Skip to main content

Full text of "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"

See other formats


Y 4.AP 6/1: IN 8/6/997/ 
PT. 9 

Departnent of the Interior and Rela. . . JNGS 







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 


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 



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^ 


f^=^^^&g„ I 








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 


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 



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 

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 

BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman 

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana 

C. W. BILL YOUNG. Florida 


JERRY LEWIS, California 



JOE SKEEN, New Mexico 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

TOM Delay, Texas 

JIM KOLBE, Arizona 



RON PACKARD, California 



CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina 


ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma 



DAN MILLER, Florida 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 


FRANK RIGGS, California 

MIKE PARKER, Mississippi 


ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 


GEORGE R. NETKERCUTT, Jr., Washington 

JIM BUNN, Oregon 

MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin 

SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois 


TOM BEVILL, Alabama 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 


NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 


JULIAN C. DDCON, California 

VIC FAZIO, California 

W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carohna 

STEm' H. HO'i'ER, Maryland 



ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 



DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado 

NANCY PELOSI, California 


THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania 


NITA M. LOWEY, New York 



James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director 




Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 





Mr. Regula [presiding]. The lead-off is my friend, Doug Bereu- 

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. 


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- 

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:] 




APRIL 17, 1996 

Sumnary of funding requests: 


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 

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. W M na i' a tiD 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. 


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. 




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. 


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 


KEXD RBQDEST: Report language directing the Naticral Park Service to 
develop a General Management Plein for Honestead NaticMial Mcaiuroent of America 
near Beatrice, Nebraska. 


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. 


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 s ut Jtx ji L 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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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- 

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- 

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 

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 

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:] 


^ 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 


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 

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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 



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. 


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. 


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 

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 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 


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 

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:] 


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 

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. 



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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 


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- 

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. 


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:] 


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 


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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 








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 

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- 

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 


small amount of money to help with the rehabilitation of that facil- 

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 

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:] 


,£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 




APRIL 17, 1996 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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 

For plaiming of these activities, I hope the Subcommittee will seriously consider 
providing $200,000 in FY 1997. 


I would next like to direct the Subcommittee's attention to a project that is very 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 








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- 


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- 

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 

Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Pelosi follows:] 





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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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 — 


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 

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 

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 

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 


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- 

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 


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:] 







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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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? 


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- 

Mr. Regula. Okay, thanks for your coming here. 

[The statement of Mr. Oberstar follows:] 





;^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. 


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. 



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. 


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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



Mr. Regula. Next on our list, Frank Riggs. Frank? 

Mr. RiGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing this 

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- 

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.] 


And, again, thank you. 

Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. RiGGS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Riggs follows:] 





APRIL 17, 1996 















Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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 


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:] 



20tm OiStbict. FtomoA 



Conqttii of tte Winittt ^tatti 
i^oude of i&epre^entatibesi 

3fia«t)mgton, 3DC 20515-0920 


4 Cammom Housi 0**<ct 6UK 

Wasmwton. DC 30515 

<»») 325-7931 

<303l 32S-64S6 (Fax» 



I3») 2»«-M1» 




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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 


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- 

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:] 


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. 


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 

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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 





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- 

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. 


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:] 



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 

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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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 

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. 


Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you for coming. 
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 
[The statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 


Wa»««tdn. OC Silt 
<303) 22S-30T3 
towgrwnOtw hew— fw 


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. 


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 

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. 



Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



[The statement of Mr. Stark follows:] 










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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

Mr. LaTourette. Certainly. 


Mr. Regula. Without that, it would never have been preserved 

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:] 


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. 


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 

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. 


Mr. Regula. The committee will suspend for a couple of minutes. 

Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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- 

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- 


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:] 





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 


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 


and restore privately owned and public wetlands across the 

* 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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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- 

Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut. That's right, they have, yes, abso- 

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 

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, 


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:] 





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 
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. 


United States Department of the Interior 


Nortiheast Field Area 

U. S. CustoB House 

200 Chestnut Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvsmia 19106 

March 27, 1996 


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 


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 



Marie Rust 
Field Director 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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:] 




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. 


(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. 


