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-<rj     DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR  AND  RELATED 
•ftWf        AGENCIES  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  1997 


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

Departnent  of  the  Interior  and  Rela. . .  JNGS 

BEFORE  A 

SUBCOMMITTEE  OP  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE  HUNDRED  FOURTH  CONGRESS 

SECOND  SESSION 


SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR  AND 
RELATED  AGENCIES 

RALPH  REGULA,  Ohio,  Chairman 

JOSEPH  M.  McDADE,  Pennsylvania  SIDNEY  R.  YATES,  Illinois 

JEM  KOLBE,  Arizona  NORMAN  D.  DICKS,  Washington 

JOE  SKEEN,  New  Mexico  TOM  BEVILL,  Alabama 

BARBARA  F.  VUCANOVICH,  Nevada  DAVID  E.  SKAGGS,  Colorado 

CHARLES  H.  TAYLOR.  North  Carolina 
GEORGE  R.  NETHERCUTT,  Jr.,  Washington 
JIM  BUNN,  Oregon 

NOTE:  Under  Committee  Rules,  Mr.  Livingston,  as  Chairman  of  the  Full  Committee,  and  Mr  Obey,  as  Ranking 
Minority  Member  of  the  Full  Committee,  are  authorized  to  sit  as  Members  of  all  Subcommittees. 

Deborah  Weatherly,  Loretta  Beaumont,  Joel  Kaplan,  and  Christopher  Topik, 

Staff  Assistants 


PART  9 

Page 

Testimony  of  Members  of  Congress  1 

Woodrow  Wilson  Center 285 

Holocaust  Memorial  Museum  300 

Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preservation 327 

National  Capital  Planning  Commission  367 

FDR  Memorial  Commission  *-««fttit ^^ 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Commiftee  on  ApprojM^at^ 


ms 


f^=^^^&g„  I 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR  AND  RELATED 
AGENCIES  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  1997 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE  A 

SUBCOMMITTEE  OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE  HUNDRED  FOURTH  CONGRESS 
SECOND  SESSION 


SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR  AND 
RELATED  AGENCIES 

RALPH  REGULA,  Ohio,  Chairman 

JOSEPH  M.  McDADE,  Pennsylvania  SIDNEY  R.  YATES,  Illinois 

JIM  KOLBE,  Arizona  NORMAN  D.  DICKS,  Washington 

JOE  SKEEN,  New  Mexico  TOM  BEVILL,  Alabama 

BARBARA  F.  VXJCANOVICH,  Nevada  DAVID  E.  SKAGGS,  Colorado 

CHARLES  H.  TAYLOR.  North  Carohna 

GEORGE  R.  NETHERCUTT,  Jr.,  Washington 

JIM  BUNN,  Oregon 

NOTE:  Under  Committee  Rules,  Mr.  Livingston,  as  Chairman  of  the  Full  Committee,  and  Mr.  Obey,  as  Ranking 
Minority  Member  of  the  Full  Committee,  are  authorized  to  sit  as  Members  of  all  Subcommittees. 

Deborah  Weatherly,  Loretta  Beaumont,  Joel  Kaplan,  and  Christopher  Topik, 

Staff  Assistants 


PART  9 

Page 

Testimony  of  Members  of  Congress  1 

Woodrow  Wilson  Center 285 

Holocaust  Memorial  Museum  300 

Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preservation 327 

National  Capital  Planning  Conmiission  367 

FDR  Memorial  Commission  400 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations 


U.S.  GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
24-711  O  WASHINGTON  :  1996 

For  sale  by  the  U.S.  Government  Printing  OfBce 

Superintendent  of  Documents,  Congressional  Sales  Office,  Washington,  DC  20402 

ISBN  0-16-052694-9 


COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 
BOB  LIVINGSTON,  Louisiana,  Chairman 


JOSEPH  M.  McDADE,  Pennsylvania 

JOHN  T.  MYERS,  Indiana 

C.  W.  BILL  YOUNG.  Florida 

RALPH  REGULA,  Ohio 

JERRY  LEWIS,  California 

JOHN  EDWARD  PORTER,  Illinois 

HAROLD  ROGERS,  Kentucky 

JOE  SKEEN,  New  Mexico 

FRANK  R.  WOLF,  Virginia 

TOM  Delay,  Texas 

JIM  KOLBE,  Arizona 

BARBARA  F.  VUCANOVICH,  Nevada 

JIM  LIGHTFOOT,  Iowa 

RON  PACKARD,  California 

SONNY  CALLAHAN,  Alabama 

JAMES  T.  WALSH,  New  York 

CHARLES  H.  TAYLOR,  North  Carolina 

DAVID  L.  HOBSON,  Ohio 

ERNEST  J.  ISTOOK,  Jr.,  Oklahoma 

HENRY  BONILLA,  Texas 

JOE  KNOLLENBERG,  Michigan 

DAN  MILLER,  Florida 

JAY  DICKEY,  Arkansas 

JACK  KINGSTON,  Georgia 

FRANK  RIGGS,  California 

MIKE  PARKER,  Mississippi 

RODNEY  P.  FRELINGHUYSEN,  New  Jersey 

ROGER  F.  WICKER,  Mississippi 

MICHAEL  P.  FORBES,  New  York 

GEORGE  R.  NETKERCUTT,  Jr.,  Washington 

JIM  BUNN,  Oregon 

MARK  W.  NEUMANN,  Wisconsin 


DAVID  R.  OBEY,  Wisconsin 

SIDNEY  R.  YATES,  Illinois 

LOUIS  STOKES,  Ohio 

TOM  BEVILL,  Alabama 

JOHN  P.  MURTHA,  Pennsylvania 

CHARLES  WILSON,  Texas 

NORMAN  D.  DICKS,  Washington 

MARTIN  OLAV  SABO,  Minnesota 

JULIAN  C.  DDCON,  California 

VIC  FAZIO,  California 

W.  G.  (BILL)  HEFNER,  North  Carohna 

STEm'  H.  HO'i'ER,  Maryland 

RICHARD  J.  DURBIN,  Illinois 

RONALD  D.  COLEMAN,  Texas 

ALAN  B.  MOLLOHAN,  West  Virginia 

JIM  CHAPMAN,  Texas 

MARCY  KAPTUR,  Chio 

DAVID  E.  SKAGGS,  Colorado 

NANCY  PELOSI,  California 

PETER  J.  VISCLOSKY,  Indiana 

THOMAS  M.  FOGLIETTA,  Pennsylvania 

ESTEBAN  EDWARD  TORRES,  California 

NITA  M.  LOWEY,  New  York 

RAY  THORNTON,  Arkansas 

JOSE  E.  SERRANO,  New  York 


James  W.  Dyer,  Clerk  and  Staff  Director 


(ID 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR  AND  RELAT- 
ED AGENCIES  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  1997 


TESTIMONY  OF  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS  AND  OTHER 
INTERESTED  INDIVIDUALS  AND  ORGANIZATIONS 


Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

HOMESTEAD  NATIONAL  MONUMENT  OF  AMERICA 

FISH  AND  WILDLIFE  COOPERATIVE  RESEARCH 

WITNESS 

HON.  DOUG  BEREUTER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  NEBRASKA 

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

Mr.  Bereuter.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman  and  mem- 
bers of  the  committee.  It's  my  understanding  that  you  proceed  on 
a  first-come,  first-served  basis  on  appropriations. 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  right.  Early  bird  gets  the  worm,  as  they  say. 
Maybe  no  money,  but  a  worm.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Bereuter.  That's  what  I'm  afraid  of 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  two-page  summary  about  three  specific 
requests,  and  I  ask  unanimous  consent  that  my  entire  statement 
and  summary  be  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection. 

Mr.  Bereuter.  And  I'll  summarize  it. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  thank  you  and  members  of  this  sub- 
committee for  past  successes  and  for  requests  that  you  have  ac- 
ceded to  that  I've  made  in  years  previous. 

The  first  area  that  I  wanted  to  mention  is  the  National 
AgroForestry  Center  which  is  located  in  Lincoln,  Nebraska.  I  sup- 
port the  administration's  request  of  a  quarter  million  from  State 
and  private  forestry  funds  for  the  Center.  I'm  also  requesting  the 
restoration  of  research  funding  to  the  Center  at  the  previous  level, 
$1.1  million. 

This  funding  is  necessary  to  help  ensure  the  continuation  of  vital 
research  being  conducted  at  the  Center.  The  Center  is  a  key  ele- 
ment in  the  agroforestry  research  and  technology  transfer  for  the 
Forest  Service.  The  Center's  mission  is  to  accelerate  the  develop- 
ment and  application  of  agroforestry  techniques  to  obtain  more  eco- 
nomically, environmentally,  and  socially  sustainable  ecosystems. 

(1) 


The  Center  seeks  to  increase  the  use  of  agroforestry  in  order  to 
fulfill  the  following  purposes,  which  are  really  unique  to  the  Great 
Plains  and  western/midwestem  States:  make  agriculture  more  sus- 
tainable, mitigate  the  adverse  environmental  side-effects  of  agri- 
culture, convert  marginal  farmland  to  high-value  tree  crops  and 
wildlife  habitat,  and  enhance  human  environments. 

Second — and  I  might  say  this  is  really  the  only  forestry  resource 
that  exists  in  the  State  of  Nebraska — we  don't  have  many  trees  to 
start  with,  so  they  are  very  precious.  We  have  had  fairly  good  suc- 
cess, beginning  in  the  1930s,  with  planting  trees  that  are  adaptable 
to  the  climate  that  make  sense 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  you  have  the — what's  the  name  of  it,  Doug? 

Mr.  Bereuter.  Falcy  National  Forest,  for  example? 

Mr.  Regula.  No,  no,  no,  it's  a  private  group. 

Mr.  Bereuter.  The  Arbor  Day  Foundation? 

Mr.  Regula.  The  Arbor  Day  Foundation. 

Mr.  Bereuter.  It's  located  in  my  district  in  Nebraska  City,  Ne- 
braska, and  they  are  doing  very  well. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  send  them  money. 

Mr.  Bereuter.  Thank  you.  It's  where  I'd  hoped  to  host,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  the  European  Parliament  meeting  last  year.  We  had  to 
cancel  because  of  our  schedule.  The  Lead  Center  Foundation,  the 
lead  Arbor  Day  Foundation  Center,  Conference  Center,  is  really 
beautiful.  This  committee  helped  fund  part  of  that. 

Mr.  Regula.  They  do  a  great  job  of  outreach. 

Mr.  Bereuter.  Secondly,  the  only  National  Park  Service  facility 
in  my  district  is  the  Homestead  National  Monument  of  America  lo- 
cated near  Beatrice,  Nebraska.  I'd  like  report  language  directing 
the  National  Park  Service  to  develop  a  general  management  plan 
for  the  Homestead  National  Monument  of  America  near  Beatrice. 

I  understand  that  this  process  normally  takes  several  years  and 
can  be  accomplished  with  base  funded  staff  from  the  headquarters 
of  that  region  located  in  Omaha.  The  only  anticipated  costs  would 
be  about  $15,000  for  travel  and  printing  of  the  general  manage- 
ment plan.  All  I  really  need  is  the  report  language. 

It  is  supported  by  the  National  Park  Service  personnel,  the  su- 
perintendent. They  really  need  this  in  order  to  proceed  to  meet  the 
goals  that  were  established  by  legislation  for  the  Homestead  Na- 
tional Monument. 

The  third  is  a  request  related  to  Fish  and  Wildlife  Conservation, 
a  cooperative  research  unit  at  the  University  of  Nebraska.  I  have 
made  this  request  for  seven  years  running.  I  understand  that,  in 
fact,  the  administration's  request  would  indicate  that  one  addi- 
tional unit  would  be  developed.  I  hope  that  it  is  allocated  to  Ne- 
braska. 

Let  me  give  you  a  couple  of  the  reasons.  Nebraska's  strategic  lo- 
cation presents  several  very  special  research  opportunities  particu- 
larly related  to  migratory  birds.  Nebraska  is  one  of  only  ten  States 
without  a  cooperative  Fish  and  Wildlife  Research  Unit  within  the 
State.  The  Platte  River  in  Nebraska  is  recognized  as  a  major  envi- 
ronmental curridor,  especially  as  an  internationally-significant 
staging  area  for  migratory  birds.  We  are  located  in  the  largest  mi- 
gratory bird  pattern  in  the  North  America  continent. 


If  any  of  you  have  seen  any  of  the  environmental  organizations' 
studies  of  the  Platte,  you  know  that  not  only  the  goose  and  the 
duck  migratory  pattern  is  very  impressive,  but  sandhill  cranes  are 
probably  world-renowned  in  their  use  of  the  Platte  and  their  gath- 
ering there  each  spring  and  fall. 

The  North  American  Waterfall  Management  Plan  includes  a  pro- 
tection of  rainwater  basin  and  the  sandhill  wetlands  as  critical 
nesting  habitats  for  migratory  waterfowl.  Locating  a  cooperative  re- 
search unit  in  Nebraska  to  develop  useful  information  relating  to 
these  issues  upon  which  to  base  critical  management  decisions  is 
an  urgent  need.  I,  along  with  others,  have  supported  the  coopera- 
tive research  program  for  many  years.  Although  research  efforts 
have  been  conducted  in  Nebraska  by  cooperative  research  units 
from  other  States,  time  and  travel  requirements  have  greatly  lim- 
ited the  effectiveness,  the  depth,  and  the  breadth  of  those  efforts. 

So,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  subcommittee,  those  are 
the  three  requests  that  I  make,  and  I  hope  that  you  can  favorably 
act  upon  them.  I  will  be  happy  to  answer  any  questions. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  as  you  know,  Doug,  we  don't  know  what  we'll 
have.  A  lot  of  these  things  are  going  to  be  driven  by  the  availability 
of  the  funding. 

Mr.  Bereuter.  I  do  understand,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  think  that  the 
least  expensive  of  mine  is  the  request  for  the  management  plan. 
But  my  top  priority  is  the  fish  and  wildlife  unit,  as  I've  pushed  for 
it  for  seven  years. 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  why  it's  No.  1? 

Mr.  Bereuter.  It  is. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Bereuter.  Thank  you  very  much. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Bereuter  follows:] 


STAIEViENT  OF  CXDNGRESSMAN  rOUG  BEKEUraR 

TO  THE  HOLBE  AITROTRLVnONB 

SUBCXaVEVirnEE  ON  INTERBCXl 

APRIL  17, 1996 


Sumnary  of  funding  requests: 


I.  NftTICMRL  MROgOREtflKY  (aMTtK 

Request   —  Support  Administraticai's  request  of  $250,000  frotn  state  and 
private  forestry  funds 
SL^jport  restoratican  of  funding  for  the  Agroforestry  Center's 
Research  Vfark  Unit  frcm  the  Forest  Service  Research  fund 

The  Administration  has  requested  $250,000  frcm  state  and  private 
forestry  funds  for  the  Natioial  Agroforestry  Center  at  Lincoln,  Nebraska.  I 
support  this  request  vAiicii  is  needed  to  ensure  that  the  valuable  research 
being  ocxxiucted  at  the  Center  reaches  those  v*io  will  nost  benefit  from  the 
research. 

I  also  request  that  funding  for  the  research  ccnponent  of  the 
Agroforestry  Center  be  restored  to  its  previous  level  of  $1.1  million.  Ihe 
$500,000  reduction  in  research  funding  in  FY96  has  seriously  inpaired  the 
research  capabilities  of  the  Center. 

n.  WMnai'atiD  mmtcmm.  MaroMEwr  of  amtoicr 

iteguest  —  I  am  requesting  r^»rt  language  directing  the  National  Park 
Service  to  develop  a  General  Management  Plan  for  Homestead  Naticxial  Monument 
of  America  near  Beatrice,  Nebraska. 


III.  FISH  AND  WIIJ3LIFE  COaPERKnVE   RESStftCH  DMIT  M  ONIVHtSrrY  OF  MEBRftSKA 

i^eqfuest  —  I  remain  strongly  supportive  of  the  establishment  of  a  new 
fish  and  wildlife  cooperative  research  unit  at  the  University  of  Nebraska- 
Lincoln.  The  Administration's  FYS?  budget  includes  an  increase  of  $750,000 
for  the  Cooperative  Research  Unit  program.  I  am  requesting  an  earmark  of 
$250,000  from  this  increcise  to  establish  a  new  oocperative  fish  and  wildlife 
research  unit  at  the  University  of  Nebraska-Lincoln. 


STATtMENT  C*^  (XIISORESSMAN  DOUG  BEKELTTER 

TO  THE  HOUSE  AIHW^TOATO« 

SUBOOMMTTIEE  OSf  INimiai 

AHOLn,  1996 


Chcdrman  Regula,  Congressman  Yates,  and  menters  of  the  Subocxnnittee:  I 
would  like  to  begin  by  expressing  my  appreciation  for  the  of^xjrtunity  to 
appear  before  you  to  request  funding  for  several  projects  of  inportanoe  to  the 
State  of  Nebraska. 


I.  NftTIOMM)  AgtGFCRESTRY  Ca/l'tK 

NEED  RBQUEffT:  I  support  the  AdministratiCTi's  request  of  $250,000  from 
state  and  private  forestry  funds  for  the  Naticsial  Agrof orestry  Center  at 
Lincoln,  Nebraska.  I  am  also  requesting  the  restoratiai  of  research  funding 
for  the  Center  to  the  previous  level  of  $1.1  million.  TViis  funding  is 
necessctry  to  help  ensure  the  continuaticai  of  valuable  research  being  ctMiducted 
at  the  Center. 

SB^SCM  FCR  REQDEST:  The  Naticxvil  Agrof  orestry  Center  (formerly  the 
Center  for  Sesmiarid  ^rof orestry)  wcis  authorized  by  the  1990  Farm  Bill,  the 
Food,  Agriculture,  Oc«Tservaticai,  and  Trade  Act  (FACTA) .  Secticxi  1243  of  the 
FACTA  authorized  an  annual  appropriation  of  v^)  to  $5  million  for  the  center. 
The  Naticxial  ^roforestry  Center  is  a  partnership  of  the  Research,  Sate  and 
Private  Forestry,  and  International  Forestry  branches  of  the  USDA  Forest 
Service.  The  Center  ocxiducts  research  an  developing  tree  varieties, 
e^ecially  adapted  to  the  Great  Plains,  that  will  enhance  crop  and  livestock 
production,  protect  surface  and  groundwater  quality,  create  wildlife  habitat, 
and  promote  envircrmental  goeils.  The  Center  is  naticaially  and  intematicnally 
renowned  as  the  U.S.  flagship  for  agrof  orestry  due  to  its  leadership  in 
agrof  orestry  research,  develc^ment  and  applicaticais. 

The  Center,  located  in  Lincoln,  Nebraska  is  a  key  element  of 
agrof  orestry  research  and  teciinology  transfer  for  the  Forest  Service.  The 
Center's  mission  is  to  accelerate  the  developnent  and  applicaticm  of 
agrof  orestry  technologies  to  attain  more  ecoronically,  envircxTroentally,  and 
socially  sustsdnable  ecosystems.  To  acccnplish  its  mission,  the  Center 
ccxTducts  agroforestry  research  and  interacts  with  a  natiCTial  network  of 
cocperators  to  coiduct  research,  develop  technologies  and  tools,  establish 
dranryistratiaTS,  and  provide  useful  informaticxi  to  natural  resource 
professicneils  naticnwide  and  glcAally. 

The  National  Agroforestry  Center  is  developing  key  partnerships  with 
other  agencies  and  institutions  and  catalyzing  interdisciplinary  teanwork. 
Since  e»grof orestry  bridges  critical  productivity,  biodiversity, 
susta inability ,  and  socio-econcmic  issues,  the  NatiOTal  Agroforestry  Center 
has  beocme  a  foceil  point  for  interagency  cooperaticHi.  The  multi-agency 
initiative  being  developed  inclxxles  the  Agricultural  Reseeuxh  Service  (ABS) , 
the  Cooperative  State  Reseeuxh,  Education,  and  E)ctensicn  Service  (CSREES)  and 
the  Elivircraientzd  Protection  Agency  (EPA) . 


The  Center  seeks  to  increase  the  use  of  agroforestry  in  order  to  fulfill 
the  following  purposes: 

•  Make  agriculture  more  sustainable 

•  Mitigate  the  adverse  environmental  side  effects  of  agriculture 

•  CCHTvert  marginal  farmlands  to  high-value  tree  crops  and  wildlife  habitat 

•  EiThance  human  envircsTments 


n.  HCMESTEM)  MATICMMi  MCMOMBn'  OF  AMERICA 

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

RSSCM  FCR  RBQ0E8T: 

Honestead  Natioial  Mcnument  of  America  ccmnenorates  the  lives  and 
acocnplishments  of  all  picneers  and  the  changes  to  the  land  eind  the  people  as 
a  result  of  the  Homestead  Act  of  1862.  This  Monument  was  authorized  by 
legislation  enacted  in  1936.  Hcwever,  a  General  Management  Plan  is  needed  to 
help  ensure  that  Homestead  is  able  to  reach  its  full  potential  as  a  place 
where  Americans  can  more  effectively  z^ipreciate  the  Homestead  Act  and  its 
effects  i^xxi  the  nation. 

A  General  Management  Plan  is  the  first  st^  in  assessing  cind  planning 
for  new  park  development.  The  plan  is  used  to  identify  the  park's  purposes, 
eissess  current  situations,  and  plan  new  development  and  management  directions. 
A  General  Management  Plan  also  contains  envircaTroental  and  historical 
assessments.  Public  ccrment  an  the  plan  eind  proposed  alternatives  are 
required  by  the  Nationad  EiTvircMTmental  Policy  Act  and  other  laws  and  policies. 
Before  Homestead  could  embark  \ipor\  any  future  projects,  the  General  Management 
Plan  process  VKXild  have  to  be  ccnpleted  to  ensure  that  missicn-bcised 
objectives  and  public  corrment  were  properly  ccMisidered.  This  process  normally 
takes  several  years  and  it  is  m/  understanding  that  it  can  be  acoorplished 
with  base-funded  stciff  with  available  funds. 

Homestead  National  Mmument  of  America  is  trvily  a  unique  treasure  amcxig 
the  National  Paric  Service  jewels.  The  authorizing  legislation  makes  it  clear 
that  Homestead  was  intended  to  have  a  special  place  among  Park  Service  units. 
According  to  the  original  legislation: 

"It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  lay  out 
said  lemd  in  a  suitable  and  enduring  meinner  so  that  the  same  may 
be  maintained  as  an  appropriate  mcaiument  to  retain  for  posterity  a 
proper  memorial  emblematic  of  the  hardships  eind  the  picsieer  life 
through  which  the  early  settlers  passed  in  the  settlement, 
cultivation,  and  civilizaticxi  of  the  great  Vtest.  It  shall  be  his 
duty  to  erect  suitable  buildings  to  be  used  as  a  museum  in  vAiich 
shall  be  preserved  literature  c^plying  to  sucii  settlement  and 
Skgricultural  inplements  used  in  bringing  the  western  plains  to  its 
present  state  of  hi^  civilization,  and  to  use  the  said  tract  of 
land  for  such  other  objects  and  purposes  as  in  his  judgement  may 
perpetuate  the  history  of  this  country  mainly  developed  by  the 
homesteekd  law." 


Clearly,  this  authorizing  legislation  sets  some  lofty  goals.  I  am 
requesting  r&part   language  calling  for  a  General  Management  Plan  which  would 
begin  the  process  of  realizing  these  goals. 

HI.  FISH  MP  WTTnr.TPR  OOgproftTIVE  RESgJtCH  QNIT  M*  UNiyTOSITY  OF  NEBRASKA 

NEH}  RBS20E8T:  I  remain  strongly  si^jportive  of  the  establishment  of  a 
new  fish  and  wildlife  ooc^ierative  research  unit  at  the  University  of  Nebraska- 
Lincoln.  I  have  patiently  requested  funding  for  this  oooperative  research 
unit  since  1990. 

The  Administration's  FY97  budget  includes  an  increase  of  $750,000  for 
Oooperative  Research  Units  through  the  U.S.  Geological  Survey's  budget.  This 
funding  increase  would  provide  additic«ial  funding  to  address  critical  natural 
science  issues  and  allow  the  establishment  of  one  new  unit.  I  am  requesting 
an  earmaric  of  $250,000  fron  this  increase  to  establish  a  new  oocperative  fish 
and  wildlife  research  unit  at  the  University  of  Nebraska-Lincoln. 

RBVSCM  FCR  SEQDBST:  Nebraska's  strategic  locaticai  presents  several  very 
^jecial  research  opportunities,  particularly  relating  to  migratory  birds. 
However,  Nebraska  is  c«>e  of  c»ily  ten  states  without  a  cocperative  fish  and 
wildlife  research  unit  within  the  state. 

The  Platte  River  of  Nebraska  is  recognized  as  a  major  environmental 
oorridcar,  especicilly  as  an  intematicaially  significant  staging  area  for 
migratory  birds.  The  North  American  Waterfcwl  Management  Plan  includes  the 
protecticTi  of  the  rainwater  basin  and  sandhills  wetlands  as  critical  nesting 
habitat  for  migratory  waterfowl.  Locating  a  cooperative  research  unit  in 
Nebraska  to  develop  useful  infonnaticxi  relating  to  these  issues  iqxsn  v^ch  to 
base  critical  management  decisions  is  an  urgent  need. 

I,  cilcaTg  with  others,  have  si^ported  the  cocperative  research  program 
for  xmny  years.  This  is  the  seventh  year  in  a  row  that  I  have  expressed  my 
strcaxr  sutJtxjiL  for  this  project  and  since  1991  I  have  testified  before  this 
subocnmittee  each  year  as  an  advocate  for  establishing  a  fish  and  wildlife 
oooperative  research  unit  for  the  University  of  Nebraska  in  Lincoln.  Althou^ 
research  efforts  have  been  caiducted  in  Nebraska  by  coc^jerative  research  units 
from  other  state's  units,  time  and  travel  requirements  have  greatly  limited 
the  effectiveness,  depth  and  breadth  of  these  efforts. 

Again,  Chairman  Regula,  Qaigressman  Yates,  and  members  of  the 
Subocnmittee,  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  ^leak  cm  b^ialf  of  these 
projects  vAiich  are  of  great  iji(X)rtance  to  Nebraska. 


8 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
TRIBAL  ISSUES 
TIMBER  SALES 

WITNESS 

HON.  TIM  JOHNSON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  SOUTH  DAKOTA 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  Tim? 

Mr.  Johnson  of  South  Dakota.  Well,  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  I  would  ask  consent  that  my  oral  testimony  and  statement  be 
put  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  South  Dakota.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  express  my  request  for  funding 
several  projects  and  programs  affecting  South  Dakota.  I  appreciate 
the  commitment  that  you  and  your  staff  have  shown  in  the  past 
in  addressing  my  State's  needs.  For  the  sake  of  time,  I'll  just  sum- 
marize South  Dakota's  request  in  the  written  testimony. 

First,  I'd  like  to  take  a  couple  of  minutes  to  highlight  a  few  of 
the  major  issues  which  impact  South  Dakota's  Indian  community 
and  others  across  the  country. 

Throughout  the  debate  over  the  Fiscal  Year  1996  appropriations, 
tribes  in  my  State  expressed  the  impact  of  the  serious  reduction  in 
Tribal  Priority  Allocations,  or  TPA  funding,  on  tribal  communities. 
TPA  funds  basic  self-determination  and  self-governance  programs 
on  the  reservations,  such  as  road  maintenance,  scholarships,  child 
protection,  law  enforcement,  welfare  assistance,  and  housing. 

Under  the  Fiscal  Year  1996  conference  level,  the  TPA  was  re- 
duced by  11  percent  or  $85  million  from  1995.  This  funding  mecha- 
nism gives  tribes  the  greatest  flexibility  to  prioritize  programs  and 
to  further  tribal  self-governance  and  self-determination  outlined  in 
the  Indian  Self-Determination  Act.  I  believe  that  such  severe  cut- 
ting is  unfortunate. 

For  Fiscal  Year  1997,  the  President  is  requesting  $1.78  billion  for 
BIA  programs,  $211.1  million  over  the  1996  conference  level.  The 
greatest  share  of  increase,  51  percent  of  the  BIA  operating  budget, 
is  directed  at  TPA  to  restore  funds  needed  to  provide  basic  tribal 
government  operations  and  services.  I  strongly  support  these  prior- 
ities. 

Mr.  Chairman,  foremost  in  priority  to  South  Dakota  tribes  is  the 
education  of  Indian  youth.  Fifty-six  percent  of  the  American  Indian 
population  in  this  country  is  age  24  or  younger.  I  support  the  Presi- 
dent's request  that  the  increase  of  $43.5  million  over  Fiscal  Year 
1996  for  school  operations  to  maintain  academic  standards  at  BIA 
and  provide  safe  transportation  for  an  increased  student  enroll- 
ment. 

I'm  also  in  strong  support  of  the  efforts  of  tribally-controlled  com- 
munity colleges  to  take  the  lead  in  meeting  the  higher  education 
and  skills  training  needs  of  Indians.  I  support  the  request  of  the 
American  Indian  Higher  Education  Consortium  for  full  funding  for 
the  tribally  controlled  colleges  and  approximately  $40  million  for 


Fiscal  Year  1997  as  authorized  under  the  Tribally  Controlled  Com- 
munity Colleges  Act. 

Mr.  Chairman,  as  you  know,  Federal  expenditures  for  social  pro- 
grams continue  to  exceed  investments  for  economic  growth  in  In- 
dian Country.  The  role  of  the  Federal  Government  must  be  to  en- 
courage tribal  self-sufficiency  at  every  opportunity.  Cooperative  ef- 
forts like  the  Inter-Tribal  Bison  Cooperative  develop  and  support 
buffalo  business  ventures  among  its  40  tribal  members.  It  serves 
as  an  ideal  example  of  the  type  of  investment  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment can  make  to  enhance  tribal  economies,  and  I  support  the  re- 
quest of  $6.63  million  for  bison  enhancement  projects  in  tribal 
lands. 

The  Federal  Government  must  also  continue  its  support  of  tribal 
self-governance  through  authority  over  law  enforcement  and  tribal 
judicial  systems  on  reservations.  Many  tribes  lack  the  resources  for 
adequate  law  enforcement  and  just  administration  in  tribal  courts. 
To  this  end,  I  am  particularly  supportive  of  the  Yankton  Sioux 
Tribe's  request  for  increased  funds  for  law  enforcement  at  Yankton 
in  light  of  the  recent  U.S.  District  Court  District  of  South  Dakota 
judgment  in  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe  v.  Southern  Missouri  Waste 
Management  District.  That  ruling  found  that  the  exterior  bound- 
aries of  the  Yankton  Reservation  remain  intact  and  mandated  that 
the  reservation  boundaries  be  re-enforced.  This  increased  area  of 
criminal  jurisdiction  for  the  tribe  and  the  Federal  Gk)vemment  over 
Native  Americans  from  38,000  trust  acres  to  400,000  acres  within 
the  exterior  boundaries.  Neither  the  tribal  police  nor  the  BIA  have 
anything  close  to  the  funding  or  trained  personnel  necessary  to 
adequately  police  this  newly  expanded  reservation  area  previously 
patrolled  by  the  State,  county  and  city  police. 

I've  contacted  Attorney  General  Reno  to  urge  the  appropriate  co- 
operation among  the  Justice  Department,  the  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe, 
and  the  State  of  South  Dakota.  But  your  attention  to  this  would 
be  very  much  appreciated. 

I'd  like  to  just  touch  base  on  a  non-tribal  need  very  quickly,  Mr. 
Chairman.  In  addition  to  the  funding  necessary  for  our  Indian 
projects,  I  want  to  thank  you  for  the  1996  Interior  Appropriations 
conference  report  directing  the  Forest  Service  to  complete  a  study 
using  an  independent  contractor  on  the  merits  of  using  tree  meas- 
urement or  scaled  methods  of  selling  timber  and  report  the  findings 
back  in  the  subcommittee.  I  would  urge  that  the  committee  in- 
cludes language  in  this  year's  appropriation's  bill  requiring  the  For- 
est Service  to  complete  that  study  at  the  earliest  possible  time  to 
resolve  the  unsettled  issue  of  how  best  to  sell  Forest  Service  timber 
sales. 

So  thank  you  again  for  this  opportunity  to  appear  before  the 
committee,  and  thank  you,  as  well,  for  your  work  on  behalf  of 
South  Dakota's  tribal  members. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  do  the  best  we  can. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  South  Dakota.  Thanks  again,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Johnson  of  South  Dakota  follows:] 


10 


^  ask  unanimous  consent  that  my  oral  statement  and  my  written  testimony 
be  included  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank  you  for  the 
opportunity  to  express  my  support  for  funding  several  projects  and 
programs  affecting  South  Dakota.  I  appreciate  the  commitment  your 
Subcommittee  and  its  staff  have  shown  in  addressing  my  state's  needs  and 
for  your  efforts  on  behalf  of  my  constituents.  The  funding  that  you 
provide  is  absolutely  critical  for  the  promotion  of  economic  development, 
health  and  welfare,  and  protection  of  our  natural  resources. 

For  the  sake  of  time,  I  will  summarize  SD's  requests  in  my  written 
testimony  but  I  would  like  my  entire  statement  entered  into  the  record, 
^irst,  I  would  like  to  take  a  few  minutes  to  highlight  a  few  of  the  major 
issues  which  impact  South  Dakota's  Indian  community  and  others  across 
the  nation. 

While  I  certainly  understand  the  constraints  placed  on  Congress  and  this 
Subcommittee  by  our  efforts  to  reduce  the  deficit,  and  as  always  I  do  not 
envy  the  difficult  choices  your  Subcommittee  has  to  make  this  year,  I  feel 
strongly  that  we  cannot  allow  the  current  budget  situation  to  force  us  to 
renege  on  our  trust  responsibilities  to  the  Indian  people  of  this  nation. 

Throughout  the  debate  over  FY  1996  Appropriations,  Tribes  in  my  state 
expressed  to  me  the  impact  of  the  serious  reduction  in  Tribal  Priority 
Allocations  (TPA)  funding  on  tribal  communities.   TPA  funds  basic 
self-determination  and  self-governance  programs  on  reservations  such  as 


11 


road  maintenance,  scholarships,  child  protection,  law  enforcement, 
welfare  assistance,  and  housing.   Under  the  FY  1996  Conference  level, 
the  TPA  was  reduced  11  percent  (-$85  million)  from  FY  1995.   This 
funding  mechanism  gives  tribes  the  greatest  flexibility  to  prioritize 
programs  that  further  tribal  self-governance  and  self-determination 
outlined  in  the  Indian  Self  Determination  Act,  and  I  believe  such  severe 
cutting  is  misguided.   For  FY  1997,  the  President  is  requesting  $1.78 
billion  for  BIA  programs,  $211.1  million  over  the  1996  Conference  level. 
The  greatest  share-of  the  increase,  51%  of  the  BIA  operating  budget, 
is  directed  at  TPA  to  restore  funds  needed  to  provide  basic  tribal 
government  operations  and  services,  and  I  strongly  support  these 
priorities. 

Mr.  Chairman,  foremost  in  priority  for  South  Dakota  tribes  is  the 
education  of  Indian  youth.  56%  of  the  American  Indian  population  in 
this  country  is  age  24  or  younger.  I  support  the  President's  requested 
increase  of  $43.5  million  over  FY  '96  for  school  operations  to 
maintain  academic  standards  at  BIA  schools  and  provide  safe 
transportation  for  an  increased  student  enrollment-transportation  that  is 
vital  to  education  in  my  rural  state. 

I  am  also  in  strong  support  of  the  efforts  of  Tribally  Controlled 
Community  Colleges  to  take  the  lead  in  meeting  the  higher  education 
and  skills  training  needs  of  Indians.  I  support  the  request  of  the 
American  Indian  Higher  Education  Consortium  for  full  funding  for  the  29 
tribally-controUed  colleges  at  approximately  $40  million  for  FY  1997, 
as  authorized  under  the  Tribally  Controlled  Community  Colleges  Act. 


12 


Mr.  Chairman,  as  you  know,  federal  expenditures  for  social  programs 
continue  to  exceed  investments  for  economic  growth  in  Indian  Country. 
The  role  of  the  federal  government  must  be  to  encourage  tribal  self- 
sufficiency  at  every  opportunity.  Cooperative  efforts  like  the 
InterTribal  Bison  Cooperative^  which  develops  and  supports  buffalo 
business  ventures  among  its  40  member  tribes,  serve  as  ideal  examples  of 
the  type  of  investment  the  federal  government  can  make  to  enhance  tribal 
economies,  and  I  support  their  request  for  $6.63  million  for  bison 
enhancement  projects  on  tribal  lands. 

The  federal  government  must  also  continue  its  support  of  tribal  self 
governance  through  authority  over  law  enforcement,  and  tribal 
judicial  systems  on  reservations.   Many  tribes  lack  the  resources  for 
adequate  law  enforcement  and  just  administration  of  tribal  courts.  To 
that  end,  I  am  particularly  supportive  of  the  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe's 
request  for  increased  funds  for  law  enforcement  at  Yankton  in  light  of  the 
recent  U.S.  District  Court,  District  of  South  Dakota,  judgment  in 
Yankton  Sioux  Tribe  v  Southern  Missouri  Waste  Management  District. 
The  ruling  found  that  the  exterior  boundaries  of  the  Yankton 
reservation  remain  intact  and  mandated  that  the  reservation  boundaries  be 
re-enforced.    This  increased  the  area  of  criminal  jurisdiction  for 
the  tribe  and  the  federal  government  over  Native  Americans  from 
38,000  trust  acres  to  400,000  acres  within  the  exterior  boundaries. 
Neither  the  tribal  police  nor  the  BIA  have  the  funding  or  trained 
personnel  necessary  to  adequately  police  the  reservation  area  previously 
patrolled  by  the  state,  county  and  city  police  departments.  I  have 


13 


contacted  Attorney  General  Reno  to  urge  the  appropriate  cooperation 
among  the  Justice  Department,  the  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe,  and  the  State  of 
South  Dakota,  but  I  do  not  believe  the  resources  currently  exist  for  the 
tribe  to  successfully  work  toward  adequate  maintenance  of  law 
enforcement,  and  I  urge  the  Committee  to  consider  seriously  the  safety  of 
Indians  and  non-Indians  alike  in  this  situation,  and  fund  the  Yankton 
Sioux  Tribe's  law  enforcement  efforts  accordingly. 

Mr.  Chairman,  while  I  have  illustrated  a  few  of  the  priorities  for  tribes, 
tribal  organizations,  and  other  Interior  needs  in  South  Dakota  for  FY  '97, 
there  are  a  number  of  equally  meritorious  programs  in  need  of  support 
that  I  have  not  mentioned.  I  will  contact  the  Subcommittee  in  support  of 
those  programs  which  I  feel  should  be  brought  to  your  attention  in  the 
coming  weeks. 

NON-TRIBAL   NEEDS 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  addition  to  the  funding  necessary  for  our  Indian  people, 
I  am  also  requesting  appropriations  for  several  other  important  projects 
and  programs.  My  requests  are  detailed  in  my  written  testimony  but  I  did 
want  to  take  this  opportunity  to  thank  you  for  including  language  in  the 
FY  '96  Interior  Appropriations  Conference  Report  directing  the  Forest 
Service  to  complete  a  study,  using  an  independent  contractor,  on  the 
merits  of  using  tree  measurement  or  scaled  methods  of  selling  timber  and 
report  the  findings  back  to  your  Subcommittee.  Last  year  I  asked  that 
you  review  the  language  included  in  past  appropriations  bills  regarding 
scaled  versus  tree  measurement  sales  because  I  do  not  think  that  the  past 
policy  of  the  Subcommittee  is  appropriate  on  all  Forests.  Personally,  I 


14 


am  satisfied  that  the  Forest  Service  can  adequately  make  the 
determination  about  the  appropriate  method  of  seUing  timber  sales  and 
should  be  encouraged  to  sell  scaled  sales  when  appropriate.  However,  I 
recognize  that  a  consensus  on  this  issue  does  not  exist  and  that  the  study 
will  help  the  Subcommittee  make  a  final  decision  on  this  issue.  I  urge 
you  to  include  language  in  this  year's  appropriations  bill  which  requires 
the  Forest  Service  to  complete  the  study  at  the  earliest  possible  time  to 
resolve  the  unsettled  issue  of  how  to  best  sell  Forest  Service  timber  sales. 

Thank  you  again  for  this  opportunity  to  appear  before  you  to  discuss  the 
critical  Interior  funding  needs  in  South  Dakota. 


15 


Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  express  to  you  my  support  for 
funding  of  several  projects  and  programs  administered  by  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs,  the  Indian  Health  Service, 
the  Forest  Service,  the  National  Park  Service,  the  US  Geological  Survey,  and  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
which  affect  the  state  of  South  Dakota.  There  are  nine  federally  recognized  tribes  in  South  Dakota,  whose 
members  collectively  make  up  one  of  the  largest  Native  American  populations  in  any  state.  At  the  same  time. 
South  Dakota  has  three  of  the  ten  poorest  counties  in  the  nation,  all  of  which  are  within  reservation  boundanes.  I 
certainly  understand  the  constraints  placed  on  Congress  and  this  Committee  by  our  efforts  to  reduce  the  deficit, 
and  as  always  I  do  not  envy  the  difficult  choices  your  Committee  has  to  make  this  year.  Nevertheless,  we  still 
have  pressing  Tribal  and  non-Tribal  needs  that  must  be  addressed.  I  will  divide  the  remainder  of  my  written 
testimony  into  segments  based  upon  general  subject  areas  of  BIA  administration,  as  well  as  a  listing  of  non-tribal 
needs.  The  Subcommittee  has  already  heard  from  most  if  not  all  of  those  listed  below. 

TRIBAL  NEEDS 

Under  the  FY  1996  Conference  level  The  Tribal  Priority  Allocation  (TPA),  which  funds  basic  self- 
determination/self-govemance  programs  on  reservations  such  as  road  maintenance,  scholarships,  child  protection, 
law  enforcement,  welfare  assistance,  and  housing,  was  reduced  1 1  percent  (-S85  million)  from  FY  1995.  This 
funding  mechanism  gives  tribes  the  greatest  flexibility  to  prioritize  programs  that  further  unbal  self-governance  and 
self-deterrrunation  outlined  in  the  Indian  Self  Determination  Act,  and  I  believe  such  severe  cutting  is  misguided. 

For  FY  1997.  the  President  is  requesting  $1.78  billion  for  BIA  programs.  $211.1  million  over  the  1996 
Conference  level.  The  greatest  share  of  the  increase  is  directed  at  TPA  to  restore  funds  needed  to  provide  basic 
tribal  government  operations  and  services.  51%  of  the  President's  request  for  the  BIA  operating  budget  has  been 
designated  for  TPA,  and  I  strongly  support  these  priorities. 

Additionally,  I  commend  the  Chnton  Administration  on  their  efforts  to  increase  efficiencies  at  the  BIA  and  ensure 
that  federal  funds  go  directly  to  benefit  people  in  need.  In  1996,  over  1,700  positions  within  the  BIA  were 
eliminated,  including  500  at  the  Central  Office.  While  BIA  had  begun  the  process  of  downsizing  and  providing  a 
portion  of  the  savings  to  Tribes  as  "tribal  shares",  the  1996  Conference  report  did  not  make  the  savings 
available  to  tribal  programs.  I  would  encourage  the  Committee  to  reconsider  this  avenue  of  funding  for  tribal 
programs,  and  reinvest  savings  from  downsizing  into  tribal  communities  in  need. 

EDUCATION 

Foremost  m  priority  for  South  Dakota  tribes  is  the  education  of  Indian  youth.  56%  of  the  American  Indian 
population  in  this  country  is  age  24  or  younger.  Consequently,  the  need  for  improved  educational  programs  and 
facilities,  and  for  training  the  American  Indian  workforce  is  pressing. 

In  1996,  School  Year  1996-1997  funding  is  held  basically  near  the  1995  level,  $31.2  million  below  the  budget 
request,  despite  a  projected  five  percent  increase  in  enrollment.  Because  of  this  reduction,  I  am  concerned  that,  in 
the  upcoming  (1996-1997)  school  year,  schools  will  lack  the  necessary  funds  to  meet  State  and  regional 
accreditation  standards.  I  support  the  President's  requested  increase  of  S43.5  million  for  school  operations  to 
maintain  academic  standards  at  BIA  schools  and  provide  safe  transportation  for  an  increased  student  enrollment, 
transportation  vital  to  education  in  my  rural  state. 

Tribally  Controlled  Schools  have  seen  great  progress  and  achievement  in  the  education  and  retention  of  Indian 
students  since  Indian  control  of  federally  funded  schools  began  in  1966.  15  primary  and  secondary  schools  in 
South  Dakota  are  tribally  controlled  grant  or  contract  schools. 

I  support  the  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe's  request  of  $20,042  million  to  complete  construction  of  the  Marty  Indian 
School,  including  $14,  042,000  for  site  development  and  construction  of  the  school  building  itself,  and 
$6,000,000  for  dormitories  and  additional  support  facilities.  Marty  Indian  School  had  been  awaiting  repair  since  a 
1983  needs  assessment.  Because  of  BIA  school  construction  backlog,  subsequent  assessment  of  the  school  in 
1993  indicated  that  it  is  no  longer  economically  feasible  to  simply  renovate  the  facility,  and  that  reconstruction  is 
eminent. 


16 


Additionally,  I  cannot  state  strongly  enough  my  support  for  the  Tribally  Controlled  Communin  Colleges.  Simply 
put,  the  tribal  colleges  in  my  slate  and  those  across  the  country  are  success  stones  and  they  deserve  more  funding 
from  the  BIA.  I  support  the  request  of  the  American  Indian  Higher  Education  Consortium  for  full  funding  for  the 
29  Inbally-controlled  colleges  at  approximately  S40  million  for  FY  1997.  as  authorized  under  the  Tribally'' 
Controlled  Community  Colleges  Act. 

ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT 

Federal  expenditures  for  social  programs  continue  to  exceed  investments  for  economic  growth  in  Indian  Country. 
I  feel  strongly  that  the  role  of  the  federal  government  must  be  to  encourage  tribal  self-sufficiency  at  every 
oppominily.  While  a  solid  educational  base  is  invaluable  to  that  end.  I  believe  the  BIA  must  prioritize  programs 
which  develop  infrastructure  on  reservations  and  enhance  economic  growth  for  tribal  communities. 

An  excellent  example  of  federal  investment  in  tribal  self  sufficiency  is  The  Intertribal  Bison  Cooperative  (ITBC). 
The  ITBC  is  a  cooperative,  composed  of  40  member  tribes  located  in  17  states,  with  100%  of  its  funds  going 
toward  development  and  support  of  Indian  and  tribal  buffalo  business  ventures,  apportioned  between  tribal 
projects  and  funding  for  the  ITBC  national  office.  I  strongly  support  the  ITBC's  request  for  continued  funding  of 
S6.63  nullion  through  the  BIA  for  bison  enhancement  projects  on  tnbal  lands.  Seven  tribes  in  my  state  (Cheyenne 
River,  Crow  Creek,  Flandreau  Santee,  Lower  Brule,  Sisseton-Wahpeton,  Standing  Rock,  and  Yankton)  are 
members  of  the  ITBC  and  would  benefit  from  this  funding.  The  ITBC  has  made  important  and  impressive  strides 
since  its  inception  in  1991  and  has  developed  exacting  criteria  to  evaluate  tribal  projects  and  applications,  and 
cooperative  membership  continues  to  expand. 

I  would  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to  inform  the  Chairman  of  the  BIA's  recent  actions  relative  to  the  FTBC.  The 
BIA  has  distributed  previous  years'  FTBC  funding  to  non-ITBC  member  tribes  at  the  discretion  of  the  BIA,  based 
on  the  unclear  appropriations  language  of  previous  years.  Since  these  funds  were  secured  through  annual 
appropriations  at  the  request  of  the  FTBC,  I  believe  this  action  by  the  BIA  violates  the  intent  of  the  Appropriations 
Committees.  1  am  requesting  that  your  Subcommittee  specifically  identify  "FFBC  designated  projects"  as  the 
recipient  of  appropnated  funds  for  FY  '97  and  future  appropriations. 

HEALTH 

I  support  the  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe's  request  of  $9.2  million  for  construction  and  $2  million  for  operating  costs  to 
re-open  the  Wagner  IHS  Health  Care  Facility  inpatient  services  which  were  closed  without  sufficient  and  required 
notice  in  1992.  In  addition  to  a  dramatic  reduction  in  the  availability  of  care  for  this  rural  region,  closure  of  the 
inpatient  services  has  lead  to  losses  in  Medicare/Medicaid  third  party  collections  exceeding  $600,000  so  far,  which 
I  believe  the  IHS  can  ill  afford. 

I  also  support  a  number  of  the  Crow  Creek  Sioux  Tribes'  health  related  priority  funding  requests  for  FY  1997, 
including:  $185,000  for  final  design  and  implementation  of  a  reservation-wide  rural  water  system;  $247,200  to 
maintain  the  tribal  ambulance  program,  a  basic  health  necessity  that  has  not  been  included  in  the  IHS  budget  for 
I^  1997;  and  $215,000  for  the  development  of  a  new  solid  waste  management  system. 

The  Standing  Rock  Sioux  Tribe  has  also  requested  funding  for  the  development  and  maintenance  of  a  solid  waste 
facility.  I  support  the  tribe's  request  of  $1  million  for  the  project. 

Additionally,  I  believe  the  Rosebud  Sioux  Tribe's  request  of  $1,735,062  adequately  reflects  their  unmet  health 
related  needs,  including  funding  for  the  Community  Health  Representatives  program,  the  tribal  ambulance  service 
which  transports  a  minimum  of  9500  patients  per  year,  and  the  tribe's  alcohol  program  which  provides  inpatient 
and  outpatient  services.  I  support  full  funding  of  the  tribe's  request. 

LAW  ENFORCEMENT/TRIBAL  COURTS 

The  federal  govemment  must  continue  its  support  of  tribal  self  governance,  authority  over  law  enforcement,  and 
tribal  judicial  systems  on  reservations.  Many  tribes  lack  the  resources  for  adequate  law  enforcement  and  just 
administration  of  tribal  courts. 

I  am  particularly  supportive  of  the  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe's  request  for  increased  funds  for  law  enforcement  at 
Yankton  in  the  face  of  the  recent  U.S.  District  Court,  District  of  South  Dakota  judgment  in  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe  v 
Southern  Missouri  Waste  Management  District.  The  ruling  found  that  the  exterior  boundaries  of  the  Yankton 


17 


reservation  remain  intact  and  mandated  that  the  reser\ation  boundaries  be  re-enforced.  This  increased  the  area  of 
criminal  jurisdiction  for  the  tribe  and  the  federal  government  over  Native  Amencans  from  38.000  trust  acres  to 
400,000  acres  within  the  exterior  boundaries.  Neither  the  tribal  police  nor  the  BIA  have  the  funding  or  trained 
personnel  necessary  to  adequately  police  the  reser\  ation  area  previously  patrolled  by  the  state,  county  and  city 
police  departments.  I  have  contacted  Attorney  General  Reno  to  urge  the  appropriate  cooperation  between  the 
Justice  Department,  the  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe,  and  the  State  of  South  Dakota,  but  I  do  not  believe  the  resources 
currently  exist  for  the  tribe  to  successfully  work  toward  adequate  maintenance  of  law  enforcement,  and  I  urge  the 
Committee  to  seriously  consider  the  safety  of  Indians  and  non-Indians  alike  in  this  situation,  and  fund  the  Yankton 
Sioux  Tribe's  law  enforcement  efforts  accordingly. 

I  also  support  the  Oglala  Sioux  Tribal  Public  Safely  Commission's  request  for  fiill  funding  for  equitable  police 
officer  salaries  under  the  Federal  Law  Enforcement  Pay  Reform  Act  of  1990.  increased  detention  facility  staff,  and 
communications  equipment.  The  OST  Public  Safety  Commission  provides  law  enforcement  for  the  Pine  Ridge 
Reservation,  the  second  largest  reservation  in  the  nation.  This  reservation  has  an  unemployment  rate  near  85% 
and  an  alcoholism  rate  estimated  between  65-85%,  The  extreme  underfunding  of  law  enforcement  in  the  FY  1996 
Conference  placed  the  safely  of  Indians  and  non-Indians  in  South  Dakota  in  extreme  jeopardy.  With  anything 
less  than  even  the  most  basic  funding  level,  this  vast,  rural  reservation  will  remain  inadequately  patrolled. 

NATURAL  RESOURCE  MANAGEMENT 

There  are  roughly  4.5  million  acres  of  land  in  trust  for  Indians  and  tribes  in  South  Dakota.  Indian  culture  has 
always  involved  reverence  for  land,  and  I  believe  the  federal  government  needs  to  encourage  a  sound  conservation 
relationship  between  tnbal  and  non-tribal  lands  through  full  funding  of  tribal  environmental  protection  and 
resource  management  efforts. 

I  specifically  support  the  Rosebud  Sioux  Tribe's  request  of  S5 10,000  for  the  continued  management  of  the  over  I 
million  acres  of  tribal  land  and  resources,  including  wildlife  and  agriculture. 

I  also  support  the  Standing  Rock  Sioux  Tribe's  request  of  $500,000  for  the  planning  and  development  of 
fisheries,  wildlife  enhancement  and  mitigation  throughout  the  reservation. 

While  the  above  outline  does  prioritize  the  funding  requests  of  many  tribes  and  tribal  organizations  in  South 
Dakota  for  FY  '97.  there  are  a  number  of  equally  meritorious  programs  in  need  of  support  that  I  have  not 
mentioned.  I  will  be  contacting  the  Subcommittee  in  support  of  those  programs  which  I  feel  should  be  brought  to 
your  attention  in  the  coming  weeks. 

NON-TRIBAL  NEEDS 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  the  attention  the  Committee  has  given  to  South  Dakota's  needs  in  recent  years.  In 
addition  to  the  funding  necessary  for  our  Indian  people,  I  am  also  requesting  appropriations  for  several  other 
important  projects  and  programs. 

D.C.  BOOTH  HISTORIC  FISH  HATCHERY 

I  continue  to  strongly  support  the  DC.  Booth  Fish  Hatchery  in  Spearfish.  South  Dakota  and  appreciate  the 
support  this  Subcommittee  has  given  to  the  facility  in  the  past.  The  past  support  of  this  Subcommittee  has  allowed 
the  hatcl'iery  to  be  completely  rehabilitated  over  the  last  four  years.  Included  in  the  $3.9  million  rehabilitation  was 
construction  of  a  public  use  and  education  center  which  includes  a  handicapped  fish  viewing  and  study  area.  Also 
included  is  a  one-of-a-kind  10.000  square  feet  National  Historic  Fishery  Records  and  Archive  Center.  The  Center 
will  be  used  by  historians,  educators,  students  and  researchers  from  throughout  the  U.S.  and  the  world,  and  is  a 
truly  unique  and  innovative  facility.  The  DC.  Booth  site  is  located  in  a  major  tourist  area  on  the  Yellowstone 
route  visited  by  150.000  persons  annually  with  public  use  increasing  by  20%  annually.  With  the  rehabilitation 
effort  nearly  completed,  the  D.C.  Booth  Fish  Hatchery  urgently  needs  $300,000  for  operating  funds.  Without 
this  fianding  essential  functions  at  the  Hatchery  will  not  be  possible.  I  strongly  support  this  funding  request  and 
am  hopeful  that  this  Subcomminee  will  continue  its  support  of  the  D.C.  Booth  Historic  Fish  Hatchery  by 
approving  these  critically  important  funds. 

FOREST  SERVICE 


18 


Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  extremely  proud  of  the  management  of  the  Black  Hills  National  Forest.  As  I  have  reported  to 
this  Subcommillee  previously.  I  believe  the  Black  Hilis  National  Forest  is  the  crown  jewel  of  the  National  Forest 
System  and  an  outstanding  example  of  multiple  use  management.  The  timber  program  on  the  Black  Hills  National 
Forest  makes  money  for  the  United  Slates  -  ever\  S 1 .00  spent  on  the  timber  program  generates  S2.00  in 
revenues.  In  addition,  the  timber  program  accomplishes  management  that  is  necessary  to  reduce  the  risk  of  in.sect 
epidemics  and  forest  fires,  as  well  as  providing  an  essential  component  of  the  Black  Hills  economy. 

I  am  concerned  that  the  timber  program  on  the  Forest  has  not  been  funded  closer  to  the  fortst  plan  level  in  recent 
years,  and  I  suppon  this  Subcommittee's  efforts  to  rebuild  the  Forest  Service's  timber  sale  program.  I  am  also 
concerned  that  the  Black  Hills  National  Forest  has  been  unable  to  maintain  an  adequate  level  of  timber  sale 
"pipeline"  volume.  The  timber  sale  pipeline  is  vital  to  the  stability  of  the  timber  sale  program  and  I  urge  the 
Committee  to  give  priority  to  funding  that  will  ensure  pipeline  restoration. 

In  this  time  of  declining  budgets.  I  believe  the  Forest  Service  should  consider  funding  timber  sale  programs  on 
those  units  with  the  most  competitive  costs  and  highest  levels  of  accomplishment.  The  timber  sale  program  in 
Region  2  of  the  Forest  Service  has  one  of  the  lowest  costs  in  the  western  Regions  of  the  Forest  Service,  and  one 
of  the  highest  levels  of  accomplishment.  The  Region's  efforts  should  not  gounnoticed  or  unrewarded. 

Finally,  last  year  I  asked  this  Subcommittee  to  carefully  review  the  language  included  in  committee  reports 
accompanying  recent  appropriations  bills  relative  to  scaled  sales  versus  tree  measurement  scales.  I  want  to  thank 
you  for  including  the  language  in  the  FY  '96  Interior  Appropriations  Conference  Report  directing  the  Forest 
Service  to  complete  a  study,  using  an  independent  contractor,  on  the  merits  of  using  tree  measurement  or  scaled 
methods  of  selling  timber  and  report  the  findings  back  to  your  Subcommittee.  Personally.  I  am  satisfied  that  the 
Forest  Service  can  adequately  make  the  determination  about  the  appropriate  method  of  selling  timber  sales  and 
should  be  encouraged  to  sell  scaled  sales  when  appropriate.  However,  I  recognize  that  a  consensus  on  this  issue 
does  not  exist  and  so  I  request  that  the  committee  require  the  Forest  Service  to  complete  the  study  at  the  earliest 
possible  time  to  resolve  the  unsettled  issue  of  how  to  best  sell  Forest  Service  timber  sales. 

PARK  SERVICE 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  reiterate  my  concern  for  inadequate  budget  for  our  National  Park  Service  facilities.  The 
deteriorating  level  of  service  and  basic  infrastructure  in  our  National  Park  System  is  alarming.  Our  South  Dakota 
National  Park  units,  including  Mt.  Rushmore,  the  Badlands  National  Monument.  Jewel  Cave  National 
Monument,  and  Wind  Cave  National  Park,  are  of  particular  concern  tome.  Declining  budgets  and  declining 
personnel  levels  threaten  citizen  access  to  these  facilities.  Maintaining  these  units  to  allow  a  continued  quality 
expenence  is  a  high  priority  for  me.  I  appreciate  all  that  the  Subcommittee  has  done  in  the  past  to  help  or  National 
parks,  and  I  look  forward  to  your  continued  devotion  to  this  important  issue. 

U.S.  GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 

I  also  want  to  thank  you  for  rejecting  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  Administration  last  year  to  terminate  USGS's 
Water  Resources  Research  Institutes  program.  I  urge  you  to  support  funding  for  this  vital  federal/state  water 
research  and  education  partnership.  The  $4.5  million  appropriated  in  FY  1996  provides  the  core  resources  for  the 
network  of  54  water  resources  research  institutes  at  the  land  grant  colleges  in  each  of  the  50  states.  This  network 
links  faculty  and  students  with  interests  in  water  resources  at  virtually  every  institution  of  higher  education  in  the 
country.  The  core  federal  investment  is  augmented  by  state  and  local  government  as  well  as  private  sources  to 
create  a  program  that  leverages  the  federal  investment  eleven  times  over.  As  you  may  know,  last  year  the  54 
institutes  generated  approximately  $65  million  from  all  sources  to  support  their  research,  education,  and 
information  transfer  activities.  I  would  urge  you  to  increase  funding  for  this  important  program  in  the  USGS 
budget. 

Thank  you  again  for  this  opportunity  to  submit  testimony  on  the  critical  Interior  funding  needs  in  South  Dakota.  I 
do  not  envy  the  tough  budgetary  decisions  facing  you,  however  I  hope  that  my  requests  will  be  considered 
favorably. 


19 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
INDIANA  DUNES  NATIONAL  LAKESHORE 

WITNESS 

HON.  PETER  J.  VISCLOSKY,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  INDIANA 

Mr.  Regula.  Peter? 

Mr.  ViscLOSKY.  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  very  much,  I  under- 
stand that  my  entire  statement  will  be  entered  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection. 

Mr.  ViscLOSKY.  I  also  want  to  thank  the  Chair  and  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committee.  During  my  11  years  in  Congress,  this  sub- 
committee has  been  very  generous  to  the  Indiana  Dunes  National 
Lakeshore,  and  that's  the  purpose  of  my  testimony  today. 

Mr.  Chairman,  coming  from  the  Midwest,  you  understand  that  in 
the  Midwest,  parklands  is  what  water  is  to  western  States,  a  very 
scarce  commodity.  Acre  for  acre,  Indiana's  only  national  park,  the 
Indiana  Dunes  National  Lakeshore,  has  more  visitors  per  acre  than 
most  national  parks  including  Yellowstone,  Yosemite,  and  the 
Grand  Canyon. 

My  first  request  would  be  for  demolition  funds.  I  would  like  to 
express  my  serious  concern  about  abandoned  buildings  scattered 
throughout  the  park  and  to  ask  for  a  special  $4.4  million  appro- 
priation to  deal  with  this  severe  problem.  The  abandoned  struc- 
tures were  acquired  by  the  National  Park  Service  decades  ago 
through  a  lease  back  reservation  of  use  program. 

Abandoned  structures  are  a  constant  drain  on  park  resources. 
They  must  be  monitored  and  protected  from  vandals  and  vagrants. 

By  the  end  of  Fiscal  Year  1996,  there  will  be  103  vacant  build- 
ings scattered  throughout  the  Indiana  Dunes.  Funds  are  urgently 
needed  to  demolish  these  structures. 

In  1988,  the  Indiana  Dunes  unveiled  plans  to  reopen  Goodfellow 
Camp  for  use  as  an  educational  facility.  My  request  for  this  year 
is  for  $400,000  that  would  enhance  Groodfellow  by  providing  a 
workspace  for  group  projects,  audiovisual,  computer  and  laboratory 
facilities  for  students  at  the  overnight  camp. 

I  also  wanted  to  discuss  land  acquisition  for  a  moment.  At  this 
time  it  is  unclear,  obviously,  how  Fiscal  Year  1996  land  acquisition 
funds  will  be  distributed  among  the  parks,  but  it  must  provide 
funds  for  continued  land  acquisition  at  the  National  Lakeshore.  I 
seek  $5.5  million  for  Fiscal  Year  1997  land  acquisition  funds  to 
allow  the  Indiana  Dunes  to  acquire  high-priority  properties  in 
hardship  cases. 

As  you  know,  from  my  previous  testimony,  the  Park  Service  is 
the  recipient  of  numerous  hardship  requests  from  homeowners 
within  the  authorized  boundaries  of  the  park  who  are  pleading  to 
be  purchased.  Many  of  these  individuals  are  elderly  and  have  no 
possible  buyer  but  the  National  Park  Service. 

The  Park  Service  estimates  that  hardship  cases  will  cost  approxi- 
mately $1  million.  There  is  also  great  need  to  acquire  the  Crescent 
Dune  property,  the  subject  of  last  year's  testimony.  The  parcel  is 
considered  a  high-priority   property  acquisition  by  the  National 


20 

Park  Service  and  for  its  owner,  the  Northern  Indiana  PubHc  Serv- 
ice Company. 

The  Park  Service  estimates  $3.7  million  will  be  needed  to  acquire 
Crescent  Dune.  Additional  high-priority  properties  are  expected  to 
cost  $870,000. 

Finally,  I  wish  to  express  my  strong  support  for  President  Clin- 
ton's budget  request  to  increase  funding  for  the  Indiana  Dunes  op- 
erations by  $790,000  to  cover  a  full-time  equivalent  increase  of 
seven  employees  and  provide  for  increase  maintenance  needs.  Park 
interpretative  programs  now  reach  less  than  10  percent  of  visitors 
and  law  enforcement  personnel  contact  less  than  five. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  recognize  the  constraints  that  you're  under  with 
this  committee.  I  appreciate  your  courtesy  today  and  the  courtesy 
and  generosity  in  the  past. 

Mr.  Regula.  Just  one  question.  Is  there  any  possibility  using  ei- 
ther State  and/or  local  funds  that  could  match  what  we  do? 

Mr.  VisCLOSKY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  not  be  able  to  answer 
that  question  now.  I'd  be  happy  to  get  to  the  committee  in  writing 
on  that.  I've  not  made  any  enquiries  beyond 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  more  and  more,  because  of  the  limitation  on 
what  we  have  available,  we  try  to  leverage  whatever  we  do  with 
State  and  local  funds.  Of  course,  it  gives  the  communities  a  stake 
in  it  too. 

Mr.  VisCLOSKY.  Mr.  Chairman,  one  thing  that  I  would  point  out 
relative  to  Crescent  Dune  again,  is  owned  by,  the  local  utility  com- 
pany. Within  the  past  12  months,  they  have  made  a  donation  of 
property  that  they  owned  to  the  Indiana  Dunes  National  Lake- 
shore,  as  I  sit  here,  I  do  not  know  what  the  value  of  that  property 
is. 

They  have  also  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  Park  Service 
relative  to  other  properties  they  continue  to  own,  but  which  the 
National  Lakeshore  will  now  enjoy  an  easement  for.  There  is  clear- 
ly economic  value  attached  to  that. 

The  utility  company  asked  nothing  in  return  from  the  national 
government  through  that  donation.  And,  again,  that's  within  the 
last  12  months. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

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

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Visclosky  follows:] 


21 


PETER  J.  VISCLOSKY  ».as»nc>on  i 


Congregg  of  tl)e  ©nitel)  States 

J^ousfe  of  J^cprcgentatibes; 

MaSbingtou,  mC  20515-1401 


Testimony  of 
Representative  Pete  Visclosky 

Before  the  House  Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  Interior 

April  16,  1996 


Thank  you.  Chairman  Regula,  Mr.  Yates,  and  members  of  the 
Interior  Subcommittee,  for  giving  me  the  opportunity  to  testify  before  you 
today  on  the  Fiscal  Year  1997  National  Park  Service  budget  and, 
specifically,  the  Indiana  Dunes  National  Lakeshore. 

Park  lands  are  much  to  the  Midwest  what  water  is  to  Western  States; 
a  very  scarce  commodity  that,  when  found,  is  used  to  the  last  drop.    Acre- 
for-acre,  Indiana's  only  national  park,  the  Indiana  Dunes  National  Lakeshore, 
has  more  visitors  than  most  national  parks,  including  Yellowstone,  Yosemite 
and  the  Grand  Canyon.    Last  year,  1,750,000  people  came  to  take 
advantage  of  the  Lakeshore's  15,000  acres.    In  1994,  the  Indiana  Dunes 
held  more  that  3,000  education  programs  for  82,600  elementary  school 
children.    The  park's  Dunewood  campground  is  full  nearly  every  summer 
weekend. 

My  requests  for  Fiscal  Year  1 997  focus  primarily  on  how  we  maintain 
the  integrity  of  the  Indiana  Dunes  under  such  rigorous  use  by  the  public. 

Demolition  Funds: 

First,  I  yvould  like  to  express  my  serious  concern  about  abandoned 
buildings  scattered  throughout  the  park  and  to  ask  for  a  special  $4.4  million 
appropriation  to  deal  with  this  severe  problem.    The  abandoned  structures 
were  acquired  by  the  National  Park  Service  decades  ago  through  leaseback 
and  reservation  of  use  programs.    As  the  leasebacks  expire,  the  buildings 
are  vacated  and  become  the  full  responsibility  of  the  Park  Service. 
Abandoned  houses  are  a  constant  drain  on  park  resources.    They  must  be 
monitored  and  protected  from  vandals  and  vagrants.    Funds,  staff  time  and 
materials  invested  in  these  structures  are  wasted  resources.    Unfortunately, 
to  protect  park  visitors  and  neighbors,  significant  resources  must  be  put 
toward  securing  and  monitoring  the  structures. 


THIS  STATIONERY  PRINTED  ON  PAP£R  MADE  Of  RECvCLED  FIBERS 


22 


Park  officials  are  struggling  to  find  other  equitable  and  legal  options  -- 
including  extending  some  leasebacks    -  to  lighten  the  load  in  the  near 
future.    There  are,  however,  more  than  65  vacant  residential  structures 
awaiting  demolition.    By  the  end  of  Fiscal  Year  1996,  there  will  be  103 
vacant  buildings  scattered  throughout  the  Indiana  Dunes.    Funds  are 
urgently  needed  to  demolish  these  structures. 

Based  on  quotes  received  for  seven  of  the  structures,  the  Park 
Service  estimates  demolition  will  average  $32,400  per  house.    I  am  asking 
for  an  appropriation  of  $4,434,300  to  demolish  103  vacant  structures.    The 
funds  will  also  cover  removal  and  proper  disposal  of  asbestos,  and  above 
and  underground  storage  tanks  at  some  sites.    Any  funds  we  can  invest 
today  in  demolition  saves  federal  dollars  in  the  future. 


Goodfellow  Camp: 

The  Goodfellow  Camp  is  an  excellent  example  of  how  urban  parks 
often  recycle  old  facilities  and  put  them  to  public  use.    The  Goodfellow 
Camp  was  established  in  1941  by  the  Carnegie  Illinois  Steel  Corporation. 
The  675-acre  'camp'  had  been  operated  by  the  Gary  Works'  Good 
Fellowship  Club  and  the  Gary  Works'  Welfare  Association  as  a  residential 
and  day  camp  for  employees  and  their  families.    The  camp  ceased  operation 
in  1975  and  was  subsequently  acquired  by  the  National  Park  Service. 

In  1 988,  the  Indiana  Dunes  unveiled  plans  to  reopen  Goodfellow  for 
use  as  an  educational  facility.    Funds  supported  by  this  subcommittee  in 
Fiscal  Year  1995  financed  current  construction  of  overnight  facilities  at 
Goodfellow  for  use  by  middle  school  and  high  school  students. 

My  request  for  this  year,  $400,000,  would  enhance  Goodfellow  by 
providing  a  project  workspace  equipped  with  audiovisual,  computer  and 
laboratory  facilities  for  students  at  the  camp.    The  workspace  will  support 
in-depth  educational  opportunities  for  middle  school,  high  school,  special 
needs  education  and  adult  education  groups.    The  workspace  will 
complement  Goodfellow's  high-quality  outdoor  environment. 


The  Rostone  House: 

1  am  seeking  $24,000  to  stabilize  the  Rostone  House,  an  historic 
structure  located  within  the  Indiana  Dunes.    These  funds  are  an  important 
step  towards  a  substantial  public/private  partnership  in  restoring  and 
maintaining  all  Century  of  Progress  homes  within  the  Indiana  Dunes 
National  Lakeshore. 

The  1933  Century  of  Progress  Exposition  in  Chicago,  Illinois,  featured 
home  and  industrial  arts.    Modern  materials,  building  methods  and 
innovative  home  appliances  were  exhibited,  all  utilizing  new  techniques  of 


design,  construction,  and  prefabrication.    At  the  close  of  the  exposition, 
Robert  Bartlett,  a  real  estate  developer,  barged  seventeen  dennonstration 
homes  across  Lake  Michigan  to  Beverly  Shores,  Indiana.    Of  the  houses 
moved,  only  five  remain:    the  Armco-Ferro-Mayflower  House;  the  Weiboldt- 
Rostone  House;  the  Florida  Tropical  House;  the  House  of  Tomorrow;  and, 
the  Cypress  Log  House.    These  Century  of  Progress  homes  are  listed  on  the 
National  Register  of  Historic  Places. 

In  1980,  the  five  homes  were  purchased  by  the  National  Park 
Service.    Over  the  years,  the  Park  Service  and  local  organizations  proposed 
different  options  for  the  homes.    Lack  of  funding,  complicated  by  staggered 
leaseback  expirations,  prohibited  all  but  the  bare  minimum  of  preservation 
efforts.    In  1993,  the  five  homes  were  placed  on  the  Historic  Landmarks 
Foundation  of  Indiana's  "Ten  Most  Endangered  Landmarks"  list. 

In  response,  the  Historic  Landmarks  Foundation  of  Indiana  promoted 
the  Century  of  Progress  homes  as  candidates  for  the  National  Park 
Service's  historic  leasing  program,  which  offers  long  term  (up  to  99  years) 
leases  to  the  general  public  for  certain  historic  buildings  owned  by  the 
National  Park  Service.    Under  this  program,  private  individuals  would 
renovate  a  house  according  to  specific  guidelines  in  exchange  for  free  rent. 
Work  on  an  initial  agreement  is  in  progress  for  the  Florida  House. 

There  is  hope  that  the  Rostone  House,  which  is  streamlined  in 
appearance,  consisting  of  long,  low,  flat-roof  rectangular  forms,  could 
attract  a  candidate  for  the  historic  leasing  partnership.    However, 
substantial  work  must  be  performed  to  stabilize  the  structure  in  the  interim. 
An  appropriation  of  $24,000  would  remove  and  replace  existing  roofing, 
repair  roof  decking,  install  parapet  flashing  and  close  all  openings  and 
windows.    This  is  a  valuable  program  and  I  hope  the  subcommittee  will 
support  it. 


Land  Acquisition: 

At  this  time,  it  is  unclear  how  Fiscal  Year  1996  land  acquisition  fuhds 
will  be  distributed  among  parks.    Still,  I  must  request  funds  for  continued 
land  acquisition  at  the  National  Lakeshore.    I  am  seeking  $5.5  million  in 
Fiscal  Year  1997  land  acquisition  funds  to  allow  the  Indiana  Dunes  to 
acquire  high  priority  property  and  hardship  cases. 

As  you  know  from  my  previous  testimonies,  the  Park  Service  is  the 
recipient  of  numerous  "hardship"  requests  from  homeowners  within  the 
authorized  boundaries  of  the  park  who  are  pleading  to  be  purchased.    Many 
of  these  individuals  are  elderly  and,  having  no  possible  buyer  but  the 
National  Park  Service,  are  forced  to  maintain  their  property  on  a  very  limited 
income.    The  Park  Service  estimates  hardship  cases  will  cost  approximately 
$1  million.    There  remains  a  great  need  to  acquire  the  Crescent  Dune 
property.    This  parcel  is  considered  a  high  priority  property  acquisition  by 


24 


the  National  Park  Service  and  by  the  property's  owner,  the  Northern  Indiana 
Public  Service  Company.    The  Park  Service  estimates  $3.7  million  will  be 
needed  to  acquire  Crescent  Dune.    Additional  high  priority  properties  are 
expected  to  cost  approximately  $870,000. 

Indiana  Dunes  Operating  Budget: 

Finally,  I  must  express  my  strong  support  for  President  Clinton's 
budget  request  to  increase  funding  for  Indiana  Dunes  operations  by 
$790,000  to  cover  a  Full  Time  Equivalent  (FTE)  increase  of  seven 
employees  and  to  provide  for  desperate  needs  at  the  park.    Flat  budgets  in 
recent  years  are  causing  park  services  to  erode.    In  the  past  year, 
educational  services  to  children  had  to  be  cut  back  drastically  --  from 
82,000  children  served  in  1994  to  50,000  children  in  1995  --  simply 
because  the  resources  were  not  there  to  administer  the  programs.    In 
addition,  increased  maintenance  needs  at  the  Dunewood  Campground,  the 
new  Treemont  picnic  area,  the  Inland  Marsh  Overlook,  and  the  West  Unit 
hike/bike  trail  require  added  FTE's.    Currently,  there  are  1 5,250  annual 
visitors  for  each  FTE.    Park  interpretive  programs  reach  less  than  10 
percent  of  visitors  and  law  enforcement  personnel  contact  less  than  five 
percent.    The  additional  $790,000  is  critical  if  the  Indiana  Dunes  is  to 
continue  providing  a  unique  outdoor  environment  for  the  American  people. 

In  closing,  I  greatly  appreciate  the  assistance  the  Subcommittee  has 
provided  in  the  past  and  am  grateful  for  your  consideration  again  this  year. 


25 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
STEEL  INDUSTRY  HERITAGE  PROJECT 
WITNESS 

HON.  WILLIAM  J.  COYNE,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Bill? 

Mr.  Coyne.  Thank  you  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Your  statement  will  be  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  COYNE.  Thank  you. 

I  want  to  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  testify  before  you 
today  and  the  committee  regarding  the  Steel  Industry  Heritage 
Project.  I'm  here  today  to  ask  the  subcommittee  to  include  $500,000 
for  continuation  of  the  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  in  its  Fiscal 
Year  1997  Interior  Appropriations  Bill. 

I  also  want  to  thank  the  members  of  the  committee,  and  you,  Mr. 
Chairman,  for  the  support  for  this  important  program  in  the  past 
years.  The  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  was  authorized  by  the 
Congress  to  conserve  the  industrial  and  cultural  resources  of  south- 
western Pennsylvania.  This  region,  once  the  steel-making  capital  of 
the  world,  now  contains  many  historic  and  cultural  resources  which 
are  of  national  significance.  The  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project 
was  established  to  preserve  important  artifacts  from  this  era  and 
to  educate  Americans  of  the  important  period  in  our  Nation's  his- 
tory. 

The  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  has  also  been  included  for 
designation  as  a  national  heritage  area  in  H.R.  1280. 

Since  Fiscal  Year  1989,  the  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  has 
received  congressional  appropriations  to  develop  a  heritage  area  in 
the  seven  counties  of  southwestern  Pennsylvania. 

Congressional  appropriations  of  National  Park  Service  funds  for 
the  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  have  leveraged  considerable 
State  and  local  support  for  this  effort.  This  investment  has  led  to 
many  important  accomplishments  including  the  development  of 
more  than  35  miles  of  rail-to-trails  projects,  preservation  of  the  last 
steam-driven  rolling  mill  of  its  type  in  the  world,  development  of 
a  collection  of  rare  industry  documents,  establishment  of  a  photo- 
graphic archive  with  more  than  15,000  historic  prints,  images  and 
photographs,  and  a  collection  of  the  oral  histories  of  many  residents 
and  workers  from  the  region. 

Since  1993,  the  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  has  been  working 
with  the  National  Park  Service  to  develop  a  management  plan  that 
lays  out  a  strategy  for  conserving  the  nationally  significant  steel  in- 
dustry of  that  region. 

I  hope  that  the  subcommittee  will  include  $500,000  for  the  Steel 
Industry  Heritage  Project  in  its  Fiscal  Year  1997  appropriations 
bill.  This  money  would  be  used  for  implementing  the  management 
plan,  conducting  an  inventory  of  the  historic  and  cultural  resources 
in  Armstrong  County,  and  for  continued  National  Park  Service 
technical  assistance. 

I  thank  you  for  your  consideration  and  your  time  and  that  of  the 
committee  today. 


26 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  thanks,  Bill.  As  you  know,  we've  been  putting 
money  in  within  the  constraints  of  our  budget.  It  is  a  good  project, 
and  I  like  the  fact  that  a  lot  of  the  local  communities  are  involved. 
I'm  sure  that  with  the  rails-to-trails  that  you've  had  a  lot  of  local 
public  interest  and  that  leverages  what  we  have  given. 

Mr.  Coyne.  Right.  We've  had  good  local  cooperation,  and  that's 
committed  to  continue.  The  end  of  this  next  week  we're  going  to 
open,  in  Pittsburgh,  which  is  not  a  part  of  this  project,  the  John 
Heinz  Regional  Historical  Museum. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  that  financed  by  the  State? 

Mr.  Coyne.  Actually  it's  financed  for  the  most  part  by  county 
and  private  donations  from  the  Pittsburgh  region. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  I  think  in  the  future  all  of  these  type  of  things 
will  depend  on  partnership  efforts  to  be  successful. 

Okay,  thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Coyne.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Coyne  follows:] 


27 


Statement  of  the 

Honorable  William  J.  Coyne 

Subcommittee  on  Interior 

House  Committee  on  Appropriations 

Steel  Industry  Heritage  Corporation 

April  17, 1996 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  here  before  you  today  to  request  that 
the  Subcommittee  approve  $500,000  for  continuation  of  the  Steel  Industry 
Heritage  Project  (SIHP)  as  part  of  the  fiscal  year  1997  Interior 
Appropriations  bill. 

The  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  was  authorized  by  the  Congress 
under  Public  Law  100-698  to  conserve  the  industrial  and  cultural  resources  of 
the  steel  industry  in  Southwestern  Pennsylvania.  Since  FY  1989,  the  SIHP  has 
received  funding  through  Congressional  appropriations  to  develop  a  heritage 
area  in  the  counties  of  Allegheny,  Armstrong,  Beaver,  Fayette,  Greene, 
Washington,  and  Westmoreland. 

This  region,  once  the  steel-making  capital  of  the  world,  now  contains 
many  historic  and  cultural  resources  which  are  of  national  significance.  The 
steel  mills,  coal  mines,  coke  ovens,  glass  works,  and  railroads  that  made  up  the 
core  of  the  industrial  revolution  in  this  country  —  and  propelled  the  United 
States  to  its  status  as  an  economic  and  military  superpower  —  are  an 
important  part  of  our  country's  history.  So  are  the  stories  of  the  men  and 
women  who  emmigrated  from  dozens  of  different  foreign  countries  to  work  in 
the  region's  mines  and  factories  in  search  of  a  better  life  for  themselves  and 
their  children.  The  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  was  established  to 
preserve  important  artifacts  from  this  era  and  to  educate  Americans  about 
this  important  period  in  our  nation's  history. 

Congressional  appropriations  of  National  Park  Service  funds  for  the 
Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  have  leveraged  considerable  state  and  local 
support  for  this  effort  In  conjunction  with  federal  funds,  the  SIHP  has 
received  over  $2.75  million  from  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  $50,000 
from  local  governments,  and  more  than  $3.5  million  from  private  sources  or 
foundations.  The  SIHP  has  also  received  $1,237,000  from  other  Federal 


28 


sources,  including  NEA,  the  Department  of  Transportation,  the  Department 
of  Health  and  Human  Services,  and  the  Department  of  Defense.  In  all,  the 
NPS  investment  has  generated  a  match  of  more  than  275  percent  by  other 
sources. 

This  investment  has  led  to  many  important  accomplishments,  including 
the  development  of  more  than  35  miles  of  rail-to-trails  projects;  preservation 
of  the  48-inch  mill,  the  last  steam-driven  rolling  mill  of  its  type  in  the  world; 
redevelopment  of  the  historic  Bost  Building  as  the  main  visitor's  center  for 
interpreting  the  Homestead  Strike  of  1892;  documentation  of  the  major  steel- 
producing  sites  within  the  Pittsburgh  region;  development  of  a  collection  of 
rare  steel  mill  documents;  establishment  of  a  photographic  archive  with  more 
than  15,000  historic  prints,  images  and  photographs;  and  the  collection  of  the 
oral  histories  of  many  residents  and  workers  from  the  region. 

Since  1993,  SIHP  has  been  working  to  develop  a  management  plan  that 
lays  out  a  strategy  for  conserving  the  nationally-significant  steel  history  of  the 
region.  The  Management  Plan  weaves  together  cultural  and  historical 
resources  in  a  way  that  makes  our  heritage  visible,  exciting,  and  accessible. 
This  heritage  area  will  have  a  major  effect  on  the  regional  economy  by 
promoting  tourism  and  economic  development.  The  plan  documents  the 
region's  historic  legacy,  describes  a  vision  for  interpreting  this  legacy,  and  sets 
out  an  implementation  strategy,  including  specific  projects  and  costs. 

The  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  expects  to  be  designated  by  the 
Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  as  a  new  State  Heritage  Area,  and  the  SIHP 
has  been  included  for  designation  as  a  national  heritage  area  in  H.R.  1280, 
legislation  that  would  establish  national  heritage  areas  across  the  country. 

I  am  requesting  that  the  Subcommittee  approve  $500,000  for  the  Steel 
Industry  Heritage  Project  in  fiscal  year  1997.  This  money  would  be  used  for 
implementing  the  management  plan  I  have  just  described,  conducting  an 
inventory  of  historic  and  cultural  resources  in  Armstrong  County,  and  for 
continued  National  Park  Service  technical  assistance. 

Thank  you  for  your  consideration  of  this  request. 


29 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

SANDY  HOOK  UNIT,  GATEWAY  NATIONAL  RECREATION 

AREA 

CHURCH  OF  THE  SEVEN  PRESIDENTS,  LONG  BRANCH 
HISTORICAL  MUSEUM  DISMAL  SWAMP 

NATIONAL  BIOLOGICAL  SURVEY  COOPERATIVE 
RESEARCH 

OIL  AND  GAS  LEASE  SALES 

WITNESS 

HON.  FRANK  PALLONE,  JR.,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  Frank,  we're  ready  to  go. 
Mr.  Pallone.  Mr.  Chairman,  how  are  you? 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  full  statement  that- 


Mr.  Regula.  It  will  be  made  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Pallone.  I  was  going  to  try  to  summarize  it  real  briefly. 

First  of  all  the  Sandy  Hook  unit  of  Gateway  National  Recreation 
Area  is  in  my  district.  They  have  requested  $4.2  million  for  park 
operations. 

But  beyond  that  there  are  several  infrastructure  needs  that  real- 
ly should  be  addressed,  if  possible,  this  fiscal  year  or  over  the  next 
few  fiscal  years. 

One  is  that  a  shore  protection,  beach  replenishment  project  was 
done  there  in  1989.  After  five  or  six  years,  there  is  a  need  to  do 
replenishment  again.  So  I  ask  for  the  cost  of  that.  The  estimate 
would  be  about  $24  million.  I  don't  know  if  it  has  to  be  done  all 
at  once,  but  I  did  mention  in  m.y  testimony  the  need  to  do  a  new 
beach  replenishment  project  there.  Otherwise  Sandy  Hook  becomes 
cut  off  and  there's  no  access  any  more.  Plus  it's  important  for  the 
beach  because  it's  a  huge  beach  that  people  use  in  the  summer 
from  the  New  York  metropolitan  area. 

In  addition  to  that,  the  Park  Service  has  come  up  with  a  feasibil- 
ity project  to  restore  historic  structures  at  Sandy  Hook  at  Fort 
Hancock.  If  I  could  get  about  $150,000  in  Fiscal  Year  1997  to  do 
a  feasibility  study  on  that,  I  think  that  we  could  get  a  really  great 
public-private  partnership  together  to  restore  some  of  those  build- 
ings. 

The  other  items  I've  mentioned  under  Sandy  Hook  are  basically 
infrastructure  needs:  bike  path,  utilities  rehabilitation,  new  en- 
trance to  the  park — which  gets  very  backed  up  in  the  summer  sea- 
son. These  are  things  that  the  committee  has,  I  believe,  looked  at 
before.  We  haven't  been  able  to  get  funding  for  them.  If  there's 
some  way  that  we  could  start  the  process  of  getting  the  funding  for 
some  of  those  infrastructure  needs,  I  would  certainly  appreciate  it. 

There's  also  a  request  for  a  historical  project,  the  Church  of  the 
Seven  Presidents  in  Long  Branch.  This  was  one  of  the  sites  that 
was  identified  by  a  national  survey  as  one  of  the  most  endangered, 
if  you  will,  historical  structures  in  the  country.  If  we  could  get  a 


30 

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

The  Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund,  I  don't  have  specific  re- 
quests for  earmarks  there,  but  I  would  like  to  see  as  much  money 
as  possible  put  into  that  program.  I  have  two  projects,  Dismal 
Swamp  in  Edison  and  Milltown  projects  also  in  my  district.  I'm  not 
looking  for  any  earmark,  but  I  know  that  those  projects  would  not 
be  funded  unless  there  was  considerably  more  funding  in  the  Land 
and  Water  Conservation  Fund  than  there  was  last  year.  So  my  re- 
quest generally  is  to  see  if  we  can  get  significantly  more  funding 
for  that  program. 

The  only  other  thing,  funding-wise,  I  wanted  to  mention  is  at 
Rutgers  University.  We  do  not  have  what's  called  a  cooperative  re- 
search unit.  We're  one  of  five  States  that  do  not.  If  we  could  get 
that  designated  with  a  small  amount  of  seed  money,  it  would  allow 
Rutgers  to  tap  into  a  lot  of  other  research  programs  and  research 
grants  that  come  under  your  jurisdiction. 

I  don't  know  if  you're  familiar  with  this  at  all,  but  they  really 
feel  that  they  are  sort  of  behind  the  curve  in  not  having  that  kind 
of  designation  at  Rutgers. 

The  last  thing  which  you've  heard  from  me  about  probably  for 
ten  years  now — or  maybe  for  eight  years  now — is  the  OCS  morato- 
rium. I  guess,  you  and  I  do  not  agree  on  that. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  that's  a  bit  of  a  catch-22  because  you  like  the 
Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund. 

Mr.  Pallone.  Exactly,  but  not  strictly.  I  knew  you  were  going  to 
catch  on  that.  But  there's  other  sources  of  funding  too,  right? 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  the  biggy,  though. 

Mr.  Pallone.  That  is  the  big  one,  that's  true. 

But  in  any  case,  I,  of  course,  advocate  the  continuation  of  the 
moratorium  and  hope  that  the  subcommittee  will  go  in  that  direc- 
tion as  they  have  for  the  last  few  years. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you  very  much.  You  know  we  have 
short  rations.  In  1996  we  were  $1.4  billion  under  1995,  and  that 
means  we  really  have  got  to  squeeze.  Wherever  possible,  I  look  for 
partnership  packages  with  State  and  local  participation. 

Mr.  Pallone.  Right. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  think  that  that's  the  future  in  a  lot  of  these 
projects. 

Mr.  Pallone.  Yes,  and  particularly  that  one  at  Fort  Hancock 
with  the  rehabilitation  of  the  historic  structures.  I  think  that  with 
a  small  amount  of  Federal  funds  we  could  definitely  attract  private 
interests  to  come  in  there  and  restore  those  buildings. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you  very  much. 

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

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Pallone  follows:] 


31 


,£BcecoMM,n«  FRANK  PALLONE,  Jr. 


District  0*»»cts 

rxAfM.  AND  *-0-<i  BMAMCh.  NJ  07T40 


«sou»ctscoMM,-H  Congress  of  ttjr  ^niteb  States 

—  'wlZn'r'""""  2;ousf  of  ^rprfSfiitatibfS 

".."••■  (BU.isliinBH)".  ©"C  20313-3000 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  HONORABLE  FRANK  PALLONE,  JR. 

BEFORE  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR 

COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 

APRIL  17,  1996 


INTRODUCTION 

Thank  you  Mr.  Chairman  and  Mr.  Yates  for  allowing  me  to  testify  today  in  support 
of  Interior  Department  projects  that  are  of  great  importance  to  me  and  my  district. 

As  you  know  I  represent  a  densely  populated,  coastal  district  that  is  very 
environmentally  conscious.     Not  only  does  the  Sixth  District  contain  significant  natural  and 
historical  resources,  it  is  also  home  to  Rutgers  University  -  New  Jersey's  state  university. 
As  a  result,  we  have  very  diverse  needs  with  respect  to  public  lands. 

In  my  testimony  today,  I  will  be  addressing  Fiscal  Year  1997  funding  requests  for  the 
Sandy  Hook  Unit  of  Gateway  National  Recreation  Area  and  the  Church  of  the  Seven 
Presidents  at  the  Long  Branch  Historical  Museum.    In  addition,  I  would  like  to  discuss 
protection  of  the  Dismal  Swamp  in  Edison,  New  Jersey,  designation  of  a  National  Biological 
Survey  Cooperative  Research  Unit  at  Rutgers  University,  and  continuation  of  the  moratorium 
on  Mid-Atlantic  Coast  offshore  oil  and  gas  lease  sales. 


SANDY  HOOK  UNIT.  GATEWAY  NATIONAL  RECREATION  AREA 

We  are  very  fortunate  in  the  Sixth  District  of  New  Jersey  to  be  home  to  the  Sandy 
Hook  Unit  of  the  Gateway  National  Recreation  Area  (NRA).    The  Gateway  NRA  is  visited 
by  some  9  million  people  each  year  and  Sandy  Hook  attracts  around  3  million  of  those 
visitors  annually.    These  people  come  from  all  over  the  New  Jersey-New  York-Philadelphia 
metropolitan  area  to  take  advantage  of  Sandy  Hook's  bathing  beaches,  fishing  areas,  and 
historic  structures.    The  park  provides  an  opportunity  for  people  of  all  economic  backgrounds 
to  enjoy  a  day  at  the  shore. 

Like  many  National  Parks,  Gateway/Sandy  Hook  relies  on  line  item  spending 
appropriated  by  Congress.   I  am  therefore  requesting  $4.2  million  for  park  operation  at 
Gateway/Sandy  Hook  for  Fiscal  Year  1997. 

In  addition,  I  would  like  to  make  requests  for  several  improvement  projects  at 


32 


Gateway/Sandy  Hook  for  Fiscal  Year  1997.    These  projects  are  necessary  to  continue  to 
provide  visitors  at  Gateway/Sandy  Hook  with  modern  facilities  and  to  maximize  access  and 
use  of  the  historic  and  natural  resources  available  at  Sandy  Hook. 

Shore  Protection 

Winter  storms  have  severely  eroded  ocean  beaches  on  Sandy  Hook.    At  this  point, 
tides  are  washing  over  the  roadway  near  the  entrance  to  the  park.    Without  the  necessary 
beach  nourishment  in  the  "critical  zone"  at  Sandy  Hook,  the  hook  will  be  breached  by  the 
competing  wave  action  of  the  bay  and  the  ocean. 

I  strongly  urge  the  Subcommittee  to  consider  an  appropriation  of  $24  million  for 
beach  nourishment  for  the  "critical  zone"  at  Sandy  Hook  in  FY  1997. 

In  addition,  a  30  foot  section  of  the  historic  sea  wall  located  opposite  to  Officers' 
Row  in  the  Fort  Hancock  complex  collapsed  during  a  storm  last  month.    Unfortunately,  this 
has  added  to  the  critical  situation  of  shore  protection  at  Sandy  Hook. 

I  am  in  the  process  of  requesting  emergency  funds  for  the  temporary  stabilization  of 
the  sea  wall.    The  sea  wall  will  require  permanent  stabilization,  however,  in  order  to 
maintain  its  viability  in  the  future.    For  this  purpose,  I  request  that  $150,000  be  appropriated 
in  FY  1997  for  re-stabilization  of  the  historic  sea  wall  at  Sandy  Hook. 

Fort  Hancock  Historic  Structures 

The  histor>'  of  Fort  Hancock  as  an  important  military  site  goes  back  to  the 
Revolutionary  War.    The  original  fort  was  built  during  the  War  of  1812.    In  1895,  the  U.S. 
Army  established  Fort  Hancock  to  protect  vital  shipping  lanes  into  New  York  Harbor.    After 
World  War  II,  the  Fort  was  used  as  the  site  for  anti-aircraft  guns  and  later  as  a  Nike  missile 
installation.    The  Fort  was  deactivated  in  1974. 

In  1982,  the  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior  designated  all  of  Sandy  Hook  as  a 
National  Historic  Landmark.    The  Fort  area  is  administered  by  the  National  Park  Service  as 
part  of  the  Gateway  National  Recreation  Area. 

The  Park  Service  has  envisioned  a  very  progressive,  adaptive  re-use  plan  for  Fort 
Hancock  which  would  employ  the  participation  of  public  and  private  entities  in  the 
rehabilitation  and  re-use  of  Fort  Hancock's  historic  facilities.    The  study  that  I  am  asking  for 
would  evaluate  potential  uses  for  the  existing  buildings  and  investigate  possible  funding 
mechanisms  that  could  be  pursued  in  order  to  minimize  the  need  for  federal  funding. 

I  strongly  believe  that  an  investigation  into  a  public -private  partnership  for 
rehabilitating  Fort  Hancock  will  allow  the  Fort  Hancock  facilities  to  be  preserved  while  at 
the  same  time  enhancing  the  current  recreation,  historicaf  interpretation,  and  environmental 
education  activities  at  Sandy  Hook. 


33 


I  would  therefore  like  to  request  that  the  Subcommittee  provide  $150,000  in  FY  1997 
for  a  "market  analysis"  of  plans  to  rehabilitate  and  preserve  the  62  historic  structures  within 
Fort  Hancock  through  a  public-private  partnership 

Bike  Path 

I  would  also  like  to  request  $2.5  million  in  FY  1997  for  planning  and  construction  of 
the  North/South  bike  path  as  envisioned  in  Gateway's  General  Management  Plan 

When  completed,  this  trail  will  connect  all  major  features  along  the  length  of  Sandy 
Hook.  The  North/South  trail  will  also  join  the  Sea  Bright  Trail  and  the  proposed  Bayshore 
Trail  which  will  run  almost  half  the  length  of  my  Congressional  district. 

Utilities  Rehabilitation 

According  to  the  Park  Service,  the  utility  systems  on  Sandy  Hook  are  antiquated, 
some  systems  having  been  installed  as  early  as  1898.    As  a  result,  the  utilities  at  Sandy  Hook 
are  subject  to  frequent  malfunction  and  are  in  dire  need  of  rehabilitation.    The  Park  Service 
has  informed  me  that  there  are  recurrent  failures  in  the  electrical  system  and  that  existing 
phone  lines  are  often  out  of  service.    In  addition,  the  water  distribution  system  and  waste 
water  collection  systems  contain  numerous  leaks  from  old  faulty  lines  which  include  asbestos 
and  lead  joints.    These  water  systems  do  not  provide  adequate  pressure  for  fire  fighting  and 
may  create  environmental  and  health  safety  concerns. 

I  would  therefore  like  to  ask  the  Subcommittee  to  provide  $400,000  for  the 
preliminary  design  study  of  a  project  to  rehabilitate  deteriorated  utilities  at  Sandy  Hook, 
including  the  water  and  wastewater  systems  and  the  electrical  and  telecommunications 
systems. 

New  Park  Entrance 

There  is  also  much  needed  work  to  be  done  on  the  entrance  to  the  Sandy  Hook  unit  in 
order  to  provide  more  effective  means  of  handling  increased  traffic  at  the  park.    The  existing 
entrance  plaza  needs  to  be  replaced  in  order  to  eliminate  lines  at  the  park  entrance.    In 
addition,  the  existing  Ranger  Station  which  was  constructed  in  the  early  1960s  needs  to  be 
replaced  or  rehabilitated  in  order  to  handle  an  increase  in  visitation.    Finally,  the  road  that 
winds  through  the  park  —  Hartshome  Drive  --  needs  to  be  resurfaced  and  its  drainage 
improved. 

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


CHURCH  OF  THE  SEVEN  PRESIDENTS 

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


34 


important  to  me  because  it  highlights  the  role  my  hometown  of  Long  Branch,  New  Jersey  has 
played  in  the  history  of  our  country. 

Built  in  1879,  the  Long  Branch  Historical  Museum  has  had  seven  United  States 
Presidents,  from  General  Ulysses  S.  Grant  to  Woodrow  Wilson,  worship  on  the  premises  of 
the  former  church  in  which  it  is  housed.    In  addition,  other  great  historical  figures  have 
walked  its  corridors,  including  George  W.  Childs  --  the  editor  and  publisher  of  the 
Philadelphia  Inquirer,  and  George  Pullman  -  the  great  inventor  of  the  pullman  car. 

The  Museum  is  a  landmark  of  tradition  and  historical  significance,  requiring  minimal 
funding  to  provide  an  important  snapshot  of  history  for  generations  to  come. 

I,  therefore,  respectfully  urge  the  Subcommittee  to  give  favorable  consideration  to  a 
$60,000  appropriation  for  the  Church  of  the  Seven  Presidents  at  the  Long  Branch  Historical 
Museum  for  FY  1997.    This  small  amount  of  federal  funding  would  provide  necessary 
monies  to  match  private  contributions  for  rehabilitation  of  the  building,  including  structural 
support  and  roof  repair.    SiiKe  the  Museum  is  listed  on  the  National  Historic  Registry, 
funding  for  the  project  is  authorized  pursuant  to  16  USC  Sec.  462(0 


THE  LAND  AND  WATER  CONSERVATION  FUND 

Although  I  am  not  requesting  any  specific  funding  for  land  acquisition  for  my  district 
under  the  Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  (LWCF)  in  FY  1997,  I  would  like  to  urge  the 
Subcommittee  to  support  the  highest  possible  funding  level  for  this  program  in  the  coming 
fiscal  year. 

The  LWCF  is  important  to  me  for  two  reasons.    First,  I  am  continuing  to  working 
with  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  on  ways  to  protect  the  Dismal  Swamp  in  Edison,  New 
Jersey.    The  Dismal  Swamp  is  a  significant  wetland  habitat  located  in  a  very  densely 
populated  portion  of  my  district.    Because  this  habitat  is  so  unique  to  this  portion  of  my 
district,  my  constituents  and  I  believe  it  is  worthy  of  assistance  through  the  LWCF  to  help 
protect  it  from  the  mounting  pressures  of  urban  development. 

I  am  also  seeking  funding,  through  the  LWCF,  to  protect  open  space  and  historic 
structures  in  Milltown,  New  Jersey.    This  is  an  extremely  worthy  project  which,  I  firmly 
believe,  will  receive  federal  funding  provided  that  Congress  provides  sufficient  appropriation 
to  the  LCWF. 


COOPERATIVE  RESEARCH  UNIT.  RUTGERS  UNIVERSITY 

Currently,  New  Jersey  is  one  of  only  five  states  that  do  not  contain  a  Cooperative 
Research  Unit.    These  units  were  originally  designated  as  part  of  the  Fish  and  Wildlife 
Service  and  were  recently  placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  National  Biological  Survey 
when  that  entity  took  over  the  research  functions  of  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service. 


35 


The  lack  of  a  Cooperative  Research  Unit  has  hindered  the  ability  of  my  state  to 
participate  in  research  activities  that  can  only  be  carried  out  by  a  Cooperative  Research  Unit. 
As  you  know.  New  Jersey  is  home  to  5  National  Wildlife  Refuges,  the  Pinelands  National 
Reserve,  three  Wild  and  Scenic  Rivers,  and  numerous  other  natural  areas  that  would  be 
invaluable  resources  for  scieniiTic  research. 

