third time in the twentieth century that our nation will have dedicated a presidential memorial.
The last presidential memorial to be dedicated was the Jefferson Memorial, dedicated by
President Roosevelt in 1943 at the height of World War 11. The scope of the dedication
celebration will include international representatives of U.S. allies, veterans. Social Security
recipients. Civilian Conservation Corps alumni and scores of Americans from across the
country. These various groups will have their own special events spread over the two days,
which will require additional traffic control and security. All of this will be in addition to the
acttial dedication ceremony by the President of the United States at the Memorial site. This
presidential memorial dedication/public opening will have appeal and interest to a broader
spectrum of visitors than the July 1 995 dedication of the Korean Memorial, which included
several days of activities and received $350,000 in federal funding.
18. What special fundraising efforts are now underway as the dedication is now only one
year away?
Answer: Same as for question # 15.
19. The Commission has no FTE's yet salaries constitute fully 86% of the FY 1997
budget request. How many people are supported by the requested salary level? During FY
1996 you had a similar ratio of salary to total request. Since the Commission will terminate
at the end of the third quarter, why are there not larger salary savings during FY 1 997? What
are the aruiual pro-rated salary requests for FY 1996 and FY 1997?
Answer: The Commission staff are full-time contract employees of the Commission. The
requested salary level will compensate three full-time contract employees. The salary savings
for FY 1 997 comes from the fact that the Commission anticipates operating 75% of the fiscal
year instead of 100% of the fiscal year. The business of the Commission will remain at a
high level throughout its last months of existence as it continues fundraising, continues to
oversee all aspects of the Memorial construction, oversees the planning and implementation of
the dedication/public opening, and implements the transfer of forty- two years of historical
records to the National Archives. The annual salary request for FY 1996 was $125,000 (April
19, 1995 answers to Additional Committee Questions). The annual salary request of $107,000
for FY 1997 includes $11,000 for a special part-time employee for shut-down tasks, leaving
406
$96,000 for all other staff salaries for 3/4 of FY 1997. The $96,000 extrapolates to $128,000
for a full fiscal year.
20. How many visitors do you anticipate will use the Memorial during the next 2 years?
Answer: It is estimated by the National Park Service that 6 million visitors will pass through
the site over a two year period.
21. What economic impact on the tourism of the National Capital area is anticipated due
to the presence of the FDR Memorial?
Answer: The new FDR Memorial will be an added attraction to the Nation's Capital
experience, thereby increasing the National Capital Area tourism base.
22. What are some of the other benefits of the Memorial?
Answer: As a nation we share a common memory, which helps define who we are as
Americans, whether we are Americans by birth or by choice. Our national memorials are
symbols of this common memory. The FDR Memorial will honor not only President
Roosevelt, but an entire generation of Americans. The Memorial will provide extensive
opportimities to generations yet to come, for interpretation of the events of the f)eriod and the
direct impact President Roosevelt had on national and world-wide affairs during some of the
twentieth century's most momentous years.
WITNESSES
Page
Bass, Hon. C. F 207
Beilenson, Hon. A. C 194
Bereuter, Hon. Doug 1
Bilbray, Hon. Brian 230
Blitzer, Charies 285
Blute, Hon. Peter 221
Bono, Hon. Sonny 135
CUnger, Hon. W. F., Jr 105
Coyne, Hon. W. J 25
de la Garza, Hon. E (Kika) 248
DeLaiiro, Hon. R. L 252
Deutsch, Hon. Peter 56
Doyle, Hon. Mike 61
Eshoo, Hon. Anna 185
Farr, Hon. Sam 131
Gejdenson, Hon. Sam 94
Geren, Hon. Pete 102
GUchrest, Hon. W. T 159
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob 69
Gordon, Hon. Bart 165
Goss, Hon. Porter 179
Hamilton, Hon. Lee 271
Hefley, Hon. Joel 190
Herger, Hon. Wally 170
Johnson, Hon. N. L 88
Johnson, Hon. Tim 8
Jones, Hon. Walter 240
Kennedy, Hon. P. J 145
Lantos, Hon. Tom 200
LaTourette, Hon. S. C 79
Ligon, Clara Ill
Lofgren, Hon. Zoe 73
Meyers, Hon. Jan 152
Mica, Hon. J. L 214
Molinari, Hon. Susan 260
Moton, Grace Ill
Nadler, Hon. Jerrold 272
Neal, Hon. Richard 225
Oberstar, Hon. J. L 46
Ortiz, Hon. S. P 275
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr 29