Ranking Member 
Committee on Resources 


Chairman, Subcommitf^e rfh ' Ranking JClember, Subcommittee on 

Native American and Insular Affairs Native Anerican and Insular Affairs 


Member of Congress 

^ 96 

Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 




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 


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- 

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 

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." 


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:] 



24TS Ravsukn BuiUmmC 

Wasm**oton. DC 20S1S 

1707) 235-2076 

'>4 Wist Mam ST«crr 

■cMtwo*. CT oeaeo 

(703) 886-019 

94 Comrr Snarr 

MooifTOWM. CT 00457 




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 

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 



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. 


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 . 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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:] 






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 


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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 


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 

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. 


Mr. Clinger. Yes, we get them from Pittsburgh, from Buffalo, 
from Cleveland, and so forth. It gets very heavy use across the 

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- 

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:] 


(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. 


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 

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 


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: 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 

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. 


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 


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 

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 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 






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 

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- 

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 

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 


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. 


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- 

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- 

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- 

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. 


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:] 


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 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. 


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 

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 

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 


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. 


fj J 3 r Ji J c 



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 


Taking Stock — 56 

The National Trust is asiesiing its copious, fascinating — and dxidedly ttsejiil — 
collation of historical dociititetits. 

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? 

Tht Po'tixi Houst 
hut u w llx Cr.3itd 
Grtal AiNericj 




Glorious Revivals 


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 




B U R D £ 

Will a small 

communitY in 

rural Virginia 

preserve its 

symbol -a 

humble brick 


of America's 

struggle for 

civil rights? 





ILt THE ifH 

, NE&KO 


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. 


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. 



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 


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- 



Virgina's Southside region in which Farmville lies became the state's center 
of resistance to federal integration court orders. .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 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 
:s and 


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, 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 


**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-;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 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 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 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." ▼ 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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- 

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- 

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:] 




dongrcBS of the Idnitcd ^DtCB 

» iiousc ofUqjitscnutiots 

^ masliinBton. ©£ 20515 

"""^ April 17, 1996 


INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS: National Park Service Construction 


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 



April 17. 1996 


INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS: National Park Service Construction 


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 


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 compl e ti o n . 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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 


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:] 




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 


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 Ou tpr 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. 


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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 




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- 


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- 

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:] 



APRIL 17, 19% 























Mr. BUNN. The committee is in recess until 1:30. 

Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 






Mr. Regula. Bernie's here. 

Mr. Sanders. Okay. Thank you for allowing me to come up 

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. 


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:] 


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 


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. 



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. 

A ppalachian 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. 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 





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 

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 

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- 

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 


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:] 


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 

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 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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 

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. 


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:] 


Testimony of 
Congressman Jim Saxton 

Interior Appropriations Requests 

Subcommittee on Interior 

April 17, 1996 

Since Fiscal Year 1990, Congress has invested an average of $4 million a 

The Forsythe National Wildlife Reflige is a land acquisition program of national 

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. 



Thank you for allowing me to testify today. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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? 


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 

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:] 


statement of the 

Honorable Jan Meyers 
before the 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior 


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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 





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 

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 

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. 


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:] 


&10 L0*MWOin>t SuKOnKI 

4.-.OTON. DC nsiVXKtt 
iI02t Z2S-2r» 

Qamoih CiTv CiMTia 
100 Mom** PuWX 

Ciuu(ST(yf. Rl 02920 


Congresfsf of ttjc ©niteU States 

J^ouse of i^epretsentatibts 
aaaatjington, S£ 20515-3902 




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. 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 




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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 

Mr. GiLCHREST. Short of that, you mean there may be no money 

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, 


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- 

Mr. Regula. Well, I would suggest you try to arrange such a 

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 

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 

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:] 




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 

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 



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 

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. 


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 . 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996 



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- 

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 


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 

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 


it's not earmarked in the bill to try to get the high priority acquisi- 

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:! 


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. 


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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 








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- 

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 


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 


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:] 


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 

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. 


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 


infrastructure which supports fire suppression, habitat and watershed restoration, and 

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 


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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 


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 

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 


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 

Mr. Regula. To translate means "on those northerners." [Laugh- 

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 

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 


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 

Mr. Regula. Thanks for coming over. 

Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

[The statement of Mr, Gross follows:] 



Congress of tlic (Linitft) ^t.itcs 

Ijoiisr of l\rprfsciUiUi»)fs ■"/'., 

ililastiington. uS^ 20313-0014 ..TTT;, 


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 


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 


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 


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 

Again, thank you for your consideration of these requests. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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. 


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 

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. 


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:] 


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 


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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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- 

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 

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 


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:] 





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. 


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 

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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

Mr. Regula. Yes. 

Mr. Beilenson [continuing]. A nine-page statement on the Santa 
Monicas and a six-page statement on elephants and tigers and 

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 


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 

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 

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- 


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 

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 


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:] 






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 

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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 





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 

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 

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- 

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 

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. 


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:] 


400 Ei C»tmtO Rut, 


Sam kUTio. CA ••«& 




(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, 


Tom Lantos 
Member of Congress 


Mr. Regula. Now the $1.2 million, would that be to rehab the 

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- 

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 

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 

Mr. Regula. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. 

[The statement of Mr. Lantos follows:] 


El. Camu«o Real 
Matto CAM«tt 



(EongrEHH of tifz Inteii Btatea 

House of RcpreHEntatiuEH 

»aHl|ington. fi.OI. 2D515 



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. 


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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 


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 

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 


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 

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- 

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 

[The information follows:] 



Lake Tarleton 
(See Attache Map) 



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, 

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 

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. 


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:] 


CHARLES F. BASS, M.C committee on the budget 

2o0i4'"«:' H,y.H^n~m COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMEN' 


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 

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 

Thank you for your attention to this request 



(6031 226-0249 16031 88»^7T2 



KEENE. NH 03431 

(6031 3S8-4094 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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- 

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. 


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 

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- 

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:] 


JOHN L. MICA •w'lvTo 

Wa5m>noton. OC 30 

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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


Central Florida 
Land Acquisition Priorities 


Central Florida 
Land Acquisition Priorities 

(Updated March 1996) 

Lands Already Acquired 















State of Florida 






State of Florida 





State of Florida 





State of Florida 







Lands Remaining To Be Acquired 











State of Florida 

♦ ♦ 





State of Florida 






State of Florida 

♦ ♦ 





State of Florida 

♦ * 





* - Proposed year for acquisition 

** - Individual parcel cost estimates are not included in order to maintain 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 





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 

Mr. Regula. Well, you've already demonstrated that it's popular. 

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 

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. 


Mr. Regula. Yes, which clearly says there's no incursion whatso- 
ever on private property. 
[The statement of Mr. Blute follows:] 




APRIL 17, 1996 














Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 





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- 

Mr. Regula. And the population pressures are really going to 

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. 


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- 

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 

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:] 


RICH/^RD E NEAL /^Ss COmmitteeon ways and means 

Second District. MASSACnuserrs 


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 


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 


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 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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- 

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- 

Mr. Regula. Now this would be the county and the local commu- 

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 


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 

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 


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- 

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? 


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:] 



cotJ'ME?«"TMM°AND ttnnnrcdti nf Hip TRltiifrh ^f.ifrrt sand«goca«,o. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ~ f*x i6i9i »i ant 


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 


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 



I^ C CJ 

C -D ■— 

c = o 


-r ;^ =x -c I > - 

c I 

i< = • 

£ V S « £ 
•/: E ac a. 

. -C a MJ= f 

n ? 5 > "-£ £ 

4) C.* OO ^ ^ 





■ MM 


!--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 

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 



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 



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. 


I o = 
- > o = 

- -c _- ^ 

"J i ^ V. i^ .i: ■" « 

^ =f j: o *' JJ >. S c - 




yorto !§ ~=J 

■.^ V ^ — a. 


± s: * = v5 

3 — V o >» c 

■o = 2 tX - iS 

= "=• >-^ 5 

■J s ■•= - > 

, So c 

; _ _c -■ -: O 


O. u 

^ :S"g- 

iiPil ll^l' 

■ CI 


i-o -'?r o^ 

gSJ^i:£E t 
? g "I s ^ -■ «^ 2 


~ > 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 




ot t^ 






: : 



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 



■5— « " » 

^ ^ J3 j: 


<j .u. y 

■O C Sf Q. p 

4j (^ .2: II r 

4> --*< — _ fc* fc* 



o V S 

CM 0£ 
C C k. 