Rutgers,  New  Jersey's  state  university,  which  is  located  in  my  district,  is  ideally 
suited  for  a  designation  as  a  Cooperative  Research  Unit     I  hope  that  the  Subcommittee  will 
give  its  most  serious  consideration  to  designating  Rutgers  as  a  cooperative  unit  in  FY  1997. 


CONTINUATION  OF  THE  MID-ATLANTIC  PCS  MORATORIUM 

Finally,  and  most  importantly,  1  request  that  the  Subcommittee  continue  to  prohibit 
the  Department  of  the  Interior  from  expending  any  funds  for  any  activities  related  to  a 
Mid- Atlantic  Coast  offshore  oil  and  gas  lease  sale,  including  the  preparation  or  conduct  of 
preleasing  and  leasing  activities. 

Because  of  its  sensitive  ecosystem,  I  am  a  strong  opponent  of  oil  and  gas  drilling  off 
the  coast  of  New  Jersey.    New  Jersey's  marine  environment  has  suffered  enough  over  the 
years:  sewage  sludge  dumping,  illegal  medical  waste  disposal,  and  the  dumping  of  dioxin 
laden  dredged  sediments.    In  the  summer  of  1988  alone,  New  Jersey  lost  some  $800  million 
as  a  result  of  coastal  environmental  problems. 

I  strongly  urge  the  Subcommittee  to  reaffirm  its  support  for  the  moratorium  by 
including  the  necessary  language  in  the  Fiscal  Year  1997  Interior  Appropriations  legislation. 


CONCLUSION 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Yates,  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee  for  your 
consideration  of  my  requests  and  your  kind  assistance  in  years  past.    I  look  forward  to 
working  with  the  Subcommittee  on  these  and  other  important  proposals  throughout  the  104th 
Congress. 


36 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

THE  PRESIDIO 

OCS  MORATORIUM 

MOJAVE  NATIONAL  PRESERVE 

MARK  PROCESSING  CENTER 

HETCH  HETCHY 

WITNESS 

HON.  NANCY  PELOSI,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Nancy? 

Ms.  Pelosl  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Good  morning. 

Mr.  Regula.  Good  morning. 

Ms.  Pelosl  Thanks  for  the  opportunity  to  be  here  this  morning. 

Mr.  Regula.  You're  here  clutching  to  vote  for  the  bill. 

Ms.  Pelosl  It's  possible,  it's  possible.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  that's  progress. 

Ms.  Pelosl  Well,  we  haven't  seen  it  yet,  have  we?  Whatever  the 
next  version  of  it  is,  I'm  certain  you're  going  to  work  it  out,  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  have  a  good  resolution  of  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we're  trying  hard. 

Ms.  Pelosl  I  feel  confident  to  have  your  leadership. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  need  the  magic  of  the  bible  story  about  the  fishes 
and  the  loaves  that  could  feed  5,000. 

Ms.  Pelosl  Well,  I'll  be  praying  for  you.  [Laughter.] 

As  you  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  because  of  your  leadership,  the 
committee  has  been  very  generous  in  the  past  to  my  request.  I  ap- 
preciate your  good  work  and  the  funding  that  has  made  so  many 
projects  possible  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Area  and  in  California. 
I'm  again  requesting  funding  for  the  Presidio  as  a  top  priority. 
We're  very  near  Senate  consideration  of  the  Presidio  Trust  bill.  As 
you  know  it  passed  the  House  317-111  and  enjoys  bipartisan  sup- 
port. You  have  very  generously  visited,  and  you  understand  the 
issue.  It  is  my  hope  that  before  we  start  the  next  fiscal  year,  we'll 
be  able  to  utilize  the  authority  of  the  trust  legislation  in  a  cost-ef- 
fective manner  lowering  the  overall  costs  of  the  Presidio  as  a  na- 
tional park. 

I,  too,  want  to  join  my  colleague,  Mr.  Pallone,  in  supporting  a 
continued  moratorium  in  energy  development  off  the — in  my  case — 
the  environmentally-sensitive  areas  of  the  California  coast. 

The  appropriations  committee  has  upheld  the  moratorium  for 
many  years,  and  I  would  hope  that  that  would  continue  because  it 
is  important  to  our  environment  and  our  State's  economy. 

The  Mojave  Desert  Preserve,  the  request  in  the  President's  budg- 
et is  for  $1.9  million.  I  support  the  request  with  the  intent  of  the 
California  Deserts  Protection  Act  which  designated  the  preserve  as 
a  unit  to  be  operated  as  a  National  Park  Service  unit. 

A  small  request,  relatively  speaking,  $239,000  for  the  Mark  Proc- 
essing Center.  The  Mark  Center  is  responsible  for  creating  and 
maintaining  a  database  for  the  salmon  tagging  information  col- 


37 

lected  on  the  West  Coast.  This  would  provide  fishery  managers 
with  information  on  the  hardest  impacts  on  the  variety  of  West 
Coast  salmon  stocks. 

If  you  were  in  California  these  days,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  would 
see  a  great  deal  in  the  press  about  what's  happening  in  terms  of 
salmon.  These  additional  funds  would  allow  the  Mark  Center  to 
merge  tagging  data  with  harvest  statistics  in  order  to  track,  com- 
pile, and  utilization  information  concerning  the  impact  on  various 
species  some  of  which  are  now  endangered  and  perilously  low  in 
number.  This  is  very  important  to  the  environment  and  to  the  fish- 
ing industry  in  our  State. 

Mr.  Chairman,  you  have  in  the  past  brought  up  the  issue  of 
Hetch  Hetchy.  The  President's  budget  calls  for  the  payment  of 
$575,000  by  the  city  of  San  Francisco.  The  President's  budget  uses 
an  excepted  energy  regulatory  commission  formula  that  is  em- 
ployed for  such  projects.  As  you  know,  the  city  is  willing  to  pay 
more,  but  agrees  that  it  should  be  based  on  a  standard  that  is  ap- 
plied broadly  to  other  similar  projects.  So  we'll  be  going  up  to 
$597,000.  And  I  just  mention  that,  was  it  $30,000 — no,  since  it  was 
an  issue  that  interests  you. 

Once  again,  I  want  to  thank  the  committee's  consideration  of  my 
request  and  hope  that  you  will  be  helpful. 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  you  support  Jim  Watt's  idea  of  putting  Hetch 
Hetchy  back  to  its  natural  state? 

Ms.  Pelosi.  No.  I  know  that  comes  as  a  surprise  to  you.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Then  again,  he  said  that  the  second  coming  was  imminent.  If 
that  were  true,  then  I  could  buy  into  a  number  of  his  proposals. 
But  since  I'm  not  absolutely  certain,  I'm  not  ready  to  make  that 
stand. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

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

[The  statement  of  Ms.  Pelosi  follows:] 


38 


STATEMENT  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PELOSI 

BEFORE  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR 

COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 

April  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman,  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank  you  for  your 
time  today  and  for  the  opportunity  to  present  my  Interior 
Appropriations  requests  for  fiscal  year  1997. 

This  Subcommittee  has  been  very  generous  in  the  past  and  I 
appreciate  your  good  work  and  the  funding  that  has  made  so  many 
projects  possible  in  California  and  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay 
Area . 

The  Presidio  $25  million 

National  Park  Service 

Presidio  funding  is  a  top  priority  since  we  are  very  near  Senate 
consideration  of  the  Presidio  Trust  bill  (HR  1296)  which  would 
create  a  private-sector  model  for  management  of  the  Presidio's 
leasable  properties.   HR  1296  passed  the  House  on  September  19  by 
a  vote  of  317  to  111  in  an  expression  of  the  strong,  bipartisan 
support  that  exists  for  the  Presidio  Trust. 

Chairman  Regula  and  many  members  of  the  Subcommittee  have  visited 
the  Presidio  and  come  away  from  their  visit  with  a  renewed 
understanding  of  the  complexities  that  a  Trust  could  address.   I 
support  the  amount  of  funding  recommended  in  the  President's 
budget  --  $25  million  --  for  operation  and  maintenance  of  the 
Presidio. 

It  is  my  hope  that  a  Presidio  Trust  will  exist  before  the  start 
or  the  next  fiscal  year  and  be  positioned  to  utilize  this  funding 
in  a  cost-effective  manner  that  will  lower  the  overall  cost  of 
operating  the  Presidio  as  a  national  park.   In  anticipation  of 
this,  no  long-term  leases  are  being  negotiated  by  the  Park 
Service;  everything  is  currently  "on  hold." 

CCS  Moratorium 

Minerals  Management  Service 

I  support  the  continued  moratorium  on  energy  development  off  the 
environmentally  sensitive  areas  of  the  California  coast. 
California  currently  produces  almost  3.4  billion  barrels  of  oil 
from  on-shore  sources.   According  to  the  California  Division  of 
Oil  and  Gas,  only  726  million  barrels  would  be  available  from  the 
Outer  Continental  Shelf.   This  amount  of  oil  is  not  worth  the 
damage  that  could  result  from  oil  drilling,  along  with  the  loss 
of  billions  of  dollars  to  the  state  annually  in  tourism. 

The  Appropriations  Committee  has  upheld  the  moratorium  for  many 
years  and  I  would  hope  that  the  same  good  judgement  will  prevail 
this  year  in  support  of  our  environment  and  the  state's  economy. 


Moiave  National  Preserve  $1.9  million 

National  Park  Service 

The  President's  Budget  requests  $1.9  million  for  operation  of  the 
Mojave  National  Preserve  as  a  unit  of  the  national  park  system. 
I  support  this  request,  in  keeping  with  the  intent  of  the 
California  Desert  Protection  Act  which  designated  the  Preserve  as 
a  unit  to  be  operated  by  the  National  Park  Service. 

Mark  Processing  Center  $239,000 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

You  may  have  read  about  the  recent  salmon  crisis  on  the  Pacific 
coast  involving  the  winter  run  chinook  salmon.   This  is  a  serious 
issue  that  must  be  addressed,  both  in  order  to  preserve  the 
species  and  to  protect  our  economy.   I  request  that  $239,000  be 
identified  from  the  Fisheries  program  budget  of  the  U.S.  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service  to  fund  the  activities  of  the  Regional  Mark 
Processing  Center. 

The  Mark  Center  is  responsible  for  creating  and  maintaining  a 
database  of  the  salmon  tagging  information  collected  on  the  West 
Coast.   The  U.S. -Canada  Pacific  Salmon  Commission  has  asked  the 
Mark  Center  to  enhance  its  database  by  merging  harvest  statistics 
of  salmon  with  the  tagging  information. 

This  would  provide  fishery  managers  with  information  on  the 
harvest  impacts  of  a  variety  of  West  Coast  salmon  stocks.   Last 
year's  appropriation  of  $150,000  was  insufficient  to  upgrade  the 
data  program  to  accomplish  this  important  goal.   These  additional 
funds  would  allow  the  Mark  Center  to  merge  tagging  data  with 
harvest  statistics  in  order  to  track,  compile  and  utilize 
information  concerning  the  impacts  on  various  species,  some  of 
which  are  now  endangered  and  perilously  low  in  number. 

Hetch  Hetchv 
National  Park  Service 

The  President  has  included  a  requirement  for  payment  of  $597,000 
by  the  City  of  San  Francisco  to  the  Department  of  Interior  for 
its  use  of  the  Hetch  Hetchy  water  system  within  Yosemite  National 
Park.   There  have  been  attempts  to  extract  a  larger  amount  from 
the  City,  based  on  an  arbitrary  figure  that  is  higher.   The  City 
of  San  Francisco  is  willing  to  reimburse  the  Yosemite  Management 
Fund,  but  the  cost  should  be  based  on  a  standard  that  can  be 
applied  broadly  to  other  similar  projects.   The  President's 
budget  uses  an  accepted  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  Commission 
formula  that  is  employed  for  such  projects  and  I  urge  the 
Committee  to  resist  efforts  to  increase  the  amount . 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee.   I 
appreciate  your  consideration  of  my  requests  today  and  hope  you 
will  agree  that  they  are  important  and  worthwhile. 


40 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
NATIONAL  PARKS 
NATIONAL  LAKESHORES 

WITNESS 

HON.  BART  STUPAK,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  MICHIGAN 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  Bart? 

Mr.  Stupak.  Well,  thanks,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  the  oppor- 
tunity to  talk  to  you  a  little  bit  about  some  of  the  projects  in  my 
district. 

As  you  know,  we  have  two  national  parks  and  we  have  two  na- 
tional lakeshores  that  I  would  like  to  spend  a  little  time  on. 

But  if  I  may  deviate  a  moment  from  my  testimony,  because,  it's 
my  understanding  that  while  you  have  jurisdiction  over  the  na- 
tional forests.  The  appropriations  for  the  timber  sales  really  comes 
out  of  this  committee. 

So  I'd  like  to  revise  my  testimony.  I've  been  waiting  for  a  re- 
sponse from  Secretary  Glickman  about  the  Hiawatha  National  For- 
est in  my  district.  We  entered  in,  by  we  I  mean  everybody,  the  first 
ever  forest  management  plan  for  50  years,  and  we  just  completed 
the  first  decade.  We  have  found,  especially  in  the  last  five  years, 
that  the  agreed  upon  cutting  in  the  national  forest — Hiawatha  Na- 
tional Forest,  is  40  percent  less  than  what  we  agreed  upon.  So  in 
other  words,  we  formed  a  contract  with  the  government,  and  the 
government  said,  "We  will  provide  you  so  many  board  feet,"  like  71 
million  board  feet  per  year  to  cut  in  this  national  forest.  What  we 
are  finding  is  that  the  government  is  failing  to  live  up  to  it,  which 
is  putting  a  strain  on  the  private  forests,  on  the  State  forests,  and 
really  on  our  industry  thereby  driving  up  the  price  of  stumpage.  So 
I'd  like  to  elaborate  a  little  bit  more,  maybe  amend  the  testimony 
on  that  issue. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection  we  will  accept  an  amendment  to 
the  testimony. 

Mr.  Stupak.  We're  hoping  to  have  a  meeting  with  Secretary 
Glickman  and  others  on  that  real  soon  to  try  to  address  that  issue. 

Mr.  Regula.  Let's  suspend  for  a  moment.  Is  there  anything  that 
limits  the  Forest  Service  in  the  way  of  a  cut?  I  think  that  you  need 
to  talk  to  Secretary  Glickman  and  the  Forest  Service.  It's  not  any- 
thing what  we're  doing  that's  restricting  what  they  can  do. 

Mr.  Stupak.  No,  but  they  have  come  back,  in  some  informal  dis- 
cussions, and  they  more  or  less  said  that  they  had  cut  back  on  the 
money  available  for  timber  sales.  We're  saying  that  that's  not  real- 
ly the  problem.  The  problem  is  we're  used  to  having  foresters.  We 
now  have  anthropologists  and  everything  else.  You  look  at  a  forest 
management  plan  and  they  say  that  that's  not  their  priority. 

Mr.  Regula.  You've  identified  the  problem. 

Mr.  Stupak.  So,  we've  asked  for  the  background  of  these  people. 
How  many  foresters  did  they  have  in  1986  as  opposed  to  1996?  I 
think  that  if  we  document  that — they  do  not  have  an  appreciation 
for  what's  going  on.  And  if  you  have  no  interest  you  don't  follow 
through  on  the  commitment.  That's  what  we  think  is  happening — 


41 

not  that  this  committee  is  doing  things  wrong,  we  think  that  the 
commitment  is  not  there. 

So  that's  a  battle  we've  been  dealing  with. 

But  let  me,  if  I  may,  talk  about  Isle  Royal  Park,  Keweenaw  Na- 
tional Historical  Park,  Sleeping  Bear  Dunes  and  Pictured  Rocks. 

Sleeping  Bear  Dunes  Lakeshore  is  located  in  the  northwestern 
corner  of  the  lower  peninsula.  It's  basically  sand  dunes.  I  support 
the  President's  request  of  $2.45  million.  In  addition  to  that,  again, 
we  support  the  President's  proposal.  We  have  a  lot  of  canoeing  on 
the  Platte  River  there.  We  have  found  a  real  serious  problem  with 
parking,  to  the  point  that  the  State  is  starting  to  crack  down  on 
parking  along  the  State  highways  that  go  through  this  national 
lakeshore.  So  we're  going  to  ask  for  some  additional  funding  for  ex- 
panding parking.  We  hope  to  have  a  proposal  for  you  a  little  bit 
later.  But  I  support  the  President's  proposal  of  $2.45  million. 

Isle  Royal  National  Park  and  the  Keweenaw  National  Park — Isle 
Royal,  as  you  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  in  the  western  Lake  Supe- 
rior. Basically  it  is  a  summertime  park.  In  the  winter  the  only 
thing  you  are  going  to  find  is  gray  wolves  and  moose.  But  the 
President  has  asked  for  $2.3  million,  and  again,  I  would  support 
that. 

Keweenaw  National  Park  has  sort  of  made  the  list  of  being  one 
of  the  national  parks,  one  of  two  that  are  in  very  bad  conditions 
as  far  as  the  facilities  for  the  rangers  and  everything  else.  What's 
happened  in  northern  Michigan,  we  have  joined  in  with  the  home- 
owners' association  and  others  and  started  like  a  trust  fund  for  the 
Keweenaw  National  Park  and  greatly  improved  those  quarters. 
That's  a  private-government  partnership  to  improve  the  living  con- 
ditions and  to  keep  the  cost  to  the  Federal  Government  down.  It's 
working  out  extremely  well. 

With  that  in  mind,  when  you  look  at  the  Keweenaw  National 
Park,  which  is  one  of  our  newest  national  parks,  the  administra- 
tion's only  requested  $270,000  because  it  is  in  the  infant  stages.  I'd 
like  to  see  the  funding  go  up  to  $600,000.  It  is  necessary  to  provide 
for  additional  rangers  and  technical  assistance  and  preservation 
grants. 

The  Keweenaw  Park,  I  think,  is  unique,  in  that  with  a  new 
park — and  you  said  it  earlier,  we  have  a  problem  with  funding 
these  parks.  For  every  dollar  that  the  Federal  Government  puts  in, 
we  have  two  dollars  at  the  State  and  local  level.  So  if  we  could  get 
$600,000,  that's  really  about  $1.8  million.  What  most  of  that  money 
would  go  for  is  preservation.  This  year  we've  had  record  snowfall 
in  northern  Michigan,  like  300-plus  inches  up  on  the  Keweenaw  pe- 
ninsula. Many  of  these  buildings  we'd  like  to  preserve  for  this  park 
are  basically  falling  and  crumbling  from  the  weight  of  the  snow 
that  we  have. 

So  that's  what  it's  for  and  there  is  a  degree  of  urgency  there.  I 
urge  that  the  committee  look  favorably  upon  the  $600,000  knowing, 
of  course,  that  every  dollar  we  put  in  there  will  be  two  dollars 
matched. 

Pictured  Rocks  Lakeshore  is  on  the  southern  shore  of  Lake  Supe- 
rior. It's  made  up  of  beautiful  ancient  forests  and  a  rocky  shoreline. 
The  President  has  requested  $1.2  million.  Again,  I  would  support 
that.  But  in  addition,  keeping  in  mind  your  earlier  comments,  I 


42 

would  ask  that  this  committee  consider  putting  in  legislation  that 
I  have.  In  1966,  when  Congress  created  the  Pictured  Rocks  Na- 
tional Lakeshore,  they  said  that  they  shall  build  a  road  through 
this  park.  It's  never  been  done.  It's  going  to  cost  $13  million  to 
build  this  road. 

I'm  asking  the  committee  not  to  build  that  road.  You're  taking 
it  through  some  very  prime,  beautiful  area  at  $13  million  for  13 
miles.  We  have  a  county  road  H58  that  will  serve  the  purpose. 
What  we're  asking  for  is  that  we  change  that  language  and  allow 
the  Park  Service  to  work  with  the  county  road  commission  and  im- 
prove H58  and  save  everyone  a  lot  of  money  without  destroying  the 
natural  beauty  of  this  Pictured  Rocks  Lakeshore. 

I  understand  that's  a  request  that  may  not  normally  come  before 
the  committee,  but  I'm  concerned  that  we  have  a  shortened  legisla- 
tive time  here — maybe  about  45  legislative  days  left.  So  if  we  could 
put  that  in  the  committee  report.  I  have  the  language  available,  it's 
attached  to  my  testimony.  I  certainly  would  appreciate  the  commit- 
tee looking  at  that. 

And  one  other,  if  I  may.  The  Coast  Guard  and  the  Fish  and  Wild- 
life Service  own  Whitefish  Point  Light  Station.  They  want  to  divest 
themselves  of  this  property.  Again,  we  have  the  legislation  all 
drafted.  It  would  go  to  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  to  Great 
Lakes  Historical  Shipwreck  Museum  and  Whitefish  Point  Bird  Ob- 
servatory. 

I  realize  it  might  be  a  little  strange  to  come  before  this  commit- 
tee, and  ask  that  that  transfer  be  done.  I  understand  that  it  can 
be  done  with  waivers  from  the  Rules  Committee.  I  have  language 
attached  to  my  testimony,  and  I'm  willing  to  work  with  the  Rules 
Committee  to  get  that  thing  past.  Again,  it's  for  the  reason  that 
we're  of  a  limited  time. 

Last,  but  not  least,  we've  identified  in  the  past,  in  previous  testi- 
mony, the  need  to  identify  uncapped  mines.  These  are  underground 
mines  where  you  have  mine  shafts.  I'm  not  asking  to  do  anjrthing 
more  than  just  identify 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  they  on  private  property? 

Mr.  Stupak.  Abandoned.  Well,  both.  On  both  public  and  private. 
Northern  Michigan  was  home  of  the  iron  boom  in  the  early  1800's 
and  has  copper  mines  all  over.  We  mined  the  heck  out  of  northern 
Michigan,  and  what  happened  is  these  mining  companies  have  ba- 
sically gone  out  of  business  and  they  reverted  back  to  the  local  ju- 
risdictions, being  the  township  or  the  county  or  the  State  of  Michi- 
gan. No  one  really  knows  where  the  shafts  are.  About  once  a  year 
we  lose  one  of  our  youngsters  who  are  out  exploring  in  the  woods 
and  falls  through  an  abandoned  mine  shaft.  We  really  don't  have 
a  good  location  of  where  they  are.  We  can't  warn  people  to  stay 
away.  We  don't  know  where  they  are.  So  there  are  old  maps  avail- 
able. It  would  take  some  effort.  We've  done  this  out  West,  but  we've 
never  done  this  in  the  Midwest  where  we  do  have  copper  mines. 
So  we've  asked  that  you  look  favorably  upon  that  request. 

And  again,  we  have  language  for  every  one  of  these  because  it's 
things  that  we  have  advocated  before.  We  ask  that  you  look  favor- 
ably upon  it.  You  spoke  about  the  fishes  and  loaves  with  Ms. 
Pelosi — with  the  Pictured  Rocks  and  the  $13  million,  I  think  that 
I  can  save  you  some  money  there.  With  the  Keweenaw  National 


43 


Park  for  every  dollar  we  put  up  we  get  two  dollars  from  State  and 
private.  We  are  making  those  fishes  and  loaves  work  in  northern 
Michigan,  we  just  need  a  Httle  help  from  you. 

Mr   Regula.  That's  what  the  partnerships  are  designed  to  do 
Ihank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Stupak.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Stupak  follows:] 


44 


TESTIMONY  OF  CONGRESSMAN  BART  STUPAK 

BEFORE  THE 

INTERIOR  AND  RELATED  AGENCIES  SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF  THE 

HOUSE  APPROPRIATIONS  COMMITTEE 

APRIL  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  be  here  today  to  talk  to  you  about  funding 
for  parks  and  projects  in  my  district.  As  you  may  know,  my  district  has  two  national  lakeshores 
and  two  national  parks,  in  addition  to  sizable  National  Forest  Service  -  nearly  two-thirds  of  the 
2.5  million  acres  in  Michigan  -  and  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  land  holdings. 

First,  I  would  like  to  request  the  Subcommittee  support  funding  for  the  National  Park 
Service  properties  in  my  district:  Isle  Royal  National  Park,  Keweenaw  National  Historical  Park, 
Sleeping  Bear  Dunes  and  Pictured  Rocks  National  Lakeshores. 

Sleeping  Bear  Dunes  National  Lakeshore  is  located  in  the  northwest  comer  of  the  lower 
peninsula  of  Michigan.  Sleeping  Bear  stretches  from  Benzie  County  up  into  northern  Leelenau 
County,  a  substantial  area  in  my  district.  The  lakeshore  includes  large  sand  dune  shores  along 
Lake  Michigan  and  numerous  trails  for  hiking  and  camping.  I  would  like  to  support  the 
President's  request  for  $2,454,000.  In  addition,  the  lakeshore  is  facing  inadequate  parking 
facilities  near  the  mouth  of  the  Platte  River.  With  the  current  move  towards  user  fees,  visitors 
are  necessary  for  the  survival  of  Sleeping  Bear  Dunes,  so  I  ask  the  Subconmiittee  for  additional 
funding  for  the  expanded  parking. 

I  would  like  to  request  full  funding  for  both  Isle  Royale  National  Park  and  Keweenaw 
National  Historical  Park.  Isle  Royale  is  a  primitive  rustic  island  located  in  Western  Lake 
Superior  and  is  home  to  moose  and  grey  wolves.  I  fully  support  the  President's  funding  request 
for  $2,393,000.  I  have  testified  before  this  Subcommittee  previously  about  the  Keweenaw 
National  Historical  Park,  a  park  commemorating  the  copper  mining  that  made  Michigan's  Upper 
Peninsula  the  nation's  leading  copper  mining  region  in  1800's.  Keweenaw  is  unique  in  that  it 
requires  two  dollars  of  state  and  local  matching  funds  for  every  dollar  federal  dollar  that  is 
received.  Although  the  Administration  has  requested  $270,000  dollars,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Subcommittee  to  raise  the  funding  level  to  $600,000.  This  higher  funding  level  is  necessary  for 
Keweenaw  to  provide  additional  rangers,  technical  assistance  and  preservation  grants. 

Pictured  Rocks  National  Lakeshore,  located  on  the  southern  shore  of  Lake  Superior,  is 
made  up  of  beautiful  ancient  forests  and  picmresque  rocky  shoreline.  I  fully  support  the 
President's  request  for  $1,257,000  for  the  Pictured  Rocks. 

In  addition,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Committee  adopt  a  provision  that  would  save  the 
government  money  while  saving  precious  environmental  resources.  When  the  Pictured  Rocks 
National  Lakeshore  was  created  in  1966,  Congress  adopted  a  provision  requiring  the  National 
Park  Service  to  build  a  new  scenic  road  along  the  lake.  Such  a  road  would  destroy  beautiful 
acres  of  forest  while  costing  an  estimated  $13  million.  I've  introduced  legislation  to  delete  the 
mandate  for  the  Park  Service  to  build  this  road  and,  instead,  allow  the  Park  Service  to  upgrade 


45 


the  an  existing  county  road  which  runs  through  the  park  that  provides  adequate  access  to  park 
visitors.  I  understand  the  Resources  Committee  would  normally  act  on  this  request,  but  due  to 
the  shortened  legislative  calendar  this  year  and  the  need  to  stop  the  engineering,  planning  and 
designing  of  this  road,  I  ask  this  Subcommittee  to  include  this  provision.  My  proposal  has  the 
support  of  both  local  officials  and  the  National  Parks  and  Conservation  Association.  I  pledge 
to  work  with  the  Chainhan  to  gain  a  waiver  from  the  Rules  Committee  on  this  point.  I  have 
enclosed  a  copy  of  this  legislation  with  along  my  testimony. 

Second,  I  would  like  the  Subcommittee  to  transfer  a  piece  of  property  from  the  Coast 
Guard  to  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  and  two  private  non-profit  entities.  This  provision 
transfers  the  Whitefish  Point  Light  Station  property  from  the  Coast  Guard  to  the  U.S.  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service,  the  Great  Lakes  Historical  Shipwreck  Museum,  and  the  Whitefish  Point  Bird 
Observatory.  In  addition,  this  transfer  is  supported  by  the  township  and  county  governments. 
I  understand  that  Transportation  and  Infrastructure  Committee  has  primary  responsibility  for  this 
legislation;  however,  I  must  emphasize  the  short  legislative  calendar.  I  have  enclosed  proposed 
language  with  my  statement  and  will  strongly  support  a  waiver  from  a  point  of  order  from  the 
Rules  Committee. 

Third,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Subcommittee  to  adopt  a  provision  that  would  take  the 
important  step  in  identifying  and  capping  abandoned  mines  on  non-federal  and  non-tribal  lands. 
States  need  assistance  in  identifying  uncapped  mines  to  avoid  health,  safety  and  environmental 
risks  to  citizens  residing  near  these  hazards.  This  provision  would  create  authority  for  the 
appropriate  governmental  agencies  to  undertake  an  inventory  of  abandoned  mine  sites. 

Unfortunately,  in  many  states,  these  inactive  sites  ~  whether  shut  down  or  abandoned- 
are  only  discovered  after  tragedy  strikes.  A  few  years  ago,  a  16  year  old  boy  from  Iron 
County,  Michigan,  died  after  falling  into  an  abandoned  mine  shaft.  Previously  to  this  tragedy, 
a  young  girl  was  killed  when  she  fell  into  a  similar  mine  in  Houghton  County,  Michigan.  We 
have  a  responsibility  to  prevent  such  loss  of  life  and  to  eliminate  the  threat  these  uncapped  mines 
pose  to  our  citizens. 

While  some  inventories  have  been  conducted,  they  have  been  conducted  primarily  in 
western  states  and  have  not  covered  the  scope  necessary  to  fully  address  the  problem.  In 
response  to  recent  tragedies  regarding  deaths  earlier  this  year,  Robert  Uram,  Director  of  the 
Office  of  Surface  Mining  has  publicly  stated  and  I  quote,  "...  the  best  advice  we  can  offer 
people  is  simply  to  stay  away  from  abandoned  mines. "  However,  people  cannot  stay  away  from 
these  abandon  mine  shafts  if  they're  not  made  aware  of  their  location.  My  provision  calls  for 
a  comprehensive  inventory  of  abandoned  hard-rock  mine  sites  on  all  lands.  I  have  enclosed  my 
proposed  language  for  this  provision. 

Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  testify  today.  I  appreciate  any  help  that 
you  and  the  Subcommittee  can  provide  for  these  very  essential  projects. 


46 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
NATIONAL  PARKS 
FOREST  INVENTORY 
TRIBAL  ISSUES 

WITNESS 

HON.  JAMES  L.  OBERSTAR,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  MINNESOTA 

Mr.  Regula.  Jim. 

Mr.  Oberstar.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman  for  the  opportunity  to 
come  before  you  and  plead  my  case.  You  exhibit  enormous  patience 
in  going  through  this  process,  and  I  appreciate  it  very,  very  much. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  there  are  a  lot  of  good  projects  here  Jim, 
yours  and  many  others  and  we  just  have  to  make  some  tough  prior- 
ity choices. 

Mr.  Oberstar.  I  understand  the  constraints  that  you  have,  and 
I  have  never  complained  in  the  past  over  the  priority  the  commit- 
tee that  has  ultimately  had  to  choose.  And  we  understand  that. 

If  I  might  just  pick  up  on  Mr.  Stupak's  last  statement  about 
mine  shafts.  We  share  the  iron  ore  mining  in  North  America.  In 
fact,  since  the 

Mr.  Regula.  Did  you  do  your's  in  deep  shafts? 

Mr.  Oberstar.  At  the  turn  of  the  century  and  up  until  the  mid- 
1950s,  we  had  a  number  of  active,  underground  mines.  My  father 
worked  26  years  in  the  Grodfrey  underground. 

Those  mines  had  the  richest  ore.  They  had  64  to  70  percent  iron 
content  ore. 

Mr.  Regula.  How  deep? 

Mr.  Oberstar.  Six  hundred  feet  was  our  deepest.  Copper  mines 
in  Upper  Peninsula  Michigan  are  as  deep  as  2,000  feet.  In  the  Ver- 
million Range,  the  northern-most  range,  the  deepest  shaft  was 
2,000  and  those  mines  are  just  inherently  dangerous.  The  ore  was 
rich  and  high-quality.  Direct-shipping  ores  went  directly  to  the  fur- 
nace. It  was  very  low  in  sulphur  and  very  low  in  silica,  very  high 
in  iron  content.  Some  manganese  which  of  course  added  to  the  de- 
sirability for  steel  making,  which  you  well  know  from  your  end  of 
the  steel  valley. 

But  those  open  mine  shafts  are  a  terrible  hazard.  We've  dealt 
with  them  differently  in  Minnesota.  The  State  legislature  has  ad- 
dressed that  matter  in  a  different  way. 

We've  shipped  four  billion  tons  of  ore  from  Minnesota  and  the 
Upper  Peninsula  in  100  years  of  iron  ore  mining. 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  you  still  producing? 

Mr.  Oberstar.  Yes,  we're  still  producing.  It's  a  low-grade  ore 
called  tacanite  which  is  a  gray,  flinty  rock  harder  than  granite  and 
has  to  be  processed  into  a  pellet,  a  marble-sized  pellet  that  is  64 
percent  iron  uniform  silica  and  improves  the  productivity  of  the 
blast  furnace.  You  can  get  a  sheet  of  steel  in  four  hours  instead  of 
what  used  to  take  eight  hours. 

Mr.  Regula.  These  are  in  open  pit  mines  now? 


47 

Mr.  Oberstar.  These  are  open  pit  mines  now.  We've  completely 
abandoned  and  shutdown  the  underground  mines. 

My  appeal — I  have  six  items  here.  One  is  the  Grand  Portage  Na- 
tional Monuments.  The  Grand  Portage  band  of  Indians  ceded  prop- 
erty to  the  Federal  Government  in  the  1950s  to  establish  a  monu- 
ment to  celebrate  the  fur  trade  with  the  understanding  that  a  his- 
torical center  would  be  built.  That  historical  facility  has  been  de- 
signed with  the  direct,  specific  appropriations  from  this  subcommit- 
tee, but  it  has  not  been  built.  At  one  time  there  were  two  Con- 
gresses in  which  this  subcommittee  approved  appropriations  to 
build  the  visitors'  center,  and  the  other  body,  incredibly,  did  not  act 
upon  that  request,  and  it  fell  through  cracks  in  conference. 

The  $3,  little  over  $3.5  million  for  that  visitors'  center  would  be 
a  tremendous  boon  as  tourism  grows  along  the  north  shore  and 
help  the  Grand  Portage  Band,  which  is  small,  but  desperately  poor. 

Voyaguers  National  Park,  I'm  proposing  a  $2  million  acquisition 
of  the  remaining  landholders  within  Voyaguers  National  Park.  The 
condition  of  these  folks,  the  big  guys  got  paid  off.  Boise-Cascade 
and  other  big  landholders,  resort  owners,  all  got  bought  out  in  the 
first  five  years  after  establishment  or  enactment  of  the  park  legis- 
lation and  before  it  was  established.  The  little  guys  are  sitting 
around,  and  they  don't  know  what  to  do — can  they  pass  the  land 
on  to  their  heirs?  Should  they  make  improvements?  Should  they  let 
the  place  deteriorate?  The  Park  Service  says  we're  willing  to  buy 
it.  Many  places  they've  negotiated  a  price,  but  they  can't  move. 

Mr.  Regula.  We're  going  to  run  out  of  time,  Jim,  and  you  have 
quite  a  list  here. 

Mr.  Oberstar.  I  have — I  urge  you  to  keep  the  funding  for  the 
forest  inventory  and  analysis  program.  That  benefits  our  Superior 
Chippewa  National  Forests,  which  are  above  cost.  They're  not 
below-cost  operations.  These  are  above  cost.  The  Crovemment  gets 
every  penny-plus  from  the  forestry  operations  on  these  two  na- 
tional forests,  and  the  basis  for  keeping  those  competitive  is  the 
forest  inventory  and  analysis  program. 

Fond  du  Lac  Indian  Reservation  in  my  district  is  the  poorest  of 
the  Indians,  along  with  the  Grand  Portage.  They  don't  have  big- 
time  Indian  gaming.  I  used  to  come  to  this  subcommittee  and  ask 
for  funds  for  schools  and  other  facilities.  The  other  reservations 
have  done  very  well  with  gaming.  They  don't  need  that  support 
now.  This  one  does.  The  Fond  du  Lac  elementary  school,  elemen- 
tary through  high  school  is  a  shambles.  You  wouldn't,  ghetto  kids 
wouldn't  walk  into  this.  Innercity  ghetto  kids  wouldn't  sit  in  a 
school  like  this.  This  is  desperate. 

And  the  other  items,  the  tribal  community  college,  and  then  sup- 
port for  the  1854  territory  ceded  lands,  these  funds  have,  in  effect, 
bought  peace  and  understanding  and  a  managed  environment  for 
fishery  and  other  wildlife  resources.  Funding  in  the  past  has  been 
vital  to  that  process.  Please  continue  the  level  of  funding  in  the  fu- 
ture. 

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

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Oberstar  follows:] 


48 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  HONORABLE  JAMES  L.  OBERSTAR 

OF  MINNESOTA 

THE  HOUSE  APPROPRIATIONS  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  THE  INTERIOR 

;^ril  17,  1996 

MR.  OBERSTAR:   MR.  CJIAIRMAN,  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  I  am  pleased 
to  once  again  have  the  opportunity  to  request  appropriations  for  natural 
resources  and  Native  American  programs  of  critical  inportance  to  my 
district  and  the  State  of  Minnesota. 

I,   NATIONAL  PARK  SERVICE 

Grand  Portage  National  Monument 

For  many  years  now,  the  Subcommittee  has  heard  me  make  the  strong  case 
for  construction  of  a  visitors'  center  at  Grand  Portage  National 
Monument.   The  existing  Information  Center  at  Grand  Portage  is  woefully 
inadequate  to  deal  with  the  burgeoning  number  of  visitors  to  this 
premier  site  for  the  interpretation  of  fur  trade  history.   The  plans 
include  an  information  center,  an  exhibit  gallery,  an  extensive 
artifacts  display,  a  library,  an  audio/visual  presentation  center  and 
administrative  areas.   Each  year  of  delay  in  construction  of  the  planned 
facility  increases  the  ultimate  cost  of  the  facility.   I  ask  that  the 
S\ibcooinittee  provide  $3.65  million  for  construction  of  a  long-overdue 
visitors  center  at  Grand  Portage  National  Monument. 

Voyaguers  National  Paurk 

For  the  past  several  years,  Voyageurs  National  Park  has  suffered  from  an 
unfunded  land  acquisition  program.   There  are  many  willing  sellers,  but 
no  funds  to  buy  the  land.   While  the  Park  is  still  a  "young"  unit,  our 
investments  to  date  have  unquestionably  brought  Voyageurs  closer  to 
maturity  and  promise  envisioned  at  its  establishment.   In  order  to 
protect  as  well  as  realize  the  full  potential  of  the  considerable 
federal  investment  in  the  unit,  I  request  that  the  Subccnmittee  provide 
$2  million  for  a  land  acquisition  program  at  Voyageurs  National  Park. 

Kettle  Falls  Hotel  is  a  unique  historical  hotel  within  the  boundaries  of 
Voyageurs  National  Park.   The  operation  of  the  hotel  is  an  inportant 
destination  for  recreationists  who  use  the  park  year-round.   I  ask  that 
the  SubcoDinittee  provide  $1.5  million  for  renovation  and  developsnent 
purposes  at  Kettle  Falls  Hotel. 


49 


II.  U.S.  FOREST  SERVICE 

Forest  Inventory  and  Analysis 

The  USDA  Forest  Service  North  Central  Forest  Experiment  Station  is 
responsible  for  Forest  Inventory  and  Analysis  in  the  North  Central 
Region.   As  mandated  by  the  Renewable  Resources  Planning  Act  of  1974, 
the  Forest  Inventory  and  Analysis  objective  is  to  periodically  inventory 
forest  land  to  determine  its  extent,  condition,  and  volume  of  timber  and 
supply  and  demand.   The  information  provided  by  the  inventory  is  vital 
to  resource  management  and  planning.   I  respectfully  request  from  the 
Subcooimittee,  that  full  FY  1996  funding  levels  be  maintained  for  the 
North  Central  Forest  Experiment  Station. 

III.  BUREAU  OF  INDIAN  AFFAIRS 

Fond  du  Lac  Ojibwe  School 

The  Subcommittee  is  very  familiar  with  the  deplorable  condition  of 
facilities  at  the  Fond  du  Lac  Ojibwe  School.   Sadly,  Fond  du  Lac 
children  are  still  attending  classes  in  tenporary  trailers  and  an 
adapted  prefabricated  agricultural  building  in  violation  of  all 
applicable  building  codes  and  BIA  space  guidelines.   These  facilities 
are  beyond  renovation  and  there  is  a  desperate  need  for  a  new  facility. 
This  request  is  by  far,  the  highest  priority  to  the  Fond  du  Lac  Band. 

Fond  du  Lac  has  proposed  construction  of  a  new  Fond  du  Lac  Oiibwe 
School ■  The  school  would  serve  pre-K  though  12th  grade  children.   I  ask 
that  the  Subcommittee  direct  the  Department  of  the  Interior  to  amend  the 
Fond  du  Lac  Band's  P.L.  100-297  school  gratnt  agreement  and  provide  $9 
million  for  construction. 

Fond  du  Lac  Tribal  and  Community  College 

The  Fond  du  Lac  Tribal  College  in  my  district  is  unique  in  the  nation,- 
the  Fond  du  Lac  Band  has  worked  in  conjunction  with  the  State  of 
Minnesota  to  establish  an  institution  that  is  both  a  tribal  college  and 
a  much-needed  new  unit  in  the  state  community  college  system.   Fond  du 
Lac,  like  other  tribal  colleges  throughout  the  nation,  however,  still 
desperately  needs  and  deserves  full  funding  of  the  Tribally  Controlled 
Community  College  Assistance  Act  if  it  is  to  continue  to  retain  faculty 
and  develop  programs  vital  to  the  educational  needs  of  its  students  and 
its  community.   I  ask  that  the  Fond  du  Lac  Cannnunity  College  be 
appropriated  at  its  full  1996  Fiscal  Year  authorized  level. 

1854  Authority 

I,  and  the  people  of  Minnesota,  are  very  appreciative  of  the 
Subcommittee's  support  in  the  past  years  for  the  1854  Authority.   That 


50 


natural  resources  in  the  northeastern  Minnesota  lands  ceded  by  the 
Chippewa  in  the  Treaty  of  1854 .   The  funding  provided  by  the 
Subcommittee  to  date  has  allowed  the  1854  Treaty  bands  to  develop  the 
administrative,  enforcement  and  judicial  structure  necessary  to 
effectively  regulate  their  members'  of f- reservation  rights.   The  1854 
Authority's  funding  request  for  Fiscal  Year  1997  will  both  maintain  that 
structure  and  allow  the  bands  to  expand  its  natural  resource  program.   I 
ask  that  the  Subccomittee  continue  to  provide  base  funding  for  the  1854 
Ceded  Territory.   And,  in  addition,  the  1854  has  Identified  the  need  for 
$349,000  to  allow  luplemeDtatlon  of  the  long  range   resource  management 
plans  based  on  sound  biological  data  for  the  protection  of  natural 
resources  within  the  1854  ceded  territory. 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  concludes  my  list  of  funding  requests  for  FY97.  I 
understand  the  severe  fiscal  constraints  under  which  you  must  work  this 
year,  and  I  greatly  appreciate  your  past  support  of  the  natural 
resources  and  Indian  programs  benefitting  Minnesota  and  the  nation. 
Your  continued  support  will  allow  proper  stewardship  and  preservation  of 
the  abundant  natural  resources  of  northeastern  Minnesota. 


51 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
OUTER  CONTINENTAL  SHELF 

WITNESS 

HON.  FRANK  D.  RIGGS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

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

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

Mr.  Regula.  Good. 

Your  testimony  will  be  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Riggs.  Okay. 

Mr.  Regula.  If  you  can  summarize,  it  will  be  helpful. 

Mr.  Riggs.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Regula.  We're  getting  backed  up  here  on  Members. 

Mr.  Riggs.  Well,  I  can  be  very,  very  brief,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would 
like  you  and  the  subcommittee  to  consider  including  in  the  Fiscal 
Year  1997  bill  the  continuing  annual  moratorium  on  OCS  leasing. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  understand  that  one. 

Mr.  Riggs.  You  know  all  of  our  arguments. 

Mr.  Regula.  I've  heard  them. 

Mr.  Riggs.  I  see  Ms.  Lofgren  is  joining  us. 

And,  of  course,  the  only  thing  I'd  like  to  point  out  is  that,  of 
course,  we  fully  debated  this,  as  you  very  well  recall,  in  the  full 
committee  last  year,  actually  put  it  to  a  vote  with  the  outcome 
being  33  to  20  to  continue  the  moratorium  on  OCS  leasing  activi- 
ties. We'll  just  simply  note  that  our  action  in  extending  the  annual 
moratorium  complements  California  State  law,  the  California 
Coastal  Sanctuary  Act,  which  was  enacted  in  1994  by  the  Califor- 
nia State  legislature  and  Governor  Wilson,  which  permanently 
bans  oil  and  gas  leasing  in  all  California  State  tidal  runs,  tide- 
lands,  rather,  I  should  say. 

So  I  would  appreciate  again  your  consideration  this  year.  As  the 
Representative — and  I'll  boast  for  just  a  moment  here — of  the  north 
coast,  I  represent  300  miles  of  coastline,  probably  more,  I  think, 
than  any  other  Member  of  the  California  congressional  delegation. 

I,  again,  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  be  with  you  this  morning 
and  the  opportunity  to  ask  your  consideration. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  thank  you.  The  good  thing  is  that  what's 
down  there  isn't  going  away.  If  we  have  a  crisis,  we  might  consider 
getting  some  of  those  resources.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Riggs.  We're  certainly  willing  to  work  with  you  under  those 
circumstances,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  know  Califomians  are  very  restrained  in  their  use 
of  petroleum  resources.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Riggs.  Well,  I  want  to  point  out,  though,  as  we  discussed 
last  year  at  some  length,  we  have  a  very  important  tourism  indus- 
try in  northwest  California.  We  truly  believe  that  the  prospect  of 
offshore  oil  leasing  and  drilling  would  threaten  that  growing  indus- 
try. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  understand. 

Mr.  Riggs.  So  we  would  like  you  to  look  at  other  coastal  areas 
of  the  United  States,  if  you  must.  [Laughter.] 


52 


And,  again,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

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

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Riggs  follows:] 


53 

TESTIMONY  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  FRANK  D.  RIGGS  TO 

THE  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR, 

HOUSE  COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 

APRIL  17,  1996 


CHAIRMAN  REGULA,  MEMBERS  OF  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE,  THANK  YOU 
FOR  THE  OPPORTUNITY  TO  TESTIFY  TODAY. 

I  AM  HERE  TO  SPEAK  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  CONSTITUENTS  OF  MY 
CONGRESSIONAL  DISTRICT  AND  THE  MANY  OTHER  CALIFORNIANS  WHO 
ARE  CONCERNED  ABOUT  THE  EXPANSION  OF  OIL  AND  GAS 
DEVELOPMENT  ON  THE  OUTER  CONTINENTAL  SHELF  (OCS). 

SPECIFICALLY,  I  REQUEST  THAT  THE  COMMITTEE  INCLUDE  IN  THE  FY 
1997  INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS  ACT  THE  SAME  OCS  LEASING 
MORATORIUM  AS  IN  RECENT  YEARS. 

AS  YOU  WILL  RECALL,  THE  FULL  HOUSE  APPROPRIATIONS  COMMITTEE 
VOTED  LAST  YEAR  33-20  TO  CONTINUE  THE  MORATORIUM  ON  OCS 
LEASING  ACTIVITIES.  THE  FEDERAL  ACTION  COMPLEMENTS  THE 
CALIFORNIA   COASTAL    SANCTUARY   ACT,   ENACTED   IN    1994   BY   THE 


54 


CALIFORNIA  STATE  LEGISLATURE  AND  GOVERNOR  WILSON,  WHICH 
PERMANENTLY  BANS  OIL  AND  GAS  LEASING  IN  ALL  STATE  TIDELANDS. 

AS  THE  REPRESENTATIVE  OF  300  MILES  OF  THE  NORTH  COAST  OF 
CALIFORNIA,  I  AM  KEENLY  AWARE  OF  THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THIS 
PROVISION  TO  COASTAL  COMMUNITIES.  THE  FISHING  AND  TOURISM 
INDUSTRIES  IN  MY  DISTRICT  ARE  DEPENDENT  UPON  A  HEALTHY  AND 
VIBRANT  SEASHORE.  WITH  UNEMPLOYMENT  IN  THE  NORTH  COAST  IN 
THE  DOUBLE  DIGITS,  THE  OCS  MORATORIUM  HELPS  TO  ENSURE  THE 
PROTECTION  OF  A  NATURAL  RESOURCE  THAT  PROVIDES  A  STEADY 
STREAM  OF  JOBS. 

CALIFORNIA'S  TOURISM  AND  RECREATION  INDUSTRY  IS  THE  STATE'S 
LARGEST  EMPLOYER.  COASTAL  TOURISM  GENERATES  OVER  $27  BILLION 
ANNUALLY  AND  ACCOUNTS  FOR  THOUSANDS  OF  JOBS.  IN  ADDITION, 
THE  FISHING  INDUSTRY  IS  THE  PRIMARY  EMPLOYER  FOR  MANY  SMALL 
COMMUNITIES  UP  AND  DOWN  THE  STATE.  THE  COMMERCIAL  VALUE  OF 
THE  FISHERIES  OFFSHORE  ALASKA,  WASHINGTON,  OREGON  AND 
CALIFORNIA  ALONE  IS  TOO  GREAT  TO  PUT  AT  RISK  FOR  THE  SMALL 
AMOUNT  OF  ESTIMATED  RECOVERABLE  OIL  IN  THE  PROTECTED  AREAS. 

THE  SPECTER  OF  DAMAGING  OIL  SPILLS  EFFECTING  THE  DELICATE 
BALANCE  OF  WILDLIFE  AND  FAUNA  IS  OF  GREAT  CONCERN  TO  ALL 
CALIFORNIANS.  FURTHERMORE,  THE  ECOSYSTEM  DEGRADATION 
CAUSED  BY  ADDITIONAL  OIL  AND  GAS  DEVELOPMENT  COULD  IMPACT 


55 


PROTECTED  MARINE  AREAS  IN  BOTH  STATE  AND  FEDERAL  WATERS, 
INCLUDING  SANCTUARIES,  SEASHORES,  RESERVES,  PRESERVES, 
REFUGES,  UNDERWATER  PARKS,  AND  AREAS  OF  SPECIAL  BIOLOGICAL 
SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE  LEASING  RESTRICTIONS  HAVE  BEEN  IN  PLACE  SINCE  1982  WITHOUT 
ANY  PERCEPTIBLE  IMPACT  ON  NATIONAL  ENERGY  SECURITY.  EXISTING 
LEASING  RESTRICTIONS  LEAVE  MORE  THAN  THREE-QUARTERS  OF  THE 
NATION'S  UNDISCOVERED,  ECONOMICALLY  RECOVERABLE  OFFSHORE 
RESERVES  OPEN  TO  EXPLORATION  AND  DEVELOPMENT.  THESE 
RESTRICTIONS  AFFECT  LESS  THAN  ONE-HALF  OF  ONE  PERCENT  OF  TOTAL 
WORLD  OIL  RESERVES.  IN  FACT,  PROVEN  RESERVES  IN  THE  CALIFORNIA 
MORATORIUM  AREAS  WOULD  ONLY  LAST  THE  NATION  ABOUT  41  DAYS 
AT  CURRENT  RATES  OF  CONSUMPTION. 

I  RESPECTFULLY  REQUEST  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE  CONTINUE  THE  OUTER 
CONTINENTAL  SHELF  MORATORIUM  IN  THE  FY  1997  INTERIOR 
APPROPRIATIONS  BILL.  THIS  IS  NOT  THE  TIME  TO  REVERSE  FIFTEEN 
YEARS  OF  WISE  NATIONAL  POLICY. 


56 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
SOUTH  FLORIDA  ECOSYSTEM 

WITNESS 

HON.  PETER  DEUTSCH,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  FLORIDA 

Mr.  Regula.  Mr.  Deutsch? 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  pretty  extensive 
testimony  that  I'd  just  Hke  to  submit  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Regula.  It  will  be,  without  objection,  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  What  I  would  like  to  focus  on  is  an  item  in  the 
administration's  budget  of  a  specific  line  item,  which  the  adminis- 
tration is  calling  the  "Everglades  Restoration  Fund."  The  adminis- 
tration has  $100  million  that  they've  put  in  their  budget  for  that. 

Mr.  Regula.  Let  me  ask  you,  you  have  $200  million  in  the  farm 
bill. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Right. 

Mr.  Regula.  Isn't  that  going  to  keep  it  going  for  quite  a  while? 

Mr.  Deutsch.  It  really  won't.  I  think  it's  a  really  good  question 
that  you're  asking.  The  administration's  estimate — and  this  is  a 
real  number — for  Everglades  restoration  is  $1.5  billion.  So  the  $200 
million  that  was  in  the  ag  bill  is  clearly  a  down  payment. 

Mr.  Regula.  But  on  the  short  term  won't  that  money  cover  the 
spending  required?  You  can  only  spend  so  much  a  year  based  on 
people,  staff,  et  cetera. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Right. 

Mr.  Regula.  It  would  seem  to  me  that  that  $200  million  would 
keep  you  going  for  at  least  the  next  fiscal  year. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Again,  I  think  operationally — and  I'd  be  happy  to 
spend  time  with  your  staff.  I  just  spent  some  time  this  morning 
with  Katie  McGinty  from  the  White  House  in  terms  of  going  over 
this  stuff,  and  actually  spoke  with  some  people  in  south  Florida  as 
well  this  morning  before  I  came  here  before  the  committee.  I  don't 
believe  that's  accurate.  I  believe  that  if  there  were  a  billion  dollars 
in  this  year's  budget,  we  could  efficiently  spend  a  billion  dollars. 

And  in  terms  of  the  time  aspect  of  this,  I  mean,  you're  familiar 
with  the  Everglades  Restoration  Project 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Deutsch  [continuing].  Which  this  committee  has  funded  at 
lesser  levels,  but  higher  levels  than  most  other  issues  in  increased 
funding.  I  mean,  this  committee  has  acknowledged  Everglades  res- 
toration is  a  critical  issue.  It's  a  bipartisan  issue.  There's  a  time 
factor  in  the  degradation.  I  mean,  there  is  a  plan  that's  out  there 
to  spend  $1.5  billion,  which  is  obviously  a  lot  of  money,  but 

Mr.  Regula.  How  much  will  Florida  contribute? 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Again,  you  know  the  issue.  You  ask  some  good 
questions.  Florida,  the  State  of  Florida,  as  well  as  industries  in- 
volved, are  making  significant  contributions.  You  can  argue  the 
exact  percentage,  but  the  reality  is  probably  about  a  50/50  Federal/ 
State-type  match.  I  represent  three  counties,  Broward,  Dade,  and 
Monroe  County.  Even  local  government  has  increased  property  tax 
to  the  actual  maximum  of  their  ability  to  do  actual  land  acquisition 
programs.  The  South  Water  Management  District,  all  their  funding 


57 

comes  from  property  ad  valorem  taxation,  is  at  their  max  to  do 
land  acquisition.  They  are  coordinating  with  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment which  projects  they're  going  to  buy,  which  projects  the  Fed- 
eral Government  is  going  to  buy.  So  a  lot  of  this  is  going  on. 

Mr.  Regula.  Staff  advises  me  that  we're  trying  to  get  maps  and 
a  breakout  of  what  local  government  will  do. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Right.  And,  again,  I'd  be  happy 

Mr.  Regula.  We  don't  have  it  yet. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  This  is  the  first  formal  request.  I  would  be  happy 
to  provide  as  much  information  as  I  possibly  can,  and 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  keep  in  touch  with  the  staff. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Again,  your  questions  are  very,  very,  very  much 
on  point.  I  think  that's  something  that  the  burden  is  sort  of  on  not 
just  me,  but  others  who  are  supportive.  I  know  Congressman  Goss 
and  Congressman  Shaw  are  very  much  involved  in  this  as  well. 
And  I  don't  know  if  they've  personally  made  presentations  as  well, 
but  this  is  not 

Mr.  Regula.  This  covers  a  wide  spectrum.  You  get  the  Corps  of 
Engineers;  you  get  the  USGS 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Right. 

Mr.  Regula  [continuing].  Of  course,  involved;  the  Park  Service. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Correct. 

Mr.  Regula.  There's  a  lot  of  coordination  to  make  this  whole 
thing  work  well. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  Right,  and  I  guess  that's  why  I  have  a  long  list 
of  things  and  a  long  list  of  other  items. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes. 

Mr.  Deutsch.  The  only  thing  I  really  wanted  to  focus,  though, 
is  this  new  line  item.  This  subcommittee,  as  I  said,  as  you  well 
know,  has  been  very  good.  There's  a  bipartisan  effort  on  the  sub- 
committee to  do  Everglades  restoration.  I  would  focus  that  the  job 
is  not  done.  I  mean,  the  $200  million  is  a  significant  amount  of 
money,  but  at  $1.5  bilHon  it's  a  drop  in  the  bucket.  The  bucket's 
not  full,  and  a  drop  in  the  bucket  only  goes  a  little  bit  of  the  way. 

I'd  also  very  quickly  mention  that  there  is  one  request  which  is 
also  a  bipartisan  request  dealing  with  the  Seminole  Tribe  of  Flor- 
ida on  a  water  issue  that  they  are  requesting,  which  is  something 
I've  been  supportive  of,  as  well  as  all  the  Members  of  the  south 
Florida  delegation. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  well,  we'll  look  at  all  of  them. 

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

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Deutsch  follows:] 


58 


PETER  DEUTSCH 

20tm  OiStbict.  FtomoA 


COMMITTEE  ON  COMMERCE 


SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  ENERCV 


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

3fia«t)mgton,  3DC  20515-0920 


MAIUNGAOOftCSS 

4  Cammom  Housi  0**<ct  6UK 

Wasmwton.  DC  30515 

<»»)  325-7931 

<303l  32S-64S6  (Fax» 


■itMsmcTOfrtct. 


>|43T-4TTeif*jit 


I3»)  2»«-M1» 


TESTIMONY  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PETER  DEUTSCH 

BEFORE  THE  HOUSE  APPROPRIATIONS  COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR 

April  17,  1996 


Thank  you,  Chairman  Regula,  for  this  opportunity  to 
emphasize  the  importance  of  the  South  Florida  Ecosystem 
Restoration  Initiative,  and  the  Department  of  Interior's 
partnership  with  the  State  of  Florida  and  its  people.   I  also 
wish  to  thank  the  committee  for  its  support  in  the  past  and  bring 
you  up  to  date  on  present  and  future  needs. 


SOUTH  FLORIDA  ECOSYSTEM  RESTORATION  INITIATIVE 

Strong  Bipartisan  Support 

In  South  Florida,  the  environment  is  the  economy.   The 
Florida  Everglades  is  a  cherished  national  treasure,  and 
restoration  of  this  endangered  ecosystem  is  one  of  the  most 
important  investments  we  can  make. 

As  you  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  profound  changes  to  the  natural 
flow  of  water  from  Lake  Okeechobee  southward  have  disrupted  the 
natural  flow  of  water  that  nourishes  the  ecosystem  through 
Florida  Bay.   Drainage  of  large  areas  of  South  Florida  land  for 
agricultural  and  real  estate  development  has  resulted  in  a 
shortage  of  fresh  water,  a  collapse  of  bird  populations  in 
Everglades  National  Park  and  local  fisheries  in  Florida  Bay. 
Restoration  of  this  national  resource  is  critical  to  Florida's 
tourism  economy  and  to  the  basic  quality  of  life  that  makes  South 
Florida  a  hub  of  domestic  and  international  commerce.   While  we 
will  never  be  able  to  return  the  Everglades  to  its  original 
state,  we  can  restore  part  of  the  ecosystem  by  reconfiguring  the 
water  delivery  systems  and  retaining  water  which  is  now  lost  to 
the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

It  has  been  an  extraordinary  year  for  the  Everglades. 
Through  strong  support  from  key  leaders  in  both  the  House  and  the 
Senate,  we  have  expanded  our  bipartisan  base  that  is  critical  to 
our  success  in  South  Florida.   I  look  forward  to  strengthening 
and  expanding  this  base  even  further  in  the  year  ahead. 


59 


South  Florida  Ecosystem  Restoration  Initiative 
House  Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  Interior 

April  17,  1996 

Everglades  Restoration  Fund  -  $  1 00  million,  NPS 

The  Administration's  Everglades  Restoration  Initiative  is 
one  important  way  to  accomplish  this.   Once  again,  the  Everglades 
is  ranked  as  a  "priority  investment"  for  FY' 97.   This  year,  the 
plan  also  calls  for  accelerated  restoration  through  establishment 
of  an  "Everglades  Restoration  Fund."   This  initiative  proposes  to 
appropriate  $100  million  from  the  Land  and  Water  Conservation 
Fund  each  year  through  FY  2000.   Monies  from  the  fund  would  be 
used  primarily  to  acquire  land  needed  to  restore  natural 
hydrologic  conditions  throughout  the  entire  Everglades  ecosystem. 

Of  the  $100  million  request  for  FY' 97,  $18  million  would  be 
used  for  land  acquisition  at  Everglades  National  Park  and  Big 
Cypress  National  Preserve.   Under  PL  101-229,  the  Everglades 
National  Park  Protection  and  Expansion  Act  of  1989,  and  PL  100- 
301,  the  Big  Cypress  National  Preserve  Addition  Act,  the  National 
Park  Service  is  acquiring  land  needed  to  preserve  wildlife 
habitat  and  restore  fresh  water  flows  to  the  park. 

$75  million  of  the  fund  would  assist  the  State  of  Florida  or 
the  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  with  purchasing  land  within  the 
Everglades  Agricultural  Area,  the  C-51  and  Stormwater  Treatment 
Area  IE  projects,  and  the  Water  Preserve  Areas.   These  areas  are 
critical  to  storing  water  in  the  East  Everglades  and 
reestablishing  the  link  between  Lake  Okeechobee  and  lands  to  the 
south. 

Finally,  $5  million  of  the  fund  would  be  used  to  increase 
storage  capacity  in  areas  east  of  the  park  commonly  known  as  the 
"transition  lands."   These  lands  provide  a  transition  zone  for 
dynamic  storage  that  is  essential  to  restoring  natural  flows  to 
the  lower  end  of  the  Everglades  ecosystem  through  Taylor  Slough 
into  Florida  Bay.   National  Park  Service  assistance  to  the  state 
is  authorized  through  FY' 95,  and  I  am  working  with  other  members 
of  the  Florida  delegation  to  extend  this  authority. 

As  the  committee  is  well  aware,  the  recently  enacted  Farm 
Bill  allocates  $200  million  for  Everglades  restoration.   The  best 
science  already  indicates  the  potential  wise  investment  of  at 
least  this  amount  over  the  next  year.   Although  the  Farm  Bill  is 
a  significant  downpayment  on  the  federal  share  of  restoration 
costs,  the  ultimate  public  investment  in  this  national  treasure 
will  far  exceed  $200  million. 

Seminole  Tribe  of  Florida  -  $2.89  million,  BIA  &  NPS 

On  behalf  of  the  Seminole  Tribe  of  Florida,  I  support  their 
request  that  the  committee  appropriate  $2.89  million  to  the 
Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  for  activities  related  to  the  Tribe's 
Everglades  restoration  initiative.   This  initiative  is  endorsed 
by  the  federal  South  Florida  Ecosystem  Restoration  Task  Force. 
These  funds  will  be  used  to  begin  a  nine-year,  $63.43  million 
project  to  construct  a  comprehensive  management  system  that  will 


60 


South  Florida  Ecosystem  Restoration  Initiative 
House  Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  Interior 

April  17.  1996 

treat  water  flowing  from  upstream  agricultural  lands.   The 
Seminole  Tribe's  Big  Cypress  Reservation  is  located  at  a  pivotal 
transfer  point  for  water  directly  entering  the  Big  Cypress 
National  Preserve,  and  ultimately,  Everglades  National  Park.   The 
initiative  is  crucial  to  providing  a  clean  water  supply  to  the 
Big  Cypress  Reservation  and  to  the  success  of  the  multi -agency 
effort  to  restore  the  Florida  Everglades. 

An  Equitable  Distribution  of  Cost 

Although  the  federal  government  has  made  a  significant 
commitment  of  public  funds,  it  should  not  bear  the  full  cost  of 
Everglades  restoration.   In  fact,  the  state,  local  governments, 
and  private  entities  are  already  sharing  approximately  half  the 
costs.   In  the  spirit  of  this  balanced  approach,  these  entities 
are  now  being  asked  to  do  more.   That  is  why  I  support  a  greater 
role  for  Florida's  sugar  industry  proposed  isy  myself  and  a 
bipartisan  group  of  members  from  both  chambers.   I  also  strongly 
support  this  aspect  of  the  Administration's  plan,  and  I  urge  the 
committee  to  weigh  this  issue  carefully  as  it  looks  toward  an 
ecfuitable  distribution  of  costs. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  thank  you  again 
for  this  opportunity.  I  look  forward  to  continuing  our  work  to 
preserve  one  of  America's  most  cherished  national  treasures. 


61 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
DOE— FOSSIL  ENERGY  R&D 

WITNESS 

HON.  MIKE  DOYLE,  A  REPRESENTATIVE   IN   CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Mike? 

Mr.  Doyle.  Good  morning,  Mr.  Chairman.  It's  a  pleasure  to  be 
here  this  morning  with  you. 

My  testimony  today  is  going  to  focus  primarily  on  the  Depart- 
ment of  Energy  programs  in  this  subcommittee's  jurisdiction,  and 
in  my  written  testimony  I  get  into  some  detail,  but  I  will  keep  my 
oral  remarks  brief. 

Mr.  Regula.  Sure.  Yes,  that  will  be  made  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Doyle.  Thank  you. 

I  want  to  begin  by  thanking  you  and  members  of  the  subcommit- 
tee for  your  efforts  to  preserve  the  important  energy-related  re- 
search that's  just  a  small  part  of  your  broad  jurisdiction.  As  a 
member  of  the  House  Science  Committee,  I've  had  extensive  oppor- 
tunity to  review  the  Department  of  Energy's  R&D  accounts  that 
fall  within  this  subcommittee's  jurisdiction,  and  I  have  some  spe- 
cific guidance  which  I'd  like  to  offer  regarding  these  programs.  But, 
first,  I  would  like  to  make  just  a  general  comment  on  the  structure 
of  these  programs. 

Unfortunately,  the  relationship  between  fossil  energy  and  energy 
conservation  programs  has  become  an  "either/or  scenario."  And  the 
irony  of  this  situation  is  that  the  missions  of  these  two  programs 
are  somewhat  complementary.  Perhaps  it  would  be  possible  for  this 
subcommittee  to  include  some  sort  of  language  which  would  put 
the  idea  of  a  combined  program,  or  at  least  an  integrated  imple- 
mentation of  programs,  on  the  table.  I  strongly  support  DOE's  ef- 
forts to  integrate  these  applied  energy  programs  with  each  other, 
as  well  as  the  Department's  basic  research  activities. 

On  the  fossil  energy  budget,  recognizing  our  overall  budget  con- 
straints and  the  agreement  worked  out  between  this  subcommittee 
and  the  authorizing  committee,  I  do  reluctantly  support  the  10  per- 
cent overall  reduction  in  funding.  I  know  that  the  motivation  for 
this  reduction  does  not  lie  within  the  subcommittee,  and  I  want 
you  to  know  that  I'm  greatly  appreciative  of  your  maintaining  core 
programs  within  the  current  funding  environment  that  we're  living 
in.  I  hope  you'll  be  able  to  preserve  the  request  of  $348.5  million 
for  fossil  R&D. 

Beyond  specific  funding  issues,  there's  the  general  issue  of  the 
merger  of  PETC/METC  in  Bartlesville  into  a  National  Energy 
Technology  Center.  I've  been  supportive  of  this  process  and  have 
been  generally  happy  with  its  progress,  but  there's  still  some  areas 
which  need  to  be  addressed.  Foremost  is  the  selection  of  a  director. 
It's  been  roughly  a  year  since  the  merger  was  announced,  but  the 
time  frame  for  selection  process  remains  unclear.  We've  already 
completed  one  budget  cycle  without  a  director  in  place,  and  I  be- 
lieve that  fossil  energy  has  suffered  due  to  the  lack  of  an  advocate 
within  DOE  with  hands-on  contact  with  the  field  operations  on  a 
day-to-day  basis.  I  think  the  most  telling  result  of  this  absence  of 


62 

leadership  has  been  the  priorities  set  within  the  fossil  energy  budg- 
et. Thus,  I  would  like  to  suggest  an  alternative  funding  scenario  for 
the  fossil  accounts,  one  which  has  slightly  different  priorities  but 
retains  the  same  bottom  line.  I've  attached  a  comprehensive  list  of 
increases  and  offsets  for  the  subcommittee's  consideration. 

The  final  fossil  energy  issue  is  the  management  structure  that 
will  incorporate  the  $5  million  transfer  for  materials  partnership 
which  was  transferred  to  DOE  as  part  of  dismantling  the  Bureau 
of  Mines.  My  recommendation  is  that  this  facility  be  incorporated 
into  the  National  Energy  Technology  Center  management  structure 
and  not  be  an  autonomous  or  singular  entity  in  the  field. 

And,  finally,  I  would  also  urge  the  subcommittee  to  include 
$500,000  in  funding  for  the  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  under 
the  National  Park  Service's  statutory  contractual  assistance.  A 
number  of  my  western  Pennsylvania  colleagues  will  be  sending  the 
subcommittee  a  letter  in  support  of  this  project  which  will  explain 
in  greater  detail  our  support  for  the  initiative. 

Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  very  much  for  the  opportunity  to  tes- 
tify. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you.  You  could  be  helpful  with  the  authoriz- 
ing legislation,  as  you  know. 

Mr.  Doyle.  And  I  will  be.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Doyle  follows:] 


63 


Testimony  of  Representative  Mike  Doyle 

before  the  Subcommittee  on  Interior  Appropriations 

April  1  7,  1 996 


It  is  a  pleasure  for  me  to  be  here  before  you  today. 

My  testimony  today  focuses  primarily  on  the  Department  of  Energy  programs 
in  this  Subcommittee's  jurisdiction.  I  want  to  begin  by  thanking  the  Members 
of  the  Subcommittee  for  their  efforts  to  preserve  the  import  energy-related 
research  that  is  a  small  part  of  your  broad  jurisdiction. 

As  a  member  of  the  House  Science  Committee,  I  have  had  extensive 
opportunity  to  review  the  Department  of  Energy's  R&D  accounts  that  fall 
within  this  subcommittee's  jurisdiction.  I  have  some  specific  guidance  I 
would  like  to  offer  regarding  these  programs,  but  first  I  would  like  to  make 
a  general  comment  on  the  structure  of  these  programs. 

Unfortunately,  the  relationship  between  the  Fossil  Energy  and  Energy 
Conservation  programs  has  become  an  either/or  scenario.  People  with 
limited  knowledge  of  these  programs  have  pitted  them  against  one  another, 
a  situation  which  is  working  to  the  detriment  of  both.  The  irony  of  this 
contrived  conflict  is  that  the  missions  of  these  two  programs  are  somewhat 
complimentary.  Perhaps  it  would  be  possible  for  this  Subcommittee  to 
include  some  sort  of  language  which  would  put  the  idea  of  a  combined 
program,  or  at  least  integrated  implementation  of  programs,  on  the  table.  I 
strongly  support  DOE's  efforts  to  integrate  these  applied  energy  programs 
with  each  other,  as  well  as  with  the  Department's  basic  research  activities. 

On  the  Fossil  Energy  budget,  recognizing  our  overall  budget  constraints  and 
the  agreement  worked  out  between  this  subcommittee  and  the  authorizing 
Conmiittee,  I  reluctantly  support  the  10%  overall  reduction  in  funding.  I 
understand  that  the  motivation  for  this  reduction  does  not  lie  with  this 
subcommittee,  and  I  am  greatly  appreciative  of  your  efforts  to  maintain  core 
programs  within  this  hostile  funding  environment.  Thus,  I  am  hopeful  that 
you  will  be  able  to  preserve  the  Administration's  request  of  $348.5  million 
for  Fossil  R&D,  although  I  must  point  out  once  again.  Coal  is  being  asked 
to  take  a  disproportionate  reduction  compared  to  the  Gas  and  Oil  programs. 


64 


Beyond  specific  funding  issues,  there  is  die  general  issue  of  die  merger  of 
PETC,  METC,  and  BarUesville  into  NETC.  I  have  been  supportive  of  diis 
process,  and  have  been  generally  happy  widi  its  progress.  There  are  still 
areas,  however,  which  need  to  be  addressed. 

First  and  foremost,  is  the  selection  of  a  Director.  It  has  been  roughly  a  year 
since  the  merger  was  announced,  but  the  time  frame  for  the  selection  process 
remains  unclear.  We  will  already  complete  one  budget  cycle  without  a 
Director  in  place,  and  I  believe  that  FE  has  suffered  due  to  the  lack  of  an 
advocate  within  DOE  with  hands-on  contact  with  the  field  operations  on  a 
day-to-day  basis.  The  most  telling  result  of  this  absence  of  leadership  has 
been  the  priorities  set  within  the  FE  budget.  Thus,  I  would  like  to  suggest 
an  alternative  funding  scenario  for  the  fossil  accounts,  one  which  has  slightly 
different  priorities  but  retains  the  same  bottom  line. 

Secondly,  while  we  should  continue  our  efforts  to  maintain  for  future  use  the 
core  competencies  that  currently  exists  widiin  the  NETC.  Specifically,  I  am 
proposing  that  this  Subcommittee,  along  with  other  interested  Congressional 
parties,  work  with  DOE  to  develop  mechanisms  allowing  the  funding  of 
Federal  activities  at  the  NETC  by  other  governmental  entities  and  the  private 
sector. 

While  I  believe  that  the  FE  budget  deserves  an  overall  increase,  I  recognize 
that  budgetary  pressure  is  going  to  cause  severe  harm  to  programs  that  have 
been  well-managed,  operated  at  or  below  cost  expectations,  and  continue  to 
meet  their  policy  objectives.  Thus,  if  forced  to  pick  and  choose  between  the 
various  programs,  there  are  some  that  I  believe  are  the  highest  priority: 

1.  Program  Direction:  Both  DOE  Headquarters  (HQ)  and  the 
NETC  will  have  to  meet  their  respective  Strategic  Alignment 
Initiative  personnel  reduction  goals.  By  the  end  of  FY  1997, 
federal  staff  at  HQ  and  the  NETC  will  be  reduced  by  150  FTEs  - 

98  positions  at  the  NETC  and  52  positions  at  HQ.  However,  the 
success  of  the  NETC  is  contingent  on  adequate  funding  for  the 
remaining  FE  staff. 

2.  Advanced  Pulverized  Coal-Fired  Powerplant:  It  is  essential 
that  this  program  receives  $11.5  million  to  ensure  the  completion 


65 


of  ongoing  LEBS  activities  leading  to  the  mid- 1997  selection  of 
at  least  one  contractor  for  Phase  4  proof-of-contract  testing. 

3.  Indirect  Liquefaction:  This  program  should  be  funded  at 
$7.25  million,  which  is  $3  million  more  than  requested.  Of  this 
increase,  $2  million  should  be  for  continuing  activities  at  La 
Porte,  and  $1  million  for  in-house  research  at  PETC. 

4.  Natural  Gas  Utilization:  An  additional  $2  million  should  be 
added  to  the  Administration's  request  for  the  development  of  ITM 
syngas  technology. 

I  have  attached  a  comprehensive  list  of  increases  and  offsets  for  the 
subcommittee's  consideration,    (see  Attachment  1) 

Regarding  the  Solid  Oxide  Fuel  Cell  (SOFC)  Program,  I  urge  the 
Subcommittee  to  appropriate  funding  necessary  to  realistically  complete  the 
program  mission.  This  primarily  entails  the  complete  development  of  cost- 
competitive  SOFC  materials  &  manufacturing  processes,  pressurized  SOFC 
technology,  and  the  demonstration  of  a  conmiercial  prototype  3MWe  power 
plant. 

While  I  believe  that  the  best  way  to  ensure  the  successful  completion  of  this 
program  would  be  to  increase  appropriations  to  adequately  fund  all  three  of 
the  participants  in  SOFC  Program.  However,  as  with  many  other  items  in 
the  FE  budget,  there  simply  isn't  the  funding  necessary  to  do  so.  Thus, 
rather  than  have  three  underfinanced  efforts,  I  am  forced  to  suggest  that  the 
Subcommittee  consider  recompeting  this  Program  from  three  participants 
down  to  two  or  one,  so  that  there  remains  some  chance  of  success. 
However,  until  a  down-selection  is  competed,  I  urge  the  Subcommittee  to 
ensure  that  DOE  funds  all  participants  at  equal  levels. 

On  the  Advanced  Turbine  Program,  I  urge  that  funding  be  maintained  in 
order  preserve  the  core  program  in  order  to  protect  our  competitive  edge  with 
this  technology.  It  is  important  to  note  that  our  foreign  competitors  in  this 
field  are  receiving  significant  support  from  their  governments.  We  will  be 
abdicating  any  hope  of  leaderhip,  or  even  competitiveness,  by  underfunding 
the  Advanced  Turbine  Program. 


66 


I  also  urge  the  subcommittee  to  include  report  language  in  two  areas  within 
the  Crosscutting  Advanced  Research  &  Technology  Development  program. 
First,  Congress  should  ensure  that  for  FY  1997  all  Materials  and 
Biotechnology  activities  shall  be  implemented  by  DOE  field  operations,  not 
by  Headquarters.  Secondly,  in  order  to  streamline  operations  and  eliminate 
possible  redundancy,  the  Historically  Black  College  &  University  Education 
&  Training  Programs  should,  while  remaining  distinct,  be  implemented  and 
conducted  as  part  of  the  FY  1997  University  Coal  Research  Program. 

The  final  FE  issue  is  the  management  structure  that  will  incorporate  the  $5 
million  for  materials  partnerships,  which  was  transferred  to  DOE  as  part  of 
the  dismantling  of  the  Bureau  of  Mines.  My  recommendation  is  that  this 
facility  be  incorporated  into  the  NETC  management  strucnire,  and  not  be  an 
autonomous  and  singular  entity  in  the  field.  Being  part  of  the  NETC 
management  framework  would  allow  the  Albany,  Oregon  facility  to  benefit 
from  efficiencies  in  procurement  and  other  areas,  as  well  as  preventing  a 
rivalry  between  various  field  operations.  It  was  the  need  to  prevent  such 
rivalries  that  was  the  driving  force  behind  the  unified  management  framework 
that  resulted  in  the  development  of  the  NETC.  Incorporating  Albany  into  the 
NETC  is  consistent  with  this  mission. 

Briefly,  in  the  Energy  Conservation  Program,  I  urge  the  continued  support 
of  the  core  programs,  especially  those  concerning  Natural  Gas  Vehicle  R&D 
-  both  Engines  and  Storage  -  and  the  GAX  heat  pump  partnership.  Also, 
under  Buildings  R&D,  I  am  hopeful  that  Subcommittee  will  show  a  strong 
commitment  to  the  research  being  done  on  desiccant  technologies. 

Finally,  I  would  also  urge  the  Subcommittee  to  include  $500,000  in  funding 
for  the  Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project  (SIHP)  under  the  National  Park 
Service's  Statutory  and  Contractual  Assistance.  Originally  authorized  under 
Public  Law  100-698  to  conserve  the  industrial  and  cultural  resources  of  the 
steel  industry  in  southwestern  Pennsylvania,  the  SIHP  has  received  funding 
through  this  Subcommittee  since  1989.  This  relatively  small  expendimre  has 
leveraged  considerable  state  and  local  support  for  this  effort,  and  continued 
funding  is  necessary  to  see  the  SIHP  implementation  plan  to  its  conclusion. 

A  number  of  my  western  Pennsylvania  colleagues  will  be  sending  the 
Subcommittee  a  letter  in  support  of  SIHP,  which  will  explain  in  greater  detail 
our  support  for  this  initiative. 


67 
ATTACHMENT  1 


Proposed  FE  Additions: 


$3  million  for  Indirect  Liquefaction 

Tlie  engineering  scale  facility  at  LxiPorte,  Texas  is  an  essential  link 
between  bench-scale  research  and  industrial-scale  applications  for  the 
production  of  fuels  and  chemicals  from  synthetic  gas.  It  is  the  only 
such  Indirect  Liquefaction  facility  available  for  both  direct  government 
and  cost-shared  public  use.  An  additional  $2  million  should  be 
appropriated  for  activities  at  LaPorie,  and  $1  million  for  PETC  in- 
house  R&D. 

$6  million  for  Advanced  Pulverized  Coal-Fired  Powerplant 

Tlie  highly  cost-shared  Low-Emission  Boiler  System  (LEBS)  projects 
contribute  significantly  to  the  technical  competitiveness  of  U.  S.  -based 
coal  equipment  manufacturers,  and  will  be  used  to  deliver  efficient 
low-cost  electric  power  by  the  end  of  this  decade.  The  additional  $6 
million  will  be  used  to  complete  ongoing  LEBS  activities  leading  to 
mid-1997  selection  of  at  least  one  contractor  for  Phase  4  proof-of- 
concept  testing. 

$2  million  for  Namral  Gas  Utilization 

Ionic  Transport  Membrane  Technology  (ITM)  technology  is  being 
jointly  developed  and  cost-shared  by  DOE-Argonne  National 
Laboratory,  AMOCO,  Air  Products,  and  Ceramatec.  Tfiis 
revolutionary  approach  has  received  a  R&D  100  Award,  and  promises 
to  lower  the  cost  of  producing  hydrogen,  oxygen,  and  other  important 
gases  for  industrial  use.  For  FY  1997,  an  additional  $2  million 
should  be  appropriated  to  accelerate  the  development  of  this  cutting- 
edge  technology. 

$2  million  for  Program  Direction  -  Salaries,  Benefits  &  Travel 

To  cover  actual  costs  relating  to  reduced  staffing  consistent  with  the 
goals  of  the  Strategic  Alignment  Initiative.  Despite  this  add-on,  this 
line  will  still  be  $1  million  below  FY  1996. 

$9  million  for  Program  Direction  -  Contractor  Technical  &  Management  Support 
To  cover  actual  costs  -  taking  into  account  reduced  staffing  consistent 
with  the  goals  of  the  Strategic  Alignment  Initiative.   Despite  this  add- 
on, this  line  will  still  be  $9  million  below  FY  1995,  and  will  be  barely 
sufficient  to  maintain  contractor  staffing  at  required  levels. 


68 


Proposed  FE  Offsets: 

$6  million  for  Oil  Exploration  &  Production  Supporting  Research 

Reduce  Reservoir  Characterization  Efforts,  National  Lab/Industry 
Partnerships,  and  Technology  Transfer  activities  to  FY  1995  levels. 

$4  million  for  Natural  Gas  Resource  &  Extraction 

Reduce  Drilling/Competition/Stimulation  activities.  and 
Environmental/Regulatory  Technology  Development  to  FY  1995  level. 

$4  million  for  FE  Environmental  Restoration 

Although  the  restoration  at  Wilsonville  and  other  facilities  is 
important,  current  budget  constraints  suggest  that  advance 
appropriations  for  this  purpose  should  be  deferred. 

$2  million  for  HQ  Program  Direction  -  Contract  Services 

Reduce  contractor  support  in  accordance  with  Strategic  Alignment 
Initiative  goals. 

$6  million  for  Program  Direction  -  M&O  Contract  at  Bartlesville  Projects  Office 
As  in  prior  years,  funding  for  M&O  contractor  should  be  taken 
directly  from  within  overall  Oil  Program  appropriations. 

Total  Increases  =  $22  million 

Total  Offsets  =  $22  million 

Total  Net  Cost  =  $0 


69 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

VIRGINIA  BLUE  RIDGE  PARKWAY  INTERPRETATIVE 

CENTER 

WITNESS 

HON.  BOB  GOODLATTE,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  VIRGINIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  Bob?  Your  testimony  will  be  made  a  part  of 
the  record.  I  think  we're  pretty  familiar  with  the  issue. 

Mr.  GoODLATTE.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Yes,  I  just  want  to  briefly  touch  on  this.  I'm  appearing  today  on 
behalf  of  the  County  of  Roanoke,  Virginia  and  surrounding  commu- 
nities in  support  of  a  request  for  funding  in  the  amount  of  $600,000 
in  Fiscal  Year  1997  for  the  construction  of  an  interpretative  center 
on  the  Blue  Ridge  Parkway  in  Virginia,  in  Roanoke  County.  This 
is  something  that  has  been  an  ongoing  desire  of  the  Blue  Ridge 
Parkway  administration,  as  well  as  of  the  local  area,  for  many, 
many  years.  This  is  really  the  third  and  final  phase  of  an  ongoing 
project  that  was  begun  by  my  predecessor,  Congressman  Olin,  who 
secured  funds  from  this  committee  back  in  1986  for  the  construc- 
tion of  a  spur  road  into  the  Blue  Ridge  village,  which  is  a  part  of 
the  Explore  Park,  a  State  park  which  adjoins  the  Blue  Ridge  Park- 
way. 

Back  at  that  time,  in  addition,  there  were  funds  appropriated  for 
the  initial  work  to  be  done  on  an  interpretative  center.  Some  initial 
work  on  selecting  the  site  was  done,  but  because  the  road  took  so 
long — in  fact,  they  only  began  construction  on  the  road  last  year 
after  almost  a  10-year  delay — the  money  was  reprogrammed  by  the 
Interior  Department.  We  at  this  time  are  back  seeking  support  to 
continue  this  project. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  it  authorized? 

Mr.  GtoODLATTE.  At  this  point  in  time  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is 
authorized,  other  than  what  was  appropriated  back  at  that  time. 
Nothing  has  been  done  recently. 

Mr.  Regula.  We  need  to  determine  whether  there's  an  authoriza- 
tion. It  might  be  that  the  Resources  Committee  would  have  to  take 
some  action. 

Mr.  Goodlatte.  Well,  we'll  certainly  look  into  that. 

Mr.  Regula.  Explore  that. 

Mr.  GrOODLATTE.  Okay.  In  addition,  the  importance  of  this  to  the 
Virginia  portion  of  the  Blue  Ridge  Parkway  is  very  significant.  This 
is  an  approximately  200-mile  stretch  of  the  Blue  Ridge  Parkway  on 
which  there  is  no  major  visitor  interpretation  center.  Roanoke  Val- 
ley is  the  largest  metropolitan  area  on  the  Blue  Ridge  Parkway, 
and  it  would  be  the  logical  point  for  many  people  to  enter  and  exit 
the  Parkway  as  well.  Therefore,  we  would  encourage  some  support 
for  this  on  that  basis. 


70 

The  local  government  and  the  State  government  are  willing  to 
support  this  and  are  proposing  that  they  pay  one-half  of  the  total 
amount,  and  are  asking  the  Federal  Grovemment  to  support  the 
other  half  of  the  construction  cost.  We  are  making  inquiry  right 
now  as  to  what  they  can  do. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  GOODLATTE.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Goodlatte  follows:] 


\ 


71 


Testimony  of  Representative  Bob  Goodlatte 

Before  the  Appropriations  Subconnaittee  on  Interior 

on  the  Virginia  Blue  Ridge  Parkway  Interpretive  Center 

April  17,  1996 


I  want  to  thank  you  Chairman  Regula,  Ranking  Member  Yates  and 
the  subcommittee  for  the  opportunity  to  testify  on  behalf  of  the 
Virginia  Blue  Ridge  Parkway  Interpretive  Center.   I  am  here  to 
request  that  the  committee  appropriate  $600,000  in  fiscal  year  1997 
for  the  construction  of  this  center  located  on  the  Roanoke  River 
Gorge  in  my  district.   My  testimony  will  highlight  information  I 
have  already  submitted  to  your  subcommittee. 

This  center  is  the  third  and  final  phase  of  ongoing  project 
which  includes  Explore  Park,  a  living  history  park,  and  the  Roanoke 
River  Parkway  which  links  Explore  to  the  Blue  Ridge  Parkway.   This 
project  has  been  a  partnership  involving  federal,  state  and  local 
governments  and  other  committed  institutions  and  agencies.   The 
interpretive  center  lends  itself  to  the  same  type  of  cooperative 
effort. 

The  center  will  introduce  visitors  to  the  Blue  Ridge  Parkway 
and  the  center's  design  will  direct  them  to  scenic  vistas  of  the 
beautiful  Blue  Ridge  Mountains.   It  will  also  direct  people  to 
viewing  and  sitting  areas,  hiking  trails,  and  various  exhibits  and 
displays  . 

A  major  focus  of  the  center  will  be  the  development  and  history 
of  the  Blue  Ridge  Parkway  from  a  regional  perspective.  Themes  will 
include  geography,  botany,  history  and  culture.   Interpretive 
displays  will  describe  the  significance  of  the  natural  water  gap, 
historic  migration  and  settlement  routes,  and  the  history  of  the 
area  as  a  transportation  hub,  including  the  role  of  the  railroads. 
Resources  will  come  from  the  area  and  the  National  Park  Service 
archives . 

My  constituents  are  requesting  a  total  of  $2.05  million  (50 
percent  of  the  $4.1  million  project  cost)  over  a  two-year  period. 
As  noted  above,  $600,000  is  being  requested  for  fiscal  year  1997. 
For  fiscal  year  1998,  $1.45  million  is  being  requested.   The 
$600,000  would  be  used  for  planning,  preliminary  design  and  utility 
infrastructure.  Next  year's  request  of  $1.4  million  would  be  used 
for  architectural  and  engineering  design  and  construction,  including 
building,  parking,  and  landscaping. 

All  area  governments,  chambers  and  travel  groups  have  endorsed 
this  project.   It  also  has  the  financial  support  of  local 
governments  and  private  organizations  in  the  area.   The  County  of 
Roanoke  has  already  made  a  sizeable  contribution  to  the  effort. 

The  National  Park  Service  has  expressed  support  for  a  Parkway 
interpretive  center  in  the  Roanoke  Valley.   The  Blue  Ridge  Parkway 
Master  Plan  completed  in  1976  was  the  first  plan  in  which 
construction  of  a  center  to  orient  and  educate  visitors  was 


72 


included.   I  will  submit  a  copy  of  letter  from  Mr.  Gary  Everhardt  of 
the  National  Park  Service  attesting  to  this  fact. 

The  importance  of  this  project  to  the  economic  development  of 
the  Roanoke  Valley  cannot  be  overestimated.   I  strongly  urge  you  to 
support  this  worthwhile  request. 

Mr.  Chairman,  again  I  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  testify 
before  this  subcommittee  and  for  your  consideration  of  this  matter. 


73 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
LWCF 

WITNESS 

HON.  ZOE  LOFGREN,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Zoe? 

Ms.  Lofgren.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Your  statement  will  be  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

Ms.  Lofgren.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  So  I  will  not  read  it. 
I  would,  however,  like  to  submit  Congressman  Stark's  statement 
for  the  record. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection  it  will  be  made  a  part  of  the 
record. 

Ms.  Lofgren.  He  could  not  be  here,  and  he  wanted  to  testify  also 
on  behalf  of  the  Don  Edwards  Wildlife  Refuge.  I  know  that  you 
knew  Don  Edwards  well  in  his  many  years  here. 

Mr.  Regula.  Oh,  yes. 

Ms.  Lofgren.  And  the  Don  Edwards  Wildlife  Refuge  is  seeking 
$10  million  for  the  acquisition  of  the  Bair  Island,  which  is  not  in 
my  district,  but  would  be  the  last  easily-restorable  piece  of  wet- 
lands for  the  wildlife  refuge. 

Years  ago,  actually  in  1970,  I  was  on  the  staff  of  Don  Edwards, 
and  I  remember  very  well  the  effort  that  he  put  into  this  wildlife 
refage,  calling  people  every  morning  for  years  and  years  and  years. 
It's  really  a  credit  to  him,  as  well  as  the  local  community,  that 
we've  brought  it  off  at  all,  getting  the  business  community  onboard 
and  the  local  governments. 

The  citizens'  group  for  the  refiige  has  collected  almost  a  million 
dollars  in  donations 

Mr.  Regula.  I  see  that. 

Ms.  Lofgren  [continuing].  For  the  acquisition,  which  I  think  is 
pretty  fabulous. 

And  the  amount  of  wetlands  in  the  Bay  has  declined 

Mr.  Regula.  Will  the  State  put  in  any  money? 

Ms.  Lofgren.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  would  or  not,  but  I 
would  be  happy  to  check  on  that. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  wonder  if  you'd  check  and  see  if  there's  any  possi- 
bihty  of  State  money.  We're  trying  to  leverage  every  dollar  we  have 
wherever  possible. 

Ms.  Lofgren.  Right. 

We're  hoping  that  this  could  also  leverage  some  private 
funds 

Mr.  Regula.  Right,  right. 

Ms.  Lofgren  [continuing].  And  we've  done  this  without  the  pri- 
vate funds.  So  I  think  it's  a  fabulous  project  and  really  a  credit  to 
him.  Even  though  it's  not  in  my  district,  I'm  here  because  I  think 
it  would  be  a  great  way  to  honor  him.  In  three  weeks  we're  going 
out  for  the  ceremony,  the  renaming  ceremony  for  Mr.  Edwards,  and 
he  will  be  there.  He  dropped  by  the  office  yesterday  to  say  how  ex- 
cited he  was.  It  would  be  lovely  to  be  able  to  give  some  good  news. 


74 


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


75 


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


CAtSlll 


Congreftd  of  tfje  iHnttel)  States! 

v»c<»— mi  o.  Tio-oioo>  i^ouKt  of  3RtprM(Entatit)w(  i««)27i:«too 

jacoMMfTTti  oM  Bask  (kuamcm  '^  ' 

aBaBtimgton.  fiC  20515-0516 

Testimony  of 

Congresswoman  Zoe  Lofgren 

before  the 

Appopriations  Subcommittee  on  Interior 

April  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  I  thank  you  for  the  opportunity 
to  testify  on  behalf  of  the  Don  Edwards  San  Francisco  Bay  Wildlife  Refuge. 

This  year,  we  are  requesting  $10  million  from  the  Land  and  Water  Conservation 
Fund  for  the  acquisition  of  Bair  Island,  a  critically  important  component  of  the  Don 
Edwards  Refuge  and  the  last  easily  restorable  wetlands  left  on  the  Bay. 

I  have  been  involved  with  this  project  since  1970,  when  I  worked  on  the  Refuge 
authorization  as  a  staffer  for  former  Congressman  Don  Edwards.    Mr.  Edwards  fought 
hard  for  this  Refuge,  calling  committee  chairmen  every  day  for  months  at  a  time  to 
secure  support;  helping  local  governments  address  zoning  issues;  and  working  with 
business  and  groups  in  the  community  to  ensure  that  all  the  pieces  were  in  place.   This 
Refuge  was  Mr.  Edward's  dream,  and  I  am  grateful  that  we  in  the  104th  Congress  chose 
to  rename  it  in  his  honor. 

So  many  of  you  knew  and  respected  Don  Edwards  for  his  insight  and  his 
honorable  ways  during  his  tenure  here  in  the  House.    One  way  to  honor  his  32  years  of 
distinguished  service  to  this  House  and  our  country  is  to  carefully  consider  funding  for 
this  important  component  of  the  Refuge  renamed  earlier  this  year  in  his  honor.    Because, 
indeed,  the  Don  Edwards  Wildlife  Refuge  is  an  enduring  and  concrete  legacy  that  he  has 
left  for  our  country. 

Fifty  years  ago,  Bair  Island  encompassed  3000  acres  of  fertile  tidal  marsh,  was 
home  to  several  endangered  species,  and  provided  flood  control,  water  filtration,  clean 
air  and  all  of  the  other  benefits  of  wetlands  to  the  Bay  Area.    It  is  now  barren  land, 
unused  and  cut  off  from  the  wildlife  refuge  by  high  levees.    Removing  these  levees  and 
restoring  the  wetlands  is  a  high  priority  for  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  and  a  life-long 
dream  for  the  thousands  of  community  members  who  have  dedicated  time  and  money  to 
the  effort. 


76 


The  Don  Edwards  Refuge  hosts  300,000  visitors  per  year,  including  10,000  local 
school  children,  and  biologists  from  across  the  globe.    My  own  children  have  visited  the 
area,  learning  about  the  California  clapper  rail,  the  saltwater  harvest  marsh  mouse, 
species  preservation  and  nature. 

The  Bay  Area  community  has  really  taken  the  initiative  on  the  Refuge  and  has 
started  a  fund-raising  effort  of  its  own,  collecting  almost  $1  million  so  far.    I  hope  that 
the  Committee  takes  this  local  commitment  into  account  when  allocating  funds.    I  also 
want  to  stress  that  by  1972,  California  had  lost  91 7o  of  its  historic  wetlands.    We  need  to 
do  everything  we  can  to  preserve  our  unique  and  special  wetlands  for  our  children  and 
grandchildren. 

Don  Edwards  and  the  Bay  community  deserve  our  thanks  for  their  strong  support 
of  the  Refuge  and  they  deserve  to  acquire  Bair  Island.    I  hope  that  the  Committee 
responds  with  a  commitment  of  its  own  by  appropriating  $10  million  to  the  project. 

I  thank  you  again  for  this  opportunity  to  testify. 

### 


77 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
LWCF 

WITNESS 

HON.   PETE   STARK,  A  REPRESENTATIVE   IN  CONGRESS   FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Stark  follows:] 


FORTNEY  PETE  STARK 


78 


CONGRESS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENfTATTVES 

WASHINGTON,  D.C.  20515 

STATEMENT  OF  CONGRESSMAN  PETE  STARK 

IN  SUPPORT  OF 

THE  ACQUISITION  OF  BAIR  ISLAND  FOR  THE 

DON  EDWARDS  SAN  FRANCISCO  BAY 

NATIONAL  WILDLIFE  REFUGE 

APRIL  17, 1996 

The  residents  of  the  Bay  Area  are  deeply  indebted  to  the  members  of  the 
Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  the  Interior  and  Related  Agencies  for  the  years  of 
support  they  have  given  to  the  Don  Edwards  San  Frandsco  Bay  Natioiud  Wildlife 
Refuge. 

This  outstanding  urban  wildlife  Refuge,  established  by  Congress  in  1972,  plays  host 
to  300,000  visitors  and  10,000  local  school  children  a  year  and  provides  important 
habitat  for  82  spedes  of  waterbirds,  44  spedes  of  landbirds,  13  spedes  of  mammals,  63 
spedes  of  fish  and  41  spedes  of  plants.  If  s  value  to  the  people,  animals  and  plants  of 
the  Bay  Area  cannot  be  overstated  espedally  when  one  considers  that  the  San 
Francisco  Bay  Estuary  System  has  already  lost  a  disturbing  82%  of  its  wetlands. 

We  now  have  the  opportunity  to  make  a  significant  addition  to  the  Refuge  with  the 
acquisition  of  Bair  Island  -  the  largest  remaining  unprotected  wetland  area  in  the 
San  Frandsco  Bay  Estuary  System  and  the  single  most  valuable  potential  addition  to 
the  San  Frandsco  Bay  National  Wildlife  Refuge. 

I  strongly  request  that  the  Subcommittee  appropriate  $10  million  from  the  Land  and 
Water  Conservation  Fund  for  the  acquisition  of  Bair  Island. 

Bair  Island  is  the  last  significant  easily-restored  wetland  left  on  San  Frandsco  Bay. 
The  lands  north  of  Bair  Island  have  been  developed  for  urban  uses.   The  lands 
south  of  Bair  Island  are  active  salt  evaporator  ponds.   Bair  Island's  addition  to  the 
Refuge  would  bring  to  fruition  the  hopes  of  the  people  of  the  Bay  Area  to  return 
these  lands  to  their  former  role  in  the  Bay's  ecosystem. 

The  Bay  Area  Congressional  delegation  has  unanimously  supported  efforts  to 
acquire  Bair  Island  for  the  Refuge  as  have  the  Califonua  Department  of  Fish  and 
Game  and  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service. 

Again,  let  me  stress  how  important  the  acquisition  of  Bair  Island  is  for  both  humaru 
and  animals  alike.     I  would  like  to  thank  the  Subcommittee  for  the  strong  support 
they  have  given  the  Don  Edwards  San  Francisco  Bay  National  Wildlife  Refuge  over 
the  years  and  strongly  urge  that  they  do  all  they  can  to  secure  the  $10  million  in 
Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  moneys  needed  to  purchase  Bair  Island. 


79 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
JAMES  A.  GARFIELD  NATIONAL  fflSTORIC  SITE 

WITNESS 

HON.   STEVEN   C.   LaTOURETTE,  A  REPRESENTATIVE   IN   CONGRESS 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  OHIO 

Mr.  Regula.  Steve? 

Mr.  LaTourette.  Good  morning,  Mr.  Chairman.  I,  first,  want  to 
thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  appear  this  morning.  I'm  here  to 
talk  a  little  bit  about,  and  my  written  statement  talks  about,  a  re- 
quest for  operating  expenses  for  Lawnfield,  Ohio,  which  I  know 
you're  intimately  involved  with.  I  have  a  special  affinity  for 
Lawnfield  in  that  it's  the  historic  home  of  President  James  A.  Gar- 
field, who  was  the  last  fellow  with  a  beard  to  represent  Lake  Coun- 
ty, Ohio,  and  I'm  now  the  next.  [Laughter.l 

This  subcommittee,  through  a  bipartisan  effort,  has  been  wonder- 
fully supportive  of  this  project,  as  you  know.  Over  the  last  several 
sessions  of  Congress  you  have  appropriated  about  $11  million,  in- 
cluding the  $3.6  million  in  fiscal  year  1996. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  think  we're  done  with  the  capital. 

Mr.  LaTourette.  That's  correct.  The  last  installment  was  last 
year's  Fiscal  Year  $3.6  million,  which  will  be  used  for  restoration 
of  the  main  house.  Restoration  was  started  back  with  my  prede- 
cessor, Dennis  Eckerdt. 

A  couple  of  things  I  wanted  to  stress,  though.  It's  a  unique  fund- 
ing mechanism  for  the  operation.  It's  a  public/private  partnership, 
which  we're  attempting  to  encourage  between  the  National  Park 
Service  and  also  the  Western  Reserve  Historical  Society.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  President  Garfield's  great  grandson,  James  Garfield, 
who  lives  three  doors  down,  still  cuts  the  grass.  That's  the  type  of 
community  involvement. 