Payne, Hon. L. F Ill
Pelosi, Hon. Nancy 36
(i)
u
Page
PervaU, L. R Ill
Reed, Hon. Jack 155
Reich, Dr. Walter 300
Richardson, Hon. Bill 264
Riggs, Hon. F. D 51
Roukema, Hon. Marge 276
Sanders, Hon. Bernard 140
Saxton, Hon. Jim 148
Schumer, Hon. Charles 126
Shays, Hon. Christopher 256
Stark, Hon. Pete 77
Stupak, Hon. Bart 40
Underwood, Hon. R. A 93
Visclosky, Hon. P. J 19
Ward, Grace Ill
Weldon, Hon. Curt 83
Weller, Hon. Jerry 244
Young, Hon. Don 281
INDEX
Woodrow Wilson, Opening Statement 285
Funding Level Requested 286
Mrs. Smith/Mr. Stenholm Colloquy 287
Fixed Cost Absorption 291
Private Funding 292
Move to Federal Triangle 294
Conference List 296
World Wide Web 298
Holocaust Memorial, Opening Statement 300
Artifact Conservation 301
Visitation 302
Staffing 304
Requested Budget Increase 306
Membership 308
Endowment Drive 311
Security 313
World Wide Web 316
Activities in FY 96 318
Staffing 323
Historic Preservation, Opening Statement 327
Fiscal Year 1996 Reductions 331
Projected Delays 333
Personnel Cuts 334
Possible Savings 335
Legal Services 337
Increased Efficiencies 339
Significant Properties 341
Preservation Coordination 342
Failure to Agree 344
Section 106 Case Litigation 345
Training Activity 346
Internet Activity 349
Council Members 351
State Involvement 353
Federal Involvement 354
Base Closure 357
Technical Preservation Solutions 358
Cooperative Agreements 359
Federal Leadership 360
Preservation Benefits and Limits 361
Section 106 Regulations 363
Reimbursable Agreements 365
Council Meetings 365
NCPC, Opening Statement 367
(iii)
IV
PBfB
Proposed Fxinding Increases 370
Potential Savings 372
PADC Responsibilities 377
Monumental Core Framework Plan 377
1996 News Coverage, Monumental Care 379
Other Major Activities 385
Excerpt firom Federal Capital Improvements 388
Geospatial Data 389
Internet 394
Miscellaneous 395
FDR Memorial Commission, Opening Statement 400
Construction Completion 403
Increase in Funding 404
INDEX OF MEMBER REQUESTS BY AREA OF INTEREST
Acid Mine Drainage 109
African Elephant Conservation Fund 198
Alaska Legal Services Corporation 283
All Nations University 152
Allegheny National Forest 105
Appalachian Trail 90, 140
Baldwin Ranch 132
Bering Sea Fishermen's Association 282
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor 145, 155, 221, 225
Blue Ridge Parkway 69
Church of the Seven Presidents 29
Dismal Swamp 30
Don Edwards NWR 78, 185, 200
E.B. Forsythe NWR 148
East Central Florida Land Acquisition 214
Endangered Species Act 138, 159, 177
Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research 7
Fish and Wildlife Service 135
Fond du Lac Indian Reservation 47
Forest Inventory 47
Forest Management 171
Forest Service 193
Fossil Energy R&D , 61
FWS— Chesapeake Bay Field Office 163
Garfield National Historic Site 79
Gateway National Recreation Area 126, 260
Glorieta Battlefield 267
Grand Portage National Monument 47
Guam, Territory of 93
Gulf of FaraUones N. Marine Sanctuary 201
Hetch Hetchy 37
Historic Preservation 88, 111, 180
Homestead National Monument 4
Hoosier National Forest 271
Indian Health Service 281
Indiana Dunes 19
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Arts 265, 283
Jones Center for the Sounds 240
Kawerak, Inc 283
V
Page
Ladd S. Gordon NWR 266
Lassen Park Visitor Center 176
Long Branch Historical Musevun Coop Research 34
Lower Rio Grande Valley Nat. Wildlife Corridor 248
Lower Rio Grande Valley Nat. Wildlife Refuge 275
LWCF 73, 135
Mark Processing Center 36
Metlakatla Indian Community 284
Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 244
Mojave National Preserve 36
Mora Fish Hatchery 264
National Biological Survey 34
National Endowment for the Arts 268, 272
National Endowment for the Humanities 274
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 83, 101
National Lakeshores 41
National Parks 40
Naval Training Center 231
North American Wetlands Conservation Act 86
OCS Moratorium 38, 51, 131, 179, 235
Oil and Gas Lease Sales 35
PILT 142, 175
Presidio 36
Quinebaug & Shetucket Rivers National Heritage Corridor 96
Rhino/Tiger Conservation Fund 198
Rio Rancho Water Table Study 265
Sandy Hook Unit 29
Santa Monica Movmtains 194
Seminole Tribe 59
South Florida Ecosystem 56, 182
Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center 266
Steel Industry Heritage Project 25, 66
Sterling Forest 276
Stewart McKinney NWR 252, 256
Stones River National Battlefield 165
Timber Harvest 40
Timber Sales 9, 170
Torres-Martinez Indians 135
Tribal Issues 8
WallkillNWR 278
Weatherization 140
White Mountain National Forest 207
Whitefish Point Light Station 42
O
^°STON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05577 168 5
ISBN 0-16-052694-9
9 780160"526947
90000