£■5 2 
3 = c 





z . 














= = 04, 
"»?? 7 







^ ace 

Ills ^ill = ts Jggl^lii^J ^|l| fS^s!|lf5lliS|l||ll|Hl|a^ 


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! " 

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 


^ o 

O oEo-SHS 

o ^ " " i[ a ^Q i, 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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 

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- 

Mr. Jones. Yes, right. 


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- 

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 

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:] 


C*t-HON MowS( Orrcs BuiLOfvC 

W*»HiN0TO.. DC 20515 
Tiici^<0*«( I202I33&-341S 

coMMirree on national securitv 


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 


the FT 1997 Interior Appropriations Act 

regarding the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds 

102-C E*9TMoo* Owivl 


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 


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 

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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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- 


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:] 




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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 





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. 


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:] 



Congrrdg of tt)e ?Hnitel) ^tatr£( 

i}ouit of i^fprrerntatibrs 
fflastjington. S£ 20515-4315 

Statement By 
E (Kika) de la Garza 


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. 


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 

Thank you Mr Chairman. 

tt « # 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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- 

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 


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- 

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 

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:] 







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 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 



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 

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:] 


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. 


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. 


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. 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 


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 

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- 

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- 


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 

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- 

Ms. MOLINARL Yes. [Laughter.] 

This collar of this dress is getting a little tighter up here. 

Mr. Regula. Well, that's just reality. 

Ms. MOLINARL I understand. Thank you. 

Mr. Regula. Okay. 

[The statement of Ms. Molinari follows:] 


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 


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 


Wednesday, April 17, 1996. 








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. 


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 

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- 

Mr. Richardson. Yes. So I think if you give us a phaseout num- 

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. 

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 

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 

But thank you again. 

Mr. Regula. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Richardson follows:] 


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 

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. 

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. 



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. 

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. 


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. 

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 

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. 



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. 


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. 
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 

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. 

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" 

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 


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. 

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. 


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. 


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:] 


m* liayauMK Bu«omc 



Congresid of tte United States! 
f^oMt oC ^t9rtitntati\iti 

8Bast)ington, B€ 20313-1409 


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. 



Congresis; of ttje ^nitcb States! "'^irrrr' 

Jt)ouit of i^cpre£(rntatibeg 
Was\mslon, 1B€ 20515 




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 


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. 


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 

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. 





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 

Cofvu* CHMsn. ntrMOS 

Congress of the Idnited States 

ilousc of Kcprtscntanocs 
Washington, B£ 20515-4327 

Wntten Testimony of 


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 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 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. 


The Statement of 

Congresswoman Marge Roukema 


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. 


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 

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 


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 . 


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 

Finally, I want to conmiend the Subcommittee for including emergency storm 
damage relief funding as part of the Onmibus Continuing Resolution that the 


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. 






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 


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 

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 


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 


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 

Stevens Village Council $100,000 Natural Resources Office 
Chugach Regional Resources Commission $565,000 Fisheries 

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 



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 


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 



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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 



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 


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 


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 


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 

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 

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. 


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 



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 


The Andrew W. Mellon 

The Pew Charitable Trusts 

Smith Richardson 

World Bank Urban 
Development Division 

Rockefeller Brothers 

Henry Luce Foundation 

Comparative Perspectives on 
Regional Economic Development: 
Local Resources and the Role 

Russian Political Elite Today 

Policy Forum: Stability and 
Change in Russian Politics 

Policy Forum, US Dept. of State 

"Policy Forum: Health and the 


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 




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 


Policy Forum, US Department of State 
"Policy Forum: Ethnic Relations in 
Kazakhstan and Ukraine" 


The Function of Regional Chambers 
of Commerce in Russia's Economic 

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 

Ford Foundation 

New Evidence on the Polish 
Crisis and the Cold War 

Institute of Political 
Studies, Warsaw; National 
Security Archive; MacArthur 

Churchill the Peacemaker 

International Churchill 

The Revival of Moral Inquiry 
in the Disciplines 

The Andrew W. Mellon 

War and Democracy: A 
Comparative Approach 

The Andrew W. Mellon 

Project on Comparative Peace 

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 


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 


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. 