What  we're  asking  for  is  $136,000  as  an  annual  operating  ex- 
penditure, which  is  one-third  of  what's  anticipated  to  be  required 
to  operate  the  facility.  The  other  two-thirds  will  come  from  user 
fees  and  donations  from  the  Western  Reserve  HistoricaJ  Society. 
This  site  is  expected  to  draw  20,000  visitors  annually,  and  the  won- 
derful thing  about  Lawnfield,  as  you  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that 
although  the  home  was  built  in  1832,  it  has  the  front  porch  where 
President  Garfield  announced  he  was  being 

Mr.  Regula.  I  might  say  I've  been  there. 

Mr.  LaTourette  [continuing].  Okay — he  was  going  to  seek  the 
presidency,  and  also  the  telegraph  office  where  he  learned  that  he 
had  been  elected  our  20th  President.  It  also  has  the  first  presi- 
dential library.  When  we  now  have  presidential  libraries  being 
built  at  $7  to  $10  million  of  taxpayers'  money,  Eleanor  Garfield,  his 
widow,  built  the  library  after  his  assassination. 

The  other  unique  feature  is  that,  unlike  some  of  our  other  histor- 
ical sites  that  have  sort  of  retooled  period  pieces,  all  of  the  furnish- 
ings, books,  and  artifacts  are  originals  that  have  been  lovingly  re- 
stored by  the  folks  at  Western  Reserve. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  know  they  had  a  lot  of  community  involvement 
there. 

Mr.  LaTourette.  Certainly. 


80 

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

Mr.  LaTourette.  Well,  that's  correct.  Since  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment and  this  subcommittee  and  the  committee  have  been  so  gen- 
erous in  helping  with  the  restoration,  it  would  be  shame  not  to  op- 
erate it  now.  We'd  ask  you  to  consider  our  request. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  LaTourette.  Thanks  so  much. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  LaTourette  follows:] 


81 


Congressman  Steven  C.  LaTourette  (R-OH) 

Statement  to  the  Subcommittee  on  Interior  and  Related  Agencies 

April  17.  1996 

Funding  for  President  Garfield's  Home 

I  very  much  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  appear  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Interior 
and  Related  Agencies  on  behalf  of  a  request  for  operating  expenses  for  Lawnfleld,  Ohio.  This 
request  is  made  so  the  public  can  enjoy  the  future  operation  of  a  national  treasure  in  Mentor, 
Ohio  --  the  home  of  President  James  A.  Garfield. 

Over  the  last  several  sessions  of  Congress  this  project  has  been  blessed  by  the  strong 
support  of  the  subcommittee,  and  in  particular  its  current  chairman,  Ralph  Regula  of  Ohio,  who 
has  been  a  longtime  champion  of  the  Garfield  Home  restoration  project.  TTirough  strong 
bipartisan  support,  nearly  $18  million  has  been  appropriated  over  the  last  several  years  for  the 
restoration  of  Lawnfield,  which  was  the  home  of  President  Garfield. 

The  restoration  project  dates  back  to  the  102nd  Congress  and  my  predecessor. 
Congressman  Dennis  EckerL  I  am  pleased  to  report  to  the  subcommittee  that  all  of  the  hard 
work  and  effort  over  the  years  is  about  to  come  to  fruition,  as  the  multi-faceted  restoration  is 
nearly  finished. 

The  splendor  of  Lawnfield  lies  not  just  in  the  beauty  and  history  of  this  presidential 
home,  but  also  in  the  unique  funding  mechanism  which  has  allowed  this  project  to  proceed.  The 
National  Park  Service  and  the  Western  Reserve  Historical  Society  have  embarked  on  a  public- 
private  joint  partnership  to  undertake  this  massive  restoration.  These  two  fine  entities  are  ready 
to  team  up  again  for  the  operating  portion  of  Lawnfield. 

The  request  we  have  made  is  for  a  $136,000  annual  operating  appropriation.  This  sum 
represents  just  a  fraction  of  the  cost  anticipated  to  be  involved  in  the  operation  of  Lawnfield. 
Prior  to  the  restoration  project,  the  Lawnfield  site  drew  an  annual  visitor  attendance  of 
approximately  20,000.  A  like  number  of  visitors  are  expected  following  the  reopening  of  the 
site.  Tlie  remainder  of  the  operating  costs  --  about  two-thirds  of  the  costs  involved  -  will  be 
obtained  through  user  fees  and  the  generosity  of  the  patrons  of  the  Western  Reserve  Historical 
Society.  At  a  time  when  the  federal  government  is  attempting  to  "smartsize"  and  live  within  its 
means,  we  should  applaud  creative  financing  efforts  such  as  that  proposed  for  Lawnfield.  Our 
request  is  that  we  provide  a  helping  hand  so  this  wonderful  historical  site  can  operate  for  the 
benefit  of  this  and  future  generations. 

The  main  Garfield  home  was  built  in  1832  and  was  a  nine-room  farmhouse.  Over  the 
years  President  Garfield's  family  made  many  additions:  the  farmhouse  eventually  became  a 
sprawling,  29-room  mansion.  Included  at  the  site  is  the  front  porch  where  President  Garfield 
announced  his  intention  to  seek  the  presidency  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  the  telegraph 
office  where  he  received  news  that  he  had  in  fact  been  elected  our  20th  president. 


82 


Restoration  efforts  began  in  1992.  Initial  restoration  has  focused  on  the  102-year-old 
horse  bam  and  carriage  house,  which  has  now  been  converted  into  a  visitors'  center.  The 
visitors'  center  also  contains  an  auditorium,  gift  shop  and  offices.  In  addition  to  the 
aforementioned  restoration,  the  main  home  is  also  being  renovated  so  that  it  may  be  restored  to 
its  original  splendor.  Contained  in  the  main  home  is  the  very  first  presidential  library, 
constructed  by  President  Garfield's  widow  following  his  assassination.  The  library  will  house 
artifacts  of  our  20th  president. 

The  Garfield  presidential  library  differs  from  other  presidential  libraries  in  that  it 
contains  almost  solely  original  artifacts.  This  includes  the  furnishings,  books  and  fixtures,  which 
have  been  lovingly  restored  by  volunteer  members  of  the  Western  Reserve  Historical  Society. 

The  final  piece  needed  for  the  magnificent  restoration  project  will  be  an  annual  operating 
appropriation  to  help  pay  for  the  costs  of  operation.  As  1  mentioned  earlier,  this  will  be  a  shared 
burden,  with  the  federal  government  asked  to  pick  up  just  one-third  of  the  costs.  It  is  indeed, 
Mr.  Chairman,  a  small  investment  that  will  reap  huge  dividends,  as  history  will  forever  be 
maintained. 

It  has  been  said  that  our  future  is  secure  only  when  our  past  is  preserved.  Lawnfield,  the 
historical  home  of  President  Garfield,  is  of  great  historical  significance  to  Northeastern  Ohio  and 
to  the  United  States.  I  respectfully  ask  that  the  House  Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  Interior 
and  Related  Agencies  embrace  this  project,  and  favorably  consider  our  request. 

Again,  to  you  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  thank  you  for  your  many  years  of  commitment  to 
this  project  and  for  the  opportunity  to  present  my  case. 


83 

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


Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
NATIONAL  FISH  AND  WILDLIFE  FOUNDATION 
NORTH  AMERICAN  WETLANDS  CONSERVATION  ACT 

WITNESS 

HON.  CURT  WELDON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Curt? 

Mr.  Weldon  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  the 
opportunity  to  testify  before  you  today  and  appreciate  your  ongoing 
support.  You  have  been  a  real  key  leader  in  efforts  relative  to  the 
two  programs  I'd  like  to  speak  to  today.  These  are  national  pro- 
grams, and  I  think  both  have  outstanding  track  records  in  taking 
relatively  small  amounts  of  Federal  money  and  leveraging  signifi- 
cant amount  of  private  dollars. 

The  first  is  the  National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation,  which  I 
know  you're  familiar  with.  I  would  just  tell  you,  in  terms  of 
leveraging,  the  Foundation  has  matched  every  dollar  appropriated 
by  this  subcommittee  with  $3.37  on  the  ground  conservation.  Over 
10  years,  they've  multiplied  $45.7  million  in  appropriated  Federal 
dollars  to  $168.2  million  in  on-the-ground,  cooperative  conserva- 
tion. The  Foundation  is  involved  in  a  wide  variety  of  issues,  seed 
money.  It's  very  well  supported  by  members  throughout  both  cau- 
cuses. 

I  would  just  urge  you  to  provide  the  $6  million  requested  in  the 
budget  for  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  for  this  program.  It's  been  a 
big  help  in  my  own  State,  but,  more  importantly,  nationwide  it's 
just  had  an  outstanding  track  record.  As  you  know,  this  was  an 
original  Republican  initiative  created  by  Republican  leadership  as 
a  way  to  leverage  private  sector  involvement,  and  it's  just  an  out- 
standing success. 

The  second  major  issue  I'd  like  to  testify  on  behalf  of  is  the  North 
American  Wetlands  Conservation  Act.  As  you  know,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  serve  as  the  Republican  House  Member  on  the  Migratory  Bird 
Commission;  John  Dingell  is  the  Democrat.  There  are  four  of  us 
from  the  Congress  and  the  three  Cabinet  members  who  oversee 
funding  that  is  used,  partly  from  the  sale  of  Duck  Stamps  to  volun- 
tarily preserve  open  space,  and  a  small  amount  of  appropriated  dol- 
lars. This  was  really  started  and  maintained  by  the  late  Sil  Conte. 
It  was  one  of  his  top  priorities. 

For  Fiscal  Year  1997,  the  program  has  an  authorization  level  of 
$30  million.  The  President  has  requested  $11.75  million  as  a  part 
of  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  budget.  And  I  would  urge  your  support  for 
the  maximum  level  possible. 

As  you  know,  I've  taken  great  efforts  to  let  Members  know  how 
these  projects  impact  their  own  districts.  Congress  has  now  in  the 
last  year  and  a  half  become  heavily  involved  in  the  selection  proc- 
ess. This  program  is  supported  by  the  States,  supported  by  farmers 
and  private  landowners,  because  there's  no  taking  of  land.  Every- 


84 

thing  that's  done  through  this  program  is  done  voluntarily,  and  it's 
done  with  the  cooperation  of  the  States  and  the  members  who  want 
wildlife  refuges  expanded.  It's  just  been  a  tremendously  positive 
program  with  a  rather  small  amount  of  Federal  money. 

So  I'm  coming  today  not  for  any  parochial  concerns  for  myself  or 
my  district.  These  are  two  national  programs  that  I  feel  very 
strongly  about,  and  would  just  encourage  your  continued  leader- 
ship. You  were  there  when  we  needed  you,  and  we  appreciate  that, 
and  would  ask  you  to  again  be  the  godfather  of  saving  the  funding 
for  these  two  programs. 

Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay.  Thank  you.  Curt. 

I'm  getting  an  award  Saturday  from  the  Ducks  Unlimited. 

Mr.  Weldon  of  Pennsylvania.  They're  big  supporters,  as  you 
know,  major  supporters. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Weldon  of  Pennsylvania.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Weldon  of  Pennsylvania  follows:] 


85 


TESTIMONY  OF  REP.  CURT  WELDON  (PA  7-R) 

COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  THE  INTERIOR  AND  RELATED  AGENCIES 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  testify  before 
the  Subcommittee  today.   I  want  to  focus  my  comments  on  two  key 
programs  in  the  Subcommittee's  jurisdiction:  the  National  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Foundation  and  the  North  American  Wetlands  Conservation 
Act.   I  support  an  appropriation  of  at  least  $6  million  and  $11.75 
million  respectively. 

The  National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation  produces  one  of  the 
biggest  "bangs  for  the  buck"  of  any  federal  conservation  program. 
Through  its  leveraging  grants  program,  the  Foundation  has  matched 
every  dollar  appropriated  by  this  Subcommittee  with  $3.37  for  on  the 
ground  conservation.  Over  10  years,  they  have  multiplied  $4  5.7 
million  in  appropriated  federal  dollars  to  $168.2  million  in  on  the 
ground  cooperative  conservation. 

The  Foundation  creates  bridges  between  the  business, 
conservation,  government,  and  local  communities  by  forming 
partnerships  between  groups  that  often  would  otherwise  be  at  odds 
with  each  other  on  environmental  issues.   In  addition,  they  foster 
proactive,  voluntary,  cooperative  approaches  rather  than  "big 
government"  command  and  control. 

Federal  seed  money  is  essential  to  keep  the  government  as  a 
participatory  player  with  the  private  sector  to  deliver  these 
benefits.   Without  that  federal  investment,  private  funding  would 
not  be  attracted,  and  we  would  see  more  conflicts  on  resource  and 
environmental  issues. 

I  know  how  tough  the  Subcommittee's  job  is  --  but  this  is  one 
of  the  best  investments  you  can  make  to  solve  the  problems  and 
actually  leverage  private  sector  funds  and  participation  to  support 
natural  resources.   I  strongly  urge  you  to  fund  the  National  Fish 
and  Wildlife  Foundation  at  $6  million  as  requested  in  the  budget  for 
the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  This  will  achieve  results  that  are 
three  times  greater  than  what  would  normally  be  achieved  in  other 
line  items  from  a  relatively  small  investment  in  federal  funds. 
Furthermore,  by  investing  in  the  Foundation  now,  we  may  avoid  fish 
and  wildlife  conflicts  that  might  otherwise  lead  to  far  larger 
expenditures  and  significantly  greater  management  problems  in  the 
future . 

Let  me  give  you  an  example:  The  Foundation  has  done  45 
projects  which  address  regional  problems  of  concern  to  Pennsylvania. 
A  total  of  $1.35  million  in  federal  funds  have  been  invested  in 
these  projects,  and  leveraged  with  nonfederal  funds  to  deliver  $7.6 
million  for  conservation.   Projects  have  ranged  from  playing  a  key 
catalyst  role  on  Chesapeake  Bay  problems  to  operating  the  matching 
grant  fund  to  design  and  build  the  environmental  education  center  at 
the  John  Heinz  National  Refuge  at  Tinicum.  Their  contribution  to 
conservation  extends  to  the  oceans  as  well.   The  Foundation  is 
involved  in  stimulating  a  partnership  with  a  major  Pennsylvania 
corporation.  Concurrent  Technologies  Corporation  of  Johnstown,  to 


86 


help  the  Navy  learn  how  to  better  avoid  at-sea  conflicts  with 
whales . 

The  Foundation  brings  people  together  to  forge  proactive 
cooperative  solutions  and  avoid  government  command  and  control 
regulation.   They  look  over  the  horizon  to  head  off  potential 
problems,  such  as  endangered  species  issues,  that  can  be  expensive 
for  this  Subcommittee  and  the  private  sector.   This  over  the  horizon 
expertise  is  widely  recognized.   For  example,  last  year  the  Speaker 
asked  the  Foundation  for  some  positive  alternatives  to  the  current 
approach  to  endangered  species  management.   The  Foundation  responded 
to  the  request  with  some  incentives  to  private  landowners  to  enhance 
endangered  species  management.  This  approach  actually  creates 
incentives  that  would  make  having  an  endangered  species  on  their 
land  desirable  to  landowners. 

Finally,  I  want  to  make  a  partisan  observation.  The  National 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation  was  created  by  Republican  leadership. 
They  embrace  the  conservative  principle  of  private  cooperative 
rather  than  regulatory  solutions  to  environmental  and  resource 
issues  and  do  more  with  less  government .   The  National  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Foundation  is  a  key  solution,  and  we  should  strongly 
support  it.   I  urge  you  to  provide  at  least  $6  million  in  the  Fish 
and  Wildlife  Service  for  the  National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation. 

In  addition,  the  North  American  Wetlands  Conservation  Act 
(NAWCA)  is  another  example  of  a  unique  program  which  uses  federal 
dollars  to  leverage  private  monies  to  preserve,  protect,  and  enhance 
critical  wildlife  habitat.   Unlike  the  National  Fish  and  Wildlife 
Foundation  which  concentrates  its  efforts  on  a  broad  array  of 
conservation  initiatives,  NAWCA  was  created  to  specifically  address 
our  Nation's  declining  migratory  bird  population.   Habitat  loss  has 
played  a  major  role  in  the  decline  of  these  birds.   Funding  from  the 
NAWCA  has  led  to  the  enhancement  or  preservation  of  over  7  million 
acres  of  prime  North  American  wetlands  habitat. 

The  program  effectively  offers  an  array  of  acquisition, 
restoration,  and  enhancement  activities  as  solutions  to  protect 
wildlife  based  on  wildlife  habitat  type,  geographic  area,  and  land 
ownership.  The  North  American  Wetlands  Conservation  Act  reaches 
outside  the  normal  sphere  of  partners  typically  involved  in 
conservation  projects  to  include  major  corporations,  universities, 
local  civic  groups,  and  even  individuals.   In  just  a  few  short 
years,  the  program  has  undertaken  over  400  wetland  conservation 
projects  in  42  states  involving  over  460  separate  partners. 

For  FY' 97,  the  program  has  an  authorization  level  of  $30 
million.   This  year,  the  President  has  requested  $11.75  million  as 
part  of  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  budget.   I  urge  your 
support  for  the  maximum  funding  level  possible  for  NAWCA. 

This  program  boasts  a  variety  of  desirable  features  that  few 
other  federal  programs  match: 

*     The  North  American  Wetlands  Conservation  Act  is  a  non- 

recnilatorv  conservation  program  that  provides  funds  to  enhance 


87 


and  restore  privately  owned  and  public  wetlands  across  the 
country. 

*  This  prograun  is  an  economic  generator.  Migratory  bird 
hunters  and  bird  watchers  generated  $19.5  billion  in  economic 
output  during  1991.  In  many  cases,  this  economic  activity  was 
vital  to  the  incomes  of  rural  Americans. 

*  NAWCA  provides  an  excellent  return  on  a  modeat  federal 
investment.   Every  dollar  of  federal  money  has  been  matched 
by  nearly  three  dollars  in  private,  state,  and  local  funds 
making  this  one  of  the  federal  government ' s  most  cost  effective 
conservation  programs. 

*  Farmers  and  other  private  landowners  support  the  program, 

because  on  private  land,  work  is  only  done  with  willing 
landowners  and  it  allows  them  to  restore  wildlife  and 
conservation  values  on  their  private  lands. 

*  The  states  support  the  NAWCA  program.  The  International 
Association  of  Fish  and  Wildlife  Agencies,  which  represents 
all  50  state  fish  and  game  agencies  in  the  country,  supports 
this  program. 

*  Congress  is  involved  in  choosing  which  proiects  get  funded 
under  the  program.  The  final  approval  body  in  the  project 
selection  process  is  the  Migratory  Bird  Conservation 
Commission.  That  seven  member  body  includes  four  Members  of 
Congress . 

*  The  prograun  stimulates  conservation  efforts  from  the  non- 
federal sector.  Because  of  NAWCA's  incentives,  $191  million 
has  been  contributed  for  projects  by  over  400  non-profit, 
corporate,  small  business,  state,  and  local  entities. 

*  Under  NAWCA,  habitat  conservation  work  has  occurred  on 
breeding  grounds  and  other  hadaitat  for  waterfowl  as  well  as 
400  different  varieties  of  other  wildlife. 

This  program  represents  a  reasonable,  cost-effective  approach 
to  waterfowl  and  other  wildlife  habitat  conservation.  I  urge  you  to 
do  what  you  can  to  maximize  the  Subcommittee's  financial  support  of 
the  North  American  Wetlands  Conservation  program. 

In  closing,  I  want  to  thank  you  again  for  allowing  me  to 
testify  before  the  Subcommittee  today.   I  look  forward  to  working 
with  you  and  the  Subcommittee  in  the  future  to  ensure  these  two 
important  programs  are  funded  this  year. 


88 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
APPALACHIAN  TRAIL 
fflSTORIC  PRESERVATION  FUND 

WITNESS 

HON.  NANCY  L.  JOHNSON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  CONNECTICUT 

Mr.  Regula.  Nancy? 

Mrs.  Johnson  of  Connecticut.  Thank  you.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, for  giving  me  this  opportunity  to  testify  in  support  of  the  Ap- 
palachian Trail,  the  Historic  Preservation  Trust  Fund,  and  the 
Farmington  Wild  and  Scenic  River  program.  It's  a  pleasure  to  be 
here  for  the  14th  consecutive  year.  [Laughter.] 

As  you  know,  completion  of  the  Appalachian  Trail  is  actually 
within  our  reach  and  would  be  a  fitting  tribute  to  its  founders  and 
many  users. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  they  have  a  strong  friend  on  this  subcommit- 
tee. 

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

With  $7  million  a  year,  we  can  complete  acquisition  by  the  year 
2000.  This  would  represent  flat  funding  for  the  third  consecutive 
year,  but  prudently  balances  the  importance  of  completing  the 
project  with  limited  resources. 

Mr.  Regula.  No  question. 

Mrs.  Johnson  of  Connecticut.  I  also  want  to  reiterate  my  strong 
support  for  the  Historic  Preservation  Trust  Fund,  which  you  have 
so  consistently  and  steadfastly  supported.  Like  many  regions  of  the 
country,  mine  is  blessed  with  many  beautiful,  old  buildings,  and 
through  the  Federal  dollars,  have  been  able  to  leverage  literally 
millions  and  millions  of  dollars  for  restoration  and  preservation. 
This  is  a  perfect  example,  really  both  of  these  programs  are  perfect 
examples  of  how  the  Federal  Government  can  be  so  instrumental 
in  assuring  our  future  and  the  quality  of  life  that  our  citizens  will 
enjoy. 

Mr.  Regula.  It  does  leverage  a  lot. 

Mrs.  Johnson  of  Connecticut.  Yes.  And  then  most  dear  to  me, 
after  a  10-year  struggle  to  include  it  in  the  National  Wild  and  Sce- 
nic Rivers  System,  is  the  Farmington  River  in  my  district.  It's  hard 
to  believe  it  took  10  years  to  do  that,  but  you  may  remember  be- 
cause you  worked  very  closely  with  me  on  this,  and  the  staff  was 
really  terrific.  This  was  the  first  effort  that  was  made  in  New  Eng- 
land to  include — the  first  successful  operative  inclusion  of  a  New 
England  river  in  the  Wild  and  Scenic  Rivers  System.  It  took  us  a 
long  time  to  deal  with  the  tradition  of  local  government,  local  con- 
trol, and  local  concern. 

We  do  have  now  an  excellent  governance  structure  that's  able  to 
protect,  conserve,  and  enhance  this  segment  of  the  river.  The  Na- 
tional Park  Service  has  been  very  ably  staffed  from  its  Boston  of- 
fice on  this  matter.  We  could  not  have  done  it  without  them.  I  have 
a  letter  that  I  want  to  leave  with  you  in  which  the  National  Park 
Service  agrees  that  we  need  a  line  item  of  approximately  $100,000, 


89 

so  that  we're  sure  to  have  the  resources  for  their  role  in  this  coordi- 
nating council,  because  this  segment  of  the  river  really  reaches  mil- 
lions of  people  and  will  preserve  a  gem  in  a  densely-populated  area. 
So  I  will  submit  that  letter  from  the  Park  Service,  from  the  Depart- 
ment of  Interior. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thus  far,  have  they  been  giving  you  professional 
advice,  the  Park  Service 

Mrs.  Johnson  of  Connecticut.  Absolutely,  absolutely,  and  it  is 
key  because  this  not  only  is  a  beautiful  area,  but  this  is  also  a 
tense  area.  The  MPC,  which  is  the  Metropolitan  District  respon- 
sible for  Hartford  receiving  its  water,  has  a  very  big  interest  in  this 
river.  In  fact,  we  got  into  this  whole  designation  effort  because  we 
were  unable  to  resolve — and  this  is  such  a  good  example  of  positive 
Federal  action — we  were  unable  to  resolve  the  growing  war  be- 
tween the  small  towns  where  the  reservoirs  were  and  Hartford  that 
used  the  water.  And  out  of  this  has  come  conservation  plans,  better 
water  usage  in  the  urban  areas,  preservation  of  the  river  quality, 
its  recreational 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  the  river  used  for  drinking  water  any  place? 

Mrs.  Johnson  of  Connecticut.  Part  of  it  further  up,  another 
branch  is  diverted.  We  really  got  into  this  because  we  feared  that 
Hartford  had  its  eye  on  diverting  the  rest  of  this  water.  Now  this 
has  led  to  a  whole  focus  on  conservation,  preservation,  sound  use, 
you  know,  an  environmentally  strong  river 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  a  recreational  river. 

Mrs.  Johnson  of  Connecticut.  Recreational,  absolutely,  fishing, 
canoeing,  tubing,  and  it  has  come  back  strongly.  We  have  the  best 
river  study  that  I  think  has  ever  been  done  on  any  river,  certainly 
in  the  Northeast  and  maybe  in  the  country,  again  funded  primarily 
with  Federal  dollars  because  in  the  end  it  cost  much  more,  but 
State  dollars,  private  dollars,  we've  got  everything  in  there.  So  we 
have  very  good  management  information  now.  We  have  a  very  good 
group,  but  that  Federal  person  does  help  to  keep  everybody's  eye 
on  the  ball,  for  this  is  a  national  program  whose  goal  is  river  pres- 
ervation and  resource  conservation.  So  he  is  invaluable,  and  we 
have  had  very,  very  intelligent,  capable,  strong  leadership  from  the 
Boston  office. 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  good.  Okay. 

Mrs.  Johnson  of  Connecticut.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mrs.  Johnson  of  Connecticut  follows:] 


90 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS 
OVtnSlGMT 

HEALTH 


EXPOflT  TASK  FORCE 
CAUCUS  FOR  WOMEN'S  ISSUES 


Congresi£;  of  t\)t  Winittt  ^tatti 

J^ouie  of  i^eprei(entatibe£( 

aSHastjington,  3BC  20515-0706 

Testimony  by 

The  Honorable  Nancy  L.  Johnson 

before  the 

Appropriations   subcoiranittee   on   Interior 


13  C^NNOM  House  Of*m  BuiLOMw 
Washinotow.  OC  20S1&47Q6 
TEtiMOMC   1203)  22S-447a 


480  MvHru  Stucet— Sum  200 
New  BfNTAiN.  CT  OOOU 
TtLEPHONt.  1203)  223-H12 


April  17,  1996 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  colleagues,  for  giving  me  this 
opportunity  to  testify  in  support  of  the  Appalachian  Trail,  the 
Historic  Preservation  Trust  Fund,  and  the  Farmington  Wild  and  Scenic 
River.   It  is  a  pleasure  to  appear  before  you  for  the  14th 
consecutive  year. 

As  you  know,  completion  of  the  Appalachian  Trail  is  within 
reach,  and  it  surely  would  be  a  fitting  tribute  to  its  founders  and 
many  users  to  allocate  sufficient  resources  to  achieve  this  goal  by 
the  year  2000.   To  keep  us  on  track  to  completion,  I  urge  the 
committee  to  approve  $7  million  from  the  Land  and  Water  Conservation 
Fund  for  further  acquisition  of  land  and  rights  of  way.   This  would 
represent  flat  funding  for  at  least  the  third  consecutive  year,  and 
prudently  balances  the  importance  of  completing  the  project  with 
limited  resources. 

I  also  wish  to  reiterate  my  strong  support  for  the  Historic 
Preservation  Trust  Fund  which  you  have  so  graciously  supported  in  the 
past.   Like  many  regions  of  the  country,  ours  is  blessed  with 
thousands  of  old,  historic  buildings  and,  through  the  Trust  Fund,  we 
are  cible  to  preserve  them  for  future  generations.   I  hope  the 
committee  will  continue  to  endorse  this  very  cost-effective  program, 
which  leverages  large  amounts  of  private  capital  with  scarce  tax 
dollars . 

Finally,  and  most  dear  to  me  after  a  ten-year  struggle  to 
include  it  in  the  national  Wild  and  Scenic  Rivers  System,  is  the 
Farmington  River  in  my  district.   As  part  of  the  enabling 
legislation.  Public  Law  103-313,  a  citizens'  committee  was  formed  to 
guide  the  wild  and  scenic  program  and  help  oversee  the  long-term 
protection,  conservation,  and  enhancement  of  the  designated  segment. 

An  active  member  of  the  Farmington  River  Coordinating  Committee 
is  the  National  Park  Service,  ably  staffed  by  its  Boston  office.   In 
order  to  fund  the  FRCC's  operations  and  Park  Service  staff 
involvement  for  FY  1997,  the  Park  Service's  annual  operating  budget 
must  reflect  a  line  item  of  approximately  $100,000.   In  view  of  the 
important  work  of  the  Coordinating  Committee,  and  the  relatively 
meager  amount  of  funding  needed  for  its  success,  I  urge  the  committee 
to  approve  this  sum.   I  also  ask  unanimous  consent  that  a  letter  that 
I  recently  received  from  the  Park  Service  on  this  subject  be  included 
in  the  record. 

On  behalf  of  the  people  of  my  Connecticut  district,  I  thank  you 
for  giving  me  this  opportunity  to  present  my  views. 


91 


United  States  Department  of  the  Interior 

NATIONAL  PARK  SERVICE 

Nortiheast  Field  Area 

U.  S.  CustoB  House 

200  Chestnut  Street 

Philadelphia,  Pennsylvsmia  19106 


March  27,  1996 

(FDO.B-PDE) 

Honorable  Nancy  L.  Johnson 
House  of  Representatives 
Washington,  D.C.  20515 

Dear  Ms.  Johnson; 

Thank  you  for  your  letter  of  March  5,  1996,  regarding  the  status  of 
funding  for  the  Farmington  wild  and  Scenic  River.   As  you  mention  in 
your  letter,  this  river  is  administered  cooperatively  by  the  National 
Park  Service  and  local  interests  using  a  nontraditional  approach  which 
emphasizes  local  resp>onsibility  for  river  conservation.   In  accordance 
with  the  Upper  Farmington  River  Management  Plan  and  the  designation 
legislation  (P.L.  103-313,  8/94),  routine  management  of  the  river  is 
the  responsibility  of  the  Farmington  River  Coordinating  Committee 
(FRCC).   The  FRCC's  duties  include  the  implementation  of  the 
Management  Plan,  public  education,  and  oversight  of  State  and  local 
activities  that  could  affect  the  Farmington 's  unique  characteristics. 

The  National  Park  Service's  responsibilities  include  participation  as 
a  member  of  the  FRCC  and  implementation  of  Section  7  of  the  Wild  and 
Scenic  Rivers  Act   (i.e.  oversight  of  Federal  activities  that  could 
affect  the  river  or  its  outstanding  resources).   In  addition,  the 
designation  legislation  directs  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  acting 
through  the  National  Park  Service,  to  offer  to  enter  into  cooperative 
agreements  with  the  various  members  of  the  FRCC.  According  to  this 
legislation,  such  agreements  may  include  provision  for  financial  and 
technical  assistance  to  facilitate  the  long-term  protection, 
conservation,  and  enhancement  of  the  designated  segment. 

As  your  letter  suggests,  the  appropriate  and  anticipated  means  of 
funding  both  the  FRCC's  operations  and  National  Park  Service's  staff 
involvement  is  through  a  line  item  in  the  National  Park  Service's 
annual  operating  budget,  or  "ONPS."  Without  this  funding,  the 
Farmington  designation  represents  an  unfunded  mandate  to  the  NPS  —  a 
situation  unaccepteOile  to  all  involved. 

I  applaud  and  will  do  all  I  can  to  support  your  efforts  to  provide 
funding  for  the  Farmington.  In  addition,  the  "value  added"  to  the 
project's  likelihood  of  long-term  success  through  the  mobilization  of 


92 


state  and  local  support  for  the  FRCC  should  not  be  ignored.   We 
encourage  all  who  care  about  the  river  and  its  resources  to  work  with 
us  in  developing  new  approaches  to  river  conservation  that  build  on 
local  initiative  rather  than  depending  on  Federal  support. 

Thank  you  for  your  continued  interest  and  support  of  the  National  Park 
Service. 


0Lrv^ 


gLw- 


Marie  Rust 
Field  Director 


93 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
GUAM'S  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR  PRIORITIES 

WITNESS 

HON.   ROBERT  A.  UNDERWOOD,  A  REPRESENTATIVE   IN  CONGRESS 
FROM  THE  TERRITORY  OF  GUAM 

Mr.  Regula.  The  gentleman  from  Guam. 

Mr.  Underwood.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  good  morning 
to  you.  Thank  you  for  allowing  me  to  testify  on  Guam's  priorities 
for  Fiscal  Year  1997  appropriations  for  the  Department  of  Interior. 

For  many  years  now,  Guam  has  not  requested  any  special  assist- 
ance from  this  committee.  Today  I'm  requesting  what  Guam  has 
basically  consistently  requested  for  a  decade,  that  is.  Federal  reim- 
bursement for  the  educational  and  social  costs  of  immigration  to 
Guam  due  to  the  Compacts  of  Free  Association,  as  authorized  in 
Public  Law 

Mr.  Regula.  This  is  what  we  discussed  in  the  past;  right? 

Mr.  UNDERWOOD  [continuing].  Yes,  we  have,  right — 992-39.  I'm 
pleased  that  the  President's  Fiscal  Year  1997  request  includes 
$4.58  million  for  compact  impact  reimbursement.  I  know  that  this 
has  been  crafted,  this  compromise  has  been  crsifted,  with  your  sup- 
port, with  Mr.  Yates'  support,  and  I'm  very  appreciative  of  the  sup- 
port that  you  have  given  to  it,  as  we've  worked  this  process  in  con- 
ference for  Fiscal  Year  1996. 

I  want  to  just,  for  the  record,  emphasize  that  basically  what 
we're  talking  about  here  is  unrestricted  immigration  that  is  en- 
tirely legal.  It's  a  new  category  of  people  called  habitual  residents, 
and  the  fact  that  they're  able  to  come  in  huge  numbers  to  Guam 
has  led  to  a  number  of  social  and  educational  costs  which  is  au- 
thorized for  reimbursement. 

I  would  also  like  to  ask  if  the  record  could  be  kept  open  for  per- 
haps a  statement  from  the  governor. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection. 

Mr.  Underwood.  Okay,  thank  you. 

And  on  one  national  program,  as  a  former  member  of  the  Guam 
Review  Board  for  Historic  Preservation,  I'd  like  to  express  my  sup- 
port and  appreciation  for  your  support  of  the  Historical  Preserva- 
tion Trust  Fund.  It's  a  kind  of  program  that  I've  been  personally 
interested  in  for  the  past  couple  of  decades.  Just  to  reiterate  the 
point,  Guam  hasn't  for  the  past  10  years  requested  any  kind  of  spe- 
cial funding  for  its  operations  or  anything;  it's  just  looking  for  reim- 
bursement for  costs  that  have  already  been  expended. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thanks  for  coming. 

Mr.  Underwood.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Underwood  follows:] 


94 


CONGRESSMAN  ROBERT  A.  UNDERWOOD 

STATEMENT  ON  THE  FY  97  INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS 

APRIL  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Committee: 

Thank  you  for  allowing  me  to  testify  on  Guam's  priorities  for  the 
Fiscal  Year  1997  appropriations  for  the  Department  of  the  Interior. 

For  many  years  now  Guam  has  not  requested  any  special  assistance 
from  this  committee,  and  today  I  am  requesting  what  Guam  has 
consistently  requested  for  ten  years — federal  reimbursement  for  the 
educational  and  social  costs  of  the  immigration  to  Guam  due  to  the 
Compact  of  Free  Association,  as  authorized  in  Public  Law  99-239. 

I  am  pleased  that  the  President's  Fiscal  Year  1997  request  includes 
$4.58  million  for  Compact- impact  reimbursement.  This  funding  is 
contingent  on  statutory  changes  that  have  been  included  in  the 
appropriations  conference  report  for  Interior  for  FY  96. 

I  support  the  compromises  that  were  agreed  to  in  conference  for  the 
Department  of  the  Interior  for  FY  96  regarding  downsizing  the 
Office  of  Insular  Affairs,  and  I  hope  that  the  Committee  will 
continue  to  view  this  compromise  as  good  policy.  I  would  be 
concerned  about  any  effort  to  abolish  the  Office  of  Insular  Affairs 
without  providing  for  the  needs  of  the  territories  in  areas  such  as 
technical  assistance. 

Again,  I  wish  to  emphasize  Guam's  priority — reimbursement  for  the 
costs  of  immigration  due  to  the  Compact  of  Free  Association.  The 
amount  in  the  President's  budget,  $4.58  million,  represents  a 
minimum  reimbursement  to  Guam. 

Chairman  Young,  Chairman  Gallegly,  Ranking  Member  Miller  and 
Ranking  member  Faleomavaega  joined  me  in  sending  a  letter  on  March 
6,  1996  to  Secretary  Babbitt  requesting  an  updated  report  to 
Congress  on  the  impact  of  the  Compact  on  Guam  and  other  U.S.  areas. 
This  information  will  help  Congress  to  continue  our  progress  in 
addressing  this  issue  and  we  hope  that  the  Secretary's  report 
details  the  full  amount  of  costs  that  should  be  reimbursed  to  Guam. 


95 

(Congifss  o(  tljf  (Unitfl)  States 

jai.isliingion.  DC  20:M.'^ 
March  6,  1996 

The  Honorable  Bruce  Babbitt 
Secretary  of  the  Interior 
U.S.  Department  of  Interior 
1849  C  Street  NW 
Washington.  DC  20240 

Dear  Seaetary  Babbitt, 

We  are  writing  to  urge  the  Department  of  Interior  to  issue  an  updated  report  on  the 
impact  of  the  Compact  of  Free  Association  as  required  by  Public  Law  99-239. 

As  you  know,  section  104(e)(2)  of  P.L  99-239  requires  that  this  report  be  subnu'tted 
annually  and  that  it  detail  the  impact  of  the  Compact  on  U.S.  areas.  In  addition,  this  report 
is  to  recommend  ways  in  which  these  consequences  can  be  eliminated.  We  are  aware  of  the 
efforts  of  the  Department  of  Interior  to  acquire  reh'able  data  for  this  report  and  we  urge  you 
to  continue  to  dialogue  with  the  Government  of  Guam  to  develop  mutually  acceptable 
methodology  for  assessing  Compact-impact. 

A  report  from  the  Department  of  Interior  would  be  helpful  as  Congress  continues 
to  consider  the  policy  issues  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  Compact  and  Guam's 
request  for  reimbursement  of  educational  and  social  costs  incurred  as  a  result  of  the 
Compact.   Thank  you  for  your  consideration.   We  look  forward  to  your  reply. 


Sincerely, 


GEORGE  MILLER 
Ranking  Member 
Committee  on  Resources 


H/FALEOMAVAEGA 

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

Native  American  and  Insular  Affairs  Native  Anerican  and  Insular  Affairs 


(J 


ROBERT  A.  UNDERWOOD 
Member  of  Congress 


^  96 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

QUINEBAUG  AND  SHETUCKET  RIVERS  NATIONAL 
HERITAGE  CORRIDOR 

WITNESS 

HON.  SAM  GEJDENSON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CONNECTICUT 

Mr.  Regula.  Sam? 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I'll  be  brief,  and  I  appreciate  you 
making  time  for  us. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  put  the  statement  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  Yes,  thank  you.  I  just  want  to  say  you've  been 
terrific  on  this  issue,  and  I  know  you're  trying  to  do  a  Heritage 
Corridor  in  your  area. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  I  think  we've  finally  got  the  Park  Service  on  our 
side  for  the  concept;  just  as  the  Smithsonian  now  recognizes  that 
it  needs  to  help  establish  centers  around  the  country,  it's  the  same 
thing  with  this.  Not  everybody's  going  to  get  to  the  wonderful  Na- 
tional Parks  that  are  such  a  great  asset.  We're,  frankly,  having 
great  cooperation  from  the  Interior  Department.  The  local  people 
have  just  done  a  fantastic  job;  they're  staying  within  your  appro- 
priation limits.  We've  just  got  $75,000,  and  they're  waiting;  if  the 
budget  goes  through,  they'll  get  the  rest.  The  administration  has 
requested  $200,000  for  the  next 

Mr.  Regula.  That  means  you'll  help  us  on  the  omnibus  bill,  so 
we  can  get  the  thing  out  of  the  way? 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  Well,  it  makes  sense.  I  mean,  it's  just  such  a 
good  product  for  everybody.  We  talk  about  decentralizing  things 
and  getting  cooperation.  I  just  want  to  tell  one  story  I  may  have 
told  before,  but  I  like  telling  it  because  it  shows  how  smart  I  am. 

We  started  talking  about  this  Heritage  Corridor  area,  old  factory 
mills  and  some  of  the  colonial  settings;  we've  got  the  place  George 
Washington  met  Lafayette  and  the  old  mills  and  the  rivers,  and  all 
that  stuff,  and  just  great  stuff.  So  they're  about  to  do  their  first 
walking  weekend  through  this  area,  and  they  come  and  they  show 
me  their  plan.  You  know,  I  have  59  towns  and  I  think  I've  got  like 
53  now;  about  25  of  them  really  fit  in  this  Heritage  Corridor,  and 
that's  what's  in  there.  So  in  25  towns,  really  rural  eastern  Con- 
necticut, some  of  these  towns,  2,000,  3,000  people,  they've  got,  I 
think,  52  walks,  and  I'm  thinking  to  myself  this  is  a  disaster.  I 
mean,  these  people  are  going  to  be 


Mr.  Regula.  Fifty-two  separate- 


Mr.  Gejdenson.  Separate  walks. 

Mr.  Regula  [continuing].  Organized  walks? 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  Right,  walks,  tours  of  old  buildings.  We've  got 
a  number  of  National  Register — Prudence  Crandall  house,  you 
know,  just  incredible  old  Civil  War — pre-Civil  War  stuff. 

But  I  bite  my  tongue  because  I  figure,  you  know,  if  you  try  to 
manage  everjrthing  from  Washington,  you're  going  to  undercut 
their  ability  to  do  their  own  creative  work,  and  so  knowing  it's 
going  to  be — I  just  shut  up  because  they've  got  to  learn.  They'll  find 


97 

they  were  too  ambitious,  and  next  year  they'll  cut  back.  Every  one 
of  these  was  almost  oversolicited.  I  mean,  it  was  just  astounding. 

You  know,  we  grew  up  with  so  much  rural  access,  and  then  all 
of  a  sudden  it  disappeared;  people  bought  it;  people  got  worried 
about  getting  sued;  developers  did  some  of  it.  People  just  poured 
out.  Each  year  they've  expanded  it,  and  I  get  to  do  three  or  four 
different  ones.  It's  good  politics,  obviously,  but  I  love  to  go  places 
you  normally  don't  get  to  see.  They're  doing  a  great  job. 

Mr.  Regula.  What's  the  length  of  your  corridor  totally? 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  Well,  I  think  it's  about  an  hour's  drive,  about 
60  miles  long.  It's  two  industrial  river  valleys,  and  the  great  thing 
is — I  don't  know  about  where  you  are — we've  abandoned  the  rivers. 
I  mean,  you  go  down  those  rivers;  you  think  you're  in  Montana 
without  the  Freemen  [laughter].  Because  the  rivers  were  so  pol- 
luted during  that  early  industrial  era  people  would  build  a  gor- 
geous home  facing  the  highway  rather  than  facing  a  gorgeous  bend 
in  the  river.  It's  back  far  enough — you  know,  you  go  through  places 
like  Willamanek  which  are  old  and  sometimes  beat-up  industrial 
communities;  you  can't  see  anything  but  gorgeous 

Mr.  Regula.  I  presume  that  the  result  of  the  corridor  is  that  the 
river  is  getting  cleaned  up. 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  The  river  is  getting  cleaned  up.  People  are  turn- 
ing land  over  to  open  space  in  the  corridor.  Even  the  Highway  De- 
partment, generally  an  enemy  of  access,  redid  an  intersection  in 
one  of  the  towns  which  nobody  could  get  to  the  river  because  the 
intersection  made  it  impossible.  We  redid  it.  We  now  have  a  park 
along  the  riverside  there  which  I  don't  think  people  have  been  to 
in  a  hundred  years  because  there  was  no  physical  way  to  get  there 
without  darting  across  the  road. 

In  Norwich  we  have  a  place  called  Uncus  Leap,  where  the  legend 
is  that  the  British  were  chasing  Uncus,  who  was  a  Mohegan,  not 
the  last  of  the  Mohicans,  which  is  upstate  New  York,  but  the  Mo- 
hegans  in  our  area;  that  he  leapt  off  this  great  rock  into  the  water 
to  safety.  I  never  took  my  kids  there.  It  was  overgrown.  You 
couldn't  get  there.  You  didn't  know  what  was  private  or  public 
property.  The  company  that  owned  about  10  acres  around  it 
cleaned  it  up.  Local  bulldozer  guys  came  in,  just  volunteered — you 
know,  this  could  have  been  a  $100,000  contract,  if  we  tried  to  do 
it  the  old  way.  I  don't  think  it  cost  them  $50. 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  the  beauty  of  the  corridors,  and  we're  trying 
to  get  one  in  my  district,  as  a  matter  of  fact;  you  get  the  local  in- 
volvement. 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  Right,  and  they're  not  looking  for  a  big  pay- 
check or  a  fee  to  do  it.  They're  volunteers  that  make  it  work. 

We've  now  got  canoe  trips  in  places  that  you  couldn't  get  down 
the  rivers.  It's  just  great,  and  great  for  the  people.  The  kids  come 
out. 

We  had  Secretary  Kennedy  who  came  up  and  we  did  the 
Willamanek  River.  There  must  have  been  500  canoes  there.  Of 
course,  we  were  out  front.  I  thought,  again,  of  this  nice  quiet  elder- 
ly man,  you  know;  he's  not  that  quiet,  but  he's  up  there  in  years, 
and  he  says,  "Do  you  know  how  to  canoe?" 

I  said,  "Yes,  I've  canoed.  So  I'll  take  the  back." 

He  said,  "Sure." 


98 

He  had  apparently  been  part— well,  his  family  owned  some 
canoe-trekking  operation.  We  took  off  and  I  was  exhausted  by  the 
time  we  got  to  the  end. 

But  it's  a  wonderful 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  suspend  for  a  couple  of  minutes 

Mr.  Gejdenson.  Thank  you.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Gejdenson  follows:] 


99 


WASHINGTON  OFFtCE 

24TS  Ravsukn  BuiUmmC 

Wasm**oton.  DC  20S1S 

1707)  235-2076 

OCSTBlCT  OfFKXS: 
'>4  Wist  Mam  ST«crr 

■cMtwo*.  CT  oeaeo 

(703)  886-019 

94  Comrr  Snarr 

MooifTOWM.  CT  00457 

t203)3i«-n73 


SAM  GEJDENSON 

TOOlSTBlCT 
CONNECTtCUT 


COMMnru  o-  fUaouMCKs 


CongresiSi  of  t\)t  ®niteli  ^tatti 

^ouse  of  3^epregentatibes 

(Eaasbington,  1B€  20515  """"""-""^ 

statement   of   Representative  houu o»f n^U 

S2un  Gejdenson 

Concerning  the 

Qulnebaug  and  Shetucket  Rivers 

National  Heritage  Corridor 

J^rll  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Ranking  Member  and  members  of  the 
Subcommittee,  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  testify  today  in 
support  of  the  request  of  the  National  Park  Service  (NFS)  for 
$200,000  for  the  Quinebaug  and  Shetucket  Rivers  National  Heritage 
Corridor  in  eastern  Connecticut.  I  greatly  appreciate  the 
Subcommittee's  support  for  funding  the  Corridor  in  Fiscal  Year 
1996. 

I  would  like  to  commend  you  Mr.  Chairman  for  your  efforts  on 
behalf  of  the  Heritage  Corridor  concept  over  the  past  several 
years.  As  you  are  well  aware,  this  innovative  approach  can  assist 
local  communities  in  protecting  and  promoting  a  wide  range  of 
nationally  significant  resources.  Land  remains  in  local  ownership 
and  local  governments  and  residents  retain  full  authority  over  all 
zoning  and  land-use  decisions.  Federal  involvement  is  usually 
limited  to  providing  technical  assistance  and  a  small  amount  of 
funding  to  help  local  entities  meet  their  goals.  While  federal 
assistance  is  limited,  it  is  vitally  important  because  entities 
such  as  the  Park  Service  have  expertise  in  the  areas  of  historic 
preservation,  planning,  recreational  development  and  interpretation 
which  can  not  be  equalled  at  the  local  and  state  level.  Federal 
funds  work  to  leverage  state,  local  and  private  resources  which 
often  significantly  exceed  the  federal  contribution. 

The  Quinebaug  and  Shetucket  National  Heritage  Corridor  is  one 
of  four  in  the  nation.  Designated  in  November,  1994,  it  covers  25 
towns  in  eastern  Connecticut  stretching  from  Thompson  in  the  north 
to  Norwich  in  the  south.  This  area  has  a  rich  Native  American, 
colonial  and  industrial  history  as  well  as  an  incredible  variety  of 
natural  resources  and  recreational  assets.  Unlike  many  other  areas 
across  New  England,  the  history  of  the  region  remains  evident  on 
the  landscape.  The  area's  river  valleys  are  dotted  with  textile 
mills  which  fueled  the  economy  of  the  region,  and  the  nation,  for 
much  of  the  19th  and  early  20th  centuries.  The  hills  rising  above 
the  rivers  continue  to  be  covered  with  farms  and  town  greens.  Many 
of  the  mill  villages  and  town  centers  are  listed  in  the  National 
Register  of  Historic  Places  as  are  more  than  100  properties 
throughout  the  region.   The  Quinebaug  and  Shetucket  rivers  and 


THIS  STATIONEHY  PAINTED  ON  PAPJH  MADE  WITH  RECYCLED  F18ERS 


100 


their  many  tributaries  offer  a  wide  range  c3f  recreational 
opportunities  for  canoeists,  hikers,  bird  watchers  and  others.  In 
addition,  this  area  contains  some  of  the  last  large  areas  of  open 
space  and  agricultural  land  between  New  York  and  Boston. 

In  Fiscal  Year  1996,  the  Congress  has  allocated  $200,000  to 
the  Corridor  through  the  NPS.  As  I  stressed  at  the  outset  of  my 
testimony.  Heritage  Corridors  are  locally-based  initiatives.  In 
keeping  with  this  premise,  the  Park  Service  is  in  the  process  of 
transferring  these  funds  to  the  recently  formed  non-profit 
Quinebaug-Shetucket  Heritage  Corridor  Corporation.  Unlike  previous 
Heritage  Corridors,  the  Quinebaug  and  Shetucket  does  not  have  a 
federally-appointed  commission  charged  with  developing  and 
implementing  a  management  plan.  As  a  result,  a  group  of  dedicated 
local  residents,  who  have  been  working  in  support  of  the  Corridor 
for  more  than  6  years,  has  estciblished  a  non-profit  entity  which 
will  serve  some  of  the  functions  of  a  commission.  By  transferring 
these  funds  to  the  Corporation,  the  Service  is  demonstrating  a 
commitment  to  getting  resources  to  the  local  level  where  I  believe 
they  can  be  most  effective.  It  is  important  to  note  the  Corridor 
Corporation  must  match  the  federal  contribution  on  a  dollar- for- 
dollar  basis. 

The  Park  Service  and  the  local  group  have  developed  a  detailed 
work  plan  which  will  guide  their  actions  over  the  remainder  of  the 
year.  This  plan  will  help  us  achieve  the  goals  of  the  legislation 
establishing  the  Corridor  and  ensure  we  derive  the  greatest  benefit 
from  federal,  state  and  local  financial  contributions.  The  work 
plan  focuses  on  developing  an  overall  management  plan  for  the 
region  which  will  identify  historic,  culture  and  natural  resources, 
suggest  methods  to  protect  these  assets,  and  develop  and 
disseminate  an  interpretive  vision  of  the  region.  In  addition,  the 
strategy  developed  by  the  Service  and  local  partners  calls  for 
providing  a  series  of  small  grants  to  support  local  projects  which 
contribute  to  Corridor  development . 

It  is  important  to  note  the  Park  Service  is  only  making  a 
portion  of  the  $200,000  allocation  available  to  the  Corporation  in 
accordance  with  directions  from  the  Appropriations  Committee. 
Provided  total  funding  in  the  National  Recreation  and  Preservation 
account  in  the  final  version  of  the  FY  1996  continuing  resolution 
equals  the  level  provided  in  conference  report  104-402,  the  Park 
Service  will  allocate  the  remaining  funds  prior  to  the  end  of  the 
Fiscal  Year. 

I  urge  the  Subcommittee  to  provide  $200,000  for  this  important 
effort  in  FY  1997.  This  level  is  authorized  by  the  statute  which 
designated  the  Corridor  --  Public  Law  103-449  --  and  has  been 
requested  by  the  Park  Service.  The  law  also  requires  local 
entities  to  equally  match  any  federal  contribution.  The  new 
Corporation  is  actively  working  to  raise  matching  funds  and  the 
state  and  local  governments  are  making  important  financial  and  in- 
kind  contributions  as  well. 


101 


I  appreciate  your  willingness  to  consider  my  request.  The 
Quinebaug  and  Shetucket  Rivers  National  Heritage  Corridor  will 
allow  us  to  preserve,  protect  and  promote  a  wide  range  of 
nationally  significant  resources  in  the  eastern  United  States.  I 
look  forward  to  working  with  the  Subcommittee  on  this  issue  in  the 
coming  months . 


102 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
NATIONAL  FISH  AND  WILDLIFE  FOUNDATION 

WITNESS 

HON.   PETE  GEREN,  A  REPRESENTATIVE   IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  TEXAS 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  your  statement  will  be  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Geren.  All  right,  thank  you  very  much. 

I  appear  today  on  behalf  of  the  National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foun- 
dation, which  is  an  organization  created  by  Congress  and 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Geren  [continuing].  One  that's  been  funded  over  the  years. 
We  have  in  the  Sportsmen's  Caucus  had  an  opportunity  to  work 
with  them  some.  In  fact,  they  made  a  presentation  to  us  yesterday, 
and  they're  really  doing  excellent  work  around  the  country.  Where 
so  many  of  the  groups  that  have  tried  to  build  habitat  for  fish  and 
wildlife — ^you  tend  to  have  groups  that  gravitate  toward  the  ex- 
tremes, and  you  have  the  far  right  and  the  far  left  fight.  The  Fish 
and  Wildlife  Foundation  has  done  a  great  job  really  in  finding  mid- 
dle ground  and  bringing  people  together  and  have  come  up  with 
some  very  innovative  initiatives  that  have  brought  tremendous 
amount  of  private  resources  to  bear.  They've  gotten  groups  to  co- 
operate. They've  gotten  farmers  to  cooperate  with  environmental- 
ists. They've  gotten  cities  and  water  districts  to  cooperate  with  en- 
vironmentalists and  had  some  very  innovative  projects. 

Another  very  appealing  part  of  what  they  do,  the  law  under  the 
congressional  guidelines  requires  a  $1  match  for  every  dollar  of 
Federal  funds.  They  operate  with  a  $2-plus  match.  So  for  every  dol- 
lar that  you  appropriate 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes.  Curt  Weldon  was  here  and  made  the  case. 

Mr.  Geren  [continuing].  They  put  over  $3  actually  into  conserva- 
tion. So  it's  a  way  to  stretch  Federal  dollars  in  the  environmental 
area. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Geren.  And  certainly  that's  important,  but  I  think  really 
where  they  are  making  their  mark  is  bringing  together  previously 
competing  groups.  In  the  Mississippi  Delta,  for  example,  working 
with  rice  farmers,  historically  opponents  of  the  environmental 
movement,  they  come  up  with  some  programs  where  the  farmers 
can  manage  their  rice  fields  during  the  winter  months  in  a  way 
that  supports  the  migratory  waterfowl.  They've  shown  how  that 
saves  money  for  these  farmers.  So  the  Rice  Foundation  is  now  put- 
ting money  into  this  effort,  and  some  of  these  farmers,  that  have 
over  the  years  fought  any  environmental  initiative,  actually  have 
realized  that  this  makes  sense. 

So  it's  a  group  that  is  very  innovative  in  its  approach,  brought 
a  lot  of  creative  thinking,  and  has  found  some  middle  ground  in 
working  with  previously  warring  parties,  that  I  think  most  folks 
never  knew  existed.  I  think  it's  a  great  group  and  a  great  way  to 
stretch  Federal  dollars  as  well. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  do  the  best  we  can. 

Mr.  Geren.  All  right.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  appreciate  it. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Geren  follows:] 


103 


STATEMENT  OF 

THE  HONORABLE  PETE  GEREN 

BEFORE  THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR  AND  RELATED  AGENCIES 

APRIL  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank  you  for  the 
opportunity  to  appear  before  you  today.   I  am  testifying  on 
behalf  of  the  National  Pish  and  Wildlife  Foxmdation  and  urge  you 
to  fund  them  at  the  $6  million  requested  as  part  of  the  Pish  and 
Wildlife  Service  budget. 

Yesterday,  the  National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation  made  a 
presentation  before  the  Congressional  Sportsmen's  Caucus.   As  you 
may  know,  I  have  the  honor  to  co- chair  the  Caucus  with  Don  Young 
of  Alaska.   The  Caucus,  a  bipartisan  group  dedicated  to 
protecting  the  rights  of  Americans  to  pursue  outdoor  activities, 
boasts  204  members  in  the  House  and  47  in  the  Senate. 

During  this  presentation,  the  Foundation  arranged  for  a  few  of 
the  groups  that  they  have  worked  with  to  talk  about  projects 
dealing  with  wildlife  management.   Without  the  help  and  support 
of  the  Foundation,  these  organizations  would  never  have  been  able 
to  engage  in  these  important  projects.   I  will  provide  some 
detail  of  these  types  of  projects  later  in  my  testimony;  however, 
I  first  want  to  talk  in  general  about  the  value  of  supporting  the 
work  of  the  Foundation. 

I  commend  this  Subcommittee  for  the  excellent  work  that  they  have 
done  to  trim  government  spending.   I  know  your  task  has  not  been 
easy,  but  I  applaud  your  commitment  to  balancing  our  federal 
budget.   In  light  of  your  efforts  to  balance  our  budget,  I  think 
programs  like  the  National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation  are 
extremely  valuable  because  of  the  private  dollars  they  use  to 
leverage  federal  tax  dollars. 

The  Foundation  delivers  over  $3  of  on  the  ground  conservation  for 
every  $1  appropriated  to  it  by  this  Subcommittee.   They  stretch 
scare  federal  funds  to  promote  natural  resource  conservation  and 
management  further  than  any  other  organization  that  I  am  aware 
of.   In  these  times  of  shrinking  budgets,  we  can  deliver  more 
through  support  of  the  Foundation  than  through  other  sources. 

Additionally,  the  Foundation  works  in  partnership  with  the 
private  sector  to  develop  the  best  solutions  to  properly  manage 
our  natural  resources.   This  is  a  welcome  change  to  the 
Washington  knows  best  mentality  of  many  government  programs  in 
this  area. 

Finally,  the  Foundation  has  worked  closely  with  many  sportsmen's 


104 


organizations  around  our  nation.   Sportsmen  were  the  first  true 
conservationists  in  this  country  and  continue  to  put  their  money 
where  there  mouth  is  to  support  conservation  of  our  natural 
resources.   The  Foundation,  through  its  programs,  have  brought 
these  sportsmen  groups  together  with  environmental  groups  for 
work  on  projects  of  mutual  interest.   Whether  its  working  with 
Ducks  Unlimited  and  proponents  of  song  birds,  or  the  Rocky 
Mountain  Elk  Foundation  and  proponents  of  endangered  species,  the 
Foundation's  hallmark  has  been  to  design  projects  supported  by 
both  constituencies. 

Let  me  close  by  giving  you  some  examples  of  the  fine  work  of  the 
Foundation  in  my  own  state  of  Texas.   In  Texas,  the  Foundation 
has  funded  over  80  projects,  stretching  $4  million  in  federal 
funds  to  almost  $16  million  of  on  the  ground  conservation.   Some 
of  these  projects  have  included: 

The  High  Island  Sanctuary,  one  of  the  most  important 
migratory  bird  landing  areas  in  the  country.   This  is 
the  location  where  migratory  birds  come  ashore  after 
crossing  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  during  their  annual  spring 
migration  from  the  tropics.   This  project  was  done  in 
partnership  with  the  petroleum  industry  and  local 
environmental  groups. 

A  Partners  for  Wildlife  program  that  helped  create  and 
manage  75,000  acres  of  wetlands  on  private  lands. 

A  program  with  the  Rice  Producers  Federation  to 
encourage  rice  farmers  to  manage  their  lands  for 
wintering  habitat  for  migratory  waterfowl. 

The  Foundation  does  not  engage  in  advocacy  or  litigation.   Their 
grants  are  designed  to  draw  participants  into  cooperative 
solutions,  and  specifically  prohibit  funding  advocacy  and 
litigation. 

With  this  in  mind,  I  strongly  urge  you  to  support  the  work  of 
this  organization  and  fully  fund  them  in  the  Fish  and  Wildlife 
Service  at  the  Administration  request  of  $6  million. 

I  appreciate  your  consideration  and  the  opportunity  to  appear 
before  you  today. 


105 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
ALLEGHENY  NATIONAL  FOREST 
ACID  MINE  DRAINAGE  CLEANUP 
WITNESS 

HON.  WILLJAM  F.  CLINGER,  JR.,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Mr.  Schumer? 

[No  response.] 

Mr.  Regula.  He's  not  here. 

Bill?  We'll  put  your  statement  in  the  record. 

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

Mr.  Regula.  If  you'll  summarize,  it  will  help. 

Mr.  Clinger.  I  sure  will. 

The  first  thing  I  really  wanted  to  bring  to  your  attention  is  a 
budget  problem,  and  one  that  is,  I  think,  causing  some  problems 
not  just  in  my  neck  of  the  woods,  but  in  a  number  of  areas,  which 
is  the  FA&O  fire,  administrative,  and  other  construction  appropria- 
tion level,  which  has  been  pretty  low  over  the  years.  I  gather  that 
it's  been  averaging  about  $12  million  annually  for  the  past  five 
years.  The  President  this  year  has  requested  a  cut,  to  only  do  about 
half  of  that.  It's  estimated  at  about,  there's  a  need  to  really  deal 
with  the  project  and  maintenance  backlog  created  by  the  under- 
funding  of  the  FA&O  account,  would  be  about  $29  million. 

Mr.  Regula.  There's  no  question  that  all  these  maintenance 
needs  are  real. 

Mr.  Clinger.  Are  really  hurting. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  an  easy  thing  to  put  off. 

Mr.  Clinger.  The  one  thing  that  really  does  seem  to  be  sort  of 
counterproductive,  right  now  there's  a  limit,  and  I  guess  it's  been 
there  for  some  time,  on  minor  facility  construction  of  $100,000.  In 
talking  with  the  Forest  Service  in  my  area,  they  would  like  to  see 
that  increase  because  what  they  are  faced  with.  They're  downsizing 
and  they're  trying  to  combine  two  facilities  that  presently  are 
there,  but  with  that  limitation  on  it,  they're  going  to  really  have 
difficulty  combining.  The  ultimate  savings  would  probably  be  about 
$2  million,  if  they  were  able  to  combine  those,  but  because  of  the 
arbitrary  figure  of  $100,000,  they  can't  do  that.  So  if  that  could  be 
increased,  it  might  ultimately  result  in  a  savings,  if  the  thing  could 
be  increased. 

I  would  just  mention  briefly  three  projects  for  the  Forest  Service 
since  the  Allegheny  National  Forest  is  entirely  within  my  district, 
so  obviously,  that's  my  main  pitch.  In  priority,  the  first  priority 
would  be  $150,000  for  what  is  called  the  Willow  Bay  Recreation 
Area.  This  is  the  fourth  phase  of  that  project.  This  would  finish  the 
thing.  It  would  include  campgrounds,  road  improvement,  campsite 
rehabilitation 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  you  get  heavy  multiple  use? 

Mr.  Clinger.  A  lot,  yes.  We  did  a  very  major 

Mr.  Regula.  Because  you're  close  to  population  centers. 


106 

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

Mr.  Regula.  Something  that  people  don't  recognize  is  that  the 
National  Forests  are  really 

Mr.  Clinger.  Major  recreation  areas. 

Mr.  Regula.  They  really  are. 

Mr.  Clinger.  And  this  is  the  only  National  Forest  in  Pennsylva- 
nia. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  there  any  harvesting  that  takes  place  there? 

Mr.  Clinger.  Yes,  yes,  we  do — we  have  the  finest  stand  of  black 
cherry  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  they  doing  a  good  job  of  regeneration? 

Mr.  Clinger.  Regenerating  it.  It  makes  money  for  the  Grovem- 
ment.  We  really  do  quite  well. 

The  two  other  requests  would  be  $112,000  for  a  Hearts  Content 
Campground  and  $150,000  for  a  Rimrock  Recreation  Area,  but  in 
that  priority  consideration. 

The  only  final  thing  I  would  mention  is  the  Office  of  Surface 
Mining's  Appalachian  Clean  Streams  Initiative.  I  understand  that 
the  Little  Toby  Creek  is  one  of  12  clean  stream  projects  that  have 
been  developed  in  eight  States  to  deal  with  issues  of  stream  pollu- 
tion from  acid  drainage.  I  would  submit  a  request  that  that  might 
be  considered. 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  the  States  doing  some  effort  there,  too? 

Mr.  Clinger.  They  are,  indeed,  yes.  So  this  is  a  joint  effort. 

Mr.  Regula.  We're  sure  paying  the  price  for  our  carelessness  in 
years  past,  aren't  we? 

Mr.  Clinger.  Unbelievable.  I  mean  we're  really  paying  and  pay- 
ing for  the  past. 

Mr.  Regula.  We  heard  testimony  on  the  Everglades,  $1.5  billion. 

Mr.  Clinger.  I  know. 

Mr.  Regula.  If  we  had  just 

Mr.  Clinger.  Realized  what  we  were — the  hole  we  were  digging 
ourselves  into. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  know. 

Mr.  Clinger.  Anyway,  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Clinger  follows:] 


107 


CHAIMMAN 
GOVERNMENT  REFORK^ 
(2021225-5121  ^    ^BIIK.'  Qt  AND  OVERSIGHT 


2™'1_  Congregg  of  tf)f  Bniteli  ^tateg 

".rr^/i;,^" '  l^ousc  of  iRtprcscntatitots  so,.'«^^;.^;s; 

aaaashtngton,  SC  20515-3805 

Statement  of 

The  Honorable  William  F.  dinger,  Jr. 

before 

The  Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  the  Interior 

April  17,  1996 

Chairman  Regula,  Ranking  Minority  Member  Yates,  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank 
you  for  providing  me  with  the  opportunity  to  testify  today. 

I  will  briefly  discuss  one  piece  of  legislation  and  four  priority  projects  (three  of  which  are 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  Forest  Service  and  one  under  the  Office  of  Surface  Mining 
for  a  total  of  $762,000)  that  I  believe  are  worthy  of  your  support 

The  three  projects  are  located  on  the  Allegheny  National  Forest,  the  only  National  Forest  in 
Pennsylvania    The  Forest's  5 13,000  acres  lie  entirely  within  my  district,  in  the  counties  of  Elk, 
McKean,  Forest,  and  Warren.  With  nearly  one-third  of  the  nation's  population  within  a  day's  drive,  the 
Allegheny  is  one  of  the  most  heavily  used  National  Forests  in  the  United  States 

The  legislation  involves  the  dollar  limitations  on  minor  facility  construction  authority. 

Let  us  first  address  the  request  for  a  change  in  legislation    I  consider  this  to  be  a  top  priority 
for  our  consideration  and  support. 

The  level  of  funding  provided  in  the  Fire,  Administrative  and  Other  (FA&O)  construction 
appropriation  for  the  past  10  years  has  not  allowed  the  National  Forests  to  address  current  or  future 
facility  needs    For  Fiscal  Year  1997,  the  President  has  proposed  funding  of  only  $6  million  for  this 
program. 

Nationally,  FA&O  construction  flinding  has  averaged  about  SI 2  million  annually  for  the  past 
five  years.  At  this  rate,  it  would  take  an  additional  S29  million  each  year  for  the  next  ten  years  to  just 
eliminate  the  backlog  of  projects  that  lack  adequate  flinding 

In  this  time  of  budget  austerity,  I  understand  the  need  to  appropriate  dollars  with  discretion 
But  the  funding  of  FA&O  construction  at  arguably  inadequate  levels  is  actually  preventing  actions  that 
would  save  money  in  the  long  run. 

The  problem  lies  in  the  flinding  authority  level  for  minor  facility  construction  on  our  National 


108 


Forests    At  present,  there  is  a  $100,000  authority  limitation  per  minor  &cility  project  funded  by  non- 
FA&O  funds    This,  coupled  with  the  limited  amount  of  money  appropriated  under  the  FA&O 
program,  has  created  a  backlog  of  fecility  construction  needs  that  exceeds  $400  million  nationally, 
excluding  recreation  facilities. 

When  FA&O  dollars  are  so  limited,  managers  of  the  National  Forests  must  resort  to  other 
appropriated  dollars  to  address  their  most  pressing  facility  needs    In  many  cases  on  the  National 
Forests  today,  managers  have  made  organizational  decisions  to  close  offices  and  co-locate  field  units 
at  one  administrative  location 

But  as  is  the  case  with  the  Allegheny  National  Forest,  the  decision  to  combine  two  field  units 
cannot  be  implemented  because  they  do  not  have  adequate  facilities  and  because  FA&O  dollars  are  so 
difficult  to  obtain. 

On  the  Allegheny,  combining  two  field  units  into  one  will  save  about  two  million  dollars  in 
administrative  costs  over  20  years  and  improve  management  efficiencies.  If  the  minor  facility 
construction  authority  using  non-FA&O  funds  was  increased  to  $250,000,  the  Allegheny  could  move 
ahead  with  its  cost-savings,  co-location  decision    In  short,  common-sense  approaches  to  make 
operations  more  efficient  and  cost-effective  are  unable  to  be  implemented  as  a  direct  result  of  the 
stifling  authority  limit. 

I  believe  that  many  other  National  Forests  across  the  country  face  the  same  situation.  That  is 
why  I  urge  the  Committee  to  adopt  the  following  report  language: 

The  Committee  recognizes  that  construction  costs  have  escalated  considerably  during  the  late 
1980s  and  mid-1990s,  reducing  the  buying  power  of  the  minor  facility  construction  authority  limitation 
of  $100,000  per  project.   Therefore,  the  Committee  has  decided  to  increase  the  authority  limitation  to 
$250, 000  per  project.   The  Committee  expects  the  Forest  Service  to  use  this  increased  authority  and 
flexibility  as  additional  tools  to  begin  addressing  the  facility  construction  backlog. 

Administrative  Provisions.  Forest  Service: 

Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law,  any  appropriations  or  funds  available  to  the 
Forest  Service  may  be  used  to  construct  or  reconstruct  Fire,  Administrative  or  Other  facilities  and 
research  facilities:  PROVIDED,  that  $250,000  is  the  maximum  amount  per  project,  exclusive  of 
planning  and  design:  and  PROVIDED  FURTHEIR,  that  the  Forest  Service  shall  report  annually  to  the 
Committee  the  dollars  expended  per  project,  and  the  total  dollars  expended  during  each  fiscal  year. 

Moving  on  to  the  three  priority  projects,  I  respectfully  request  the  Subcommittee's  support  for 
three  recreation  facility  improvement  projects  on  the  Allegheny  National  Forest  for  Fiscal  Year  1997. 
The  requests  are  listed  in  order  of  priority: 

WILLOW  BAY  RECREATION  AREA  -  Phase  IV 

First,  my  highest  priority  of  three  projects  is  a  request  of  $1 50,000  for  Phase  FV  of  the  Willow 
Bay  Recreation  Area  Rehabilitation  Projea  which  is  is  located  on  the  northern  end  of  the  12,000-acre 
Allegheny  Reservoir,  just  below  the  New  York  state  line. 


109 


This  project  request  is  a  continuation  in  the  rehabilitation  of  this  extetjsive  recreation  area. 
Safety  is  a  major  factor,  but  the  project  will  also  improve  customer  service,  reduce  future  annual 
maintenance  needs,  reduce  backlog  maintenance,  increase  the  revenue  potential,  and  increase  viability 
for  concession  or  possible  privatization    Work  in  Phase  IV  includes  campground  road  improvement, 
campsite  rehabilitation,  some  campsite  construction,  and  construction  of  additional  parking  facilities 

HEARTS  CONTE^r^  CAMPGRC  UND 

Second,  I  am  requesting  $1 12,000  for  the  Hearts  Content  Campground  in  order  to  provide  a 
universally  accessible,  rustic  camping  experience  (currently  not  available  on  the  Forest),  eithance 
health  and  safety,  an  improve  customer  service.  This  will  open  this  very  special  type  of  camping 
experience  to  many  people  with  disabilities    The  project  is  expected  to  increase  use,  and  will  reduce 
backlog  maintenance  and  future  annual  maintenance  costs 

This  campground  receives  about  7.000  visitors  annually  With  the  proposed  improvements, 
users  will  benefit  for  nwny  years  to  come  as  restrooms  will  undergo  modenuzation,  a  failing  water 
system  will  be  replaced,  and  existing  campsites  will  be  rehabilitated  to  a  more  accessible  standard. 

RIMROCK  RECREATION  AREA 

The  Rimrock  Recreation  Area  is  the  only  scenic  area  overlooking  the  Kinzua  Aim  of  the 
Allegheny  Reservoir,  and  represents  my  third  project  request  for  $150,000. 

1 
This  project  will  also  improve  customer  service  and  safety  by  reconstructing  unsafe  wooden 
stairways  and  railings  to  the  overlook  and  by  reconstructing  a  landing,  railing,  and  path  below  the 
overlook.  It  is  essential  that  we  refurbish  and  seal  stonework  at  the  overlook  as  the  stone  is  beginiung 
to  erode  and  fall  apart,  creating  very  hazardous  conditions. 

This  facility  receives  about  5,000  visits  annually,  and  the  proposed  efforts  are  expected  to 
increase  use  and  create  safer  conditions  for  visitors.  The  backlog  maintenance  will  be  lessened,  further 
annual  maintenance  costs  will  be  reduced,  restroom  facilities  will  be  modernized,  as  well  as  accessible 
paths  to  restrooms  and  nearby  picnic  sites    The  entrance  road  will  be  chip-sealed  to  create  safer 
driving  conditions  and  preserve  the  pavement. 

LITTLE  TOBY  CREEK  -  ACID  MINE  DRAINAGE  CLEANUP 

Finally,  I  have  one  request  under  the  category  of  abandoned  mine  land  (AML)  reclamation 
programs  -  $350,000  to  clean  up  acid  mine  drainage  in  the  Little  Toby  Creek  through  the  Office 
of  Surface  Mining's  Appalachian  Clean  Streams  Initiative  (ACSI). 

Little  Toby  Creek  is  one  of  twelve  ACSI  pilot  projects  that  have  been  developed  in  eight 
states  in  coordination  with  the  International  Association  of  Fish  and  Wildlife  Agencies  and 
grassroots  coalitions.  One  such  coalition  from  my  district,  the  Toby  Creek  Watershed  Association, 
Inc.,  has  been  a  continual  driving  force  in  the  pursuit  of  cleaning  up  Little  Toby  Creek  for  nearly 
30  years.   Their  efforts  have  helped  identify  Little  Toby  Creek  as  Pennsylvania's  priority 
watershed. 


no 


Despite  their  successes,  though,  much  work  remains  to  be  done  to  restore  nearly  12  miles 
of  stream  and  improve  habitat  quality  on  an  additional  12  miles  of  stream  to  a  level  that  supports 
the  natural  reproduction  of  wild  trout  and  other  recreational  activities. 

Little  Toby  Creek  is  a  tributary  of  the  Clarion  and  Allegheny  Rivers,  and  restoration  of  this 
fast-flowing  stream  would  support  area  inclusion  into  the  Wild  and  Scenic  Rivers  System  -  an 
effort  1  strongly  support  -  and  provide  numerous  recreational  benefits. 

For  decades,  the  issue  of  stream  pollution  from  acid  drainage  has  been  recognized  as  a 
serious  problem  in  the  eastern  United  States.   Over  the  years,  many  local  programs  have  met  with 
great  success,  but  there  had  never  been  a  coordinated  effort  on  a  national  scale  with  a  primary 
focus  on  eliminating  acid  drainage  until  the  Appalachian  Clean  Streams  Initiative  was  introduced  in 
1994. 

The  Office  of  Surface  Mining's  Fiscal  Year  1997  budget  request  includes  $4.3  million  for 
the  Appalachian  Clean  Streams  Initiative  to  clean  up  streams  harmed  by  acid  mine  drainage. 
Again,  I  strongly  support  funding  this  worthwhile  program  at  a  level  that  will  make  available 
$350,000  for  Little  Toby  Creek. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee,  that  concludes  my  testimony.    I  would 
be  happy  to  respond  to  any  questions  that  you  may  have.   Again,  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to 
testify. 


Ill 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

fflSTORIC  PRESERVATION 

WITNESSES 

HON.    L.F.    PAYNE,    A    REPRESENTATIVE    IN    CONGRESS    FROM    THE 

STATE  OF  VIRGINIA 
LAVERNE    REDD    PERVALL,    MARTHA    E.    FORRESTER    COUNCIL    OF 

WOMEN 
GRACE  MOTON,  MARTHA  E.  FORRESTER  COUNCIL  OF  WOMEN 
CLARA  LIGON,  MARTHA  E.  FORRESTER  COUNCIL  OF  WOMEN 
GRACE  WARD,  MARTHA  E.  FORRESTER  COUNCIL  OF  WOMEN 

Mr.  Regula.  Let's  see,  Mr.  Payne?  Good  afternoon. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thanks  for  coming  down. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Mr.  Chairman,  Fd  like  for  some  of  my 
constituents  to  join  me  at  the  table,  if  I  might. 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  perfectly  all  right. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  We're  happy  to  have  you  here. 

Just  briefly,  this  committee  is  responsible  for  all  the  Federal 
lands,  the  forests,  parks,  grazing  lands,  and  so  on.  We  also  fund 
the  Smithsonian,  the  Kennedy  Center,  the  National  Galleries.  So 
we  have  a  wide  range  of  responsibilities,  and  we're  pleased  to  have 
your  Congressman  here  to  point  out  some  of  the  needs  in  your 
area. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  put  your  statement  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Okay,  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  And  I 
appreciate  the  opportunity  to  testify  before  you  in  this  subcommit- 
tee. 

I'm  here  not  to  ask  for  money,  but  to  ask  to  include  language  in 
the  report  accompanying  the  Interior  Appropriations  bill  for  Fiscal 
Year  1997  directing  that  the  National  Park  Service  prepare  a  study 
regarding  the  condition,  preservation,  use,  and  historic  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Robert  Russa  Moton  High  School  in  Prince  Edward 
County. 

And  I  have  with  me  today  from  Prince  Edward  County  members 
of  the  Martha  E.  Forrester  Council  of  Women.  Ms.  Laverne  Redd 
Pervall  is  with  us  today.  She  served  in  the  Prince  Edward  County 
public  school,  as  a  teacher,  administrator,  and  board  member  from 
1937  to  1990.  Ms.  Grace  Moton  is  here  with  us  today;  Ms.  Clara 
Ligon,  who  is  a  graduate,  a  1947  graduate,  of  Moton  High  School, 
and  Mrs.  Grace  Ward  who's  a  1948  graduate  of  the  Moton  School. 
And  they've  done  a  lot  of  work  on  this  project. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  this  an  empty  building  that  you  want  preserved? 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  This  is  an  empty  building  at  the  present 
time.  It  was  a  school.  It's  now  in  the  process  of  being  preserved, 
and  that's  why  we're  here  today,  to  see  how  it  is  that  we  might 
have  the  National  Park  Service  help  us  do  something  similar  to 
some  other  schools,  which  I'll  talk  about  in  just  a  second. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  This  Council  of  Women  was  featured  in 
the  January/February  issue  of  Historic  Preservation,  which  is  a 


112 

magazine  of  the  National  Trust  for  Historic  Preservation.  I've 
added,  provided  a  copy  for  that  to  be  included  in  the  record. 

And  this  council  has  a  76-year  history  of  working  in  our  commu- 
nity, recognized  the  need  for  this  school,  which  was  a  high  school 
for  the  county's  African-American  students.  They  lobbied  and  they 
got  the  school  built.  It  opened  in  1939.  It  was  the  county's  first 
high  school  building  for  African-American  students.  And  now  in 
1996,  the  council  finds  itself  leading  this  effort  to  preserve  the 
Moton  School. 

The  Moton  School  holds  a  unique  place  in  the  history  of  Ameri- 
ca's struggle  for  the  civil  rights  in  education.  The  school  was  the 
site  of  the  first,  one  of  the  first,  demonstrations  of  civil  disobe- 
dience on  April  23,  1951,  when  students  struck  in  protest  of  the  in- 
adequate and  unequal  facilities  that  existed  for  blacks  at  that  time 
in  Virginia.  This  led  to  the  court  case  Davis  v.  Prince  Edward 
County,  and  this  case,  combined  with  others  before  the  Supreme 
Court,  became  then  the  Brown  v.  Board  of  Education.  The  case 
Brown  v.  Board  of  Education  was  the  basis  for  the  landmark  deci- 
sion which  struck  down  the  separate-but-equal  doctrine  governing 
public  policy  with  regard  to  race. 

Now  in  response  to  Brown,  Moton  found  itself  a  victim  of  Vir- 
ginia's policy  of  massive  resistance.  The  strike  and  the  resulting 
Court  decision  precipitated  the  long  struggle  between  Federal 
courts  and  governments  of  both  Prince  Edward  County  and  the 
State  of  Virginia  over  desegregation  of  the  public  schools.  As  an  af- 
front to  the  Supreme  Court  decision.  Prince  Edward  County  public 
schools  closed  in  1959  rather  than  integrate  and  didn't  open  again 
until  1964. 

Precedent  exists  for  the  National  Park  Service  involvement  in 
this  project.  Of  the  five  school  systems  that  were  combined  in  the 
Brown  case,  at  least  two  have  been  protected  through  previous  con- 
gressional action.  Public  Law  102-525  provided  for  the  establish- 
ment of  Brown  v.  Board  of  Education  National  Historic  Site  which 
is  at  the  Monroe  Elementary  School  in  Topeka,  Kansas.  More  re- 
cently, language  has  included- 


Mr.  Regula.  Let  me  ask  you 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Yes? 

Mr.  Regula  [continuing].  If  this  building  were  restored,  what  do 
you  anticipate  doing  with  it?  Would  you  use  it  as  a  visitor  facility, 
a  place  people  could  visit  that  would  have  artifacts  relating  to  the 
history  of  the  building? 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Well,  as  it  related  to  the  history  of  the 
civil  rights  movement 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia  [continuing].  And  the  fact  that  this  was 
one  of  the  Brown  v.  Board  of  Education 

Mr.  Regula.  Who  would  operate  it,  if  it  were  restored? 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  It  would  be  operated  by  the  women's  or- 
ganization that  is  represented  here. 

Mr.  Regula.  Would  you  anticipate  any  Federal  cost  in  operating 
it,  once  it  was  restored? 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  At  this  time  there's  no  intended  cost  of 
Federal  funds  for  operation  nor  for  restoration. 


113 

Mr.  Regula.  What  are  we  talking  about  there?  Would  there  be 
some  State  money  and  local  money  as  an  addition  to  Federal 
money  to  do  the  restoration? 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Well,  at  the  present  time  what  we  are  at- 
tempting to  do  is  to  have  a — we  managed  to  save  the  building 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia  [continuing].  And  we  now  have  the  build- 
ing. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  What  we're  attempting  to  do  now  is  have 
this  study  done  so  that  we  can  talk  about  how  it  is  that  we  can 
best  preserve  and  maintain  this 

Mr.  Regula.  So  you  need  funding  for  a  study  on  what's  involved 
in  preserving  the  building;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  That's  correct.  And  we  need  report  lan- 
guage in  your  bill  in  order  for  the  National  Park  Service  to  do  a 
study,  not  unlike  studies  they've  done  at  at  least  two  of  the  five 
other  schools. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  you  just  want  the  language  authorizing  the  Park 
Service  to  do  the  study? 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  And  then,  with  that,  that  would  be  a  tre- 
mendous plus  in  terms  of  then  being  able  to  raise  private  funds, 
and  so  forth,  in  order  to  get  this  accomplished  in  Farmville,  Vir- 
ginia. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay.  Well,  thank  you  all  for  coming  up  here.  Do 
any  of  you  want  to  make  a  comment?  I'll  give  you  a  minute  or  two. 

Ms.  LiGON.  We  just  hope  that  we  may  save  the  building.  It's  of 
utmost  importance  to  us  who  grew  up  in  Prince  Edward  County. 
We  know  that  the  school  was  closed  for  five  years  and  the  children 
were  without  any  educational  opportunities  during  that  time.  It 
would  be  a  monument  to  what  we  have  gone  through  and  what  we 
would  like  to  have  for  the  future.  It  will  be  operated  as  a  civil 
rights  museum  and  also  as  an  educational  museum,  and,  hopefully, 
it  would  be  a  legacy  that  we  pass  on  to  our  children. 

Mr.  Regula.  Hopefully,  it  would  be  an  inspiration  to  future  gen- 
erations. 

How  many  rooms  in  this  building? 

Ms.  LiGON.  There  were  only  eight  rooms  in  the  building,  but  I 
came  from  a  two-room  school,  and  when  I  walked  into  that  build- 
ing, I  thought  I  had  walked  into  heaven.  [Laughter.] 

We  didn't  have  outdoor  toilets  there,  and  neither  did  we  have 
coal.  So  it  was  like  heaven. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  can  understand,  having  grown  up  in  a  rural  area. 

Ms.  Pervall.  There  was  an  auditorium  type  of  thing  there,  and 
we  are  thinking  in  terms  of  this  being  an  answer  to  the  Prince  Ed- 
ward community,  as  there  are  so  many  possibilities  for  this  build- 
ing that  it  could  well  be  an  effort  in  the  community  in  helping  to 
really — helping  to  cement  some  of  the  ties  accompanying  some  of 
the  problems  that  we  met. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay.  Well,  we'll  talk  to  the  Park  Service  and  see 
if  they  can  spare  some  people  to  help  you. 

Ms.  LiGON.  We  appreciate  that  very  much. 


114 

Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Mr.  Regula.  Because  once  you've  got  a  plan,  then  you  can  gen- 
erate local  community  support,  too. 
Ms.  LiGON.  Right. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thanks,  and  thanks  for  coming. 
Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia.  Thanks,  Mr.  Chairman.  Thank  you. 
[The  statement  of  Mr.  Payne  of  Virginia  follows:] 


115 


Testimony  of  Rep.  L.F.  Payne 

In  Support  of  the  Robert  Russa  Moton  High  School 
House  Interior  Appropriations  Subcommittee 
April  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman,   I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  testify 
before  your  Subcommittee  today  in  support  of  including  language 
in  the  Report  accompanying  the  FY' 97  Interior  Appropriations  bill 
which  would  direct  the  National  Park  Service  to  prepare  a  study 
regarding  the  condition,  preservation,  use,  and  historic 
interpretation  of  the  Robert  Russa  Moton  High  School  in  Prince 
Edward  County,  Virginia. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  with  me  today,  from  Farmville, 
Virginia,  members  of  The  Martha  E.  Forrester  Council  of  Women.   I 
would  like  to  introduce  them  at  this  time.   Mrs.  LaVerne  Redd 
Pervall  served  the  Prince  Edward  County  Public  Schools  as  a 
teacher,  administrator,  and  school  board  member  from  1937  to 
1990.   Ms.  Clara  Ligon  is  a  1947  graduate  of  Robert  R.  Moton  High 
School,  Mrs.  Grace  Scott  Ward  is  a  1948  graduate.   They  are  here 
today  representing  the  organizations  3  0  members  who  are  leading  a 
community  effort  to  preserve  the  Moton  School. 

Mr.  Chairman,   The  Martha  E.  Forrester  Council  of  Women  was 
featured  in  the  January/February  issue  of  Historic  Preservation, 
the  magazine  of  the  National  Trust  for  Historic  Preservation. 
The  six  page  article  chronicled  the  efforts  of  The  Council  to 
assure  the  preservation  of  the  former  Robert  Russa  Moton  High 
School.   I  include  a  copy  of  that  article  for  the  Subcommittee's 
official  record.   The  building,  which  is  listed  on  the  National 
Register  of  Historic  Places,  was  in  use  until  last  June  as  an 
elementary  school  by  the  Prince  Edward  County  Public  Schools. 
The  building  is  now  vacant  and  ownership  has  reverted  to  the 
county.   The  county,  not  having  identified  an  alternate  use  for 
the  building,  elected  to  dispose  of  it  as  surplus  property.   I  am 
happy  to  inform  you  that  the  county  government  and  The  Council 
have  now  reached  agreement  on  transfer  of  the  property  to  The 
Council  for  preservation  purposes.   It  is  The  Council's  hope  that 
the  building  will  be  converted  to  a  museum  center  for  the  study 
of  civil  rights  in  education. 

Mr.  Chairman,  The  Martha  E.  Forester  Council  of  Women  has  a 
76  year  history  of  service  to  the  Farmville  community.   From  the 
beginning  they  have  been  involved  in  improving  educational 
opportunities  for  area  students.   In  the  193  0s,  recognizing  the 
need  for  a  High  School  for  the  county's  African-American 
students.  The  Council  lobbied  local  officials  to  build  the 
school.   Prior  to  Moton' s  construction,  the  African-American  high 
school  and  elementary  school  had  been  housed  in  the  same 
building.   Moton  opened  in  1939  as  the  county's  first  high  school 
building  for  African-American  students.   The  Council  had  been 
successful  in  their  effort.   Now,  in  the  1990s,  The  Council  finds 
itself  leading  the  effort  to  preserve  Moton. 


116 


Mr.  Chairman,  the  Moton  School  holds  a  unique  place  in  the 
history  of  America's  struggle  for  civil  rights  in  education.   The 
school  was  the  site  of  one  of  the  first  demonstrations  of  civil 
disobedience  when,  on  April  23,  1951,  students  struck  in  protest 
of  the  inadequate  and  unequal  educational  facilities  that  existed 
for  blacks  at  the  time.   This  strike  led  to  the  court  case  Davis 
V.  Prince  Edward  County  School  Board.   The  case  was  combined  with 
others  before  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  as  Brown  v.  Board 
of  Education.   That  case,  as  you  know,  was  the  basis  for  the 
landmark  decision  on  May  17,  1954,  which  struck  down  the 
"separate  but  equal"  doctrine  governing  public  policy  with  regard 
to  race.   In  response  to  Brown.  Moton  later  found  itself  victim 
to  the  Virginia  policy  of  Massive  Resistance.   The  strike  and 
resulting  court  decision  precipitated  the  long  struggle  between 
the  federal  courts  and  the  governments  of  both  Prince  Edward 
County  and  the  State  of  Virginia  over  desegregation  of  the  public 
schools.   As  an  affront  to  the  Supreme  Court  decision.  Prince 
Edward  County  public  schools  closed  in  the  fall  of  1959  rather 
than  integrate.   The  schools  did  not  reopen  until  the  fall  of 
1964. 

Mr.  Chairman,  precedent  exists  for  the  National  Park 
Service's  involvement  in  this  project.   Of  the  five  school 
systems  that  were  combined  in  the  Brown  case,  at  least  two  have 
been  protected  through  previous  Congressional  action.   Public  Law 
102-525  provided  for  the  establishment  of  the  Brown  v.  Board  of 
Education  National  Historic  Site  at  the  Monroe  Elementary  School 
in  Topeka,  Kansas.   More  recently,  language  was  included  in 
Senate  Report  103-294  accompanying  the  FY' 95  Interior 
Appropriations  bill  providing  for  a  study  of  the  Summerton  High 
School  in  South  Carolina.   I  request,  on  behalf  of  my 
constituents,  language  similar  to  that  contained  in  Senate  Report 
103-294. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  would  all  agree  that  the  sites  of  each  of 
the  five  systems  included  in  the  Brown  decision  are  historically 
significant  on  a  national  scale.   It  is  wonderful  that  the 
National  Park  Service  will  be  charged  with  interpreting  and 
preserving  that  legacy  at  the  Monroe  School  in  Topeka,  Kansas. 
However  we  are  aware  that  current  fiscal  reality  does  not  allow 
inclusion  of  each  of  these  sites  on  the  roles  of  the  National 
Park  Service.   Interpretation  and  preservation  efforts  at  other 
sites  must  fall  to  the  private  sector.   However,  here  exists  an 
excellent  opportunity  for  the  government  to  carry  out  its  role  as 
enabler--providing  guidance  to  assist  the  private  sector  in 
carrying  out  projects  for  the  public  good.   The  National  Park 
Service  employs  many  of  the  nation's  most  respected 
preservationists  and  historians.   Their  opinions  on  these  matters 
are  highly  respected  by  academians,  preservation  professionals, 
and  philanthropic  organizations.   Their  recommendations  will 
significantly  affect  the  ability  of  The  Council  to  solicit 


117 


private  support.  Completion  of  this  study  by  the  National  Park 
Service  will  provide  the  necessary  guidance  for  The  Council  to 
successfully  implement  their  vision  for  the  Moton  School. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  the  historic  role  played  by  the 
Moton  School  and  its  students  in  the  long  struggle  for 
desegregation  of  Virginia's  and  the  nation's  schools  fully 
justifies  current  efforts  to  preserve  the  landmark,  and  is 
deserving  of  Congressional  support.   I  strongly  support  language 
in  the  your  Subcommittee's  report  directing  the  National  Park 
Service  to  prepare  a  study  regarding  the  condition,  preservation, 
use,  and  historic  interpretation  of  the  Robert  Russa  Moton  High 
School  in  Prince  Edward  County,  Virginia. 

Thank  you. 


118 


fj    J    3    r    0    Ji    J    c 


119 


F  EAT U  RES 

Uncommon  A'larket    - -   - 

SaiKifnmi  granjiose  rtneual idxrim.  Pikt  Plan  iMarka  mJimdu  btnimSeattU's 
leading  taurtit  attraction.  Now  tourum  tbrtatem  to  ende  its  authtntu  character. 

BY  JOHN  Pastier 


50 


Taking  Stock  — 56 

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

Farmville:  A  Burden  of  History  62 

Will  J  small  coinmiinily  in  rural  Virginia  prtserie  its  syinbot — an  otherwise  ordinary 
brick  sclioollsoiise — (if  America's  struggle  for  ciiil  rights? 
BY  ALLEN  FREEMAN 


ON  THE  OOVOl 
Tht  Po'tixi  Houst 
hut  u  w  llx  Cr.3itd 
P,i-j,Hih,t996 
Grtal  AiNericj 


HamAi, 


,rJi 


ACC5< 


Glorious  Revivals 


68 


Tlx  uiHiKn  of  the  i<utioiul  Trust't  1 996  dxjt  .\"terican  Houte  AuarJi  Ixtix 
turncti  Ltit^imhin^  hmm  tutn  c<etiipUn  nftlx  mtoraHoa  arts. 

Bv  Rachels.  Cox 


--:??: 


120 


Farm 


B    U   R   D    £ 


Will  a  small 

communitY  in 

rural  Virginia 

preserve  its 

symbol -a 

humble  brick 

schoolhouse- 

of  America's 

struggle  for 

civil  rights? 

Y  ALLEN  FREEMAN 


121 


ville 

of    HISTORY 


ILt  THE  ifH 
QRCUiT  COUPJ 
CONTINU[S  TO 

EDUC^flON'rOK 
,  NE&KO 
CHILDREN 

SUFFOMLS 


Unrest  over  schools  in 
Fannvillc  spanned  thirteen 
years.  CounterclocJcwisc  firom 
lower  leA:  Students  pose  drca 
1951;  the  Reverend  Goodwin 
Douglas  demonstrates  in  J»''v 
1963;  children  head  Tor 
temporarY  classroom 
buijdinss  in  1953:  ceremonies 
open  Prince  Edward  Free 
Schools  in  September  1963. 


122 


Classrooms,  above.  !n  tempormrY 
tmildings  were  hestcd  by  coal 
stoves.  Students  assembled  in 
frost  of  the  temporary  buildings, 
below,  for  1  1953  UFE  Magazine 
photograph.  Moton  School 
today,  top  right,  is  Ulde  changed 
from  its  appearance  in  1951. 


..2sa& 


WE  VALUE  NEW  ENGLAND'S  FRAME 

houses  and  Ellis  Island's  immigration 
buildings  for  the  themes  they  evoke. 
We  preserve  Fallingwater,  San  Xavier 
del  Bac,  and  the  Golden  Gate  Bridge  in 
large  measure  because  of  their  beauty. 
We  venerace  Mount  Vernon  and  the  house 
in  which  Martin  Luther  King,  Jr.,  was  born 
for  their  associations  with  important  people. 
And  we  honor  some  places — Independence  Hall, 
Gettysburg.  Wounded  Knct,  Dcalcy  Plaza — because  ihcy 
connote  momentous  events.  Such  is  the  cose,  say  most  black 
citizens  and  many  whites  in  Pnnce  Edward  County,  Virginia, 
of  a  modest  1 939  eight-toom  brick  schoolhouse  m  the  coun- 
ty seat  of  FarmviUe.  To  them  Robert  Russa  Moton  High 
School  is  as  important  to  the  nation  as  Appomattox  Coun- 
house,  which  happetis  to  lie  just  thirty  miles  west.  Fighting 
to  preserve  the  school,  they  believe  that,  no  less  than  the  place 
of  Lee's  surrender.  Moton  witnessed  a  profoundly  resonant 
event  in  American  history. 

"The  events  of  that  day  in  1951  made  a  difference.  They 
should  not  be  taken  lightly."  says  Clara  Ligon,  who  gradu- 
ated fiom  Moton  in  19-iT  And  Grace  S.  Ward,  a  19-tS  grad- 
uate, says,  "It  may  be  |ust  an  old  building  to  some  people. 
But  it  really  is  much  more  than  that. " 

On  Apnl  23.  1951.  Motons  -450  black  students  walked 
out  to  protest  the  fact  that  their  schtxjl  was  substantially  in- 
ferior to  the  one  provided  for  white  students  under  the  coun- 
ty's segregated  system  Their  protest,  which  only  sought  par- 
ity with  white  students — not  desegregation — moved  out  ol 
the  school  two  weeks  later  when  the  school  year  closed.  A 
month  to  the  day  after  the  start  of  the  walkout  the  Nation- 
al AsstKiation  for  the  .Advancement  of  Colored  People  on 
behalf  of  the  Moton  students,  brought  suit  in  Djris  v.  The 
Canity  Bcarti  of  Pnrce  Eiiuard  Coiimy.  Virginia.  Named  for 
Dorothy  E.  Davis,  a  fourteen-year-old  Moton  ninth  grader 
who  happened  lo  be  the  first  on  a  list  of  1 17  student  plain- 
tiffs, the  lawsuit  petitioned  not  for  facilities  eqiul  to  those 
provided  for  white  students  but  for  racial  integration  of 
Prince  Edwards  public  schools.  Tlie  NAACP  lost  D.un  in  the 
Federal  District  Court  in  Richmond  and  then  combined  that 
suit  with  similar  suits  originating  in  South  Carolina. 
Delaware.  Washington,  DC  .ind  Kansas  and  appealed 
them  as  one.  Btf»tii  v.  Tlx  BtkiniofEJiicution  ofTnpck,!.  K^imji. 
to  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  basis  of  the  cciuai  protection 


123 


No  Americans  experienced  the  white  baddash  against  the  Brown  decision 
more  acutely  than  families  in  Prince  Edward  County. 


cLuiv.M)*  the  Fijuratntli  AmcnJmcnc  Tlirtv  yean  .i(tcr  chc 
.\(»>t<Hi  walkiHic  ciic  liii;licimrt  iidc-d  with  Dnn{it,i)ucUwm\; 
clu-  (.Idctnnc  t»t'M.ptiniCf  Ixic  cquoJ  sclwol  fjtilitics  jltou  rhc 
<.<Mintrv  and  vtrm^u  otK.i  |xirTi(.ut.irly  kir^li  ptruxl  of vxalttrd 
m.L\sivc  rcsiicjnce  in  Vtrjjinia  policies  jnJ  «k:ijI  hisiory. 

No  Americans  expcricnttd  the  whitt-  backlash  Ji;.tmsc  tiK* 
Ci'MtndccMon  more atutcly  than  fiimihcs  m  Prince  EJword 
County.  Rather  than  comply  with  the  federal  court  ordcr.the 
counc\'  supervisors  closed  all  PnrKe  Edw"afd  public  schools  in 
1959  and  kept  chem  closed  until  1964  During  those  five 
yean,  a  period  ot" public  schools  closings  iinequalcd  anywhere 
in  the  nation,  white  parents  enrolled  cheir  children  in  a  pri- 
vate schixil  in  Farmvillc  thar  sprang 
to  lite  almost  immediately  after  the 
public  schools  closed.  All  black  stu- 
dents and  some  poor  white  students 
had  to  make  do.  The  most  fortunate 
Icix  their  tamilies  to  attend  schools  in 
other  counties  or  out  of  the  state; 
many  others  dropped  out,  and  most 
of  those  nc\cr  went  back,  even  after 
the  schools  reopened. 

And  so  the  school  chat  black  stu- 
dents demonstrated  against  forT>--fnc 
years  ago  is  today  \-alued  by  many  in 
(he  community  as  the  symbol  of  the 
chain  of  e\ent5  that  its  shortcomings 
precipicaced.  The  building  is  very  lit- 
tle changed  from  the  time  of  the 
walkout.  Although  us  original  in- 
candescent ceiling  lights  have  been 
replaced  with  Huorescenc  tubes,  its 
ceilings  have  not  been  lowered,  its 
windows  have  not  been  replaced,  and  most  of  its  original 
matenals  and  finishes  are  untouched 

The  schools  V-shaped  site  on  the  south  side  of  Farmvillc 
along  US.  15  presumably  would  attract  developers.  Already 
at  this  intersection,  where  NUin  Street  becomes  a  highway 
leading  south  to  1  four-lane  bypass,  a  strip  shopping  center 
and  a  Dairv'  Queen  Hank  one  side  of  the  school  and  a  Burger 
King  and  in  iuto  trim  shop  nse  on  the  other  side.  Moton 
most  recently  ser\ed  as  the  county  s  Man.  E.  Branch  Ele- 
mentar\  School  until  it  was  replaced  by  a  new  building  on 
another  site  last  fall.  The  Prince  Edward  County  Board  of 
Supcr^■lSot^  has  placed  a  price  of  iS'KJ.OOO  on  the  old  school 
structure  to  partially  cover  the  construction  costs  of  the  new 
oneandhasagreed  that  a  service  club,  the  Martha  E  Forrester 
Council  ot  Women,  may  purchase  the  building  Two-chirds 
nt  the  purchase  price  is  due  in  two  year^.  and  the  remaining 
S  UXJ.IXM)  IS  to  be  hnanced  over  a  tw-o-yeor  period  at  six  per- 
cent interest  (The  county  is  negotiating  separately  with 
LongwiKxJ  College  for  the  purchase  of  Moton  s  athletic  field 
behind  the  sthoolhouse  J  The  Forrester  Councils  two  dozen 
determined  members,  most  of  whom  .ittended  Moton  or 


Concla  RawUns  wu  1  history  icachcr  at 

RJt.  Moioa  ta  the  19S0*.  After  Prtacs  Edward 

CountY  do«cd  lu  pvbOc  tehools  bi  1959  chc 

fovad  wort  tiXTf  miles  from  home 


taught  Its  students  during  the  twenty  yean  it  was  a  segre- 
gated high  stboid.  .ire  raiiing  additiorul  fiiod^  to  endow  a 
community  history  center  and  museum  witlun  the  ichoi>l 
Their  organi^tion.  which  has  just  bt.'gun  raising  fiir^Js,  wa^ 
rumcd  tot  a  Farmville  woman  who  (bunded  tlwctub  in  1920 
to  tmpro\c  education  for  the  communit\  s  blatk  children. 