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 


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 . 


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 

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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 




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 

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 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 


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. 


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. 


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: 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

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 


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;" 

"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? 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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 

Answer: The Museum currently maintains two Internet World Wide Web 

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 


structure to make comprehensible to high school students the history of these 

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 


$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) 


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 



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) 


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 

Impact of Memories Teleconference ($68,200 private) 
Hitler's Willing Executioners ($3,900 private) 

Holocaust Precedents and the Obligations of Medicine Conference ($28,000 

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 


(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 

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. 


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 

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 

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? 


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: 


Job Title 

Pay Schedule 

Contracling Officer 
Purchasing Agent 
Contract Specialist 
Purchasing Agent 
Contract Specialist 
'Contract Specialist 
*Clerk Typist 
•Purchasing Agent 
•Contract Specialist 
•Contract Specialist 


Supervisory Computer Specialist 
•Administrative Assistant 
Supervisory Computer Specialist 
Computer Specialist (Systems) 
Computer Specialist (Programmer) 
Computer Technician 
Computer Specialist 
Applications Programmer 
Production Assistant 








8a Contractor 

8a Contractor 


Director, Film and Video 
•Administrative Assistant 
•Program Coordinator 
•Consultant (Federal) 



Supervisory Computer Specialist 

•Graphics Artist/Cartographer 


•Production Editor 



•Photographic Scanner 


•Text Editor 




Program Assistant 
•Program Coordinator 


• These positions are supponed by private donations. Pay is equal to the General Schedule (GS) rate. 


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. 


New Title 


Promoted to 


from Grade: 



Executive Office 

Deputy Assistant, 

Museum Director, Admin 





Personnel Mgmt Spec 




Personnel Mgmt Spec 




Personnel Mgmt Spec 




Personnel Act Clerk 





Office of Administration 

Administrative Officer 




Office of Technical Services 

Dep Dir of Operations 




Computer Specialist 




Computer Specialist 




Computer Specialist 




Computer Specialist 




Computer Specialist 




Computer Specialist 




Administrative Officer 





GS- 1060-05 

GS- 1060-07 


Office of Support Services 

Support Srvcs Super 





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 









Program Coord 




Training Spec 




Training Spec 




Training Spec 




Volunteer Coord 




Program Asst 




Supv Museum Spec 

GS- 1016-07 



Supv Museum Spec 

GS- 1016-07 



Supv Museum Tech 


GS- 101 6-08 


Supv Museum Tech 




Museum Technician 




Training Spec 


GS- 17 12-07 


Museum Technician 




Museum Technician 




Museum Technician 




Museum Technician 




Museum Technician 




Admin Assistant 





Museum Spec 




Museum Spec 




Museum Spec 




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 


Council On 

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 

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. 


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 


"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 

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 


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. 




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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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 



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. 



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. 



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 



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 . 



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 

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 



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 



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 

Upgrading and presenting a new course for Department of 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 



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 

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, 


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 

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 

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 



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 

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. 



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 

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 

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. 



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 



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 

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 



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 



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 



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 

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 

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. 



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. 



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 

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 

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 



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 

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 



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 

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. 



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 



(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 



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. 



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 



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 



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 

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 



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. 





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 

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. 


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 


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. 





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 


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? 


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. 


2. Please prioritize the increases that you have requested. 

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. 


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. 


3. Are there any decreases in your proposed budget? 


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 


Travel & Transportation of Persons 

$ 18,944.00 


Communications, Utilities & Misc. Charges 

$ 36,934.00 


Printing & Reproduction 

$ 15,620.00 


Contracts with Experts & Consultants 

$ 52,485.00 


Other Services 

$ 60,295.00 


Supplies & Materials 

$ 35,999.00 



$ 40,323.00 


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? 


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 


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 


5. To what extent were savings obtained during 1996 by: ( 1 ) leaving vacant positions unfilled; 

(2) eliminating personnel and positions; (3) furloughs? 


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. 


6. What would be the impact of leaving unfilled positions vacant during FY97? 

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. 


7. What is the status of your reinvention and downsizing efforts? Were any savings obtained, 
and if so, where? 


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. 



8. What is the status of your streamlining study? What opportunities does it suggest for fiscal 
and/or personnel savings? 


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.. 


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? 


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. 


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? 


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. 


several electronic mapping products which will be available to the public and other government 

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. 


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? 


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. 


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? 


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 



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? 


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. 


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? 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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 


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?" 


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 


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. 






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. ' 



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: 


Summary of 1996 News Coverage of Monumental Core 




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 

"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- 

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 

"City Plan Panel to Ask for More Muscle; 
Want Federal Leaders to Ensure its Future"" 

March 26.1996 

The Washington Times/Adrienne 

""Better"" Capital City Often Leaves Residents 
Out" (column) 

March 26.1996 

AP/Prince George's Joumal/LeRoy 

"Washington Restoration Planned" 

March 27. 1996 





The Washington Post/No author 

"Around the Region: D.C. in the 21st 

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. 

"Fine-Tunmg a Vision for DCs Next 

March 30, 1996 

The Washington Times / Tom 

"Commission Lays Out Plans for 21st-century 

April 6, 1996 

US News & World Repoit/Wire 

"A Dream that Clinton and Gingrich Agree 

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 

Capital for a New Century 

May/June, 1996 



(AS OF 4/2/96) 


Story Date 




3/26, 7: 10 pm 

46 minute - full coverage of press conference 


3/26, 6:00 pm 

Channel 4 

3/26, 12:00 pm 
5:00 pm (re-run) 

1 minute stor>', includes clips from Eleanor 
Holmes Norton 

Channel 4 

3/26, 6:00 pm 

1 minute story, includes graphics of plan, Tom 
Davis quote 

Channel 7 

3/26, 5:00 pm 
3/27, 6:00 am 

2 minute story, includes visuals, clips of Tom 
Davis, Reg Griffith, Marion Barr>' 

Channel 7 

3/26, 1 1 :00 pm 

Anchor reader, includes visuals of plan 

Channel 9 

3/26, 5:00 am 

30 second story, includes graphics 

Channel 9 

3/26, 5:00 pm 

1.5 minute story, includes visuals of plan, clips 
of Marion Barrv 


3/26, 6:00 pm 

1 minute story, includes visuals 

Channel 9 

Channel 5 

3/26, 6:00 am to 
7:00 am 

Live shots throughout am news broadcast, 
including visuals of plan and Union Station 


3/26, 12:00 pm 

20 second anchor reader, includes visuals 

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 

Washington Journal 

3/27, 9:00 am 

Interview with Reg Griffith 



Story Date 



3/27, 5:30 am 

35 minutes-partia] coverage of press conference 


3/27, 6:15 am 

15 minute story, clips from press conference 

Newschannel 8 

3/27, 6:00 am 


National Public 
Radio (on WET A) 


25 second mention during classical show 



Story reported by Danielle Karson 


3/26, 7:00 am, 
8:00 am, 5:00 pm 

Story includes focus of future of transportation 


3/27, 7:00 am 

4 minute, very positive 


Washington Post 
Digital Ink 

3/26 to present 

Graphics and text of 25-page Extending the 
Legacy digitized 



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? 


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. 


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? 


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. 


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? 



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 

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. 


22. What has been the role of the District of Columbia government in formulating the 
Monumental Core Framework Plan? 


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. 


23. How do you expect to be able to link the comprehensive planning you do with the output of 
the Monumental Core Framework Plan? 



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 


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? 


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. 


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? 


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. 


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? 


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. 


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? 


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. 


28. What is the status of the 2050 Plan? 


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 


satellite photography, aerial photogrqjhy, land use and transportation data, socio-economic data, and 
related information. 


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. 


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 


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? 


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. 


3 1 . Please provide some examples of projects which have been rejected by the NCPC this past 



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 

- Excerpt from Federal Capital Improvements 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. 