Fifty -seven  years  ago  the  ctxinty  board  of  supervisors  bujlt 
Moton  in  response  to  petitions  by  the  Manha  Forrester 
Council  md  by  other  black  leaders  in  the  rural  county  Last 
year  the  same  county  body  opposed  the  rmmirution  of  the 
schoolhouse  to  the  Natiorul  Register  of  Historic  Places,  fear- 
ing that  should  the  Forrester  Council  fail  to  collect  the  pur- 
chase price  such  a  listing  would  dis- 
courage other  potential  buyers  or 
prompt  them  to  make  low  purchase 
offers — this  despite  the  fact  that  a 
National  Register  listing  of  a  private 
building  has  no  legal  bearing  on  an 
owner's  rights.  The  Virginia  State 
Review  Board,  at  the  request  of  the 
Pnnce  Edward  School  Beard,  first  ap- 
proved study  of  the  sch(x>l  building 
for  National  Register  nomination  in 
1990  and  worked  with  the  county 
through  completion  of  the  nomiru- 
iion  in  199^  Despite  the  county  su- 
pervisors' request  to  defer  coruidera- 
aon.  the  State  Review  Board  voted 
to  send  the  nomirution  to  the  Na- 
tional Register  The  Register  listed 
Moton  School  on  October  24.  1995. 
as  a  building  of  rutional  importance. 
Farmvilles  ordinariness  makes  chc 
town.  With  a  population  of  lust  7.000,  seem  an  unlikely  place 
for  a  presovantxi  battle  bom  out  of  a  deftrung  monwnt  of  civ- 
il disobedience.  Although  established  in  1 798.  Farmville  re- 
mained unincorporated  until  1912.  A  community  history 
published  in  1948  by  The  FarmmlU  Hcw/t/ depicted  a  quiet 
forming  and  timber  center  and  college  town,  the  home  of 
Hampden-Sydney  College,  founded  in  17~6.  and  of  Long- 
wotxd.  Virginias  first  sate  teacher  college,  chartered  in  1839- 
The  1948  Farmville  history  also  portrayed  a  town  dominat- 
ed by  white  people  in  which  race  relations  were  defined  as 
'excellent"  following  "the  unpleasant  >ears  of  Reconstruc- 
tion. *  OfK  holdover  of  Recorutruccion — an  attitude  com- 
mon in  the  South — was  an  unwillingness  to  prtjvidc  more 
than  a  primary  educarion  for  black  citizens.  That  had  erxJcd 
in  Farmville  in  1 959  with  the  opening  of  Robert  RussaNtt>- 
ton  High  School. 

The  new  school  for  blacks  was  named  for  a  native  son.  the 
man  who  succeeded  Booker  T  Washington  as  president  ok 
Tuskegee  Institute  in  Alabama.  Similar  to  other  rural-area 
public  schools  built  m  Virginia  imt  prior  to  World  War  11. 
Moton  IS  a  one-stotT,'.  hipped  rtwt  building  ot  eight  closs- 

65 


124 


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


riK.ms.  .1  Mn.tll  lihr.irv.  -iris  .in.i  Nm  s  re^t^x^ms,  .md  ..  prm- 
cip-il's  i>()ke.  tlu-M-  nmnis  .irc  C(mfii;urc(l  .is  .i  i;  that  lolJs 
..rniinJ  thru-  mJ(.-s  ..f  .in  .Uklitiinum.  There  is  no  lunch  rtwrn 
.in«.i  n<t  i:\mn.ismm.  Desiirnt^  toatcommiKlatc  ISO  students 
.itnfKftt.  thfschixjlenrolltrti  I6~  dunni;  rrs  first  year,  in  1947 
the  enrollment  had  climbed  to  i""'.  By  then  three  classes 
I'requcntly  were  held  .it  one  time  in  the  small  auditorium, 
and  another  in  a  school  bus. 

County  nthcials  responded  toovercrowdmy  in  the  19-48- 
■49  school  yr.ir  by  constructing  temporary  freestanding  class- 
room buildiOLisadiacent  to  the  school.  The  three  lont;.  low. 
wood-frame  stmctures  were  covered  with  tar  paper  and  were 


uninsulated.  Each  cl^ 
temporary  buildinijs  was  heatt 
coal  stove  tended  b\  studen 
teachers.  By  1951  "the  stov 
developed  holes  from  overlie 
and  dunni;  classes  hot  coals 
lump  out  and  whoe\er  was  i 


m  the 
■dbya 
:s  and 
-shad 


uld 


had  to  grab  it  and  throw  it  back  m. ' 
recalls  Edwilda  Allen  I&a.ic.  who  was 
a  .Moton  eighth  grader  that  year 
and  today  teaches  chorus  and  band 
in  Prince  Edward  schools,  "We 
thought  It  was  fun,  but  of  course  it 
was  dangerous  and  distracting." 

Tlie  tar-paper  shacks,  as  [he  black 
community  called  them,  were  con- 
st.ont  reminders  that  thequality  of  the 
county's  public  school  faciUcies  was 
determined  by  race  The  matter 
moved  into  the  forefront  of  the  white 
community's  consciousness  when  a 
handful  of  student  leaders  precipitated  the  walkout  on  that 
April  morning  First  the>-  drew  tlie  principal  away  from  school 
on  tlie  ^llse  prete.\t  that  two  Moton  students  at  the  Greyhound 
bus  station  would  soon  be  m  trouble  with  the  police  if  he  did 
not  rush  over  to  mediate.  Then  the  walkout  leaders  called  an 
assembly  in  the  auditorium  where  they  asked  the  faculty 
members  to  leave  and  explained  their  plan  to  their  fellow  stu- 
dents. One  of  the  leaders.  Barbara  Johns,  told  Bob  Smith  m 
Tlky  C/osa/  Tfjeir  SJjf'^'/s  (University-  of  North  Orolina  Press, 
1965)  that  on  that  morning  she  stated  with  "heated  empha- 
sis the  tacts  they  knew  to  be  chetmth"  including  having  to  en- 
dure leaking  roofs  and  make-do  lunchroom  facilities  and  in- 
tirrior  t'otxi  and  the  need  to  wear  coacs  all  day  in  winter  and  to 
t.ike  gymnasium  cl.isses  in  the  auditoraim.  "It  never  entered 
mv  mind  that  this  would  turn  out  to  be  a  school  desegrega- 
tion Milt.  We  didn't  know  o[  such  things.  We  were  thinking 
lut  the  schi><)l  would  be  improved  or  at  best  that  we  would 
,Lt  .1  new  wliool."  (Johns,  who  died  several  years  ago,  w.is  a 
iiai-enfdK-  Reverend  Vernon  Johns,  who  because  of  A/Jout- 
Npikenness  lost  the  |'K>sition  of  p,istor  of  tiff  Dexter  Avenue 
H.iptist  Church  in  Montgomery.  Alabama,  to  a  younger 


The  Reverend  WUIlc  Boldcn  was  alicndlng 
Moion  ScJiooI  when  the  county  shot  It  down. 
The  American  Friends  Service  Commlllec 
helped  him  to  find  schools  In  Dsytoo.  Ohio. 


minister  with  a  different  style,  Martin  Luther  King.  Jr) 

During  the  two-week  walkout  tlie  county's  black  com- 
munity united  behind  the  students.  Tlie  Revetend  Leslie 
Francis  Gritfin,  the  thirty-four-year-ojd  .ictivtst  pastor  of 
First  Baptist  Church.  Farmvilles  leading  church  for  blacks, 
arranged  for  the  students  to  meet  with  NA-ACP  attorneys. 
The  NAACP  insisted  that  any  suit  that  the  civil  rights  orga- 
nization might  enter  from  Prince  Edward  County  would 
have  to  seek  scht>ol  desegregation,  and  the  students  quick- 
ly agreed. 

In  the  fall  of  1955  Prince  Edward  County  opened  a  new, 
well-equipped  high  school  for  blacks;  it  was  everything  that 
the  students  had  originally  hoped 
for.  The  following  spring  the  Brouv 
decision  was  handed  down,  and  Sen- 
ator Harry  Flood  Byrd,  the  leader  of 
Virginia's  Democratic  Party,  set  a 
stage  for  defiance  in  the  Old  Do- 
minion when  he  said  that  the  deci- 
sion would  bring  "implications  and 
dangers  of  the  greatest  consequence." 
Virginias  Southside  region  m  which 
Farmville  lies  became  the  state's  cen- 
ter of  resistance  to  the  ensumg  feder- 
al court  orders,  and  Farmville  itself 
was  the  home  ot  most  of  the  leaders 
of  a  little  segregationist  group  that 
called  Itself  the  Defenders  of  State 
Sovereignty  and  Individual  Liber- 
ties— the  Defenders  for  short.  They 
sought  to  tap  Virginias  wealth  of  po 
lite  segregationist  sentiment  among 
whites  while  distancing  themselves 
from  such  groups  as  the  White  Citizens  Councils  that  were 
advocating  race  hatred  and  violence.  States'  rights  was  the 
concept  and  rationale  for  keeping  the  schcwls  segregated. 
The  Defenders'  president  was  Robert  Ctawford.  a  Farmville 
laundry  owner  and  former  Prince  Edward  scht>oI  board 
chairman,  who  like  many  others  believed  Communists  were 
infiltrating  the  federal  government  in  an  attempt  to  divide 
Americans,  Barrye  Wall,  the  editor  and  publisher  of  The 
FanmilU  Herald,  was  another  Defenders  leader;  his  Herald 
editofials  alleged  a  long-standing  NAACP  conspiracy  against 
Prince  Edward  County 

"Although  the  student  walkout  had  occurred^rly  [in 
the  chain  of  events  leading  up  to  the  massive  resistance 
movement],  Farmville  became  )ust  one  of  many  communi- 
ties that  were  complaining  about  Broun  :xu6  tr\ing  to  iden- 
tify ways  of  evading  the  decision."  observes  Ronald  Heinc- 
mann,  a  professor  of  history  at  Hampden-Sydney.  "The  state 
had  closed  schools  m  a  few  [urisdictions  by  the  fall  of  195S. 
Tlien  m  January  of  1959  both  the  Virginia  Supreme  Court 
and  a  federal  district  court  threw-  out  the  m.xssive  resistance 
l.iws.  and  those  schools  were  reopened.  And  so  Farmville 


125 


**The  Moton-Branch  school  is  a  rare  piece  of  American  history.  Its  preservation 
should  be  pursued....  We  can't  rewrite  history.  But  we  can  make  it." 


Jul  not  athifvc  us  jjr»»niinciH.f  unctl  .itar  the  m.Ls«vc  rwii- 
c.intci.jmp;ii^n  ti>lt.»(»setl  in  Viri;iniii." 

Tlic  Pnotc  CJw.)ril  Cmiiuy  Lxurd  ot 'supcrvisiirs  cUwixl 
die  schooU  by  a-lusmi;  m  .lssl-ss  taxes  co  operate  chcm  in  chc 
tjll  ot  19^9  While  the  county  s  white  leaders  moved  npid- 
ly  to  see  that  most  white  children  would  continue  their  ed- 
ucations unabated  in  the  new  pnvntc  school.  t.7(X)  black 
children  and  their  parents  and  teachers  were  left  to  fend  for 
themselves.  One  displaced  student,  Willie  Boldcn.  a  ninth 
grader  when  the  schools  closed,  was  sent  to  live  with  rela- 
nves  m  Philadelphia  and  then  Baltimore,  and  then  to  Day- 
ton. Ohio,  where  with  the  aid  o(  the  American  Friends  Ser- 
vice Committee  he  graduated  from 
high  sch<x>l  and  attended  college. 
Now  returned  to  Farmville  to  serve 
as  minister  of  New  W.tt  Baptist 
Church,  he  resolutely  supported  the 
nomination  of  Ntoton  School  to  the 
National  Register  and  continues  to 
support  the  efforts  ot  the  Martha 
Forrester  Council  to  save  the  school. 
Another  advocate.  Connie  Rawhrs, 
was  similarly  uprooted.  She  had 
taught  high  school  history  m  Farm- 
viHc  since  19-46  and  had  been  one  of 
the  teachers  asked  to  leave  Moton  au- 
ditorium on  the  day  of  the  walkout 
in  1951.  In  1959  her  ,ob  was  elimi- 
nated just  as  her  son  was  to  begin  the 
eighth  grade.  She  found  a  high 
school  teaching  |ob  in  Charltxtesville, 
Sixty  miles  from  Farmville.  and  with 
her  son  commuted  there  weekly 
while  her  husband,  a  physician,  con 
Farmville.  Now  retired,  Rawlins  is  a 
president  of  the  Martha  Forrester  Council  who  is  deter- 
mined that  Moton  Schtwl  not  be  torn  down. 

In  a  1965  press  conference.  President  Kennedy  said. 
"There  are  only  (our  places  m  the  world  where  children  are 
denied  the  right  to  attend  school:  North  Vietrum.  Om- 
bodia.  North  Korea,  and  Prince  Edward  County.  Some- 
thing has  got  to  be  done  about  Prince  Edward  County. " 
Kennedy  ordered  the  Justice  Department  to  look  into  the 
Situation,  and  from  that  was  bom  the  Prince  Edward  Free 
School  Association,  financed  by  foundations  and  private 
contributions.  The  so-called  Free  Schools  operated  tor  one 
year.  In  May  1964.  ten  years  after  the  Bfvun  decision  was 
handed  down,  the  Supreme  Court  ruled  chat  the  county 
must  reopen  its  schools. 

Tliree  decades  later  Prince  Edward  County  is  at  once  very 
different  and  the  same.  Like  the  rest  of  the  countn.-.  Farm- 
ville IS  stratified  by  race,  income,  and  education  Tlie  pub- 
lic schools  are  perhaps  the  point  ot  greatebt  contact  among 
the  rat.es.  While  the  private  school  that  sprang  up  in  1959 


:ill  .i|x-n  and  i 


Vera  AUca  (seated)  la  the  pnMtat  of  the 
FofTCitcr  Coandl.  wfakb  U  attcmptliig  to  uv« 

Motofi  SchooL  Edwflda  Isaac,  her  elder 
daughter,  (eachca  In  FarmvtDe  s  pabfic  acfaoob. 


[inued  his  pra 
member  and  3 


ment  mchKlL-s  evm  a  few  bLitk 
students.thepiihlicschoolsenroll  black. ind  white stlldent^ 
in  .1  ratio  tlut  jppnuchcN  50- 5t).  One  adcx|iutc  library  ser\t-s 
b<ith  r.ices  instead  of  two  meager  <incN  The  tacutties  of 
H.impden -Sydney  and  Longwood  colleges  and  the  clergy 
comprise  a  core  ofloc.nl  white  support  for  saving  the  build- 
ing For  some  am<jng  tlut  group.  preserMtionot  the  school- 
house  lias  as  much  to  do  with  lialting  the  haphazard  growth 
of  Farmville  as  it  does  with  preserving  history. 

In  the  pages  of  the  once  segregationist  Farir.ulU  HerjlJ. 
which  IS  still  owned  by  the  Wall  family.  Editor  Ken  Wood- 
ley  has  written  with  some  eloquence  on  the  point  of  saving 
this  reminder  of  Farmvilles  past. 
"Lets  put  this  in  perspective... 
Dozens  of  the  Civil  War  battle  sites 
are  state  or  national  parks.  There  are 
hundreds  of  acres  set  aside  to  com- 
memorate the  Civij  War  in  the 
Farmville  area  alone  Dedicating  less 
than  one  acre  to  the  other — but  no 
less  significant — civil  war'  fought 
for  civil  rights  is  certainly  not  ask- 
ing t(X)  much.  The  Moton-Branch 
school  IS  a  rare  piece  of  American  his- 
tor>-.  Its  preservation  should  be  pur- 
sued.... We  cant  rewrite  history. 
But  we  can  iriake  it  " 

Those  in  Farmville  who  oppose 
saving  the  building  include  many 
who  are  well-to-do  and  politically 
conservative  Some  have  interests  m 
real  estate  development  Othets  want 
to  balance  the  county's  ledgers  and 
would  lusc  as  soon  erase  this  particular  part  of  its  histor>-- 
And  there  are  thoughchal  citizens,  like  former  county  super- 
visor William  Hendle>-.  who  support  the  building  s  preser- 
vation but  question  if  it  is  truly  a  national  monument. 

"■Thifty-.h\e  years  removed  is  a  total  generation."  says  the 
Reverend  William  Thompson,  the  pastor  of  the  College 
Prc-sbvtenan  Church  and  the  chaplain  of  Hampden-Sydnev. 
"It  IS  difficult  for  some  people,  despite  all  thedifhcultiesand 
ambiguities  of  integrated  education  these  days,  to  imagine 
when  we  had  separate  but  allegedly  equal  systems  '  Thomp- 
son belle^'es,  howe\er.  that  the  community  still  bears  scars. 
"Soon  after  I  came  to  Farmville  se\en  years  ago  I  made  some 
cautious  observation  about  the  burden  of  history,  and  one  of 
my  more  conservative  people  said.  Come  on.  that  really  wa^ 
true  then,  but  we  have  gotten  bc>ond  that.'  I  dont  know 
that  we  have,  but  I  think  we  like  to  think  that  \vc  have."  ▼ 

T.ix-xiuhiiibUiVMrwiitwmtouarihlypfmiKtujmi.hLiptMiati-'i 
M"i<ia  SJjou/  M  .1  mnuuin  unci  stiuh  ,oihr  »u\  U  huM  t'l  tl\ 
M.irtkiB.  FofTa.\rCo/mi/'/\X:w,t,/.  P.O.  G-avW/  FjnuiilU. 


126 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
GATEWAY  NRA 

WITNESS 

HON.  CHARLES  SCHUMER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

Mr.  Regula.  Mr.  Schumer? 

Mr.  BUNN  [presiding].  Good  morning  and  welcome. 

Mr.  Schumer.  Thank  you.  I'm  here  to  argue  for  the  Gateway  Na- 
tional Recreation  Area,  and  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  testify. 
I'd  ask  that  my  statement  be  made  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  BUNN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Schumer.  And  just  let  me  say — I'm  going  to  summarize  it 
briefly — this  is  one  of  the  most  used  parts  of  the  National  Park 
Service.  It's  the  only  thing  in  New  York  City  that  is  there.  It's  in 
my  district.  Seventeen  million  visitors  used  it  between  1993  and 
1995.  So  it's  jammed  and  it's  falling  apart. 

It  was  the  old  Riis  Park  built  by  Robert  Moses,  taken  over  by  the 
Federal  Government  in  the  sixties,  and  there's  been  an  ongoing 
program  of  rehabilitation.  Last  year  it  was  cut  back  rather  dra- 
matically, and  I'm  coming  here  asking  that  the  program  be  contin- 
ued. 

What  is  needed  to  be  done  is  exterior  work  on  the  beach  pavilion. 
It's  in  the  middle  of  rehabilitation — that's  sort  of  stopped — rehabili- 
tation to  the  bathhouse  and  repair  to  the  utility  systems,  you  know, 
just  the  water  fountains  and  all  of  that. 

It's  amazing;  I  saw  a  couple  of  young  kids  who  live  in  the  center 
of  Brooklyn  two  or  three  miles  from  the  beach.  Had  they  ever  seen 
the  ocean?  They  had  never  seen  it  in  the  innercity  of  Brooklyn,  and 
Gateway  had  programs  to  bring  them  there — private  programs,  by 
the  way,  not  government  programs.  So  this  is  the  only,  for  millions 
of  people,  this  is  the  only  kind  of  look  at  the  ocean,  look  at  the 
beach  they  get. 

All  we're  asking  for  is  bathrooms,  changing  house,  things  like 
that  that  are  now  there,  but  are  so  deteriorated  that  it  needs  reha- 
bilitation. 

And  we  need  some  stuff  for  Floyd  Bennett  Field  as  well,  but  I'll 
just  submit  my  whole  statement  to  the  record  and  hope  you  can 
give  it  some  consideration.  As  I  say,  the  bang  for  the  buck,  this 
gets  more  use  than  just  about  any  other  part  of  the  National  Park 
Service  and  needs  help. 

Mr.  BUNN.  All  right,  thank  you  very  much.  And  we  will  include 
the  full  statement  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Schumer.  Thank  you.  I  appreciate  it. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Schumer  follows:] 


CHARLES  E  SCHUMER 


WHIP  AT  LAJ1G6 


127 


dongrcBS  of  the  Idnitcd  ^DtCB 

»  iiousc  ofUqjitscnutiots 

^  masliinBton.  ©£  20515 

"""^  April  17,  1996 

REP.  CHARLES  SCHUMER  TESTIMOTVY 

INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS:  National  Park  Service  Construction 

$9.3  MILLION 

I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  appear  before  the  Committee  today  to  testify  about 
Gateway  National  Recreation  Area  in  my  district  in  New  York  City.    Gateway  encompasses 
parts  of  Brooklyn,  Queens,  and  Staten  Island  in  New  York.    Millions  of  people  go  to 
Gateway  every  year  to  swim  in  the  ocean,  play  on  the  ballfields,  the  basketball  and  tennis 
courts,  and  stroll  the  boardwalk.    Between  1993  and  1995,  for  example,  nearly  17  million 
visitors  entered  Gateway  National  Recreation  Area. 

I  am  here  today  to  specifically  address  the  fiinding  requests  related  to  the  Brooklyn 
and  Queens  sites.    The  Jacob  Riis  Park  in  Queens,  developed  in  1930  aiKl  a  National 
Register  site,  is  220  acres  in  size,  consisting  of  a  mile  of  ocean  beach,  a  boardwalk,  play 
courts,  ballfields,  and  a  9,000  car  parking  lot.    Visitor  counts  range  between  a  million  and  a 
million-and-a-half  people  each  year.    Because  of  the  heavy  use  by  New  Yorkers  from  all 
five  boroughs  and  visitors  from  around  the  world,  the  facilities  and  utilities  at  Riis  Park 
have  been  sorely  tested,  and  the  park  is  requesting  54. 3  million  in  fiinding  to  continue  with 
its  modest  modernization  and  rehabilitation  project  that  has  been  underway  for  several  years. 

The  funding  requested  will  support  exterior  work  on  the  central  beach  pavilion, 
recently  stabilized  and  in  the  midst  of  rehabilitation,  scheduled  for  completion.    After 
rehabilitation  to  the  bathhouse  is  completed,  repair  lo  the  aging  and  strained  utility  systems 
is  critically  needed  this  year.    Finally,  the  central  bathhouse  is  flanked  by  recreation  courts 
and  play  areas  as  well  as  food  corKessions  and  restrooms.    Planned  work  on  the  site  this 
year  includes  the  repair  of  tennis,  basketball  and  other  game  courts  and  lighting  for  the 
ballfields  and  the  boardwalk  area.    The  community  has  been  anxious  to  have  Riis  Park 
rehabilitation  completed  so  that  they  may  fully  enjoy  the  park,  and  repair  and  improvement 
to  the  courts  and  field  is  the  first  immediate  benefit  to  the  millions  of  constituents  who  have 
patiently  endured  re-development  of  much  of  the  site.    This  modest  and  very  necessary 
request  was  included  in  the  President's  FY  1997  budget  request. 

I  would  also  like  to  ask  the  Committee's  consideration  of  the  needs  of  Floyd  Bennett 
Field  in  the  Jamaica  Bay  District  of  Gateway  National  Recreation  Area.    Historic  Floyd 
Bennett  Field,  an  integral  part  of  most  Brooklyn  youngsters'  lives  and  visited  by  more  than 
1.5  million  people  annually,  is  in  dangerous  disrepair.    The  utility  systems  —  including 
water,  electrical,  sewer,  and  fu'e  protection  -  need  total  rehabilitation  or  replacement  in 
order  to  provide  uninterrupted  service  to  New  Yorkers,  the  resident  Park  Service  and 
coexisting  tenant  agencies.    The  Field's  telephone  system  is  archaic  —  existing  lines  are 
frequently  out  of  service,  and  there  are  no  additional  lines  available. 

Intermittent  failures  have  forced  the  shutdown  of  sections  of  various  electrical,  water, 
sewer  and  telephone  systems.    This  is  a  critical  situation.    In  FY  93,  Gateway  received 
$70,000  to  investigate  the  condition  of  the  water  supply  and  telephone  systems  on  the  field. 
An  additional  $5  million  in  FY  97  will  fund  the  first  year  construction  and  planning  costs  of 
what  is  expected  to  be  a  three  year  reconstruction  effort. 

I  appreciate  the  Committee's  consideration  of  these  priorities  aixl  welcome  any 
questions. 

PWNTtD  ON  fitCVCUO  PArtB 


128 


April  17.  1996 

REP.  CHARLES  SCHUMER  TESTIMONY 

INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS:  National  Park  Service  Construction 

$9.3  MILLION 

I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  appear  before  the  Committee 
today  to  testify  about  Gateway  National  Recreation  Area  in  my 
district  in  New  York  City.    Gateway  encompasses  parts  of  Brooklyn, 
Queens,  and  Staten  Island  in  New  York.    Millions  of  people  go  to 
Gateway  every  year  to  swim  in  the  ocean,  play  on  the  ballfields, 
basketball  and  tennis  courts,  and  stroll  the  boardwalk.    Between  1993 
and  1995,  for  example,  nearly  17  million  visitors  entered  Gateway 
National  Recreation  Area. 

I  am  here  today  to  specifically  address  the  funding  requests 
related  to  the  Brooklyn  and  Queens  sites.    The  Jacob  Riis  Park  in 
Queens,  developed  in  1930».jis  a  National  Register  site  is  220  acres 
in  size,  consisting  of  a  mile  of  ocean  beach,  a  boardwalk,  play 
courts,  ballfields,  and  a  9,000  car  parking  lot.    Visitor  counts  range 
between  a  million  and  a  million-and-a-half  people  each  year. 
Because  of  the  heavy  use  by  New  Yorkers  firom  all  five  boroughs 
and  visitors  from  around  the  world,  the  facilities  and  utilities  at  Riis 
Park  have  been  sorely  tested,  and  the  park  is  requesting  $4.3  million 
in  funding  to  continue  with  its  modest  modernization  and 


129 

rehabilitation  project  that  has  been  underway  for  several  years. 

The  funding  requested  will  support  exterior  work  on  the  central 
beach  pavilion,  recently  stabilized  and  in  the  midst  of  rehabilitation, 
seliedated-fef  completion.    After  rehabilitation  to  the  bathhouse  is 
completed,  repair  to  the  aging  and  strained  utility  systems  is  critically 
needed  this  year.    Finally,  the  central  bathhouse  is  flanked  by 
recreation  courts  and  play  areas  as  well  as  food  concessions  and 
restrooms.    Planned  work  on  the  site  this  year  includes  the  repair  of 
tennis,  basketball  and  other  game  courts  and  lighting  for  the 
ballfields  and  the  boardwalk  area.    The  community  has  been  anxious 
to  have  Riis  Park  rehabilitation  completed  so  that  they  may  fully 
enjoy  the  park,  and  repair  and  improvement  to  the  courts  and  field  is 
the  first  immediate  benefit  to  the  millions  of  constituents  who  have 
patiently  endured  re-development  of  much  of  the  site.    This  modest 
and  very  necessary  request  was  included  in  the  President's  FY  1997 
budget  request. 

I  would  also  like  to  ask  the  Committee's  consideration  of  the 
needs  of  Floyd  Bennett  Field  in  the  Jamaica  Bay  District  of  Gateway 
National  Recreation  Area.    Historic  Floyd  Bennett  Field,  an  integral 
part  of  most  Brooklyn  youngsters'  lives  and  visited  by  more  than  1.5 
million  people  annually,  is  in  dangerous  disrepair.    The  utility 


130 

systems  ~  including  water,  electrical,  sewer,  and  fire  protection  ~ 
need  total  rehabilitation  or  replacement  in  order  to  provide 
uninterrupted  service  to  New  Yorkers,  the  resident  Park  Service  and 
coexisting  tenant  agencies.    The  Field's  telephone  system  is  archaic  - 
-  existing  lines  are  frequently  out  of  service,  and  there  are  no 
additional  lines  available. 

Intermittent  failures  have  forced  the  shutdown  of  sections  of 
various  electrical,  water,  sewer  and  telephone  systems.    This  is  a 
critical  situation.    In  FY  93,  Gateway  received  $70,000  to  investigate 
the  condition  of  the  water  supply  and  telephone  systems  on  the  field. 
An  additional  $5  million  in  FY  97  will  fund  the  first  year 
construction  and  plaiming  costs  of  what  is  expected  to  be  a  three  year 
reconstruction  effort. 

I  appreciate  the  Committee's  consideration  of  these  priorities 
and  welcome  any  questions. 


131 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
OSC/LAND  CONSERVATION 

WITNESS 

HON.  SAM  FARR,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  BuNN.  Mr.  Farr? 

Mr.  Farr.  How  are  you  doing? 

Mr.  BuNN.  Good. 

Mr.  Farr.  I  brought  a  prop.  It's  a  beautiful  area. 

Mr.  SCHUMER.  The  Gateway  doesn't  look  like  that.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Farr.  It  will.  It  will. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  really  have  two  issues.  The  first  issue  deals 
with  renewed  moratorium  on  the  Outer  Continental  Shelf  explo- 
ration. Congress,  for  the  last,  I  think,  15  years,  has  been  placing 
this  moratorium  on  the  development  of  offshore  oil  and  gas  in  the 
most  environmentally-sensitive  and  economically-important  coastal 
areas,  and  it's  interesting  that  this  always  has  bipartisan  support. 
I  notice  that  both  Frank  Riggs,  Porter  Goss  from  Florida,  and 
Bryan  Bilbray,  also  from  California,  are  coming  in  to  this  commit- 
tee to  talk  about  it. 

In  essence,  what  a  lot  of  people  don't  understand  is  that  the 
coastal  economy  is  really  dependent  on  good  fishing  and  tourism, 
and  we're  all  for — California,  frankly,  feels  it  ought  to  do  its  fair 
share  with  development  of  oil  and  gas  and  energy  production. 
We're  the  most  diversified  State  in  the  United  States  in  the  produc- 
tion of  alternatives  to  oil  and  gas.  We  have  solar,  wind,  geothermal, 
hydro,  nuclear.  And  so  there's  feeling  that  the  coast  is  doing  its — 
the  State  is  doing  its  fair  share,  and  we  don't  need  to  continue — 
we  don't  need  to  drill,  particularly  in  areas  where  we've  never 
drilled  before.  And  there's  a  slogan  in  California  that  says,  "on- 
shore before  offshore." 

And  I'm  here  to  ask  the  committee,  as  you  did  last  year — it  was 
a  little  controversial  in  the  committee  last  year,  and  hopefully  with 
bipartisan  support  it  will  be  less  controversial  this  year — to  con- 
tinue the  old  15-year  moratorium  on  the  DCS  oil  exploration. 

Just  in  closing  on  that  one,  it's  also  strongly  supported  by  the 
governor,  Pete  Wilson,  of  California;  by  Florida  Governor  Lawton 
Chiles;  by  the  coastal  tourism  industry;  by  the  fishing  industry, 
and  by  our  cities  up  and  down  the  California  coast,  including  the 
California  League  of  Cities,  and,  as  I  understand,  local  govern- 
ments up  and  down  the  West  and  East  Coast  as  well. 

The  second  issue,  if  I  may  get  into  it,  is  an  issue  regarding 
money  to  the  Forest  Service  to  be  earmarked  for  the  Los  Padres 
National  Forest.  The  Los  Padres  National  Forest  is  one  of  the  old- 
est forests  in  the  West.  It  comes  up  to  the  coastline  in  California, 
but  not  quite.  And  what  this  picture  displays  is  essentially  what's 
happening  to  this  remarkable  coastline,  which  is  a  national  treas- 
ure. But  a  lot  of  the  land  between  the  top  of  the  mountains  and 
the  ocean  is  still  in  private  ownership. 

And  so  what  we've  tried  to  do,  through  land  use  planning,  is  pro- 
tect viewsheds,  prohibit  develop  on  viewsheds.  Houses  like  you  see 
here  wouldn't  be  allowed  to  be  developed  now.  But  then  you  get 


132 

into  a  takings  issue,  and  so  what  we  have  been  trying  to  do  is  buy 
property  from  willing  sellers.  There  never  have  been  controversial 
sales  in  this  at  all.  Congress  has  earmarked  in  the  past  money  to 
do  that,  and  this  subcommittee  has  been  very  supportive  of  that. 
In  fact,  the  subcommittee  in  the  past  several  years  allowed  the  For- 
est Service  to  protect  1,700  acres  in  what  they  called  the  Sur 
Ranch  and  the  Baldwin  Ranch.  We  need,  again,  reauthorization 
and  appropriations  for — the  authorization  is  there;  we  need  the  ap- 
propriation for  this  from  the  Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund. 

We're  asking  that  the  subcommittee  appropriate  $2  million  this 
year.  I  understand  that  the  balance  in  that  account  is  somewhere 
around  $12  billion.  I  know  that  the  Budget  Committee  likes  to  take 
the  difference  between  what  you  appropriate  and  earmark  it  for 
deficit  reduction,  but,  frankly,  as  members  of  this  committee,  I 
think  that's  money  that's  in  the  bank.  That's  not  money  you  have 
to  deficit  spend  or  money  that  you  have  to  collect  new  fees  to  get. 

The  Big  Sur  Coast  is  of  national  significance,  just  like  your  Or- 
egon coast  is,  and  I'm  asking  that  they  appropriate  $2  million  in 
Fiscal  Year  1997  for  acquisition  to  allow  the  Forest  Service  to  com- 
plete its  acquisition  of  the  Baldwin  Ranch  and  a  place  called  Cozy 
Cove  Properties.  The  amount  will  also  allow  the  Forest  Service  to 
initiate  acquisition  on  several  new  priority  projects. 

I'm  told  that  Big  Sur  ecosystems  rank  in  a  second  priority  with 
the  Forest  Service,  which  is  very  good.  The  only  way  I  think  we're 
going  to  be  able  to  protect  this  national  heritage  is  to  allow  those 
willing  sellers,  who  are  farmers  actually  who  kept  the  land  in  open 
space,  would  love  to  see  it  that  way,  don't  want  to  see  it  developed, 
and  they  will  go  to  the  Forest  Service  in  the  first  instance  and  say: 
we'd  like  to  make  our  first  offer  to  you.  The  difficulty  is  we've  never 
had  enough  money  in  the  bank  to  accept  the  offer  and  to  negotiate 
a  deal,  and  I'd  appreciate  your  support  on  that. 

Mr.  BUNN.  Thank  you  very  much. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Farr  follows:] 


133 


COMMITTIE  ON  aORpCUITUM 


OtSTRtCTOfFtaS 


Congress!  of  rtje  Winitttt  States! 

.S.lLZ.TSc^c.^c-o^  l^oufie  of  Repregfntatibefl  i.«7«^» 

'°""3o^"»"""'  JSMaBljington,  BC  20515-0517  ^Z'^^tZ, 

F>»>4I«*.    WiLM*!      AXO  OCIAMS 

REP.  Sam  Farr  w.*^  ««. 

Statement  before  the  I>aERioR  Appropriations  "<»i  .zK^e 

Subcommittee 

17  April  1996 

Thank  you  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee  for  this  opportunity  to  testify 
before  you  today.  I  want  to  address  two  issues  that  are  of  crucial  importance  to  the  people  of 
my  Central  Coast  district:  the  OCS  offshore  oil  moratorium  and  Big  Sur  land  conservation. 

Rpnew  the  IS- Year  Old  Moratorium  on  Outpr  Continental  Shelf  Oil  Exploration 

Every  year  for  the  past  fifteen  years.  Congress  has  placed  a  moratorium  on  the 
development  of  oil  off  of  our  nations  most  environmentally  sensitive  and  economically 
important  coast  lines.   This  moratorium  has  become  an  article  of  faith  for  the  people  of  my 
district  who  see  any  prospect  of  oil  development  off  their  coast  as  a  threat  to  the  beauty  of 
their  surroundings,  their  own  quality  of  life  and  their  economy.   So  it  is  on  their  behalf  that  I 
ask  this  Subcommittee  to  renew  this  moratorium. 

As  you  know,  during  the  1980s  the  oil  industry  tried  to  open  federal  waters  along  the 
California  coast  to  offshore  oil  development.   Congress  derailed  those  efforts  by  attaching  a 
ban  on  new  offshore  oil  activity  on  every  Interior  Department  spending  bill  for  the  past  15 
years.   This  year  should  be  no  exception. 

Continuing  the  OCS  moratorium  is  strongly  supported  by: 

—  California  Governor  Pete  Wilson 

—  Florida  Governor  Lawton  Chiles 

—  The  coastal  tourism  industry 
The  Ashing  industry 

The  City  and  County  of  Monterey,  the  City  and  County  of  Santa  Cruz,  the 
California  League  of  Cities,  and  local  govenunents  up  and  down  the  west  and 
east  coasts. 

In  addition  to  the  constant  risk  of  minor  and  major  spills,  offshore  drilling  brings 
onshore  development,  air  and  water  pollution,  and  the  disruption  of  fishing  grounds.   It 
jeopardizes  coastal  tourism  which  is  a  $27  billion  dollar  per  year  industry  in  California.   In 
my  district  alone,  coastal  tourism  generates  over  $1.5  billion  per  year  and  directly 
employs  over  20,000  people. 


134 


Lifting  the  OCS  moratorium  would  risk  California's  coastal  treasures  and  their 
dependent  coastal  economies  for  just  60  days  worth  of  oil.   The  estimated  oil  reserves  off  the 
California  Coast  would  supply  US  oil  demands  for  only  60  days  at  current  rates  of 
consumption.  That  oil  is  clearly  not  worth  the  potential  risks  to  California's  economy  and 
environment. 

In  1994,  the  State  of  California  permanently  banned  new  offshore  oil  rigs  in  the  3  mile 
limit  under  the  State's  control.  I  urge  the  Subcommittee  to  ensure  that  the  Federal 
Government  continue  to  respect  California's  lead  and  reject  new  offshore  oil  development 
along  our  nation's  most  fragile  coasts. 

Big  Sur  Land  Coniicryation  -  Los  Padres  National  Forest 

I  also  respectfully  request  the  Subcommittee's  support  for  funds  to  continue  the  land 
protection  efforts  along  the  world-renowned  Big  Sur  coastline. 

The  strong  support  of  the  Subcommittee  in  the  past  several  years  has  allowed  the  Forest 
Service  to  protect  the  1,700-acre  Sur  Sur  Ranch,  much  of  the  Baldwin  Ranch  and  many  other 
crucial  properties  fiDm  development.  This  has  complemented  on-going  state,  county  and  private 
conservation  efforts  to  protect  Big  Sur's  resources  for  the  millions  of  visitors  who  are  drawn  to 
this  scenic  area  each  year. 

Prior  to  the  FY96  cycle,  the  Subcomminee  regularly  appropriated  $2  million  per  year  out 
of  the  Land  and  Water  Fund  to  fiind  successive  land  acquisitions  by  the  Los  Padres  National 
Forest  along  the  Big  Sur  Coast.  While  the  FY  1996  Interior  Appropriations  bill  broke  fhim  the 
tradition  of  earmarking  Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  monies  for  specific  projects,  it 
provided  sufficient  resources  for  the  Forest  Service  to  cany  out  its  top  priority  Big  Sur  projects. 

However,  I  believe  that  some  projects,  particularly  Big  Sur  land  acquisition,  have  such 
high  national  significance  we  should  ensure  their  success  by  singling  them  out  for  particular 
anention.  I  urge  the  Subcommittee  to  appropriate  $2  million  in  FY  97  for  Forest  Service  Big  Sur 
land  acquisition.  This  funding  will  allow  the  Forest  Service  to  complete  acquisition  of  the 
Baldwin  Ranch  and  Cozy  Cove  properties.  This  amount  will  also  allow  the  Forest  Service  to 
initiate  acquisition  on  several  new  priority  projects. 

Thank  you  again  for  this  opportunity  to  testify. 


135 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

LWCF/FWS-ESA 

WITNESS 

HON.  SONNY  BONO,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  BUNN.  Mr.  Bono?  ,  ^     i 

Mr.  Farr.  This  is  prettier  than  Palm  Springs.  [Laughter.] 
Mr.  Bono.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Mr.  BuNN.  Welcome  and  good  afternoon. 
Mr.  Bono.  Thank  you,  sir. 

We  have  four  things  here  that  I'd  like  to  bring  to  your  attention, 
and  I  have  some  testimony,  as  everybody  always  does,  but  maybe 
I  can  give  you  a  condensed  version  of  this. 

First  of  all,  the  Torres-Martinez  Indians.  What  happened  was 
their  land  got  flooded,  and  for  many,  many  years  they  were  in  a 
type  of  litigation  with  the  BIA  or  in  an  effort  with  the  BIA  to  settle 
out  this  loss  of  their  land.  So  with  the  office  and  working  through 
the  BIA,  we  finally  got  a  settlement  for  them  which  was  acceptable 
by  everybody.  And  the  settlement  is  complete.  They  get  $14  million 
for  the  loss  of  their  property. 

Where's  the  cost  broken  down  here?  Okay,  they  get  $14  million 
goes  to  the  tribe;  $4  million  from  local  water  districts;  $10  million 
from  the  Federal  Government;  $4  from  the  Department  of  Justice. 
So  to  complete  that,  which  has  been  going  on  forever,  to  close  the 
deal,  the  request  there  would  be  for  $6  million  for  the  Torres-Mar- 
tinez settlement  agreement.  That  would  be  wonderful,  to  put  that 
to  bed.  That  has  been  open  for  years,  and  if  we  can  put  that  to  bed, 
that  would  be  great.  I'll  leave  the  documentation  here,  so  you  can 
clear  it  up.  ^  ,  . 

The  other  thing,  the  other  two  issues  are  environmental  issues. 
We  have  a  K-rat  in  our  district,  a  kangaroo  rat  that  plagues  every- 
one. Finally,  the  district  was  to  come  up  with  $30  million  and  pur- 
chase enough  land  to  settle  the  deal.  So  the  district  has  raised  al- 
most all  of  that  $30  million  with  the  exception  of  $1.5  million.  So 
that  would  allow  them  to  finally  go  ahead  and  start  building,  get 
into  commerce  and  move  forward,  and  not  have  to  deal  with  that 
environmental  K-rat  pest,  which  we  have  to  deal  with.  So  Riverside 
is  asking  for  $1.5  million  for  the  Bureau  of  Land  Management,  Riv- 
erside County  Habitat  Conservation  Agency's  Stephen's  Kangaroo 
Rat  Habitat  Conservation  Plan.  That  is  basically  that. 

The  other — these  are  where  we  have  been  pushed  to  the  mat 
over  years  of  talking  with  these  people.  Fish  and  Wildlife  again  has 
a  very  similar  situation,  and  we've  raised  all  we  can  and  we're 
down  needing  assistance  for  $250,000.  That's  for  Fish  and  Wildlife 
Service  section  6  funding  assistance  for  multi-species  habitat  con- 
servation programs.  California  has  just  been  put  to  the  wall  on  this 
conservation — on  these  consen-ation  issues,  and  there  just  is  no 
more  money  for  them  to  dig  up  anywhere  else. 

And  then  finally  is  the  $1.8  million  to  the  Bureau  of  Land  Man- 
agement and  Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  for  the  purchase 
of  parcels  in  Santa  Rosa  Mountains  National  Scenic  Area,  sup- 


136 

ported  by  developers,  local  government,  conservation  groups,  pri- 
vate property  owners,  and  BLM  National  Priority  List. 

Now  all  of  these  issues  pretty  much  have  the  blessing  of  every- 
body, both  sides,  and  so  if  these  were  all  completed,  it  would  prob- 
ably make  everyone  happy.  There  are  years  of  working  on  these  is- 
sues. 

So  I  thank  you  very  much  for  hearing  me,  and  I'll  give  you  the 
written  testimony.  If  you  have  any  questions  you'd  like  to  ask  or 
anything  else  you'd  like  to  know 

Mr.  BUNN.  Okay,  thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Bono.  The  only  point  I  want  to  make  is  that  I  have,  as  a 
mayor,  worked  on  these  issues  for  years  and  now  as  a  Congress- 
man for  years.  So  the/re  finally — this  can  put  them  all  to  bed, 
which  would  be  a  wonderful  thing.  So  I  thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  BUNN.  Okay,  thank  you,  and  we'll  enter  the  complete  com- 
ments in  the  record. 

Mr,  Bono.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Bono  follows:] 


137 


CONGRESSMAN  SONNY  BONO  

TESTIMONY  FOR  INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS  SUBCOMMITTEE 
APRIL  17,  19% 


THANK  YOU  CHAIRMAN  REGULA,  FOR  GIVING  ME  AN  OPPORTUNITY  TO  TESTIFY  BEFORE  THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE.   I  WOULD  LIKE  TO  VERY  BRIEFLY  HIGHLIGHT  FOUR  PROJECTS  FOR  WHICH 

I  RESPECTFULLY  REQUEST  THE  COMMITTEES  SUPPORT. 

FIRST  I  JOIN  THE  ADMINISTRATION  IN  REQUESTING  $6  MILLION  FOR  THE  BUREAU  OF 
INDLVN  AFFAIRS  FOR  THE  UNITED  STATES'  PORTION  OF  THE  TORRES-MARTINEZ  TRIBAL 
LAND  SETTLEMENT  AGREEMENT. 

EARLY  IN  THIS  CENTURY,  FLOOD  WATERS  FROM  THE  COLORADO  RIVER  BROKE  THROUGH  A 
BUREAU  OF  RECLAMATION  WATER  PRO^CT,  FLOODING  MUCH  OF  THE  TORRES-MARTINEZ 
INDIAN  RESERVATION    LOCAL  WATER  DISTRICTS  HAVE  USED  THIS  AS  DRAINAGE,  CAUSING 

II  800  ACRES  OF  TRIBAL  LAND  -  APPROXIMATELY  2/3RDS  OF  THE  TRIBAL  LAND  -  TO  BE 
PERMANENTLY  FLOODED  UNDER  WHAT  IS  NOW  KNOWN  AS  THE  SALTON  SEA.  SINCE  THE 
EARLY  1980s  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  HAS  SUED  THE  WATER  DISTRICTS  AS  TRUSTEE  FOR 
THE  TRIBE    AFTER  80  YEARS  OF  DISPUTE  AND  14  YEARS  OF  LITIGATION,  ALL  THE  PARTIES 

.WOLVED  INCLUDING  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT,  COACHELLA  VALLEY  WATER  DISTRICT, 
IMPERLU.  IRRIGATION  DISTRICT,  AND  THE  TRIBE,  HAVE  REACHED  A  SETTLEMENT 
AGREEMENT. 

THE  SETTLEMENT  COMPENSATES  THE  TRIBE  FAIRLY,  ALLOWS  THEM  TO  USE  THE 
COMPENSATION  TO  PURCHASE  11,800  ACRES  OF  REPLACEMENT  LANDS,  AND  PROVIDES  A 
MUCH-NEEDED  PERMANENT  DRAINAGE  EASEMENT  FOR  THE  LOCAL  WATER  DISTRICTS. 
AMONG  OTHER  THINGS,  THE  AGREEMENT  PROVIDES  FOR  $14  MILLION  TO  THE  TRIBE.  $4 
MILUON  FROM  THE  LOCAL  WATER  DISTRICTS  AS  DETERMINED  BY  THE  9TH  CIRCUIT  COURT, 
AND  $10  MILUON  FROM  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT.  OF  THE  GOVERNMENTS  $10  MILLION, 
$4  MILLION  WILL  COME  FROM  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  JUSTICE  JUDGMENT  FUND.  THE 
REMAINING  $6  MILLION  MUST  COME  FROM  FY  1997  APPROPRIATIONS  OR  THE  SETTLEMENT 
WILL  NOT  BECOME  EFFECTIVE.  I  WILL  INTRODUCE  THE  RATIFYING  LEGISLATION  AT  THE  END 
OF  THIS  MONTH.  AND  RESPECTFULLY  REQUEST  YOUR  SUPPORT  TO  MAKE  THIS  SETTLEMENT 
A  SUCCESS. 

IN  ADDITION,  I  HAVE  TWO  REQUESTS  FOR  THE  BLM'S  LAND  AND  WATER  CONSERVATION 
FUND.  THE  FIRST  IS  FOR  $1.5  MILLION  FOR  THE  RTVERSmE  COUNTY  HABITAT 
CONSERVATION  AGENCY'S  STEPHEN'S  KANGAROO  RAT  HABITAT  CONSERVATION  PLAN. 

WESTERN  RIVERSIDE  COUNTY  CITIES  HAVE  BEEN  DEVASTATED  BY  THE  K-RAT  CRITICAL 

HABITAT  DESIGNATION.  IT  HAS  HALTED  ALL  MEANINGFUL  DEVELOPMENT  AND  PROHIBITED 

ARMERS  AND  OTHER  PRIVATE  PROPERTY  OWNERS  FROM  USING  THEIR  LAND  TO  EARN  THEIR 

LIVELIHOOD.  mS  THE  ULTIMATE  EXAMPLE  OF  THE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES  ACT  GONE  AWRY. 


138 


OVER  THE  LAST  SEVERAL  YEARS.  THE  LOCAL  COMMUNITIES  AND  PRIVATE  PROPERTY 
OWNERS  HAVE  CONTRIBUTED  OVER  $30  MILUON  FROM  AN  ASSESSMENT  FEE  OF  $1  950  PER 
ACRE  OF  NEW  DEVELOPMENT  FOR  AN  H.C.P.  THE  HSH  AND  WILDLIFE  SERVICE  HAS 
NDICATED  THE  ONLY  ACCEPTABLE  H.C.P.  WILL  COST  $35.6  MILLION,  LEAVING  A  $5  6 
MILUON  SHORTFALL.  THE  STATE  HAS  CONTRIBUTED  I  MILLION.  AND  THE  ADMINISTRATION 
HAS  COMMITTED  I  MILLION  EACH  YEAR  FOR  THE  NEXT  THREE  YEARS.  THIS  STILL  LEAVES 
THE  COMMUNITY,  ALREADY  TOTALLY  DEVASTATED  BY  THE  K-RAT  PROBLEM  WITH  AN 
ADDITIONAL  $1.6  MILLION  BILL,  IN  ADDITION  TO  THE  $30  MILUON  THEY  HAVE  ALREADY 
CONTRIBUTED. 

THOUGH  I  STRONGLY  SUPPORT  THE  ADMINISTRATION  S  $1  MILLION  REQUEST  FOR  FY  1997  I 
ALSO  BELIEVE  THAT  WE  MUST  COMMIT  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENTS  FAIR  SHARE  FOR  THE 
ASTOUNDING  FINANCIAL  BURDEN  OF  THIS  PROGRAM.  AFTER  ALL,  AN  ADDITIONAL  $1  6 
MILUON  OUT  OF  $35  MILUON  IS  A  RELATIVELY  SMALL  CONTRIBUTION  COMPARED  TO  WHAT 
THE  LOCAL  COMMUNITIES  HAVE  GIVEN  IN  TIME,  MONEY  AND  FOREGONE  EARNINGS 
THEREFORE,  I  REQUEST  THAT  THE  COMMnTEE  SUPPORT  THE  $1  MILUON  REQUEST  OF  THE 
ADMINISTRATION,  AND  ADD  TO  THAT  $500,000.  THIS  ADDITIONAL  MONEY  WILL  HELP  THE 
LOCAL  COMMUNITY  COMPLETE  THE  H.C.P..  AND  PROVE  THAT  WE  IN  WASHINGTON  ARE 
SERIOUS  ABOUT  ENDING  UNFUNDED  MANDATES. 

THE  SECOND  L.W.C.F.  REQUEST  IS  FOR  $1.8  MILLION  FOR  THE  PURCHASE  OF  THREE 
PARCELS  IN  THE  SANTA  ROSA  MOUNTAINS  NATIONAL  SCENIC  AREA.  THESE  PARCELS  ARE 
LOCATED  IN  THE  MOUNTAINS  WHICH  SURROUND  THE  COACHELLA  VALLEY.  AND  PROVIDE 
OUR  NATION  WriH  UNIQUE  NATURAL  BEAUTY  AND  CULTURAL  AND  RECREATIONAL 
ESOURCES.  THE  MOUNTAINS  ARE  A  MAIN  ATTRACTION  TO  VISITORS  WHO  COME  TO  THE 
VALLEY  FROM  ALL  OVER  THE  WORLD.  THEY  OFFER  OASES.  INDL\N  CANYONS.  ENDANGERED 
SPECIES  HABITAT  AND  SCENIC  BEAUTY  THE  ENTIRE  AREA.  THESE  PARCELS  ARE  UNDER 
IMMINENT  THREAT  OF  DEVELOPMENT.  THE  LOCAL  CITIES.  BUILDING  ASSOCUTION  AND 
ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUPS  HAVE  TEAMED  TOGETHER  TO  TRY  TO  PURCHASE  THE  PARCELS. 
BUT  DO  NOT  HAVE  THE  RESOURCES.  THE  PROPERTY  OWNERS  SUPPORT  SELLING  THESE 
PARCELS  TO  THE  BLM,  AND  THE  BLM  HAS  MADE  THIS  ONE  OF  THEIR  PRIORITY  PURCHASES. 
HOWEVER,  AS  YOU  KNOW,  THE  CONSERVATION  FUND  HAS  NOT  BEEN  AVAILABLE.  I 
STRONGLY  REQUEST  THAT  THE  COMMTFTEE  JOIN  THE  BLM  IN  SUPPORTING  THIS  PROJECT 
WITH  $1.8  MILUON  IN  THE  L.W.C.F.  FOR  THIS  LAND  PRESERVATION. 

FINALLY,  I  RESPECTFULLY  REQUEST  THE  COMMnTEE'S  SUPPORT  FOR  $250,000  FOR  THE 
FISH  AND  WILDLIFE  SERVICE  SECTION  6  PROGRAM  FOR  E>fDANGERED  SPECIES  HABITAT 
CONSERVATION  PLAN  PLANNING  ASSISTANCE.  THE  COACHELLA  VALLEY  ASSOCL^TION  OF 
GOVERNMENTS  (CVAG)  IS  WORKING  WTTH  LOCAL  CmES.  THE  BUILDING  INDUSTRY 
ASSOCL\TION,  PRIVATE  PROPERTY  OWNERS,  FARMERS,  AND  ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUPS  TO 
DESIGN  A  MULTI-SPECIES  HABITAT  CONSERVATION  PLAN  FOR  OVER  30  SPECIES.  FOR  THE 
PAST  TWO  YEARS,  THE  PLAN  HAS  BEEN  FUNDED  BY  GRANTS,  PRIVATE  CONTRIBUTIONS, 
MITIGATION  FEES  FROM  LOCAL  TRANSPORTATION  PROJECTS  AND  IN-KIND  LOCAL,  STATE  AND 
FEDERAL  AGENCIES.  THIS  YEAR.  CVAG  WILL  RECEIVE  $250,000  FROM  LOCAL  SOURCES,  AND 
REQUESTS  THAT  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  CONTRIBUTE  THE  REMAINING  $250,000  FOR  THE 
LAN  TO  MOVE  TOWARD  COMPLETION  THIS  YEAR.  THIS  IS  ANOTHER  OPPORTUNITY  FOR  THE 
rEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  TO  SUPPORT  LOCAL  PUBLIC  AND  PRIVATE  EFFORTS  TO  IMPLEMENT 
THE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES  ACT  REQUIREMENTS  WITHOUT  DECIMATING  THE  AFFECTED 
COMMUNITY.    FOR  THIS  REASON,  IT  IS  MY  HOPE  THAT  THE  COMMITTEE  WILL  JOIN  ME  IN 


139 


SUPPORTING  THIS  EFFORT  BY  SPECinCALLY  EARMARKING  $250,000  FOR  THE  COACHELLA 
VALLEY  MULTI-SPECIES  HABITAT  CONSERVATION  PLAN  WITHIN  SECTION  6  PROGRAM  OF  THE 
nSH  AND  WILDUFE  SERVICE. 

I  WILL  PROVIDE  THE  COMMFTTEE  WITH  ADDITIONAL  DETAILS  ON  ALL  OF  THESE  IMPORTANT 
PROJECTS  IN  MY  WRITTEN  REQUEST.  I  WOULD  LIKE  TO  POINT  OUT  THAT  ALL  OF  THESE 
PROJECTS  HAVE  STRONG  BROAD-BASED,  PUBLIC  AND  PRIVATE  SUPPORT  FROM  THE  LOCAL 
COMMUNITIES  IN  THE  FORM  OF  FUNDING,  TIME  AND  IN-KIND  SERVICES. 

AGAIN  MR  CHAIRMAN,  I  THANK  YOU  FOR  THE  OPPORTUNITY  TODAY  TO  TESTIFY  BEFORE 
THE  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  THESE  INVALUABLE  PROJECTS.  I  YIELD  BACK  THE  BALANCE  OF  MY 
TIME. 


140 

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


Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

PAYMENT  IN  LIEU  OF  TAXES 

WEATHERIZATION 

APPALACHIAN  TRAIL 

WITNESS 

HON.  BERNARD  SANDERS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  VERMONT 

Mr.  Regula.  Bernie's  here. 

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

Mr.  Regula.  Your  statement  is  part  of  the  record  and  you  may 
summarize  it. 

Mr.  Sanders.  Essentially  there  are  three  issues  that  we  want  to 
talk  about.  No.  1  is  Payment  in  Lieu  of  Taxes;  we  have  some  45 
towns  who  have  Green  Mountain  National  Forest  within  their  area. 

Mr.  Regula.  This  is  interesting;  it's  usually  a  western  issue. 

Mr.  Sanders.  I  know  it  is  primarily,  but  it  does  affect  us  and  it 
is  a  real  concern.  We  are  probably,  even  more  than  the  west,  de- 
pendent on  the  property  tax. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we'll  do  as  much  as  we  can. 

Mr.  Sanders.  Okay,  that's  an  important  issue  for  us.  Also  of  con- 
cern to  us  is  the  Low  Income  Weatherization  Assistance  Program. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  Sanders.  Yes,  in  Vermont  the  weather  gets  30  degrees  below 
zero.  It  means  a  lot  to  a  lot  of  people.  People  are  hurting  and  we 
would  very  much  appreciate  your  support  for  that. 

Mr.  Regula.  Your  observation  is  they  administer  these  programs 
in  a  cost-effective  way? 

Mr.  Sanders.  I  think  they  do.  I  mean  I'm  sure  it's  not  perfect, 
but  I  think  they  do  the  job  and  they  hire  local  people  who  know 
the  area  who  can  use  the  money  as  a  matter  of  fact  and  it  is  really 
a  cost-effective  program.  Because  if  it  is  20  degrees  below  zero  and 
your  home  is  not  weatherized,  you're  just  putting  out  money  right 
through  the  cracks  in  the  wall.  So  to  weatherize  a  house  means  the 
person  can  save  significant  amounts  of  money  on  their  fuel. 

And  the  last  point  that  we'd  like  to  do  is  to  request  that  the 

Mr.  Regula.  I  support  that. 

Mr.  Sanders  [continuingl.  The  land  and  water  conservation  fund 
appropriation  for  the  Appalachian  Trail.  I  want  to  invite  you  up  to 
hike  the  trail,  how's  that? 

Mr.  Regula.  Have  you  hiked  it? 

Mr.  Sanders.  I've  been  on  a  little  bit  of  it,  yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  probably  never  get  it  done,  but  it  will  be  one 
of  my  goals  to  do  a  good  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Sanders.  Do  you  do  much  hiking?  Yes,  it's  a  beautiful  trail 
and  people  utilize  it  a  lot. 


141 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  it's  very  popular.  I've  been  pushing  over  the 
past  several  years  to  keep  funding  in  this  committee  for  land  acqui- 
sition so  we  can  hopefully  and  ultimately  have  it  all  public. 

Mr.  Sanders.  I  think  it's  a  very  good  investment. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  I  agree  with  you  100  percent. 

Mr.  Sanders.  Any  other  questions  that  I  can  answer? 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  I  think  that  covers  it.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Sanders.  Thanks  very  much. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Sanders  follows:] 


142 


HI  Cmvnom  Hou«  0*m3  Bu«J» 

w*SMw«oTOM.  oc  m«i%-«soi 

TlLKn<Mt   12031  22S-4nS 
F«  1202)  22S-«790 


Congress  of  the  Bnittd  States 

fiouse  of  Rtpresentanots 
Washington,  ©£  i«i5-wi 

April  17,  1996 

Statement  of  Bernard  Sanders  (I-VT) 
FY97  Interior  Appropriations  Bill 


BANKING  ANO  FINANCUM.  SCflVKES 
GOVUNMENT  REFORM  ANO  OVERSfGHT 


1  OnjmcM  STUtfT.  SCCONO  Ftoo« 

BuMLMOrO**.  VT  0S401-4417 

Tf  Lf  p<«MK  (fl03)  802-OWT 

Tou.  fnce  <aooi  xa-9Ki* 

Fm.  (8021  asfr-UTO 


Payment  in  lieu  of  Taixes 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  testifying  to  request  that  the  Payment  in 
lieu  of  Taxes  (PILT)  prograun  receive  an  appropriation  of  $150 
million.   This  is  the  level  suggested  in  the  authorization  which 
was  passed  in  1994. 

As  you  know,  the  PILT  progrcun  began  20  years  ago  as  an 
attempt  to  compensate  local  governments  for  losses  to  their  tout 
bases  due  the  presence  of  certain  federally-owned  land.   However, 
PILT  payments  fall  far  short  of  the  revenue  that  would  normally 
be  generated  through  private  property  tcuces.  Moreover,  due  to 
inflation,  PILT  payments  have  decreased  in  real  dollars. 

In  my  state  of  Vermont,  the  45  towns  which  fall  within  the 
Gteen  Mountain  National  Forest  are  severely  impacted  by  these 
decreasing  PILT  payments.   These  communities,  like  others  all 
over  the  country,  have  seen  their  property  taixes  rise  as  a 
result.   Yet,  at  the  same  time,  we  provide  corporate  welfare  in 
the  form  of  below- cost  timber  sales  or  dirt-cheap  mining 
royalties.   We  need  to  change  these  priorities. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  respectfully  request  that  the  PILT  program 
receive  funding  equal  to  the  level  authorized  in  1994. 


PnXTCD  ON  KCYCUO  rAHK 


143 


Weather! zat ion 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  request  an  increase  in  funding 
for  the  Low  Income  Weatherization  Assistance  Program.   As  you 
know,  funding  for  this  program  was  significantly  cut  last  year, 
and  LIHEAP  funding  is  in  constant  jeopardy.   Over  4.4  million 
homes  have  been  weatherized  nationwide  with  these  and  other 
weatherization  funds.   Energy  efficiency  is  vital  to  thousands  of 
low  income  citizens  in  Vermont,  who  are  just  now  beginning  to 
recover  from  what  was  a  severely  cold  and  harsh  winter.   The 
weatherization  progrcun  in  Vermont  is  recognized  as  one  of  the 
best,  and  weatherizes  about  1200  Vermont  homes  each  year.   I  urge 
you  to  significantly  increase  funding  for  this  vital  program. 

Appalachian  Trail 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  also  like  to  request  a  fiscal  year 
1997  Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  Appropriation  of  $7.0 
million  for  the  Appalachiam  National  Scenic  Trail  Isuid 
accjuisition  prograun.   Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  thaxik  you  for  your 
past  help  in  ensuring  adecjuate  appropriations  for  the  Appalachian 
Trail  progroun.   Today,  the  Trail  is  within  two  percent  of 
completion.   Only  35  miles  of  the  entire  Trail  remain  unprotected 
and  threatened  by  incompatible  development  such  as  road 
construction,  second  home  development,  or,  as  in  my  state  of 
Vermont,  ski  area  expansion.   Mr.  Chairman,  I  urge  you  to 
continue  to  fund  the  prograim  to  ensure  that  we  reach  the  goal  of 
con^lete  public  ownership  by  fiscal  year  1999. 


144 


Mr.  Chairman,  I  urge  your  support  on  all  three  of  these 
important  items  in  the  appropriations  bill.   Thank  you  for  your 
consideration  of  my  views. 


145 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

BLACKSTONE  RIVER  VALLEY  NATIONAL  HERITAGE 

CORRIDOR 

WITNESS 

HON.  PATRICK  J.  KENNEDY,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  RHODE  ISLAND 

Mr.  Regula.  Patrick?  Mr.  Saxon  isn't  here  yet. 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Blackstone  River  Valley  Corridor. 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Yes,  it's  a  great  heritage  corridor. 

Mr.  Regula.  You  need  some  additional  authorization,  don't  you? 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Yes,  but  we  expect  to  get  it  and, 
thanks  to  your  help,  we're  moving  it  along. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  know;  we're  all  in  the  same  boat  over  there. 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  That's  right,  that's  right.  And  as 
you'll  see  from  the  funding  request,  we  doubled  the  amount  of 
money  requested  for  operation  and  maintenance  because  we're  in- 
creasing the  size  by  60  percent  to  accommodate  the  entry  of  five 
new  communities  into  this  heritage  corridor. 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  you  get  good  local  participation? 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Fantastic.  The  Heritage  Corridor 
Commission  has  been  a  boon  to  the  area.  They  love  it;  they  feel  it's 
a  really  good  synergy  for  both  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island.  In 
fact,  they  share 

Mr.  Regula.  How  much  do  you  have  now  in  distance? 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  We  go  from  Worcester  down  to 
Providence. 

Mr.  Regula.  Which  is  50  miles? 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Yes,  50-some-odd  miles. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  you're  going  to  add,  what,  another  30  or  40 
miles? 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Yes.  Mostly  in  Massachusetts,  but 
in  fact  in  northern  Rhode  Island  we're  adding  a  couple  of  commu- 
nities. But  it  follows  the  old  Blackstone  River  which  was  the  birth- 
place of  the  Industrial  Revolution.  Pawtucket,  Rhode  Island  was 
the  first  industrial  mill  in  the  Nation,  and  the  beauty  of  it  is  they 
used  to  have  barges  that  would  go  from  Worcester  down  to  Provi- 
dence; that  was  the  mode  of  transportation  until,  of  course,  rail- 
roads took  over.  But  that  riverbank  area  is  loaded  with  industrial 
mill  sites  because  they 

Mr.  Regula.  How  did  you  get  a  corridor?  Did  you  have  to  acquire 
any  private  lands  or  did  you  have  an  adequate  existing  public  cor- 
ridor? 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Well,  what  happened  was  it  was 
just  sort  of  rights-of-way  and  the  State  knew  these  areas  to  be  val- 
uable for  their  historic  preservation  and  the  Park  Service  manages 
all  those  historic  sites  and  since  there  are  so  many  of  them — you 
know  they  thread  themselves  up  the  banks — really  it's  all  because 
of  this  Blackstone  River.  We've  had  river  boats  take  people  up  and 
down  the  river  and  they're  saying  to  themselves,  I  can't  believe  this 
is  our  own  State  because  it's  such  an  industrial  State,  and  up  until 
the  Clean  Water  Act  the  river  was  polluted  as  can  be — no  fish,  no 


146 

swimming,  no  anything,  and  they  let  it  be  overgrown.  And  so  no 
one  could  see  the  banks  of  the  river. 

Now  they're  clearing  the  riverways.  More  businesses  want  to 
have  businesses  along  the  banks,  they've  had  steamboat  musters, 
they  want  to  do  a  bike  path  along  the  riverbank,  which  is  some- 
thing I  think  is  going  to  be  a  real  boon  to  the  area.  Recreational 
use  of  this  area  has  just  blossomed,  so  in  essence  we  were  author- 
ized $2  million  for  an  interpretive  development  program.  What  that 
is  is  the  signage  because  the  whole  idea  of  the  heritage  corridor  is 
so  that  the  communities  can  work  in  unison  together.  And  then 
they  have  a  statutory  funding  and  because  it's  double  what  it  was 
last  year  because  if  we  get  the  double  authorization 

Mr.  Regula.  The  match. 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island  [continuing].  For  additional  land 
and  then  the  Park  Service  funds:  $236,000  for  technical  assistance 
which  represents  flat  funding  from  last  year.  But  thanks  to  you  for 
all  of  your  help  to  get  this  reauthorized,  because  it  was  authorized 
for  10  years  and  we  just  had  our  10-year  celebration,  and  we  really 
need  the  reauthorization. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we're  working  on  it. 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  I  know  you  are. 

Mr.  Regula.  We've  got  a  package  together  over  in  Resources  and 
we've  just  got  to  keep  working. 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Well,  I  know  I've  spoken  to  Chair- 
man Young  and  he's  actually,  I  think,  going  to  be  a  friend  to  us 
on  this  too.  So  thanks  for  your  help.  I'll  be  happy  to  keep  pushing 
along  with  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  Thank  you  very  much,  and  thank 
you  for  signing  the  letter  to  the  President. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  they  mentioned  that  yesterday  at  the  remem- 
brance program. 

Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island.  And  Dr.  Walter  Reisch  was  up  in 
my  State  just  the  other  day  and  he  speaks  very  highly  of  you  and 
your  participation  at  the  museum. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  a  good  cause.  Okay,  thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Kennedy  of  Rhode  Island  follows:] 


147 


The  Honorable  Patrick  J.  Kennedy 

Statement  before  the  House  Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  Interior 

April  17,  1996 

Thank  you  Chairman  Regula  and  Congressman  Yates  for  giving  me  the  opportunity  to  testify  on 
behalf  of  the  Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage  Corndor    I  am  requesting  that  a  total  of 
$1,346,000  for  Fiscal  Year  1997  be  made  available  to  the  National  Park  Service  in  funds  for  the 
Blackstone. 

I  think  it  would  be  preaching  to  the  choir  to  recite  the  merits  of  our  nation's  heritage  areas 
Because  time  is  short,  I  will  refrain  from  doing  so,  except  to  say  that  in  Rhode  Island  we  are 
reaching  new  heights  Many  of  the  projects  have  resulted  in  as  much  as  a  30  to  1  return  of  the 
government's  investment,  and  everyone  is  participating    Private  industry  is  working  with 
government  in  a  way  that  should  be  considered  a  model  for  other  federal  programs    Simply  put. 
the  Blackstone  Valley  Heritage  Corridor  has  given  new  life  to  the  economy  of  northern  Rhode 
Island  and  South-centeral  Massachusetts 

I  speak  for  all  of  my  constituents  when  I  say  that  this  Committee's  participation  and  support  is 
greatly  appreciated 

I  want  to  thank  you.  Chairman  Regula,  for  all  your  assistance  in  the  reauthorization  of  our 
national  heritage  areas.  As  a  member  of  the  authorizing  committee  I  can  safely  say  that  without 
your  leadership  we  would  probably  have  nothing  to  appropriate  for  next  year 

In  the  authorizing  bill,  the  Blackstone  River  Valley  is  expected  to  increase  in  size  by  60  percent 
to  accommodate  the  entry  of  five  new  communities  into  the  program    It  is  easy  to  see  why,  for 
the  past  10  years,  these  cities  and  towns  have  wanted  to  be  a  part  of  the  Heritage  Corridor    They 
have  seen  prosperity  return  to  their  neighbors  and  they  want  similar  results 

In  light  of  this,  I  respectfully  request  that  the  following  funds  be  appropriated  for  the  Blackstone 
in  Rhode  Island  and  Massachusetts 

1)  $460,000  which  would  complete  the  previously  authorized  $2  million  for  the  interpretive 
development  program  for  special  projects. 

2)  $650,000  in  statutory  aid  funding  for  operational  expenses 

3)  $236,000  in  Operations,  National  Park  Service  (ONPS)  funds  for  technical  assistance,  which 
represents  flat  funding  from  last  year 

Thank  you  again  for  the  opportunity  to  testify  I  hope  you  share  my  position  on  these  various 
funding  levels.  Clearly,  if  we  want  to  continue  the  level  of  success  and  partnership  within  the 
Blackstone  Valley  Heritage  Corridor,  then  we  must  do  our  small,  but  important  part  I  will  be 
happy  to  answer  any  questions  that  the  Committee  may  have 


148 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
E.B.  FORSYTHE  NATIONAL  WILDLIFE  REFUGE 

WITNESS 

HON.   JIM   SAXTON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE   IN   CONGRESS   FROM   THE 
STATE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Mr.  Regula.  Jim? 

Mr.  Saxton.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  appreciate  the  oppor- 
tunity to  come  over  and  chat  with  you  for  a  minute.  I've  got  some 
fairly  specific  and  detailed  testimony  which  was  prepared  by  my 
able  assistant,  Katherine  Gilmore,  who  is  here  with  me,  and  I 
would  just  like  to  submit  it  for  the  record.  If  I  may  just  say  that 
we  are  requesting  $5  million  this  year  for  the  continuation  of  the 
expansion 

Mr.  Regula.  This  is  land  acquisition? 

Mr.  Saxton.  Correct.  It's  with  regards  specifically  to  the  Edwin 
B.  Forsythe  Refuge  system  which  is  located  in  its  entirety  east  of 
the  parkway  along  the  Atlantic  coast  parcels  between  Sandy  Hook 
and  Atlantic  City.  It's  a  stretch  of  probably  close  to  100  miles.  This 
is  of  great  importance  that  we  continue  this  program  in  our  view, 
not  for  any  economic  reason  so  much  as  it  is  for  environmental  rea- 
sons. It's  on  the  Atlantic  Flyway,  it's  used  by  migratory  species  on 
a  continuing  basis. 

Mr.  Regula.  What  kind  of  prices  are  we  paying  up  there?  Is  this 
land  getting  valuable? 

Mr.  Saxton.  Well,  it  is  getting  valuable  and  there  has  been 
somewhat  of  a  slowdown  in  construction  in  the  area  and,  therefore, 
some  of  this  land  has  leveled  off  in  price  or  in  some  cases  has  even 
taken  a  dip  in  price.  That  is  why  we  are  anxious  to  get  as  much 
of  it  under  Federal  control  as  we  can  while  the  cost  is  reasonable. 

Mr.  Regula.  What's  the  existing  acreage?  Do  you  have  any  idea? 

Mr.  Saxton.  The  existing  acreage  is  just  over  8,000  acres,  most 
of  which,  the  biggest  parcel  of  which  is  in  the  southern  part  of  the 
refuge  system  along  the  Mullaca  River. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  one  contiguous  piece,  though. 

Mr.  Saxton.  No,  it's  not.  As  individual  landowners  who  have  en- 
vironmentally sensitive  land  decide  they  want  to  sell,  the  Fish  & 
Wildlife  Service  negotiates 

Mr.  Regula.  Filling  in  the  pieces. 

Mr.  Saxton  [continuing].  The  deal.  Right.  And  so  we  have  filled 
in  from  the  northern-most  piece  which  is  known  as  Reedy  Creek  to 
the  southern-most  piece  which  is  known  as  the  old  Briganteen 
Wildlife  Refuge. 

Mr.  Regula.  But  you  have  some  private  land  holdings  between 
the  north  and  south. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Oh,  yes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  refuge  system  itself 
is  more  like  between  private  holdings;  in  other  words,  these  are 
pieces 

Mr.  Regula.  So  the  money  would  be  used  to  eliminate,  wherever 
possible,  in  holdings. 

Mr.  Saxton.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  it's  just  a  matter  of  how  much  we  have. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Yes,  sir. 


149 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  you  on  the  budget  committee? 

Mr.  Saxton.  No,  I  wish  I  was. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  wish  you  were,  too.  You  could  help  us  there. 

Mr.  Saxton.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  see  you,  Jim. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Saxton  follows:] 


150 

Testimony  of 
Congressman  Jim  Saxton 

Interior  Appropriations  Requests 

Subcommittee  on  Interior 
COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 

April  17,  1996 


Since  Fiscal  Year  1990,  Congress  has  invested  an  average  of  $4  million  a 
year  to  maintain  the  E.B.  FORSYTHE  NATIONAL  WILDLIFE  REFUGE. 

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

The  Forsythe  Refiige  contains  critical  feeding  and  nesting  habitat  for  many 
species  of  birds  on  the  Atlantic  Fly  way.    The  State  of  New  Jersey  is  the  most 
urbanized  State  in  the  country  and  wetlands  and  upland  habitat  areas  are  quickly 
disappearing.  We  must  act  now  to  acquire  the  last  vestiges  of  critical  habitat  areas 
along  the  Bamegat  Bay  coastline. 

There  are  some  critical  habitat  pieces  of  land  in  the  Bamegat  Beach  Inland 
area,  as  well  as  the  Manahawkin  Watershed,  many  of  which  are  subject  to  the 
imminent  threat  of  development.  There  is  ongoing  progress  with  negotiations 
between  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  and  property  owners  in  these  areas. 
These  critical  habitat  areas  have  become  increasingly  important  as  other  habitat 
areas  in  the  State  are  being  developed. 

The  Forsythe  Refuge  has  great  environmental,  aesthetic,  recreational  and 
economic  value,  and  the  Federal  government  is  not  alone  in  this  endeavor  of  land 
acquisition.  The  State  of  New  Jersey  has  also  maintained  an  aggressive  campaign 
to  obtain  critical  habitat  in  the  Bamegat  Bay  area.  As  part  of  their  commitment, 
local  jurisdictions  cooperatively  manage  and  donate  properties  to  the  Refuge. 
Through  the  invaluable  efforts  of  the  Tmst  for  Public  Land,  a  non-profit 
conservancy,  the  Federal  government  has  been  able  to  acquire  many  acres  of 
critical  habitat. 


151 


I  REQUEST  $5  MILLION  FOR  THE  EXPANSION  OF  THE  FORSYTHE 
REFUGE,  AS  WELL  AS  THE  CONSOLIDATION  OF  THE  REMAINING 
UPLAND  COMPLEX  AREAS  OF  THIS  HISTORIC  REFUGE. 


Thank  you  for  allowing  me  to  testify  today. 


152 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
HASKELL  INDIAN  NATIONS  UNIVERSITY 

WITNESS 

HON.  JAN  MEYERS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE   IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  KANSAS 

Mr.  Regula.  Clear  the  decks  for  you. 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  Well  you've  heard  from  me  before  on 
this  subject  so  I  don't  have  to  do  a  lot  of  background. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  put  your  statement  in  the  record  and  you  can 
send  out  your  press  release. 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  All  right.  Haskell,  of  course,  is  a 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  a  junior  college  for  the  Indians,  isn't  it? 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  It  is  a  community  college  for  Indians. 
It's  now  called  All  Nations  University  because  to  the  two-year  pro- 
gram that  they  have  always  had,  they  have  added  a  baccalaureate 
program  for  teachers.  They  were  having  a  very  difficult  time  get- 
ting teachers  to  return  to  the  reservations  to  teach  in  grade  school 
and  in  high  school.  So  they  are  in  their  second  or  third  year  of  that 
program.  It's  been  enormously  helpful  to  them.  Haskell,  I  think, 
has  really  tried  to  find  the  needs  of  the  Indian  communities  on  the 
reservations,  particularly,  and  respond  to  them.  They  have  been 
flat-funded  for  the  last  two  or  three  years.  Last  year,  for  the  first 
time  in  over  10  years,  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  pro- 
posed a  $209,000  increase  to  Haskell's  baseline  and  this  year  0MB 
requests  a  $300,000  increase  in  the  operating  budget  for  Fiscal 
Year  1997. 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  they  get  their  students  to  go  back  to  reserva- 
tions? It  seems  like  so  much  of  the  time  those  who  get  skills  go 
elsewhere. 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  I  think  probably  that  is  a  positive  thing 
for  the  most  part.  In  other  words,  some  return  to  the  reservation 
there  if  they  can  be  helpful  there.  It's  positive  in  many  respects: 
if  they  can  move  into  the  community,  get  a  job,  make  a  living  and 
have  a  successful  and  happy  life.  They  do  want  to  get  teachers  who 
will  spend  at  least  a  few  years  on  the  reservation  because  it's  ter- 
ribly important  that  they  have  the  teachers  there.  That's  what  they 
have  not  been  able  to  get. 

They  also  have  innovative  research  programs.  They  continue  to 
conduct  research,  long-term  and  short-term,  relating  to  key  hazard- 
ous substance  problems  on  Native  American  lands.  This  is  probably 
for  several  reasons.  I  do  think  there  are  some  Indian  lands  that 
have  been  polluted  and  I  don't  know  exactly  why;  maybe  it's  min- 
ing activity  in  some  cases,  a  lot  of  different  reasons. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  probably  a  host  of  things. 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  But  another  reason  that  I  think  this  is 
positive  is  that  it  trains  young  men  and  women  for  a  specific  occu- 
pation and  I  think  that  that's  important.  Cooperative  research 
agreements  exist  with  NASA,  Sandia  Labs  and  the  National 
Science  Foundation,  as  well  as  with  other  major  universities  and 
tribal  colleges  to  strengthen  that  science  curriculum. 

Mr.  Regula.  You  said  it's  a  community  college;  does  it  have 
transfer  credits  as  well  as  a  terminal  program? 


153 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  I  know  that  some  of  the  students  do  go 
on  to  KU,  which  is  in  the  same  community  of  Lawrence,  Kansas, 
and  I  presume,  then,  that  means  if  their  credits  transfer  to  K.U. 
that  they  transfer  to  other  places.  But  that's  a  good  question  to 
which  I  will  have  to  get  an  answer. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  most  community  colleges  have  two  sides.  They 
have  the  technical  institute  type  of  thing  where  you  get  a  two-year 
degree  and  then  they  have  the  two  years  which  transfer  on  to  a 
State  university  or  whatever  the  case  might  be. 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  Yes,  I'm  sure  that's  the  case  here.  The 
reason  I'm  not  answering  you  more  specifically  is  that  the  students 
at  Haskell  come  from  35  different  States,  so  there's  tremendous  di- 
versity there.  They  are  not  just  from  tribes  in  Kansas.  I  do  know 
that  some  of  the  students  go  on  to  K.U.,  but  a  great  many  of  them 
return  home  and  how  well  those  credits  transfer  I  am  not  positive. 
But  I  know  that  the  baccalaureate  program  is  accredited  by  North 
Central  Accrediting  Association  and  the  Kansas  State  Board  of 
Education,  so  I  presume  that  the  teaching  is  of  high  enough  quality 
and  that  there  is  the  kind  of  variety  in  subjects  so  that  they  can 
transfer. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay.  Jim  Slattery  used  to  have  this  jurisdiction, 
didn't  he? 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  Yes,  he  did,  and  they  re-drew  the  lines. 
You'll  remember  a  few  years  ago  Kansas  lost  one  representative 
and  it  meant  that  we  all  had  to  expand  our  territory  and  I  acquired 
Lawrence  of  Douglas  County  which  I  was  very  pleased  about  be- 
cause it  does  have  both  K.U.  and  Haskell  University. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

Mrs.  Meyers  of  Kansas.  All  right,  I  thank  you  very  much  for 
your  consideration. 

[The  statement  of  Mrs.  Meyers  follows:] 


154 


statement  of  the 

Honorable  Jan  Meyers 
before  the 

Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  Interior 

on 

April  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  appear  before 
you  once  again  on  behalf  of  Haskell  Indian  Nations  University, 
located  in  Lawrence,  KS.   Haskell  is  now  in  its  third  year  of 
their  first  baccalaureate  degree  program,  which  will  train 
elementary  and  secondary  teachers  who  can  then  teach  on 
reservations  in  a  culturally  sensitive  manner.   The  program  is 
now  accredited  by  the  North  Central  Accrediting  Association  and 
the  Kansas  State  Board  of  Education,  and  currently  seven  students 
are  enrolled  in  their  junior  year  of  the  program.   Twelve  more 
students  are  anticipated  as  declared  majors  next  year. 

The  existence  of  Haskell's  teacher  degree  program  is  a 
testament  of  their  committment  to  creating  programs  that  answer 
the  needs  of  Native  American  communities.   There  has  been  little, 
if  any,  addition  to  Haskell's  annual  operating  funds  for  the 
development  and  implementation  the  degree  program,  even  though 
this  represents  an  enormous  expansion  of  Haskell's  mission. 

In  FY  95,  Haskell  received  $7.5  million,  as  it  did  in  FY  96. 
Haskell  currently  has  809  students  representing  155  tribes  and  35 
states.   Last  year,  for  the  first  time  in  over  ten  years,  the 
Office  of  Management  and  Budget  (0MB)  proposed  a  $209,000 
increase  to  Haskell's  baseline.   This  year,  0MB  requests  a 
$300,000  increase  in  the  operating  budget  for  FY  97.   It  is 
important  to  note  that  had  their  budget  been  adjusted  for 
inflation,  last  year's  appropriation  would  have  been  over  $10 
million. 

Nonetheless,  Haskell  continues  to  pursue  innovative  research 
programs.   The  Haskell  Environmental  Research  Studies  Center 
(HERS)  continues  to  conduct  research  in  long-term  and  short-term 
research  relating  to  key  hazardous  substance  problems  on  Native 
American  lands.   Cooperative  research  agreements  exist  with  NASA, 
Sandia  labs  and  the  National  Science  Foundation,  as  well  as  other 
major  universities  and  tribal  colleges  to  strengthen  the  science 
curriculum.   The  Board  of  Regents  and  administrators  of  Haskell 
continue  to  build  on  the  success  of  these  programs  so  that  the 
next  baccalaureate  program  can  incorporate  an  emphasis  on  science 
and  environmental  studies. 


155 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

BLACKSTONE  RIVER  VALLEY  NATIONAL  HERITAGE 

CORRIDOR 

WITNESS 

HON.    JACK   REED,   A   REPRESENTATIVE    IN    CONGRESS   FROM   THE 
STATE  OF  RHODE  ISLAND 

Mr.  Regula.  Jack? 

Mr.  Reed.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Your  statement  will  be  a  part  of  the  record.  Patrick 
Kennedy  was  in  and  I  assume  it's  the  same  topic,  Blackstone,  and 
I'm  very  familiar  with  it. 

Mr.  Reed.  It  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  yes,  sir.  Of  course  I  want  to 
thank  you  for  your  support  in  the  past  and  your  consideration. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we're  trying  to  get  you  into  that  package  over 
at  the  Resources  Committee.  You  want  to  expand  it  another  40 
miles  or  so. 

Mr.  Reed.  We  do.  That  would  be  excellent  and  I,  again,  thank 
you,  Mr.  Chairman.  And  I'm  here  to  support  the  appropriation  for 
this  year,  the  request  of  $1.3  million.  It  would  help  us  to  renovate 
and  restore  the  area  which  was  the  birthplace  of  the  Industrial 
Revolution  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Regula.  How  much  do  you  think  locally  is  being  put  into 
this? 

Mr.  Reed.  My  estimate  would  be  about  one-third,  I  believe. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  think  that  the  legislation  package  they're  talking 
about  in  Resources  is  a  50-50  match. 

Mr.  Reed.  We've  been  back  in  Rhode  Island  as  you  know  trying 
to  scramble  to  make  our  share  of  these  matches  and  50-50  is  some- 
thing that  seems  to  be  the  common  denominator  these  days.  I'm 
sure,  again,  that  if  you  were  able  to  do  that  through  the  Resources 
Committee  then  we  would  endeavor  and  succeed  on  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we're  working  on  it.  We've  got  to  get  them 
moving  on  it. 

Mr.  Reed.  It  would  be  very  beneficial  to,  in  particular,  my  dis- 
trict, because  it  would  include  more  area  in  my  district.  It  would 
also  touch  on  some  of  the  places  where  there  is  very  strong  local 
support. 

Mr.  Regula.  These  things  are  very  popular  because  it  gets  a 
wide  diversity  of  community  people  involved:  Boy  Scouts,  Kiwanis 
Clubs,  you  name  it. 

Mr.  Reed.  We've  got  some  companies  that  are  very  active. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  they  want  to  add  their  support,  too. 

Mr.  Reed.  There's  one  in  particular,  Polytop 

Mr.  Regula.  I  saw  that  in  your  testimony. 

Mr.  Reed  [continuing].  Which  is  a  very  good  company.  I  was 
there  last  week  and  they're  are  keen  to  renovate  or  redevelop  all 
of  the  old  industrial  buildings  around.  This  type  of  project,  to  the 
corridor,  would  give  them  the  type  of  planning  and  just  the  support 
they  need  to  continue. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we're  going  to  try  to  do  them. 


156 

Mr.  Reed.  Thank  you.  And  as  long  as  my  statement  is  part  of 
the  record,  I  just  want  to  thank  you  again,  Mr.  Chairman. 
[The  statement  of  Mr.  Reed  follows:] 


PUASE  RESPOND  TO: 


&10  L0*MWOin>t  SuKOnKI 

4.-.OTON.  DC  nsiVXKtt 
iI02t  Z2S-2r» 

Qamoih  CiTv  CiMTia 
100  Mom**  PuWX 

Ciuu(ST(yf.  Rl  02920 


157 


Congresfsf  of  ttjc  ©niteU  States 

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


STATEMENT  OF  THE  HONORABLE  JACK  REED 

INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  FISCAL  YEAR  1997 

HEARING  OF  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR 

APRIL  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman  and  distinguished  Members  of  the  Subcommittee, 
I  cun  pleased  to  appear  before  you  to  urge  your  continued  support 
of  the  Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage  Corridor.   For 
fiscal  year  1997,  I  endorse  a  $1,346,000  allocation  for  this 
affiliated  area  of  the  National  Park  System,  which  is  a  model 
partnership  between  our  nation's  private  and  public  sectors.   I 
would  also  like  to  thank  Chairman  Regula  and  Mr.  Yates  for  their 
support . 

The  Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage  Corridor  is 
home  to  the  birthplace  of  the  American  industrial  revolution.   In 
this  region  some  200  years  ago,  the  hard  work  and  ingenuity  of 
thousands  of  immigrants  produced  economic  success  that  spurred 
unprecedented  changes  across  the  country  and  around  the  world. 

For  many  years  prior  to  the  Corridor's  creation,  neglect  and 
decline  threatened  the  rich  historic  traditions,  as  well  as  the 
cultural  and  natural  resources,  of  the  Blackstone  Valley.   In  the 
decade  since  the  Corridor's  esteU>lishment,  however,  private  and 
public  partners  have  come  together  to  revive  this  precious  area. 

I  would  like  to  tell  you  more  about  one  such  partner,  whose 
efforts  demonstrate  that  businesses,  as  well  as  strong  and  vital 
communities,  cam  prosper  in  the  Blackstone  Valley.   Under  the 
leadership  of  Dr.  Bob  Harding,  the  Polytop  Corporation  of  North 
Smithfield,  Rhode  Island  is  prospering.   Joining  forces  with 
historic,  environmental,  and  economic  development  officials.  Dr. 
Harding  purchased  the  historic  mill  buildings  of  Slatersville, 
Rhode  Island  for  Polytop.   The  coir^any  has  restored  these 
structures,  which  were  standing  vacant,  for  industrial  re-use, 
helping  Polytop  to  provide  good  jobs  for  hard-working  people. 

But  economic  development  is  not  the  only  goal  for  Dr. 
Harding  and  for  Polytop.   The  company  is  also  helping  to  preserve 
the  illustrious  heritage  of  the  Blackstone  Valley  by  compiling 
the  oral  histories  of  former  workers  in  the  Slatersville  mills. 

As  these  and  similarly  impressive  restoration  efforts 
continue,  I  urge  the  federal  government  to  renew  its  commitment 
to  Blackstone.   In  the  next  year,  this  commitment  will  have  three 
complimentary  parts. 


158 


The  first  component  of  the  Blackstone  Corridor's  request  is 
$236,000  in  National  Park  Service  technical  assistance,  which 
covers  rangers,  project  management,  and  historical  preservation. 
Second,  the  Corridor  requires  $460,000  in  National  Park  Service 
construction  funds  to  complete  exhibits  and  signs  at  the  many- 
emerging  interpretive  and  tourism  sites  throughout  the  region. 

Finally,  the  Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage 
Corridor  Commission  requests  $650,000  for  its  operations.   The 
Commission  supports  critical  planning  and  technical  assistance 
that  helps  the  area's  communities  to  obtain  funding  from  other 
sources.   These  funds,  and  the  further  expansion  of  partnerships 
with  businesses  in  the  region,  are  particularly  important  in 
light  of  possible  increases  in  the  Corridor's  boundaries,  an 
issue  that  I  hope  and  expect  Congress  to  debate  later  this  year. 

Congress  should  pass  H.R.  1447  to  expand  the  Blackstone 
River  Valley  National  Heritage  Corridor  to  include  five 
communities  with  strong  historic,  economic,  and  ecological  ties 
to  the  area.   These  communities  include  Burrillville,  Glocester, 
and  Smithfield  in  Rhode  Island,  and  Leicester  and  Worcester  in 
Massachusetts.   This  expansion  will  encourage  additional  revival 
and  restoration.   For  example,  if  we  approve  the  boundary 
expansion.  Dr.  Harding  hopes  to  install  historic  exhibits  in  the 
revitalized  mills  of  Slatersville,  which  would  be  brought  inside 
the  Corridor. 

Plans  to  extend  the  Corridor's  boundaries  enjoy  wide  support 
in  the  region  as  the  next  logical  step  in  the  area's  efforts.  In 
most  of  the  instances  where  the  Corridor's  requests  exceed  fiscal 
year  1996  funding,  the  additional  resources  would  make  possible 
the  partnerships  needed  to  expand  the  achievements  of  restoration 
into  the  five  communities  that  would  be  added  to  the  Corridor. 

The  hard-working,  civic-minded  people  of  the  Blackstone 
Valley  have  made  great  strides  to  revive  a  region  in  which  all  of 
our  nation's  citizens  can  take  pride.   As  you  consider  the 
Interior  Department's  appropriations  for  the  next  fiscal  year,  I 
urge  the  Subcommittee  to  continue  its  support  for  this  endeavor. 


159 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

ENDANGERED  SPECIES  LISTING  MORATORIUM  USFWS 
CHESAPEAKE  BAY  FIELD  OFFICE 

WITNESS 

HON.  WAYNE  T.  GILCHREST,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  MARYLAND 

Mr.  Regula.  Wayne? 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Fm  next? 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  that's  the  order  we  have  here  so  we'll  stay  on 
track.  I  guess  Bart  will  wait  a  couple  of  minutes. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  But  he  was  here  first. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we  have  a  list  here  so  I'm  following  that.  Go 
ahead. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Mr.  Nethercutt,  Ms.  Vucanovich,  Mr.  Skeen,  Mr. 
Bunn — is  that  you  Ralph? 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  your  statement  on  the  endangered  species 
listing  moratorium  is  part  of  the  record,  if  you  could  summarize  it 
would  be  helpful. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Well,  I'm  up  and  talking  to  the  choir. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  I  think  you  are. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Baritone,  bass,  tenor. 

Mr.  Regula.  You're  going  to  get  us  an  endangered  species  reau- 
thorization, I  trust. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Ralph,  I  think  we  have  a  pretty  good  bill.  It's  ba- 
sically done  and  if  it  could  hit  the  House  floor  I  think  it  could  be 
explained  in  a  way  that  we  would  get  enough  votes  in  the  House 
and  the  Senate  side. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  there  some  impediment  to  getting  it  to  rhe  floor? 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Maybe  the  impediment  is  that  it's  so  appealing 
to  a  wide  array 

Mr.  Regula.  Why  on  the  other  side  and  not  our  side  of  the  aisle? 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Well,  I  think  it's  a  mixture  of  a  lot  of  different 
people.  Anyway,  since  this  is  going  on  the  record,  Ralph,  I  guess 
we're  here  to  try  to  express  our  feeling  on  why  the  moratorium  on 
listing  should  be  lifted.  Given  the  fact  that  there  will  be  large  num- 
bers of  Members  reading  this  testimony  I'll  try  to  express  my  per- 
spective on  why  the  moratorium  should  be  lifted. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  might  tell  you  we  did  it  for  emergencies  on  the 
Omnibus. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Well,  that's  good. 

Mr.  Regula.  And  the  de-listing,  too. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  So  listing  and  de-listing  has  been — what's  emer- 
gency listing  as  opposed  to  just  general  listing? 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  a  step  in  that  direction. 

Mr.  GiLCHRESl.  So  if  it's  critical — you  know,  I  think  in  the  long- 
run,  whether  it's  the  taxpayer,  State  taxpayers  through  State  agen- 
cies and  the  private  landowner,  or  timber  companies  or  mining 
companies  or  whoever  is  out  there,  if  we  continue  to  allow  them  to 
stay  in  this  state  of  limbo  not  knowing  whether  or  not  there's  going 
to  be  a  moratorium  in  the  next  couple  of  months,  will  it  be  lifted 
pretty  soon,  there's  a  lot  of  projects  that  are  being  held  up. 


160 

Mr.  Regula.  As  you  understand,  in  the  absence  of  an  authoriza- 
tion we  have  a  problem  because  if  we  put  up  the  money  to  go  for- 
ward, then  we  are  subject  to  a  point-of-order. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  You're  subject  to  a  point-of-order  if  you  put 
money 

Mr.  Regula.  And  try  to  go  forward  with  the  Endangered  Species 
program  because  there  is  no  authorization  at  this  point  to  do  any- 
thing on  Endangered  Species:  the  Act  has  expired  and  you're  not 
able  to  get  a  new  authorization. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  So,  more  than  just  lifting  the  moratorium 

Mr.  Regula.  If  you  want  to  solve  the  problem. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST  [continuing].  We  need  an  authorization. 

Mr.  Regula.  You  absolutely  do.  I've  written  the  chairman  of  your 
committee  asking  him  to  do  that  so  that  we  can  have  the  authority 
to  fund  this  program. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Asking  for  authority  to  fund  the  program  the 
way  it  exists? 

Mr.  Regula.  I  need  a  reauthorization  of  the  Endangered  Species 
Act. 

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

Mr.  Regula.  In  theory,  if  we  go  to  the  floor  with  money  to  oper- 
ate the  Endangered  Species  Act  we  are 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Subject  to  a  point-of-order. 

Mr.  Regula.  Subject  to  a  point-of-order  which  takes  it  all  out. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  And  there's  no  way  that  there  can  be,  I  guess 
there's  no  such  thing  as  a  short-term  authorization  of  the  existing 
law  until  it's  reauthorized? 

Mr.  Regula.  You  can  get  a  waiver  from  the  Rules  Committee 
which  eliminates  the  point-of-order,  but  it's  pretty  tough  to  do. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  In  essence,  somewhat  risky. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  extremely  important  that  we  get  an  authoriza- 
tion in  this  area. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  I  think  there's  probably,  I  think  you  have  mul- 
tiple schools  of  thought  out  there. 

Mr.  Regula.  Oh,  I  understand. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  But  you  generally  have  two  schools  of  thought. 
One  school  of  thought  is,  which  is  mine,  if  you  bring  a  bad  bill  to 
the  floor  we  would  have  to  work  to  defeat  it.  If  you  brought  a  good 
bill  to  the  floor,  the  other  side  would  work  to  not  allow  it  to  come 
to  the  floor. 

Mr.  Regula.  There's  no  question  that  there's  an  impasse. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  You  know,  Ralph,  there  is  an  impasse  but  I 
think  we've  allowed  democracy  to  work  long  enough  with  all  our 
ideas  and  inputs  and  now  somebody  has  to  make  a  decision  to 
bring  some  type  of  legislation  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  I  think  you  need  to  talk  with  our  leadership 
as  you  probably  already  know.  And,  of  course,  we  have  this  new  en- 
vironmental task  force 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Which  is  subject  to  debate  as  is  its  effectiveness. 

Mr.  Regula.  Democracy  is  a  wonderful  thing. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Well,  let  me  just— democracy  is  great,  I  wouldn't 
want  to  have  it  any  other  way,  but  I've  tried  to  talk  to  the  leader- 
ship in  the  past.  What  I'd  like  to  do,  Ralph,  is  to  hook  up  with  you, 


161 

Saxton  and  a  few  other  people,  the  four  or  five  of  us,  so  we  can  go 
in  and  talk  to  the  leadership.  But  if  I  just  say  it,  nothing  ever  hap- 
pens. 

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

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  And  I  could  use  your  name? 

Mr.  Regula.  Putting  an  exception  in  for  emergency  listings 
doesn't  really  solve  the  problem  because  then  you  get  into  the  ques- 
tion of  definition  of  "emergency".  A.,  and  B.,  "long-term."  We  need 
a  practical  Endangered  Species  Act  so  we  don't  have  extinctions  of 
species,  but  on  the  other  hand,  as  you  well  appreciate,  there  are 
quite  a  number  of  instances  where  the  act  has  been  used  to  prob- 
ably go  beyond  what  people  would  think  is  fair. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Right.  I  think  we  have  a  goal  that  is  going  to 
meet  everybody's  needs.  I  think  if  we  got  in  to  see  the  leadership 
they'd  recognize 

Mr.  Regula.  There's  always  bringing  it  to  the  floor — the  majority 
rules. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Let  me  ask  you  a  quick  question,  Ralph.  What 
we're  doing  right  now  as  far  as  the  moratorium  on  the  listing:  Is 
this  to  lift  it  before  October  or  not  put  it  back  in  in  October? 

Mr.  Regula.  Right  now  the  1996  Interior  bill,  which  has  not  yet 
been  signed,  is  in  the  Omnibus  package  and  the  language  in  there 
on  the  moratorium  allows  for  emergency  listings  and  de-listing. 
Now  that's  not  law,  because,  of  course,  it  hasn't  been  signed. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  But  right  now  there  is  a  moratorium  on  the  list- 
ing and  it  is  in  effect  until  October.  What  you're  trying  to  do  here 
is  to  have  emergency  listings. 

Mr.  Regula.  But  that  isn't  a  long-term  solution.  What  we  need 
is  a  reauthorization  of  the  Endangered  Species  Act. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Okay,  Ralph,  I'll  make  that  a  priority. 

Mr.  Regula.  It  really  needs  to  be  done.  Chesapeake  Bay  field  of- 
fice needs  some  extra  money  or  just  keep  it  going? 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Keep  it  going.  The  amount  of  money  that's  on 
there  is  pretty  adequate.  There  are  13  refuges  in  our  region  and 
the  Chesapeake  Bay  office  is  probably  one  of  the  prime  examples — 
I'd  like  to  bring  some  of  the  people  down  there  and  see  how  they 
work  with  all  of  the  other  Federal  agencies  on  a  daily  basis 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  working  well. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  It's  working  extremely  well.  They  work  with  pri- 
vate landowners  to  the  degree  that  the  private  landowner  wants  to 
be  a  part  of  the  program  and  very  often  the  private  owner  that 
comes  through  these  agencies  say.  How  can  we  help?  So  it's  a  good 
program. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  we'll  look  at  it. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Thanks,  Ralph. 

Mr.  Regula.  Let  me  know  when  you  get  the  meeting  arranged. 

Mr.  GiLCHREST.  Okay. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Gilchrest  follows:] 


162 


WAYNE  T.  GILCHREST 


COMMrTTEE  ON  RESOURCES 


Congre£(g  of  t\)t  Winitttt  States  "^'"*"' 

J^oviit  of  i^eprrfiirntattbed 

Testimony  of  the  Honorable  Wayne  T.  Cilchrest 

before  the  Interior  Appropriations  Subcommittee 

on  the  Budget  for  the  Department  of  Interior 

April  17,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  here  today  to  request  that  the  moratorium  on  listing  activities  under  the 
Endangered  Species  Act  not  be  renewed  and  that  the  Ecological  Services  Program  under  the  Fish 
and  Wildlife  Service  receive  adequate  funding,  ideally  in  the  amount  of  the  Administration's 
request  of  $7.4  million,  for  listing  and  prelisting  activities.  1  would  also  like  to  request  that  the 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  Chesapeake  Bay  Field  Office  be  level  funded  at  the  requested  $2,636 
million. 

Endangered  Species  Listing  Moratorium 

Much  controversy  has  surrounded  the  Endangered  Species  Act  in  this  Congress.  The  extent  to 
which  the  Act  affects  private  and  federal  land  and  water  use,  and  whether  this  is  appropriate  has 
been  hotly  debated  by  my  colleagues  on  the  Resources  Committee.  The  Act  has  successfully 
protected  species.  960  species  currently  listed  might  otherwise  be  extinct  or  severely  depleted 
today.  Four  species  were  delisted  in  1995  bringing  the  total  delisted  to  23.  Two  species  were 
proposed  for  delisting  in  1996. 

The  listing  program  has  three  specific  objectives.  It  is  intended  to  complete  regulatory  listing 
actions  and  associated  public  involvement  processes  for  those  species  most  in  need  of  legal 
protection,  to  conduct  required  5  year  reviews  of  listed  species  and  to  assess  the  need  for 
reclassification  or  delisting  of  species  (sec.  4(c)(2)),  and  to  implement  multi-species  approaches 
to  protection  in  order  to  maximize  efficiency  and  minimize  conflicts. 

The  Act  provides  substantial  protection  for  species  that  have  been  added  to  the  list.  Listing 
imposes  prohibitions  on  take,  requires  federal  agencies  to  consult  with  the  relevant  agency  (either 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  or  National  Marine  Fisheries  Service)  to  ensure  that  their  action  will 
not  result  in  jeopardy  to  the  species.  It  requires  that  habitat  critical  for  the  survival  of  the  species 
be  acknowledged,  although  the  take  prohibition  applies  wherever  the  species  occurs,  whether  it  is 
critical  habitat  or  not.  It  provides  substantial  protection  for  the  habitat  on  which  the  species 
depends  and  requires  the  development  of  a  recovery  plan. 

It  has  been  alleged  that  listing  species  has  been  used  as  a  tool  to  influence  and  control  land  use 
decisions.  This  allegation  may  be  acciu-ate  to  the  extent  that  the  primary  cause  of  species  decline 
is  loss  of  habitat.  The  focus  of  reforming  the  Endangered  Species  should  not  be  on  reducing 


miNTlD  ON  MCYCUO  PAPER 


163 


protection  for  species  that  are  or  should  be  listed.   Reform  of  the  F.SA  should  address  the  causes 
of  endangerment  and  seek  to  minimize  those.  Species  are  not  helped  by  a  moratorium  on  listing, 
neither  are  landowners.   Listing  should  be  ihc  option  of  last  resort    Landowners  and  species  will 
be  helped  by  a  program  thai  looks  at  species  in  decline  and  enlists  the  help  of  landowners  and 
federal  agencies  to  thwart  that  decline. 

The  elimination  of  funds  represented  in  the  listing  moratorium  has  resulted  in  a  tremendous 
backlog  of  work  for  the  lish  and  Wildlife  Service.  Currently.  238  domestic  species  await  listing 
decisions.  Without  the  protection  of  the  Act.  these  species  will  continue  to  decline  while  the  cost 
of  recovery  will  continue  to  increase.   100  species  should  have  been  proposed  for  listing  in  FY 
1996.  Prelisting  activities  would  allow  FWS  to  evaluate  the  threats  to  these  species  and  perhaps 
devise  ways  to  conserve  them  without  listing,  determine  that  state  level  programs  provide 
adequate  protection,  determine  that  listing  is  not  warranted,  or  find  that  without  immediate  action 
the  species  in  question  might  go  extinct. 

Restoration  of  funding  will  reduce  the  regulatory  burden  placed  on  the  private  sector  by  allowing 
the  Service  to  protect  species  before  they  become  endangered;  when  management  options  are 
reduced  and  the  time  to  recovery,  as  well  as  the  resources  required  to  achieve  recovery,  is 
increased. 

Mr.  Chairman,  1  have  committed  myself  to  work  with  my  colleagues  as  well  as  members  of  the 
regulated  and  environmental  communities  to  craft  a  reauthorization  to  the  Endangered  Species 
Act  that  will  provide  regulatory  relief  and  certainty  on  one  hand  yet  will  not  diminish  the 
protections  of  the  Act  on  the  other.  I  firmly  believe  that  an  approach  that  utilizes  a  more 
voluntary,  incentive-based  approach  to  species  protection  without  compromising  the 
responsibility  of  state  and  federal  governments  to  conserve  public  trust  resources  is  a  viable  one. 
An  important  aspect  of  this  approach,  however,  involves  allowing  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
to  work  with  States  and  large  landowners  to  preserve  our  natural  heritage  before  it  becomes 
endangered.  Continuing  the  moratorium  on  species  listing  will  put  more  species  on  the  slippery 
slope  to  extinction  and  will  further  erode  our  ability  to  undertake  proactive  wildlife  management. 

U.S.  F.W.S.  Chesapeake  Bay  Field  Office 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  request  that  the  Chesapeake  Bay  field  office  be  funded  at  the  level 
requested  in  the  President's  budget. 

The  Chesapeake  Bay  Field  Office  is  the  largest  Coastal  Programs  office  of  the  US  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service.    In  additional  to  managing  13  National  Wildlife  Refuges,  2  National  Fish 
Hatcheries,  and  a  National  Fisheries  Center,  encompassing  a  combined  total  of  over  45,370 
acres  in  the  watershed  of  our  nation's  largest  estuary,  the  field  office  participates  in  the 
restoration  and  protection  of  the  Bay  by  providing  technical  assistance  in  the  areas  of  wetlands, 
anadromous  fish  research  and  protection,  biological  monitoring,  non-point  source  pollution,  and 
public  awareness. 


164 


The  Chesapeake  Bay  Field  Office  has  a  lead  role  in  several  nationally  significant  initiatives. 
Besides  the  outstanding  work  restoring  bald  eagle  populations  in  the  Chesapeake  Bay  region 
from  93  pairs  in  1981  to  300  pairs  in  1994.  the  men  and  women  in  the  Chesapeake  Bay  field 
office  have  been  major  players  in  the  restoration  of  striped  bass,  known  in  Maryland  as  the 
"rockfish".  Populations  on  the  East  Coast.  The  fishery  for  rockfish  collapsed  in  1 985  as  a  result 
of  excessive  fishing  pressure.  A  moratorium  was  in  effect  for  10  years.  In  1995  Amendment  5 
to  the  striped  bass  management  plan  declared  the  population  completely  recovered  and  reopened 
valuable  recreational  and  commercial  fisheries  up  and  down  the  East  Coast.  This  success  is 
largely  due  to  the  efforts  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay  office.  The  Bay  represents  the  single  largest 
portion  of  striped  bass  spawning  grounds  on  the  East  Coast.  Aggressive  "catch  and  release" 
tagging  efforts  and  release  of  hatchery-reared  wild-caught  fish  brought  rockfish  back  from  the 
brink  of  extinction. 

Completing  the  tagging  efforts  to  restore  rockfish,  have  provided  the  Office  the  understanding  to 
restore  other  depleted  species  such  as  shad,  sturgeon  and  weakfish.  FWS  hopes  to  duplicate  their 
rockfish  success  with  as  many  as  10  or  12  other  commercially  valuable  species  that  rely  on  the 
Bay.  The  restoration  of  fish  passage  and  habitat  in  upstream  reaches  of  Bay  tributaries  is  a 
priority  for  FWS.  Coordinated  efforts  with  state  and  federal  agencies  have  successfully  removed 
blockages  and  provided  for  fish  passage  at  major  dams,  opening  up  more  than  200  miles  of 
critical  spawning  ground  and  habitat  along  the  James  and  Susquehanna  Rivers. 

The  Chesapeake  Bay  Office  biologists,  working  with  the  Army  Corps  of  Engineers,  have 
pioneered  the  concept  of  using  material  dredged  from  navigation  channel  maintenance  projects 
for  the  creation  of  wetland  and  forested  habitat  for  fish  and  wildlife.    The  Bay  Field  Office  is 
also  responsible  for  advising  EPA  on  30  Superfund  sites  in  the  mid-Atlantic  region,  and  plays  a 
major  role  in  hazardous  material  and  oil  spill  response. 

USFWS  Chesapeake  Bay  Field  Office  has  monitored  the  health  and  abundance  of  SAV  in  the 
Bay  for  a  decade.  The  Partners  for  Wildlife  Program  encourages  private  landowners  to  protect 
and  restore  degraded  habitats  on  their  property.  The  Bayscapes  Program  encourages 
envirorunentally  sound  landscaping  techniques  for  backyard  habitats  in  an  effort  to  reduce  non- 
point  pollution.  The  field  office  works  cooperatively  with  numerous  state  and  federal  agencies 
and  local  governments  and  organizations  to  restore  and  protect  the  natural  resources  that  make 
the  Bay  such  a  unique  and  important  ecosystem.  Maintaining  full  funding  for  the  Chesapeake 
Bay  Field  Office  is  vital  to  the  continuation  of  ongoing  research,  monitoring,  response  readiness, 
and  education  in  the  Bay  watershed  and  the  mid-Atlantic  region. 

Thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  testify.  If  you  have  any  questions,  please  feel  free  to  contact 
me  or  my  staff  at  x5-53 1 1 . 


165 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996 
STONES  RIVER  NATIONAL  BATTLEFIELD 

WITNESS 

HON.  BART  GORDON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  TENNESSEE 

Mr.  Regula.  Bart? 

Mr.  Gk)RDON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  don't  know  whether  you  caught 
my  cold  or  I  caught  yours,  but  we  sound  similar. 

Mr.  Regula.  We  sound  about  the  same. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I  want  to  first  thank  you  for  your  patience  and  help 
in  the  past.  I'm  here,  once  again,  on  a  very  personal  topic  to  me 
and  that's  Stones  River  Battlefield.  To  give  you  a  quick  recap — and 
I  have  submitted  a  longer  presentation  for  the  record  here — there 
were  over  10,500  battles  and  skirmishes  during  the  Civil  War. 
Only  45  of  those  had  a  direct  impact  on  the  outcome  of  the  war  and 
Stones  River  Battlefield  was  one  of  those.  But,  uniquely,  it  is  the 
smallest  of  those  45.  It  was  set  up  real  quickly  back  in  the  1920's 
and  I  think  there  were  southern  Democratic  chairmen  who  were 
tired  of  additional  battlefields  for  Union  victories  and  so  they  did 
a  little  bit 

Mr.  Regula.  Weren't  there  some  that  were  Confederate  vic- 
tories? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Well,  at  least  not  during  that  period.  Apparently 
they  felt  like  they  were  honoring  too  many  Union  victories.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  State  of  Ohio  has  a  monument  there  for  some 
of  the  troops  that  they  sent  down.  The  first  monument  of  the  Civil 
War  was  built  there. 

Mr.  Regula.  At  Stones  River. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir.  There  were  almost  50,000  casualties  and 
so  right  after,  not  the  day  after,  they  built  some  monuments  to  the 
cause  of  these  casualties.  So,  it's  significant  in  that  regard  and  it's 
significant  in  that  Secretary  Lujan  put  it  on  his  list  of  the  25  most 
endangered  battlefields.  I  see,  really,  a  combination  of  it  being  too 
small  to  start  off  with  and,  secondly,  it's  in  the  middle  of  the  fast- 
est growing  community  in  Tennessee. 

Mr.  Regula.  You're  asking  for  money  to  buy  additional  land? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Two  things,  yes,  sir.  That's  one.  I  know  you  had  a 
moratorium  last  year  on  that.  I  hope  that  that's  off  this  year.  But 
there  are  two  things  and  I'll  try  to  be  real  quick.  Right  after  the 
battle  the  largest  earthen  fort  ever  built  in  the  United  States — and 
they  think  maybe  in  the  world — was  constructed  by  the  Union 
forces  as  a  supply  depot.  It  encompasses  over  200  acres.  It's  called 
Fortress  Rosecrans  after  General  Rosecrans.  There's  a  small  part 
of  that  left  that  they  have  now  restored  as  the  overall  fortress  of 
the  battle  and  then  there's  a  small  redoubt  there.  Over  the  last  five 
years  this  committee  has  helped  to  make  that  possible.  They  need 
$188,887  more  to  complete  that.  They  have  it  planned  very  specifi- 
cally. We  asked  to  round  it  off  to  $190,000. 

Mr.  Regula.  This  is  to  improve  existing  structures? 

Mr.  Gordon.  To  finish  the  work  on  the  fortress,  then  that's  it. 
No  more,  it's  done.  We  don't  knock  on  your  door  on  that  one  any- 
more. The  second  item  is  that,  with  this  committee's  help  over  the 


166  

last  several  years,  they  are  building  a  trail  along  the  Stones  River 
connecting  the  battlefield  with  this  fortress.  This  was  a  unique  op- 
eration in  that  long  before,  I  guess,  we  got  to  the  frugalness  that 
we  are  now,  the  city  agreed  that  if  the  park  were  to  build  this,  they 
would  maintain  it.  So  there  would  be  absolutely  no  expense  to  the 
park  as  this  is  being  built.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  city  is  helping 
with  the  construction  of  it.  To  complete  that  job  it  looks  like  that 
is  $675,000  construction  and  $75,000  for  planning. 

And  then,  finally,  to  complete,  well,  not  complete — the  land  ac- 
quisition is  two-pronged:  One,  there's  one  more  parcels  on  the  trail 
that  need  to  be  taken  care  of,  which  is  probably  in  the  $100,000 
range,  and  then  all  the  money  for  the  expense  of  the  battlefield 
within  approved  boundaries  is  obligated.  So  we  would  like  to  con- 
tinue with  that.  So,  rather  than  having  two  different  land  acquisi- 
tions I  thought  we  could  make  those  consolidated.  That  is  after 
they  purchase  this  one  little  piece  for  the  trail,  then  that  money 
would  go  on  over  into  the  battlefield  so  that  you  don't  have  to  guess 
exactly  what  this  would  be  and  what  that  would  be.  But  all  of  the 
funds  are  obligated  on  our  land  acquisitions  so  that  does  need  to 
go  forward.  These  others,  construction  will  take  care  of  the  work 
over  the  last  five  years  and  I  can  foresee  no  additional  construction 
there  at  the  battlefield. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  see  what  our  money  is. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Do  you  expect  to  have  any  land  acquisition  money 
this  year? 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  probably  have  some  but  it's  not  likely  well 
earmark  it.  What  we  had  in  the  1996,  which  of  course  has  not  yet 
been  signed,  was  just  a  lump  sum. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Oh,  you  do?  Okay. 

Mr.  Regula.  That  is  subject  to  being  allocated  by  the  Secretary 
and  the  members  of  the  subcommittee. 

Mr.  GrORDON.  Well,  if  there  are  going  to  be  no  earmarks,  and,  if 
there  are  going  to  be  some  I'd  like  have  it,  and  if  there  aren't  going 
to  be  any,  I  know  this  is  a  priority  thing  but  I'll  take  my  chances. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  what  I  think  you  should  do,  even  in  terms  of 
1996,  is  enter  your  plea  with  the  Secretary  of  Interior  so  whenever 
he  brings  his  priority  list  for  1996  funds,  assuming  we  get  it  even- 
tually, we  can  look  at  that  one  along  with  the  others. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Well,  now,  if  they're  earmarked  as  a  procedure,  will 
he  come  to  this  committee  for  a  sign-off  on  them?  Is  that  what  will 
happen? 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gordon.  You'll  give  him  $100  and  then  he'll  come  to  you  and 
say  here's  how  we  want  to  spend  $100? 

Mr.  Regula.  There's  $140  million  total  in  the  bill,  assuming  that 
it  gets  signed  at  some  point. 

Mr.  Gordon.  And  I  voted  for  the  over-ride. 

Mr.  Regula.  Good.  We'll  keep  that  in  mind. 

Mr.  Gordon.  As  well  as  the  bill. 

Mr.  Regula.  The  Secretary,  in  fact  probably  within  the  next  cou- 
ple of  weeks,  will  come  with  a  list  of  his  earmarks  and  then  we  in 
the  Senate  and  House  subcommittee  people  have  to  sign  it.  Basi- 
cally, the  chairman  and  the  ranking  member  have  to  sign  off.  So 


167 

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

Mr.  Gk)RDON.  That's  good  information.  I  appreciate  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  I'd  suggest  you  call  the  Secretary. 

Mr.  Gk)RDON.  I  will.  Again,  I  thank  you  for  your  generosity.  I've 
tried  to  reciprocate  the  best  way  that  I  could. 

Mr.  Regula.  We  really  appreciate  your  support. 

Mr.  Gordon.  This  is  an  important  committee  and  hopefully  we 
can  continue  as  a  team. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Gordon  follows:! 


168 


Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Interior 
Appropriations,  It's  good  to  see  you  once  again  regradlng 
National  Park  Service  Funding  for  the  Stones  River  National 
Battlefield.   I  appreciate  your  affording  me  the  opportunity  to 
testify  in  support  of  a  very  important  project,  for  which  I 
reguest  three  appropriations  —  $190,000,  $750,000  and  $850,000. 

Over  the  past  several  years  the  subcommittee  has  provided 
funding  for  various  expansion,  stabilization  and  interpretation 
projects  at  Stones  River  National  Battlefield  in  my  hometown  of 
Murfreesboro,  Tennessee.   I  want  to  once  again  thank  the  Chairman 
and  Mr.  Yates  for  all  of  your  past  support  and  advice. 

I  am  pleased  to  report  that  things  are  moving  along  well  at 
the  Battlefield.   In  October  of  1994,  National  Park  Service 
Director  Roger  Kennedy  travelled  to  Murfreesboro  to  preside  over 
the  official  opening  of  Fortress  Rosecrans.   As  we  speak,  crews 
are  working  on  stabilizing  Redoubt  Brannan  and  finalizing  the 
restoration  of  Fortress  Rosecrans.  As  you  recall.  Fortress 
Rosecrans  was  the  largest  earthen  fortress  constructed  during  the 
Civil  War.   Redoubt  Brannan  was  part  of  the  overall  fortress 
complex  which  played  the  important,  strategic  role  of  protecting 
the  Stones  River,  the  railroad  tracks  and  the  main  road  leading 
into  Nashville. 

The  cost  estimates  to  stabilize  and  interpret  Redoubt 
Brannan  and  restore  Fortress  Rosecrans,  from  which  I  based  my 
funding  request  in  1991,  have  proven  to  be  generally  accurate. 
We  have,  however,  run  into  some  unexpected  costs  which 
necessitate  an  additional  appropriation  of  $190,000. 

The  price  of  real  estate  is  the  primary  reason  for  the 
increased  costs.  Every  time  I  have  testified  before  this 
subcommittee  I  have  said  the  number  one  problem  we  face  is 
commercial  and  residential  development  and  that  our  worst  enemy 
is  time. 

I  am  also  pleased  to  report  that  the  City  of  Murfreesboro 
signed  the  contract  for  the  construction  of  the  historic  river 
trail  on  April  7,  1995.   Tennessee  currently  has  a  4  percent 
unemployment  rate.   While  a  healthy  economy  and  low  unemployment 
are  normally  great  news,  it  has  increased  labor  costs  and  the 
price  of  construction.  At  the  current  time,  90%  of  the  trail  has 
been  completed.  An  additional  appropriation  of  $675,000  in 
construction  funds  and  $75,000  in  planning  funds  is  needed  to 
complete  the  river  trail  project.   Because  we  are  so  close  to 
final  completion,  I  do  not  want  to  see  all  the  progress  made  fall 
short  of  realization  due  to  lack  of  funds. 

As  you  may  know,  Stones  River  National  Battlefield  is 
located  in  Rutherford  County  which  is  the  fastest  growing  county 
in  the  state  and  one  of  the  fifty  fastest  growing  in  the  country. 


169 


Every  month  that  goes  by  the  cost  of  property  Increases  and  the 
chances  of  losing  very  historically  significant  land  to 
development  multiplies.   Additionally,  the  fact  that  former 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  Lujan  placed  Stones  River  on  his  list 
of  25  battlefields  most  endangered  by  development,  and  that 
Stones  River  was  one  of  45  battles  which  had  a  determining  effect 
on  the  final  outcome  of  the  Civil  War  only  heightens  the 
importance  of  my  efforts. 

For  these  reason,  it  is  imperative  that  we  take  action  now 
to  secure  the  remaining  parcels  of  the  Stones  River  National 
Battlefield.   Accordingly,  I  am  requesting  an  appropriation  of 
$850,000  for  land  acquisition  to  preserve  this  historic  Civil  War 
sight. 

Nearly  every  chance  I  get  I  visit  the  Battlefield.   I  am 
really  pleased  with  the  progress,  and  I'm  encouraged  by  the 
number  and  variety  of  out  of  state  license  plates  I  see  on  cars 
in  the  parking  lots.   I  am  told  attendance  was  up  21%  during  1995 
and  I  fully  expect  that  to  continue  this  year. 

On  one  additional  note,  I  would  also  rec[uest  that  report 
language  be  included  that  allows  the  appropriations  for  the  river 
trail  and  the  land  acquisition  be  fungible. 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  compliment  the  Superintendent  of 
Stones  River  National  Battlefield,  Mary  Ann  Peckham,  and  her 
staff  for  all  of  their  hard  work  and  dedication  to  making  the 
battlefield  the  best  it  can  be.   They  are  truly  professional 
people  who  are  tremendous  assets  to  the  National  Park  Service. 

Completing  work  at  Stones  River  is  of  great  personal 
importance  to  me.  Murfreesboro  is  my  home  and  I  want  to  make 
this  cultural  resource  as  educational  and  enjoyable  as  possible 
for  Rutherford  countians  and  visitors  from  all  over  the  United 
States  and  foreign  countries. 

Thank  you  again  for  all  of  your  past  help  and  support.   I'll 
be  glad  to  answer  any  questions. 


170 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

FOREST  MANAGEMENT 

PAYMENTS  IN  LIEU  OF  TAXES 

LASSEN  VOLCANIC  PARK  VISITOR  CENTER 

ENDANGERED  SPECIES  ACT 

FEDERAL  LAND  ACQUISITION 

WITNESS 

HON.  WALLY  HERGER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  Herger.  No  one's  here? 

Mr.  Regula.  Come  on  up.  We're  glad  to  have  you. 

Mr.  Herger.  It's  good  to  be  here.  We  had  a  broken  copier  ma- 
chine. 

Mr.  Regula.  Oh,  shame. 

Mr.  Herger.  I've  got  an  original  if  you'd  like  it  and  I  can  bring 
copies  later. 

Mr.  Regula.  Just  send  it  down,  we'll  put  it  in  the  record.  Tell 
me  what  you  want. 

Mr.  Herger.  Okay,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Your  full  statement  will  be  in  the  record,  but  just 
summarize  it  for  us. 

Mr.  Herger.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  do  want  to  thank  you 
for  your  efforts  during  this  past  year  to  bring  balance  and  common 
sense  back  to  the  way  we  manage  our  national  forests.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, one  of  the  principle  charters  of  the  U.S.  Forest  Service  is  to 
manage  our  forests  on  a  sustained  yield  basis.  That  is  in  a  way 
that  would  provide  an  adequate  supply  of  timber  and  wood  prod- 
ucts for  our  country  while  at  the  same  time  insuring  that  we  never 
harvest  more  trees  than  we  grow.  This  has  been  the  agency's  man- 
date since  1960,  yet,  in  recent  years  the  Forest  Service  has  made 
a  dramatic  policy  shift  away  from  sustained  yield.  The  impact  has 
been  devastating  to  our  forests.  Over  the  last  several  years  an  in- 
creasingly smaller  fraction  of  national  forest  land  is  actually  used 
for  harvesting  timber. 

Today  the  Forest  Service  manages  130  million  acres  of  forest  na- 
tionwide of  which  only  37  percent  is  set  aside  for  timber  produc- 
tion. In  California  only  19  percent  of  Forest  Service  land  is  des- 
ignated for  timber  production;  by  comparison,  21  percent  is  set 
aside  in  the  State  for  wilderness  and  other  preservation  purposes. 
This  dwindling  timber  base  has  been  accompanied  by  a  steep  de- 
cline in  annual  timber  harvest.  Harvests  in  California,  for  example, 
have  decreased  by  an  astounding  81  percent  since  1988.  The  de- 
crease nationwide  over  the  same  period  has  been  over  60  percent. 

The  shrinking  timber  program  has  compounded  the  effects  of  a 
century  of  aggressive  fire  prevention.  As  a  result  our  forests  are 
now  becoming  unnaturally  dense.  California's,  for  example,  are  82 
percent  denser  today  than  they  were  just  70  years  ago.  Net  annual 
growth  in  our  forests  nationwide  now  exceeds  17  billion  board  feet. 
This  unmitigated   growth  has  become  a   severe   threat  to  forest 


171 

health.  Overstocked  timber  stands  have  become  unnaturally  sus- 
ceptible to  the  effects  of  drought,  disease  and  insect  infestations 
and  are  dying  at  unprecedented  rates. 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  you  think  this  results  from  excessive  planting? 
Too  many  trees  per  acre? 

Mr.  Herger.  No,  just  the  natural  process  of  the  forests  regen- 
erate themselves  and  historically,  prior  to  about  150  years  ago,  to 
the  1850's,  particularly  in  California,  natural  fires  would  come 
through,  Indians  set  fires  and  it  would  tend  to  do  its  own  thinning. 
With  the  Smokey  the  Bear  campaigns,  where  we  don't  allow  fires, 
we  have  these  very  dense,  unnatural  types  of  stands,  and  without 
going  in  and  managing  them  by  thinning  them  then  we  have  for- 
ests that  are  far  denser  than  they  normally  would  be.  Therefore, 
when  there  is  a  fire,  rather  than  just  burn  the  undergrowth  and 
do  some  thinning,  the  entire  forests  are  destroyed. 

Mr.  Regula.  That  would  be  prime  for  salvage,  would  it  not,  be- 
cause the  salvage  just  falls  over  and  becomes  a  fuel  for  the  fire. 

Mr.  Herger.  Well,  if  a  salvage  is  done  properly  and,  again,  we 
can  dictate  how  salvages  are  done. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  mean  if  no  salvages  are  done. 

Mr.  Herger.  Exactly.  With  no  salvage  we  get  situations  as  we 
have  in  California  and,  again,  I  want  to  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 
for  coming  out  and  seeing  first-hand  just  this  last  year.  But  we've 
had  these  7  out  of  10  years  now  that  are  drought  and  then  you 
have  these  trees  that  fall  over  and  then  again  you  just  have  it 
compounded.  In  some  areas  of  northern  California  over  60  to  70 
percent  of  the  standing  timber  is  dead  or  dying.  These  severe  con- 
ditions dramatically  increase  the  likelihood  of  catastrophic  wildfire 
that  can  burn  as  hot  as  2,000  degrees  and  literally  consume  every- 
thing in  their  path,  including  the  soil. 

In  1994  wildfires  fueled  by  dead  and  dying  trees  and  other  natu- 
ral fuels  incinerated  over  545,000  acres  of  forest  in  California  alone 
and  4  million  acres  nationwide.  I  urge  this  subcommittee  to  take 
several  steps  to  prevent  this  tragic  destruction  of  our  national  for- 
ests and  reinstate  the  policy  of  sustained  yield.  First  I  urge  the 
committee  to  increase  funding  for  the  Federal  timber  program  and 
put  it  on  a  path  that  will  make  annual  harvest  more  compatible 
with  annual  growth.  The  salvage  law  began  this  process;  now  it  is 
time  to  take  the  next  step. 

Second,  I  urge  the  subcommittee  to  provide  adequate  appropria- 
tions for  Forest  Service  roads.  These  roads  are  the  arteries  of  forest 
management,  providing  access  to  overstocked  timber  stands,  fire- 
burned  areas  and  other  places  where  management  is  sorely  needed. 

Third,  I  request  that  the  subcommittee  insure  adequate  funding 
for  wildfire  protection.  Recently,  the  Forest  Service  in  California 
announced  its  plans  to  drastically  reduce  fire  suppression  programs 
due  to  budget  shortfalls  and  rising  overhead  costs.  Such  a  move 
would  severely  jeopardize  the  safety  of  our  forests  and  forest  com- 
munities and  can't  be  allowed  to  happen. 

Finally,  I  ask  the  subcommittee  to  fully  support  community  ini- 
tiatives, like  the  Quincy  Library  Group,  to  improve  forest  health 
through  localized,  adaptive  management  plans.  Last  year  Secretary 
Glickman  promised  the  group  $4.7  million  to  implement  his  plan 
in  California.  I  ask  the  subcommittee  to  follow  through  on  this 


172 

commitment  by  earmarking  funds  within  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture budget,  preferably  from  accounts  in  Washington. 

In  conclusion,  I  wish  to  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  the  sub- 
committee for  your  dedicated  efforts  to  improve  forest  management 
in  our  country.  I  look  forward  to  continuing  our  joint  efforts  to 
make  our  forests  healthy  and  productive  for  future  generations. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  we  could  talk  all  afternoon  on  forest  issues. 
Thank  you,  Wally. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Herger  follows:] 


173 


U.S.  House  of  Representatives 

Committee  on  Appropriations 

Subcommittee  on  the  Interior 

The  Hon.  Ralph  Regula,  Chairman 

April  17,  1996 

Statement  by  the  Honorable  Wally  Herger 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  this  opportunity  to  testify.  Thank  you  also  for  your 
tremendous  leadership  over  the  past  year  as  chairman  of  this  subcommittee.  Your 
personal  efforts  were  indispensable  in  passing  last  year's  historic  timber  salvage  law.  You 
have  also  been  a  great  leader  in  the  efforts  of  this  Congress  to  bring  balance  and  common 
sense  back  to  the  way  we  manage  our  country's  natural  resources. 

I  wish  to  address  a  number  of  issues  before  the  subcommittee  today,  namely  (1) 
national  forest  management,  (2)  Payments  in  Lieu  of  Taxes  (PILT),  (3)  the  Endangered 
Species  Act  (ESA),  (4)  federal  land  acquisitions  and  (5)  the  Lassen  National  Park  Visitors 
Center.  I  will  address  each  subject  in  the  order  mentioned. 

Forest  Management 

Trees  are  our  nation's  most  important  and  valuable  natural  resources.  Wood,  for 
example,  is  the  only  building  material  on  earth  that  is  renewable,  recyclable  and 
biodegradable.  It  is  also  energy  efficient.  For  example,  it  takes  one-third  as  much  total 
energy  to  construct  a  wall  assembly  for  a  house  using  wood  studs  as  it  does  steel  studs. 
When  timber  harvests  are  vigorous,  the  cost  of  wood  products  is  also  much  less  than  that 
of  metal    So  are  the  corresponding  costs  of  homes,  furniture  and  paper  products 

Because  of  the  clear  benefits  that  come  to  our  country  from  using  wood,  it  is 
incumbent  on  us  to  make  sure  that  our  nation's  forests  continue  to  produce  a  plentifiil  yet 
sustainable  harvest  of  timber  both  now  and  in  the  future.  One  of  the  principal  charters  of 
the  U.S.  Forest  Service  is  to  manage  our  forests  on  a  sustained  yield  basis,  that  is,  in  a 
way  that  will  provide  an  adequate  supply  of  timber  and  wood  products  for  our  country 
while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  that  we  never  harvest  more  trees  than  we  grow    This  has 
been  the  agency's  mandate  since  I960.  Yet  in  recent  years  the  Forest  Service  has  made  a 
dramatic  policy  shift  away  from  sustained  yield.  The  impact  has  been  devastating  to  our 
forests 

Over  the  last  several  years  an  increasingly  smaller  fraction  of  national  forest  land  is 
actually  used  for  harvesting  timber    Today  the  Forest  Service  manages  140  million  acres 
forest  nationwide  of  which  only  thirty-seven  percent  is  set  aside  for  timber  production    In 
California,  only  nineteen  percent  of  Forest  Service  land  is  designated  for  timber 
production    By  comparison,  21%  is  set  aside  in  the  state  for  wilderness  and  other 
preservation  purposes. 


174 


This  dwindling  timber  base  has  been  accompanied  by  a  steep  decline  in  annual 
timber  harvests    Harvests  in  California,  for  example,  have  decreased  by  an  astounding 
eighty-one  percent  since  1988.  The  decrease  nationwide  over  this  same  period  has  been 
over  sixty  percent. 

The  shrinking  timber  program  has  compounded  the  effects  of  a  century  of 
aggressive  fire  prevention    As  a  result,  our  forests  are  now  becoming  unnaturally  dense. 
California  forests,  for  example,  are  82%  denser  today  than  they  were  just  70  years  ago 
Net  annual  growth  in  our  Forests  nationwide  now  exceeds  17  billion  board  feet 

Unmitigated  growth  has  become  a  severe  threat  to  forest  health.  Overstocked 
timber  stands  have  become  unnaturally  susceptible  to  the  effects  of  drought,  disease  and 
insect  infestation  and  are  dying  at  unprecedented  rates.  In  some  areas  of  northern 
California,  over  60-70%  of  the  standing  timber  is  dead  or  dying.  These  severe  conditions 
dramatically  increase  the  likelihood  of  catastrophic  wildfires  that  can  bum  as  hot  as 
2,000  degrees  and  literally  consume  everything  in  their  path,  including  the  soil.  In  1994 
wildfires  fueled  by  dead  and  dying  trees  and  other  natural  fuels  incinerated  over  545,000 
acres  of  forest  in  California  and  4  million  acres  nationwide. 

At  the  same  time  our  forests  are  suffering  fi-om  over-density,  epidemic  mortality, 
and  fire,  our  timber-dependent  communities  and  the  forest  products  industry  that  support 
them  are  withering  and  dying.  Several  weeks  ago  Sierra  Pacific  Industries  announced  the 
closure  of  its  sawmill  mill  in  Hayfork,  California  marking  the  30th  mill  closure  in  my 
district  in  recent  years.  The  tragedy  of  Hayfork  is  that  134  people  will  lose  their  jobs  and 
the  economy  will  virtually  shut  down  in  a  community  that  is  literally  surrounded  by  over  a 
million  acres  of  prime  timber  land  that  is  suffering  the  effects  of  over-density,  bug-kill, 
disease  and  fire 

I  urge  this  subcommittee  to  take  several  steps  to  reverse  this  tragic  trend  of 
destruction  in  our  national  forests  and  forest  communities.  First,  I  urge  the  committee  to 
increase  appropriations  for  the  green  and  salvage  harvest  nationwide  and  begin  to  put  the 
federal  timber  sale  program  on  a  track  that  is  more  in  harmony  with  the  principle  of 
sustained  yield    The  current  program  volume,  particularly  in  California,  is  grossly 
inadequate    For  example,  even  with  the  recently-enacted  salvage  law,  the  Forest  Service 
plans  to  harvest  only  353  million  board  feet  of  salvage  in  California  in  1996,  a  mere  13% 
of  the  total  volume  of  dead  and  dying  trees  in  the  state  and  only  22%  of  the  total  volume 
of  trees  that  will  likely  die  in  1996    We  desperately  need  an  aggressive  timber  sale 
program  that  will  slow  the  rate  of  annual  tree  mortality  in  the  near  term  and  more 
appropriately  balance  harvest  and  growth  in  the  long  term    The  salvage  law  began  this 
process    Now  it  is  time  to  take  the  next  step. 

Second,  I  urge  the  subcommittee  to  provide  adequate  appropriations  for  the 
construction  and  maintenance  of  Forest  Service  roads    These  roads  are  the  arteries  of 
forest  management,  providing  access  to  overstocked  timber  stands,  fire  burned  areas  and 
other  places  where  management  is  sorely  needed.  In  addition,  they  provide  an  important 


175 


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

Third,  I  request  that  the  subcommittee  take  steps  to  ensure  that  adequate  funding 
is  allocated  to  protect  our  forests  from  the  destructive  forces  of  wildfire    Recently  the 
Forest  Service  in  California  has  reported  its  plans  to  drastically  reduce  fire  suppression 
personnel  and  equipment  in  the  state  due  to  budget  shortfalls  and  rising  overhead  costs. 
Given  the  history  of  serious  fire  seasons  in  the  state,  such  a  plan,  if  fully  implemented, 
would  severely  jeopardize  the  protection  of  our  forests  and  forest  communities.  It  is, 
therefore,  crucial  that  an  adequate  fire  prevention  program  remains  in  place  in  the  state. 

I  ask  the  subcommittee  to  analyze  the  fire  budget  in  California  and  take  whatever 
corrective  steps  are  needed  to  ensure  that  it  is  adequate.  I  further  suggest  that  the 
subcommittee  to  explore  how  administrative  overhead  might  be  reduced  within  the  state 
without  negatively  impacting  on-the-ground  services. 

Fourth,  I  ask  the  Subcommittee  to  give  its  full  support  to  local  community  efforts 
to  improve  forest  health  and  reduce  fire  risk  through  the  development  and  implementation 
of  localized  adaptive  management  plans.  The  Quincy  Library  Group  (QLG)  in  my  district 
is  a  prime  example  of  this  kind  of  effort.  Last  year  Secretary  Glickman  promised  the  QLG 
$4.7  million  to  begin  implementing  its  plan  for  natural  fuels  reduction  and  enhanced 
uneven-aged  management  on  the  Plumas,  Lassen  and  Tahoe  National  Forests.  I  request 
that  the  Subcommittee  help  the  QLG  realize  the  benefits  of  this  promise  by  ensuring  that 
the  designated  amount  is  appropriately  earmarked  within  the  Department  of  Agriculture    I 
further  ask  the  Subcommittee  to  do  so  in  a  way  that  will  not  divert  funding  from  any  other 
unit  in  the  National  Forest  System. 

Finally,  I  request  that  the  Subcommittee  work  with  the  authorizing  committees  to 
explore  methods  of  introducing  market  incentives  to  forest  management.  Recent  studies 
in  Montana  and  Minnesota  conducted  by  the  Political  Economy  Research  Center  indicate 
that  state  forests  which  utilize  market  incentives  as  a  management  tool  perform  better  than 
adjacent  federal  forests  both  environmentally  and  economically    I  firmly  believe  that  many 
of  our  problems  with  forest  health  and  economic  stability  within  timber  dependent 
communities  in  California  could  be  remedied  by  placing  in  law  the  proper  incentives  to 
maximize  both  harvests  and  environmental  protection. 


Payments  in  Lieu  of  Taxes 

In  1976  Congress  enacted  the  Payments  in  Lieu  of  Taxes  (PILT)  Act.  The 
purpose  of  the  Act  was  to  require  the  federal  government  to  make  payments  to  counties 
containing  large  concentrations  of  federal  lands  to  help  compensate  for  the  loss  of  the 
property  tax  base  and  to  defray  the  cost  of  county  services  provided  to  federal  land 
managers.  The  law  is  particulariy  important  in  western  states  where  over  40%  of  the  total 
land  base  is  owned  by  the  federal  government.  The  law  also  complement  statutes 


176 


requiring  the  federal  government  to  share  25%  of  the  gross  receipts  from  federal  timber 
sales  with  local  governments  to  help  pay  for  schools  and  roads. 

Since  1 976,  PELT  payments  to  counties  have  never  been  indexed  to  reflect  the 
impact  of  inflation    Consequently,  counties  are  being  pressured  to  meet  an  increasing  • 
demand  for  services  on  federal  land  from  a  dwindling  pool  of  funds.  This  is  an  unfunded 
mandate.  Shasta  County  in  my  district,  for  example,  is  40%  owned  by  the  federal 
government,  yet  annual  PILT  payments  to  the  county  total  only  $103,000.  By 
comparison,  the  remaining  60%  of  the  county  that  is  privately  owned  generates  $12.5 
million  in  property  tax  revenue  for  the  county. 

Likewise,  in  recent  years  25%  payments  generated  from  federal  timber  sales  in 
California  have  dwindled  with  the  downward  spiral  of  the  federal  timber  sale  program.  In 
1992,  for  example,  25%  payments  from  timber  harvests  from  the  Plumas  National  Forest 
generated  over  $9  million  in  25%  payments  to  the  local  counties.  Two  years  later,  after 
the  timber  harvests  on  the  forest  were  reduced  by  over  60%  to  protect  habitat  for  the  non- 
endangered  California  spotted  owl,  these  payments  had  plummeted  by  neariy  two-thirds  to 
$3.5  million  dollars.  This  sent  shock  waves  through  local  school  districts,  many  of  which 
were  required  to  discontinue  some  of  the  most  basic  programs  normally  offered  to  their 
students. 

In  1 994  Congress  authorized  an  increase  in  PILT  payments  to  local  government 
units.  To  date  none  of  the  additional  money  authorized  has  been  appropriated.  I  urge  the 
subcommittee  to  fully  consider  an  increase  in  funding  for  the  PILT  program 
commensurate  with  the  1994  law.  At  a  minimum,  I  request  that  funding  levels  for  1997 
not  be  reduced  from  those  levels  appropriated  for  prior  fiscal  years.  In  addition,  I  again 
strongly  urge  the  subcommittee  to  take  aggressive  steps  to  increase  timber  harvesting  on 
our  national  forests  in  order  to  enhance  25%  payment  receipts  to  local  governments.  Our 
schools  and  the  fragile  infrastructures  of  our  counties  desperately  need  this  relief 

Lassen  Volcanic  Park  Visitor  Center 

The  Lassen  Volcanic  National  Park  in  my  district  is  one  of  the  great  treasures  of 
California  and  my  district.  In  1994  Congress  appropriated  $384,000  for  the  design  and 
engineering  of  a  visitor  center  at  the  north  end  of  this  park  in  Shasta  County.  Further 
appropriations  for  construction  of  the  facility  under  a  50/50  cost  share  agreement  will  be 
requested  of  this  subcommittee  next  year. 

Because  the  funding  appropriated  for  1995  has  not  yet  been  spent,  the  Lassen 
Volcanic  National  Park  Foundation  has  requested  that  Congress  take  steps  to  ensure  that 
these  funds  will  remain  earmarked  within  the  National  Park  Service  (NPS)  budget  until 
they  are  expended.  Although  the  NPS  has  given  no  indication  that  these  funds  are  no 
longer  available,  I  request  the  help  of  this  subcommittee  to  provide  oversight  as  might  be 
needed  to  ensure  that  all  moneys  appropriated  for  the  Lassen  visitor  center  are  actually 
expended  by  the  NPS  for  that  purpose. 


177 


Endangered  Species  Act 


The  Endangered  Species  Act  is  a  law  which  has  as  its  objective  a  goal  that  is  fully 
embraced  by  all  Americans  —  to  protect  our  country's  rich  variety  offish,  wildlife  and 
natural  vegetation.  In  recent  years,  however,  the  law  has  been  implemented  in  a  way  that 
has  created  tremendous  burdens  on  private  property  owners,  consumers  and  taxpayers 
while  providing  very  few  corresponding  benefits  to  protected  species. 

Efforts  to  protect  the  northern  spotted  owl  illustrate  this  point.  In  1990  the  owl 
was  listed  as  a  threatened  species,  because  it  was  believed  that  these  populations  were 
declining  due  to  a  loss  of  suitable  owl  habitat.  At  that  time  scientists  determined  that  a 
population  of  2,400  birds  was  needed  to  ensure  the  viability  of  the  species. 

Since  that  time  scientific  studies  have  confirmed  the  presence  of  more  than  7,000 
total  owls  throughout  California  and  the  Pacific  Northwest  or  nearly  three  times  the 
number  experts  originally  reported  were  needed  for  a  viable  population.  In  addition,  the 
U.S.  Forest  Service,  in  January  of  1995,  reported  that  in  northern  California  there  were  an 
additional  2,600  to  4,000  California  spotted  owls.  According  to  Forest  Service  biologists, 
California  spotted  owls  are  genetically  identical  to  northern  spotted  owls  and  are  fully 
capable  of  interbreeding  with  the  northern  owl.  The  only  difference  is  that  the  California 
owl  lives  in  the  Sierra  Mountain  range,  while  the  northern  owl  lives  in  the  Cascade 
Mountain  range.  By  every  biological  standard,  the  northern  and  California  spotted  owl  is 
the  same  bird. 

This  means  that  presently  there  are  between  9,600  and  1 1,000  total  spotted  owls  in 
California  and  the  Pacific  Northwest  —  between  four  and  five  times  the  number  that 
scientists  have  stated  are  needed  to  keep  the  species  viable.  Each  year  the  total  number 
increases  as  new  nesting  sites  are  confirmed.  Yet  the  species  is  still  listed  as  threatened 
and  the  federal  government  continues  to  require  that  public  and  private  land  be  managed 
as  though  it  were  in  decline. 

The  social  and  economic  impacts  of  habitat  protection  for  the  spotted  owl  — 
particularly  the  President's  Northwest  Forest  Plan  (Option  9)  have  been  devastating.  A 
professor  at  the  University  of  California  at  Berkley,  for  example,  has  estimated  that  the 
aggregate  national  losses  due  to  decreases  in  regional  income  and  losses  to  consumers 
from  higher  wood  product  prices  have  amounted  to  approximately  $4  6  billion  per  year  in 
the  initial  years  of  implementation  of  the  President's  Option  9  plan  —  $4.6  billion  dollars 
per  year  to  protect  an  owl  that  is  flourishing  at  levels  four  to  five  time  greater  than  what  is 
needed  to  ensure  its  viability.  We  have  moved  far  beyond  reason  in  the  implementation  of 
the  Endangered  Species  Act.  What  we  are  doing  now  defies  the  most  basic  common 
sense. 

Legislation  is  now  pending  before  this  Congress  to  restore  balance  and  common 
sense  to  the  ESA.  Until  this  legislation  has  been  signed  into  law,  we  must  make  every 


178 


effort  to  stem  the  tide  of  over-regulation,  private  property  rights  violations,  costs  without 
benefits,  and  blatant  disregard  for  sound  science. 

For  this  reason  I  ask  this  subcommittee  to  extend  the  moratorium  on  the  listing  of 
new  species  until  the  ESA  has  been  reauthorized.  I  also  request  that  the  subcommittee 
cooperate  with  the  appropriate  authorizing  committees  to  provide  the  oversight  necessary 
to  control  the  actual  costs  of  species  protection  and  to  bring  federal  regulations  more  in 
line  with  what  is  actually  necessary  to  protect  species. 

Federal  Land  Acquisition 

The  federal  government  owns  over  700  million  acres  of  land  in  our  country.  To 
put  this  into  perspective,  this  is  an  area  larger  than  Alaska,  Texas,  California  and  Arizona 
combined    Experience  has  taught  us  that,  whether  looking  at  national  forests  in  northern 
California  or  rangelands  in  Nevada,  the  federal  government  does  not  have  sufficient 
resources  to  manage  such  an  enormous  land  base.  This  has  resulted  in  the  deterioration 
and  waste  of  some  of  our  country's  most  valued  natural  resources. 

Nowhere  is  the  contrast  between  federally  and  privately  managed  land  more  stark 
than  in  northern  California.  I  have  personally  flown  over  stretches  of  forest  where  the 
property  line  between  federal  and  private  land  is  delineated  by  where  the  live  healthy  trees 
end  and  where  the  dead  and  dying  trees  begin.  I  am  certain  that  this  is  an  experience  that 
could  be  relived  in  state  after  state  in  the  West. 

Our  country  does  not  need  more  federal  property.  Rather,  it  needs  more  federal 
property  in  private  ownership.  Private  property  owners  have  a  stake  in  keeping  their 
resources  healthy  and  productive  in  perpetuity.  Federal  property  owners  do  not,  and  our 
natural  resources  are  suffering  because  of  it.  For  this  reason  I  strongly  urge  the 
subcommittee  to  continue  its  efforts  to  prevent  the  acquisition  of  new  public  lands  by  the 
federal  government.  1  further  request  that  the  subcommittee  explore  ways  of  privatizing 
more  federal  land. 

In  conclusion,  I  wish  to  thank  the  Chairman  again  for  his  dedicated  personal 
leadership  in  each  of  the  areas  that  I  have  touched  on  today.  I  also  wish  to  thank  the 
subcommittee  for  its  commitment  to  bringing  about  meaningful  government  reform  during 
the  Fiscal  Year  '96  appropriations  process.  Your  efforts  are  bringing  hope  and  vision  to 
people  throughout  the  West  and  particulariy  to  the  citizens  of  northern  California 


179 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
OCS  AND  OTHER  PROGRAMS 
WITNESS 

HON.  PORTER  GOSS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  FLORIDA 

Mr.  Regula.  Porter? 

Mr.  Goss.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  You  want  to  lift  the  moratorium,  right? 

Mr.  Goss.  Mr.  Chairman,  I've  been  in  Congress  eight  years  and 
I've  been  eight  times  and  I'm  very  pleased  with  the  support  we've 
received  from  you  and  this  committee.  We  are  here  one  more  time 
and  I  would  ask  that  my  total  statement  be  included  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection. 

Mr.  Goss.  Thank  you.  I  will  not  bore  you  with  the  details.  I  think 
you  are  very  well  familiar  with  them.  Needless  to  say,  the  full  floor 
delegation  is  still  very  much  behind  the  idea  of  continuing  the  mor- 
atorium. I  would  like  to  say,  however,  that  we  have  not  been  idle; 
there  has  been  a  lawsuit  that  has  cleared  some  of  the  problems 
down  around  the  Keys  area,  at  least  that's  brought  us  some 
progress. 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  you  have  some  in  Florida  where  we  would  have 
to  buy  back  the  leases? 

Mr.  Gk)SS.  There  are  some  where  that  could  happen  in  the  east- 
ern Gulf  of  Mexico.  That's  a  possibility.  My  suggestion  is  that  we 
head  to  the  H.R.  72,  which  is  the  Johnston-CJoss  bill,  which  I  guess 
would  now  be  the  CJoss-Johnston  bill,  since  the  last  year-and-a-half. 
Anyway,  the  idea  is  that  we're  trying  to  get  together  on  a  biparti- 
san basis  in  Florida  to  deal  with  a  scientific  approach  to  the  ques- 
tion of  what's  out  there,  the  leasing,  the  shore  site  support,  and  in- 
stead of  having  a  moratorium  have  a  direction  to  go  that's  based 
on  scientific  fact. 

Mr.  Regula.  What  do  you  think  about  going  into  deep  water 
drilling?  I  notice  Shell's  going  to  put  one  down  in  the  Gulf  that's 
7,000  feet. 

Mr.  Goss.  That's  probably  not  in  our  area.  Is  it  west  or  east  of 
86  West?  It  depends  where  it  is.  26  North  and  86  West,  we  have 
sort  of  one  set  of  circumstances,  and  then  above  26  North  we  have 
another  set  of  circumstances.  There  are  a  series  of  leaseholds  out 
there.  They're  estimated  to  have  cost  about  $100  million.  What 
they're  actually  worth  and  what  the  buyback  on  them  would  be  has 
been  the  subject  of  a  lot  of  discussion.  What  State  participation,  et 
cetera,  is  a  subject  that  I  consider  wide  open. 

The  one  area  where  they  have  done  something  is  up  in  Chevron. 
They've  done  something  with  gas  up  off  the  Pensacola  area,  but  I 
understand  that  they  are  using  Shore  Side  and  Mobile,  and  they've 
connected  in  that  way.  I  don't  know  all  the  details.  Perhaps  the 
Congressman  from  that  area — it  would  be  Mr.  Scarborough — could 
fill  you  in  more. 

We're  together  on  this  because  we'd  like  to  get  to  the  bottom  of 
it,  and  I  keep  troubling  you.  I  don't  know  if  I'll  be  here  many  more 
years,  but  I  don't  think  that  myself  or  my  successor  should  keep 


180 

coming  back  and  asking  you  for  a  moratorium  because  there  clearly 
needs  to  be  a  verification. 

A  couple  of  other  areas  may  I  bring  up,  please?  The  south  Flor- 
ida ecosystem  restoration  we  obviously  support.  There's  a  lot  going 
on  there,  many  partners,  the  Federal  Grovemment  being  one  of  sev- 
eral; $105  million  on  that. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  we  have  $200  miUion  in  the  farm  bill.  The 
query  is,  how  much  can  they  spend  in  one  year? 

Mr.  Goss.  That  is  probably  a  question  that  the  managers  of  the 
program  could  better  answer  than  I  can. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  think  we  need  to  examine  that  because  we've  got 
a  lot  of  players  here. 

Mr.  Goss.  I  don't  have  any  problem  with 

Mr.  Regula.  We've  got  USGS. 

Mr.  Goss.  That,  presumably,  was  particularly  land  acquisition, 
probably  specifically  for 

Mr.  Regula.  Was  it  earmarked  for  that? 

Mr.  Ck)SS.  Yes,  I  believe  so.  And  I  think  I  know  the  piece  of  land, 
and  I  think  I  know  the  purpose,  and  I  know  that  there  will  be  more 
beyond  that.  My  staff  tells  me  that  that's,  in  fact,  correct.  So  that's 
what  the  focus  would  be.  Could  we  spend  it  all?  Yes.  Will  we  need 
more?  Yes,  if  we're  going  to  do  all  the  land  acquisition  that  called 
for  in 

Mr.  Regula.  I  assume  the  State's  going  to  make  some  contribu- 
tion here? 

Mr.  GrOSS.  Yes,  and  the  taxpayers  of  my  county,  and  the  visitors 
to  my  part  of  the  State  also  get  to  pay  because  we  are  in  a  special 
taxing  district  to  buy  back,  even  though  we  get  very  little  benefit 
and  we  are  not  the  polluters,  because  we  are  downstream  people. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  was  in  Indian  Rocks;  they  were  going  to  levy  a 
tax  on  rental  cars. 

Mr.  Goss.  Yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  Somehow  that  sounds  like  the  people  that  don't  live 
there  are  paying. 

Mr.  Gk)SS.  The  court  has  actually — we  tried  some  innovative  rev- 
enue-raising in  Florida  that  the  court  did  not  think  was  very  inno- 
vative. [Laughter.] 

And  we're  not  doing  that  anymore.  In  fact,  we're  sending 
checks 

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

Mr.  Goss.  I  think  we're  sending  checks  out  right  now  to  pay  peo- 
ple back  for  several  close  States  and  the  State  of  Florida.  It  was 
a  good  try.  [Laughter.] 

The  point  of  dealing  with  south  Florida,  the  Everglades  area  and 
Florida  Bay — it's  a  natural  treasure.  It's  legitimate  and  there  are 
multi-partners. 

Mr.  Regula.  Oh,  I  understand. 

Mr.  Gk)SS.  Historic  preservation  is  another  area  that  you  have 
here.  We  support  it.  Florida  does  have  a  very  proud  record  of  lots 
of  State  money.  Much  more  than  most  other  places,  and  we're  al- 
most in  that  funny  position  of,  if  we're  doing  such  a  good  job  of  it, 
then  why  would  the  Government  help  us?  Why  wouldn't  they  go  to 
the  places  where  there  are  other  areas  of  need?  And  you  get  caught 


181 

in  that  balance  of,  shall  we  reward  the  people  who  are  playing  the 
game  the  right  way  or  shall  we  reward  the  people  who  are  not 
playing  the  game  the  right  way,  because  they  have  the  need  in 
their  area  because  they  haven't  done  it?  It's  one  of  those  binds 
we're  in.  Florida  has  done  a  proud  job.  We  have  a  request  in  and 
I  hope  it  can  be  honored. 

The  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation  we  also  think  is  a  good  new 
approach  that  deserves  attention  as  well  because  it  brings  in  more 
partners. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thanks  for  coming  over. 

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

[The  statement  of  Mr,  Gross  follows:] 


182 


■AftOS  OF  OffiCIAl  CONDUC 


Congress  of  tlic  (Linitft)  ^t.itcs 

Ijoiisr  of  l\rprfsciUiUi»)fs  ■"/'., 

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

^"""""'"  STATEMENT  OF  PORTER  J    GOSSiFLUi 

BEFORE  THE  APPROPRIATIONS  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR 
17  APRIL  1996 

Summary  of  Depariment  ot  Inierior  Reuuesis 

OCS:  Renewal  ot  [he  current  moraioria  on  leasins!  and  pre-leasing  aetiMlies  tor  lease  sales  m  the 
Eastern  Gult  ot  Mexico. 

A  moratorium  on  drilling  in  the  area  north  ot  26  degrees  north  latitude  pending  the  tmdinss  o\  an 
environmental  sciences  review  panel 

South  Florida  Initiative:  Full  funding  for  DOI's  South  Florida  restoration  initiative,  which  includes 
some  S105  million  for  the  overall  ecosystem  management  and  recovery  program. 

Historic  Preservation:  Full  funding  for  the  state  grants:  S32.5  million. 

National  Fish  And  Wildlife  Foundation:  S6  million. 


Mr  Chairman,  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  appear  before  you  and  the  Subcommittee 
today  to  express  the  concerns  of  the  Florida  delegation  over  outer  continental  shelf  (OCSi  oil  and 
gas  activities  in  the  Eastern  Gulf  of  Mexico,  to  support  the  Department  of  the  Interior's  South 
Florida  initiative,  to  speak  to  the  issue  of  historic  preservation,  and  to  suppon  the  National  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Foundation 

I  am  heartened  to  see  that  the  President,  in  his  Tiscal  1997  budget,  again  supports  the 
restrictions  on  oil  and  gas  activities  in  the  region  south  of  26  degrees  north  latitude  and  east  of  86 
degrees  west  longitude,  and  that  he  has  asked  for  the  continuation  of  leasing  and  pre-leasmg 
moratoria  for  the  Eastern  Gulf  of  Mexico  north  of  26  degrees  north  latitude 

I  am  also  pleased  that  the  lawsuit  surrounding  the  cancellation  of  the  existing  leases  around 
the  Florida  Keys  was  sealed  last  year  This  removes  the  immediate  threat  of  oil  and  gas  drillmg  in 
a  most  sensitive  and  pristine  area.  However,  I  still  believe  that  a  long-term  strategy  is  needed  for 
the  entire  Florida  coastline,  and  together  with  my  Florida  colleague  Harry  Johnston  I  tiave  introduced 
a  bill  --  H,R.  72  --  to  address  this  need 

H  R  72,  which  was  introduced  in  January  1995,  provides  for  a  "ume  out"  period  during 
which  no  new  leasing  or  drilling  could  take  place  in  the  Eastern  Gulf  of  Mexico  During  this 
period,  several  scientific  studies  that  have  been  specifically  requested  by  the  state  of  Florida  would 
be  completed  A  joint  federal-state  task  force  would  then  review  these  soidies.  and  (if  necessary) 
recommend  further  ones.  Once  the  joint  task  force  determines  that  an  adequate  base  of  scientil'ic  and 
environmental  data  exists,  it  would  recommend  what  areas  (if  any)  of  the  Eastern  Gulf  could  safely 
sustain  oil  and  gas  exploration  and  production. 

The  benefits  of  this  approach  are  clear:  it  provides  a  long-term  strategy  for  safe  and 
environmentally  sound  development  of  the  natural  resources  off  of  Florida's  coast.  Once  the 
necessary  studies  have  been  completed,  the  questions  over  whether  or  not  to  allow  development  on 
existing  leases  could  be  answered  quickly  and  comprehensively,  and  any  new  lease  sales  would  be 


183 


iuiiied  hy  (he  bt^t  >cientitic  knowlcdiic  available 

Bui  in  the  meaniime  I  must  ask  your  indulgence  as  in  previous  years  to  consider  (he  merits 
ot  extending  the  one-year  moratoria  I  would  also  like  to  call  your  attention  to  a  letter  signed  by 
the  entire  Florida  House  delegation  in  support  ot  continuing  the  OCS  moratorium 

Floridians  oppose  offshore  oil  drilling  because  of  the  threat  it  presents  to  the  state's  greatest 
natural  and  economic  resource:  our  coastal  environment.  Florida's  beaches,  fisheries,  and  wildlife 
draw  millions  of  tourists  each  year  from  all  over  the  globe,  supporting  our  state's  largest  industry. 
Tourism  supports,  directly  or  indirectly,  millions  of  jobs  all  across  Florida,  and  the  industry 
generates  billions  of  dollars  every  year  .A  1990  study  by  Lee  County  estimates  that  a  major 
blowout/oil  spill  could  cost  the  economy  of  Lee  County  alone  some  $590  million  in  lost  revenue 
This  translates  into  a  loss  of  12.J00  jobs 

.■\lso.  tlie  on-shore  facilities  required  to  process  the  oil  would  be  an  eyesore  at  best.  More 
likely,  these  facilities  would  change  the  character  of  the  Florida  coast,  contribute  to  the  pollution  of 
the  environment,  and  pose  serious  problems  for  Florida  s  tourism  and  real  esute  industries 

The  Florida  coastline  boasts  some  of  the  richest  estuarine  areas  m  the  world.  These  brackish 
waters,  with  their  mangrove  forests  and  seagrass  beds  provide  an  irreplaceable  link  in  the  life  cycle 
of  many  species,  both  marine  and  terrestrial.  Florida's  commercial  fishing  industry  relies  on  these 
estuaries  because  they  support  the  nurseries  for  most  commercially  harvested  fish.  Perhaps  the  most 
environmentally  delicate  regions  in  the  Gulf  estuaries  could  be  damaged  beyond  repair  by  a 
relatively  small  oil  spill. 

Thank  you  for  allowmg  me  to  speak  to  an  issue  that  is  of  great  importarKe  to  Southwest 
Floridians  I  appreciate  this  Subcommittee  s  previous  attention  to  Florida  OCS  issues,  and  I  hope 
this  year's  request  can  be  considered  favorably 

Another  issue  I  would  like  to  address  this  year  is  the  DOI  budget  request  for  the  Soutli 
Rorida  Exosystem  Restoration  initiative  This  endeavor  iiicludes  restoration  efforts  in  the 
Everglades.  Big  Cypress,  and  Florida  Bay  areas,  as  well  as  improvement  of  the  fresh  water  flow 
throughout  the  southern  part  of  the  state 

As  you  are  aware,  southern  Florida  has  undergone  extensive  development  over  the  last  80 
years,  particularly  the  draining  of  marshlands  to  accommodate  agricultural  and  urban  land  uses,  and 
the  development  of  a  massive  flood  contfol  project  that  constructed  nearly  800  miles  of  levees  and 
500  miles  of  canals.  Severe  ecological  problems  have  also  been  imposed  on  the  fragile  ecosystem 
by  rapid  population  growth  and  its  effect  upon  fresh  water  levels  and  quality 

The  Department  of  Interior  has  made  significant  strides  in  its  efforts  to  fix  what  has  been 
"broken"  by  coordinating  the  efforts  of  four  agencies  within  the  department,  including:  the  US 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  the  National  Park  Service,  the  U.S.  Geological  Service,  and  the  Bureau 
of  Indian  Affairs.  This  year  Interior  hopes  to  build  of  these  efforts,  and  I  support  the  full  request 
of  $105  million  for  this  effort. 

Within  that  total.  1  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  Ding  Darling  National  Wildlife  Refuge  - 
-  a  site  that  receives  many  visitors  from  all  over  the  world.  Ding  Darling  provides  a  great  example 
of  environmental  stewardship  and  cooperation  with  the  local  community  This  year's  budget  includes 
a  request  for  funding  to  purchase  a  few  acres  of  land  -  "inholdings"  -  that  are  being  held 
temporarily  by  die  local  government  and  community  groups  until  they  can  be  purchased  by  the 
refuge.    I  support  this  cooperative  effort  and  hope  your  panel  looks  favorably  on  this  request. 

Again  this  year.  I  want  to  briefly  mention  the  importance  of  historic  preservation.  Our 
national  heritage  deserves  protection  and  preservation  for  future  generations:  in  addition,  preservation 
IS  important  to  liKal  and  state  economies 


184 


The  stale  i)t  Fioriila  has  a  strong  preservation  program  thai  contributes  to  neighborhooO 
revitahzatioii.  provides  rental  housing  units,  and  enhances  the  tourism  industry.  Florida's 
participation  in  the  joint  tederal/staie  historic  preservation  program  demonstrates  its  conunitmem  to 
preservation  efforts:  last  year  Florida  matched  the  federal  grant  of  $670,861  with  $15  million  in  state 

funds 

I  understand  the  importance  of  making  ends  meet  and  eliminating  the  budget  deficit.  I  realize 
that  worthy  programs  will  have  to  take  some  cuts  --  but  out  of  the  total  historic  preservation  funding, 
the  state  grants  are  perhaps  the  most  important  and  the  most  effective 

Finally.  I  would  also  like  to  support  the  National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation,  and  the 
request  tor  $6  million  in  FY  l*J97  Through  the  Foundation,  we  make  a  solid  and  sensible 
investmeni  in  conservation  Through  partnership  agreements,  a  triples  the  federal  investment. 
providing  a  mechanism  lo  engage  the  private  sector  and  liKal  units  of  government  in  resource 
management. 

Again,  thank  you  for  your  consideration  of  these  requests. 


185 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
DON  EDWARDS  SAN  FRANCISCO  BAY  NWR 

WITNESS 

HON.  ANNA  ESHOO,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Anna,  I  think  you're  next  here. 

Ms.  EsHOO.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  was  going  to  say,  "and 
members  of  the  subcommittee,"  but  I'm  looking  at  the  whole  com- 
mittee in  addressing  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we  haven't  exactly  had  a  big  turnout  today. 

Ms.  EsHOO.  Well,  I  appreciate 

Mr.  Regula.  No  offense. 

Ms.  ESHOO.  No,  absolutely  not.  [Laughter.] 

I  appreciate 

Mr.  Regula.  Your  statement's  in  the  record. 

Ms.  EsHOO.  All  right.  And  I  want  to  thank  you  for  allowing  me 
to  testify  today  regarding  the  Don  Edwards  San  Francisco  Bay  Na- 
tional Wildlife  Refuge. 

Mr.  Regula.  We  had  testimony  on  it.  So  we're  familiar  with  it. 

Ms.  ESHOQ.  Yes,  thank  you. 

I'm  here,  of  course,  to  express  my  support  for  a  request  from  the 
citizens'  committee  to  complete  the  refuge  for  $10  million  from  the 
Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  to  acquire  the  last  significant 
wetlands  parcel  on  San  Francisco  Bay  for  addition  to  the  refuge. 
The  citizens  in  the  area,  Mr.  Chairman,  have  already  contributed 
just  shy  of  a  million  dollars  to  this  important  project,  and  the  State 
of  California  has  committed  approximately  $8  million. 

As  you  know,  our  distinguished  former  colleague,  Don  Edwards, 
was  instrumental  in  making  this  refuge  a  reality.  This  year  the  ref- 
uge will  be  dedicated  to  him,  in  recognition  of  his  leadership,  and 
I  can't  think  of  a  more  opportune  time  to  fulfill  our  longstanding 
goal  of  adding  Bier  Island  in  Redwood  City  to  the  refuge. 

Bier  Island's  1,680  acres  are  the  last  easily-restorable  wetlands 
left  on  the  Bay. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  it  an  island? 

Ms.  EsHOO.  Yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  Regula.  What's  there  now? 

Ms.  ESHOO.  It  is  owned  right  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  a  Japanese 
corporation.  And  one  may,  with  legitimacy,  raise  the  issue,  well,  if 
it's  owned  by  the  private  sector,  why  would  the  public  sector  and 
citizens  be  committed  to  raising  the  dollars  for  acquisition?  It's  be- 
cause of  its  value.  I  couldn't  help  but  notice  when  I  came  into  the 
hearing  room  the  Cuyahoga  Valley  picture.  While  I  don't  think  that 
that's  your  district,  it's  not  too  far  from  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Ms.  ESHOO.  And  the  movement  that  was  in  place,  along  with  the 
legislative  leadership  that  helped  to  make  it  happen.  So  this  is 
something  that  is  of  high  priority  to  people  in  the  area.  There  is 
much — and  I  will  give  my  testimony  for  the  record  without  going 
through  all  of  it,  but  it  is  known  as  the  people's  refuge.  It's  host 
to  300,000  visitors  a  year.  We  should  bring  you  out,  so  you  could 
see  it. 


186 

Mr.  Regula.  Why  would  they  buy  it  initially?  It  obviously  has 
some  wetlands  in  it  and  marsh,  and  so  on. 

Ms.  ESHOO.  Well,  the  species  that  are  there  are  really  a  labora- 
tory, as  it  were.  That's  why  there  are  visitors  from  all  over  the 
world,  representatives  of  foreign  governments 

Mr.  Regula.  Why  would  the  Japanese  company  buy  it  to  begin 
with? 

Ms.  ESHOO.  Oh,  it's  been  in  private  ownership,  and  now  we  are 
trying  to  acquire  it  to  make  it  part  of 

Mr.  Regula.  No,  I  understand  that. 

Ms.  ESHOO  [continuing].  Of  the  publicly-held  lands. 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  there  any  buildings  on  it  or  is  it  still  raw  land? 

Ms.  ESHOO.  No,  it  is  without  human  construction  on  it;  only  what 
God  created  is  on  it. 

But  300,000  visitors  a  year,  over  10,000  local  school  children — 
it's  so  attractive  to  fishers  that  they  line  up  every  morning  before 
the  gates  are  open. 

Mr.  Regula.  One  last  question. 

Ms.  EsHOO.  Sure. 

Mr.  Regula.  You  say  in  your  testimony  it's  not  clear  what  the 
eventual  selling  price  will  be  and  you're  talking  about  $10  million 
in  federal  appropriations.  There's  no  guarantee  that  we  get  it  for 
$10  million,  is  it? 

Ms.  EsHOO.  That's  absolutely  right.  What  we  are  attempting  to 
do,  Mr.  Chairman — and  I'm  sure  sitting  in  the  seat  that  you're  in 
that  you  hear  the  word  "partnership"  an  awful  lot 

Mr.  Regula.  Right.  I  use  it  a  lot. 

Ms.  EsHOO  [continuing].  To  essentially  develop — right — to  essen- 
tially develop  the  magnet  of  funds  that  would  make  it,  then,  attrac- 
tive to  those  that  now  privately  hold  the  lands  to  sell  it.  It  is  on 
the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service's  National  Priority  List.  It's  ranked, 
I  believe.  No.  7  out  of  124  sites.  So  that's  pretty  top-tier. 

I  know  that  there's  not  a  great  deal  in  the  President's  budget, 
but  there  are  dollars,  and  we  want  to  be  competitive  for  it.  Is  the 
authorization,  the  appropriation  authorized?  It  is.  There  is  a  sec- 
tion under  which  it  is.  And  so,  again,  I'm  bringing  forward  the  case 
where  it  is  a  magnificent  part  of  the  crown,  essentially,  of  the  Bay 
Area.  We  call  ourselves  a  Bay  Area  people,  and  this  wildlife  refuge 
I  think  is  an  extraordinary  example  of 

Mr.  Regula.  What's  the  access  now,  solely  by  water? 

Ms.  ESHOO.  Yes.  It  is.  It  is,  but  very  heavily  made  use  of.  It's  not 
something  that 

Mr.  Regula.  So  the  Japanese  corporation  that  owns  it  lets  others 
have  access? 

Ms.  EsHOO.  Yes.  Yes,  but  we  want  to  have  it  again  acquired,  so 
that  it  is  part  of  the  national  preserve  that  is  already  in  place  in 
San  Francisco  Bay,  and  what  we  are  naming  after,  most  appro- 
priately, after  Don  Edwards,  and  make  it  part  of  this  national  wild- 
life refuse. 

So  while  I  understand  and  have,  I  think,  a  pretty  good  apprecia- 
tion of  all  the  requests  that  come  before  you,  it  always  takes  some 
leadership  and  vision  to  create  these  things  for  future  generations 
to  say:  that  must  have  been  an  easy  thing  for  them  to  do,  because 
it  was  such  a  great  idea. 


187 

So  I'm  going  to  submit  the  rest  of  my  testimony  for  the  record, 
Mr.  Chairman.  I  know  that  there  are  others  that  are  here  to  speak 
to  you  today,  and  we  will  shortly  be  submitting  to  you  members  of 
the  California  delegation  that  support  this.  I  think  it's  important 
for  you  to  see  that  as  well. 

And  I  want  to  thank  you  for  your  time  and  your  interest.  And 
if  the  committee  has  any  questions  that  you  want  to  follow  up  with, 
we  stand  poised  to  answer  them  for  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you  for  coming. 

Ms.  ESHOO.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Ms.  Eshoo  follows:] 


188 


TESTIMONY 
The  Honorable  Anna  G.  Eshoo 

April  17,  1996 
Interior  Appropriations  Subcommittee 


Mr.  Chainnan  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee,  I   want  to  thank  you  for  allowing 
me  to  testify  today  regarding  the  Don  Edwards  San  Francisco  Bay  National  Wildlife  Refuge. 

I  am  here  to  express  my  support  for  a  request  from  the  Citizens  Committee  to 
Complete  the  Refuge  for  $10  million  from  the  Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  to  acquire 
the  last  significant  wetlands  parcel  on  San  Francisco  Bay  for  addition  to  the  refuge.    Citizens 
in  the  area  have  already  contributed  almost  $1  million  to  this  important  project.     The  State 
of  California  has  committed  approximately  $8  million. 

As  most  of  you  know,  our  distinguished  former  colleague  Don  Edwards  was 
instrumental  in  making  this  Refuge  a  reality.    This  year,  the  Refuge  will  be  dedicated  to  him 
in  recognition  of  his  leadership.    1  can't  think  of  a  more  opportune  time  to  fulfill  our  long- 
standing goal  of  adding  Bair  Island  in  Redwood  City  to  the  Refuge. 

Bair  Island's  1,680  acres  are  the  last  easily  restorable  wetlands  left  on  the  Bay,  and 
their  addition  will  go  far  to  redress  the  harmful  effects  of  150  years  of  degradation.  The 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service's  recovery  plan  for  the  California  clapper  rail  and  the  salt  marsh 
harvest  mouse  identifies  the  acquisition  and  restoration  of  Bair  Island  as  essential.  In  fact, 
the  restoration  of  Bair  Island  is  the  single  most  important  action  we  could  take  to  see  these 
species  removed  from  the  Endangered  Species  List. 

The  Refuge  has  really  lived  up  to  its  billing  as  the  "peoples  Refuge".    It  is  host  to 
300,000  visitors  a  year,  educates  10.000  local  school  children,  and  is  so  attractive  to  fishers 
that  they  line  up  every  morning  before  the  gates  are  open. 

The  Refuge  has  been  valuable  to  the  international  community  as  well.   Within  the  last 
few  years,  representatives  of  countries  from  around  the  world,  including  Mongolia,  Japan, 
Russia,  China,  Sri  Lanka,  Korea,  Ukraine,  and  Costa  Rica,  have  sent  their  wildlife  experts 
to  our  Refuge  to  learn  management  techniques.   The  acquisition  and  restoration  of  Bair 
Island  would  provide  the  focal  point  for  these  international  training  sessions. 

The  citizens  of  the  Bay  Area  are  grateful  for  this  Subcommittee's  support  of  the  San 
Francisco  Bay  Wildlife  Refuge.   I  urge  you  to  continue  your  support  by  honoring  this 
request. 


189 

Questions  and  Answers  on  the  Acquisition  of  Bair  Island 

Who  owns  the  land  now?  A  Japanese  finn  named  Kuma-Gai  Kumi. 

How  much  will  the  acquisition  cost?  It's  not  clear  what  the  eventual  selling  price  of  the  Bair 
Island  might  be.   The  $10  million  appropriation  will  be  helpful  in  convincing  the  current 
owners  that  the  Citizens  Committee  to  Complete  the  Refuge  has  the  ability  to  make  a  major 
purchase. 

How  much  has  been  raised  in  the  region?  Citizens  of  the  region  have  raised  almost  $1 
million.   The  citizen  fundraising  efforts  will  continue.   About  $8  million  is  available  ftx)m 
the  State,  and  about  $S  million  is  available  from  San  Jose. 

What  if  the  current  owners  do  not  agree  to  sell  the  property?  Heretofore,  they  have  been 
unwilling  to  do  so:  Again,  the  $10  million  appropriation  will  help  convince  the  current 
owners  that  the  region  has  the  ability  to  make  a  major  purchase.    The  citizens  of  the  region 
are  100%  behind  the  acquisition  of  the  property  for  the  region  and  are  working  to  everything 
possible  on  a  local  level  to  induce  a  sale.   As  a  last  resort,  the  legislation  expanding  the  Don 
Edwards  refuge  includes  the  power  of  condenmation. 

Is  the  Appropriation  Authorized?  Yes.     Under  PL  100-556,  such  sums  as  may  be  necessary 
were  authorized,  to  remain  available  until  expended. 

Where  is  this  on  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service's  National  Priority  List  for  acquisition?  San 
Francisco  Bay  is  number  7  on  the  NPL  this  year,  out  of  124  sites. 


190 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
DOE  AND  FS 

WITNESS 

HON.  JOEL  HEFLEY,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  COLORADO 

Mr.  Regula.  Next  on  our  list  is  Joel  Hefley. 

Mr.  Hefley.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Your  testimony  will  be  made  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Hefley.  Good.  I'll  try  to  be  brief. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  testify  on  behalf  of 
two  requests  that  are  in  my  district,  one  for  $37,000  for  minor  con- 
struction at  a  National  Park  Service  unit  and  another  for  report 
language  directed  toward  the  Forest  Service. 

My  first  request  is  that  $37,000  be  appropriated  for  construction 
of  some  stump  shelters  at  Florissant  Fossil  Beds  National  Monu- 
ment. This  site  is  characterized  by  a  wealth  of  fossilized  insects, 
plants,  and  petrified  tree  stumps.  Two  of  these  stumps  have  been 
exposed  to  allow  for  interpretation,  and  this  has  resulted  in  un- 
avoidable weathering  and  damage  to  the  resource.  They  can 

Mr.  Regula.  So  if  we  put  in  the  $37,000,  will  they  match  it?  I 
see  you've  got  $23,000. 

Mr.  Hefley.  Yes,  they 

Mr.  Regula.  Would  that  be  an  incentive  for  them  to  get  the  bal- 
ance? 

Mr.  Hefley.  Yes,  I'm  sure  it  would.  And  they  think  that  this  will 
do  the  job  to  protect  these  stumps. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

Mr.  Hefley.  And  you'd  be  interested  in  this,  Ralph.  That's  just 
a  picture  of  it. 

We  don't  want  to  lose  the  resource.  They  can  cover  it  up  with 
dirt,  but  then  no  one  can  see  it.  And  so  they  want  to  build  these 
shelters. 

The  second  request  is  for  report  language  directing  the  Forest 
Service  to  undertake  a  study  to  determine  whether  the  Summit 
House,  which  is  on  top  of  Pike's  Peak — and  you're  probably  familiar 
with  that 

Mr.  Regula.  I've  been  there,  yes. 

Mr.  Hefley  [continuing].  Mr.  Chairman — can  be  repaired  or  if 
it's  necessary  to  construct  a  new  facility.  The  32-year-old  Summit 
House  serves  as  a  visitors'  center  to  a  million  tourists  each  year. 
The  building  is  owned  by  the  Park  Service  under  a  Memorandum 
of  Understanding  with  the  Forest  Service.  It's  privately  operated 
and  funded  through  a  variety  of  government,  municipal,  and  pri- 
vate funds. 

A  preliminary  assessment  by  the  city  of  Colorado  Springs,  in  con- 
sultation with  the  Forest  Service,  has  determined  that  mere  re- 
pairs to  the  Summit  House  just  won't  get  it  done.  And  we  want  to 
finalize  what  actually  needs  to  be  done  with  that  Summit  House. 
We  don't  want  to  let  it  just  fall  down  around  our  ears.  It's  a  very 
important  resource,  and  people  do  enjoy  going  to  the  top  of  Pike's 
Peak,  as  you  well  know. 

So  we're  not  asking  for  additional  money 


191 

Mr.  Regula.  Would  the  State  put  in  any  money  on  a  new  one? 

Mr.  Hefley.  It's  mainly  been  the  city  and  private  funds,  and  so 
forth.  I  don't  know  whether  we  could  get  money  from  the  State  for 
a  new  one.  But  the  city  has  been 

Mr.  Regula.  You  don't  think  you  can  rehab  the  existing  facility? 

Mr.  Hefley.  Their  preliminary  findings  are  that  it  would  cost 
more  money  to  rehab  it  than  it's  worth,  and  then  you  would  have 
a  toggled-up  deal.  But,  again,  what  we're  asking  for  is  the  lan- 
guage, so  that  we  can  finalize  that  and  see  if  that's  true  or  not. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  what  you  want  to  do  is  examine  the  options? 

Mr.  Hefley.  Yes,  examine  the  options. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  we'll  see  what  we  can  do. 

Mr.  Hefley.  All  right,  super. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Hefley.  Thank  you  very  much. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Hefley  follows:] 


192 


STATEMENT 

OF 

U.S.  REP.  JOEL  HEFLEY  (R-CO-5) 

Before  The 
House  Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  Interior  and  Related  Agencies 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996 

Mr.  HEFLEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  for  allowing  me  the 
opportunity  to  testify  today  in  support  of  a  $37,000  appropriations 
for  a  minor  construction  project  at  a  National  Park  Service  unit  in 
my  district  and  for  report  language  dealing  with  that  project  and 
another  request  involving  the  U.S.  Forest  Service. 

The  first  of  these  is  a  request  for  $37,000  to  aid  in  the 
construction  of  shelters  to  protect  two  petrified  stumps  at  the 
Florissant  Fossil  Beds  National  Monument.  A  wealth  of  fossil 
insects,  seeds  and  leaves  are  preserved  here  in  great  detail,  as 
well  as  the  petrified  tree  stumps.  Despite  its  relatively  remote 
location,  the  site  has  attracted  up  to  100,000  visitors  per  year 
for  the  past  eight  year. 

Two  of  the  stumps  have  been  exposed  to  the  elements,  to  better 
interpret  the  unit's  resources.  While  such  a  display  aids  in  part 
of  the  unit's  mission  —  interpreting  such  displays  for  the 
enjoyment  of  the  general  public  —  it  results  in  unavoidable  damage 
to  the  resource.  Exposure  to  high  altitude,  rain  and  snow  have 
resulted  in  a  growing  weathering  problem. 

At  least  eight  years  ago,  a  public  support  group,  the  Friends 
of  the  Florissant  Fossil  Beds,  began  a  campaign  to  raise  money  to 
build  shelters  for  these  two  stumps.  To  date,  the  group  has 
managed  to  raise  approximately  $23,000  toward  that  goal.  According 
to  the  unit  superintendent,  a  federal  appropriation  of  $37,000  to 
the  unit  and  language  directing  its  use  would  enable  the 
construction  of  these  two  shelters  and  protection  of  the  resource. 

The  National  Park  Service  has  taken  no  position  on  my  request. 
The  NPS  philosophy  has  been  that,  if  a  problem  is  serious  enough, 
it  will  be  added  to  the  agency's  priority  list,  which  this  has  not. 
Further,  the  agency  feels  that,  if  a  problem  is  serious  enough,  the 
unit  manager  should  be  able  to  find  money  in  the  unit's  operating 
budget  to  effect  repairs.  However,  Florissant's  operating  budget 
totals  $21,000  a  year.  Utilizing  those  funds  would  result  in 
drastic  staff  cuts  and  little  progress  toward  protecting  the 
resource.  Thus,  Florissant  appears  to  fall  between  a  rock  and  a 
hard  place  — not  important  enough  to  rate  inclusion  on  the  Park 
Service  priorities  list  yet  too  expensive  to  been  handled  by  the 
unit  itself. 


193 


Hefley  Testimony — Page  Two 

In  past  years,  I  have  appeared  before  this  subcommittee  to 
testify  on  behalf  of  a  much  larger  request,  for  $9  million  to  $12 
million  to  construct  a  new  visitors'  center,  an  amphitheater  and 
stump  shelters,  and  provide  parking  and  improved  sewerage  at  the 
unit. 

Given  current  and  projected  constraints  on  the  federal  budget, 
it  appears  unlikely  this  time  of  funding  will  be  made  available  in 
the  near  or  even  more  distant  future.  Meanwhile,  the  problem  with 
these  stumps  continues  to  worsen  and  this  $37,000  investment  seems 
a  prudent  one. 

My  second  request  is  not  for  money  at  all  but  for  language 
directing  the  U.S.  Forest  Service  to  undertake  a  study  to  determine 
whether,  in  its  judgment,  the  existing  Summit  House  visitors' 
center  atop  Pikes  Peak  can  be  repaired  or  if  it  is  necessary  to 
construct  a  new  facility.  The  Forest  Service  should  be  further 
directed  to  provide  cost  estimate  for  either  option. 

As  you  know.  Pikes  Peak  is  an  important  landmark,  not  only  to 
Colorado  but  to  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  the  32-year-old  Summit 
House  serves  as  a  visitors'  center  to  millions  of  tourists  each 
year.  Unfortunately,  the  building  has  severe  structural  and  safety 
problems,  the  repair  of  which  cannot  be  economically  justified 
according  to  the  preliminary  results  of  an  environmental  assessment 
by  a  design  team  organized  by  the  City  of  Colorado  Springs  and 
working  with  the  Forest  Service. 

The  Summit  House  is  currently  owned  by  the  National  Park 
Service  under  a  memorandum  of  understanding  with  the  Forest 
Service.  It  is  privately  operated  but  receives  operations  and 
maintenance  funding  from  a  variety  of  government,  municipal  and 
private  sources.  These  parties  recognize  that  future  federal 
outlays  for  construction  are  likely  to  be  extremely  constrained  and 
agree  that  replacement  of  the  Summit  House  will  be  accomplished 
only  through  a  public-private  partnership.  These  parties  hope  to 
hold  future  federal  financial  involvement  to  far  less  than  50 
percent . 

Local  officials  state  that  nearly  90  percent  of  the  work 
needed  for  the  requested  study  has  been  completed.  The  city  and 
design  team  have  agreed  to  make  the  results  of  their  previous  work 
available  and  generally  to  assist  the  Forest  Service  in  any  way 
needed.  This  should  ensure  that  any  costs  beyond  normal 
administrative  costs  incurred  by  the  Forest  Service  should  be 
minimal. 

This  concludes  my  testimony.  Again,  thank  you  for  giving  me 
the  time  and  I  hope  that  you  will  give  serious  consideration  to 
these  requests.   I  look  forward  to  working  with  you. 


194 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
SANTA  MONICA  MOUNTAINS 
NRA  LAND  ACQUISITION 

WITNESS 

HON.  ANTHONY  C.   BEILENSON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE   IN  CONGRESS 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  CAUFORNIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Tony? 

Mr.  Beilenson.  Apropos  of  nothing  much  in  particular,  I  spent 
two  summers  when  I  was  younger  trekking  around  the  country, 
and  I  found  myself  during  one  of  them  in  Colorado  Springs,  worked 
there  for  a  month,  and  toward  the  end  of  that  time  I  was  offered 
a  job  driving  people  from  the  Broadmoor  up  to  the  top  of  Pike's 
Peak.  I  never  did  take  the  job,  never  got  to  the  top  of  Pike's  Peak. 
I  support  Mr.  Hefley  in  fixing  it  up;  in  case  I  ever  get  up  there, 
there  vill  be  a  place  to  stop.  [Laughter.] 

I'm  here 

Mr.  Regula.  When  you  have  time  on  your  hands.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  shall. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I've  submitted  to  you,  and  you've  got,  I'm 
sure 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes. 

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

Mr.  Regula.  That's  why  I  wore  this  tie  today. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  forgot  to  wear  my  elephant  tie.  I'm  sorry. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  was  ready  for  you. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  That's  sweet  of  you.  That's  really  sweet  of  you. 
Thanks.  [Laughter.] 

I'll  wear  mine  tomorrow. 

May  I  have  about  three  minutes?  And  I'll  just  give  a  very  brief 
overview  of  this. 

Mr.  Regula.  Sure. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  We're  asking,  as  you  can  see  on  the  first  page, 
for  the  Santa  Monicas,  for  at  least  $10  million  for  land  acquisition. 
I  know  that's  more  than  you  can  give.  At  the  same  time 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  do  as  much  as  we  can. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  understand.  At  the  same  time,  it's  less  than  we 
need,  and  I  didn't  know  what  figure  to  put  in  there,  quite  frankly. 
I  just 

Mr.  Regula.  Did  we  ever  get  Bob  Hope  to  give  some  of  that  land 
he  has? 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  can't  talk  about  this  in  public,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  All  right.  Talk  to  me  about  it  privately.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beilenson.  We  can't  even  not  only  not  get  him  to  give  it; 
we  can't  get  him  to  sell  it  at  decent  prices. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  remember  when  he  wanted  an  easement,  but 
there  was  no  quid. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  Yes,  exactly. 

Anyway,  as  I  don't  need  to  remind  you,  sir,  you  all  have  been  ter- 
ribly helpful.  We  own  21,000  acres  in  the  Santa  Monicas.  We're 


195 

hopeful  of,  over  the  next  few  years,  picking  up  another  15,000  acres 
or  so.  A  lot  of  the  properties  that  the  National  Park  Service  is  fo- 
cusing on  now  are  in-holdings  where  people  are  anxious  to  sell  to 
us,  and  we  don't  have  adequate  amount  of  money. 

So,  anyway,  we  need  more  than  the  $10  million.  As  I  said,  I 
know  that's  more  than  you  can  give  us,  but  I  thought  I'd  ask  for 
it  just  to  give  you  some  feel  for  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  California  and  the  National  Park  Service  work- 
ing together  to  avoid  duplicating  facilities? 

Mr.  Beilenson.  Yes,  yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  When  I  was  there,  why,  it  was  obvious  that  they 
overlapped  a  great  deal. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  But  it's  hugely  helpful,  too.  I  mean,  partially  be- 
cause of  the  exigencies,  you  know,  budget  requirements  both  here 
and  at  the  State  level  as  well,  as  the  chairman  knows — especially 
in  the  last  three  or  four  or  five  years,  I've  never  seen  State  agen- 
cies and  Federal  agencies  and  some  local  agencies  work  so  closely 
together  as  they  have  there. 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  good. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  It's  wonderful. 

The  State  owns  some  properties.  As  you  know,  there  are  three 
State  parks 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  right. 

Mr.  Beilenson  [continuing].  Which  I  was  instrumental  in  help- 
ing to  set  up  25,  30  years  ago,  when  I  was  in  the  legislature,  and, 
of  course,  the  Santa  Monicas  here.  Eventually  there  may  well  be 
some  shifting  around  of  properties,  so  that  the  State  can  manage 
and  provide  the  rangers  for  some  in  their  own  area,  and  the  Fed- 
eral maybe  move  out  to  another  area. 

Most  recently,  I  want  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  may  recall 
there's  been  an  argument  over  the  past  three  or  four  years  about 
a  possible  condemnation  suit  against  Silka,  the  Japanese-based 
university 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  right. 

Mr.  Beilenson  [continuing].  That  owns  some  land  which  we've 
always  wanted.  It's  right  in  the  heart  of  the  thing.  We've  reached 
a  tentative  agreement  with  them  which  will  involve  spending  no 
money  from  the  Federal  Government  or  the  State.  They're  going  to 
stay  there  in  a  small  forum.  We  wish  they  weren't  there.  We  wish 
we  could  have  the  property,  but  we  can't  afford  it.  But  there  will 
be  375  acres-plus  turned  over  to  one  public  agency  or  another  with 
public  access  to  add  both  to  the  State  and  to  the  Federal.  So  we're 
making  real  progress.  We're  being  forced  to,  and  we're  making  real 
progress. 

At  the  same  time,  we  do  have  15  million  people  who  live  within 
10  miles  or 

Mr.  Regula.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Beilenson  [continuing].  Excuse  me,  within  about  50  miles 
of  the  park,  and  California's  population  is  going  to  double  in  the 
next  35  years.  So  there's  still  a  lot  of  pressure  on  it. 

One  final  word  on  that:  in  a  sense,  it's  a  silly  argument  in  some 
respects.  I  shouldn't  say  that,  but  it's  a  strange  argument,  but  it's 
true.  We  end  up,  peculiarly,  saving  huge  amounts  of  money  by 
spending  even  a  few  tens  of  millions  of  dollars  to  acquire  land  be- 


196 

cause  it's  then  taken  out  of  private  ownership  and  inappropriate 
uses  of  it  are  not  made;  that  is,  to  build  houses  and  things  in  a 
fire-and-flood-prone  area. 

Six  thousand  acres  of  our  park  were  burned  over  two-and-a-half 
years  ago  in  the  big  Malibu  fires.  It  didn't  cost  us  anjrthing.  It's  all 
coming  back.  We've  got  new  flowers  we've  never  seen  before.  It's 
wonderful.  We  lost  some  trees  and  things. 

Right  next  to  it,  hundreds  upon  hundreds  of  homes  were  de- 
stroyed, where  they  really  shouldn't  have  been  built  in  the  first 
place.  And  the  Federal  Government  is  reimbursing  homeowners 
there  billions  of  dollars.  I  mean,  we  saved  billions  of  dollars  by  hav- 
ing bought  some,  for  other  purposes,  parkland.  It's  interesting,  but 
it's  true. 

And  the  final  thing  I  just  wanted  to  say  to  you  with  respect  to 
the  Santa  Monicas  is,  obviously,  I'm  a  pleader  for  that  particular — 
and  I  don't  need  to  tell  you  this.  I  sure  hope  that  you  all  can  find 
some  additional  monies  for  parks  in  general.  Where  everyone  goes 
around  the  country — and  I  know  you  spend  a  great  deal  of  your 
time,  Mr.  Chairman,  doing  it — it's  clear  that  all  of  the  parks,  in- 
cluding the  old-line  biggest  parks,  need  an  awful  lot  of  money  for 
fixing  up  and  for  buffer  zones,  and  so  on,  and  we  simply  don't  have 
enough  money  for  them.  The  administration  isn't  asking  enough.  I 
wish  somehow  we  could  dig  deeper  into  the  Land  and  Water  Con- 
servation Fund 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we're  pushing.  The  problem  is  there  isn't  any 
fund.  It's  a  little  bit  like  what  we're  debating  today,  on  taking  the 
Highway  Trust  Fund  off  budget. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  know. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  just  not  there. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  know. 

Mr.  Regula.  But  we're  trying  to  get  a  fee  bill  with  a  proviso  that 
the  fee  goes  right  back  to  the  source  of  collection. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  That  would  be  wonderful.  That's  what  the  park 
people  themselves  would 

Mr.  Regula.  I  think  we  have  to  do  it  in  the  long  run. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  think  people  would  strongly  support  it.  People 
love  the  parks. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right,  they  do. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  They're  willing  you  know,  they  don't  mind  pay- 
ing a  little  bit  more  if  they  think  the  money  will  go  back  into  the 
parks. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  think  you're  right. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  One  final  word  on  that  is  that  the  population  of 
this  country,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  going  to  double  to  half  a  billion  peo- 
ple in  the  next  45  years,  and  the  pressures  on  our  parks,  as  well 
as  other  things,  is  going  to  at  least  double,  too.  So  we've  got  to  keep 
that  in  mind. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  agree,  and  we  neglect  maintenance.  That's  the 
easy  one  to  put  off. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  Oh,  I  know  it.  We  were  just  up  at  the  C&O 
Canal  headquarters  right  across  from  Shepherdstown  right  near 
Antietem.  I  can't  even  think  of  the  name  of  the  town — Sharpsberg, 
I  guess.  It  looks  like  the  place  hasn't  been  painted  for  the  last  50 


197 

years.  I  mean,  it's  just  pathetic.  It  wasn't  even  a  visitors'  place,  just 
a  park. 

May  I  have  one  more  minute  on  elephants,  rhinos,  and  tigers? 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  We're  asking — and  you've  got  this  in  front  of 
you — for  at  least  $1.2  million  for  the  African  elephant  conservation 
fund  and  at  least  $400,000  for  the  rhino/tiger  conservation  fund. 
The  administration,  although  they  strongly  support  these  things,  is 
asking  for  less  money,  about  half  as  much,  because  that's  what  you 
were  able  to  give  last  year.  I  would  urge  you  to  give  serious  consid- 
eration to  putting  a  little  bit  more  in.  We're  talking  about  peanuts 
here,  and  we're  talking  about  two  things:  one,  elephants,  where 
this  country's  actions,  with  your  help  four  or  five  years  ago,  has 
turned  the  tide  on  the  decimation  of  the  African  elephant,  where 
they've  gone  down  from  a  million  and  a  half  during  the  1980s  down 
to  about  400,000.  Now  it  seems  to  have  leveled  off  and  it's  begin- 
ning to  grow  again.  For  the  first  time,  the  money,  the  seed  money, 
through  the  U.S.  and  now  through  other  contributory  countries  and 
through  NGOs,  nongovernmental  organizations 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we'll  do  as  much  as  we  can  because  I  think 
it's  an  important  program. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  It's  been  a  wonderful  successful,  Mr.  Chairman, 
with  almost  no  money,  and  it's  worth  it. 

The  other  thing  is  rhinos  and  tigers.  I  know  that  people  back 
home  don't  appreciate  this,  although  if  you  go  out  and  talk  to  kids 
or  even  to  grownups  about  it — there  are  11,000  rhinoceroses  left  in 
the  world  outside  of  zoos  and  5,000  or  6,000  tigers.  In  our  chil- 
dren's lifetimes,  or  our  grandchildren's  lifetimes,  they  are  liable  to 
become  extinct  on  our  watch,  as  it  were. 

It  is  so  sad.  I  mean,  it's  really  pathetic.  With  modest  amounts 
of  contributions,  first  from  us,  and  then  that  again  catalyzes  money 
elsewhere,  as  we  did  with  elephants,  we  can  save  them.  I  think  it's 
worth  doing.  And  if  it  takes  a  million  dollars  a  year  or  half  a  mil- 
lion dollars  a  year,  you  know,  we  can  find  that  somewhere. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  agree. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  know  you  do. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  do  as  much  as  we  can. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  know  you  will.  Thanks  a  lot. 

Mr.  Regula.  As  you  may  recall,  last  year  the  Speaker  very  forc- 
ibly opposed  the  amendment  to  delete  the  money. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  know  it.  So  we  were  left;  with  the  $400,000, 
and  it  was  wonderfully  helpful,  but,  you  know 

Mr.  Regula  [continuing].  It's  tight  budgets. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  I  know,  sir. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  okay.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Beilenson.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  appreciate  it. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Beilenson  follows:] 


198 


STATEMENT  OP  HON.  ANTHONY  C.  BEILENSON 

BEFORE  THE 

SXTBCOMMZTTEE    ON    INTERIOR   AND    RELATED   AGENCIES 

COMMITTEE    ON  APPROPRIATIONS 

April    17,    1996 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  having  the  opportunity  to  express 
my  support  for  at  least  $1.2  million  for  the  African  Elephant 
Conservation  Fund,  and  for  at  least  $400,000  for  the  Rhino/Tiger 
Conservation  Fund,  both  of  which  are  administered  by  the  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service. 

We  appreciate  the  support  this  subcommittee  showed  for  those 
two  programs  last  year  by  providing  half  of  the  Administration's 
request  in  each  case.   Of  course,  we  wish  the  entire  amounts  had 
been  provided.   Although  the  Administration's  FY  97  request  calls 
for  continuing  funding  at  the  levels  they  expect  to  receive  in  FY 
96--$600,000  for  the  elephant  fund,  and  $200,000  for  the 
rhino/tiger  fund- -I  believe  a  more  appropriate  amount  would  be 
the  one  that  the  Administration  requested  last  year- -about  $1.2 
million  for  the  elephant  fund,  and  $400,000  for  the  rhino/tiger 
fund. 

The  African  Elephant  Conservation  Fund,  authorized  by  the 
African  Elephant  Conservation  Act  of  1988,  provides  federal  grant 
assistance  to  African  wildlife  agencies,  organizations,  and 
individuals  to  pay  for  approved  projects  for  research, 
conservation,  management  and  protection  of  African  elephants. 
Four  years  ago,  we  reauthorized  the  African  Elephant  Conservation 
Act  for  $5  million  a  year  through  FY  97. 

The  Rhino/Tiger  Conservation  Fund,  authorized  by  the 
Rhinoceros  and  Tiger  Conservation  Act  of  1994,  is  modeled  on  the 
elephant  conservation  fund.   Congress  established  this  program  to 
try  to  halt  the  alarming  decline  of  the  world's  rhinoceros  and 
tiger  populations.   Less  than  11,000  rhinos  and  5,000  tigers  are 
still  in  existence,  and  their  survival  is  becoming  increasingly 
imperiled  each  year.   But,  if  the  United  States  is  as  successful 
with  the  rhino/tiger  program  as  it  has  been  with  the  elephant 
program,  we  have  a  fighting  chance  of  saving  these  two 
magnificent  animals  from  extinction. 

The  elephant  conservation  program,  for  its  size,  has  been 
one  of  the  most  successful  efforts  ever  undertaken  by  the  U.S. 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  outside  the  United  States  to  ensure  the 
preservation  of  a  species  in  its  native  habitat.   Because  of  U.S. 
leadership  and  contributions  to  the  International  African 
Elephant  Conservation  Coordinating  Group,  every  range  country  now 
has  a  specific  short-term  and  long-term  conservation  plan,  and  we 
are  actively  engaged  in  efforts  to  implement  those  plans. 