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 

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 


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.) 


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. 


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 


33. What efforts do you have underway to collaborate and coordinate the acquisition of 
geospatial data for the National Capital planning area? 



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. 


34. What partners have you worked with to date and what additional partners do you 
anticipate working on with respect to geospatial data? 


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: 










in Process 


Archiieci of the Capitol 


Department of Defense 


Military District of Washington 

Naval District of Washington 


Arlington Cemetery 


Corps of Engineers 


General Services Administration - NCR 


Library of Congress - Mapping division. 

National Park Service 



Smithsonian Institution 


State Department 

U.S. Department of Agricultiire - Arboretum 

U.S. Department of Transportation 


U.S. Postal Service 

U.S. Department of Justice 





U.S. Geological Survey 


United States Secret Service 


Local and Regional (non District of Colombia) 

Arlington County Virginia 


D.C. Financial Control Authority 

Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments 



Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority. 



Private Sector 

Bell Atlantic 


Environmental Systems Research Institute 



Evans and Sutherland 




Local Universities 




1 Potomac Electric Power Company 












in Process 






Washington Gas 



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? 


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) 


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 


Develop Applications 



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? 


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 

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 

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. 


37. Do you anticipate that there will be some opportunities to retrieve costs associated with 
sharing geospatial data? 



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. 


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 


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. 


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? 


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. 


40. What additional training or personnel needs will you have as you increase your activities 
in GIS? 


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. 



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? 


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. 


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? 



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. 


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 planning effort? What do you anticipate your 
involvement in this effort will cost, and what personnel time is required, for FY97 and FY98? 


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. 


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. 


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? 


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. 















< -5 E 


ri £ 





c ^ !i 


— ^ 





a: Q ^ 

^ Q a. 

lis s 

U Q < U 

^ i 



■g t- 








s. c 


_2 — 


t/1 a. 

^ I 


^ ;^ 

z ('• 

O U 


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 



S o 
o o 

z a 
z u 

< w 

08 Q 

Z 0. 


u z 


z ffi 
z > 


a. __ 
J w 
u > 

Z B^ 






z S 


E v: ^ "■ "- 5 £ w 


E S g- „ .? g 

0. E 

^ £ £ 



O § i I g g II 


0-2 ^^ ^ 
^ I 3 o^ «i ]c E 
§ = I E iS i E p 


ui S uj i<: » -i O 
a: O Q S z < S 

5 trt u u u 

§ a 


ill! i 

t ■= 5 T S 

-; d vi ui 


Washington Geographic Informalion System (WGIS; 

Funding Partners: 

- National Capital Planning Commission 

- DC. Department ol Public Works 

- D.C. Department of Administrative 

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 

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 and Images 

- Building Address 


- 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 





PsANKLiN Delano 



Honorary Co-Chairs 
WUliam J. dintoa 

Fonncf Presidenci 
George Bush 
Jimmy Carter 
Gerald R. Ford 
Rofiald Reagan 

Mark O. Hatfield 
Oanie) K. Inoufc 


Alibnsc M. DAmato 

Carl Levin 

Maurice D. Hindtex 
jerry Lewis 

Proidcnoal Appointeei 
Irving Berlin 
Barbara A. Handmao 
Lester S. Hyman 
OavidB. RooKvelt 

Capttal Campaign 
David B. Roowdt 

Intematiortal Chair 
Anna C. Chenitault 

ExBOTTTVE Director 
Dorann H. Gundcrson 

S2^-A Han Senate 
Office Buiidinc 
^a^aiinfton. DC 20510 
FAX 202.224.1010 

Donor Recognition 

$ 2,000 





Photo Services 


Postage & Courier 








Travel & Expenses 




BUDGET FOR $375,000 FY 1997 ONE-TIME 

Two-Day Celebration 





(sound, lights, tents. 

chairs, etc.) 






Video record 





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. 


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'. 


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? 


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 

• 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 

• 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 


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 

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 


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 


$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. 



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 




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 


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 




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 


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 



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 



3 9999 05577 168 5 

ISBN 0-16-052694-9 

9 780160"526947