The  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  also  continues  to  work  with 


199 


African  wildlife  departments  and  non- governmental  organizations 
in  developing  and  implementing  measures  to  address  the  persistent 
poaching  that  remains  the  number  one  threat  facing  the  species. 

In  addition,  we  are  continuing  to  increase  our  efforts  to 
address  the  other  threats  to  the  African  elephant- -in  particular, 
the  growing  conflict  between  humans  and  wildlife  for  space  and 
resources.   Essential  to  the  success  of  our  efforts  will  be  the 
ability  of  local  communities  to  manage  their  wildlife  as  a 
renewable  resource- -valucible  for  the  tourist  dollars  they  attract 
--and  thus  have  an  incentive  to  protect  the  animals  from  poachers 
and  to  share  their  land  and  water  supplies.   Until  very  recently, 
all  national  park  and  tourist  revenues  were  channelled  back  to 
the  national  governments,  and  local  communities  were  given  no 
stake  at  all  in  preserving  their  own  wildlife.   That  is  beginning 
to  change,  but  if  African  countries  are  going  to  succeed  in 
implementing  effective  elephant  conservation  programs,  more 
incentives  for  local  commitment  will  be  necessary. 

Because  elephants  play  an  enormous  role  in  the  ecosystems 
they  inhabit,  funds  spent  on  elephant  conservation  provide  a 
tremendous  boost  to  environmental  protection  activities  in  the 
affected  communities  by  promoting  sound  ecological  management 
practices,  resource  conservation,  preservation  of  threatened 
ecosystems  and,  perhaps  most  importantly,  the  conservation  of 
many  other  threatened  and  endangered  species. 

Moreover,  the  U.S.  commitment  has  acted  as  a  catalyst, 
generating  major  contributions  and  technical  assistance  from 
NGO's,  and  from  other  donor  nations,  such  as  Japan  and  several 
European  countries.   The  Administration's  requested  appropriation 
would  go  a  long  way  toward  saving  many  elephant  populations  by 
training  staff,  buying  spare  parts  for  vehicles  and  aircraft,  and 
providing  technical  assistance  in  setting  up  and  expanding 
national  parks. 

For  a  very  modest  amount  of  funding,  the  United  States  can 
continue  to  exercise  its  leadership  in  saving  three  of  the 
world's  most  venerated  animals  from  extinction.   I  strongly  urge 
this  subcommittee  to  provide,  at  the  very  least,  the 
Administration's  request  for  funding  for  these  two  critically 
iii^>ortcint  programs. 


200 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

DON  EDWARDS  SAN  FRANCISCO  BAY  NATIONAL 
WILDLIFE  REFUGE 

GULF  OF  THE  FARALLONES  NATIONAL  MARINE 
SANCTUARY 

WITNESS 

HON.  TOM  LANTOS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  Regula.  Mr.  Lantos?  Tom? 

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

Before  Tony  leaves,  I  want  to  pay  tribute  to  his  fight  for  the  ele- 
phants and  other  wild  animals  and  creatures. 

Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  first  thank  you  personally  for  your  partici- 
pation yesterday  at  the  Yomosho  ceremony,  for  your  continued  sup- 
port for  museum. 

Mr.  Regula.  It  was  very,  very  impressive,  a  very  impressive 
ceremony. 

Mr.  Lantos.  I'm  very,  very  deeply  grateful  to  you. 

I  have  two  items,  Mr.  Chairman.  One 

Mr.  Regula.  I  might  tell  you  I've  heard  two  previous  witnesses 
on  Don  Edwards.  So  we're  pretty  much  up  to  speed  on  that  one. 

Mr.  Lantos.  Exactly.  I  would  merely  indicate,  obviously,  that 
along  with  the  delegation,  I  also  support  the  Don  Edwards. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  an  interesting  thing  in  that  apparently  this 
Japanese  firm  owns  the  island 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes. 

Mr.  Regula  [continuing].  And  lets  the  public  access  it. 

Mr.  Lantos.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  wonder  if  there's  any  potential  there  of  getting 
them  to  make  a  contribution  of  a  portion  of  it,  if  we  would  match 
it. 

Mr.  Lantos.  Well,  I've  begun  to  explore  that. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  wish  you  would 

Mr.  Lantos.  It's  a  possibility. 

Mr.  Regula  [continuing].  Because  we  could  leverage  our  dol- 
lars  

Mr.  Lantos.  Exactly. 

Mr.  Regula  [continuing].  Considerably,  and  maybe  you  would 
get  the  State  to  come  in  for  some.  The  watch  word's  got  to  be,  with 
the  budget  reductions  we're  faced  with,  that  we've  got  to  leverage 
our  dollars  as  much  as  possible 

Mr.  Lantos.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Regula  [continuing].  With  State  and/or  private  or  local 
funds,  and  that's,  I  think,  what  we're  going  to  be  looking  toward 
in  determining  what  we  can  fund. 

Mr.  Lantos.  Absolutely.  I  have  another  appointment  set  with  the 
Japanese. 

Mr.  Regula.  Good. 

Mr.  Lantos.  And  I'll  go  out  and  I'll  try  to.  So  I  won't  say  any- 
thing more  about  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 


201 

I  would  like  to  request  a  modest  amount  of  funding,  $1.2  million, 
for  the  Gulf  of  the  Farallones  National  Marine  Sanctuary. 

Mr.  Regula.  Where  is  that? 

Mr.  Lantos.  It's — the  Farallones  are 

Mr.  Regula.  I  mean,  is  it  north  of  San  Francisco,  south,  or 

Mr.  Lantos.  It's  west. 

Mr.  Regula.  West? 

Mr.  Lantos.  It's  almost  due  west. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  it  on  the  coast?  Is  it  a  gulf  actually? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes,  we  would  very  much  like  to  take  you  out  there 
next  time  you  come  out  our  way.  It's  a  beautiful  area.  We'd  love 
to  take  you  out  there.  You  can  go  out  by  boat  or  by  helicopter. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  is  that  also  an  island? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  The  Farallones? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes,  yes,  yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay.  Is  it  presently  a  marine  sanctuary? 

Mr.  Lantos.  It  is,  and  it  is  under  management  of  the  Gulf  of  the 
Farallones  National  Marine  Sanctuary.  What  our  problem  is,  that 
with  the  downsizing,  military  downsizing,  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard, 
which  is  operating  facilities  out  there,  will  no  longer  need  that. 
What  we  are  attempting  to  do  is  to  have  these  buildings  and  struc- 
tures transferred  from  the  Coast  Guard.  We  have  two  structures, 
one  operated  by  the  Coast  Guard,  one  by  the  Fish  and  Wildlife 
Service.  Both  are  in  need  of  extensive  repair  and  maintenance,  and 
we  are  working  on  putting  together  a  nonprofit  that  would  continue 
the  maintenance  on  an  indefinite  basis. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  the  Coast  Guard  going  to  vacate  it? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes,  yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  Could  the  two  buildings — could  the  functions  be 
consolidated  into  one? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Well 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  one  instead  of- 


Mr.  Lantos.  We  would  hate  to  lose  either  of  these  buildings. 
These  are  beautiful  structures,  and  we  intend  to,  as  I  indicated  in 
my  testimony,  to  have  a  living  library  and  laboratory  created  in 
this  area. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  this  Federal  property  now? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  The  whole  thing? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes,  the  whole  thing. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  the  Coast  Guard  would  contemplate  turning  it 
over  to  the  National  Park  Service? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes,  yes,  yes,  yes.  But  the  structures  and  buildings, 
without  maintenance,  would  vanish  in  no  time,  and,  obviously,  the 
replacement  costs  would  be  astronomical  and  we  could  never  un- 
dertake them. 

Mr.  Regula.  What  are  we  talking  about  in  acreage? 

Mr.  Lantos.  One  point  two  million. 

Mr.  Regula.  No,  no,  in  acreage. 

Mr.  Lantos.  I  will  submit  that  to  you.  I  wouldn't  care  to  guess. 
I  wouldn't  care  to  guess. 

[The  information  follows:] 


202 


400  Ei  C»tmtO  Rut, 

s^mco 

Sam  kUTio.  CA  ••«& 

M1»>O4aD0 


MTaNATKMAL  WLAT10NS  aMMnrCE 


OOVBVMSn-  nSOMM  AND  OVBtSKJKT  COMMrTTH 


(EmtgreBs  of  tlie  finite^  i^tatea 

Ibntae  of  fiqnreBentatiueB 

VaBlfington.  B.dl.  20515 

May  20,  1996 


The  Honorable  Ralph  Regula 
Committee  on  Appropriations 
Subcommittee  on  Interior 
B-308  Raybum  HOB 

Dear  Mr.  Chainnan: 

On  ^ril  17,  1996  I  testified  before  your  subcommittee.  During  my  testimony  on  behalf  of  the 
Gulf  of  the  Farallones  National  Marine  Sanctuary,  you  inquired  about  the  size  of  the  island.  Per 
your  request,  I  am  providing  you  with  that  information. 

The  Fatallone  Island,  relevant  to  this  project,  consists  of  102  acres  of  land  (or  45  hectares). 

I  appreciate  your  attention  to  this  important  project.  Please  do  not  hesitate  to  contact  me  if  I  may 
be  of  any  assistance. 

Most  cotdiaUy, 


/^7^ 


Tom  Lantos 
Member  of  Congress 


203 

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

Mr.  Lantos.  It  would  be  to  rehab.  It  would  be  to  restore,  rehab 
the  building,  to  remove  hazardous  waste.  There  is  quite  a  bit  of 
hazardous — I  was  out  there — hazardous  waste  removal,  which  is 
required,  and  initial  maintenance  until  this  nonprofit  is  created. 

Mr.  Regula.  Will  the  nonprofit  operate  it  then? 

Mr.  Lantos.  Yes,  the  nonprofit  would  operate  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  there  would  not  be  a  continuing  Federal  role? 

Mr.  Lantos.  There  would  be  no  continuing  Federal  responsibil- 
ity. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we'll  look  at  it. 

Mr.  Lantos.  We're  deeply  grateful  to  you.  You  have  been  very 
understanding  and  helpful  to  our  area,  Mr.  Chairman,  through  the 
years.  Let  me  only  say  that  this  is  a  very  serious  time  bind  because 
it  will  take  some  time  to  put  a  nonprofit  together.  There  is  every 
indication  several  foundations  are  going  to  come  in. 

Mr.  Regula.  When  do  you  contemplate  the  Coast  Guard 
vacating? 

Mr.  Lantos.  It's  imminent.  It's  imminent. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  it's  part  of  their  downsizing? 

Mr.  Lantos.  That's  correct.  That's  correct.  And  if  the  buildings 
are  allowed,  the  structures  are  allowed  to  deteriorate,  they  will  just 
be  gone. 

Mr.  Regula.  Does  the  public  have  access  to  it  now? 

Mr.  Lantos.  They  do  have  access  to  it  now.  It's  not  easy  to  reach 
it,  but  there  is  access  to  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

Mr.  Lantos.  I'm  very  grateful,  Mr.  Chairman.  It's  good  to  see 
you. 

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

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Lantos  follows:] 


204 


El.  Camu«o  Real 
Matto  CAM«tt 


'ONAL  RELATIOhS  COMMITTEE 


GOVERNMCNT  REFORM  ANO  OVERSIGHT  COMMrTTEE 


(EongrEHH  of  tifz  Inteii  Btatea 

House  of  RcpreHEntatiuEH 

»aHl|ington.  fi.OI.  2D515 


CONGRESSMAN  TOM  LANTOS 
12TH  DISTRICT  -  CALIFORNIA 

TESTIMONY  BEFORE  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR 
COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 

April  17,  1996 


Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  grateful  for  the  opportunity  to  appear  before  you 
today  as  you  prepare  the  appropriations  legislation  for  FY  '97.  I  am  here  to  urge 
your  support  for  two  projects  most  worthy  of  funding  from  the  Land  and  Water 
Conservation  Fund.  I  would  like  to  respectfully  request  $10  million  for  The  San 
Francisco  Bay  Wildlife  Refuge  and  $1.2  million  for  the  Gulf  of  the  Faraliones 
National  Marine  Sanctuary. 

The  San  Francisco  Bay  Wildlife  Refuge  is  a  particularly  noteworthy 
project.  As  you  know,  it  was  recently  renamed  in  honor  of  our  distinguished 
colleague.  The  Honorable  Don  Edwards,  and  is  now  known  as  The  Don  Edwards 
San  Francisco  Bay  National  Wildlife  Refuge.  While  serving  in  Congress,  Don 
Edwards  was  committed  to  protecting  the  environment  and  remains  dedicated 
to  preserving  this  land  for  use  as  a  wildlife  refuge. 

This  1,600  acres  of  land,  the  final  segment  needed  to  complete  the 
Refuge,  is  the  last  significant  easily-restorable  wetland  left  on  the  San  Francisco 
Bay.  If  this  land  is  not  acquired  for  preservation  very  soon,  it  will  be  developed 
and  lost  as  a  natural  resource  forever 

This  refuge  project  is  widely  supported  by  people  throughout  the  San 
Francisco  Bay  Area,  the  Northern  California  Congressional  delegation,  the 
California  Department  of  Fish  and  Game  and  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
and  is  recognized  by  resource  agencies  and  environmental  organizations  as  a 
top  priority  acquisition. 


205 


It  is  important  to  acknowledge  the  efforts  made  by  The  Citizens 
Committee  to  Complete  the  Refuge,  a  local  advocacy  group,  in  securing  nearly 
$1  million  of  local  funds  for  the  acquisition  of  this  land.  This  impressive  display 
of  private  support  indicates  the  level  of  local  support  for  the  Refuge. 

The  benefits  of  The  Don  Edwards  San  Francisco  Bay  National  Wildlife 
Refuge  are  enormous  and  will  only  be  augmented  by  adding  this  final  parcel  of 
land.  The  Refuge  welcomes  300,000  visitors  over  the  course  of  a  year, 
including  10,000  school  children,  who  participate  in  educational  programs 
sponsored  by  the  Refuge.  In  addition,  local  fishermen  frequent  the  Refuge  and 
wildlife  experts  from  ail  over  the  world  come  to  this  Refuge  to  study  refuge 
management  techniques. 

Completion  of  the  Don  Edwards  San  Francisco  Bay  National  Wildlife 
Refuge  is  a  truly  important  project  for  the  Bay  Area  and  indeed  the  world. 
Aside  from  its  own  merit,  this  would  be  a  meaningful  tribute  to  our  colleague, 
Don  Edwards,  whose  efforts  to  preserve  this  land  were  unsurpassed. 

The  second  request  I  would  like  to  make  is  for  funding  in  the  amount  of 
$1.2  million  for  the  Gulf  of  the  Farallones  National  Marine  Sanctuary.  This 
funding  would  provide  for  the  restoration,  hazardous  waste  removal,  and 
maintenance  of  two  houses  located  on  the  South  East  Farallone  Island.  These 
houses  would  be  used  as  a  living  library  and  laboratory  unit  for  the  National 
Wildlife  Refuge,  under  the  management  of  the  Gulf  of  the  Farallones  National 
Marine  Sanctuary. 

Located  just  off  the  coast  of  San  Francisco,  the  Farallone  Islands  are  the 
most  important  and  largest  seabird  breeding  colony  in  the  U.S.,  outside  Alaska. 
In  addition  to  the  sea  birds,  sea  lions  migrate  from  Ano  Nuevo  (approximately 
50  miles  south),  during  the  fall  and  winter,  to  take  advantage  of  the  more 
productive  feeding  ground  around  the  Farallone  Islands. 

More  than  20  years  of  wildlife  monitoring  has  been  conducted  from  this 
sight,  providing  important  data  for  researchers.  In  addition,  it  is  also  a  vital 
location  to  conduct  research  on  the  water  circulation  and  the  continental  shelf 
of  the  San  Francisco  Bay. 

With  technological  advancements  and  military  downsizing,  the  U.S.  Coast 
Guard  no  longer  needs  the  house  on  the  South  East  Farallone  Island,  which  had 
been  previously  used  while  performing  maintenance  on  the  light  used  to  guide 


206 


boats  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay.  Solar  technology  is  now  used,  leaving  the 
house  vacant  and  falling  into  disrepair.  Currently  the  Gulf  of  the  Farallone 
National  Marine  Sanctuary  is  working  to  acquire  this  house  under  a  transfer 
from  the  Coast  Guard.  While  the  second  house  is  operated  by  the 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  both  are  in  need  of  extensive  repairs  and  will  require 
maintenance,  to  be  useful  for  the  Gulf  of  the  Farallone  Sanctuary.  The  $1.2 
million  I  am  requesting  would  assure  the  utilization  of  these  buildings,  which  is 
a  small  price  to  pay  to  preserve  these  useful  buildings. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  the  attention  given  by  this  committee  to  these 
worthy  projects  and  strongly  urge  the  committee  to  provide  full  funding  for 
both;  The  wildlife  refuge  bearing  the  name  of  our  colleague.  The  Don  Edwards 
San  Francisco  Bay  National  Wildlife  Refuge  and  the  Gulf  of  the  Farallones 
National  Marine  Sanctuary. 


207 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
FS  LAND  AQUISITION 

WITNESS 
HON.  CHARLES  F.  BASS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE 

Mr.  Regula.  The  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire  to  discuss 
Forest  Service  land  acquisition  in  the  White  Mountains. 

Mr.  Bass.  Good  afternoon,  Mr.  Chairman,  and,  as  you  know,  this 
is  not  the  first  time;  I  guess  I'm  coming  to  find  out  that  you  see 
a  lot  of  people  on  a  regular  basis. 

I  regret  the  fact  that  I  don't  have  a  map  here  to  show  you  pre- 
cisely where — I  do  have  a  map.  The  first  thing  you  asked  the  per- 
son who  preceded  me  was,  where  is  this  piece  of  property,  and  I 
think  it  would  be  helpful  for  you  to  have  a  quick  look. 

This  is  the  State  of  New  Hampshire,  and  the  property  that  we 
are  talking  about  is  right  here. 

Mr.  Regula.  Near  the  south  end;  I  assume  the  north  end  would 
be 

Mr.  Bass.  No,  district  is  like  this:  I  have  all  of  this,  all  of  this, 
and  all  of  that.  Bill  Zeliff  has  this  little — this  area  right  here.  He 
has  the  city  of  Manchester,  the  city  of  Portsmouth,  but  I  have  most 
of  two-thirds  of  the  land  area  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  you  go  to  the  north  end? 

Mr.  Bass.  That's  right;  I  have  all  of  Coos  County.  I  have  all  of 
the  White  Mountain  National  Forest  in  my  district  except  Bill 
Zeliff  lives  right  here.  He  has  a  little  tiny  piece 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  that  where  his  lodge  is  located? 

Mr.  Bass.  Yes.  He  has  this  much  of  it.  This  is  his,  this  part  of 
it  here.  But  I  have  all  of  this,  all  of  this,  basically  all  the  way 
down — everything  where  my  hand  is  and  all  the  way  around. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  you  have  the  bulk  of  the  White  Mountains? 

Mr.  Bass.  That's  correct.  I  have  about  90  percent  of  the  White 
Mountain  National  Forest. 

Mr.  Regula.  And  you  want  to  buy  some  more  land? 

Mr.  Bass.  The  property  that  we  are  talking  about — I'm  tr3ang  to 
find  it.  Matt,  where  is — oh,  here.  It's  right  here.  It's  this  piece  of 
property  right  here.  It  abuts  the  western  boundary  of  the  White 
Mountain  National  Forest.  It's  in  three  different  towns.  Ninety- 
eight  percent  of  it  is  in  two  towns.  I  have  been  there  before.  It's 
really  one  of  the  most  spectacular,  very  spectacular  piece  of  prop- 
erty. It's  the  largest  lake  in  the  White  Mountains,  Lake  Tarleton. 

We're  looking  for  an  appropriation  of  $4.22  million 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  this  privately  owned? 

Mr.  Bass.  Yes,  it  is.  Yes,  it's  privately-owned  property.  Total 
acreage  is  3,608  acres.  As  I  said,  it  has  a  common  boundary,  three 
towns.  There  are  actually  four  separate  lakes  associated  with  this. 
It  is  a  priority  acquisition  for  the  Forest  Service. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Bass.  We  would  provide  public  access.  It's  part  of  the  Con- 
necticut River  Basin,  and  it  has  excellent  road  access,  and  that's 
the  reason  why  it's  endangered  for  development.  There's  a  major 
road  that  runs  quite  near  this  lake.  So,  on  the  one  hand,  there 


208 

would  be  great  access  for  the  public.  On  the  other  hand,  the  poten- 
tial for  development  is  extensive.  As  you  can  well  imagine,  all  of 
the  environmental  groups  in  New  Hampshire  strongly  support  this 
purchase,  as  does  the  Department  of  Forest  and  Parks  and  the 
AMC 

Mr.  Regula.  Do  the  White  Mountains  get  a  lot  of  multiple  use? 

Mr.  Bass.  Absolutely.  We  have  two  ski  areas  in  the  White  Moun- 
tains. We  have  a  lot — all  sorts  of  hiking  trails.  The  Appalachian 
Mountain  Society  operates  all  of  the  extensive  trail  system.  We 
have  a  number  of  these  grand  old  hotels  that  used  to  be  very  popu- 
lar in  the  late  19th  century.  A  couple  of  them  are  still  in  existence. 

You  may  recall  the  Breton  Woods  purchase  from  last  year 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Bass  [continuing].  Actually  abutted  the  Breton  Woods  Mount 
Washington  Hotel,  which  is  one  of  these  huge 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  they  on  the  Federal  land  or  are  they  in-hold- 
ings? 

Mr.  Bass.  The  Breton  Woods  facility  is  an  in-holding.  I'm  going, 
if  I  could,  to  submit  this  map  for  the  record  here,  and  you'll  be  able 
to  see  that  these  little  white  spots  here  in  the  White  Mountains  are 
in-holdings. 

[The  information  follows:] 


209 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 
CXDNGRESSIONAL  DISTRICTS 


Lake  Tarleton 
(See  Attache  Map) 


210 


211 

Mr.  Bass.  Some  of  them  we're  moving  toward  purchase.  For  ex- 
ample, here  in  Pinkham  Notch  here,  this  is  a  new  purchase  along 
here.  But  the  key  is  Lake  Tarleton  over  here,  here's  Route  91, 
which  has  direct  access  to  New  York  City;  Route  93  to  Boston  over 
here.  It  has  excellent 

Mr.  Regula.  You  must  have  some  university  areas  around  there, 
too. 

Mr.  Bass.  We  have  the  Dartmouth  Mountain — ^the  Dartmouth 
College  purchase,  which  is  right  up  here.  It's  a  whole  town,  as  you 
know,  a  township  in  size. 

I  don't  believe  UNH  has  any  holdings  up — the  University  of  New 
Hampshire,  but  the  Dartmouth  College  grant  is  very  extensive. 

Lake  Umbagog  was  a  major  purchase  that  was  made  through  a 
combination  of  funding  from  the  State  of  New  Hampshire,  the  pur- 
chase from  the  James 

Mr.  Regula.  Will  they  contribute  an3rthing  here,  do  you  think? 

Mr.  Bass.  In  this  particular  purchase?  In  fact,  I  was  one  of  the 
sponsors  of  the  legislation.  The  State  established  a  $50  million 
fund  during  the  good  times  to  purchase  easements  and  fee  simple 
property.  We  used  it  all  up.  At  this  point  the  State  is  looking  at 
a  $60  million  deficit  on  a  $5  billion  budget.  There's  a  lot  of  con- 
troversy actually  with  that.  I  don't  know  how  much  money  would 
be  available  for  land  acquisition. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  there  any  forestry  cutting  at  all  in  the  White 
Mountains? 

Mr.  Bass.  Yes,  extensive  forestry  cutting.  It's  a  forest  manage- 
ment plan,  very  much  so,  yes,  and  there  is  anticipated  to  be  some 
controversy  associated  with  it,  a  significant  cut  over  here  in  the 
eastern  side  of  the  State  in  the  town  of  Ladden.  So  this  is  definitely 
a  multiple-use 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  there  hunting? 

Mr.  Bass.  Lots — hunting  is — absolutely.  We  have  moose  hunting. 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  there  snowmobiles? 

Mr.  Bass.  Snowmobiling  is  allowed  as  well,  yes.  I  don't  know  of 
any  activity  that  is  not  allowed  in  this  forest.  And,  of  course,  it's 
quite  close  to  major  population  centers. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  was  going  to  say,  you  must  be  getting  the  subur- 
ban-type dweller  from  Boston? 

Mr.  Bass.  Well,  there's  a  very  major  second-residence  market  up 
here.  And  the  fact  is  that  Boston  is  not  on  the  map.  It's  right  here, 
and  this  is  a  very,  very  quick  road  that  goes  up  there.  It  takes 
about  two  hours  to  get  from  Boston  to 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  there  commuter  rail?  I'm  just  curious. 

Mr.  Bass.  No  commuter  rail,  none  whatsoever.  There  used  to 
be — in  my  lifetime  there  was  rail  to  Nashua  and  that  was  it. 

And  Sherm  Adams,  you  may  remember  him,  he  came  from  Lin- 
coln, which  is  right  here.  After  he  left  the  White  House,  he  founded 
Loon  Mountain  Ski  Area,  which  is  now  arguably  the  most  success- 
ful ski  area  in  the  State.  It's  built  upon  Federal  land,  and  the  ski 
area  itself  is  leased  from  the  Federal  Government. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  very  interesting.  Well,  I  know  it's  a  high  prior- 
ity with  the  Forest  Service. 

Mr.  Bass.  Yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  we'll  see  what  we  can  do. 


212 

Mr.  Bass.  Thank  you.  Would  you  like  me  to  leave  this  map  here, 
so  we  could  put  it  in  a  file,  so  that  you  could 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes. 

Mr.  Bass.  Do  you  want  me  to  circle  Lake  Tarleton  so  you  can 
find  out? 

Okay,  thank  you.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Bass  follows:] 


213 


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

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

REFORM  AND  OVERSIGHT 

1  72S  LONCWOHTH  BUIiOl^lC  ^^  q,^^^ 

WVASMINGTON  DC  :0515-2gO2  /*!*-*  «-*-*-*,..^w    -*f    fl«A    71llMifA>k     ^3k#--1#-a«'  su«COMM«nil  0*  Civil  mkvci 

,202  »^5206  CongrcsiS  ot  ttjc  (Mniteo  s>iaics  s„«:o-.m. «.=<«»«.«, 

il?ou3C  of  JRcprescntatibfg  "°"~°°* 

JBHaaliington.  UC  20515-2902 
Statement  of 
HON.  CHARLES  F.  BASS 

of  New  Hampshire 

before  the 

Subcommittee  on  Interior 

Lake  Tarleton  acquisition  in  the  White  Mountain  National  Forest 

April  17,  1996 

Mr  Chairman,  I  am  here  today  to  testify  in  support  of  a  $4.22  million  appropriation  for 
the  United  States  Forest  Service  to  acquire  approximately  3,608  acres  of  land  in  my  New 
Hampshire  Congressional  district. 

The  Lake  Tarleton  property  abuts  the  White  Mountain  National  Forest  in  the  towns  of 
Warren,  Piermont  and  Benton    The  20,000  feet  of  undeveloped  lake  frontage  contained  within 
the  property  encompasses  four  separate  lakes    Of  this  frontage,  9,830  feet  lie  along  Lake 
Tarleton,  the  largest  lake  in  the  White  Mountains  and  the  site  of  a  1 920's  resort.  Additionally, 
6,000  feet  of  shoreline  along  Lake  Katherine  and  the  25-acre  Lake  Constance,  and  4,000  feet 
along  Lake  Armington  would  be  protected  by  this  acquisition 

The  property  has  been  identified  as  a  priority  acquisition  by  the  US  Forest  Service,  the 
New  Hampshire  Department  of  Forests  and  Parks,  and  several  local  groups,  including  the 
Appalachian  Mountain  Club  and  the  Society  for  the  Protection  of  New  Hampshire  Forests    The 
property  offers  diverse  recreational  opportunities  and,  if  acquired,  will  provide  critical  public 
access  to  the  water-borne  recreational  opportunities  afforded  by  the  property's  four  lakes 

In  terms  of  wildlife,  the  lakes  and  surrounding  property  provide  habitat  to  nesting  loons 
and  osprey,  lake  trout,  beaver,  moose,  bobcat,  white-tailed  deer,  and  numerous  species  of 
migratory  songbirds  and  waterfowl    Furthermore,  these  lakes  eventually  drain  into  the 
Connecticut  River,  one  of  the  most  ecologically  important  rivers  in  New  England 

All  of  these  factors  combine  to  make  the  protection  of  the  Lake  Tarieton  property  a 
priority  in  my  legislative  agenda    Unfortunately,  these  same  factors,  combined  with  1 5,000  feet 
of  road  access,  make  this  property  an  attractive  option  for  extensive  development. 

Therefore,  I  request  that  the  subcommittee  allocate  $4.22  million  to  protect  this  valuable 
natural  resource  from  the  threat  of  development.  By  granting  my  request,  the  land  could  be 
protected  for  the  public  use  of  the  seven  million  yearly  visitors  to  the  White  Mountain  National 
Forest. 


Thank  you  for  your  attention  to  this  request 


142  NO«TM  MAIN  STREET  170  MAIN  STREET 

CONCORD.  NH  03301  NASHUA.  NH  0306O 

(6031  226-0249  16031  88»^7T2 


^fjfpQf'  C'^  ONE  WEST  STREET 


SUITE  2 

KEENE.  NH  03431 

(6031  3S8-4094 


214 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
EAST  CENTRAL  FLORmA  LAND  ACQUISITION 

WITNESS 

HON.  JOHN  L.  MICA,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  FLORIDA 

Mr.  Regula.  John  Mica,  where  are  you?  I  saw  you  come  in. 

Mr.  Mica.  Mr.  Chairman,  how  are  you  today? 

Mr.  Regula.  We've  heard  a  lot  about  the  Everglades  today. 

Mr.  Mica.  Well,  I'm  here  to  talk  about — and,  without  objection, 
I  hope  that  I  could  submit  my  entire  statement  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection. 

Mr.  Mica.  Okay,  sir.  I  know  you've  heard  a  lot  about  the  Ever- 
glades, and  the  Republican  majority  has  made  a  great  commitment 
for  the  restoration  of  the  Everglades,  and  I  support  that  effort. 
However,  I've  told  many  folks  that  I  was  raised  in  south  Florida 
and  I  saw  the  problems  there  that  started,  when  we  moved  there 
in  the  fifties.  With  the  growth,  we  now  have  25  percent  of  the  land 
surface  either  paved  or  built  on  in  some  of  those  areas,  and  it  will 
be  a  costly  restoration  project  for  many  years  to  come. 

But  what  I'm  here  to  do — and  that's  a  huge  dollar  ticket.  We're 
talking  multi-billion.  What  I'm  here  to  do  is  I  live  now  in  central 
Florida  and  represent  part  of  central  Florida,  and  part  of  this 
project  is  in  my  district.  But  I  represent  a  rapidly-growing  area, 
like  south  Florida  was  in  the  fifties,  sixties,  seventies. 

And  we  have  the  Ocala  National  Forest  to  the  north.  I  don't 
know  if  you've  got  a  copy  of  this  little  map,  but  if  you  look  at  Flor- 
ida, the  Ocala  National  Forest  is  to  the  north  of  us.  Then  down  to- 
ward Orlando,  on  the  north  end  of  Orlando,  we  have  the  Wekiva 
State  Park.  It  runs  along  the  Wekiva  River  that  flows  into  the  St. 
Johns,  a  really  beautiful,  pristine  area  that  the  State  has  pre- 
served. 

In  between  is  the  St.  Johns  River  that  connects  these  areas,  and 
the  map  that  I  gave  you  shows  the  project.  And  the  project  is  basi- 
cally to  connect  the  Ocala  National  Forest  with  a  seamless  environ- 
mental reserve  and  preserve  and  protection  area  to  the  Wekiva 
State  Park.  Now  we  have  a  St.  Johns  Water  Management  District 
which  we  have  been  working  with  the  last  couple  of  years.  I  had 
originally  met  with — and  the  delegation  had  with — Secretary  Bab- 
bitt, and  he  said,  bring  us  projects  where  there's  a  50/50  match.  We 
had  originally  proposed — this  was  a  $30  million  project  to  acquire 
18,000  acres,  and  I  had  asked  before  for  a  50/50  match  on  that. 

The  good  news  is  that  we  have  already  a  State  commitment  of 
$20  million.  We're  asking  for  $10  million.  They've  acquired  14,000 
of  the  18,000  acres.  The  entire  delegation  has  signed  on  this. 

Mr.  Regula.  The  State  has  already  acquired  that? 

Mr.  Mica.  Yes,  and  this  is  not  a  case  where  we  have  anyone  who 
is  a  unwilling  seller.  There  are  no  property  rights.  There's  no  con- 
testing this. 

But,  again,  the  growth  in  this  area  is  explosive.  I  have,  Mr. 
Chairman,  in  my  district  two  new  cities  in  the  last  24  months.  I 
have  one  city,  Deltona,  which  is  the  third  largest  city  in  central 
Florida,  over  60,000,  probably  65,000  people;  another  one,  Duberry. 


215 

And  they're  located  right  on  the  other  side  of  this.  If  we  don't  pre- 
serve this  now,  we  will  be  paying  millions  or  billions  later  to  re- 
serve and  preserve  this.  So  it  is  such  an  infinitesimal  amount  of 
money. 

I  met  with  Secretary  Babbitt  during  this  past  recess,  and  he  was 
most  cordial.  He's  considering  some  of  this  possibly.  You  know,  he 
has  many  demands  out  of  the  $140  million,  but  I  don't  think  we'll 
get  the  whole  thing. 

So  we  would  like  to  do  it.  It's  a  great  example  of  cooperation,  of 
prevention,  and  of  an  investment  for  the  future.  So  I  plead  with 
you  all  to  give  this  serious  consideration.  You'll  get  my  support.  I 
spoke  on  the  floor  last  time  trying  to  help  you  with  funding  for 
your  programs,  and  we'll  work  with  you,  because  I  know  this  is  im- 
portant. 

I  know  there  are  questions  out  West  where  people  don't  want 
lands  acquired  by  the  Feds  and  things  of  that  sort,  but  this  is  the 
kind  of  thing  that  makes  so  much  sense,  and  Florida  has  such  a 
fragile  and  more  and  more  burdened  ecosystem. 

So  those  are  my  comments.  Any  questions? 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

Mr.  Mica.  And  you've  seen  my  picture  before?  This  is  the  area 
that  I'm  talking  about,  St.  Johns  River.  You  know,  once  you  get  a 
few  developments  along  here — and  there  are  a  couple  already — and 
then  a  few  condominiums,  forget  it.  It  will  never — £ind  you  will 
have  runoff  problems.  You  will  never  keep  this  natural,  and  future 
generations  will  be  in  the  same  strait  we're  in  with  the  Everglades. 
It's  coming. 

Thank  you, 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Mica  follows:] 


216 


JOHN  L.  MICA  •w'lvTo 

Wa5m>noton.  OC  30 
COMMtTTEE  ON  GOVERNMENT  REFORM  '^2'  22S-4035 

Congregg  of  tJje  ?ianitel)  ^tatcg 
J^mit  of  i^epreseentatibest 


Cassclkmv.  FL  32707 
(4071  657-8080 


?!IKasf)inBton,  MC  20515-0907  o,.rZ^..2^n 


(407)  aw- 1499 

1396  DuNLAWTOM  Ave 

Sum  2B 

PortOnancc.  FL  33127 

(9041  756-9796 


STATEMENT  BY  CONGRESSMAN  JOHN  L.  MICA 

Before  the  House  Appropriations  Subcommittee 
on  Interior 

In  Support  of  Funding  for 

Land  Acquisition  along  the  St.  Johns  River,  Florida 

April  17,  1996 


Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank  you  for  this  opportunity 
to  testify  in  support  of  Fiscal  Year  1997  funding  for  a  vital  land  acquisition  project  in  east 
central  Florida  along  the  St.  Johns  River.  This  $10  million  request  will  impact  counties 
in  my  district  as  well  as  other  counties  throughout  the  State. 

The  St.  Johns  River  is  Florida's  largest  river,  flowing  for  over  300  miles  across 
approximately  two-thirds  of  the  Florida  peninsula,  from  northeast  of  Lake  Okeechobee  to 
just  south  of  the  Georgia  border.  Located  near  the  heart  of  this  watershed  in  east  central 
Florida,  south  of  the  430,000  acre  Ocala  National  Forest  and  the  22,370  acre  Lake 
Woodruff  National  Wildlife  Refuge,  is  a  core  area  of  environmentally  sensitive  natural 
resource  lands  known  as  the  Wekiva  River  Basin. 

Land  has  been  identified  within  this  region  as  missing  links  in  what  is  known  as 
the  Wekiva-Ocala  Connector.  This  tract  covers  a  1 0-mile  corridor  of  St.  Johns  shoreline 
and  joins  the  Wekiva  River  junction  with  the  Lake  Woodruff  National  Wildlife  Reftige 
Extensive  efforts  of  state,  regional  and  local  land  acquisition  programs  have  established 
key  centers  of  protection  along  this  sensitive  ecological  system.  These  areas  should  be 
strategically  connected  to  ensure  the  continued  protection  of  water  resources,  fish  and 
wildlife,  and  natural  resource  based  recreational  activities  despite  extreme  pressures  from 
nearby  growth  and  development. 


217 


Statement  by  the  Honorable  John  L.  Mica 
April  17,  1996 
Page  2 


Urban  encroachment  is  now  a  threat  to  the  continued  preservation  of  the  St.  Johns 
River  basin.  Over  the  last  two  decades,  the  Orlando  metropolitan  area  has  expanded  into 
regions  just  south  of  the  Ocala  National  Forest  and  west  of  the  St  Johns  River.   In  just 
the  last  two  years,  two  new  cities  with  populations  totaling  80,000  have  formed  in  this 
area.  The  acquisition  of  lands  along  the  Wekiva-Ocala  Coimector  offers  a  tremendous 
opportunity  to  preserve  and  maintain  a  natural  resource  system  of  national  significance. 
This  project  is  perhaps  even  more  valuable  in  its  potential  to  link  numerous  but  separate 
protected  areas,  expand  animal  habitat  and  prevent  the  isolation  and  demise  of  small 
populations  of  species. 

With  relatively  intact  natural  systems  and  extensive  wetlands  and  water  resources, 
this  region  is  critical  habitat  for  a  number  of  species  listed  by  the  federal  and  state 
governments  as  endangered  and  threatened.  These  species  include  migrating  waterfowl, 
the  Florida  black  bear,  Florida  sandhill  crane,  Florida  scrub  jay,  bald  eagle,  gopher 
tortoise,  indigo  snake  and  Florida  pine  snake.  While  rarely  observed  by  the  public,  the 
Florida  black  bear  maintain  one  of  their  largest  concentrations  in  the  state  within  this 
region.  Natural  communities  in  excellent  condition  include  floodplain  swamps,  marshes, 
hydric  hammocks,  upland  mixed  forests,  sandhill  and  scrub.  Alligators,  deer  and  a  wide 
variety  of  birds  are  commonly  seen  in  the  area  as  well. 

^This  land  is  also  critical  to  providing  flood  protection  for  existing  and  fiiture 
Central  Florida  populations,  and  to  protecting  surface  and  ground  water  quality  for  local 
residents.  Furthermore,  with  a  growing  number  of  over  14  million  Floridian  and  38 
million  out-of-state  annual  tourists,  and  with  the  close  proximity  to  large  urban  areas  and 
major  transportation  corridors,  east  central  Florida  is  facing  increased  demand  for 
recreational  opportimities.  The  proposed  land  acquisitions  possess  excellent  recreational 
potential  for  fishing,  boating,  hiking,  camping,  horseback  riding  and  nature  studies.  In 
addition,  the  Florida  Scenic  Trail  system  traverses  the  region  and  provides  further 
opportimities  for  public  access  and  recreation. 

The  total  request  for  this  federal  land  acquisition  grant  Is  SIO  million.  The 

State  of  Florida  has  already  been  working  to  acquire  and  preserve  these  lands.  Five 
parcels  of  land  have  been  purchased  by  state  agencies  for  $18,617,919,  but  an  additional 
four  pieces  of  property,  totaling  3,270  acres,  are  still  needed  to  complete  this  project.  A 
cooperative  agreement  has  been  reached  with  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  to  manage 
lands  adjacent  to  Lake  Woodruff,  and  the  State  is  willing  to  manage  the  rest. 


218 


Statement  by  the  Honorable  John  L.  Mica 
April  17,  1996 
Page  3 


The  entire  Florida  Congressional  delegation,  the  Secretary  of  the  Florida 
Department  of  Environmental  Protection  and  the  directors  of  the  Lake  Woodruff  National 
Wildlife  Refiige  and  the  St.  Johns  River  Water  Management  District  have  all  indicated 
their  support  for  this  project.  Experience  has  taught  us  that  it  is  much  easier  and  less 
costly  to  protect  a  resource  than  attempt  to  restore  one.  With  the  support  of  Congress, 
Florida  public  agencies  are  prepared  to  move  forward  with  the  acquisition  and 
preservation  of  this  critical  area. 

The  requested  funding  for  this  land  acquisition  is  $10  million  and  I  urge  the 
Subcommittee  to  fully  support  the  completion  of  this  important  project. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank  you  for  your  time  and 
consideration  of  this  matter. 


219 


Central  Florida 
Land  Acquisition  Priorities 


220 


Central  Florida 
Land  Acquisition  Priorities 

(Updated  March  1996) 

Lands  Already  Acquired 


Map 
Key 

Acres 

Land 
Management 

Projected 
Costs 

Actual 
Costs 

Year 

A 

2,007 

USF&W 

$1,950,000 

$1,825,419 

1995 

B 

899 

State  of  Florida 

$4,500,000 

$4,197,500 

1995 

F 

2,650 

State  of  Florida 

$2,900,000 

1996 

G 

9,229 

State  of  Florida 

$7,500,000 

1996 

I 

716 

State  of  Florida 

$2,150,000 

1996 

Total 

15,501 

$19,000,000 

$18,617,919 

Lands  Remaining  To  Be  Acquired 


Map 
Key 

Acres 

Current 
Status 

Land 
Management 

Projected 
Costs 

Year 

* 

C 

156 

Negotiations 

State  of  Florida 

♦  ♦ 

1996 

D 

1,522 

Pre-appraisal 

State  of  Florida 

** 

1996 

E 

1,096 

Pre-appraisal 

State  of  Florida 

♦  ♦ 

1997 

H 

496 

Pre-appraisal 

State  of  Florida 

♦  * 

1997 

Total 

3,270 

$10,000,000 

*    -  Proposed  year  for  acquisition 

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


221 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

BLACKSTONE  RIVER  VALLEY  NATIONAL  HERITAGE 

CORRIDOR 

WITNESS 

HON.  PETER  BLUTE,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr.  Regula.  The  gentlemen — plural — from  Massachusetts. 
Blackstone  River  Valley,  we've  had  testimony  on  it  earlier.  So 
whatever  you'd  like  to  add 

Mr.  Neal.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  used  to  be  known,  respectfully,  as 
the  Neal/Blute  bill.  Bowing  to  the  new  reality  of  the  House,  it  is 
now  known  as  the  Blute/Neal  bill.  [Laughter.] 

I'll  defer  to  Mr.  Blute  on  this  occasion. 

Mr.  Blute.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman.  We  appreciate 
the  opportunity.  You've  been  very  good  to  us.  We  know  you're  a 
leader  in  this  area. 

Mr.  Neal  and  myself  were  sajdng  that,  before  we  came  up  here, 
that  other  than  the  Erie  Canal  project,  I  think  this  one  has  the 
most  meritorious  components  to  it.  There's  been  a  tremendous 
amount 

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

You're  just  adding  on  to  an  existing  corridor. 

Mr.  Blute.  Right,  we're  trying  to  add  on  to  an  existing  corridor. 
It's  been  very  successful,  and  there's  so  much  volunteerism  along 
the  corridor.  It's  really  incredible. 

I  have  been  stunned  myself,  when  we  attend  those  meetings,  to 
see  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  people  who  work  with  this  Corridor 
Commission 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  you  have  the  same  situation  we  do  on  the  Ohio 
and  Erie.  Our  problem  is  getting  the  Resources  Committee  to  get 
the  bill  moved. 

Mr.  Blute.  Exactly. 

Mr.  Regula.  And  we'll  depend  on  you  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Blute.  Well,  we're  pushing  Chairman  Young  and  Chairman 
Hansen  to  try  to  move  this. 

Mr.  Regula.  And  I  am. 

Mr.  Blute.  I  know  you  are  also.  Some  of  the  property  rights 
questions  that  we  faced  the  last  time  and  that  we've 

Mr.  Regula.  I  think  we've  addressed  those. 

Mr.  Blute.  Well,  I  certainly  think  we  did  the  last  Congress, 
where  with  your  leadership  and  Ritchie  Neal's,  very  much  so,  we 
were  able  to  fight  off 

Mr.  Regula.  We  had  a  floor  debate  on  that  and  won  it. 

Mr.  Blute.  We  won  it;  that's  right.  So  I'm  optimistic  that  Chair- 
man Young  can  work  that  out  before  we  get  to  the  floor  with  those 
Members  who  have  concerns  on  the  private  property 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  I'm  speaking  to  the  Western  Caucus  at  4:30 
or  4:45,  and  I'm  going  to  raise  this  issue  with  them  and  point  out 
the  language.  It's  already  in  these  bills. 

Mr.  Blute.  That's  exactly  right,  which  we  adopted  last  year. 


222 

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


223 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  HONORABLE  PETER  BLUTE 

BEFORE  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS 

APRIL  17,  1996 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  MEMBERS  OF  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE: 

I  APPRECIATE  THE  OPPORTUNITY  TO  COME  BEFORE  THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS  TODAY  TO 
TESTIFY  IN  SUPPORT  OF  CONTINUED  FUNDING  FOR  THE 
BLACKSTONE  RIVER  VALLEY  NATIONAL  HERITAGE  CORRIDOR.    I 
WOULD  FIRST  LIKE  TO  THANK  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THIS 
COMMITTEE  FOR  ALL  THE  SUPPORT  THEY  HAVE  PROVIDED  THE 
BLACKSTONE  OVER  THE  YEARS.    I  WOULD  ALSO  LIKE  TO  THANK 
OUR  COLLEAGUE  RICHIE  NEAL  FOR  HIS  LEADERSHIP  ON  THIS 
ISSUE. 

I  HAVE  VISITED  THE  BLACKSTONE  HERITAGE  CORRIDOR  A 
NUMBER  OF  TIMES,  AND  HAVE  MET  WITH  VARIOUS  PARTIES  WHO 
HAVE  AN  INTEREST  IN  THE  CORRIDOR.    AND  MY  REPORT  TO  YOU 
IS  THAT  THE  CORRIDOR  PROJECT  IS,  IN  EVERY  WAY,  A 
TREMENDOUS  SUCCESS. 

THE  BLACKSTONE  RIVER  VALLEY  IS  A  REAL  NATIONAL 
TREASURE.    NOT  ONLY  IS  IT  BREATHTAKING  FROM  A  SCENIC 
PERSPECTIVE,  BUT  IT  IS  SO  RICH  IN  CULTURE  AND  HISTORY.    THE 
MILLS,  CANALS  AND  OLD  NEW  ENGLAND  FARMS  TAKE  VISITORS 
BACK  TO  A  CRITICAL  STAGE  IN  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THIS 
NATION  --  BACK  TO  THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  INDUSTRIAL  REVOLUTION. 
WHEN  ONE  TOURS  THE  BUILDINGS  AND  WALKS  ALONG  THE 
ROADS  OF  THE  CORRIDOR,  THEY  CAN  ALMOST  HEAR  THE 
CHURNING  OF  THE  VERY  ENGINES  THAT  DROVE  AMERICA  INTO 
THE  INDUSTRIAL  AGE,  CHANGING  THE  FACE  OF  THIS  COUNTRY. 
AND  THE  WORLD,  FOREVER. 

WHILE  THE  AREA  CAN  NO  LONGER  LAY  CLAIM  TO  ITS 
POSITION  AS  A  WORLD  LEADER  IN  TEXTILE  MANUFACTURING,  NO 
ONE  CAN  DENY  THAT  THE  BLACKSTONE  VALLEY  IS  WHERE  IT 
ALL  BEGAN.    THIS  SIGNIFICANT  PART  OF  AMERICAN  HISTORY  IS 
DEFINITELY  WORTH  PRESERVING. 

THANKS  TO  THE  COMMITMENT  OF  THE  CITIZENS  WHO 
RESIDE  IN  AND  AROUND  THE  BLACKSTONE  VALLEY,  THIS 
HISTORIC  ARE  IS  NOW  A  CLEANER,  MORE  BEAUTIFUL  AREA,  AS 
WELL.    BUT  MORE  WORK  REMAINS. 

IN  MY  VIEW,  NATIONAL  HERITAGE  CORRIDORS  ARE 
EXACTLY  THE  KIND  OF  MODEL  THAT  THE  FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT  SHOULD  BE  LOOKING  FOR  AS  IT  TRIES  TO  GET  THE 
BIGGEST  BANG  FOR  ITS  BUCK.    THE  CREATION  OF  THE 
BLACKSTONE  CORRIDOR  HAS  RESULTED  IN  THE  ESTABLISHMENT 
OF  A  PUBLIC-PRIVATE  PARTNERSHIP  WHICH  GIVES  THE  FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT  EXCELLENT  LEVERAGE  AGAINST  ITS  OWN 


224 


INVESTMENT.    EACH  DOLLAR  THAT  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 
CONTRIBUTES  FOR  THE  OPERATION  OF  THE  CORRIDOR  ATTRACTS 
BETTER  THAN  THREE  DOLLARS  IN  NON-FEDERAL  CONTRIBUTIONS, 
WHILE  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  SIDE  THE  RATIO  OF  NON-FEDERAL 
TO  FEDERAL  DOLLARS  IS  BETTER  THAN  5-TO-l.    A  FANTASTIC 
RETURN  ON  INVESTMENT  BY  ANY  STANDARD. 

IN  THE  LAST  FEW  YEARS,  THERE  HAS  BEEN  A  TREMENDOUS 
AMOUNT  OF  ACTIVITY  IN  THE  BLACKSTONE  CORRIDOR.    MORE 
AND  MORE  PEOPLE  ARE  GIVING  OF  THEIR  TIME  AND  EFFORT  TO 
ASSIST  WITH  THE  PHYSICAL  CLEANUP  AND  REVITALIZATION  OF 
THE  CORRIDOR,  AND  MORE  AND  MORE  GROUPS  AND  INDIVIDUALS 
ARE  GIVING  FINANCIALLY  TO  HELP  DO  THE  THINGS  THAT  ARE 
NECESSARY  TO  RESTORE  THE  "BIRTHPLACE  OF  THE  INDUSTRIAL 
REVOLUTION".    MILLIONS  OF  DOLLARS  ARE  FLOWING  INTO  THE 
PROJECT  FROM  STATE,  LOCAL  AND  PRIVATE  SOURCES,  ALL  AS  A 
RESULT  OF  THE  CONTINUING  COMMITMENT  OF  THE  FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT  IN  THE  FORM  OF  A  NATIONAL  PARK  SERVICE 
PRESENCE 

WHEN  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  FINDS  A  WAY  TO 
GENERATE  THREE  TO  FIVE  TIMES  ITS  OWN  INVESTMENT  IN 
STATE,  LOCAL  AND  PRIVATE  CONTRIBUTIONS,  IT  OUGHT  TO  DO 
EVERYTHING  IN  ITS  POWER  TO  KEEP  THE  VENTURE  GOING 
STRONG.    NOT  DECLARE  VICTORY  AND  WALK  AWAY. 

AGAIN,  I  WOULD  LIKE  TO  ASK  FOR  THE  CONTINUED 
SUPPORT  OF  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE.    THIS  IMPORTANT 
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROJECT  HAS  EARNED  IT. 


225 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

BLACKSTONE  RIVER  VALLEY  NATIONAL  HERITAGE 

CORRIDOR 

WITNESS 

HON.  RICHARD  NEAL,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr.  Neal.  I  want  to  thank  you  for  the  manner  in  which  you 
treated  this  project  and  proposal.  You've  been  more  than  courteous, 
and  I  promise  to  leave  you  alone  if  we're  successful  in  the  future. 

But  I  would  like  to  highlight  another,  I  think,  interesting  aspect 
of  this  proposal  that  you  might  bring  to  the  attention  of  those  who 
might  be  perceived  as  opponents  down  the  road.  And  that  is  that 
the  leveraging  ratio  here  of  private  investment  is  up  to  20  to  1 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes,  it's  enormous. 

Mr.  Neal  [continuing].  In  private  versus  public  dollars.  And  it 
not  only  highlights  the  birthplace  of  the  Industrial  Revolution,  but 
for  Congressman  Blute  here — and  we  work  hand  in  glove  on  this; 
I  want  to  acknowledge  that — that  Congressman  Blute  would  add 
the  city  of  Wooster  to  it,  and  I  would  add  a  neighboring  community 
called  Lester  to  the  project. 

Mr.  Regula.  Now  I  assume  that  the  area  you're  talking  about  is 
already  public  land? 

Mr.  Neal.  Much  of  it,  yes.  Yes,  absolutely. 

Mr.  Blute.  Much  of  it,  but  a  lot  of  private  land  also. 

Mr.  Neal.  Right. 

Mr.  Regula.  They  would  give  easements? 

Mr.  Neal.  They  would  give  easements. 

Mr.  Blute.  Companies  along  the  route  have  a  lot  of  their  prop- 
erty on  the  weekends,  their  parking  lots,  for  example,  to  be  opened 
up  to  canoers,  and  it's  really  a  great  public-private  partnership. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  I  think  it's  very  much  in  keeping  with  the  era 
of  small  government — of  large  government  being  over. 

Mr.  Blute.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  we  go  to  small  government. 

Mr.  Blute.  That's  right.  It  really  does  work,  and  we've  worked 
on  it.  Ritchie  Neal  started  this  ball  a  number  of  years  ago,  and  it's 
just  been  so  successful  that  I  just 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  people  love  these  things. 

Mr.  Blute.  The  public  loves  it,  and  the  private  sector  is  very  in- 
volved. 

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

Mr.  Blute.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  mean,  we're  making  the  decisions  for  the  next  50 
years  or  100,  and  whatever  we  say  will  be  there  for  them.  Every 
time  I  see  Central  Park,  I  think  somebody  really  had  a  vision  in 
it.  I  mean,  imagine  what  New  York  City  would  be  like  without  it. 

Mr.  Blute.  How  large  that  is. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  don't  know  who  did  it,  but,  they  deserve  a  lot  of 
credit  for  that. 

Mr.  Blute.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Regula.  And  that's  what  we're  talking  about  here. 


226 

Mr.  Blute.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Neal.  I  would  commend  to  your  reading,  if  you  ever  have  the 
chance,  Mr.  Chairman,  The  Power  Broker,  about  Robert  Moses. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  did;  I've  read  it. 

Mr.  Neal.  It's  a  remarkable  discussion  about  vision. 

Mr.  Regula.  Exactly  right. 

Mr.  Blute.  Looking  ahead. 

Mr.  Regula.  He  really  did. 

Mr.  Blute.  On  that  point,  in  Massachusetts  we  have  a  very  good 
example  of  that  visionary.  Back  in  the  1920s,  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts, by  eminent  domain,  took,  what,  four  towns  out  in  the 
western  part  of  the  State  and  turned  it  into  a  reservoir  for  Boston. 
To  this  day,  it  provides  drinking  water  for  millions  and  millions 
and  millions  of  people.  They  couldn't  have  envisioned  how  much 
burden  it  would  have  been,  but  it  really  has  worked  out  tremen- 
dously. 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Blute.  It  was  a  visionary  project  that  allowed  Massachu- 
setts to  grow. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  as  I  say,  we're  shaping  what  the  legacy  will 
be  for  the  next  100  years  in  how  we  deal  with  these  things. 

Mr.  Blute.  May  I  just  make  one  last  point  about  this  Blackstone 
Valley?  The  State  government  and  the  Federal  transportation  offi- 
cials are  adding  a  146-connector  to  the  Mass  Turnpike.  That  means 
these  places  are  going  to  grow. 

Mr.  Regula.  Oh,  yes,  yes. 

Mr.  Blute.  Housing  values  are  going  up.  There  will  be  lots  of 
new  development.  We  think  that  with  this  Heritage  Corridor,  with 
some  of  the  Federal  dollars  combined  with  private  dollars,  these 
small  communities  can  maintain  some  of  their  bucolic  nature  like 
Grafton's  Common  and  Sutton,  and  these  are  beautiful  towns,  but 
they  think  they  could  be  overwhelmed  by  the  next  growth  spur  un- 
less efforts  are  made  by  public/private  partnerships  to  maintain  the 
old  flrehouse,  which  we  did  in  Grafton  under  this  bill,  and  it's  just 
a  tremendous  opportunity. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we'll  hope  that  we  can  get  it  out  of  Resources. 

Mr.  Neal.  I  would  just  close  on  this  note:  that  you  have  a  special 
responsibility,  I  know,  because  in  many  ways  you  have  been  custo- 
dian of  our  memory  here  in  terms  of  these  projects. 

Mr.  Regula.  I'm  very  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  Neal.  And  you've  done  a  great  job,  and  you've  been  more 
than  supportive  of  Congressman  Blute  and  myself  on  this,  and  I 
am,  indeed,  grateful  for  the  manner  in  which  you  have  received  me. 

Mr.  Blute.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we're  hoping  we  can  get  that  authorization 
moved. 

Mr.  Blute.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  We'd  like  to  submit  this 
for  the  record,  without  objection. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  yes,  your  statements  will  be  made  a  part  of 
the  record. 

Mr.  Neal.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Blute.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Neal  follows:] 


227 


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

Second  District.  MASSACnuserrs 


WHIP  AT-LARCE 


Congregg  of  ttje  ^nitcb  ^tatcg 
tou£>e  of  Eeprtsicntatibeg 

Mastjmgton,  SC  20515 

April  17,  1996 

Testimony  by  Congressman  Richard  E  Neal 

Before  the  House  Appropriations  Subcommittee  on  the  Interior 

on  Behalf  of  the  Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage  Corridor 

Mr.  Chairman,  members  of  the  committee,  1  would  like  to  thank  you  for  the  opportunity 
to  appear  before  you  today  and  speak  on  behalf  of  the  Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage 
Corridor  and  urge  your  continued  support  for  this  outstanding  program    The  Blackstone  River 
Valley  is  an  area  rich  in  history  that  stretches  from  Central  Massachusetts  down  into  Rhode  Island 
and  is  home  to  the  birthplace  of  the  American  Industrial  Revolution    This  is  a  project  that  means 
a  great  deal  not  only  to  the  citizens  of  the  corridor,  but  to  citizens  across  the  country,  because  it  is 
an  excellent  example  of  how  to  achieve  historic  preservation  and  economic  revitalLzation  through 
responsible  federal  investment. 

The  Blackstone  river  Valley  National  Heritage  Corridor  was  established  in  1986  as  an 
afBliated  area  of  the  National  Park  Service.  The  project  featured  an  innovative  approach  by  the 
National  Park  Service  that  allowed  it  to  form  partnerships  with  the  state  and  local  governments  as 
well  as  the  business  community  and  a  number  of  historic  preservation  groups  This  was  a  stark 
contrast  to  previous  Park  Service  projects  where  the  NPS  bought  the  land  and  ran  the  operation 
exclusively  The  federal  dollars  appropriated  for  this  project  have  been  used  as  seed  money  and 
are  leveraged  with  flinds  provide  by  the  partnership  groups.  The  legislation  required  that  the 

2431  RAyeuBN  House  OFficE  Building                                                            1550  MAiN  Street  «Congbess  Street 

Washington,  DC  20515                                                                              Federal  Building  Post  OkiCE  Building 

(2021225-5601                                                                                 Springeielo,  MA  01103  MiLfORD,  MA  01757 

1413)785-0325  (508)634-8198 


228 


partners  match  each  federal  dollar  at  a  1:1  ratio  but  that  ratio  was  ofken  exceeded,  sometimes  as 
high  20  1    Thus  the  federal  investment  in  this  project  has  yielded  a  tremendous  return  and 
provided  a  model  for  future  preservation  projects. 

The  original  authorization  for  the  Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage  Corridor 
only  provided  for  funding  for  a  ten  year  period    Due  to  the  tremendous  success  of  the  Corridor 
and  the  strong  response  from  the  citizens  of  the  region,  however,  I  have  introduced  legislation 
that  will  extend  the  commitment  another  ten  years  and  expand  the  boundaries  to  include  an 
additional  five  communities    This  legislation  enjoys  strong  bipartisan  support  in  both  the  House 
and  Senate    I  am  optimistic  the  success  record  of  the  Corridor  w\\  be  recognized  and  the 
outstanding  work  that  has  been  done  in  the  Blackstone  Valley  will  continue 

When  I  travel  through  the  eight  communities  in  my  district  that  fall  within  the  Blackstone 
River  Corridor  it  is  quite  easy  to  find  evidence  of  the  outstanding  contribution  that  the  funds  from 
this  project  have  made  to  the  region    One  example  that  leaps  to  mind  is  the  restoration  project 
that  involved  the  Blackstone  Federated  Church  in  the  Town  of  Blackstone   The  church  at  one 
time  played  a  key  role  in  the  religious  integration  of  Blackstone  region  by  housing  religious 
services  for  the  different  religions  of  the  area  mill  workers  in  the  early  18th  century   Earlier  this 
century,  however,  it  fell  into  disrepair  and  was  in  tremendous  need  of  renovation 


The  citizens  of  Blackstone  supported  the  renovation  project  but  lacked  the  resources  and 
direction  to  secured  the  flinds  necessary  to  complete  it.  The  Corridor  Commission  was  able  to 


229 


provide  the  necessary  assistance  that  helped  secure  funds  from  both  the  state  and  private  sector 
that  allowed  for  the  renovations  to  take  place    Today  the  church  is  a  tremendous  source  of  civic 
pride  as  well  as  an  integral  part  of  a  burgeoning  tourism  trade  in  the  area    This  is  just  one  of  the 
many  examples  of  the  outstanding  work  that  the  Corridor  Commission  has  been  able  to  do  with 
the  funds  provided  by  this  committee 

Finally,  Mr  Chairman,  let  me  state  some  simple  truths  about  this  project:  the  Blackstone 
Heritage  project  worked  and  is  a  fine  example  of  an  outstanding  federal  investment    It  has  a 
tremendous  record  of  accomplishment    It  enjoys  bipartisan  support  on  the  federal,  state  and  local 
level  as  well  as  strong  support  in  the  business  community    The  combinations  of  these  elements 
have  created  a  sound  program  which  has  achieved  economic  revitalization  through  historic 
preservation.  But  while  great  strides  have  been  made  mush  remains  to  be  done    Funding  for  this 
program  should  be  imitated  not  eliminated  and  I  would  urge  this  subcommittee  to  continue  its 
support  for  the  Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage  Corridor    This  will  ensure  that  the 
historical  relevance  of  this  region  will  not  be  lost  but  rather  it  will  remain  for  future  generations  to 
experience  and  enjoy 


230 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
OCS  AND  OTHER  PROGRAMS 

WITNESS 

HON.  BRIAN  BILBRAY,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  Regula.  The  gentleman  from  California. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I'd  like  to  really  thank 
you  and  the  staff  for  allowing  me  to  testify  today  on  such  short  no- 
tice. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  that's  why  we're  here. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  Well,  I  appreciate  it. 

Really,  keeping  on  the  theme  of  creating  an  environment  that 
will  be  remembered  for  the  next  100  years,  in  1991,  in  San  Diego 
County,  the  business  community,  the  environmental  community, 
the  Federal  Government,  State  government,  and  local  government 
got  together  and  looked  at  our  environmental  strategies  when  it 
comes  to  endangered  species  and  came  to  a  very  clear  consensus 
that  this  single-species  approach  to  the  Endangered  Species  Act 
was  basically  obsolete,  and  that  we  needed  to  expand  it  and  be 
more  holistic  in  having  multi-species  strategy. 

So  what  we  did  in  1991  is  we  got  local  government.  State  govern- 
ment, and  the  Federal  Government  together  in  a  partnership  work- 
ing with  the  landowners  at  developing  a  balance  between  resource 
protection  and  economic  growth,  but  also  looking  at  the  big  picture: 
that  one-species  habitat  also  can  serve  for  the  species — a  habitat 
for  many  other  species. 

So  what  we've  done  is  developed  a  plan  that,  in  my  opinion,  is 
going  to  be  the  prototype  for  the  next  generation  of  endangered 
species  strategies,  and  that  is  looking  at  multi-species  manage- 
ment. 

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

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  The  county  and  the  cities  and  the  State.  The  city 
has  put  up  $6  million  for  the  process  already.  The  EPA  is — I  mean, 
the  Fish  and  Wildlife  has  been  working  with  Fish  and  Game  of  the 
State,  with  local  governments,  in  developing  the  strategy. 

The  real  thing  it  comes  down  to  now  is  that  it's  sort  of  time  for 
us  to  invest  in  this  new  strategy,  a  prototype,  with  the  local  land 
use  people  and  the  local  property  owners  at  placing  our  part  of  par- 
ticipation into  the  program.  There's  like  three  or  four  different  sec- 
tions of  this. 

And  I  would  just  ask  that  we  recognize  that  it  is  not  just — I 
know  you  hear  this  a  lot,  but,  as  somebody  who  has  worked  on  spe- 
cies management  issues  since  1976  in  local  government,  this  one 
really  has  potential  of  being  the  prototype  of  what  we  do  from  now 
on  as  a  national  policy  of  how  we  address  this 

Mr.  Regula.  Have  you  talked  to  Mr.  Pombo  about  this? 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  Yes,  I  have.  This  makes  us  a  proactive  species 
management  rather  than  reactive.  We're  able  to  manage  the  habi- 
tat for  all  the  species,  not  just  one  at  a  time,  and  always  having 
to  be  reactive.  It  helps  the  property  owners  because  they  then  are 
able  to  manage  and  avoid  crisis  to  where  they're  then  not  stepped 


231 

on.  So  this  will  allow  us  to  develop  that  strategy  and  expand  it, 
and  I  think  it  really  is  going  to  be  something  that  you  and  I  and 
a  lot  of  people  are  going  to  say,  okay,  San  Diego  started  this  in 
1991;  now  we  need  to  start  some  more  of  these  programs. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  should  this  be  incorporated  in  the  reauthoriza- 
tion of  the  Endangered  Species  Act. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  I  think  that  it  should  be  incorporated — the  entire 
issue  is  that  we  should  be  encouraging,  if  not  mandating,  that  all 
the  agencies  take  a  look  at  this  multi-species  rather  than  this 
piecemeal. 

The  other  issue  that  I'd  like  to  address  is  a  proposed  land  swap 
involving  the  closure  of  the  naval  base  in  San  Diego.  The  Naval 
Training  Center  is  slated  to  close  in  1997,  and 

Mr.  Regula.  I  spent  a  few  months  there. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  Yes.  The  Reuse  Committee,  the  local  community, 
has  been  working  on  this. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  this  the  one  in  Coronado? 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  This  is  actually  across  from  Coronado.  It's  not 
North  Island.  That's  where  I  was  bom.  This  is  across  the  bay  next 
to  the  Naval  Training  Center/Marine  Corps.  In  August  I'll  show  it 
to  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  The  one  thing  that  concerns  us  is  we've  heard  talk 
about  some  kind  of  land  swap  for  mineral  rights  under  the  Ever- 
glades to  a  private  operation,  to  be  able  to  turn  this  land  back  over. 
In  fact,  there  were  two  articles  which  I'd  like  to  include  in  the 
record  discussing  about  this. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection, 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  And  let  me  just  say,  quite  frankly,  this  land  was 
given  to  the  Federal  Grovemment  by  the  vote  of  the  people  of  San 
Diego  for  the  use  of  the  military  base. 

Mr.  Regula.  You're  talking  about  the  naval  land;  right? 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  The  navy  land.  It  was  voted  on  by  the  people  to 
turn  it  over  for  military  use.  If  it  is  not  going  to  be  used  for  mili- 
tary use,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  should  be  given  back  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  there  a  reversionary  clause? 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  I  don't  know  if  there's  a  reversionary  clause,  but 
I  know  that  there  was — when  the  people  of  San  Diego  turned  this 
over,  they  turned  it  over  for  national  defense  purposes. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  And  I  think  that  for  Babbitt  or  anybody  else  to  be 
trjdng  to,  let's  just  say  bluntly,  cut  a  deal  for  mineral  rights  under 
Florida  by  giving  over  land  that  is  right  in  a  central  part  of  the 
49th  district  of  California,  right  next  to  the  bay — so  I'd  appreciate 
if  we'd  take  that. 

The  other  issue  is  the  moratorium 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  probably  a  Resource  Committee  issue.  He 
can  do  it  unilaterally? 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  No,  I  heard  that  it  takes  an  act  of  Congress. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  because  it's  Florida  and  California. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  Yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  I  would  assume  it  would  require  legislation 


232 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  It  would  and  I  would  really  ask  you  to  be  sensitive 
to  the  situation  because  it  could  be  stuck  in  somewhere  to  where 
we  weren't  quite  aware  of  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  We'll  watch  for  it. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  Okay.  And  I  appreciate  that,  because  the  commu- 
nity is  really  looking  at  a  reuse  here  of  public  access,  utilizing  it 
for — some  of  it  includes  tidal  lands,  which  under  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia's article  20  must  be  publicly  owned,  not  privately  owned. 
And  so  it  is  really  a  good  example  of  reuse  of  an  ex-military  facil- 
ity. 

Mr.  Regula.  How  many  acres  would  be  in  this?  It's  a  pretty  good 
piece  of  land,  isn't  it? 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  It's  not  huge.  We're  talking  a  few  hundred — it  is 
sort  of  a  confined  area  in  an  urban  area  up  against  the  bay.  So  it's 
not  a  real  large  area,  but  we've  been  working  for  like  two  or  three 
years  on  this  use,  the  planning,  reuse  issue.  Part  of  it's  going  to 
be  set  aside  for  navy  housing,  and  that's  good.  If  it's  used  for  mili- 
tary use,  it  stays  in  the  Federal  plans. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  We're  just  afraid  that  somebody  may  try  to  work 
out  a  deal  to  be  able  to  do  it  under  the  guise  of  environmental  pres- 
ervation— to  give  up,  to  acquire  rights  in  one  State  and  then  to  ac- 
tually destroy  a  reuse  plan  in  another. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  The  moratorium  on  drilling  on  offshore  oil  is  the 
other  issue,  and  I  just  want  to  point  out  to  you  there  are  two  major 
industries  in  San  Diego.  One  is  tourism,  which  you  understand  the 
"V"  to  the  ocean  is  an  absolutely  central  thing,  and  we  happen  to 
be — I'll  say  this  to  you  as  I  said  it  to  Billy  Tauzin:  there's  a  whole 
lot  of  difference  between  California  and  Louisiana.  The  one  thing 
about  California  is  you  build  offshore  oil  drillers  rigs  in  California; 
everybody  sees  it  for  miles,  because  we've  got  a  topography  that  is 
quite  different  than  Louisiana. 

But  the  other  issue  is  the  fact  that  we  are  also  a  naval  installa- 
tion and  a  site  of  the  new  concentrated  military  capabilities.  San 
Diego  Harbor  is  becoming  the  megaport  for  our  military  capabili- 
ties. BRACK  is  bringing  all  the  bases  to  us. 

One  of  the  major  concerns  of  offshore  oil  drilling  that  has  been 
raised  is  that  the  listening  devices  to  know  if  enemy  submarines 
are  in  the  area  would  be  totally  eliminated  by  offshore  oil  drilling, 
and  it's  something  that  we  don't  think  about  that  much  until  your 
sonar  people  sit  there  and  say,  "We  wouldn't  know  if  somebody  was 
right  in  close  off  our  port  if  we  had  these  operations." 

I  support,  you  know,  resource  extraction  when  it's  appropriate  at 
appropriate  locations,  and  I  have  done  that.  Elk  Hills  was  a  good 
example.  But  this  one  is  one  that  is  just  the  wrong  place  at  the 
wrong  time,  and  there's  other  issues  that  are  tied  to  this. 

So  I'd  ask  you  that  the  coastal  resources  and  the  military  re- 
sources that  are  recognized  there,  and  the  economic  benefit  that  we 
get  from  that,  is  very  important 

Mr.  Regula.  Have  you  had  any  offshore  prior  to  the  moratorium? 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  No,  none  at  all. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  it's  not  a  Santa  Barbara  issue? 


233 

Mr.  BiLBRAY.  It's  all  north  of  us,  and  that  is  one  of  the  big  con- 
cerns that  the  military  raises.  We've  got  a  quiet  zone,  so  they  can 
listen  when  the  Russian  submarines  or  any  other  submarines  will 
come  in  the  area.  Up  north  they  couldn't  do  that  because  the  con- 
stant equipment  causes  a  background  noise.  So  that  issue  is  still 
a  very  real  issue,  especially  in  San  Diego. 

I  would  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  time  to  be 
able  to  address  this  issue.  I  think  we've  got  some  real  opportuni- 
ties, and  especially  in  the  fact  that  the  multi-species  plan  which 
has  been  worked  on  for  a  long  time,  now  has  everybody's  agreeing 
that  this  is  the  thing  of  the  future.  If  we  can  get  enough  funding 
to  prove  the  Federal  participation  with  the  cities  and  the  county 
and  the  State  on  this  thing,  it  really  will  set  an  example  for  other 
multi-species  plans  that  haven't  evolved  as  far,  like  Riverside. 
There's  some  of  them  that  have  seen  our  program  and  really  are 
moving  forward.  This  will  encourage  them  to  keep  going,  their 
work,  and  that  way  everybody,  the  species  benefits  and  the  private 
property  owner  will  finally  not  have  to  be  jacked  around  reacting 
to,  you  know,  crisis. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Bilbray  follows:] 


COMMCRCE  COMMITTEE 


234 


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

HAZARDOUS  MATERIALS  ~  f*x  i6i9i  »i  ant 


NTEflNCT 


Congres!£(  of  tte  ?&initeli  Stated 

jl^ousie  of  i^epresentatibed 

^DUasbington,  ^C  20515 

Testimony  of  the  Honorable  Brian  Bilbray 

before  the  Subcommittee  on  the  Interior 

Committee  on  Appropriations 

April  17,  1996 


Mr.  Chairman,  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  address  you 
today  on  several  issues  of  great  importance  to  my  San  Diego  district    In  the  interests  of  time,  and 
because  the  Subcommittee  still  must  hear  from  other  Members,  I  will  be  as  brief  as  possible. 

I  would  like  to  express  my  support  for  funding  of  San  Diego's  unique  Multiple  Species 
Conservation  Program  (MSCP)  in  the  FY  1997  Interior  Appropriations  bill    The  City  of  San 
Diego,  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  and  the  State  California  have  been  working  to  develop  the 
MSCP  since  1991    It  is  a  partnership  between  local,  state,  and  federal  government,  geared  to 
providing  a  workable  solution  to  the  challenge  of  balancing  sound  natural  resource  conservation 
with  economic  stability. 

The  MSCP  as  drafted  seeks  to  preserve  roughly  164,000  acres  and  in  the  process  protect  87 
species  currently  listed  as  threatened  or  endangered,  along  with  their  habitats,  while 
accommodating  regional  growth  and  development  needs.  The  draft  MSCP  was  distributed  in 
March  of  199S,  and  is  scheduled  for  consideration  before  the  San  Diego  City  Council  on  April  23, 
1996,  for  additional  discussion  in  anticipation  of  final  approval  of  the  plan  sometime  this  summer. 

As  the  Subcommittee  is  aware,  a  regional  funding  roundtable  has  been  established  to  determine 
and  coordinate  specific  requests  for  support  in  FY  1997,  at  this  point,  the  details  of  this  process 
are  in  the  final  stages  of  negotiation    The  roundtable  is  designed  to  share  financing 
responsibilities,  in  order  to  present  a  comprehensive  funding  proposal  which  is  fair  and  feasible  for 
all  participants    It  is  my  understanding  that  the  conclusions  of  the  roundtable  will  be  finalized  and 
presented  to  the  Subcommittee  in  the  very  near  future 

Mr  Chairman,  I  am  very  aware  of  the  significant  challenges  faced  by  your  Subcommittee,  at  a 
time  in  which  you  are  increasingly  being  asked  to  do  more  with  less,  and  1  appreciate  the  tough 
choices  which  must  be  made    I  would  like  to  point  out  and  emphasize  that  the  City  of  San  Diego 
has  contributed  over  $6  million  during  the  MSCP  planning  process,  and  will  continue  its  support 
as  the  plan  is  implemented.  Nonetheless,  federal  assistance  has  been  and  remains  central  to  the 
success  of  the  MSCP  experiment,  continued  demonstration  of  federal  commitment  to  this  process 
is  a  vital  pillar  of  the  carefully  crafted  MSCP  partnership 


IHISS1ATI0Nrn\  PHINIIUON ''.M'f  n  MADl  Ot  Rirvcif  DflBEHS 


235 


Mr  Chairman,  1  appreciate  your  consideration  of  this  project,  and  compliment  the  Subcommittee 
for  its  past  support    I  would  like  to  say  that  such  support  goes  far  beyond  the  ideology  and 
partisanship  which  has  so  often  clouded  discussion  of  these  habitat  and  species  conservation 
issues    If  we  are  to  ultimately  succeed  in  moving  beyond,  or  "evolving  out  of,  what  most  of  us 
agree  is  a  flawed  status  quo,  we  need  to  be  able  to  make  reasoned,  sound  decisions  as  to  what 
effective  alternatives  might  be    The  habitat  conservation  process,  as  embodied  in  the  MSCP,  has 
tremendous  promise  and  potential,  and  we  should  make  every  effort  possible  to  encourage  these 
efforts  to  move  into  new  and  improved  environmental  strategies 

Another  issue  I  would  like  to  bring  to  your  attention,  Mr  Chairman,  is  a  proposed  land  swap 
involving  an  exchange  of  mineral  rights  on  400,000  acres  of  land  in  Florida's  Big  Cypress  National 
Preserve  for  lands  at  one  of  several  closed  military  bases,  including  San  Diego's  Naval  Training 
Center  (NTC)    The  NTC  is  slated  for  closure  at  the  end  of  April  1997,  and  for  the  last  three 
years,  a  base  reuse  commission  has  been  considering  possible  future  uses  for  the  property  once  it 
has  been  turned  over  to  the  City 

I  have  made  it  clear  to  the  proponents  of  this  land  swap  that  I  would  not  be  supportive  of  any 
circumvention  of  the  ongoing  local  planning  process.   I  am  told  that  other  Members  of  the  House 
and  Senate  have  expressed  similar  sentiments,  and  Secretary  Babbitt  stated  last  week  while  in  San 
Diego  that  he  would  not  support  a  transfer  involving  the  NTC  without  the  support  of  the  San 
Diego  community    Nonetheless,  there  are  concerns  locally  that  despite  assurances  to  the 
contrary,  it  is  possible  that  somehow  an  "end  run"  might  be  made  to  accomplish  a  land  swap    I 
wanted  to  share  this  information  with  the  Subcommittee,  and  make  it  aware  of  the  strong  local 
sentiment  that  exists,  in  the  unlikely  event  such  a  proposal  were  to  come  before  you    I  have  with 
me  two  recent  articles  from  the  San  Diego  Union-Tribune  which  describe  this  situation  in  some 
detail,  and  which  I  would  ask  be  included  in  the  hearing  record 

Finally,  Mr  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  express  my  strong  support  for  continuing  the  moratorium 
on  oil  and  gas  exploration  in  the  Outer  Continental  Shelf  (OCS)  in  FY  1997    This  is  an  issue  of 
extreme  importance  to  the  people  of  San  Diego  and  California,  and  one  which  cannot  be 
overemphasized    California's  abundant  coastal  resources  provide  both  environmental  and 
economic  assets  which  are  of  inestimable  value    On  behalf  of  my  own  constituents,  and  the  great 
majority  of  Califomians,  I  would  respectfully  urge  that  the  existing  moratorium  on  such  mineral 
exploration  be  maintained  in  FY  1997 

Mr  Chairman,  thank  you  again  for  this  opportunity  to  testify  today    I  appreciate  your 
consideration,  and  am  at  your  disposal  should  you  or  any  Members  of  the  Subcommittee  have  anv 
questions  or  would  like  additional  information 


236 


'^^'^n 


I^    C  CJ 


C     -D  ■— 

c   =  o 


o 


-r  ;^  =x  -c  I  >  - 


c    I 

i<  =  • 


£   V   S  «         £ 
•/:  E  ac  a. 


.  -C    a    MJ=  f 


n   ?  5   >     "-£  £ 


4)    C.*    OO  ^    ^ 


(0 


J2 
o 

o 

ti 

■  MM 

(0 


!--2'^i.  3   V   ij   v:  7.   '^ 

i   ;j   d,  w  ^         g"^   *   lu   >    3: 

■■■ia;  ./•  -  » -^ 


=  u 

S  «  Z  "2  V  2?=    "  - 


i  X  s  -  :i  •_  =  s 

•-   S   u   <«  ■S 
■  '•  S  =  sU 


Si  !-, 


^  T3         ej   *>  4>  2 


9  ^  ' 


^    ID 

Wis 
I  «  a> 

ILl   S 


I  a  c  M 

;;;  i  I. 
ft** « 

I  ■  ra  a. 


3    C 
J=    ■-         TSU. 

*"  S../i2  u 
e  o  *;  3  « 
o  I-  5  -o  «J 

=  °"-S  J  2" 

i;  >.  ui  4, 

=      =      "«!      = 

S  t;:=  -- 
nj  —  -o  06  S 
w  y  l1  C  4( 
^  -C    oj    c    V 

-c  r£  S-S 

Si  c  o  i:  - 

^  re  _  'S 
<»  5  <»  ti  -o 

=S  S  5     5 

£  2    >c         w 


1^1 


;^2 


y  -  n 
5  5  -a 


ajr^  S 


:££ 


*>   =        ? 


J  a  _<-> 


"    -^     U      W   =  ■" 

*  S  "  5!  2  o  _g 

"*  -  S  el  o  ji  jr 

=  §  §  _  "  S  ^ 
5 e^  S If  £ 

3  Z        o  "^  5   u 
m  n  —  ^  _  </   ^ 


-n  —  i  =  -r 
•J        E        ■'■  V 


2  2  £  "2  -f 


237 


IS 


2  ^  c  S  =  o  p 

c    —   .-•  ^  n.       ":: 


r  5  o    • 

r;  J:  f~  -£ 


4)     u     =^ 

5  «J  -5 


v  •_;  jc  ill  j=  _   cT        S 

-  i  i-  •i  'C  >  "^  —  r. 


Ut 


I  o       = 
-     >  o       = 


-       -c  _-  ^ 

"J   i    ^    V.    i^  .i:        ■"    « 

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


o 

a 

o 


yorto      !§     ~=J 


■.^    V  ^   —    a. 


g3 


±    s:  *  =  v5 


3  —   V   o   >»  c 

■o  =  2  tX  -  iS 

=  "=•      >-^  5 

■J      s  ■•=  -  > 

,  So  c 


;  _  _c  -■  -:  O 


20- 

O.  u 


^      :S"g- 


iiPil  ll^l' 


■  CI 


i- 


i-o  -'?r  o^ 


gSJ^i:£E      t 
?  g     "I  s  ^     -■  «^  2 


ii^-I' 


~    >  l;^ 


S  —  -" 


;2  l-^?^"?£  = 


-2     O      i   S    00 


o  2  _C  ^  ;2  i= 


e;  Z    .     3  v^ 


■r  .-    60 


if-  anji 


o  g  - 


^  &  . 


a.^         (I.    M^ 


o    ^ 

o  o 

"3  cT 


r'  ^  CO  3  r- 


=  =  a-c  3 


*  i;  c  c" 


^  y        c 


c  —         e  ?  o 


h    "  V  ~  c 


=  s  o 
»-  c  "  • 


o    ^  —  r   :; 


'2  J2  C   S-S-5 


u  «   u  "=  i 
=  5   c  A  -C 


>-ci  3-0  ^       o.S:  3 
■9r2<fl     •;;  =  '= 

"    k.     3  ~    " 

e  ? ,  «;££  ^  - 


2  E  9-  -c  -  3  -a" 


o. ;;;  ^S  ^  i 


o  2 


3    =iS    i=  -O 


^    2c5£s-    is- 


3s -^  c  r 


238 


' 

es 

ot   t^ 

fla 

»: 

> 

o 

c 

:      : 

UJ 

j: 

s  s 

g  "*'  « 

3  2  2 

S  S  3 

"2  J  O 


© 


^  1^1 ii 

^««  Mo  oe^ 
—  «  2  c  O  *"  •£ 

«  go  o'r:H- 
S  ™  S  ° sE  ^ 


Si  ?  «  «^  S 
3  K  S  5  2 

2S^^S" 

2gJ^o 

■5—  «  "  » 

^       ^  J3  j: 


DCS 


<j  .u.  y 

■O  C  Sf  Q.  p 

4j  (^  .2:  II  r 

4>    --*<  —  _    fc*    fc* 


?£r- 


^S! 


o  V  S 


CM  0£ 
C    C    k. 

£■5  2 
3  =  c 

?ic3 


239 


o 

o 

z  . 

; 

^: 

2B 

LUOC 

era 

:■ 

O 

<o 

" 

: 

o 

u 

3 

=  =  04, 
"»??  7 

*• 

n 

1 

^?^ 


ill 

ill 


^  ace 


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


cat 

3ara.a».>S    -1.1  S'^i  |=-2,     e  «  fe-S  , 
"~^"-°>5     jj-j=  o  <_o  a  »  „  S     a'=- «  « 


■=  -  -J 
:0s3-  =  - 


is    lsiil'^=l    "u|*c3^j:^    s»-2':^;ss|    Jo|s-3 


8!  " 
IIIIIP         1^1 

M         c    c   "        ^5  >*     9 

.2  c^  ^.  »   tZO 


c  a. 


c    ^  x^  G  u  3  j: 


.  r   * 


•I    ' 


3 -a  Si      S:=: 
5  X  ,i  i"  3 


?S 


^    o 


O        oEo-SHS 


o ^ "  "  i[  a  ^Q  i, 


240 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
PARTNERSfflP  FOR  THE  SOUNDS 

WITNESS 

HON.  WALTER  JONES,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Mr.  Regula.  Mr.  Jones? 

Mr.  Jones.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have 
submitted  my  prepared  remarks  for  the  committee. 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes. 

Mr.  Jones.  And  I  am  here  to 

Mr.  Regula.  For  the  record. 

Mr.  Jones.  Yes,  sir.  Thank  you. 

I  am  here  today  to  pursue  the  assistance  for  the  Center  for  the 
Sounds.  As  you  probably  remember  or  know,  this  goes  back  to  leg- 
islation that  my  father  in  1992  submitted  to  the  Congress,  which 
authorized  the  Center  for  the  Sounds.  And  I  don't  regret  that  the 
Center  for  the  Sounds — the  Congress,  after  my  father  died,  named 
the  Walter  B.  Jones  Center  for  the  Sounds,  which  located  in  Tyrrell 
County. 

Tyrrell  County  is  a  very  small  county  in  eastern  North  Carolina 
which  is  in  my  district,  and  from  an  economic  standpoint  they  have 
very  little  going  for  them.  The  per  capita  income  in  Tyrrell  County 
is  approximately  $7,000 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  this  a  visitors'  center? — 

Mr.  Jones.  It's  an  educational  visitors'  center.  It's  off  Highway 
64;  64  is  a  road  that  is  traveled  in  North  Carolina  to  the  Outer 
Banks,  and  the  State  of  North  Carolina  estimates  6  million  people 
visit  the  Outer  Banks  each  year. 

Mr.  Regula.  Would  this  be  a  Federal  facility? — 

Mr.  Jones.  Federal  and  State — the  State — it's  a  State  and  Fed- 
eral partnership.  The  State  has  already  spent  about  $800,000  to 
build  an  adjoining  center  to  the  Walter  B.  Jones  Center  for  the 
Sounds. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  Walter  B.  Jones  is  not  built  then? 

Mr.  Jones.  No,  sir.  The  land  is  there.  This  is  on  the  State/Fed- 
eral property,  and  this  would  be  an  educational  center  for  the  tour- 
ists as  well  as  for  educational  groups  throughout  North  Carolina 
that  would  be  visiting  the  Outer  Banks. 

And  the  reason  that  I  have  taken  this  on  to  champion,  so  to 
speak,  is  not  because  of  my  father's  name,  but  because  these  coun- 
ties are  pretty — the  majority  of  the  county  is  wetlands;  it's  been 
designated  as  wetlands,  and  it's  a  small  county  that  has  very  little 
going  for  it  economically  speaking. 

Mr.  Regula.  What  do  you  mean  by  Center  for  the  Sounds? 

Mr.  Jones.  The  ecosystem  is  what  the  State  and  the  Federal 
Government  for  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  had  been  working  to- 
gether to  create,  and  the  economic  opportunity,  because  of  the  wet- 
lands in  that  county,  and  the  fact  that  the  ecosystem  is  one  that 
is  very  well  respected 

Mr.  Regula.  In  other  words,  this  center  would  interpret  the  eco- 
system? 

Mr.  Jones.  Yes,  right. 


241 

Mr.  Regula.  Would  there  be  any  State  money? 

Mr.  Jones.  Yes,  sir,  the  State  has  already  spent  about  $800,000. 
And  let  me  very  quickly  find  that  in  my  notes.  The  State  of  North 
Carolina  Department  of  Transportation  is  in  the  process  now  of 
constructing  an  $830,000  visitors'  center/rest  area  adjacent  to  the 
Walter  B.  Jones  Center  for  the  Sounds.  And  the  monies,  if  the  Con- 
gress decides  that  it  can  appropriate  between  a  million  and  $3  mil- 
lion to  help  get  the  Center  for  the  Sounds  started,  it  would  be  a 
15,000-square-foot  museum  and  visitors'  center  which  would  pro- 
vide indoor  and  outdoor  exhibits  about  the  area's  plants  and  ani- 
mals and  classroom  space  for  multiple  educational  purposes. 

Mr.  Regula.  What  do  you  estimate  the  total  cost  to  be? 

Mr.  Jones.  The  information  that  we  have,  it  would  be  between 
$2  and  $3  million. 

Mr.  Regula.  Who  would  operate  it?  Which  agency? 

Mr.  Jones.  Well,  it  would  be  operated  primarily  by  the  U.S.  Fish 
and  Wildlife. 

Mr.  Regula.  So  it  would  be  a  Federal  operation? 

Mr.  Jones.  Yes,  sir.  On  the  State,  it's  State  and  Federal  property 
that  this  area  is  on  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we've  been  reluctant  to  start  any  visitors'  cen- 
ters simply  because  we  haven't  had  the  funding  and  we  have  to 
take  care  of  what  we  have. 

Mr.  Jones.  Right.  You  explained  that  to  me  last  year.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes.  Well,  we  didn't  do  any  last  year,  either. 

Mr.  Jones.  Right. 

Mr.  Regula.  Here  in  1996  we  just  don't  have  the  money. 

Mr.  Jones.  Right.  Well,  I  just  wanted  to  again — to  make  the  ef- 
fort again  because,  if  time  should  change  as  we  get  to  a  balanced 
budget 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Jones.  I  think  that  the  new  direction  of  the  Congress  is  cer- 
tainly one  that  is  the  right  direction  of  trying  to  work  with  the 
local  municipalities  and  the  local  areas  to  help  build  the  economies, 
and  I  know  that,  talking  to  Speaker  Gingrich,  that  we  do  in  this 
Congress  understand  that  rural  America  does  need  attention,  and 
my  district  primarily  is  rural  America.  So 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you  for  coming. 

Mr.  Jones.  Thank  you  very  much. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Jones  follows:] 


242 


C*t-HON  MowS(  Orrcs  BuiLOfvC 

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


coMMirree  on  national  securitv 

COMMITTEE  ON  RESOURCES 
COMMITTEE  ON  SMALL  BUSINESS 


Congrcgfi  of  rtjc  Wimttfj  States 

l^ousc  of  iRtprestntatibfs 

(laasliinBton.  2D(C  20515-3303 

Statement  of  the  Honorable  Walter  B.  Jones,  Jr. 

to  the 

Subcommittee  on  Interior  Appropriations 

on 

the  FT  1997  Interior  Appropriations  Act 

regarding  the  Walter  B.  Jones  Center  for  the  Sounds 


CWTBlCTOfF^s 
102-C  E*9TMoo*  Owivl 

G«ii~viui,Nci)a5e 


Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  testify  here  today  on  behalf  of  the  Walter 
B.  Jones  Center  for  the  Sounds  located  in  Tyrrell  County,  North  Carolina. 

The  Partnership  for  the  Sounds,  Inc.,  is  a  non-profit  organization  devoted  to  promoting 
local  economic  development  through  responsible  nature-based  tourism  in  the  Albermarle-Pamlico 
region  of  northeastern  North  Carolina,  using  as  its  primary  tourism  attractions  the  area's  unique 
natural,  historic,  and  cultural  resources.  The  Partnership  was  conceived  in  the  early  I990's.  It 
arose  from  a  situation  where  several  localities  on  the  Albermarle-Pamlico  peiunsula  were 
independently  developing  plans  for  educational  facilities  that  would  interpret  various  aspects  of 
the  regional  ecosystem.  When  representatives  from  these  localities  realized  the  parallel  nature  of 
their  efforts,  they  decided  to  join  together  in  developing  a  single  broad-based  program  rather  than 
to  compete  as  separate  entities  for  funding  and  support. 

The  mission  of  the  Partnership  is  to  stimulate  sustainable  economic  development  in  the 
northeastern  North  Carolina  region  by  promoting  nature-based  tourism,  environmental  education 
and  conservation.  The  organization  is  designing  and  developing  a  series  of  "gateway  centers"  to 
attract  eco-tourists  to  the  area,  to  interpret  the  unique  local  natural  history  and  resources,  and  to 
orient  the  visitors  to  outdoor  activities  and  programs  available. 

These  "gateway  centers,"  which  form  a  rough  frame  around  the  peninsula,  will  attract 
tourists  and  stimulate  visitation  to  regional  parks,  refuges  and  other  points  of  interest.  The  four 
planned  centers  are;  the  Center  for  the  Sounds,  the  North  Carolina  Estuarium,  the  Lake 
Mattamuskeet  Education  Center,  and  the  Roanoke  River  National  Wildlife  Refuge  Center.  Before 
my  father's  death  in  1992,  Congressman  Walter  B.  Jones,  Sr.,  secured  House  passage  of 
legislation  authorizing  the  Center  for  the  Sounds  facility  in  Tyrell  County.  After  his  death. 
Congress  amended  the  bill  to  name  the  facility  in  his  honor. 

The  Center  for  the  Sounds,  a  15,000  square  foot  museum  and  visitor  center,  will  provide 
indoor  and  outdoor  exhibits  about  (he  area's  plants  and  animals  and  classroom  space  for  multiple 
education  purposes.  Also,  the  center  will  house  the  Pocosin  Lakes  National  Wildlife  Refuge 


243 


headquarters,  which  is  located  in  part  of  Tynell  County.  The  Partnership  for  the  Sounds  have 
been  in  negotiations  to  assist  the  United  States  Fish  and  Wildlife  (USFW)  in  staffing  the  federal 
facility. 

The  law  authorizing  the  Center  for  the  Sounds  calls  for  a  cost-sharing  agreement  between 
the  Department  of  Interior,  specifically  the  USFW,  the  State  of  North  Carolina  and  local  sponsors. 
The  North  Carolina  General  Assembly  has  appropriated  state  funds  to  design  the  federal  facility  as 
well  as  2300  feet  of  interpretive-boardwalk  in  the  adjacent  wetlands.  In  addition,  ongoing 
operational  cost  for  the  Partnership  for  the  Sounds.  The  partnership  is  an  organization  funded 
through  the  North  Carolina  Department  of  Environment,  Health  and  Natural  Resources. 

In  addition,  the  Department  of  Transportation  is  constructing  an  $830,000  visitor 
center/rest  area  adjacent  to  the  Walter  B.  Jones,  Sr.  Center  for  the  Sounds  site.  It  is  estimated  that 
federal  monies  to  construct  the  center  would  be  approximately  between  S2.S  -  S3  million. 

Again,  I  understand  the  importance  in  balancing  the  budget  and  returning  regional  projects 
back  to  the  states.  However,  I  believe  this  partnership,  specifically  the  Center  for  the  Sounds,  is 
justifiable  at  the  federal  level  for  two  important  reasons.  First,  the  necessity  for  new  and  diverse 
economic  opportunities  in  the  Albermarle-Pamlico  region  is  evident  by  the  area's  startlingly  poor 
socio-economic  conditions.  The  two  involved  counties,  Tyrrell  and  Hyde,  were  the  first  and  third 
poorest  in  the  state  respectively  in  1990.  The  average  f)er  capita  income  for  Tyrrell  is  only 
S7,884  and  for  Hyde  County  it  is  S9,434.  In  both  counties  approximately  25  percent  of  their 
residents  are  below  the  poverty  line.  The  annual  unemployment  rates  of  the  two  counties  are  more 
than  twice  the  state  rate,  and  non-farm  employment  opportunities  throughout  the  region  are 
limited.  However,  the  partnership  is  intended  to  provide  an  economic  boom  to  the  area  due  the 
growing  attraction  of  the  North  Carolina  beaches.  Specifically,  the  Center  for  the  Sound  site  is 
located  along  Highway  64  -  the  main  artery  to  the  CXiter  Banks,  which  receives  approximately  6 
million  visitors  a  year. 

Second,  as  mentioned  early,  the  program  is  a  partnership  between  the  federal  government 
and  state  and  local  government  —  a  perfect  example  of  the  new  direction  Congress  is  headed. 
North  Carolina  has  honored  its  agreement  to  supply  the  project  with  $836,615.  This  is  an 
opportunity  for  the  Congress  partner  in  helping  rural  America. 

In  closing,  I  believe  this  project  is  essential  to  the  economic  development  of  northeastern 
North  Carolina. 


244 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
MroEWIN  NATIONAL  TALLGRASS  PRAIRIE 

WITNESS 

HON.  JERRY  WELLER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  ILLINOIS 

Mr.  Regula.  Jerry? 

Mr.  Weller.  Well,  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  do  appre- 
ciate the  opportunity  to  appear  before  you  and  your  subcommittee 
and  would  ask  that  my  entire  statement  be  submitted  for  the 
record. 

Mr.  Regula.  Without  objection. 

Mr.  Weller.  And,  as  I  have  spoken  with  you  personally — and,  of 
course,  Mr.  Yates,  the  ranking  Democrat  has  also  been  very  ac- 
tively involved  in  this  particular  project — I  want  to  discuss  with 
you  today.  What  I  wanted  to  talk  with  you  briefly  about  today,  Mr. 
Chairman,  is  Midewin  National  Tallgrass  Prairie,  which  will  soon 
be  part,  the  newest  addition  to  the  United  States  Forest  Service. 

I  have  a  map  here  with  me  today  which  is  a  map  of  what  was 
formerly  known  as  the  Joliet  Arsenal,  the  Joliet  Arsenal  Ammuni- 
tion Plant. 

Mr.  Regula.  This  is  going  from  the  military  to  the 

Mr.  Weller.  That's  right.  This  was  a 

Mr.  Regula.  Excuse  me,  the  Forest  Service. 

Mr.  Weller.  It's  a  surplus  military  facility.  In  many  cases  some 
consider  this  a  model  for  base  conversion,  where  we  took  24,000 
acres,  set  aside  19,000  acres  for  conservation,  3,000  acres  for  eco- 
nomic development,  1,000  for  a  national  veterans'  cemetery. 

The  portion  that  I  wanted  to  discuss  with  you  today  is  the  19,000 
acres  that's  known  as  the  Midewin  National  Tallgrass  Prairie.  It's 
already  been  nicknamed  by  many  conservation  and  environmental 
organizations  "The  Yellowstone  of  the  Midwest." 

This  past  year,  thanks  to  the  strong  bipartisan  support  we've  had 
from  Governor  Edgar,  the  Illinois  delegation,  and  conservation, 
business,  labor,  education,  environmental  groups,  veterans'  organi- 
zations, we  were  successful  in  passing  the  redevelopment  legisla- 
tion. This  past  year,  with  your  assistance,  as  well  as  Mr.  Yates  and 
other  members  of  the  Appropriations  Committee,  we  were  able  to 
obtain  $400,000  in  initial  development  funding,  and  it  was  a  good 
investment.  I  want  to  thank  you  for  that  initial  investment. 

Well,  now  we've  succeeded  in  moving  the  legislation  forward.  The 
development  is  starting  this  year.  What  I'm  here  to  talk  to  you 
about  today  is  the  funding  for  the  operations  now  of  the  Midewin 
National  Tallgrass  Prairie. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  the  importance  of  treating  this  site  sep- 
arate, as  a  separate,  distinct  entity  from  the  Shawnee  National 
Forest.  Currently,  the  Forest  Service  is  in  the  process  of  reassess- 
ing how  they're  going  to  manage  this  property,  and  it's  currently 
being  managed  through  the  Shawnee  National  Forest.  The  Shaw- 
nee National  Forest  is  six  hours  away.  It's  in  the  far  reaches  of 
southern  Illinois.  The  Midewin  National  Tallgrass  Prairie  is  in  sub- 
urban Chicago.  And  because  of  that,  we  wanted  to  request  a  spe- 


245 

cific  earmarking  of  $1.6  million  for  operation  and  development 
costs  for  Fiscal  Year  1997. 

Mr.  Regula.  You  contemplate  eventually  a  headquarters  and 
what  else? 

Mr.  Weller.  Well,  there  are  existing  buildings  out  there,  former 
military  buildings  that  they  have.  The  Forest  Service  is  still  deter- 
mining what  the  actual  improvement  costs  would  be  to  existing — 
redoing  the  wiring,  rehabbing  existing  buildings,  but  they  do  be- 
lieve that  there  are  existing  buildings  they  can  use. 

The  funds  that  I'm  asking  for  are  for  the  development  as  well  as 
operating  costs.  I  do  want  to  point  out  that  what's  been  exciting 
about  this  particular  project  for  all  of  us  in  Illinois  is  it's  been  a 
win/wia/win  for  everybody — for  conservation,  for  economic  develop- 
ment, and  for  veterans.  That's  why  it's  had  such  broad-based  sup- 
port, and  particularly  from  Mr.  Yates  and  other  members  of  the 
delegation,  which  I  support,  and  do  ask  your  continued  investment 
in  this  particular  project. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Weller.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Weller  follows:] 


246 


TESTIMONY  OF  CONGRESSMAN  JERRY  WELLER 

BEFORE  THE  INTERIOR  APPROPRIATIONS  SUBCOMMITTEE 

APRIL  17.  1996 


Thank  you.   I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  talk  briefly  today  about  the  Midewin 
National  Tallgrass  Prairie,  which  is  soon  to  be  the  newest  edition  to  the  U.S. 
Forest  Service.   This  prairie  is  expected  to  be  so  grand  that  many  have  begun 
referring  to  it  as  the  "Yellowstone  of  the  East."  As  many  of  you  know,  I 
introduced  legislation  early  last  year  to  re-develop  the  former  Joliet  Army 
Ammunition  Plant  for  several  peace-time  productive  uses.   My  bill  was 
incorporated  into  the  Department  of  Defense  Authorization  Act  which  was  signed 
into  law  on  February  10th  of  this  year.  The  largest  portion  of  the  land, 
approximately  19,000  acres  will  be  transferred  to  the  Forest  Service  for  creation 
of  the  Midewin  Tallgrass  Prairie.   This  prairie  will  have  enormous 
environmental,  economic,  and  educational  benefits  not  only  for  the  state  of 
Illinois,  but  for  the  entire  country.  This  plan  has  broad  bi-partisan  support  from 
virtually  the  entire  Illinois  delegation,  as  well  as  the  dean  of  our  delegation,  Sid 
Yates.   We  were  ably  assisted  by  your  subcommittee  in  securing  $400,000  in 
initial  development  costs  for  this  fiscal  year. 

My  purpose  here  today  is  to  talk,  obviously,  about  the  upcoming  funding  needs 
of  the  Midewin  National  Tallgrass  Prairie.   First  I  would  like  to  stress  the 


247 


importance  of  treating  this  site  as  a  separate  and  distinct  entity  from  the  Shawnee 
National  Forest,  as  far  as  appropriations  and  management  go.  Currently,  the 
management  of  the  Prairie  will  fall  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Shawnee,  and  it 
is  important  that  Midewin  is  given  the  resources  necessary  to  thrive  on  its  own.   I 
would  like  to  point  out  that  Midewin  is  in  suburban  Chicago  and  Shawnee  is  over 
6  hours  away  in  the  farthest  reaches  of  Southern  Illinois.  On  that  note,  I  would 
like  to  request  an  appropriation  of  $1 .6  million  for  operation  and  development 
costs  for  Fiscal  Year  1997.  This  is  the  amount  the  Forest  Service  estimated  it 
would  cost  to  operate  Midewin  for  an  entire  year.  The  prairie  will  also  need 
construction  money  to  equip  existing  buildings  with  electricity  and  plumbing  in 
order  to  accommodate  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  visitors  who  will  come  to 
Midewin.  At  this  time,  it  is  unclear  what  amount  will  be  required,  as  Forest 
Service  is  still  assessing  their  needs.   I  am  disappointed  that  the  Administration 
did  not  include  a  specific  earmark  in  their  budget  request,  and  I  anxiously  await 
the  Forest  Service's  response. 

I  would  like  to  close  by  emphasizing  the  importance  and  broad-based  support  of 
the  Midewin  National  Tallgrass  Prairie.  As  I  mentioned,  it  has  bi-partisan 
support  and  is  supported  by  many  environmental,  conservation,  education, 
busmess  and  labor  groups.  This  is  a  model  for  base  conversion  which  will 
provide  public  benefit  for  generations  to  come  and  I  appreciate  your  help  with 
securing  the  necessary  funding. 


248 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

LOWER  RIO  GRANDE  VALLEY  NATIONAL  WILDLIFE 

CORRIDOR 

WITNESS 

HON.  E  "KIKA"  DE  LA  GARZA,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  TEXAS 

Mr.  Regula.  Kika,  I  think  you  were  here. 

Mr.  DE  LA  Garza.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  appear  once  again  in  behalf  of  the  Lower  Rio  Grande  National 
Wildlife  Corridor,  which  you  have  worked  with  us  before.  I  would 
like  to  begin  by  requesting  that  money  be  specifically  earmarked 
for  this  project. 

This  year,  as  every  other  year,  we're  asking  for  the  total  amount, 
as  you  can  well  understand,  which  is  in  your  volume,  $3  million, 
a  very  small  appropriation. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  that  land  acquisition  or  development? 

Mr.  DE  LA  Garza.  It's  land  acquisition  and  development. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  to  add  to  an  existing  refuge? 

Mr.  DE  LA  Garza.  Yes,  the  corridor  will  be  from  Falcon  Dam 
down  to  the  Gulf,  and  they're  buying  parcels  here  and  there  to  fill 
up  the  corridor.  The  area  hass  over  1,200  species  of  clams,  over  400 
species  of  birds,  more  than  330  types  of  butterflies,  and  animals. 

Your  contribution.  Chairman  Yates,  and  you,  and  Chairman 
Skeen,  has  been  very,  very  helpful  in  the  past.  I  don't  know  how 
many  million  people  come  down  there  because  we  have  birds  that 
are  not  found  any  other  place  in  the  world.  It's  a  joint  endeavor 
with  the  local  people,  that  there  is  local  fund-gathering,  and  I  don't 
know  where  we  are  now,  but  it's  substantial. 

The  wildlife  corridor  comes,  of  course,  from  the  Land  and  Water 
Conservation  Fund.  This  will  be,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  it  means  any- 
thing, this  will  be  the  last  time  that  I  appear  before  you  to  ask  for 
funds,  and,  hopefully,  we  can  complete  this  endeavor  and  continue 
the  heritage  for  future  generations.  I've  championed  this  cause  for 
many  years  over  a  lot  of  others,  and  I  hope  that,  after  this  session, 
some  of  you  who  remain  will  remember  me  and  the  corridor  kindly. 

We  submitted  the  testimony 

Mr.  Regula.  These  are  presently  privately-owned  lands? 

Mr.  DE  LA  Garza.  Yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  they  willing  sellers? 

Mr.  DE  LA  Garza.  Yes,  all  of  it  has  been  by  willing  sellers.  It's 
nooks  and  crannies,  pieces,  no  large  farming  endeavor.  Basically 
what  it  is  was  little  triangles  or  corners  of  brush  that  wouldn't  help 
anyone.  So  to  square  off  a  farm,  for  example,  3  acres  or  5  acres 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  some  of  it  is  in-holdings  in  the  existing  refuge; 
is  that  right? 

Mr.  DE  LA  Garza.  Very  few.  There's  about  a  couple  of — three  or 
four  that  are  now  being  used  for  farming.  The  largest  one  of  those 
they're  willing  to  sell.  The  others,  parallel  with  what  we  call  the 
floodway  that  up  above  the  valley,  as  we  call  it,  there's  a  floodway 
that,  when  the  river  is  at  its  highest,  so  that  it  won't  endanger  the 
cities  below  it,  takes  the  water  and  brings  it  down  to  the  Gulf. 
Some  of  this  is  in  the  floodways. 


249 

The  floodway  is  a  Federal  International  Boundary  and  Water 
Commission,  but  people  have  easements  in  the  floodway.  You  may 
have  heard  some  of  that,  that  the  IBWC  doesn't  want  them  to  clear 
because,  if  you  put  water  in  the  floodway,  you  have  an  obstruction, 
and  they  went  to  court.  Finally,  they  reached  a  settlement,  but  if 
we  could  buy  some  of  those  easements,  then  you  won't  have  to 
worry  about  that  problem.  It's  not  necessarily  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment; it's  the  government  of  the  U.S.  and  Mexico.  That  way  you 
can  provide  the  refuge  with  land  that  can  be  conserved,  and  the 
IBWC  can  cut  when  they  see  the  need  for  it  and  not  have  to  worry 
about  the  farmer. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  DE  LA  Garza.  It  will  be  helpful. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  DE  LA  Garza.  Thank  you  very  much. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  de  la  Garza  follows:] 


250 


KIKA  OE  LA  GARZA 


Congrrdg  of  tt)e  ?Hnitel)  ^tatr£( 

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

Statement  By 
E  (Kika)  de  la  Garza 

regarding 

FY  '97  Appropriations 

Lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  National  Wildlife  Corridor 

17  April  1997 

Mr  Chairman,  thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  testify  in 
support  of  funding  for  the  Lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  National 
Wildlife  Refuge  which  is  located  in  South  Texas.  I  would  like  to 
begin  by  requesting  that  money  be  specifically  earmarked  for  this 
project.  The  appropriation  I  am  seeking  for  Fiscal  Year  '97  is  $3 
million . 

As  I  mentioned  in  my  testimony  last  year,  this  refuge,  begun 
back  in  1979,  is  more  than  halfway  completed.  Over  75,000  acres 
are  to  date  protected.   The  eventual  goal  is  132,500  acres. 

When  finished  the  Corridor  will  have  preserved  a  greater 
amount  of  biological  diversity  than  exists  in  such  a  small  area 
anywhere  else  in  North  America  --  over  1,200  species  of  plants, 
over  450  species  of  birds,  more  than  330  types  of  butterflies.  In 
addition,  the  corridor  includes  many  types  of  habitat  and  plant  and 
animal  communities,  including  dry  thorn  forest,  ramaderos,  baretta 
groves,  riparian  woods,  tidal  flats  and  lomas,  rare  salt  lakes, 
coastal  marsh  and  wetlands. 


251 


2  - 


Brush  and  forest  habitat  along  the  edge  of  the  Lower  Rio 
Grande  itself  is  arguably  the  most  important  and  most  threatened 
habitat  anywhere  in  the  country.  In  fact,  the  U  S  Department  of 
the  Interior  has  included  this  refuge  among  its  top  priorities  for 
the  past  decade. 

With  regard  to  budget  concerns  which  I  know  are  first  and 
foremost  on  all  of  our  minds,  I  want  to  say  that  the  funding  to 
complete  the  Wildlife  Corridor  comes  from  the  Land  &  Water 
Conservation  Fund  --  money  designated  by  law  for  land  acquisition 
from  offshore  oil  and  gas  royalties  and  leases. 

This  will  be  my  last  year  appearing  before  you  on  Members' 
Day.  In  years  past  I  have  sought  to  make  my  voice  heard  on  behalf 
of  Valley  wildlife.  I  do  so  more  today  than  at  any  time  in  the 
past  for  the  very  simple  reason  that  we  are  at  a  critical  junction. 

By  continuing  to  provide  the  funds  to  see  this  project  through 
to  completion  we  are  saying  we  are  dedicated  to  passing  on  a  great 
heritage  to  future  generations.  While  I  will  not  be  here  to 
continue  to  champion  something  I  believe  in  so  much,  many  of  you 
will.  It  is  my  hope  you  will  provide  a  $3  million  appropriation 
and  that  you  will  continue  in  future  years  to  fund  this  project  to 
completion. 

Thank  you  Mr  Chairman. 

tt  «  # 


252 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
STEWART  McKINNEY  NATIONAL  WILDLIFE  REFUGE 

WITNESS 

HON.  ROSA  L.  DeLAURO,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  CONNECTICUT 

Mr.  Regula.  Rosa? 

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

Mr.  Regula.  Your  statement  will  be  made  part  of  the  record. 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Wonderful,  and  we're  going  to  do  this  together  to 
kill  two  birds  with  one  stone.  I  guess  we  shouldn't  say  that  in  the 
context  of  this  wildlife  refuge  anyway.  [Laughter.] 

We'll  have  to  save  two  birds  with  one  stone. 

I'm  delighted  to  be  here  with  my  colleague,  Chris  Shays.  What 
we're  requesting  is  that  the  adequate  funding  be  provided  in  Fiscal 
Year  1997  for  the  continued  purchase  of  the  Great  Meadows  Salt 
Marsh  in  Stratford,  Connecticut,  the  remaining  parcel  of  land 
which  is  needed  to  complete  the  Steward  McKinney  National  Wild- 
life Refuge. 

Just  one  or  two  points,  Mr.  Chairman:  Congress  has  so  far  appro- 
priated $3.6  million — over  the  past  two  Fiscal  Years — for  the  pur- 
chase of  the  land.  To  date,  we  have  purchased  391  acres  out  of  the 
454  acres  that  make  up  the  Great  Meadows  Marsh.  So  completing 
this  acquisition  would  maximize  the  effectiveness  of  the  funds  al- 
ready spent. 

A  little  bit  of  context  here:  the  Senate-passed  version  of  Interior 
Appropriations  bill  contained  $4  million  for  the  continued  acquisi- 
tion of  the  Great  Meadows  Marsh  in  1996.  However,  the  Interior 
conference  agreement  did  not  specify  use  of  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife 
Service  funds  for  the  current  Fiscal  Year. 

Mr.  Regula.  We  didn't  earmark  it. 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Pardon? 

Mr.  Regula.  I  said  we  didn't  earmark  it. 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Right.  No,  I  understand.  And  then,  further,  as  you 
know,  the  Interior  Approps  bill  was  not  signed  into  law.  Fish  and 
Wildlife  has  been  operating  under  the  series  of  Continuing  Resolu- 
tions. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right,  right. 

Ms.  DeLauro.  So,  for  this  reason,  I  want  to  express  the  support 
for  inclusion  of  the  funding  levels  in  the  Fiscal  Year  1997.  For  the 
next  Fiscal  Year,  Fish  and  Wildlife  will  need  $4.2  million  for  its 
Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  in  order  to  purchase  27.2  acres 
of  the  Great  Meadows  Marsh.  This  is  the  next  of  the  three  phases 
to  complete  the  purchase,  and  this  was — the  figure  was  negotiated 
between  Nature  Conservancy,  the  Connecticut  Chapter,  the  Strat- 
ford Development  Company,  the  owners  of  Great  Meadows,  and  the 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  It's  a  final  step.  It's  a  critical  step. 

This  is — the  McKinney  refuge  is  one  of  only  two  national 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  they  willing  sellers? 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Yes,  they  are  willing  sellers,  yes. 

This  is — I  mean,  its  importance  in  terms  of  what  it  does  in  terms 
of  endangered  migratory  birds,  I  think  we've  stated  before,  and 


253 

that's  on  the  record.  There  are  270  species  of  birds  that  have  been 
recorded  in  the  marsh. 

Just  to  let  you  know  two  more  points,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  State 
of  Connecticut  supports  this  effort.  The  State  has  donated  staff  to 
manage  the  piping  plover  population,  put  up  construction  equip- 
ment, staffed  to  implement  the  restoration  efforts 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  you  getting  money  out  of  them  for  the  land  ac- 
quisition? 

Ms.  DeLauro.  I'm  not  sure  whether  the  State  has  put  up  money 
for  land  acquisition.  I  don't  think  so.  That's  what  my  sense  is  as 
well. 

The  Stratford  Development  Company,  though,  which  has  worked 
with  the  groups  over  the  last  20  years 

Mr.  Regula.  That's  a  private  group? 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Yes,  yes.  They  have  worked  out  the  efforts  with 
the  developers.  What  they  are  doing  is — their  development  includes 
1.2  million  square  feet  of  office  space  to  support  the  activities  for 
the  refuge. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  this  development  adjacent  to  this  marsh? 

Ms.  DeLauro.  No,  what  they're  doing  is  making  available  edu- 
cational facilities  and  that  kind  of  an  effort,  walkways  and  park- 
ways, in  order  to  access  the  marsh  and  to  make  it  an  educational — 

Mr.  Regula.  The  private  group  is  doing  this? 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Stratford  Development  Company,  yes. 

This,  by  the  way,  the  activity  would  really  help  to  create  about 
3,000  to  5,000  jobs  in  the  greater  Bridgeport  area,  which  both  Con- 
gressman Shays  and  I  have  responsibility  for,  and  it  would  create 
about  $15  to  $21  million  in  annual  tax  revenues  for  the  area. 

Let  me  just  conclude  and  say  thank  you.  Thank  you  for  acconi- 
modating  the  schedules  as  well.  I  appreciate  what  you've  done  in 
the  past,  and  I  hope  you  all  will  look  favorably  on  this. 

[TTie  statement  of  Ms.  DeLauro  follows:] 


254 


THE  HONORABLE  ROSA  L.  DELAURO 

STATEMENT  TO  THE  APPROPRIATIONS 

StJBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR 

REQUEST  FOR  FISCAL  YEAR  1997  FUNDING  FOR 

THE  STEWART  MCKINNEY  NATIONAL  WILDLIFE  REFUGE 

Thank  you  Chairman  Regula,  Ranking  Member  Yates,  and  members 
of  the  Interior  Appropriations  Subcommittee  for  providing  me  with 
the  opportunity  to  testify  about  an  issue  of  great  importance  to 
the  region  I  represent,  and  the  State  of  Connecticut.   Today  I  am 
requesting  that  adequate  funding  be  provided  in  fiscal  year  1997 
for  the  continued  purchase  of  the  Great  Meadows  Salt  Marsh  in 
Stratford,  Connecticut  --  the  remaining  parcel  of  land  needed  to 
complete  the  Stewart  McKinney  National  Wildlife  Refuge. 

Congress  has  appropriated  $3.6  million  over  the  past  two 
fiscal  years  for  the  purchase  of  this  land.   To  date  391  of  the 
454  acres  that  make  up  the  Great  Meadows  Marsh  have  been 
purchased.   Completing  this  acquisition  will  maximize  the 
effectiveness  of  federal  funds  already  invested. 

The  Senate  passed  version  of  the  Interior  Appropriations 
bill  contained  $4  million  for  the  continued  acquisition  of  Great 
Meadows  in  fiscal  year  1996.   However,  the  Interior  conference 
agreement  did  not  specify  the  use  of  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife 
Service  funds  for  the  current  fiscal  year.   Further,  as  you  know, 
because  the  Interior  Appropriations  bill  was  not  signed  into  law. 
Fish  and  Wildlife  has  been  operating  under  a  series  of  continuing 
appropriations  resolutions,  preventing  the  release  of  funds  for 
the  purchase.   For  this  reason,  I  want  to  express  my  strong 
support  for  inclusion  of  funding  levels  capable  of  supporting 
this  acquisition  project  in  fiscal  year  1997. 

For  the  next  fiscal  year,  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  will 
need  $4.2  million  for  its  Land  and  Water  Conservation  fund  in 
order  to  purchase  27.2  acres  of  the  Great  Meadows  Salt  Marsh. 
This  is  the  next  of  three  phases  to  complete  the  purchase  of  the 
Great  Meadows  Salt  Marsh.   This  figure  was  derived  out  of 
negotiations  between  the  Nature  Conservancy's  Connecticut 
Chapter,  the  Stratford  Development  Company,  the  owners  of  Great 
Meadows,  and  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service. 

Acquisition  of  the  Great  Meadows  Salt  Marsh  is  the  final  and 
critical  step  necessary  for  completing  the  McKinney  Wildlife 
Refuge,  which  is  one  of  only  two  national  wildlife  refuges  in 
Connecticut.   With  the  addition  of  Great  Meadows  and  its  mix  of 
habitats,  the  McKinney  Refuge  will  be  of  sufficient  size  and 
ecological  variety  and  complexity  to  become  a  valuable  preserve 
for  generations  to  come. 

Although  only  minutes  away  from  some  of  the  most  densely 
populated  areas  of  our  country.  Great  Meadows  offers  a  refuge  and 
a  critical  habitat  for  many  important  and  potentially  endangered 
migratory  birds  and  species  of  fish  and  wildlife,  including  the 


255 


federally  listed  Piping  plover.  There  are  currently  270  species 
of  birds  that  have  been  recorded  in  the  Great  ^4arsh.  It  is  also 
a  vital  feeding  area  for  the  threatened  bald  eagle  and  serves  as 
a  major  link  for  migratory  birds  using  the  North  Atlantic  Flyway. 

The  State  of  Connecticut  also  supports  the  Great  Meadows 
project.   The  State  has  donated  staff  to  manage  the  piping  plover 
population  and  committed  both  construction  equipment  and  staff  to 
implement  important  wetlands  restoration  efforts. 

In  addition,  the  Stratford  Development  Company,  which 
negotiated  with  community  groups  for  20  years  to  develop  Great 
Meadows  is  now  moving  ahead  with  its  planned  development  on 
portions  of  Great  Meadows  that  are  not  considered  ecologically 
critical.   This  development  includes  1.2  million  square  feet  of 
office  space  that  would  support  activities  related  to  the  refuge 
such  as  educational  facilities,  pedestrian  walkways,  and  parking. 
The  complex  would  also  contain  unrelated  businesses  that  would 
benefit  from  visitors  to  Great  Meadows.   This  activity  is 
expected  to  create  3,000  to  5,000  new  jobs  in  the  economically 
troubled  Bridgeport  area  and  create  $15  to  $21  million  in  annual 
tax  revenues . 

Mr.  Chairman,  Congressman  Yates,  thank  you  for  your 
consideration  of  funding  for  acquisition  of  the  Great  Meadows 
Salt  Marsh. 


256 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
THE  STEWART  McKINNEY  NATIONAL  WILDLIFE  REFUGE 

WITNESS 

HON.  CHRISTOPHER  SHAYS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  CONNECTICUT 

Mr.  Shays.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

This  salt  marsh  is  in  the  district  represented  by  Rosa  DeLauro. 
It  is  absolutely  essential,  though,  for  the  entire  salvation,  candidly, 
of  Long  Island  Sound.  It  represents  a  major  filtering  process,  and 
we  found  that,  no  matter  how  terrible,  frankly,  the  population,  and 
so  on,  has  been  on  the  sound,  it  has  the  ability  to  rejuvenate  itself 
far  greater  than  we  can  ever  imagine  because  of  this  marsh. 

Just  in  response  to  your  question  about  the  State,  the  Migratory 
Bird  Commission  is  a  private  organization  that  has  donated 
$627,000.  We  expect  that  there  will  be  further  efforts  by  private  or- 
ganizations because  this  is  considered 

Mr.  Regula.  What's  happened  to  that  $627,000? 

Mr.  Shays.  That's  been  used  for  purchasing. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  already  been  used? 

Mr.  Shays.  Yes.  So  that's  been  committed. 

Mr.  Regula.  When  you  say  it's  a  salt  marsh,  is  this  a  backwater 
from  tide  water?  How  do  you  get  the  salt  in  it? 

Mr.  Shays.  Long  Island  Sound  is  a  salt  body.  It's  right  along  the 
edge  of  the  sound,  and  it  becomes  a  filter,  and  as  the  tides  go  up 
and  down,  it  basically  cleans 

Mr.  Regula.  So  the  tides  affect  this? 

Mr.  Shays.  Oh,  definitely. 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  sea  water  in  fact,  yes. 

Mr.  Shays.  This  is  viewed  by  almost  everyone  as  probably  one 
of  the  most  important  environmental  projects  in  the  State  of  Con- 
necticut. So  the  State  has  been  very  supportive  and  has  provided 
resources. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay.  I  thank  you  both  for  coming. 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Shays.  I  just  one  apology  to  my  assistant:  she  wrote  a  great 
statement,  and  I'm  just  sorry  I  couldn't  read  it.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we'll  let  the  staff  read  it. 

Ms.  DeLauro.  Put  a  star  next  to  it.  [Laughter,] 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Shays  follows:] 


257 

Testimony  of  Congressman  Christopher  Shays 

Interior  Appropriations  Subcommittee 

April  17,  1996 

Chairman  Regula,  Congressman  Yates  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee: 

Thank  you  for  providing  me  with  this  opportunity  to  testify  before  your  subcommittee  to 
request  up  to  $4.2  million  be  provided,  either  through  the  Land  and  Water 
Conservation  Fund  or  the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  to  acquire  additional  land  for  the 
Great  Meadows  Salt  Marsh,  on  Long  Island  Sound  in  Stratford,  Connecticut. 

The  Great  Meadows  Salt  Marsh  is  the  largest  unditched  high  salt  marsh  in  Connecticut, 
and  is  habitat  to  a  wonderfully  diverse  range  of  wildlife.   Included  among  the  marsh's 
inhabitants  are  species  deemed  by  the  federal  government  to  be  threatened,  such  as 
the  piping  plover.   It  serves  as  a  feeding  area  for  the  bald  eagle,  and  its  tidal  flats  ana 
waters  both  feed  and  breed  many  species  of  finned  fish.   In  addition,  the  marsh  is  a 
prime  birdwatching  site,  attracting  ornithologists  and  nature  lovers  from  afar  to  see  the 
more  than  270  species  of  birds  which  have  been  observed  there. 

The  majority  of  acres  in  the  marsh  have  been  owned  since  1951  by  a  small  comoanv. 
the  Stratford  Development  Company  (SDC),  which  has  been  contesting  plans  for 
development  of  the  property  with  local  environmental  groups  and  thousands  of  the 
groups'  members  since  1969. 

As  you  may  know,  in  1988  the  SDC  and  the  United  States  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
(FWS)  began  discussing  the  idea  of  dividing  the  property  and  attempting  to  obtain 
federal  funds  to  add  the  most  ecologically  critical  portions  of  the  marsh  to  the  Stewan 
B.  McKinney  National  Wildlife  Refuge,  named  in  memory  of  the  much  admired 
Congressman  I  succeeded.  Preservation  of  the  most  sensitive  parts  of  the  propeny 
would  then  presumably  facilitate  the  agreement  of  local  environmentalists  and  state 
and  federal  agencies  to  develop  the  less  biologically  important  parts  of  the  property  - 
to  more  quickly  provide  desperately  needed  economic  stimulation  the  impoverisheo 
Bridgeport  area. 

In  1990,  Congress  authorized  the  FWS  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  SDC  No  funaing 
was  earmarked  for  this  purpose,  however,  and  it  was  understood  that  the  monies  wouia 
come  from  the  Land  and  Water  Conservation  Fund  (LWCF),  the  federal  fund  for  refuge 
and  park  acquisition  financed  by  offshore  oil  leases. 


258 


The  FWS,  with  the  assistance  of  The  Nature  Conservancy,  negotiated  with  SDC  for 
four  successive  options,  which  after  corrections  due  to  ownership  research  and  surveys 
were  made,  covered  453.9  acres  for  $13.1  million. 

Congresswoman  Rosa  DeLauro  and  I,  and  the  constituents  we  represent,  greatly 
appreciate  the  total  of  $5  million  that  this  committee  has  appropriated  in  fiscal  years  94 
and  95  (FY  94  and  FY  95)  for  this  project.  This  appropriation  was  reduced  to  a  total  of 
$3.6  million  by  the  conference  committee,  and  then  combined  with  $627,000  from  the 
U.S.  Migratory  Bird  Commission  to  acquire  391.3  aaes,  including  all  of  the  tidal 
wetlands  owried  by  SDC  and  important  upland  parcels.  These  include  the  largest  pond 
on  the  property  and  host  one  of  Connecticut's  largest  concentrations  of  state 
endangered  birds. 

Last  year,  as  you  know,  the  Committee  opted  to  provide  a  lump  sum  to  four  agencies, 
rather  than  allocate  money  to  specific  projects.  While  we  requested  $4.2  million  be 
appropriated  to  acquire  27.2  additional  acres  in  the  Stratford  Great  Meadows,  because 
of  delays  caused  by  the  President's  veto  of  the  legislation,  we  do  not  yet  know  what  will 
ultimately  tje  provided.  We  are  currently  waiting  to  hear  from  the  FWS  how  much 
money,  if  any,  will  be  allocated  for  this  project  in  FY  96.  In  addition,  we  do  not  know 
what  the  committee's  plans  are  for  the  LWCF  in  FY  97. 

Understanding  the  fiscal  restraints  you  face,  we  urge  you  to  provide  up  to  $4.2  million. 
depending  on  how  much  is  ultimately  provided  in  FY  96,  to  acquire  the  27.2  acres,   J 
you  again  opt  to  provide  funds  directly  to  the  agencies,  we  urge  you  to  appropriate  an 
adequate  amount  so  that  the  Great  Meadows  Salt  Marsh  and  other  important  lana 
acquisition  projects  can  be  fulfilled. 

The  LWCF  is  a  good  program,  which  helps  preserve  many  important  pieces  of  prooenv 
in  addition  to  the  Great  Meadows  Salt  Marsh.  In  New  England,  for  example,  the  funa 
has  helped  acquire  land  along  the  Appalachian  Trail  -  an  excellent  public/private 
conservation  project.  In  my  judgment,  the  LWCF  is  a  sound,  conservative  program  that 
should  be  preserved. 

The  acres  we  are  hoping  to  purchase  contain  the  best  possible  habitat  for  the  rare  bird 
species  which  depend  on  the  site.  They  also  would  provide  proper  public  access  to  the 
site.  Finally,  this  acquisition  would  enable  the  FWS  to  most  effectively  restore  formerly 
productive  wetlands  on  the  site. 

Due  to  its  location  next  to  the  City  of  Bridgeport,  in  a  very  densely  populated  county, 
proper  access  to  the  Great  Meadows  is  an  integral  part  of  the  refuge  concept.  This  site 
has  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  best  coastal  birding  habitats  in  the  New 
YorWSouthem  New  England  region  since  the  beginning  of  this  century.   It  was 
trespassed  on  extensively  when  it  was  in  private  ownership,  and  it  is  anticioatea  that :: 
will  be  in  great  demand  by  school  groups  from  nearby  cities  and  towns. 


259 


With  more  than  14.5  million  people  living  within  Long  Island  Sound's  drainage  basin, 
there  are  tremendous  burdens  on  this  estuary.  In  1988,  the  Sound  was  designated  an 
"estuary  of  national  significance"  and  as  such  the  EPA  and  the  states  of  Connecticut 
and  New  York  have  formed  and  implemented  a  Comprehensive  Conservation  and 
Management  Plan  (CCMP)  to  coordinate  conservation  and  clean  up  efforts.  It  is 
important  to  note  the  CCMP  identifies  the  Sound's  most  pressing  problem  as  low 
dissolved  oxygen  or  "hypoxia."  As  non-point  source  pollution  is  a  primary  cause  of 
hypoxia,  it  will  be  reduced  by  preserving  the  marsh's  integrity  as  a  natural  pollution 
filter  for  the  Sound. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  proud  of  the  years  of  hard  work  and  commitment  contributed  by 
citizens  and  the  state  and  federal  governments,  in  devotion  to  preserving  the  Stewart 
B.  McKinney  National  Wildlife  Refuge.  We  urge  you  to  look  favorably  on  our  request 
for  continued  support. 

Thank  you  for  your  consideration  of  this  testimony. 


260 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 
NATIONAL  PARK  SERVICE  ISSUES 
WITNESS 

HON.  SUSAN  MOLINARI,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
STATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

Mr.  Regula.  Susan? 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I'll  make  the  same 
apologies  to  my  staff  assistant  and  move  very  quickly. 

Mr.  Regula.  Let  me  get  my  licks  in  first.  You're  on  the  Budget 
Committee. 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Regula.  Make  sure  we  get  a  decent  allocation  because  it's 
pretty  hard  for  us  to  do  much  extra  with  declining  budgets. 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Regula.  We  had  a  10  percent  from  1995  to  1996,  and  given 
the  fact  that  we've  got  all  the  good  things  to  deal  with,  we'd  better 
do  better  this  year. 

Mr.  Shays.  It's  really  all  up  to  her.  It's  her  decision. 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  Chris  is  on  the  Budget  Committee,  too.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr.  Regula.  Oh-oh,  come  on,  Chris,  come  back  here.  [Laughter.] 

We're  counting  on  you. 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  Oh,  Christopher.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Shays.  Your  point  is  well  taken. 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  And  he  is  correct;  your  point  is — we  understand 
that,  and  Chris  and  I,  and  particularly  those  of  us,  I  think,  that 
come  from  more  urban  areas,  where  oftentimes  we  have  to  make 
our  case  a  little  more  explicitly  to  some  of  our  colleagues 

Mr.  Regula.  And  it's  more  expensive. 

Ms.  MOLINARI  [continuing].  Because  it  is  more  expensive,  and 
they  don't  sometimes  understand  the  need  for  Department  of  Inte- 
rior participation 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Ms.  MOLINARI  [continuing].  In  areas  like  ours.  So  your  point  is 
well  taken.  It  is  something  that  we  fight  for  every  year,  and  we're 
just  going  through  that  process  right  now. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  know  that. 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  So  you  have  our  commitment  in  that  regard. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  how  can  we  help  you? 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  Very  briefly,  I  am  here  representing  the  Gateway 
National  Recreation  Area,  which  is  the  urban  park  system.  It's  a 
system  that  is  widely  used  for  many  of  us.  Staten  Island,  is  the 
only  place  where  my  constituents  can  have  their  kids  play  ball, 
play  soccer. 

What  happened  last  year,  just  very  briefly,  we  weren't  looking 
additionally  for  an  increase  in  funds,  and  then,  as  a  result  of  base 
closure  at  Ft.  Wadsworth,  which  was  the  home  for  the  navy  home 
port,  had  to  be,  by  virtue  of  law,  turned  back  over  to  parks.  So  the 
Department  of  Interior  had  to  take  it  over. 

In  the  long  run  in  the  overall  budget  to  the  United  States,  it 
saves  money  because  the  Coast  Guard,  which  is  moving  off  Gov- 


261 

ernor's  Island,  is  going  to  be  moving  into  Staten  Island,  freeing  up 
that  piece  of  property.  Defense  Logistics  is  moving  from  down 

Mr.  Regula.  Are  they  leaving  Governor's  Island? 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  Yes,  sir.  Yes,  sir,  within  the  next  year  and  a  half, 
the  Federal  Government  is 

Mr.  Regula.  What's  the  anticipated  use  of  Governor's  Island? 

Ms.  MOLINARI.  Well,  right  now  we  are  asking  that  New  York 
State  and  New  York  City  have  right  of  first  refusal,  but  it  will 
bring  in  at  least  a  half  of  billion  dollars,  if  not  more,  to  the  Federal 
Treasury  and  get  people  back  on  tax  rolls,  both  Federal,  State,  and 
city,  because  what  every 

Mr.  Regula.  It's  a  fine  piece  of  property. 

Ms.  MOLINARL  It's  a  magnificent  piece  of  property. 

Mr.  Regula.  Right,  right. 

Ms.  MOLINARL  So,  obviously,  it  has  great  potential  for  apart- 
ments, for  hotels.  Whatever  it  is — and  Lord  knows  our  Coast  Guard 
deserves  the  best  accommodations,  but  it's  a  magnificent  revenue- 
generator  for  all  three  levels  of  government  once  we  bring  it  back 
into  the  private  sector. 

Anyway,  so  what  happened  is  now  we  have  this  extra  piece  of 
property  that  the  Department  of  Interior  has  to  basically  play  land- 
lord over.  They  were  given  no  additional  funds,  and  we  found  our- 
selves in  a  situation  that  most  Members  of  Congress  dread,  and 
that  was  threats  that  the  ball  fields  wouldn't  be  open,  that  the  kids 
couldn't  play  soccer,  that  their  permits  were  going  to  be  revoked, 
because  without  any  additional  funds  to  run  this  entire  new  piece 
of  property  from  a  security  and  maintenance  standpoint,  they 
would  have  to  stretch  their  dollars. 

So  our  request  today  is  for  $2.3  million  to  be  able  to  secure  Ft. 
Wadsworth  and  start  then  to  undertake  the  historic  renovations 
there  and  move  and  adjust  the  property  boundary  lines  for  base 
closure  without  detracting  from  the  participation  and  the  activities 
there. 

Mr.  Regula.  Is  the  $2.3  million  operating  costs? 

Ms.  MOLINARL  Yes.  Above  last  year's,  just  operating 

Mr.  Regula.  Yes. 

Ms.  MOLINARI  [continuing].  Because  they  assumed  responsibility 
for  the  property.  It  didn't  cost  them  anything;  it's  just  operating. 

So  that's  it. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

Ms.  MOLINARL  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Regula.  Depending  on  the  allocation  from  the  Budget  Com- 
mittee. 

Ms.  MOLINARL  Yes.  [Laughter.] 

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

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

Ms.  MOLINARL  I  understand.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

[The  statement  of  Ms.  Molinari  follows:] 


262 


Chairman  Regula  and  Members  of  the  Committee,  thanlc  you  for  the  opportunity  to 
testify  before  you  today  regarding  National  Park  Service  issues  which  are  very  important  to  my 
constituents  in  New  York  City.  As  you  know,  much  of  the  Gateway  National  Recreation  Area  is 
in  my  district,  including  the  headquarters  of  the  Park  at  Fort  Wadsworth. 

Let  me  say  from  the  outset  that  I  applaud  the  efforts  of  this  committee  over  the  past  year 
for  the  job  you've  done  to  fund  many  worthwhile  national  park  service  and  other  environmental 
programs  while  also  working  to  reduce  our  budget  deficit.  As  a  member  of  the  House  Budget 
Committee  I  know  just  how  difHcult  your  task  has  been  and  I  want  to  assure  members  that  I  will 
continue  to  do  what  I  can  to  provide  a  fair  overall  fiscal  year  alottment. 

Today,  the  Gateway  National  Recreation  area  serves  over  8  million  visitors  a  year   In 
Staten  Island,  over  1.3  million  visitors  used  the  many  beaches,  trails,  ballfields,  playgrounds  and 
fishing  areas  last  year    Gateway  is  the  only  location  for  my  constituents  to  use  for  junior 
baseball  and  soccor  leagues,  as  well  as  picnic  and  fishing  areas    In  addition.  Fort  Wadsworth  ~  a 
former  military  installation  which  contains  many  valuable  and  historical  sites  —  is  going  to  be 
opened  to  the  public  for  the  first  time  as  part  of  the  Gateway  National  Recreation  area  this  year 

Fort  Wadsworth 

By  way  of  a  quick  background,  in  1972,  Fort  Wadsworth  was  identified  as  part  of  the 
Gateway  National  Recreation  area  which  would  be  transferred  to  the  National  Park  Service  when 
the  active  military  installation  vacated  the  site.  This  is  exactly  what  happened  last  year  after  the 
Base  Closure  Commission  closed  our  local  Navy  base    Today,  plans  are  ongoing  to  preserve  the 
Fort's  significant  historical  sites  —  including  two  army  batteries  used  to  defend  New  York  harbor 
during  the  Revolutionary  and  Civil  wars  —  while  also  maintaining  many  of  the  modem  structures 


263 


for  administrative  and  maintenance  staff  for  all  of  Gateway 

Unfortunately,  last  year's  budget  did  not  take  into  account  that  Gateway's  responsibility 
had  grown  significantly  with  the  addition  of  Fort  Wadsworth    While  funding  at  Fort  Wadsworth 
was  provided  —  as  required  by  law  ~  for  the  full-time  security,  maintenance  and  overall  upkeep 
of  the  historical  area,  the  rest  of  the  Staten  Island  recreation  areas  were  not  provided  for 
Members  of  this  committee  can  well  imagine  how  many  calls  my  office  must  have  received 
because  their  children  were  not  going  to  be  able  to  play  little  league  baseball    To  their  credit,  the 
National  Park  Service  worked  out  a  quick,  one-year  fix  to  the  situation,  but  this  major  budget 
problem  still  exists  today 

To  avoid  such  an  untenable  situation  again  this  year,  I  respectfully  request  that  this 
Committee  increase  overall  operation  funding  for  Gateway  by  $2.3  million    I  have  been  told  by 
the  Park  Service  budget  office  here  in  Washington  that  this  increase  to  $19.5  million  for  FY  97 
will  ensure  that  Staten  Island  operations  as  well  as  Ft.  Wadsworth  operations  are  fiilly  provided 
for    1  am,  of  course,  very  concerned  that  a  lack  of  adequate  funding  again  this  year  will 
ultimately  put  my  constituents  and  the  National  Park  Service  in  a  position  of  having  to  choose 
between  preserving  Fort  Wadsworth,  or  continuing  regular  use  of  the  other  Staten  Island  parks 
and  recreation  areas. 

Let  me  again  thank  the  Members  of  this  committee  for  the  opportunity  to  testify  about 
these  important  funding  requests,  and  I  ask  you  to  give  them  careful  consideration  as  you  move 
forward 


264 

Wednesday,  April  17,  1996. 

SOUTHWESTERN  FISHERIES  TECHNOLOGY  CENTER 

USGS/RIO  RANCHO  WATER  TABLE  STUDY 

TRIBAL  ISSUES 

LADD  S.  GORDON  NWR 

GLORIETA  BATTLEFIELD/PECOS  NATIONAL 
HISTORICAL  PARK 

WITNESS 

HON.  BILL  RICHARDSON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  NEW  MEXICO 

Mr.  Regula.  Mr.  Richardson,  you're  the  last  one  on  my  Hst.  So 
I'm  glad  to  see  you. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you.  [Laughter.] 

Thank  you  also  for  accommodating  me  this  morning.  I  returned 
at  4:00  a.m.  I  was  supposed  to  testity  this  morning,  and  you  very 
generously  changed  my  testimony.  So  I'll  be  very  brief.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I'll  do  the  easy  one  first  and  then  the  real  tough  one  at  the 
end,  but  I'll  be  very  brief. 

As  you  know,  I  have  a  substantial  Native  American  district 

Mr.  Regula.  Right. 

Mr.  Richardson  [continuing].  And  I  have  made  some  sugges- 
tions here  in  the  paper  that  I  have  before  you.  I  want  to  con- 
centrate right  now  on  two  projects.  One,  the  main  priority  I  have 
is  a  fish  hatchery  that  is  funded  out  of  Fish  and  Wildlife  called  the 
Mora  Fish  Hatchery,  that  over  the  years  your  committee  has  been 
funding.  And  I  am  requesting  $2.7  million  to  finish  it. 

Last  year  an  appropriation  went — we  put  in  Mora  or  Dexter, 
which  is — Dexter  is  in  New  Mexico  also.  It's  another  fish  hatchery. 
Unfortunately,  all  the  money  went  to  Dexter.  And  I  believe  that  if 
we  can  just  finish- 


Mr.  Regula.  Are  you  talking  about  finishing  construction  or 

Mr.  Richardson.  Finishing  construction,  yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  This  is  not  one  we're  turning  back  to  the  State? 

Mr.  Richardson.  No.  It's  Federal,  and  it's  had  support  from  the 
State  and  Fish  and  Wildlife;  unfortunately,  there's  not  enough 
funds  to  finish  it.  This  would  finish  it  and  it's  for  threatened  and 
endangered  fish,  and  that's  my  No.  1  priority. 

Mr.  Regula.  How  far  along  is  it  now? 

Mr.  Richardson.  I'd  say  it's  about  70  percent. 

Mr.  Regula.  Construction? 

Mr.  Richardson.  Seventy  percent;  they  bought  the  land.  Yes,  70 
percent  construction. 

Mr.  Regula.  It  seems  almost  that  you  have  to  finish  it  if  it's  that 
far  along. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Yes.  That's — $2.7  million  would  finish  it.  I'd 
never  ask  you  again. 

Mr.  Regula.  Okay. 

Mr.  Richardson.  I'd  never  ask  you  again  for  another  dime.  Well, 
amend  that. 


265 

Mr.  Regula.  I  wouldn't  count  on  that,  but  go  ahead.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Richardson.  For  that  project. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  second  project  is  one  of  your  favorites,  the  In- 
stitute for  American  Indian  Art.  What  I'm  asking  for  is  they've  got- 
ten the  message,  and  I  think  you've  been  seeing  the  clippings  that 
they're  now  charging  tuition;  they're  now  undertaking  substantial 
fundraising. 

What  I'm  asking  for  is  funds  for  the  phaseout.  I  think  if  we  just 
cut  them  out  altogether,  that  would  be  very,  very  drastic. 

Mr.  Regula.  You  want  to  give  them  time  to  become  self-support- 
ing? 

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

Mr.  Regula.  Three  years? 

Mr.  Richardson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Regula.  I  think 

Mr.  Richardson.  How  about  five- 


Mr.  Regula.  I  think  one  of  the  members  of  our  subcommittee 
has  an  interest  in  this,  too. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Yes.  Three  to  five  years,  five  preferably,  but 
whatever  you  can  do. 

But  they're  moving.  They  got  the  message.  I  think  if  we  ended 
it,  it  would  be  very  hard. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  I  am  sympathetic  to  a  phaseout.  It's  just  that 
what  we're  trying  to  do  here  is  structure  things  to  not  have  con- 
tinuing large  downstream  cost.  I've  heard  the  term  "the  era  of  big 
government"  is  over. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Now  who  said  that? 

Mr.  Regula.  I  don't  know;  somewhere  along  the  line  I  heard  it. 
[Laughter.] 

Given  that  fact,  we  have  to  assume  that  includes  our  committee, 
too.  But,  seriously,  we  do,  I  think,  need  to  be  concerned  about  long- 
term  costs  and  we  also  need  to  force  these  institutions  to  reevalu- 
ate their  mission  and  make  sure  that  it's  relevant. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Well,  I  think  three  years'  phaseout  period,  just 
something  over  the  next  three  years. 

Mr.  Regula.  Well,  we're  S3rmpathetic  to  giving  them  some 
breathing  room,  but  I  think  they  need  to  understand  where  we're 
headed. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Right. 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  two  other  projects  which  are  very  mod- 
est: USGS,  a  water  table  study,  and  a  $50,000  feasibility  study  for 
a  wildlife  refuge.  They're  in  this  statement  which  I  don't  think  you 
have. 

But  thank  you  again. 

Mr.  Regula.  Thank  you. 

[The  statement  of  Mr.  Richardson  follows:] 


266 


Testimony  of  Congressman  Bill  Richardson 

Before  the  House  Appropriations  Committee 

Subcommittee  on  Interior 

AprU  17,  1996 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  Members  of  the  Subcommittee  for  the  opportunity  to 
testify  today  on  several  projects  of  the  utmost  importance  to  my  Congressional  district  in  New 
Mexico. 

SOUTHWESTERN  nSHERIES  TECHNOLOGY  CENTER  (SFTQ-One  of  my  highest 
priorities  for  the  past  several  years  has  been  to  secure  funding  for  the  completion  of  the  Mora 
National  Fish  Hatchery  and  Technology  Center  in  New  Mexico  which  is  a  part  of  the 
Southwestern  Fisheries  Technology  Center.    Your  past  support  and  assistance  in  securing  funds 
for  this  project  is  deeply  appreciated.    The  Mora  facility  will  serve  as  a  shelter  for  threatened 
and  endangered  fish,  and  propagate  rare  species  and  sport  fish.    It  will  also  develop  technology 
to  recycle  water  and  clean  effluent  from  fish  hatcheries.    As  you  may  recall,  I  have  requested 
money  for  the  Mora  National  Fish  Hatchery  and  Technology  Center  for  the  past  several  years. 
The  bipartisan  New  Mexico  congressional  delegation  has  supported  this  project  from  its 
inception  in  1991  and  we  have  actively  sought  funding  for  its  completion.    I  respectfully 
request  the  Committee  provide  $2.7  million  to  the  Southwestern  Fisheries  Technology 
Center  spedfically  for  the  completion  of  construction  at  the  Mora  National  Fish  Hatchery 
and  Technology  Center  (with  $650,000  of  this  funding  to  be  speciHcally  allocated  for 
operating  funds). 

USGS/RIO  RANCHO  WATER  TABLE  STUDY  FUNDING-The  rapid  growth  of  the  greater 
Albuquerque  area,  which  is  fueled  in  large  part  by  the  expansion  of  the  computer  and  electronics 
industries'  expanding  presence  in  the  state,  has  created  severe  pressures  on  the  region's  already 
strained  water  usage.    In  fact,  water  use  on  Albuquerque's  West  Mesa  (where  many  plant 
expansions  and  new  homes  have  been  construaed)  has  underscored  the  need  for  accurate, 
independent  information  on  water  usage  by  all  sectors  of  the  community.    Unfortunately,  the 
U.S.  Geological  Service  is  unable  to  perform  necessary  water  table  studies  because  of  a  lack  of 
funds.    With  the  appropriate  funding,  the  USGS  would  be  able  to  fund  the  necessary  evaluations 
of  water  use  in  the  area  and  assist  municipal  officials  in  land  and  water  use  planning  for  the 
fiimre.    I  respectfully  request  the  Committee  speciTically  allocate  $130,000  of  the  USGS  F)f 
1997  budget  for  the  evaluation  and  study  of  the  water  table  on  the  West  Mesa  for  the 
purpose  of  providing  residents,  local  ofTicials  and  businesses  with  an  accurate  accounting  of 
water  usage  and  availability. 

TOWN  OF  TAOS/TAOS  PUEBLO  SETTLEMENT  FUNDING-The  Town  of  Taos  and  the 
Taos  Pueblo  have  been  locked  in  an  ongoing  dispute  about  ownership  of,  and  responsibility  for, 
many  of  the  roads  and  alleyways  within  the  Town  of  Taos  which  were  once  part  of  the  Taos 
Pueblo.    This  long-standing  dispute,  which  centered  around  which  entity  had  jurisdiction  over 
roads  and  alleyways,  has  been  resolved  with  the  agreement  that  the  Town  of  Taos  will 
compensate  the  Taos  Pueblo  for  the  ownership  and  control  of  the  streets  and  alleyways  in 
question  in  the  future.    I  respectfully  request  the  Committee  provide  $1,450,000  in  funding 
for  the  payment  of  the  settlement. 

LADD  S.  GORDON  NWR  FEASIBILITY  STUDY-The  Ladd  S.  Gordon  Wildlife  Area  near 
Tucumcari  is  a  natural  area  now  administered  by  the  State  of  New  Mexico.    I  believe  the  area 
has  great  potential  as  a  National  Wildlife  Refuge.    I  respectfully  request  $50,000  for  a 
feasibility  study  for  the  establbhment  of  the  Ladd  S.  Gordon  National  Wildlife  Refuge  near 
Tucumcari,  New  Mexico. 

JEMEZ  SPRINGS  COMMUNITY  ASSISTANCE  FUNDING-The  establishment  of  the  Jemez 


267 


National  Recreation  Area  in  northern  New  Mexico  has  resulted  in  concerns  in  the  nearby 
community  of  Jemez  Springs  that  the  new  designation  will  lead  to  increased  traffic,  pollution  and 
crime  in  the  area.    To  assure  that  the  Jemez  Springs  Sheriff  and  other  public  officials  are 
prepared  to  deal  with  these  potential  problems,  I  would  like  to  request  community  assistance 
funds  from  the  U.S.  Forest  Service.    I  respectfully  request  $100,000  from  the  U.S.  Forest 
Service  Rural  Community  Assistance  program  for  the  community  of  Jemez  Springs. 

GLORIETA  BATTLEFIELD/PECOS  NATIONAL  fflSTORICAL  PARK-The  Pecos 
National  Historical  Park  was  expanded  in  1990  to  include  the  Glorieta  battlefield,  a  Civil  War 
site  dating  back  to  a  battle  in  March  of  1862  which  marked  the  turning  point  in  the  Civil  War. 
The  urban  growth  of  the  City  of  Santa  Fe  threatens  the  integrity  of  the  Park.    Funding  is 
urgently  needed  to  acquire  those  lands  in  the  Glorieta  unit  that  are  owned  by  willing  sellers  as 
soon  as  possible.    I  respectfully  request  $1.5  million  from  the  Land  and  Water  Conservation 
Fund  for  the  acquisition  of  land  within  the  Glorieta  battlefield  unit  of  the  Pecos  National 
Historical  Park  from  willing  sellers. 

ZUNI  MIDDLE  VILLAGE  PROJECT-Within  the  Middle  Plaza  area  of  the  Pueblo  of  Zuni, 
the  above  surface  modem  dwellings  are  built  upon  the  walls  and  footings  of  the  ancient  Pueblo. 
Rains,  poor  drainage  and  the  weight  of  the  above  surface  dwellings  have  caused  severe  erosion 
and  caused  problems  with  the  walls  and  footings.  This  situation,  which  extends  throughout  the 
Middle  Plaza  area,  has  led  to  the  imminent  threat  of  collapse.  If  this  happens,  serious  injury  to 
people  and  infrastructure  will  result.  I  respectfully  request  $2.5  million  to  assist  the  Pueblo 
of  Zuni  in  repairing  and  stabilizing  the  sub-surface  footings  and  walls  as  well  as  to 
completely  renovate  the  Middle  Plaza  area  to  resemble  the  ancient  Pueblo. 

PL^BLQ  OF  LAGUNA 

PAGUATE  RESERVOIR--In  1988,  a  100  year  storm  occurred  at  Laguna  Pueblo  which 
resulted  in  severe  damage  to  the  pueblo's  roads,  homes,  and  fanning  area.    Due  to  dam  safety 
deficiencies,  it  was  determined  that  it  would  be  best  to  combine  the  two  dams  into  one  dam. 
The  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  has  committed  $684,000  to  the  total  project  cost  of  $1,638,565. 
When  restored,  the  dam  will  be  used  for  agricultural  activities  as  well  as  business  opportunities 
for  the  900  residents  of  the  Village  of  Paguate.    I  respectfully  request  $954,565  to  cover  the 
shortfall  for  the  restoration  of  the  dam. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  PROJECTS-The  Pueblo  of  Laguna,  in  compliance  with  the 
Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA),  has  constructed  a  solid  waste  transfer  station. 
Currently,  the  transfer  station  is  operating  in  a  limited  capacity  without  electrical  power,  water 
and  sewer  services.    To  complete  the  transfer  station  as  designed,  the  Pueblo  needs  an  additional 
$80,000  to  install  three-phase  electrical  power,  water  and  sewer  lines.  The  three-phase  power  is 
for  a  trash  compactor.    I  respectfully  request  $80,000  to  install  three-phase  electrical  power, 
water  and  sewer  lines  for  the  Pueblo  of  Laguna. 

JUVENILE  DETENTION  AND  REHABILITATION  CENTER-The  juvenile  crime  rate  and 
lack  of  adequate  rehabilitation  facilities  on  or  near  the  pueblo  continue  to  be  a  serious  problem. 
When  offenders  are  sentenced,  there  is  no  place  to  house  juvenile  offenders  for  counseling  and 
rehabilitation  except  in  the  tribal  jail  which  is  inadequate.    The  Pueblo  of  Laguna  was  selected 
by  the  Department  of  Justice  as  one  of  two  tribes  for  a  pilot  program  designal  to  permit  tribes 
to  develop  culturally-sensitive  programs  for  reservation  communities.    I  respectfully  request 
$250,000  for  the  planning  and  design  of  a  comprehensive  program  for  the  youth  of  the 
Pueblo. 

SERVICES  FOR  THE  ELDERLY-The  Pueblo  needs  to  provide  nursing  home  care,  elderly 
housing  rental  units,  assisted  living  and  day  care  for  its  elderly  population.    I  respectfully 
request  $500,000  to  ensure  the  continuation  of  services  vital  to  the  support  and  well-being 
of  its  elderly  citizens. 

PUEBLO  OF  JEMEZ  WALATOWA  CULTURAL  CENTER-The  Pueblo  of  Jemez  seeks  to 


268 


develop  the  Walatowa  Cultural  Center  to  manage  and  benefit  from  its  growing  number  of 
visitors.   The  Cultural  Center  will  house  a  museum,  arts  and  crafts  sales  and  demonstrations 
areas,  a  visitor's  center,  a  retreat  and  conference  center,  a  library/archival  center  for 
archaeological/anthropological/historical  research,  and  an  outdoor  Indian  dance  plaza  and  pow 
wow  grounds.    The  Center  will  enhance  the  employment  and  business  opportunities  for  Towa 
people  while  also  educating  visitors  and  preserving  tribal  traditions  and  cultures.    I  respectfully 
request  $2  million  to  fund  construction  of  the  Walatowa  Cultural  Center. 

PUEBLO  OF  ACOMA 

ACOMITA  LAKE-Acomita  Lake,  a  resource  for  agricultural  and  recreational  use,  has  been  in 
the  rehabilitation  process  for  10  years.    It  has  been  determined  that  the  Lake  has  to  be  refilled 
immediately  for  its  dormancy  which  resulted  in  income  losses  to  the  tribe  and  has  created 
hardship  for  surrounding  farmers  due  to  the  lack  of  irrigation  water.    I  respectfully  request 
$1,127,112  for  construction  costs  for  installing  a  membrane  liner  and  rehabilitation  of  the 
spillway,  construction  management,  and  repairs  for  adjunct  facilities. 
IRRIGATION  NEEDS-Crops  that  are  harvested  by  the  Acoma  people  are  generally  limited  to 
self-consumption.    However,  the  possibility  of  growing  marketable  crops  does  exist.    Future 
development  of  agricultural  produce  can  become  a  reality  and  add  to  strengthening  the  self- 
sufficiency  among  the  Acoma  people  with  improvement  to  the  present  irrigation  system. 
However,  there  is  a  critical  need  for  funds  to  renovate  the  existing  35  mile  irrigation  system.    I 
respectfully  request  $4,242,000  for  the  removal  of  old  concrete  lining,  for  the  installation  of 
new  concrete  lining,  for  the  purchase  of  turnout  gates,  and  other  essential  hardware. 
INFRASTRUCTURAL  NEEDS/BUSINESS  DEVELOPMENT  NEEDS-The  Pueblo  of  Acoma 
has  testified  before  this  Subcommittee  on  a  variety  of  requests  which  will  assist  in  providing  the 
pueblo  with  an  equitable  standard  of  living  for  its  people:    Water/Waste  -  The  Pueblo  requests 
funding  to  bring  its  systems  in  line  with  various  regulations.    Law  and  Order  -  Because  of  the 
increasing  risks  that  drugs  are  being  trafficked  in  the  outlying  areas  by  plane  and  helicopter,  the 
Pueblo  of  Acoma  requests  adequate  and  continue  funding  for  law  enforcement.    Housing  -  The 
Pueblo  of  Acoma  requests  funding  to  correct  its  critical  shortage  of  housing. 
Infrastructure/Economic  Development  -  The  Pueblo  of  Acoma  has  also  requested  funding  for 
water,  liquid,  and  solid  waste  systems,  as  well  as  electricity,  gas  and  roads  development.    I 
want  to  extend  my  support  for  the  programs  specified  in  the  testimony  of  the  Pueblo  of 
Acoma. 

NATIVE  AMERICAN  nSH  AND  WILDLIFE  SOCIETY-The  Society  is  a  national  non- 
profit organization  dedicated  to  the  sound  management  and  prudent  use  of  tribal  fish  and  wildlife 
resources.    To  date,  the  Society  has  provided  technical  services  and  assistance  to  over  115  tribes 
in  the  areas  of  fish  and  wildlife  management,  education,  and  environmental  protection.    The 
Society  is  currently  the  only  natior<il  Native  American  organization  that  provides  technical 
assistance  to  American  Indian  tribes,  federal,  state  and  local  governments  as  well  as  private 
industry  to  develop  and  implement  sound  policies,  ordinances,  regulations,  and  laws  to  protect, 
preserve,  conserve,  and  prudently  use  and  manage  fish,  wildlife  and  other  natural  resources.   I 
respectfully  request  $488,000  for  the  Native  American  Fish  and  Wildlife  Society. 

NATIVE  AMERICAN  ARTS  IN  PUBLIC  PLACES-The  City  of  Santa  Fe,  New  Mexico  is 
pursuing  a  project  called  "Native  American  Art  in  Public  Places."    The  purpose  of  this  project  is 
to  honor  and  recognize  the  contributions  that  Native  Americans  have  made  in  shaping  the  culture 
of  the  city  of  Santa  Fe  and  the  state  of  New  Mexico.    The  total  budget  for  this  project  is 
$750,000.   The  city  has  secured  funding  from  state  and  private  sources.    I  respectfully  request 
that  the  committee  consider  $100,000  for  the  "Native  American  Art  in  Public  Places" 
project. 

NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  ARTS-I  would  like  to  stress  my  support  for  the 
National  Endowment  for  the  Arts.    In  New  Mexico  the  National  Endowment  for  the  Arts  has 


269 


provided  essential  seed  money  for  successful  organizations  that  feed  our  local  rural  economies. 
My  state  is  a  prime  example  of  how  art  can  stimulate  rural  and  depressed  communities  which 
have  few  other  resources.    From  the  small  seed  dollars  the  NEA  provides  New  Mexico  creates 
jobs  and  fuels  local  economies.    According  to  a  study  conducted  by  the  New  Mexico  Arts 
Division,  the  arts  industry  in  New  Mexico  contributes  over  $500  million  to  the  State's  economy 
and  provides  over  3,700  full-  and  part-time  jobs.    The  NEA  dollars  are  an  investment  in  our 
local  communities  and  our  people.    I  respectfully  request  that  the  NEA  budget  is  no  less  than 
FY  1996  conference  report  funding. 

NATIVE  AMERICAN  SCHOOL  CONSTRUCTION-The  majority  of  Native  American 
schools  were  built  in  our  country  in  the  I950's  and  1960's.    These  facilities  which  are  now 
almost  50  years  old  are  deteriorating  at  a  rapid  rate.    Shiprock  Alternative  School,  in  my 
district,  uses  44  year  old  dormitories  whose  interior  walls  have  been  knocked  down  as 
classrooms.    The  classrooms  do  not  have  direct  exits  to  the  outside  or  ventilation  windows,  the 
schools  corridors  are  too  narrow  to  meet  fire  standards,  and  room  is  so  limited  that  indoor 
physical  education  classes  are  held  in  the  hallway  lobby.    Although  I  understand  and  support  the 
BIA's  priority  funding  list,  I  strongly  urge  the  committee  to  fund  at  least  two  New  School 
Construction  Projects  per  year  to  bring  relief  to  overcrowded,  substandard.  Native  American 
schools  across  the  country. 

NAVAJO  COMMUNITY  COLLEGE-The  Navajo  Community  College  (NCC)  Shiprock 
campus  is  in  dire  need  of  funding.    Last  year  the  Shiprock  building  was  condemned  by  BLA 
inspectors  because  of  its  dangerous  condition.    I  support  any  efforts  to  help  renovate  the  existing 
Shiprock  campus  to  come  into  compliance  with  safety  standards.    Furthermore,  I  believe  that 
renovating  the  existing  building  is  a  temporary  solution  to  NCC's  growing  needs.    The 
Mathematics  and  Natural  Sciences  Division,  for  example,  has  been  growing  steadily  over  the 
years  and  is  now  one  of  the  strongest  programs  in  the  region,  providing  students  with  necessary 
academic  preparation  to  continue  their  math  and  science  studies  at  a  four-year  institution.    I 
respectfully  request  $300,000  for  planning  a  new  Naviyo  Community  College  Campus  in 
Shiprock,  New  Mexico. 

NAVAJO  INDIAN  IRRIGATION  PROJECT  (NIIP)-The  Navajo  Indian  Irrigation  Project 
was  established  by  Congress  in  1962  to  create  resources  for  the  Navajo  Nation  in  agriculture 
development.    B«:ause  of  significant  funding  setbacks  the  project  has  yet  to  be  finished  and  is 
almost  20  years  behind  scheduled  completion  dates.    This  project  has  the  potential  to  be  a  major 
employer  for  the  poorest  reservation  in  the  United  States.    Farm  revenues,  value  added  products, 
food  processing,  and  economic  development  have  all  been  delayed  because  of  construction 
setbacks.    I  fully  support  the  Navajo  Indian  Irrigation  project  in  its  request  for  $46.5 
million  in  construction  funds  and  Operations  and  Maintenance  funds  of  $8  million. 

NORTHERN  NAVAJO  MEDICAL  CENTER~The  Northern  Navajo  Medical  Center  in 
Shiprock,  New  Mexico  was  built  to  replace  the  old  Shiprock  Hospital  which  was  too  crowded  to 
adequately  provide  services.    I  have  significant  concerns  that  after  one  year  into  the  new 
hospital's  operation,  the  facility  is  only  funded  at  70%  of  its  needs  for  staff  which  means  patient 
services  are  still  limited.    Full  staffing  and  full  funding  are  essential  to  utilize  the  new  hospital  to 
its  maximum  potential.    I  respectfully  request  $4  million  for  the  Shiprock  hospital  to  hire  the 
remaining  72  FTEs  of  the  357  FTEs  that  were  approved  for  NNMC. 

PINON  HEALTH  CENTER  and  FT.  DEHANCE  HEALTH  CARE  CENTER 

I  fully  support  the  Administration's  request  for  $2.9  million  for  Pinon,  Ft.  Defiance  and 
Hopi  health  facility  design.    These  areas  are  in  desperate  need  of  modem  health  care  facilities. 


270 


Mr.  Regula.  Okay,  the  committee's  adjourned. 
The  following  members  were  unable  to  attend  the  hearing,  but 
submitted  their  statements  for  the  record. 
[The  statements  follow:] 


271 


m*  liayauMK  Bu«omc 


COMMITTEES 

"MMITTEE  OH  INTERNATIONAL  R£LATK}NS 
JOINT  ECONOMIC  COMMITTEE 


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

8Bast)ington,  B€  20313-1409 

THE  HONORABLE  LEE  H.  HAMILTON 

Statement  for  the  Record 

House  Appropriations  Conunittee 

Subcommittee  on  Interior 

April  22,  1995 


Fax  11)31  288-3877 


Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Interior  Subcommittee.  Thank 
you  for  providing  me  with  an  opportunity  to  submit  testimony  for 
the  record  in  support  of  a  project  of  particular  importance  to  the 
Ninth  Congressional  District  of  Indiana. 

I  am  requesting  your  assistance  in  approving  the  $500,000  in 
the  President's  FY  1997  budget  for  land  acquisition  in  the  Hoosier 
National  Forest. 

The  proposed  land  acquisition  would  involve  land  purchases  on 
a  willing  seller  basis  at  appraised  values.  The  U.S.  Forest 
Service  has  advised  that  it  has  already  been  offered  many  tracts 
from  willing  sellers.  The  acc[uisition  would  not  entail  any 
condemnations . 

This  funding  request  would  further  the  efforts  of  the  Forest 
Service  to  implement  the  Hoosier 's  1991  land  management  plan.  The 
Forest  is  formed  from  a  very  fragmented  ownership  pattern  and 
consists  of  only  30%  of  the  land  within  its  borders. 

The  Forest  Service  has  worked  with  state  agencies,  interested 
groups,  and  individuals  to  develop  land  acquisition  criteria  for 
the  Hoosier  that  meet  the  plan's  goals  and  ensure  that  priority  is 
given  to  lands  with  special  ecological  or  public  recreation  values. 

The  Hoosier  National  Forest  is  a  rich  and  wonderful  asset  to 
the  people  of  Indiana  and  to  all  Americans.  I  want  to  do  all  I  can 
to  help  preserve  and  protect  the  Hoosier  National  Forest  for  future 
generations . 

I  have  appreciated  your  support  in  recent  years  to  provide 
funding  for  land  acquisition  in  the  Hoosier,  and  urge  your  approval 
of  the  $500,000  request  in  the  President's  budget. 


THtS  STATIONERY  PRINTED  ON  PAPER  MAOC  Of  RECYCUO  FISCRS 


272 


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

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


TESTIMONY  OF  U.S.  REPRESENTATIVE  JERROLD  NADLER 

BEFORE  THE 

HOUSE  APPROPRIATIONS  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR  &  RELATED  AGENCIES 

APRIL  22,  1996 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  this  opportunity  to  testify  in 
support  of  the  maximum  funding  level  possible  for  the  fiscal  year 
1997  budget  for  the  National  Endowment  for  the  Arts  (NEA) ,  the 
National  Endowment  for  the  Humanities  (NEH) ,  and  for  the 
Institute  of  Museum  Services  (IMS) . 

The  appropriations  for  these  agencies  represent  a  fraction 
of  1%  of  the  entire  federal  budget.   Once  again,  however,  this 
funding  will  be  attacked  this  year  by  those  who  say  public  money 
should  not  be  invested  in  the  arts.   But,  in  reality,  this 
relatively  small  investment  yields  billions  of  dollars  for  our 
economy  -  not  to  mention  a  very  real  and  sometimes  intangible 
benefit  to  every  American. 

Champions  of  the  Endowments  quote  impressive  statistics 
about  the  positive  impact  that  federal  support  of  culture  and 
arts  has  on  jobs,  services  and  contracts.   They  note,  for 
example,  that  for  every  dollar  the  NEA  invests  in  communities, 
there  is  a  20-fold  return  to  the  U.S.  Treasury.   Expenditures  in 
the  not-for-profit  arts  sector  alone,  which  is  greatly  reliant  on 
NEA  support,  contribute  an  estimated  $30  billion  to  the  U.S. 
economy  annually. 

In  addition  to  the  direct  positive  impact  that  the  not-for- 
profit  arts  sector  has  on  the  economy,  funding  for  Endowments  is  ■ 
often  the  stimulus  from  which  the  more  popular,  commercial  art 
and  cultural  projects,  which  are  less  dependent  on  government 
support,  are  made  possible.   For  example,  a  number  of  highly 
successful,  now  internationally  well-known  productions  were 
initially  funded  through  the  NEA.   The  ultimate  commercial 
success  of  these  once-obscure  productions  has  led  to  the  creation 
of  literally  thousands  of  jobs  across  our  nation. 

Many  opponents  of  federal  funding  for  the  arts  and 
humanities  consistently  mention  the  half-dozen  controversial 


273 


grants  that  have  been  awarded  by  the  NEA.   Personally,  I  am 
amazed  that  with  a  record  of  more  than  100,000  grants,  there  have 
been  so  few  that  have  raised  eyebrows.   There  are  few,  if  any, 
other  federal  agencies  that  can  boast  such  a  fine  record. 

Through  the  Endowments,  American  art  and  culture  have 
reached  into  every  state  in  the  nation,  benefitting  each  state's 
economy  and  bringing  a  sense  of  community  that  nothing  else  can 
satisfy.   Millions  of  Americans  have  heard  NEA-funded  concerts 
and  have  seen  NEA-funded  exhibitions.   We  have  also  watched  the 
free  arts  programming  on  public  television  that  is  partially  NEA 
and  NEH  funded.   In  the  past  30  years,  millions  of  our  students 
and  teachers  have  been  reached  through  the  NEA  artist-in- 
residence  programs. 

A  New  York  Times  article  vividly  described  the  difference 
NEA  funding  can  make  in  rural  areas  like  western  Montana.   As  The 
Times  reported,  "People  drive  through  blizzards  and  over  mountain 
passes  for  a  chance  to  see  art  and  to  be  a  part  of  it.   Many  talk 
about  a  yearning  to  be  connected  to  a  larger  world,  to  see  and 
hear  creations  apart  from  the  overwhelming  western  sky."  The  NEA 
gave  Montana  approximately  $700,000  in  Fiscal  Year  1995  to  pay 
for  writers'  workshops,  art  museums,  community  centers,  dance 
troupes,  Indian  tribal  singers,  quilting  bees  and  woodwind 
quintets.   As  the  article  said,  the  federal  money  seems  to  do 
what  the  rural  electrical  cooperatives  of  the  1930's  did:  "It 
electrifies  remote  regions,  creating  a  kind  of  wiring  to  connect 
them."  Montana's  Governor  is  quoted  as  saying  that,  "Regardless 
of  political  ideology,  our  identity  and  our  spiritual  health 
depend  on  the  arts." 

As  for  the  NEH's  broad  national  outreach,  in  one  year  alone, 
the  NEH  sponsored  29  teacher  institutes  and  69  seminars  for  over 
3,000  school  teachers  from  49  states,  Puerto  Rico,  Guam  and  the 
district  of  Columbia.   These  teachers  in  turn  reached  over 
500,000  students  in  one  academic  year.   The  NEH  media  awards  will 
culminate  in  70  hours  of  television  and  69  hours  of  radio 
reaching  close  to  244  million  Americans. 

Additionally,  the  IMS  provides  essential  general  operating 
support  to  the  full  range  of  museums  throughout  the  country, 
including  aquariums,  arboretums  and  botanical  gardens,  art,  youth 
and  general  museums,  historic  houses  and  sites,  nature  centers, 
natural  history  and  anthropology  museums  and  zoos. 

We  must  not  let  political  ideology  blind  us  to  the 
overwhelming  evidence  that  support  for  our  art  and  culture  is  for 
the  benefit  of  all  of  us.   We  must  not  let  extremists  use  our 
great  cultural  diversity  as  a  wedge  issue  to  divide  us.   The 
truth  is  that  those  of  us  who  enjoy  the  "popular"  arts  are  no 
different  from  those  who  like  what  some  call  the  "serious"  arts. 
American  art  and  culture  is  the  Grand  Ole  Opry  and  grand  opera, 
symphonies  and  Sinatra.   What  makes  America  great  is  that  we  are 
a  spectacularly  diverse  group  of  people. 


274 


It  is  important  for  us  to  remember,  too,  that  —  based  on 
past  experiences  —  there  is  every  possibility  that  some  of  what 
we  reject  today  may  prove  to  be  of  lasting  value  to  later 
generations.   That  is  why  we  need  a  federal  commitment  to  our 
nation's  art  and  culture.   Just  look  at  the  Vietnam  Memorial  here 
in  Washington  D.C.   It  probably  would  never  have  been  built 
without  NEA  funding.   It  was  once  very  controversial;  now,  it  is 
a  source  of  wonder  and  comfort  to  untold  numbers  of  Americans. 

Other  countries  recognize  the  importance  of  government 
financial  support  for  culture  and  the  arts,  and  are  making 
necessary  investments.   Canada  and  France  spend  $32.00  per  person 
for  arts  and  humanities  programs.   In  the  United  States,  NEA 
funding  works  out  to  just  64  cents  per  person  and  the  NEH  is 
funded  at  68  cents  per  person. 

I  realize  this  is  a  time  of  budget  constraints,  but  the 
endowments  have  already  taken  serious  cuts.  As  I  mentioned 
earlier,  the  NEA  has  undergone  a  massive  restructuring.   Part  of 
that  restructuring  necessitated  laying  off  50%  of  its  employees. 
The  40%  cut  the  endowments  took  last  year  have  hit  small  arts 
agencies  particularly  hard.   Congress  should  continue  its 
important  role  in  supporting  art,  culture  and  the  humanities  in 
America. 

We  need  only  to  look  at  the  impact  of  cuts  to  the  NEA  that 
Congress  made  last  year  to  recognize  the  true  value  of  the 
Endowments.   The  NEA  is  currently  functioning  at  a  funding  level 
39%  lower  than  in  FY95.   That  the  NEA  is  able  to  continue  so  much 
of  its  work  with  vigor  at  this  reduced  level  is  a  tribute  to  the 
leadership  of  Jane  Alexander.   Still,  these  cuts  are  felt  deeply 
by  Americans  across  the  nation  -  artists,  audiences,  small 
business  owners  and  entire  communities  have  felt  the  effect  of 
these  cuts.   For  example,  grants  to  states  were  cut  by  30%. 
Artists-in-residence  sent  to  schools  to  inspire  and  educate 
children  were  cut.   Small  symphonies  are  no  longer  able  to 
provide  rural  Americans  access  to  the  arts  and  culture.   It  is 
important  to  note  that  some  FY95  grants  are  still  being 
processed,  so  the  full  effect  of  FY96  cuts  have  only  begun  to  be 
realized.   The  effects  that  will  be  felt  as  FY95  funds  become 
unavailable  will  certainly  be  even  more  wide-reaching  than  those 
already  being  felt  by  hundreds  of  programs,  thousands  of 
communities,  and  millions  of  Americans.   Let  us  not  continue  to 
cut  these  valuable  programs. 

Thank  you. 


275 


SOLOMON  P.  ORTIZ 

I7~  0«T-c>  lou  NATIONAL  SECURITY 


RANKING  MINORITY  MIUTAflV 

rr^s;:^      Congress  of  the  Idnitcd  States   -«:««»^^r;^s^. 

aa-MS-7743  ■WWIi^^WA***      W|       VIBW        «h^lMVV««     ^^^  V4«  VVAf  MORALE   VWL/Aitf  ANO  «CMATK)N  PANEL 


3649Lco»*MoSuircS10 
Cofvu*  CHMsn.  ntrMOS 


Congress  of  the  Idnited  States 

ilousc  of  Kcprtscntanocs 
Washington,  B£  20515-4327 

Wntten  Testimony  of 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


9aoc.c«<e<xu«.«o  sunm  Congressman  Solomon  P  Ortiz 

■~';;nir-.?4r''  before  the  Appropriations 

Subcommittee  on  Interior 


April  17.  1996 


Mr  Chairman  and  Members  of  this  Subcommittee,  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to 
submit  testimony  regarding  my  support  for  the  Lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  National  Wildlife 
Refuge  (LRGVNWR)    1  also  thank  you  for  the  support  this  Subcommittee  has  given  this 
important  wildlife  refuge  over  the  past  years 

Today  I  am  requesting  $3  0  million  to  be  appropriated  and  specifically  targeted  for  the 
LRGVNWR    These  funds  are  needed  for  the  Department  of  the  Interior  (DOI)  to  purchase 
targeted  lands  before  they  are  lost  to  development    Currently  the  DOI  has  options,  with 
willing  sellers,  on  more  than  5  times  this  amount  of  targeted  lands 

This  refiige  was  approved  by  Congress  in  1979,  and  first  funded  in  FY  1980 
According  to  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  the  LRGVNWR  is  their  fourth  most 
important  land  acquisition  project  in  the  country    When  it  is  completed,  this  refuge  wiU 
preserve  a  greater  amount  of  biological  diversity  than  exists  in  such  a  small  area  anywhere  in 
the  United  States    The  four  county  area  is  home  to  over  1 100  species  of  plants,  over  700 
species  of  vertebrates,  with  some  400  species  of  birds;  and  an  estimated  330  species  of 
butterflies    Also,  two  major  migratory  flyways  converge  over  the  southern  tip  of  Texas  —  the 
Central  and  the  Mississippi  Flyways    The  result  is  an  incredible  diversity  of  bird  life  which 
overwinter  or  layover  during  fall  and  spring  migrations.  Some  of  these  species  can  be  found 
nowhere  else  in  the  United  States    The  temperate,  subtropic,  and  desert  climatic  influences 
converge  here  to  create  a  wide  variety  of  habitats 

There  is  concern  that  current  growth  in  population  and  industrialization  along  the 
border  will  make  it  impossible  to  incorporate  the  needed,  remaining  land  and  complete  the 
refijge    For  this  reason.  I  am  asking  the  Committee  to  include  the  LRGVNWR  in  the  Land 
and  Water  Conservation  Fund  and  appropriate  $3  0  million  for  FY  1997    This  is  one  of  the 
top  land  acquisition  priorities  of  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  and  a  project  which 
deserves  your  support 

Thank  you.  Mr  Chairman,  for  your  time  and  consideration  of  this  request. 


276 


The  Statement  of 

Congresswoman  Marge  Roukema 

before 

the  Interior  Subcommittee  on  Appropriations 

April  17,1996 


Mr.  Regula.    Members  of  the  Subcommittee: 

I  want  to  thank  you  for  giving  me  the  opportunity  to  bring  to  your  attention 
several  issues  of  paramount  importance  to  my  district  and  the  state  of  New  Jersey. 


First  and  foremost,  as  we  have  discussed  many  times,  I  am  committed  to  the 
preservation  of  Sterling  Forest  and  am  today  asking  that  you  include  appropriate  to 
facilitate  the  purchase  of  Sterling  Forest  as  part  of  the  Interior  Appropriations  bill. 

In  March  Speaker  Gingrich  visited  Sterling  Forest  and  promised  that  Congress 
would  pass  legislation  by  June  to  protect  Sterling  Forest.    What  better  way  to  show 
our  commitment  to  environmental  protection  than  to  pass  legislation  to  preserve 
this  important  tract  of  land? 

As  you  know,  Sterling  Forest  is  one  of  the  largest  tracts  of  privately-owned, 
undeveloped  forest  land  in  the  mid- Atlantic  United  States.  This  is  heavily-forested 
land  -  10  percent  of  which  is  located  in  my  district  in  northern  New  Jersey  and 
the  remaining  90  percent  of  which  is  located  in  Orange  County,  New  York  (our 
colleague  Ben  Oilman's  district).    It  currently  provides  countless  recreational 
opportunities  to  millions  of  nearby  residents  and  visitors. 

For  example,  the  Appalachian  Trail  runs  right  through  Sterling  Forest,  and 
thousands  of  hikers  travel  its  ridges,  slopes,  lakes,  valleys,  and  rivers  each  year  as 
they  head  either  up  or  down  the  Trail. 


277 


However,  it  is  not  recreation  that  brings  me  here  today,  but  something  far 
more  fundamental  -  water. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Sterling  Forest  is  the  primary  source  of  drinking  water  to  over 
3  million  residents  of  my  State.    Numerous  tributaries  and  feeder  streams  flow 
south  from  Sterling  Forest  right  into  the  Wanaque  Reservoir,  which  supplies 
drinking  water  for  25  percent  of  all  residents  of  New  Jersey. 

Consequently,  the  protection  of  this  unique  natural  resource  in  a  region 
struggling  to  grapple  with  urban  sprawl  is  a  matter  of  utmost  importance.    Please 
keep  in  mind  that  this  is  a  critical  issue  for  the  most  densely-populated  area  of  the 
nation's  most  densely-populated  state,  northern  New  Jersey. 

Simply  put:  preserving  Sterling  Forest  protects  the  drinking  water  supply 
of  northern  New  Jersey  and  New  York,  and  it  is  imperative  for  the  104th 
Congress  to  take  action. 

Legislation  authorizing  federal  funds  has  already  passed  the  Senate,  and  the 
House  Resource  Subcommittee  is  scheduled  to  mark  up  my  authorizing  legislation, 
H.R.  194,  tomorrow. 

At  the  state  level,  you  should  know  that  support  is  very  strong  for  preserving 
Sterling  Forest.   This  effort  to  protect  Sterling  Forest  represents  a  public-private 
partnership. 

You  should  know  that  Governor  Whitman  has  already  signed  into  law 
legislation,  passed  by  the  State's  Legislature,  that  commits  our  State  to  spending 
$10  million  lO  help  with  the  purchase  of  the  Forest.    In  addition.  Governor  Pataki 
has  committed  his  Administration  in  Albany  to  match  New  Jersey's  contribution 
dollar-for-dollar. 


278 


Here  in  Congress,  legislation  to  protect  Sterling  Forest  enjoys  bi-partisan 
support  in  both  the  New  Jersey  and  New  York  delegations,  as  witnessed  by  the 
presence  of  those  Members  who  are  here  testifying  today. 

The  coalition  behind  these  efforts  firmly  believes  that  the  best  method  to  use  in 
preserving  and  protecting  Sterling  Forest  is  a  public-private  partnership,  with  its 
purchase  price  being  funded  using  private,  state  and  federal  fiinds. 

This  encompasses  an  approach  that  I  have  long  advocated,  namely  having  the 
public  sector  and  private  sector  work  together  to  achieve  this  goal,  because  in  these 
times  it  is  simply  unrealistic  to  expect  the  government  to  carry  the  burden  by  itself. 

To  date,  at  least  $5  million  in  private  contributions  have  been  conmiitted 
towards  helping  protect  Sterling  Forest.   These  efforts  will  continue,  and  private 
funds  are  expected  to  play  an  important  role  in  the  purchase  of  this  land. 

And,  as  I've  already  mentioned.  New  Jersey  and  New  York  have  conmiitted  to 
spending  $10  million  each. 

I  want  to  emphasize  something  about  these  federal  funds:  this  is  a  one- 
time funding  request,  because  our  plan  provides  for  the  Palisades  Interstate 
Park  Commission  (PIPC)  and  the  State  of  New  York  to  accept  flnancial 
responsibility  for  the  long-term  management  of  the  Sterling  Forest. 

For  these  reasons,  I  urge  the  Subcommittee  to  include  funding  for  Sterling 
Forest  as  part  of  the  FY  97  Interior  appropriations  bill. 

I  want  to  bring  to  your  attention  another  important  project  in  my  district   - 
the  Wallkill  River  NWR.    The  support  of  your  subcommittee  in  past  years  has  . 


279 


allowed  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  to  protect  hundreds  of  acres  of  valuable 
wetlands  and  forested  uplands  at  this  refuge  that  is  habitat  for  large  numbers  of 
waterfowl  and  a  diversity  of  wildlife,  including  bald  eagle,  river  otter,  cooper 
hawk,  wild  turkey,  great  homed  owl,  deer  and  black  bear. 

In  FY96,  I  requested  $1.5  million  for  the  Van  Althuis  property,  one  of  the 
largest  remaining  inholding  at  the  refuge  that  contains  over  1 ,000  feet  of  river 
frontage  on  both  sides  of  the  Wallkill  River.    While  we  are  still  awaiting  the  final 
determination  of  land  acquisition  priority  for  FY96,  I  first  wanted  to  thank  you  for 
your  attention  to  my  request  for  funding  and  to  update  you  on  the  status  of  that 
property.   The  Van  Althuises  are  a  dairy  farming  family,  and  it  is  extremely 
difficult  financially  for  them  to  phase  the  acquisition  of  their  property,  so  a  full 
appropriation  this  year  is  critical  to  the  protection  of  this  valuable  parcel.    In 
addition,  the  Van  Althuises  find  themselves  in  even  greater  financial  difficulty 
because  a  fire  several  weeks  ago  destroyed  their  bams  and  all  of  their  milking  . 
equipment.   At  this  time,  they  are  facing  the  difficult  decision  of  whether  to  invest 
in  additional  dairy  farming  equipment  while  waiting  to  leam  whether  their  will  be 
any  funding  to  purchase  their  property  this  year.    As  you  can  imagine,  the  family 
is  facing  a  severe  financial  hardship  and  property  this  year.   As  you  can  imagine, 
the  family  is  facing  a  severe  financial  hardship  aiKl  the  availability  of  funds  to 
purchase  their  property  this  year  would  be  extremely  helpful. 

For  FY97,  an  appropriation  of  $2  million  would  allow  for  the  continuation  of 
the  Wallkill  River  protection  program,  ensuring  the  protection  of  additional 
wetlands,  the  preservation  of  the  viewshed  towards  High  Point  State  Park,  and  the 
availability  of  public  access  to  the  refuge,  which  remains  strongly  supported  by  my 
constituents. 

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


280 


Conference  Committee  is  currently  considering.    While  I  know  there  was 
significant  damage  in  the  West  due  to  the  severe  winter,  I  would  respectfully  ask 
the  Chairman  to  make  sure  that  the  northeastern  states  receive  appropriate 
consideration.    I  am  particularly  interested  in  relief  for  the  Delaware  Water  Gap 
National  Recreation  Area  which  endured  extensive  damage  due  to  winter  blizzards 
and  severe  flooding. 

Again,  I  want  to  thank  the  Chairman  for  this  opportunity  to  testify,  and  I 
would  be  happy  to  answer  any  questions  you  may  have. 


281 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  HONORABLE  DON  YOUNG 

COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INTERIOR  AND  RELATED  AGENCIES 

B308  RAYBURN  HOB 

May  1,  1996 


Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  indeed  an  honor  to  submit  written 
testimony  with  regard  to  Alaska  Native  and  Department  of  Interior 
programs  within  the  Interior  Appropriations  bill  to  my  friends  on 
this  distinguished  Subcommittee. 


Alaska    Nat-iv*    Progi-iimn 

'    Indian  Health  Service 


Mr.  Chairman,  since  Congress  amended  the  Indian  Self 
Determination  Act,   the  Indian  Health  Service  (IHS)  has  entered 
into  Self -Governance  Compacts  with  tribes.   This  was  in  response 
to  tribal  leaders  desire  to  have  more  control  of  their  own  health 
care  delivery  programs  and  resources.   The  tribes  entered  into 
"Compacts"  with  the  IHS  to  set  their  own  priorities  and  designs 
for  their  own  health  care  delivery  system.   Alaska  entered  into 
an  "All-Alaska  Compact"  with  the  IHS  in  1995  and  I  fully  support 
their  funding  for  their  fiscal  year  1997  budget.   Compacting  has 
provided  a  jnore  direct  and  improved  service  to  Alaska  Natives  and 
has  greatly  reduced  the  administrative  costs  of  having  the  IHS 
administer  these  services.   I   fully  support  the  appropriations 
within  the  IHS's  Self -Governance  Compact  fund  to  continue  funding 
for  the  "All-Alaska  Compact". 

I  greatly  appreciate  the  funding  allocated  for  the  staffing 
of  the  Alaska  Native  Medical  Center  in  Anchorage,  Alaska  which  is 
scheduled  for  completion  later  this  year  and  for  staff  positions 
at  the  Kotzebue  hospital  in  Kotzebue,  Alaska.   These  two 
facilities  needed  to  be  replaced  and  I  fully  support  the 
appropriation  of  $18,259,00  for  the  Alaska  Native  Medical  Center 
in  Anchorage,  Alaska  and  the  appropriations  of  $2,283,000  for  the 
Kotzebue  hospital.   I  urge  my  colleagues  on  this  Subcommittee  to 
approve  these  appropriations  to  provide  much  needed  staff  to 
these  two  facilities. 

The  Alaska  Native  Health  Board,  the  Norton  Sound  Health 
Corporation,  the  Bristol  Bay  Area  Health  Corporation  and  the 
Maniilaq  Association  all  support  the  IHS's  increased  budget  of 
$2.4  billion  however,  feel  very  strongly  that  there  continues  to 
be  unmet  needs  in  Alaska  in  contract  support  costs,  sanitation 
facilities  and  other  construction  needs,  and  in  patient  travel 
costs.   I  concur  and  support  the  views  of  these  groups  and  urge 
this  Subcommittee  to  respectfully  provide  appropriations  to  fully 
fund  contract  support  costs  with  the  increase  of  $46,115,000,  the 


282 


appropriation  increase  of  $43,000,000  to  address  sanitation 
facilities  needs  nationwide,  and  to  appropriate  additional  funds 
for  patient  travel. 

Reports  have  stated  that  Alaska  has  an  identified  unmet 
sanitation  need  exceeding  $1  billion.   This  is  based  on  the  non- 
existence of  water  and  sewer  facilities  in  more  than  85%  of  the 
rural  villages  in  Alaska.   As  one  of  the  leading  nations  of  the 
world,  our  49th  state  should  not  be  experiencing  such  third  world 
conditions. 

Patient  travel  is  an  expensive  cost  which  Alaska  much  incur 
each  year  due  to  the  geographic  and  non-existent  of  an  interstate 
road  system  in  the  state.   Rural  Alaska  natives  must  travel  to 
regional  centers  or  to  the  Alaska  Native  Medical  Center  in 
Anchorage,  Alaska  when  they  require  additional  medical  care  and 
the  only  transportation  available  is  air  travel.   Many  patients 
forego  care  until  an  easily  treatable  condition  has  become  a 
full-blown  emergency.   I  respectfully  urge  this  Subcommittee  to 
review  the  IHS's  budget  to  include  a  separate  appropriation  for 
patient  travel  costs  in  Alaska. 

Lastly,  I  support  the  $1,352,00  for  the  Hepatitis  B 
Immunization  program  in  Alaska.   The  program  has  proven 
successful  since  it  began  in  1982  when  Hepatitis  B  was  at  an  all 
time  risk  factor  in  rural  Alaska.   I  urge  my  colleagues  to 
continue  this  successful  program  in  eradicating  the  presence  of 
Hepatitis  B  in  Alaska. 

Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs 

Bering  Sea  Fishermen^ s  Association 

Last  year,  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  included  an 
earmark  of  $600,000  for  the  Bering  Sea  Fishermen's  Association 
(BSFA)  within  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  (BIA)  FY96  budget  to 
address  the  Chum  Salmon  fishery  disaster  in  the  Arctic-Yukon- 
Kuskokwim  areas  of  Alaska  .   BSFA  continues  to  successfully 
administer  the  Western  Alaska  Salmon  restoration  efforts  on 
behalf  of  the  tribes  affected  and  its  membership.   In  addition  to 
the  $600,000  earmarked  for  the  BSFA,  Congress  added  an  additional 
$204,500  to  address  the  salmon  restoration  and  BSFA  successfully 
managed  the  remainder  funds  for  all  the  restoration  projects  in 
western  Alaska.   The  BSFA  is  requesting  $1,000,000  to  continue 
coordination  of  the  salmon  monitoring  and  enhancement  projects  in 
western  Alaska  and  Interior  river  systems.   I  support  their 
request  for  $1,000,000  to  refocus  the  Western  Alaska  Salmon 
Investigations  Program  as  intended  by  past  appropriations  for  the 
chum  salmon  disaster  and  restoration  funding.   I  respectfully 
urge  this   Subcommittee  to  honor  their  request  to  help  fund 
fisheries  development  in  economically  deprived  regions  of  my 
state. 


283 


Alaska  Legal  8ervic«»  Corporation 

Mr.  Chairman,  my  record  indicates  I  rarely  support  any 
project  with  attorneys  involved;  however,  I  strongly  feel  that 
the  representation  Alaska  Legal  Services  Corporation  (ALSC) 
provides  for  people  who  cannot  afford  their  own  attorneys  is 
justified.   In  the  past,  the  Alaska  Legal  Services  Corporation 
has  contracted  with  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  to  represent 
Alaska  Native  allottees  at  administrative  hearings  and  government 
contests  with  Native  Allotment  land  disputes.   I  want  to  again 
support  the  efforts  of  Alaska  Legal  Services  Corporation  to 
resolve  some  of  these  land  disputes.   ALSC  is  requesting  $250,000 
to  provide  legal  services  for  Native  allottees  and  I  fully 
support  this  effort.   I  respectfully  ask  that  this  Subcommittee 
fund  their  request. 

Kawerak.  Inc. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  one  time  appropriations  request  from 
the  Kawerak,  Inc.  native  organization  of  Nome,  Alaska.   Kawerak, 
Inc.  administers  P.L.  93-638  contracts  on  behalf  of  its  twenty 
tribal  villages  in  western  Alaska  and  is  requesting  a  one  time 
appropriation  of  $1.5  million  to  replace  the  Reindeer  plant 
destroyed  by  fire  in  January  of  this  year.   The  Nome  Reindeer 
Plant  had  been  the  main  meat  outlet  for  the  reindeer  industry  for 
the  past  20  years  for  the  villages  of  this  region  and  has  proven 
to  be  one  of  the  major  economic  opportunities  available  for  these 
communities.   I  respectfully  request  that  the  Subcommittee  honor 
this  one  time  request  of  $1.5  million  to  rebuild  the  Reindeer 
plant  in  Nome. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  pleased  to  announce  the  State  of  Alaska 
is  appreciative  that  the  lease  of  the  North  Aleutian  Basin  Sale 
92  leases  near  Bristol  Bay  were  purchased  and  I  will  not  have  to 
request  another  moratorium  on  the  development  of  these  leases 
near  Bristol  Bay.   I  thank  the  Chairman  for  the  moratoriums 
extended  in  the  past  and  hope  we  will  never  have  to  experience 
any  others  in  the  near  future. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  received  numerous  requests  from  my 
constituents  in  Alaska;  however,  I  did  want  to  briefly  outline 
the  most  urgent  appropriations  requests.   You  have  heard  me  state 
the  importance  of  these  requests  —  the  IHS  All-Alaska  Compact 
with  Alaska  tribes,  the  Alaska  Native  Medical  Center  in 
Anchorage,  the  Kotzebue  hospital  in  Kotzebue,  Alaska,  the  Alaska 
Legal  Services  Native  Allotment  representation,  funding  to 
develop  and  improve  a  fisheries  in  the  more  economically  deprived 
regions  in  my  state  and  the  rebuilding  of  the  Reindeer  plant 
destroyed  by  fire  this  year.   Additionally,  I  am  briefly  listing 
the  requests  I  have  received  from  Alaska  and  ask  this 
Subcommittee  to  consider  each  of  these  requests. 

Lastly,  I  would  like  to  add  my  support  to  the  Institute  of 
American  Indian  and  Alaska  Native  Arts  for  their  appropriations 


284 


request.  They  are  continuing  in  their  efforts  towards  a  move  to 

their  own  campus.   I  support  these  efforts  and  respectfully  ask 

that  this  Subcommittee  honor  their  appropriations  request  of  $5.5 
million  for  operations. 

Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  Programs 


Kawerak,  Inc.   $300,000  for  fisheries  restoration 

Alaska  Sea  Otter  Commission   $122,500  Management,  Information 

&  Educational  program 

Alaska  Native  Harbor  Seal  Commission   $100,000  Harbor  Seal 

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

Development 
Chugach  Regional  Resources  Commission  $150,000  Resource 

Management  Program 
Kwethluk  IRA  Council   $407,000  Fisheries  Management/Training 
Yupiit  Nation   $175,000  Form  Regional  Government  for 

Management  of  Resources/Delivery  Health  services 
Alaska  Inter  Tribal  Council  $500,000  for  Statewide  Convention 


Indian  Health  Service  Programs 


1. 


2. 


Maniilaq  Association  $2.2  Million  for  staffing  of  the 

Kotzebue  Replacement  Hospital 
Southcentral  Foundation   $875,000  for  Equipment  for  new 

Health  Center  at  the  new  Alaska  Native  Medical  Center 


Metlalcatla  Indian  Community 


1.  Funding  for  construction  of  Metlakatla  Clinic 

2 .  Oppose  Transfer  of  BIA  Contract  Support  to  the  Tribal 

Priority  Allocations  Account 

3.  Increase  Funding  for  BIA  Tribal  Priority  Allocations  Account 


STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES  BLITZER 

Director  of  the  Woodrow  Wilson  International 
Center  for  Scholars 

for  the 

Subcommittee  on  Appropriations 

for  the  Department  of  Interior  and  Related  Agencies 

U.S.  House  of  Representatives 

March  18.  1996 

(285) 


286 


Mr.  Chairman,  Congressman  Yates,  Members  of  the  Subcommittee, 

It  is  my  pleasure  to  submit  herewith  the  Woodrow  Wilson  Center's  Federal  Budget 
Request  for  the  Fiscal  Year  1997. 

Since  you  and  your  colleagues  are  familiar  with  the  Wilson  Center  and  its  various 
activities,  and  since  we  are  requesting  only  the  amount  originally  appropriated  by  the  Congress 
for  the  current  fiscal  year,  this  statement  need  not  be  lengthy.  I  shall  simply  attempt  to  highlight 
a  few  of  the  points  made  in  the  full  document  and  mention  at  the  end  one  additional  matter. 

If  there  is  a  single  theme  that  runs  throughout  our  submission,  it  is  clearly:  How  to 
sustain  the  integrity  and  the  quality  of  the  Woodrow  Wilson  Center  in  the  face  of  shrinking 
federal  resources.  The  answer,  as  spelled  out  in  our  submission,  is  twofold:  to  attempt 
simultaneously  to  enhance  the  efficiency  and  cost-effectiveness  of  what  is  already  a  small  and 
lean  operation,  and  to  redouble  our  efforts  to  secure  non-federal  funding  to  supplement  the 
nearly  50  percent  that  we  already  raise.    We  pledge  to  do  both. 

As  to  the  amount  of  our  request,  I  would  point  out  that  particularly  after  the  severe  cuts 
the  Center  experienced  in  FY  1995,  the  "level  funding"  we  are  seeking  for  next  year  is  in  fact 
nothing  of  the  sort.  (As  you  will  recall,  it  is  $300,000  less  than  your  Subcommittee  and  the  full 
House  Appropriations  Committee  had  recommended  for  the  current  year.)  Even  with  a  modest 
rate  of  inflation,  we  calculate  that  the  combination  of  mandatory  pay  raises,  the  cost  of  scholarly 
books  and  journals  (which  far  outstrips  any  calculation  of  inflation),  the  need  to  fund  one  of  our 
most  valued  and  effective  staff  members  who  is  on  leave  during  the  current  year,  the 
extraordinary  rise  in  the  cost  of  paper  and  postage,  and  similar  factors  will  require  the  Center 
to  fmd  additional  savings  of  6  percent  simply  to  maintain  its  current,  reduced  program  at  the 
level  of  excellence  that  both  befits  an  official  presidential  memorial  and  has  served  the  nation 
so  well  for  the  past  28  years.  The  details  of  the  strategies  we  have  already  adopted  and  those 
we  have  in  mind  for  next  year  are,  I  hope,  adequately  spelled  out  in  our  submission  to  yoiu" 
Subcommittee.  Again,  it  consists  of  a  degree  of  shrinkage  consistent  with  the  Center's  legislated 
mission  combined  with  efforts  to  increase  even  further  our  support  from  the  private  sector. 

I  would  particularly  emphasize  that  for  the  foreseeable  future  a  minimal  amount  of 
federal  support  —  a  minimum  that  we  believe  we  have  now  reached  —  is  absolutely  essential  to 
our  private  fund-raising  efforts.  To  cite  a  single  example,  we  have  succeeded  in  raising  more 
than  $1  million  in  the  private  sector  for  our  Cold  War  International  History  Project.  There  is 
no  question  in  my  mind  that  these  funds  would  not  have  come  to  us  were  it  not  for  the  efforts 
of  several  federally-funded  employees  and  the  intellectual  and  administrative  infrastructiue  you 
have  funded.  This  Project  has  received  uniformly  positive  attention  by  virtually  all  the  media, 
including  most  recently  the  U.S.  and  international  editions  of  Time  magazine,  and  serves  the 
needs  of  scholars  and  policymakers  alike.  I  would  estimate  that  the  cost  to  the  taxpayer  for  this 
Project  amounts  to  substantially  less  than  10  percent  of  the  non-appropriated  funds  it  has 
attracted. 


287 


Knowing  of  your  special  interest  in  the  Center's  proposed  move  to  the  Ronald  Reagan 
Building  on  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  I  can  only  report  that  we  have  been  working  as  diligently  as 
possible  with  the  General  Services  Administration  to  produce  the  document  guaranteeing  a 
waiver  of  rent  for  at  least  30  years.  I  must  confess  a  certain  frustration  about  this  delay,  but 
would  point  out  that  it  is  due  in  some  measure  to  the  appointment  of  a  new  GSA  Administrator 
and  a  new  Commissioner  of  the  Public  Buildings  Service.  Since  the  arrival  of  Robert  Peck  in 
the  latter  position,  the  pace  of  our  negotiations  has  improved  markedly,  and  I  am  encouraged 
to  believe  that  we  will  finally  have  a  document  to  submit  to  you  within  the  next  few  weeks.  We 
very  much  appreciate  your  urging  us  to  achieve  this  goal,  and  would  point  out  in  return  that  if 
achieved  it  will  save  your  Subcommittee  approximately  $1  million  each  year  in  funds 
appropriated  to  the  Smithsonian  and  the  Wilson  Center  for  the  lease  of  commercial  space  in  and 
around  Washington. 

In  past  years  our  communications  with  your  Subcommittee  have  focussed  largely  on  the 
Center's  activities  and  the  pride  my  predecessors  and  I  have  taken  in  them.  It  has  become 
increasingly  clear  to  me  in  the  past  year  that  we  must  pay  more  attention  to  answering  the 
question  of  why  the  taxpayers  should  contribute  -  no  matter  how  modestly  -  to  the  support  of 
the  Center.  The  answer,  I  believe,  is  twofold.  The  first  is  that  the  Center  performs,  with 
distinction,  a  range  of  activities  that  are  simply  not  duplicated  in  any  other  institution.  In 
seeking  to  fulfill  our  legislated  mandate  of  strengthening  relations  between  the  world  of  learning 
and  the  world  of  public  affairs,  we  have  over  the  years  deliberately  and  successfully  attempted 
to  reach  the  widest  possible  audience  -  scholars,  public  officials,  concerned  readers  and  radio 
listeners,  and  college  and  high  school  students.  In  a  more  indirect  maimer,  the  books  and 
articles  written  by  our  more  than  1,300  Fellows  and  Guest  Scholars  will  affect  not  only  those 
who  read  them,  but  will  (and  indeed  have)  influence  school  and  college  textbooks  and  thus  help 
to  shape  and  reshape  millions  of  students'  views  of  the  past,  the  present,  and  even  the  future. 
I  might  add  that  in  everything  it  does,  the  Center  has  scrupulously  avoided  partisanship,  and  will 
continue  to  do  so. 

The  second  reason  why  the  taxpayers  can  properly  be  asked  to  provide  modest  support 
to  the  Wilson  Center  is,  quite  simply,  that  it  is  the  nation's  official  memorial  to  its  28th 
President.  Other  institutions,  even  some  in  Washington,  bear  the  name  of  various  presidents, 
but  I  can  say  with  some  confidence  that  none  was  created  with  more  care,  consideration  and 
deliberation  than  the  Woodrow  Wilson  Center.  I  caimot  imagine  a  serious  proposal  to  privatize 
or  deface  the  Washington  Monument  or  the  Lincoln  and  Jefferson  Memorials  (soon  to  be  joined 
by  Franklin  Roosevelt's);  these  are  our  true  counterparts,  and  I  find  the  notion  of  privatizing  or 
crippling  the  Woodrow  Wilson  Center  no  more  thinkable. 

Finally,  as  the  FY  1997  appropriations  cycle  begins,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  it  is 
incumbent  upon  me  to  set  the  record  straight  on  two  serious  and  damaging  misuixlerstaixlings 
that  were  expressed  on  the  House  floor  last  year  during  consideration  of  the  Interior 
Appropriations  Bill,  giving  us  no  opportunity  to  respond.  Specifically,  I  refer  to  the  colloquy 
between  Mrs.  Smith  of  Washington  and  Mr.  Stenhobn  of  Texas  on  July  17,  1995.  You  may 
recall  that  Mrs.  Smith  had  offered  an  amendment  to  the  Bill  reported  by  your  Subcommittee  and 


288 


the  full  Appropriation  Committee,  reducing  the  recommended  appropriation  for  the  Woodrow 
Wilson  Center  by  $1  million. 

In  her  comments  in  support  of  this  amendment  Mrs.  Smith  said: 

In  the  well  is  a  graph  that  will  show  my  colleagues  how  different 
the  Woodrow  Wilson  International  Center  is  from  other  centers, 
Presidential  centers,  that  have  been  established.  The  Woodrow 
Wilson  Center  started  with  a  good  idea,  but  became  very  heavily 
federally  funded.  I  say  to  my  colleagues,  if  you'll  look,  76 
percent  of  its  budget  is  Federal  funding,  while  all  of  the  other 
Presidential  foundations  are  totally  private-funded.  If  you  look  at 
the  staffmg,  you'll  also  see  that  it  is  very  helpfully  staffed  with 
very  little  money  going  out  to  grants. 

For  his  part,  Mr.  Stenholm  added  the  following: 

Several  other  foundations  similar  to  the  Woodrow  Wilson  Center, 
such  as  the  James  Madison  Memorial  Fellowship  and  the  Harry  S. 
Truman  Scholarship,  do  not  rely  on  the  Federal  Government  for 
their  existence.  They  have  sought,  and  found,  significant  outside 
support.  The  purpose  of  this  amendment  is  to  encourage  the 
Woodrow  Wilson  Center  to  follow  the  example  set  by  these  other 
foundations  and  seek  support  from  outside  organizations  as  their 
primary  source  of  funding. 

The  four  "Presidential  centers"  or  "Presidential  foundations"  Mrs.  Smith  and  Mr. 
Stenholm  referred  to  are  the  Christopher  Columbus  Fellowship  Foundation,  the  Barry  Goldwater 
Foundation,  the  James  Madison  Memorial  Fellowship,  and  the  Harry  S.  Truman  Scholarship. 

All  are  worthy  organizations,  each  established  by  Congress  to  accomplish  a  specific  task 
~  to  provide  college  students  in  a  variety  of  fields  with  undergraduate  scholarships:  to  fund  high 
school  teachers'  pursuit  of  graduate  degrees  in  American  history  and  social  studies;  and  to 
encourage  useful  new  discoveries  for  the  benefit  of  mankind. 

Unlike  the  Wilson  Center,  none  brings  people  together  in  residential  fellowship  to  interact 
with  each  other;  none  conducts  systematic  outreach  programs  for  the  general  public;  none 
publishes  or  broadcasts.  As  single-purpose  granting  agencies,  operating  no  in-house  public 
programs,  they  need  very  few  staff.  Appropriate  to  their  missions,  most  of  their  annual  funds 
are  devoted  to  grants  to  others.  If  the  Wilson  Center  simply  awarded  funds  to  others,  its  staff 
could  be  drastically  reduced,  but  it  would  not  begin  to  fulfill  its  legislated  mandate.  In  short, 
these  other  organizations  have  little  in  common  programmatically  with  the  Woodrow  Wilson 
Center  ~  aside  from  memorializing  a  distinguished  person  important  to  our  nation's  history  ~ 
and  provide  scant  basis  for  fair  comparison. 


289 


The  comparison  is  equally  inappropriate  where  financial  matters  are  concerned.  Each 
of  the  four  other  organizations  was  provided  a  permanent  federal  endowment  in  its  enabling 
legislation  and  subsequent  enactments.  Ranging  from  $29,200,000  to  $51,500,000,  these  total 
over  $150  million.  These  funds,  deriving  from  direct  appropriation  and  earmarked  receipts  from 
the  government's  sale  of  commemorative  coins  through  the  U.S.  Mint,  provide  perpetual 
endowments  whose  earnings  (from  Treasury  interest  payments  on  the  federal  debt)  flnance  each 
of  the  other  four  institutions.  In  effect,  all  four  of  these  other  memorials  enjoy  a 
Congressionally-guaranteed  entitlement  to  taxpayer  fimding  in  the  form  of  permanent 
appropriations  of  federal  funds. 

Only  one  of  these  agencies,  the  James  Madison  Memorial  Fellowship,  raised  any  money 
from  other  sources  in  FY  1994,  the  most  recent  accounting  period  for  which  annual  reports  are 
available.  The  amount  --  $391,000  --  is  less  than  one-seventh  the  level  raised  by  the  Woodrow 
Wilson  Center  to  complement  funding  provided  by  this  Subcommittee  for  the  same  period. 

You  will  gather  from  these  comments,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  is  neither  accurate  nor 
helpful  to  maintain  that  these  four  worthy  organizations  are  "totally  private-funded,"  or  that  they 
"do  not  rely  on  the  federal  government  for  their  existence."  To  the  contrary,  they  rely  much 
more  heavily  on  the  taxpayer  than  do  we,  while  raising  much  less  from  outside  sources.  To  be 
blunt,  Mrs.  Smith  and  Mr.  Stenhohn  are  simply  wrong. 

It  would  be  splendid  if  Congress  in  1968  had  taken  Mr.  Stenholm's  advice  by  following 
"the  example  set  by  those  other  organizations"  and  providing  the  Wilson  Center  an  initial 
endowment.  Thanks  to  the  wonders  of  compound  interest,  had  the  Center  been  granted  in  its 
1968  legislation  just  one-tenth  the  total  endowment  provided  to  the  other  four  memorials,  we 
would  have  no  need  today  for  any  aimual  appropriation.  Regrettably,  this  was  not  done  for  us 
as  it  was  for  the  others. 

While  we  cannot  make  up  in  a  brief  period  for  27  years  of  lost  reinvested  income,  as 
encouraged  by  your  guidance  we  have  undertaken  a  capital  fund  drive  to  increase  our 
endowment  through  contributions  from  private  donors.  It  is  long,  slow,  hard  work.  But  it  will 
serve  the  fumre  well,  and  in  the  meanwhile  we  continue  to  raise  substantial  sums  apart  from 
those  appropriated  by  your  Subcommittee.  You  will  recall  that  in  FY  1993  and  FY  1994  such 
funds  accounted  for  almost  precisely  half  our  overall  budget. 

I  would  respectfully  suggest  that  Mrs.  Smith's  statement  that  "The  Woodrow  Wilson 
Center  started  with  a  good  idea,  but  became  very  heavily  federally  funded,"  reflects  a  profound 
misunderstanding  of  the  Center's  history.  The  1968  Woodrow  Wilson  Memorial  Act  spelled  out 
the  mandate  of  the  Center  and  authorized  the  appropriation  of  "such  funds  as  may  be  necessary 
to  carry  out  the  purposes"  of  the  Act.  Rather  than  relying  upon  this  authorization  for  fiill 
federal  funding  of  all  its  activities,  since  its  earliest  days  the  Center  has,  with  increasing  success, 
sought  funding  from  sources  other  than  your  Subcommittee.  It  would  have  been  more  accurate 
for  Mrs.  Smith  to  have  said  that  the  Center  started  with  a  good  idea,  and  has  consistently 
supplemented  or  replaced  federal  with  private  funding. 


290 


We  expect  close  scrutiny  from  the  Congress  and  we  expect  to  be  asked  to  justify  the 
funds  we  request  from  it.  In  return,  we  only  ask  that  the  judgment  of  Congress  be  based  upon 
facts  rather  than  misinformation. 

We  appreciate  your  Subcommittee's  consideration  of  our  FY  1997  request  and  the 
personal  attention  you  have  devoted  to  the  Center.  We  shall  be  happy  to  answer  any  questions 
you  may  have. 


291 


COMMITTEE  QUESTIONS 

Given  the  restrictions  on  federal  budgets,  the  Committee  commends  the  Center  for  requesting 
level  funding.  How  have  you  restructured  your  programs  and  activities  to  operate  with  the  same 
fiinding  as  the  current  fiscal  year  while  absorbing  fixed  costs? 

As  outlined  on  page  2  of  our  budget  justification  materials,  the  Center  has  had  to  take 
major  steps  to  cope  not  just  with  the  absorption  of  fixed  costs,  which  next  year  will  total  some 
6%  of  our  total  budget,  but  also  absolute  reductions  from  previously  appropriated  levels  of  over 
41%  of  base.  No  agency  or  activity  can  sustain  such  reductions  without  serious  disruption. 
Steps  that  we  have  taken  to  date  include  the  following: 

cut  federal  employment  levels  1 1  %. 

cut  federal  conference  funding  50%. 

cut  Fellows'  typing  services  50%. 

eliminated  federal  funding  for  radio  production  costs  through  privatization. 

eliminated  federal  funding  for  internships  through  privatization. 

cut  fellowship  awards  1 0%. 

cut  publication  funding  1 2%. 

cut  supplies  by  8%  and  equipment  replacement  by  1 0%. 

eliminated  all  training  funds  and  staff  bonuses. 

eliminated  rent  costs  at  the  new  building  site. 

eliminated  all  federal  funding  for  ftimishings  for  its  quarters  in  the  Ronald  Reagan 

Building  through  privatization. 

Was  there  an  effort  to  concentrate  on  your  highest  priorities  and  eliminate  other  programs? 

Because  all  the  Center's  programs  are  interrelated  and  interdependent,  we  have  depended 
upon  maximum  reductions,  privatization,  and  combination  rather  than  eliminations  except  in  a 
few  cases.  In  each  of  these  areas  of  reduction,  elimination,  or  privatization,  the  Center  has 
attempted  to  protect  —  and  even  enhance  ~  the  public's  access  to  and  benefit  from  our  programs. 
Our  ability  to  absorb  any  further  reductions,  while  still  honoring  this  principal  objective,  has 
been  exhausted. 

What  private  funds  were  available  to  you  in  the  last  and  current  fiscal  years? 

The  Center  has  been  successfiil  in  the  last  two  years  raising  a  wide  variety  of  project 
fionds  from  an  impressively  diverse  assortment  of  foundations,  corporations,  individuals,  and 
granting  agencies.  Foundation  support  has  included  major  grants  from  the  Harriman  Foundation, 
The  Pew  Charitable  Trusts,  the  Smith  Richardson  Foundation,  MacArthur  Foundation,  the 
Goldsmith  Foundation,  the  Ford  Foundation,  The  Tinker  Foundation,  the  Atlantis  Foundation, 
and  the  Rockefeller  Brothers  Fund.  Corporate  support  has  included  donations  from  The  Upjohn 
Company,  Pfizer,  Siemens  Corporation,  and  the  Bank  of  Cyprus.  Other  granting  organizations 
include  the  Japan-US.  Friendship  Commission,  the  U.S.  Institute  of  Peace,  the  United  Nations 
Center  for  Human  Settlements,  the  Inter-American  Development  Bank,  the  Flom  Family 


292 


Philanthropic  Fund,  the  World  Bank,  FLACSO,  the  U.S.  Department  of  State,  and  the  U.S. 
Information  Agency.  Finally,  some  36  contributions  have  been  received  from  individuals 
totaling  over  $80,000. 

This  variety  is  typical  of  Wilson  Center  efforts  to  leverage  the  annual  appropriation 
provided  by  the  Congress  to  provide  enhanced  levels  of  programming  for  the  public.  As 
summarized  each  year  in  the  Appendices  to  the  budget  justification  materials  provided  to  the 
Subcommittee,  these  raised  funds  nearly  double  the  amounts  provided  through  direct 
appropriation.  For  FY  1995,  we  raised  from  all  sources  over  $5.7  million,  as  summarized 
beginning  on  page  19  of  this  year's  budget.  We  anticipate  that  our  success  in  FY  1996  will  be  no 
less  impressive. 

Rounding  out  the  Center's  private  fund  sources  are  the  approximately  70,000  subscribers 
to  The  Wilson  Quarterly  whose  subscription  payments  provide  the  income  stream  that  supports 
the  production  and  staff  cost  for  our  journal.  Finally,  as  summarized  below,  the  Center's 
endowment  funds  complete  the  private  funding  picture;  the  approximate  $1  million  yield  it 
provides  is  a  direct  off-set  to  the  support  which  would  otherwise  be  required  from  the  taxpayer 
for  Wilson  Center  programming. 

WTiat  programs  are  solely  supported  with  the  private  funds? 

Nearly  all  programs  of  the  Wilson  Center  are  supported  at  least  in  part  with  funds  raised 
elsewhere.  Those  programs  which  now  are  financed  solely  with  private  funds  include  the 
following:  all  salary  and  production  costs  of  The  Wilson  Quarterly:  similarly,  all  production 
costs  of  our  radio  program.  Dialogue;  both  staff  support  and  stipends  for  the  Fellows'  research 
assistants;  all  manufacturing  costs  for  the  publication  of  Woodrow  Wilson  Center  Press  books; 
all  of  the  Center's  food  and  beverage  costs  attendant  to  special  events  to  the  public;  and  finally, 
special  projects,  such  as  our  Cold  War  History  Project  and  our  Environmental  Change  and 
Security  Project.  Each  of  these  activities  confers  large  benefits  to  the  public,  while  being 
supported  with  dollars  derived  from  sources  other  than  the  United  States  Treasury.  It  must  be 
emphasized,  however,  that  our  ability  to  launch  and  sustain  such  programs  and  projects  is 
directly  dependent  on  the  infrastructure  of  basic  staff  equipment,  and  systems  which  this 
Subcommittee  supports.  In  other  words,  the  leaves  and  branches  are  dependent  upon  a  healthy 
trunk  and  roots.  Without  federal  funding  for  the  latter,  the  entire  enterprise  would  soon  fail. 

In  light  of  continued  constraints  on  federal  dollars,  what  steps  have  you  taken  to  raise  additional 
non-federal  dollars?  To  set  up  an  endowment? 

The  Center  has  consistently  raised  several  million  dollars  annually  to  augment  and  extend 
the  value  and  reach  of  our  federal  appropriation.  Qur  fund  raising  has  included  an  emphasis  as 
well  on  the  creation  of  an  endowment  whose  gradual  growth  has  been  reported  to  the 
Subcommittee  each  year  in  our  budget  justification  materials.  The  market  value  of  the  Center's 
endowment  funds  now  approaches  $20  million,  four  times  its  value  in  1988.  Five  percent  of  this 
principal  amount  is  available  annually  for  expenditure.  The  $1  million  so  produced  each  year 
funds  very  specific  activities  -  many  as  dictated  by  the  binding  restrictions  imposed  by  the 


293 


original  donors.  Funds  raised  which  are  not  restricted  as  to  end  use  have  also  consistently  been 
deployed  to  reduce  the  Center's  requirement  for  federal  funds.  (For  example,  a  variety  of  key 
administrative  staff,  including  the  Director  of  the  Center,  are  paid  from  these  funds.)  Mindflil  of 
the  commitment  of  both  the  Administration  and  the  Congress  to  balance  the  federal  budget,  and 
the  attendant  downward  pressure  on  discretionary  domestic  spending,  the  Center  has  taken  major 
additional  steps  to  raise  even  more  fiands  and  grow  our  endowment  even  faster.  The  Wilson 
Center's  Board  of  Trustees  and  advisory  Council  have  created  a  joint  Development  Committee  to 
oversee  and  provide  additional  leadership  for  fund  raising,  including  a  $300,000  privately-funded 
contract  with  a  highly  respected  fund-raising  firm  to  spearhead  the  effort.  Central  to  these 
activities  is  progress  toward  and  subsequent  occupancy  of  the  Center's  new  space  in  the  Ronald 
Reagan  Building,  which  will  provide  a  broad  range  of  "naming  opportunities"  for  the  recognition 
of  major  donors,  as  well  as  the  visibility  so  important  in  such  efforts. 

In  addition  to  the  normal  fixed  costs  increases,  are  there  any  additional  requirements  placed  on 
the  Center? 

In  addition  to  absorbing  pay  raise  costs,  associated  benefits  increases,  rent  escalation  at 
L'Enfant  Plaza,  and  general  inflation  in  other  object  class  expenditures,  the  Center  faces  one 
additional  base  reprogramming  challenge  for  FY  1997  —  the  return  to  our  payroll  of  the  Director 
of  our  International  Studies  Division  who  has  been  on  special  assignment  to  the  National 
Security  Council,  and  funded  by  U.S.  Institute  of  Peace.  Taken  together,  these  costs  total  6%  of 
the  Center's  overall  federal  appropriation,  and  their  absorption  will  stretch  our  ability  to  fiinction 
as  a  viable  scholarly  center  and  public  memorial  to  the  limit.  Exacerbating  these  problems  is  the 
fact  that  the  Center's  applications  for  competitively  awarded  grants  from  the  State  Department 
and  USIA  —  while  fully  meritorious  and  worthy  of  full  funding  —  will  meet  with  reduced  success 
in  the  current  grant  cycle,  due  to  uncertain  (and  at  best  reduced)  appropriations  for  those 
agencies.  This  will  require  yet  further  program  shrinkage  unless  and  until  alternative  fimd- 
raising  efforts  make  up  the  difference. 

Your  statement  and  budget  request  indicates  that  you  have  received  verbal  approval  from  the 
Administration  via  the  General  Services  Administration  for  a  30-year  rent-ft-ee  lease  at  the  new 
Ronald  Reagan  Building  on  Pennsylvania  Avenue.  When  are  your  expecting  to  receive  the 
official  contract? 

We  have  indeed  received  fi-om  GSA  many  assurances  that  the  Center's  occupancy  of  its 
space  at  the  new  Ronald  Reagan  Building  on  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  fulfilling  the  intention  of 
Congress  in  the  Woodrow  Wilson  Memorial  Act  of  1968,  would  be  made  available  for  a  term  of 
not  less  than  30  years  for  an  amount  not  to  exceed  $1  annually.  In  advising  the  Wilson  Center  of 
the  amounts  it  could  request  of  Congress  for  FY  1 997,  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget 
urged  that  we  conclude  our  formal  arrangements  with  GSA  "before  the  submission  of  the 
President's  FY  1997  budget  to  the  Congress." 

We  have  worked  diligently  to  comply  with  OMB's  timetable;  and  with  new  leadership 
recently  appointed  at  GSA,  we  are  reasonably  confident  that  a  draft  lease  should  be  available  for 
review  soon.  As  soon  as  we  have  a  document  which  we  feel  adequately  protects  the  interests  of 


294 


the  Woodrow  Wilson  Center  and  the  concerns  of  the  Subcommittee,  we  will  bring  that  document 
to  the  immediate  attention  of  the  Chairman,  and  his  counterpart  in  the  Senate,  for  their  approval. 

The  Committee  assumes  that  the  $2.3  million  that  GSA  has  set  aside  for  the  move  to  the  Federal 
Triangle  Building  has  not  yet  been  obligated.  Is  this  accurate? 

This  is  indeed  accurate.  As  promised  in  writing  to  the  Subcommittee  and  its  Chairman 
by  both  the  Center's  Director  and  Deputy  Director  for  Planning  and  Management,  not  one  penny 
of  these  funds  has  been  obligated  -  nor  will  they  be  until  both  House  and  Senate  Subcommittees 
are  satisfied  with  the  financial  protections  provided  by  GSA  for  our  space  in  the  Ronald  Reagan 
Building. 

Please  restate  for  the  record  how  these  one-time  fxmds  will  be  used? 

Of  the  one-time  costs  GSA  identified  for  finishing  our  space,  only  some  $40,000  is 
earmarked  for  non-public  areas  --  and  that  for  enhanced  sound-proofing  of  our  Fellows'  studies. 
(Staff  areas  will  be  finished  only  to  minimal  government  standard.)  The  remainder  of  the  fimds 
already  appropriated  and  set  aside  at  GSA  would  pay  for  such  essential  matters  as  a  telephone 
system;  seats  for  a  small  auditorium;  shelving  for  our  reference  library;  restrooms  for  the  public; 
fire  walls,  smoke  containment,  stair  rails  and  other  safety  code  compliance  items;  and  those 
portions  of  the  building's  inherent  structure  (long  since  specified  by  the  original  architect  as 
integral  to  the  very  fabric  of  the  space  ~  such  as  stairways  and  light  wells  in  the  public  areas) 
which  depart  from  the  typical  "government  staff  cubicle"  interior  space  fit-out  that  GSA 
routinely  builds.  The  funding  in  question  was  provided  in  the  Center's  FY  1995  appropriation 
and,  as  stated  above,  will  not  be  spent  to  finish  our  space  in  the  Ronald  Reagan  Building  until 
both  House  and  Senate  Subcommittees  have  approved  the  terms  of  the  Center's  future 
occupancy. 

How  does  the  Center  plan  to  equip  and  furnish  the  new  office  space  should  the  Committee 
approve  the  move? 

The  Center  will  attempt  to  raise  cash  and  in-kind  contributions  to  equip  this  new  space 
with  durable  and  dignified,  but  not  lavish  or  ostentatious,  fiamishings.  Current  electronic 
equipment  ~  computers,  printers,  copiers  and  the  like  -  will  be  moved  with  us.  Fund-raising  for 
furnishings  will  commence  as  soon  as  the  Center  has  gained  final  permissions  from  its 
Appropriations  Subcommittee  Chairmen  to  move.  Any  shortfall  in  this  effort  will  be  bridged  by 
the  use  of  current  furnishings,  with  the  permission  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution  which  owns 
them,  and  with  such  other  "excess"  government  equipment  as  we  may  require.  In  either  case, 
fund-raising  efforts  would  continue  until  all  such  used  materials  had  been  replaced. 

Will  the  Center  incur  any  additional  expenses,  either  one  time  or  long  term  associated  with  the 
move?  If  so  how  do  you  intend  to  fimd  these  costs? 

One-time  costs  may  (depending  upon  negotiations  with  GSA)  include  the  expenses  of 
moving  existing  files  and  equipment,  and  such  other  ftimishings  as  we  may  need  temporarily. 


295 


across  town.  Longer-range  costs  will  be  minimal,  with  the  promised  (and  binding)  waiver  of 
rent.  Indeed,  the  Subcommittee  will  enjoy  a  net  budget  reduction  as  occasioned  by  this  move: 
both  the  Wilson  Center  and  Smithsonian  Institution  will  generate  federal  budget  savings  totaling 
approximately  $1  million  annually  in  their  space  rental  accounts  which  will  accrue  to  the  benefit 
and  relief  of  the  taxpayer.  Meanwhile,  the  one-time  costs  of  moving  can  and  will  be  met  through 
the  careful  application  of  base  resources  available  to  the  Center.  For  example,  we  would  appoint 
fewer  Guest  Scholars  to  be  in  residence  during  the  brief  but  disruptive  period  of  the  Center's 
actual  physical  move  from  the  Castle  and  L'Enfant  Plaza  to  the  Ronald  Reagan  Building.  These 
modest  savings,  well  within  the  Subcommittees'  reprogramming  guidelines,  would  be  deployed 
to  pay  costs  associated  with  the  move,  augmented  as  necessary  with  Center  trust  funds. 

Are  there  any  costs  charged  to  the  participants  of  your  conferences  to  defray  costs? 

Over  the  years  the  Center  has  explored  a  wide  variety  of  methods  to  increase  its  non- 
federal funding,  by  experimentation,  by  consultation  with  similar  institutions,  and  by  seeking  the 
advice  of  professional  fund-raisers.  The  charging  of  fees  for  our  meetings  turns  out  to  be  one  of 
the  least  attractive  and  least  cost  effective  of  these  methods.  A  fee  sufficient  to  cover  the  added 
costs  of  collecting  and  keeping  track  of  funds,  while  still  producing  any  significant  surplus, 
would  reduce  attendance  in  general,  and  particularly  attendance  of  those  for  whom  the  meetings 
are  particularly  intended;  government  officials.  Congressional  members  and  staff,  the  press, 
academics,  and  students.  It  is  for  this  reason  above  all  that  the  Center  has  chosen  instead  to  seek 
fiinds  from  foundations,  corporations  and  other  institutions  rather  than  limiting  participation  to 
those  who  are  willing  and  able  to  pay  an  admissions  fee.  In  particular,  we  have  used  our  federal 
conference  fund  —  now  unfortunately  but  necessarily  reduced  by  50  percent  —  as  matching 
money  to  attract  such  outside  support.  As  the  list  below  shows,  this  effort  has  met  with 
considerable  success,  but  it  should  be  noted  that  many  of  the  donors  on  that  list  would  not 
contribute  to  the  support  of  a  meeting  for  which  admission  was  charged.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  funds  raised  in  this  manner  are  far  greater  than  those  that  might  be  raised  by 
charging  participants,  and  do  not  discourage  attendance. 

There  are  a  few  exceptions  to  this  pattern,  the  most  notable  of  which  is  the  biennial 
meeting  of  our  European  Aluitmi  Association.  Although  no  fee  is  charged,  scores  of  former 
Fellows  and  Guest  Scholars  from  an  area  embracing  the  British  Isles,  the  former  Soviet  Union, 
and  the  Middle  East  manage  to  find  thousands  of  dollars  to  travel  to  these  meetings  and  pay  for 
their  own  accommodations.  Although  the  same  may  be  said  on  a  smaller  scale  of  numerous 
meetings  we  hold  in  Washington,  the  Center  does  not  keep  track  of  the  cost  to  individuals  for 
their  participation. 

Finally,  I  would  add  that  the  fruits  of  many  of  our  meetings  find  their  way  either  into 
books  the  Center  publishes  or  articles  that  appear  in  The  Wilson  Quarterly.  For  these,  of  course, 
the  Center  does  charge. 

Cost-sharing  underwriters  of  Wilson  Center  conferences  during  FY  1 995  included  the 
following: 


296 


Conference 

Human  Rights  &  Values 


Ethnic  Conflict  and  Governance 
in  Comparative  Perspective 

Problems  &  Prospects  of 
Local  Self-Govemment  in  the 
U.S.  project 

Habitat  II  Seminar  "Changes  in 
the  Urban  Landscape" 

The  Collapse  of  Commimism  and 
Social  Science  Theory 

Religion  in  Contemporary 
China 


Co-sponsor 

The  Andrew  W.  Mellon 
Foundation 

The  Pew  Charitable  Trusts 


Smith  Richardson 
Foundation 


World  Bank  Urban 
Development  Division 

Rockefeller  Brothers 
Fund 

Henry  Luce  Foundation 


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


Russian  Political  Elite  Today 

Policy  Forum:  Stability  and 
Change  in  Russian  Politics 

Policy  Forum,  US  Dept.  of  State 

"Policy  Forum:  Health  and  the 

Environment" 

Policy  Forum,  US  Dept.  of  State 

"Policy  Forum:  Economics" 


Autonomous  Province  of 
Trenton;  International 
Research  and  Exchanges 
Board  (IREX);  and  the 
University  of  Trenton,  Italy 

Michigan  State  University 

IREX 

IREX 

IREX 


The  Crisis  in  Chech'nia  and  the 
Russian  Federation 

Congressional  Staff  Briefmg- 
"The  United  States  and  the  New 
Russia:  How  High  are  the  Stakes?" 


Georgetown  University 


Stanley  Foundation 


297 


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


IREX 


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


Center  for  International 

Private  Enterprise; 

U.S.  Information  Agency 


Regions  in  Russia 


Centre  for  Research  on 
Canadian-Russian  Relations; 
Institute  of  Central/East 
European  and  Russian 
Area  Studies; 
Carleton  University,  Ottawa 


International  Perspectives  on 
U.S.  Counterproliferation 
Doctrine 


Ford  Foundation 


New  Evidence  on  the  Polish 
Crisis  and  the  Cold  War 


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


Churchill  the  Peacemaker 


International  Churchill 
Society 


The  Revival  of  Moral  Inquiry 
in  the  Disciplines 


The  Andrew  W.  Mellon 
Foundation 


War  and  Democracy:  A 
Comparative  Approach 


The  Andrew  W.  Mellon 
Foundation 


Project  on  Comparative  Peace 
Processes 


Ford  Foundation 


Peace  and  Security  in  the 
Americas  Project  Confidence 
Building  Measures 


MacArthur  Foundation 


Redefining  Regional  Relations  in 
Southeastern  Europe 


Sudosteuropa  Gesellschaft; 
Bank  of  Cyprus;  University 
of  Cyprus 


Appraising  Western  Aid  to 
Eastern  Europe 


Friedrich  Ebert  Stiftung 


298 


Your  budget  mentions  the  Center's  new  World  Wide  Web  site  and  describes  it  as  an 
"inexpensive  and  well-organized"  way  to  communicate  world-wide.  Some  federal  agencies  have 
sizable  costs  associated  with  this  service,  how  were  you  able  to  accomplish  this  task  so 
inexpensively?  What  were  your  costs? 

In  creating  the  site,  we  were  able  to  draw  extensively  on  existing  resources  rather  than 
procure  new  ones.  Existing  staff  at  Dialogue  and  the  Woodrow  Wilson  Center  Press  worked 
hard  to  learn  and  implement  this  new  technology,  devoting  evenings  and  weekends  at  no  cost  to 
the  effort  so  as  not  to  interfere  with  their  regular  duties.  The  basic  infrastructure  of  our  site  -  the 
hardware,  Internet  communications  link,  and  underlying  programming  —  was  developed  by  the 
Smithsonian  Institution  which  was  gracious  to  share  the  fruits  of  their  considerable  efforts.  The 
information  in  our  site  is  mostly  drawn  from  existing  Woodrow  Wilson  Center  documentation  ~ 
calendars,  press  releases,  newsletters,  and  reports  -  that  is  fairly  easy  to  transfer  from  word 
processing  formats  to  World  Wide  Web  formats. 

The  principal  expenditure  in  fashioning  the  site  was  creation  of  an  electronic  indexing 
and  retrieval  capacity  that  allows  name  and  subject  searches  for  all  books  written  at  the  Center, 
all  major  Wilson  Quarterly  articles,  all  Dialogue  broadcasts,  and  current  news  of  the  Center.  The 
fashioning  of  this  electronic  research  guide  required  only  modest  expenditure  (less  than  $50,000) 
most  of  which  was  required  for  retrospective  indexing  through  outside  contract.  It  will  cost  an 
estimated  $5,000  per  year  to  update  and  maintain. 

What  specific  type  of  information  is  available  to  the  general  public? 

In  addition  to  the  search  facility  just  described,  the  site  provides  calendars  of  forthcoming 
events  and  of  forthcoming  radio  broadcasts,  reports  on  meetings  at  the  Center,  information  on 
fellowships  and  how  to  apply  for  them,  a  thorough  description  of  the  structure  and  activities  of 
the  Center  along  with  its  Fellows  and  key  staff,  and  information  on  the  Wilson  Quarterly  and  the 
Wilson  Center  Press  and  how  to  place  orders  or  subscribe. 

Do  you  have  any  sense  of  how  your  principal  audience  has  expanded? 

We  will  arrange  to  count  electronic  visits  to  our  site  and  will  report  those  findings  in 
future  budget  submissions.  For  now,  however,  we  already  have  some  telling  anecdotes,  such  as 
this:  at  a  meeting  in  Buenos  Aires  for  Argentinian  federal  judges  in  training,  one  of  our  program 
directors  was  asked  for  information  about  the  Woodrow  Wilson  Center.  When  he  responded  that 
he  did  not  have  materials  with  him  but  would  send  them,  another  participant  said  that  was  not 
necessary  because  he  had  gotten  that  information  already  from  the  Web  site,  and  showed  the 
sizeable  printout  he  had  just  downloaded  from  our  "home  page."  Such  stories  will  likely 
proliferate  as  information  about  our  web  site  is  widely  distributed.  This  will  begin  with  our  radio 
programming  in  late  spring,  when  each  broadcast  will  include  our  electronic  address.  Recent 
"Arbitron"  surveys  indicate  a  weekly  audience  of  some  200,000  listeners,  resulting  in  over  10 
million  received  broadcasts  per  year.  Happily,  several  major  new  stations  have  just  signed  on  in 
California,  Texas,  Utah  and  Tennessee,  which  will  expand  this  coverage  even  further.  All  of 


299 


these  outreach  efforts  effectively  leapfrog  the  Washington  beltway  and  directly  deliver  Wilson 
Center  programming  to  the  public  in  their  own  hometowns. 

How  is  this  related  to  the  Smithsonian's  system? 

Our  site  currently  resides  on  the  Smithsonian's  system.  It  is  designed,  however,  to  be 
portable  to  another  base  should  that  become  desirable  in  the  future. 


300 


statement  by  Dr.  Walter  Reich,  Director, 

United  States  Holocaust  Memorial  Museum 

For  the  House  Committee  on  Appropriations 

Siibcommlttee  on  Interior  and  Related  Agencies 

Mr.  Chairman,  Members  of  the  Committee,  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to 
submit  this  report  on  the  U.S.  Holocaust  Memorial  Council,  and  to 
present  for  your  consideration  the  fund  requirements  for  the  U.S. 
Holocaust  Museum  and  its  programs . 

As  a  new  institution,  we  take  great  pride  in  our  progress  over  the 
first  two  years  of  operation.   Substantive  progress  has  been  made  in 
each  area  identified  in  or  implied  by  the  enabling  legislation.   Still, 
much  remains  to  be  done.   The  U.S.  Holocaust  Memorial  Museum  has 
continued  to  undergo  a  normal  "shake-down"  period  since  its  opening. 
During  this  time,  the  needs  of  the  Museum  have  been  reevaluated  in  view 
of  actual  operating  data.   The  most  urgent  problems  which  emerged  in 
the  first  two  years  of  operation  were  the  needs  for  enhanced  security 
and  for  additional  visitor  services  to  assure  that  the  overwhelming 
number  of  visitors  are  adequately  serviced  and  that  the  safety  of  our 
visitors,  staff,  and  property  is  guaranteed. 

This  budget  request  attempts  to  address  all  of  the  most  essential  and 
basic  needs  of  this  new  museum,  with  an  eye  towards  assuring  that  the 
Museum  begins  its  tenure  as  a  Federal  institution  on  a  firm  footing 
and,  at  the  same  time,  taking  a  realistic  approach  to  the  funding 
necessary  to  accomplish  this  objective. 

The  Fiscal  1997  request  is  $31,262,000  of  which  $1,575,000  for  the 
Museum's  repair  and  rehabilitation  program,  and  $1,264,000   for  the 
Museum's  exhibition  program  shall  remain  available  until  expended. 

The  Museum  possesses  the  world's  most  diverse  collection  of 
Holocaust-related  artifacts  and  the  largest  collection  of  such 
artifacts  outside  the  camp  sites  in  Europe.   The  collections  are 
central  to  our  educational,  academic  and  memorial  functions. 

The  30,000-object  collection,  as  well  as  the  9,000  artifacts  on 
long-term  loan  to  the  Museum,  are  the  documentary  proof  of  the  Nazis' 
crimes.   As  such,  they  provide  compelling  and  powerful  evidence  of  the 
Holocaust  throughout  the  Museum's  various  exhibitions,  and  a  vital 
resource  for  scholarly  research.   Because  of  the  unique  nature  of  the 
collection,  the  Museum  has  faced  unusual  challenges  regarding  its  care. 
Although  our  diverse  holdings  include  fine  art  that  was  created  during 
the  Holocaust  in  camps,  ghettos  or  in  hiding  places,  this  represents  a 
small  part  of  the  holdings.   The  majority  of  the  artifacts  --  made  of 
paper,  wood,  leather,  metals   --  are  everyday  objects  that  were  not 
created  for,  or  ever  treated  as,  museum- quality  material.   These 
artifacts  include  items  ranging  from  the  prayer  shawls,  crutches  and 
family  photos  the  victims  brought  to  the  camps  (not  knowing  they  would 
never  need  them  because  they  would  be  gassed  after  arrival)  to  military 
medals,  shoes,  concentration  camp  barracks,  inmate  uniforms, 
cobblestones,  rxxbble  from  destroyed  ghettos,  Zyklon  B  crystals,  and 
tree  trunks  from  forests  where  Jewish  partisans  organized  themselves 
for  attacks  on  the  Germans. 

Furthermore,  most  of  the  objects  entered  the  Museum's  collections  in  a 
degraded  condition,  having  languished  for  upwards  of  50  years  in  musty 
attics,  damp  basements  or  former  camps  under  Communist  rule,  where  the 
care  of  collections  was  not  a  high  priority.   The  majority  of  artifacts 
in  the  Museum  collections  must  undergo  some  conservation  treatment 
before  they  can  be  used  for  exhibition,  research  and  educational 
purposes . 

The  Museum  holds  these  objects  in  trust  for  the  American  people.   Its 
obligation  to  insure  that  these  fragile  objects  will  be  available  in 


301 


perpetuity  poses  enormous  challenges  for  our  conservators.   Retarding 
the  deterioration  process  is  a  daily  problem  whether  the  objects  are  on 
display  or  in  storage  and  requires  --in  addition  to  treatment  -- 
constant  monitoring  of,  and  attempts  to  control,  environmental 
conditions . 

The  highly-acclaimed  open-case  design  of  the  Museum's  Permanent 
Exhibition,  compounded  by  the  unanticipated  high  visitation,  presents 
many  very  unusual  conservation  difficulties.   For  example,  since 
opening,  approximately  4,000  of  the  9,000  objects  on  display  have  been 
removed  for  special  conservation  treatment,  and  because  of  staff 
shortages,  each  of  these  objects  has  been  off  display  for  an  average  of 
seven  months.   Moreover,  on-site  treatment  of  artifacts  on  exhibit  -- 
for  example,  surface  cleaning  --  represents  a  very  substantial 
institutional  expenditure  because  these  processes  can  only  be  done  when 
the  Museum  is  closed  to  the  public. 

It  is  of  interest  that  the  analysis  of  the  dust  in  the  Permanent 
Exhibition  reveals  a  very  high  content  of  blue-dyed  cotton.   This  is 
the  airborne  remnant  of  the  thousands  of  pairs  of  blue jeans  passing 
through  the  exhibition  each  week. 

Given  the  size,  scope  and  frequency  of  collections  maintenance  needs, 
increased  in-house  capability  for  collections  and  exhibitions  care  is 
essential.   Done  right,  it  will  enable  the  Museum  to  provide  a 
comprehensive  and  educationally  valuable  experience  for  current 
visitors  and  future  generations. 

The  institution's  budget  submission  describes  in  detail  the  growing 
demand  from  scholars  and  the  lay  public  for  access  to  the  institution's 
various  archives  and  library.   I  want  to  call  to  your  attention  to  one 
way  in  which  these  remarkable  resources  are  put  to  good  use.   What 
began  as  an  oral  history  last  year  became  a  Museum-HBO  co-produced 
film,  "One  Survivor  Remembers:  Gerda  Weissman  Klein."   This  film  was 
nominated  for  four  Emmys,  winning  one  for  Outstanding  Informational 
Special,  and  winning  as  well  a  Cable  Ace  Award.   Just  this  month  it  won 
an  Oscar  for  best  short  documentary  film. 

The  Museum  has  made  a  concerted  effort  to  secure  as  much  authentic 
documentation  of  the  Holocaust  as  is  humanly  possible  and  feasible. 
And,  while  it  has  had  considerable  success,  the  institution  is 
concerned  that  it  will  miss  the  opportunity  to  reach  two  unique  sources 
--  eyewitness  accounts  and  as-yet  untapped  archival  material,  much  of 
it  in  an  advanced  state  of  deterioration. 

To  obtain  eyewitness  testimonies,  we  have  jointly  undertaken  interviews 
along  with  Yale  University,  which  has  the  largest  Holocaust  oral 
history  collection  in  the  world,  in  Poland,  the  Ukraine  and  Israel  and 
are  currently  in  the  process  of  organizing  interviews  with  Holocaust 
perpetrators  in  Germany. 

In  addition  to  these  personal  accounts,  there  are  invaluable  archival 
holdings  that,  up  to  very  recently,  have  been  inaccessible  since  the 
end  of  World  War  II.   The  Museum,  in  part  because  of  its  unique  Federal 
standing  as  the  United  States'  memorial  museum  to  the  Holocaust,  is 
being  allowed  to  microfilm  in  Russia,  the  Ukraine,  Estonia,  Moldavia, 
Poland,  former  East  Germany,  the  Slovak  Republic,  Czechoslovakia, 
Rumania  and  Hungary.   In  addition,  we  have  just  concluded  an  agreement 
with  the  French  National  Archives,  for  example,  that  will  enable  us  to 
microfilm  what  may  prove  to  be  over  three  million  pages  of  documents 
related  to  the  Holocaust  in  France  and  elsewhere  in  Europe.   Once  we 
obtain  copies  of  these  documents,  scholars  from  around  the  world  will 
be  able  to  study  them  in  order  to  understand  ever  more  about  this 
painful  episode  in  human  history.   These  documents  will  join  the  vast 
number  of  documents  we  have  already  collected,  which  have  brought  us 
recognition  as  the  central  repository  of  Holocaust  related 
documentation . 


302 


As  I  have  stated  earlier,  the  interest  among  the  public  has  been  much 
broader  and  deeper  than  anticipated.   While  now  better  prepared  for 
ongoing,  heavy  visitor  traffic,  t^e  Museum  is  still  coming  to  grips 
with  the  effects  of  this  popularity  on  the  building  and  its 
exhibitions.   During  the  last  year  a  computerized  maintenance  program 
for  all  heating,  ventilation  and  air  conditioning  equipment  was 
instituted,  enabling  the  Museum  to  better  control  humidity  and 
temperature  in  the  exhibition  areas.   This  was  critical  in  order  to 
protect  the  fragile,  delicate  items  in  the  collection  which  are  on 
display. 

When  one  hears  the  term  visitation,  the  first  thing  that  comes  to  mind 
is  not  VIPs  but  the  general  public.   And  Americans  and  foreign  visitors 
alike  continue  to  come  to  the  Museum  in  numbers  that  strain  our 
resources  but  sustain,  invigorate  and  challenge  us.   Indeed,  across  all 
of  Museum's  visitor  surveys,  the  complaint  voiced  most  often  is  that 
the  exhibitions  are  too  crowded. 

To  those  who  predicted  that  interest  in  the  Holocaust  and  a  United 
States  Holocaust  Memorial  Museum  would  be  ephemeral  and  would  be 
restricted  to  a  small  segment  of  the  public,  we  have  three  years  of 
experience  that  says  they  are  wrong.   As  in  past  years,  aggregate 
attendance  in  FY95  remained  at  about  the  2.0  million  level,-  and 
approximately  nine  out  of  every  ten  visitors  surveyed  rated  the  quality 
of  the  visit  as  extremely  or  very  positive. 

And  to  those  who  assumed  the  Holocaust  Museum' s  audience  would  be 
limited  to  the  Jewish  community,  I  should  report  that,  according  to  our 
most  recent  survey,  the  vast  majority  of  our  visitors  --  about  80%  -- 
are  non- Jewish. 

Before  turning  to  school  groups  and  our  efforts  to  address  their  needs, 
both  at  the  Museum  and  via  outreach,  I  want  to  note  one  very  pleasing 
and  xinanticipated  dimension  of  our  visitation,  namely  the  emerging  role 
the  Museum  plays  in  the  continuing  education  of  more  than  1,000  senior 
diplomatic,  military,  and  intelligence  officials  who  came  to  the  Museum 
in  Fy95  as  part  of  their  official  duties. 

I  am  delighted  to  be  able  to  report  that  the  Museum  is  in  huge  demand 
by  our  nation's  schools.   In  terms  of  visitation,  secondary  school 
groups,  last  year,  comprised  60  percent  of  the  pre-scheduled  groups  we 
could  accommodate,  and  this  does  not  account  for  those  that  pulled  up 
in  buses  and  just  walked  in.   (Groups  represent  approximately  25 
percent  of  the  daily  visitation.) 

School  group  visitation,  however,  poses  serious  scheduling  and 
maintenance  problems  that  we  will  have  to  continue  to  address.   School 
groups  have  traditionally  sought  spring  visits,  which  means  that  for 
this  period  the  Museum  turns  down  nearly  two  out  of  every  three  school 
group  requests.   Our  staff  works  hard  to  encourage  school  groups 
wanting  organized  visits  to  plan  their  trips  for  less  hectic  months. 

Concerning  the  impact  of  high  visitation  by  the  young  on  the  Museum's 
maintenance,  there  are  no  cure-alls.   Extensive  supervision  is 
necessary  but  not  always  provided  by  staff,  teachers  and  parents. 

While  the  Museum  struggles  to  serve  better  the  general  student 
population,  it  has  been  developing,  thanks  to  a  five-year  grant  from 
the  Fannie  Mae  Foundation,  an  in-depth  program  for  District  of  Columbia 
area  schools-  and  communities.   The  Museum  has  also  received  a  grant 
from  the  Flom  Foundation  to  conduct  a  similar  program  on  a  smaller 
scale  with  the  Baltimore  City  School  System.   These  programs  use  the 
Museum  to  teach  students  about  the  Holocaust  and  to  train  them  in  turn 
to  act  as  tour  guides  at  the  Museum  for  their  family  and  friends. 


303 


Last  year,  67  students  completed  the  11-week  course  and  43  worked  as 
interns.   This  year  75  students  are  enrolled  in  the  course.   In  fact, 
one  of  the  students,  having  successfully  competed,  in  accordance  with 
Federal  regulations,  is  now  a  member  of  the  Museum's  full-time  Visitor 
Services  Staff. 

Demand  for  educational  materials  is  also  very  much  on  the  rise .   Last 
year,  the  Museum  responded  to  more  than  100  requests  a  day.  In 
addition,  with  private  funding,  the  Museum  has  established  the  Belfer 
National  Educators  Conferences  designed  for  teachers  with  limited 
experience  in  teaching  the  Holocaust.   In  FY  1995,  440  teachers  from  43 
states  participated  in  two  three-day  conferences.   Applications  rose 
from  1,200  last  year  to  over  1,400  this  year  from  49  States.   And 
grants  from  the  Beitler  and  Schusterman  families  are  making  it  possible 
for  Museum  staff  to  meet  regularly  with  officials  from  various  state 
departments  of  education  and  to  sponsor  a  special  conference  for 
educational  administrators. 

A  new  source  of  extraordinary  demand  emanates  from  the  Internet .   We 
created  a  node  on  the  World  Wide  Web  in  the  fall  of  1994  and  instantly 
found  it  receiving  over  8,000  queries  each  week.   By  the  end  of  1995, 
the  volume  was  up  to  40,000  queries  a  week,  and  I  fully  anticipate  the 
traffic  to  continue  to  climb  because  of  our  efforts  to  put  more  and 
more  of  our  resources  on-line.   The  Museum  sees  the  on-line  mode  as  a 
powerful  and  effective  means  of  extending  its  service. 

Again  in  FY  1995,  as  in  past  years,  the  annual  Days  of  Remembrance 
commemoration  was  held  in  the  Rotunda  of  the  Capitol .   This  time  it 
honored  the  liberators  of  the  camps  and  featured  an  address  by  Senator 
Strom  Thurmond,  the  only  serving  member  of  Congress  to  have 
participated  in  the  Allied  liberation  initiatives.   The  Museum  hosted 
three  other  major  50th  anniversairy  commemorations:   the  disappearance 
of  Raoul  Wallenberg,  the  liberation  of  Auschwitz-Birkenau,  and  V-E  Day, 
which  represents  the  end  of  the  Holocaust.   At  the  latter,  the  Medal  of 
Remembrance  was  awarded  posthumously  to  Earl  G.  Harrison  who,  as 
President  Truman's  special  envoy  played  an  instrumental  role  in 
alleviating  conditions  in  post-war  displaced  person  camps. 

As  I  know  the  Committee  is  aware,  running  a  museum  means  living  with 
foot  traffic  and  the  attendant  matters  of  worn  carpets,  stopped-up  rest 
rooms,  elevator  repairs  and  pest  control.   It  also  requires  not  putting 
off  structural  repairs  such  as  leaks  in  the  roof,  which  can  destroy 
priceless  artifacts,  or  failing  to  adjust  the  heating  and  cooling 
systems,  which  are  necessary  for  the  comfort  and  safety  of  the  visiting 
public.   And  it  requires  constant  attention  to  security.   During  this 
past  year,  a  number  of  changes  in  security  arrangements  have  been 
instituted:   package  scanners  and  walk- through  metal  detectors  were 
placed  at  all  of  the  Museum  and  Annex  entrances,  roving  security 
officers  were  added,  the  identification  card  system  was  upgraded, 
arrangements  were  made  with  the  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  to  design  and 
oversee  the  reinforcement  of  the  Museum's  critical  areas.   Construction 
will  begin  in  December  1996. 

In  addition,  museums  routinely  need  to  fabricate,  install,  repair  and 
maintain,  and  take  apart  exhibitions.   Later  this  spring,  for  example, 
we  will  be  dismantling  a  temporary  exhibition,  "Liberation  1945,"  which 
tells  the  story  of  the  Allied  liberation  of  the  camps  and  the  immediate 
post-war  issues  facing  this  countjry,  such  as  war  crimes  trials  and  the 
repatriation  of  displaced  persons.   We  also  will  be  installing  an 
exhibition  on  the  1936  Berlin  Olympics.   This  latter  exhibition 
describes  the  role  Nazi  propaganda  and  racial  policies  played  in  the 
1936  Olympics  and  America's  responses  to  the  controversy  surrounding 
those  Olympic  games . 

The  Museum  has  learned  from  its  and  others'  experience  that  it  is  most 
effective  and  efficient  to  rely  on  a  composite  of  on-site  staff  and 
on-contract  personnel  to  maintain  the  building  and  support  the 


304 


activities  that  take  place  within  it.   For  tasks  such  as  custodial 
services,  it  is  cost-effective  and  safe  to  rely  on  contractors.   The 
institution  also  will  continue  to  rely  on  contracted  individuals  and 
teams  with  the  specialized  licenses  and  skills  for  security  and  to 
maintain  the  fire  alarms,  elevators,  and  heating  and  cooling  systems, 
to  provide  quality  pest  control  and  refuse  collection,  to  oversee  a 
whole  host  of  engineering,  design  and  construction  projects,  and,  under 
the  supervision  of  our  staff  legal  council,  to  prepare  appropriate 
legal  documents  regarding  a  variety  of  issues  such  as  contracts,  loan 
agreements,  and  complex  copyright  issues. 

For  other  skills,  the  Museum  is  best  served  by  having  on  staff 
sufficient  personnel  to  handle  the  daily  servicing  of  basic  electrical, 
plumbing,  and  carpentry  and  security  needs.   It  also  needs  in-house 
personnel  to  give  appropriate  attention  to  the  conservation, 
registrarial,  archival,  and  cataloging  needs  that  are  the  essential 
core  activities  that  differentiate  a  museum  from  other  institutions. 
These  well-trained  professionals  give  the  Museum  a  first  line  of 
service  and  protection  for  our  visitors  and  staff  and  the  invaluable  -- 
and,  in  many  instances,  irreplaceable  --  assets  we  have  in  our 
possession. 

Of  course  all  of  these  activities  require  the  attention  of  payroll, 
contracting,  human  resources  and  finance  personnel,  which  constitute 
the  core  administrative  infrastructure  of  the  Museum.  I  would  like  to 
note  here  the  fine  support  the  Council  and  Museum  have  received  in 
these  areas  over  the  past  15  years  from  the  National  Park  Service 
(NPS) . 

When  our  relationship  with  NPS  began  in  FY  1981,  our  budget  was 
$722,000  with  10  FTEs .   In  FY  1995,  our  budget  was  $26,562,000  with  218 
FTEs .   Obviously,  the  amount  of  support  that  we  require  from  NPS  has 
expanded  considerably.   NPS,  like  other  Federal  agencies  is  downsizing. 
Therefore,  payroll,  contracting,  and  budget  formulation,  three  of  the 
administrative  entities  for  which  we  rely  on  the  support  of  NPS,  are 
affected  by  these  changes.   NPS  has  found  that  it  is  not  able  to 
provide  the  level  of  support  that  is  required  in  all  of  these  areas. 
In  the  past,  we  were  able  to  obtain  the  services  of  a  variety  of 
administrative  staff,  in  a  variety  of  disciplines,  on  a  reimbursable 
basis.   However,  with  the  growth  of  our  organization  and  the 
significant  reduction  in  the  administrative  staff  at  the  NPS,  the 
available  resources  have  been  severely  strained.   As  we  have  looked 
toward  developing  in-house  expertise  in  these  areas,  we  have  discussed 
the  situation  with  our  contacts  at  NPS.   All  involved  agree  that  the 
situation  has  become  overwhelming  as  available  personnel  resources 
continue  to  diminish  at  NPS.   The  Museum  is  grateful  for  the  expertise 
and  guidance  we  have  received  from  NPS  over  the  years,  and  we  hope  to 
continue  this  relationship  at  a  reduced  level  in  the  future.   However, 
this  downsizing  at  NPS  has  made  it  necessary  for  us  to  expand  our 
in-house  capabilities. 

In  closing,  I  want  to  emphasize  the  Museum's  commitment  to  fulfilling 
its  responsibilities  to  match  public  support  with  private  funds.   The 
most  compelling  indication  of  our  success  should  come  in  FY97,  when  the 
institution  will  pay  off  its  construction  loan,  thus  honoring  a  Federal 
challenge  to  meet  all  of  its  construction  costs  with  private  donations. 
The  Capital  Campaign,  which  officially  ended  in  FY  1994,  raised  $194 
million  in  cash  and  pledges.   We  have  also  raised  to  date  $8.5  million 
in  restricted  gifts  and  endowment  funds  and,  each  year,  raise  $13.5 
million  towards  our  operating  needs. 

With  the  chapter  closed  on  construction,  the  Museum  will  be  in  a 
position  to  turn  more  of  its  fundraising  attention  to  restricted  and 
unrestricted  giving  and  to  mounting  an  endowment  campaign.   The 
Presidentially-appointed  Holocaust  Council  already  has  committed  the 
institution  to  raising  a  $250  million  endowment  as  the  first  major 
cornerstone  toward  a  more  secure  institutional  future. 


305 


I  thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  report  on  the  outstanding  success 
of  this  preeminent  institution.   We  are  grateful  for  the  support  of  the 
Committee  and  the  Administration  without  which  we  could  not  have 
achieved  the  unexpected  and  most  gratifying  success  we  enjoy  today. 


306 


U.  S.  HOLOCAUST  MEMORIAL  COUNCIL 

FISCAL  YEAR  1997  BUDGET  REQUEST 
QUESTIONS  AND  ANSWERS 

Question:    The  Committee  provided  the  Holocaust  Council  with  their 
budget  request  for  Fiscal  Year  1996  which  represented  a  $2  million  increase  over 
the  previous  fiscal  year.    This  was  done  despite  the  fact  that  the  Committee's 
allocation  was  over  $1  billion  less  than  Fiscal  Year  1995.    In  fact,  the  Holocaust 
Council  was  the  only  account  in  the  entire  bill  that  received  an  increase.    This 
budget  requests  an  additional  increase  of  $2.5  million.    Why  should  the 
Committee  consider  another  increase  at  the  expense  of  the  other  agencies  in  the 
bill  such  as  the  National  Park  Service,  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  or  Geological 
Survey? 

Answer:   The  Holocaust  Council  is  extraordinarily  grateful  for  the  support 
it  has  received  from  the  government  --  support  without  which  it  would  have  been 
impossible  to  open  and  would  be  impossible  to  operate  the  Museum.    It  is 
unfortunate  -  because  of  the  significant  needs  that  are  central  to  a  new  institution 
-  that  the  opening  of  the  Museum  three  years  ago  coincided  with  the  push  for 
downsizing  in  Federal  agencies.    It  puts  this  institution  in  a  difficult  situation  since 
we  have  been  working  with  the  Congress  over  the  past  several  years  to  achieve, 
through  a  series  of  incremental  increases,  what  we  felt  would  be  a  base-line  of 
operational  support.    The  Fiscal  Year  1997  request  achieves  this  support.    We  are 
confident,  barring  unforeseen  or  uncontrollable  circumstances,  that  we  have  come 
through  our  "shake-down"  period  -  a  period  where  we  have  learned  the  basic 
necessities  for  operating  this  institution. 

Gaining  an  understanding  of  what  many  of  the  Museum's  operational  expenses 
would  be  could  only  be  learned  through  the  experience  of  actually  running  the 
Museum  after  its  opening.    For  example,  security  -  because  of  terrorist  attacks  in 
different  parts  of  the  world  including  the  United  States  -  is  far  more  costly  than 
the  Museum  ever  could  have  anticipated.    Similarly,  visitorship  has  been  nearly 
four  times  what  was  predicted  by  experts  we  consulted  -  2  million  visitors  each 
year  rather  than  500,000  individuals.  This  unexpected  popularity  has  made  it 
necessary  to  hire  additional  visitor  services  staff  and  more  contracted  guards  than 
had  been  planned;  it  has  also  added  significantly  to  maintenance  costs  becau.se  of 
wear  and  tear  to  the  building.    Although  the  building  is  new,  its  award-winning 
architecmre  is  complicated  and  costly  to  maintain  with  the  more  than  5,000  people 
who  come  through  its  doors  each  day. 

Question:    It  is  likely  that  the  Committee's  allocation  for  Fiscal  Year  1997 
will  be  less  than  the  current  year's  602  b.    Should  this  occur  and  the  committee  be 
faced  with  reducing  accounts,  which  areas  would  you  consider  your  lower  priority 
programs? 


307 


Answer:    There  are  certain  increases  in  our  request  which  cannot  be 
deferred.    These  include  the  additional  funds  for  the  security  contract,  climate- 
controlled  archival  storage  space  and  additional  staff  office  space.    These  are 
critical  to  the  operational  infrastructure  of  the  Museum;  and  they  are  not  the  type 
of  activities  that  can  be  covered  by  raising  targeted  endowment  funds  or  restricted 
grants.  Increases  amounting  to  $1.2  million  are  associated  with  much  needed 
FTE's  for  maintaining  our  current  level  of  operations  and  preservation. 

We  realize  we  would  still  have  to  cover  significant  Fiscal  Year  1997  amounts  for 
uncontrollable  increases  and  fixed  costs  (e.g.  pay  adjustments  and  non-pay 
inflationary  costs,  on-line  accounting  charges,  Bureau  of  Reclamation  payroll 
processing  charges,  and  the  early  retirement  buyout  tax).    These  fixed  costs  would 
be  covered  by  forcing  savings  mainly  through  staggering  hiring  throughout  the 
fiscal  year. 

The  areas  we  would  defer  until  our  Fiscal  Year  1998  request  would  include  the 
direct  line-items  for  the  uncontrollable,  fixed  increases  enumerated  in  the 
preceding  paragraph,  as  well  as  the  on-line  library  system,  the  FTE  for  an 
archivist/records  manager.  Council-related  travel,  a  legal  services  contract,  and 
educational  outreach  materials.   We  would  attempt  raising  private  funds  to  cover 
the  costs  of  the  educational  outreach  materials.    All  of  these  items  would  amount 
to  a  $1.32  million  request  for  Fiscal  Year  1998,  or  -  should  we  be  successful 
raising  the  $50,000  for  outreach  materials  -  to  a  $1.27  million  request. 

Question:    Your  justification  states  that  the  Museum  is  fully  committed  to 
its  status  as  a  public-private  partnership.    Since  the  Capital  Campaign  has 
officially  ended  having  successfully  raised  $194  million  and  you  are  committed  to 
paying  off  your  building  debt  by  the  end  of  calendar  year  1997,  what  are  your 
plans  for  raising  restricted  fiinds  for  programs  and  unrestricted  and  endowment 
funds  for  general  use? 

Answer:    The  opening  of  the  Museum  in  April  1993  generated  a 
groundswell  of  interest  and  support  that  was  captured  through  the  establishment  of 
the  annual,  two-tiered  Education  and  Remembrance  Fund  to  support  the  Museum's 
overall  operating  budget.  In  Fiscal  Year  1995,  the  fund  generated  $6  million  in 
major  gifts,  and  $12  million  in  broad-based  membership  gifts.  The  net  profit  on 
the  membership  program  was  $8  million. 

Many  of  the  major  gifts  are  part  of  new  five-year  pledges  for  aimual  support.    The 
largest  such  gift  to  date  is  $1  million.    Gifts  in  amounts  such  as  $100,000  and 
$50,000  are  not  uncommon.    In  Fiscal  Year  1995,  the  Education  and 
Remembrance  Fund  raised  $4.5  million  more  than  the  $13.5  million  targeted  for 
operating  costs. 

Our  aggressive  planned  giving  program  solicits  bequests  and  tax  beneficial  gift 
arrangements  such  as  trusts,  that  also  generate  substantial  income  for  the 
Education  and  Remembrance  Fund  and  for  the  "21st  Century  Fund"  endowment. 


308 


The  endowment  goal  is  $250  million.   The  "21st  Century  Fund,"  already  has 
more  than  $8.5  million  in  hand. 

As  it  grows,  the  endowment  will  become  the  source  of  a  regular  armual  pool  of 
restricted  and  unrestricted  income.    At  this  time,  approximately  $1  million  of  this 
fund  is  unrestricted  endowment  and  the  remaining  $7.5  million  is  restricted  for 
special  uses.    In  addition  to  the  current  $8.5  million  corpus,  a  new  $5  million 
pledge  has  just  been  obtained,  and  another  $5  million  in  gifts  are  now  in 
negotiation.    Any  residual  income  from  the  capital  campaign  also  will  be  added  to 
the  endowment  corpus. 

Additionally,  a  restricted  grants  program  works  to  solicit  commitments  for 
exhibitions,  education  and  academic  programs,  and  special  projects.    More  than 
$2  million  in  cash  and  pledges  has  been  raised  so  far  in  Fiscal  Year  1996. 

Question:    How  effective  is  your  membership  program? 

Answer:    The  Membership  Program  is  highly  effective.  It  consists  of 
225,000  individuals,  foundations  and  businesses  all  over  the  United  States.    Its 
retention  rate  is  considered  among  the  highest  in  the  museum  field,  and  its  total  is 
the  second  largest  museum  membership  in  the  country.    As  stated  in  answer  to  the 
previous  question,  $12  million  (gross,  which  includes  $4  million  in  direct-mail 
costs)  was  raised  in  Fiscal  Year  1995  in  broad-based  membership  gifts. 

The  largest  gift  solicited  is  $1,000,  of  which  50  to  100  are  made  weekly.   Larger 
dollar  responses  are  not  uncommon. 

We  are  now  in  the  process  of  conducting  an  upgrade  campaign  designed  to 
identify  higher  potential  donors  in  this  pool  and  to  solicit  personally,  or  by  other 
more  direct  means  than  the  mail,  for  greater  support. 

Question:   How  many  members  do  you  currently  have? 

Answer:    The  Museum  total  membership  consists  of  225,000  individuals, 
foundations,  and  businesses. 

Question:    Of  all  your  new  requests  for  increases,  which  programs  might 
be  the  easiest  to  raise  private  dollars  to  support? 

Answer:    Of  all  the  requests  for  increases,  only  educational  outreach 
materials  ($50,000)  would  be  likely  to  attract  private  funding  support.    The  on- 
line library  system  ($250,000)  might  attract  outside  support  but  would  be  a  much 
more  difficult  "sell"  because  of  its  cost  and  because  research  tools  do  not  meet  the 
usual  criteria  of  interest  for  most  donors. 


309 


Question:    Your  request  includes  programmatic  increases  totaling  $1,851 
million  and  fixed  costs  of  $731,000.   The  program  requests  are  divided  into  the 
following  major  categories:    security;  transition  costs  associated  with  performing 
your  own  budgetary  functions  instead  of  reliance  on  the  Park  Service,  maintenance 
and  other  "enhancements".    Of  these,  please  prioritize  your  greatest  needs. 

Answer:    As  was  outlined  in  the  answer  to  question  2,  apart  from 
uncontrollable  costs  such  as  pay  adjustments,  non-pay  inflation,  on-line  accounting 
charges,  early  retirement  buyout  tax,  etc.,  our  greatest  needs  include  the  security 
contract  increase,  several  new  FTE  positions  that  support  basic  operations  of  the 
Museum,  and  additional  space  for  storage  and  staff  offices. 

Again,  the  Museum  would  list  the  following  areas  of  priorities  that  could  be 
deferred  until  Fiscal  Year  1998:  the  legal  services  contract,  educational  outreach 
materials,  and  the  on-line  library  services. 

Question:   The  Committee  has  provided  additional  funds  over  the  last 
several  years  to  enhance  security  needs.    This  year's  request  contains  an  increase 
of  $350,000.    Can  you  give  the  Committee  a  detailed  description  of  this  specific 
request  and  please  prioritize  the  list? 

Answer:   The  security  request  in  Fiscal  Year  1997  increases  our  security 
contract  by  adding  Public  Safety  Officers  (PSO)  to  operate  four  magnetometers 
(metal  detectors),  guard  the  special  exhibitions  gallery,  conduct  exterior  perimeter 
patrols,  and  provide  temporary  additional  services  for  activities  such  as  a  visit  by 
a  head  of  state,  after-hours  educational  or  academic  programs,  and  special  events. 
All  of  these  needs  are  of  the  highest  priority.   The  costs  break  down  as  follows: 

Magnetometers: 

14th  St.:  2  PSO's  x  8  hr./day  x  363  days  x  $20.00  =  $116,200 
15th  St.:  1  PSO  X  8  hr./day  x  363  days  x  $20.00  =  $  58,100 
Annex:      IPSO    x  8  hr./day  x  363  days  x  $20.00  =  $  58,100 

Special  Exhibition  Gallery: 

1  PSO    X  8  hr./day  x  363  days  x  $20.00  =  $  58,100 

Exterior  Patrol: 

1  PSO    X  8  hr./day  x  310  days  x  $20.00  =  $  49,600 

Temporary  Additional  Services: 

1  PSO     X  4  hr./day  x  100  days  x  $24.35  =  $  10,000 

TOTAL:  $  350,100 


310 


Question:    Your  maintenance  requests  involve  additional  FTEs. 
Considering  the  additional  costs  involved  with  hiring  permanent  staff,  why  did  you 
decide  to  request  additional  FTSs  instead  of  contracting  privately  for  these  needs? 

Answer:    The  most  efficient  organization  for  facility  management  combines 
the  use  of  federal  maintenance  personnel  and  contract  personnel.    Certain  aspects 
of  operations  and  maintenance  lend  themselves  well  to  the  use  of  contracted 
employees.    Tasks  that  require  lower  skilled  employees,  such  as  custodial  and 
snow  removal  work,  are  easily  contracted  out.    When  the  contractors  are  replaced 
through  the  bid  process,  start-up  time  for  a  new  contractor  is  relatively  short  and 
the  impact  on  the  Museum  is  minimum.    Certain  maintenance  and  repair  tasks  are 
highly  specialized  or  require  unique  training,  licensing,  equipment,  education  and 
experience.    These  include  fire  alarm  maintenance,  elevator  maintenance,  energy 
monitoring,  computer  controls  system  maintenance,  pest  control,  refuse  collection, 
large  engineering  and  architectural  design  projects,  and  construction  projects. 
These  usually  are  done  more  efficiently  by  a  private  contractor  because  of  the 
special  requirements.    The  Museum  does  in  fact  contract  these  maintenance  and 
repair  tasks. 

The  remaining  group  of  maintenance  and  repair  tasks  are  performed  by  skilled 
Federal  employees  at  the  Museum.    These  craftpersons  include  heating,  air 
conditioning,  plumbing,  painting,  woodworking  and  electrical  specialists.    Having 
employees  on  staff  is  the  most  efficient  and  effective  method  of  accomplishing 
these  tasks.    A  well  trained  and  loyal  staff  creates  a  bank  of  in-house  knowledge 
and  history.    This  group  operates  in  a  multi-skilled,  multi-craft  shop  which  allows 
for  flexibility,  craft  coverage  and  emergency  response  that  meets  the  needs  of  the 
Museum.    Having  an  in-house  maintenance  staff  gives  the  Museum  the  resources 
necessary  to  meet  any  emergency  in  the  minimum  amount  of  time  because  the 
craftpersons  are  on  site  and  are  familiar  with  the  complex  systems  this  facility 
operates.    It  takes  years  to  develop  the  comprehensive  knowledge  of  these 
systems.  We  increase  responsiveness  and  reduce  the  opportunity  of  loss  or  damage 
of  valuable  artifacts  and  property,  and  increase  the  safety  for  staff  and  visitors. 
Normal  maintenance  and  repair  tasks  are  done  more  quickly  and  inexpensively 
because  the  employees  are  knowledgeable  and  on  site,  with  tools  and  parts  on 
hand.    This  is  an  efficient  and  safe  way  to  operate.    The  three  additional  FTE's 
being  requested  in  this  area  for  Fiscal  Year  1997  fall  into  this  category.    They  are 
for  a  pipefitter/plumber,  a  maintenance  work  leader,  and  an  architect/mechanical 
engineer. 

The  combination  of  Federal  employees  and  contracted  resources  to  accomplish 
maintenance  and  repair  is  used  throughout  the  public  sector.    An  all-contract 
operation  presents  serious  problems:  many  firms  providing  contracting  services 
prove  unreliable  or  unstable,  moreover,  their  workforce  requires  constant 
education  to  our  systems. 


311 


Question:    If  you  separate  security,  maintenance  and  fixed  costs  from  your 
request,  the  balance  of  $1.3  million  is  basically  for  program  enhancements. 
Considering  the  federal  deficit,  and  the  Committee's  expected  "lower"  allocation, 
could  the  Museum  consider  either  slowing  the  pace  of  development  at  the  Museum 
or  raising  private  dollars  to  support  these  requests? 

Answer:    The  Museum  will  pay  off  the  remainder  of  its  construction  loan 
by  December  1997. 

The  Museum  has  recently  launched  a  $250  million  endowment  drive.   It  already 
has  used  private  monies  to  pay  for  an  increasing  percentage  of  its  operating 
budget.    In  Fiscal  Year  1995  nearly  one-third  and  in  Fiscal  Year  1996, 
approximately  40  percent  of  the  operating  budget  came  from  private  sources. 

Because  of  these  already  ambitious  activities  and  initiatives,  it  is  unrealistic  to 
expect  the  Museum  to  raise  unrestricted  private  donations  to  support  the  requests 
in  Fiscal  Year  1997  submission.    These  requests  ~  with  the  one  exception  of 
$50,000  for  educational  outreach  materials  -  are  unglamorous,  basic  infrastructure 
needs  of  a  museum  with  collections,  archives  and  a  library  to  maintain  and  make 
accessible  to  the  public.   These  requests  do  not  lend  themselves  to  outside 
support.    The  majority  of  these  requests  have  nothing  to  do  with  an  expansion  of 
programming.    Rather  they  all  (with  the  one  exception  of  the  request  for 
educational  outreach  materials)  support  the  basic  infrastructure  of  the  Museum, 
and  represent  the  needs  of  a  new  institution  reaching  its  base-line  of  operational 
support. 

Question:    The  budget  indicates  that  the  Museum  is  attempting  to  comply 
with  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  (ADA)  and  other  Federal  statutes.    Since 
the  structure  is  only  three  years  old,  why  was  the  building  not  adapted  in 
accordance  with  ADA  when  it  was  constructed? 

Answer:    GSA  declined  jurisdiction  over  construction  of  the  U.S. 
Holocaust  Memorial  Museum.     As  an  independent  Federal  agency,  the  Museum 
did  its  best  to  adhere  to  the  1984  Building  Officials  and  Code  Administration 
(BOCA)  Code  and  the  1987  DC  Building  and  Uniform  Federal  Accessibility 
Standards  (UFAS)  Code.    UFAS,  as  you  may  know,  was  subsequently  replaced  in 
large  measure  by  ADA. 

From  the  beginning  of  planning,  the  Museum  intended  to  create  an  accessible 
building  which  was  welcoming  to  all.   The  Museum's  National  Council  directed 
that  the  institution,  as  standard  practice,  adhere  to  the  strictest  code. 

Just  three  months  before  opening  in  the  winter  of  1993,  senior  officials,  who  were 
then  worried  that  the  building  might  not  even  be  finished  on  time,  learned  from 
the  Museum's  consulting  architect  that  he  had  discovered  that  some  of  the 
building's  public  restrooms  did  not  meet  Federal  accessibility  standards.    The 


312 


Museum's  director  ordered  a  complete  review  which  revealed  many  problem 
areas,  some  of  which  were  easy  to  fix  while  others  were  more  serious. 

The  Museum's  board  leadership  quickly  approved  the  use  of  donated  funds  to 
bring  together  a  team  of  expert  consultants,  and  informed  the  U.S.  Access  Board 
of  these  deficiencies  and  requested  the  Board's  guidance.    The  design  architect's 
firm  hired  its  own  expert  as  well. 

At  the  time,  determining  fault  was  put  aside  so  that  all  efforts  could  be 
concentrated  on  the  task  of  correcting  the  problems.    The  question  of  "fault"  was 
never  pursued  because  access  experts  on  the  team  acknowledged  that  many 
government  accessibility  standards  are  a  matter  of  interpretation  and  difficult  to 
sort  out.    David  Capozzi,  the  U.S.  Access  Board  official  who  dealt  with  the 
Museum,  acknowledged  that  there  can  be  ambiguity  in  the  codes  in  some  cases. 
The  guidelines  are  specific,  but  they  do  not  anticipate  every  architect's  design. 
However,  since  the  accessibility  review  by  the  team  of  experts,  the  Museum  has 
worked  diligently  to  correct  its  ADA  shortcomings.    Only  the  two  handi-lift 
elevators  (one  at  the  Meyerhoff  Theater;  the  other  in  the  Hall  of  Remembrance) 
remain  to  be  corrected. 

Question:    What  are  the  other  Federal  statutes  that  you  are  referring  to  and 
when  did  these  requirements  become  law? 

Answer:    The  Federal  Records  Act  (FRA)  is  a  collection  of  statutes 
governing  the  duties  of  Federal  agencies  for  the  creation,  arrangement, 
maintenance  and  disposal  of  records.    Congress  has  held  that  the  intent  of  the 
FRA  is  to: 

o  assure  "accurate  and  complete  documentation  of  the  policies  and 

transactions  of  the  Federal  Government; " 

o  "control  ...  the  quantity  and  quality  of  records  produced  by  the 

Federal  Government;" 

0  "judicious  preservation  and  disposal  of  records." 

Under  the  rules  of  the  FRA,  all  agencies  are  required  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  Act  within  a  limited  period  of  time.    To  date,  the  United  States  Holocaust 
Memorial  Council  has  not  been  able  to  meet  these  requirements  due  to  the  lack  of 
a  skilled  archivist  to  accumulate,  evaluate,  and  catalogue  all  the  materials  already 
produced,  since  the  Council's  inception  in  1980.    The  records  manager  would  also 
act  as  the  liaison  to  the  National  Archives  for  the  agency  and  provide  ongoing 
supervision  of  the  processes  mandated  under  the  FRA. 

Question:    What  enhancements  to  security  have  been  made  this  past  year 
and  how  effective  have  they  been? 


313 


Answer:     The  Museum  has  installed  magnetometers  (metal  detectors)  at 
the  Museum's  14th  &  15th  Street  and  Annex  Building  entrances  during  Fiscal 
Year  1996. 

As  a  result  of  the  installation  of  the  magnetometers  the  Department  of  Protection 
Services  (DPS)  has  confiscated  in  excess  of  seventy  (70)  weapons  (e.g.  knifes, 
ammunition,  guns,  etc.)  from  visitors  prior  to  entry  of  the  Museum  facilities. 
This  effort  has  substantially  improved  the  safety  and  security  of  the  Museum  staff 
and  visiting  public  as  well  as  of  the  exhibitions,  collections,  and  facility. 

The  Museum  also  developed  and  awarded  a  new  security  officer/services  contract 
for  the  Museum. 

As  a  result  of  the  newly  awarded  security  officer/services  contract,  the  officer 
candidates  are  more  highly  trained  and  better  qualified  to  perform  the  services 
required  by  the  Museum.    The  quality  control  measures  requested  under  the  new 
contract  will  also  provide  continued  enhanced  performance  of  assigned  security 
personnel. 

The  Department  of  Protection  Service  has  met  the  newly  proposed  minimum 
security  requirements  mandated  under  the  June  28,  1995  Vulnerability 
Assessment.  U.S.  Department  of  Justice,  United  States  Marshals  Service. 

As  a  result  of  the  security  and  access  control  enhancements  implemented  in  Fiscal 
Year  1996,  which  includes  x-ray  machines,  magnetometers,  package  and  parcel 
screening,  escorting  of  staff  visitors,  enhanced  closed  circuit  television  (CCTV) 
security  surveillance  of  building(s)  perimeter,  and   increased  exterior  security 
roving  patrols,  the  Department  of  Protection  Services  has  met  the  protection 
requirements  of  the  Vulnerability  Assessment. 

Question:   Are  there  any  new  threats  to  security  that  have  occurred  this 
past  year? 

Answer:    As  a  result  of  the  increased  terrorist  activities  of  "militia  groups" 
and  associated  organizations  (e.g.  Oklahoma  City  Bombing,  white  supremacists, 
hate  groups,  etc.),  the  resultant  threat  level  to  the  Museum  as  a  potential  target 
has  increased.    Also  the  increased  Islamic/Hamas  terrorist  bombings  in  the  Middle 
East,  specifically  in  Israel,  have  direct  security  implications  for  all  major  U.S. 
Jewish  organizations.    Although  the  Museum  is  not  a  Jewish  organization,  it  may 
be  perceived  as  a  possible  target,  because  it  deals  with  a  primarily  Jewish  event. 
Furthermore,  U.S.  Holocaust  Memorial  Museum  has  a  high  public  profile  and 
respected  reputation  within  the  United  States  and  abroad. 

Question:    Your  request  states  that  there  is  an  increasing  demand  for  new 
staff  to  deal  with  the  rapid  growth  of  the  collection,  requirements  for  temporary 


314 


exhibitions  and  demands  from  other  institutions  to  borrow  objects.    Is  the 
collection  growth  due  to  acquisitions  or  donations  (please  give  percentage)? 

Answer:    In  1995,  the  Collection  acquired  3,304  new  objects,  of  which 
1,277  were  purchased  and  2,027  were  donated.    These  statistics,  however, 
represent  a  highly  unusual  situation  since  they  include  a  single  collection  of  1,100 
objects  that  was  purchased  for  the  Kovno  Ghetto  exhibition.    In  general,  we 
estimate  that  approximately  5  percent  of  new  acquisitions  are  purchased  and  95 
percent  are  donated  to  the  Museum. 

Question:    How  many  temporary  exhibitions  have  you  had  the  past  two 
years  and  what  were  the  costs  involved  in  installation  and  dismantling  them? 

Answer:    The  special  exhibition  "Assignment  Rescue:  The  Story  of  Varian 
Fry  and  the  Emergency  Rescue  Committee"  ran  from  June  1993  through  January 
1995.    This  5,300  square  foot  exhibition  cost  approximately  $1.7  million  (of 
which  $4(X),0(X)  was  privately  donated)  for  research,  design,  fabrication  and 
installation.    De-installation  costs  totalled  $165,000  including  storage.    The 
exhibition  will  be  re-designed  to  be  shown  at  the  Jewish  Museum  in  New  York  in 
1997.    The  cost  of  this  re-design  and  re-installation  is  estimated  at  $300,000 
which  has  been  funded  through  restricted  gifts. 

"Liberation  1945"  opened  May  8,  1995  and  will  close  on  May  8,  1996.   This 
5,300  square  foot  exhibition  cost  $1.8  million  in  private  fiinds.    De-installation 
costs  are  estimated  at  an  additional  $125,000. 

"THE  NAZI  OLYMPICS  Berlin  1936,"   designed  as  a  travelling  exhibition,  will 
open  in  July  1996  at  the  Museum  before  beginning  a  nationwide  tour.    Total 
development,  fabrication  and  installation  costs  are  estimated  at  $950,000.    This 
does  not  include  travel  costs. 

Question:    What  is  the  demand  for  lending  objects  to  other  institutions  and 
what  are  the  costs  to  the  Museum?   Are  there  costs  to  the  recipient  instimtion? 

Answer:    The  Museum  has  processed  outgoing  loans  for  20  institutions. 
Each  loan  includes  several  objects,  with  an  average  of  six  artifacts  per  loan.    The 
Museum  does  not  bear  any  of  the  direct  costs  of  the  loan.    These  costs  —  such  as 
special  packing  (if  necessary),  transportation  and  insurance  -  are  covered  by  the 
borrowing  institution.    Each  loan  involves  substantial  time  from  the  registrarial, 
curatorial  and  conservation  staff.    We  estimate  that  an  average  loan  costs  the 
Museum  approximately  $1,200  in  indirect  costs  (e.g.  staff  time  and  incidental 
expenses). 

Question:    During  tight  fiscal  times,  doesn't  it  make  good  sense  to  care  for 
what  you  have  and  slow  the  pace  of  growth  including  acquisitions,  programming 
etc.? 


315 


Answer:    The  focus  of  the  Museum  is  on  a  limited  period  in  history,  from 
Hitler's  assumption  of  power  in  1933  through  the  liberation  of  the  concentration 
camps  in  1945  and  the  immediate  aftermath  of  war  crimes  trials  and  displaced 
persons  camps.    The  relatively  open  political  atmosphere  in  Eastern  Europe,  the 
Russian  Republic,  and  the  former  republics  of  the  U.S.S.R.  give  the  Museum  an 
ui^jrecedented  opportunity  to  acquire  artifacts  and  archival  materials  that  will  be 
lost  should  political  conditions  change.    Therefore,  it  is  imperative  that  the 
Museum  not  defer  these  opportunities.    In  addition,  only  a  very  limited  amount  of 
time  remains  to  capture  the  testimony  of  eyewitnesses  to  the  Holocaust  and  to 
acquire  from  them  donations  of  artifacts  and  documentary  materials  related  to  the 
Holocaust.    Again,  this  is  an  activity  the  Museum  cannot  afford  to  defer. 

Concerning  programming,  the  Museum  is  reviewing  all  its  program  initiatives  to 
emphasize  quality  rather  than  quantity  and  to  make  economies  where  possible. 
And  we  always  seek  private  funds  to  augment  our  slate  of  programming.    For 
instance,  we  have  raised  $1  million  dollars  to  fund  the  re-design  of  the  travelling 
exhibition.  Remember  the  Children:  Daniel's  Story,  and  have  raised  more  than  $3 
million  to  fund  national  conferences  for  educators  on  teaching  the  Holocaust. 

Question:   How  many  volunteers  does  the  Museum  have  and  is  this  an 
increase  from  previous  years? 

Answer:   The  Museum  currently  has  300  active  volunteers  which  is  down 
from  a  high  of  350  volunteers.   Most  of  these  volunteers  have  been  with  the 
Museum  since  the  opening  and  we  are  experiencing  a  normal  attrition  process. 

Question:   How  are  volunteers  used  at  the  Museum? 

Answer:    Most  volunteers  work  in  the  Visitor  Services  Department 
providing  direct  services  to  the  public,  such  as  group  orientations.  Permanent 
Exhibition  timed-pass  distribution  and  collection,  information  desk,  etc. 
Volunteers  also  work  with:   Development  (assisting  with  fundraising);  Collections, 
oral  history,  and  archival  holdings  (doing  translations);  Survivors  Registry 
(helping  visitors);  Library  (cataloguing  and  shelving);  Education  (assisting 
program  planning);  Historian's  Office  (conducting  minor  research  tasks)  and  they 
provide  general  assistance  for  Communications,  Special  Events,  and  Group 
Scheduling. 

The  Museum  also  has  dozens  of  volunteers  across  the  United  States  who  assist  the 
Museum  in  fundraising  efforts. 

Question:    If  fiinds  cannot  be  provided  for  some  of  the  new  FTE  requests, 
can  volunteers  be  used  effectively  for  some  of  these  purposes?   If  so,  which  ones? 

Answer:    The  FTE  requested  for  Fiscal  Year  1997  are  for  highly  technical 
positions  that  require  both  specialized  expertise  and  full-time  availability  for  the 


316 


institution.   Many  of  these  positions  involve  public  safety,  financial  integrity,  legal 
liabilities,  and  fiduciary  obligations.    Volunteers  contribute  four  hours  of  work  per 
week,  and  often  miss  weeks  due  to  holidays,  travel  and  personal  needs.    The 
institution,  while  it  depends  on  volunteers,  cannot  place  them  in  positions 
requiring  daily  availability,  public  safety,  accountability,  or  technical  expertise. 

Question:    What  is  the  increase  in  visitation  over  the  previous  year? 

Answer:    Museum  visitation  has  remained  level.    We  project  that  visitation 
in  our  third  year  of  operation  (May  1995-  April  1996)  will  remain  approximately 
the  same,  near  the  2  million  mark. 

Question:    The  Committee  commends  the  Museum  on  their  outreach  and 
education  programs.    For  those  who  cannot  visit  the  Museum,  what  is  offered  on 
the  INTERNET? 

Answer:    The  Museum  currently  maintains  two  Internet  World  Wide  Web 
sites. 

The  first  is  a  public  site  which  contains  institutional  information  including  visiting 
the  Museum  (hours  -  tickets  -  groups  -  directions),  joining  the  Museum 
(memberships  -  gifts),  learning  about  the  Museum  (background  -departments  - 
architecture),  accessing  Museum  resources  (library  -  archives  -  exhibits),  learning 
about  the  Holocaust  (educational  resources;  teaching  guidelines),  activities  at  the 
Museum  (calendars  -  conferences  -  school  programs),  related  organizations 
(Holocaust  Organizations  -  other  sites). 

This  site  provides  users  with  tools  to  do  on-line  searches  of  the  Museum's  library 
and  document  archive.  It  presents  the  full  texts  of  a  series  of  papers  prepared  by 
the  Museum's  Education  Department  of  the  teaching  of  Holocaust  history. 

We  are  also  preparing  for  this  site,  electronic  versions  of  Museum  exhibitions  and 
transcripts  of  papers,  lectures,  and  conferences  which  occur  at  the  Museum. 

A  second  Web  site,  developed  for  use  by  high  school  students  and  their  teachers 
(as  part  of  program  funded  by  the  FannieMae  Foundation),  is  in  its  demonstration 
phase.    It  is  in  use  at  a  high  school  in  New  Jersey,  a  high  school  in  Concord, 
Massachusetts,  and  in  the  District  of  Columbia  high  schools.    During  this 
demonstration  phase,  students  and  teachers  are  providing  feedback  to  the  Museum 
about  the  usefulness  and  effectiveness  of  the  materials  presented.    The  Museum  is 
making  modifications  based  upon  this  feedback.    At  the  end  of  the  demonstration 
period,  this  resource  will  be  made  available  to  any  school  which  wishes  to  use  it. 

It  contains  text,  historic  photographs,  artifacts,  documents,  maps,  audio  testimony 
of  survivors  and  chronologies.    It  is  all  bound  together  in  a  narrative  and  thematic 


317 


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

An  additional  feature  of  this  resource  is  that  its  users  can  communicate  with  one 
another  about  their  observations  and  insights.    This  communications  process  will 
be  available  within  schools  and  across  schools  (for  example  between  inner  city 
District  of  Columbia  schools  and  suburban  schools  in  Massachusetts). 

Question:   How  much  private  funds  were  used  during  Fiscal  Years  1995 
and  1996  to  date,  and  what  were  they  used  to  fund? 

Answer:    A  total  of  $31.3  million  in  private  funds  supported  the  Museum's 
efforts  in  Fiscal  Year  1995.   Included  in  this  total  is  $16.2  million  for  repayment 
of  the  Museum's  construction  loan  and  interest  expense.   Approximately  $1.7 
million  was  expended  to  operate  the  Museum  Shop,  which  generated  $2  million 
during  the  year.   A  total  of  $12.7  million  went  toward  Museum  general 
operations.    Of  this  amount,  $6.23  million  was  used  for  fundraising  activities,  of 
which  $4  million  covered  the  costs  of  the  Museum's  successful  direct  mail 
campaign;  $2.27  million  supported  administrative  services,  including  the  costs  of 
special  commemorative  events,  bank  fees  for  donations,  the  annual  audit  and  the 
Director's  salary;  $1.53  million  supported  building  maintenance  and  operations; 
$1.09  million  supported  the  work  of  the  Research  Institute,  including  support  of 
archival  projects  abroad  such  as  the  copying  of  Holocaust-related  materials  in  the 
archives  of  the  SSB  (formerly  KGB)  in  Russia;  $2.03  million  supported  public 
programs  and  exhibitions,  including  some  funds  for  the  design  and  fabrication  of 
the  Museum's  second  special  exhibition,  "Liberation  1945."  Additionally, 
$636,000  in  restricted  donations  made  possible  specific  programs  such  as  the  Pearl 
Resnick  Post-Doctoral  Fellowship  program  which  sponsors  young  scholars  doing 
research  in  Holocaust  and  genocide  studies  and  a  program  sponsored  by  the 
FaimieMae  Foundation,  "Bringing  the  Lessons  Home,"  that  works  with  District  of 
Columbia  public  school  children. 

In  Fiscal  Year  1996,  the  Museum  expects  to  spend  a  total  of  $29.5  million  in 
private  funds.   Through  February  of  FY  96,  the  Museum  has  spent  $4.2  million  in 
private  funds  for  operational  purposes.    Of  this  total,  $2.6  million  has  been  spent 
to  date  on  the  Museum's  fund-raising  efforts,  including  the  commencement  of  an 
endowment  campaign  with  a  $250  million  target;  $877,000  for  administrative 
services,  including  the  cost  of  commemorative  events,  bank  fees  for  donations,  the 
annual  audit  and  the  Director's  salary;  $274,000  for  support  of  public  programs; 
$376,000  for  support  of  the  Research  Institute;  and  $87,000  for  building 
maintenance  and  operations.    Projects  made  possible  through  private  funding 
include  oral  history  and  audio/visual  programs  for  the  upcoming  exhibition,  "THE 
NAZI  OLYMPICS  Berlin  1936"  (scheduled  to  open  this  Spring). 

Additionally,  the  Museum  repaid  approximately  $11.2  million  of  its  construction 
debt,  including  interest  expense;  $8()0,000  was  spent  by  the  Museum  Shop;  and 


318 


$416,000  in  restricted  funds  have  made  possible  special  programs.    These 
programs  include  a  medical  conference  sponsored  by  Ruth  Meltzer  entitled, 
"Hippocrates  Revisited:  Medicine  in  the  Third  Reich,"  for  which   physicians 
received  Continuing  Medical  Education  accreditation  for  their  participation. 

Questions:  How  many  conference  and  VIP  events  were  funded  during 
Fiscal  Year  1995  and  planned  for  1996?  What  are  the  costs  and  are  they  paid 
with  federal  or  private  dollars? 

Answer:  The  following  is  a  summary  of  major  activities  held  in  Fiscal 
Year  1995  (including  estimated  costs): 

Special  Events 

--  Tribute  to  Raoul  Wallenberg  ($35,000  private) 

~  Commemoration  of  the  Liberation  of  Auschwitz  ($30,000  private) 

-  Days  of  Remembrance  ($30,000  federal/$15,000  private) 

~  VE  Day  Commemoration  ($40,000  private) 

Development 

13  fiindraising  events   ($77,000  private) 

Special  Visits  to  the  Museum 

President  of  Eritrea,  Isaias  Afwerki 

President  of  the  Ukraine,  Leonid  Kuchma  ($200  private) 

President  of  Bulgaria,  Zhelev  Zhelyu  ($4,000  private) 

President  of  Albania,  Sali  Berisha 

President  of  Romania,  Ion  Iliescu 

Prime  Minister  of  Poland,  Waldemar  Pawlak 

President  George  Bush 

Prince  Joachim  of  Denmark 

U.S.  House  of  Representatives  Freshman  Night  ($4,400  private) 

Japanese  Government  Officials  ($250  private) 

Comelio  Sommaruga,  President,  Int'l  Red  Cross  ($300  private) 

Int'l  Criminal  Tribunal  Justices  of  the  former  Yugoslavia  ($200  private) 

Democratic  National  Committee  (2  events/$5,000  private) 

"To  Bear  Witness:    An  Ecumenical  Gathering  for  the  Living  and  the 

Suffering  in  the  former  Yugoslavia" 
Ambassador  Schallenberger,  Secretary  General  of  the  Austrian  Ministry  for 
Foreign  Affairs 
Polish  Foreign  Minister  Bartoszewski  ($2,500  private) 

Educational  and  Academic  Conferences 


why? 


319 


Belfer  Teachers  Conferences   ($78,000  private) 

The  following  is  a  summary  of  major  activities  that  were  (or  will  be)  held 
in  Fiscal  Year  1996  (including  estimated  costs): 

Special  Events 

~  Candle-lighting  ceremony  ending  50th  Anniversary  of  World  War  II 

commemorations  with  the  Department  of  Defense  World  War  II  Committee 

($2000  private) 

--  Days  of  Remembrance  ($35,000  federal/$15.000  private) 

--  THE  NAZI  OLYMPICS  Berlin  1936  exhibition  ($11,000  private) 

Development 

21  events   ($131,000  private) 

VIP's  Visits  or  Events 

President  of  Rwanda,  Pasteur  Bizimungu 
President  of  Austria,  Thomas  Klestil 
President  of  Paraguay,  Juan  Carlos  Wasmosy 
President  of  Chad,  Idriss  Deby 

Educational  and  Academic  Conferences 

Schusterman  Educational  Administrators  Conference  ($27,000  private) 
Belfer  Teachers  Conferences  (two)  ($99,000  private) 
The  Holocaust  and  American  Culture  Conference  ($7,8(X)  federal) 
Hippocrates  Betrayed:  Medicine  in  the  Third  Reich  Conference  ($30,975 

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

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

Tragedy  of  Romanian  Jewry  International  Conference  ($15,000  private) 
Prejudice  in  Historical  Memory  and  Present  Reality:    Case  Studies 

Conference  (w/  Woodrow  Wilson  Center;  $12,500  private) 
Question:   Are  there  any  conference  fees  charged  to  deflect  costs,  if  not 


Answer:    To  date,  no  fees  have  been  charged  individuals  who  participate  in 
conferences  of  the  United  States  Holocaust  Research  Institute.    The  Museum  has 
been  following  a  policy  of  making  its  programs  available  without  charge  in  order 
to  make  them  accessible  to  the  widest  possible  public.    Those  large  conferences 
for  which  attendees  have  the  possibility  of  receiving  professional  accreditation 


320 


(e.g.,  CME  -  Continuing  Medical  Education  -  credit),  and  for  which  it  might  be 
appropriate  to  charge  fees,  are  being  funded  by  restricted  private  grants  that  cover 
the  costs  of  these  conferences. 

Question:    What  percentage  of  the  Research  program  needs  are  funded 
with  private  dollars? 

Answer:    In  Fiscal  Year  1995  the  estimated  total  cost  of  the  activities  of 
the  United  States  Holocaust  Research  Institute  was  $4,654,856.   Of  this  sum,  63.6 
percent  was  paid  with  appropriated  funds,  26.9  percent  with  unrestricted 
donations,  and  9.5  percent  with  restricted  grant  monies  (including  distributions 
from  restricted  endowments).    The  use  of  appropriated  funds  is  gradually 
becoming  proportionally  less  over  time:    the  total  cost  of  the  planned  Fiscal  Year 
1996  activities  of  the  Research  Institute  is  $5,955,919,  of  which  58.1  percent  is  to 
come  from  appropriated  funds,  26.8  percent  from  unrestricted  donations,  and  15.1 
percent  from  restricted  grant  monies  (including  distributions  from  restricted 
endowments).    The  appropriated  funds  are  used  primarily  for  the  staffing  and 
basic  support  activities  needed  to  serve  the  public  on  a  daily  basis:    the  materials 
and  reference  services  of  the  Library,  the  various  Archives  (documentary, 
photographic,  oral  history,  film  and  video),  and  the  Historian's  office.    Lectures, 
conferences,  and  other  programs  open  to  the  public  but  aimed  primarily  at 
specialist  audiences  are  funded  heavily,  though  not  exclusively,  by  restricted 
grants  and  income  from  endowments. 

Question:   The  largest  increase  is  Council  Direction  and  Museum  Support. 
While  some  of  these  categories  fund  operation  and  maintenance,  an  increase  of 
$215,000  is  for  the  Council  itself,  including  +$115,000  for  travel  expenses.    In 
FY  1996,  the  Committee  provided  increases  in  travel,  fixed  costs  and  approved  a 
Council  Relations  position.   In  addition  to  the  administrative  staff  on  sight,  there 
seems  to  be  a  large  separate  structure  of  committees  and  subcommittees.    In  fact, 
many  new  committees  have  been  formed  of  late.   Despite  the  fact  that  these  are 
authorized,  should  dollars  continue  to  be  tight,  and  increases  not  funded,  can  the 
Council  consider  ways  to  reduce  committees  or  their  costs  so  that  items  such  as 
security,  maintenance  and  collections  care  can  be  considered  for  scarce  federal 
dollars? 


Answer:    We  will  be  discussing  with  the  Council  the  concerns  raised  by 
the  Conunittee.    It  should  be  noted  that  the  Council  has  already  begun  to  hold 
more  meetings  by  conference  call.    It  could  continue  this  trend  to  cut  further  into 
the  amount  budgeted  for  travel  and  per  diem  for  Council. 

At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  said  that  the  enabling  legislation  has  created  a  very 
large  governing  body  and  for  it  to  fulfill  its  responsiblity  requires  substantial 
public  funding. 


321 


Question:    What  were  the  specific  travel  costs  associated  with  the  Council 
during  Fiscal  Year  1995  and  planned  for  Fiscal  Year  1996? 

Answer:    In  Fiscal  Year  1995,  the  travel  costs  associated  with  the  Council 
were  $127,000  ($49,800  appropriated,  $77,200  non-appropriated)  which  included 
29  committee  meetings,  10  meetings  of  the  Executive  Committee,  and  two  full 
Council  meetings.    In  addition,  it  included  weekly  trips  to  the  Museum  by  the 
Council  Chairman  who  is  extremely  active  in  the  everyday  rurming  of  the 
Museum. 

In  Fiscal  Year  1996,  the  planned  costs  for  Council  travel  are  $260,000  ($53,000 
appropriated,  $207, (X)0  non-appropriated).    This  includes  10  meetings  of  the 
Executive  Committee,  an  estimated  40  committee  meetings  (as  a  result  of  the 
creation  of  a  Committee  on  Conscience,  as  well  as  Council  involvement  in  a 
strategic  planning  process,  and  the  further  implementation  of  the  Council's 
governance  processes  and  committee  structure),  and  two  full  Council  meetings. 
This  also  includes  estimated  travel  costs  for  the  Chairperson  of  the  Council  who 
comes  to  the  Museum  almost  weekly  to  meet  with  staff  regarding  the  daily 
business  of  the  Museum. 

Question:   How  many  meetings  occurred  for  these  same  periods? 

Answer:    In  Fiscal  Year  1995,  there  were  a  total  of  41  meetings.    For 
Fiscal  Year  1996,  the  estimated  number  of  meetings  is  52  for  the  reasons  stated  in 
paragraph  two  of  the  answer  to  the  previous  question. 

Question:    New  staff  is  requested  to  hire  an  in-house  budget  analyst, 
contract  specialist  and  payroll  technician.    The  Committee  assumes  that  this  is  an 
attempt  to  become  self-sufficient  and  reduce  reliance  on  the  National  Park  Service; 
is  this  the  case? 

Answer:    Yes.    When  our  relationship  with  the  National  Park  Service 
(NPS)  began  in  Fiscal  Year  1981,  our  budget  was  $722,000  with  10  FTE's.    In 
Fiscal  Year  1995,  our  budget  was  $26,562,000  with  218  FTE's.    Obviously,  the 
amount  of  support  that  we  require  from  the  National  Park  Service  has  expanded 
considerably.    The  NPS,  like  other  Federal  agencies  is  downsizing  —  payroll, 
contracting,  and  budget  formulation,  three  of  the  administrative  entities  for  which 
we  rely  on  their  support  -  are  all  affected  by  these  changes.    NPS  has  found  it  is 
no  longer  able  to  provide  the  level  of  support  which  is  required  in  all  of  these 
areas. 

Question:    Is  the  Museum  ready  to  assume  this  responsibility  or  is  this 
partially  because  the  Park  Service,  as  a  result  of  the  downsizing  of  their 
Washington  cifice,  caimot  adequately  support  the  Museum's  needs? 


322 


Answer:    Essentially  it  is  both.   In  the  past,  we  were  able  to  obtain  the 
services  of  a  variety  of  administrative  staff,  in  a  variety  of  disciplines,  on  a 
reimbursable  basis.    However,  with  the  growth  of  our  organization  and  the 
significant  reduction  in  the  administrative  staff  at  NPS,  the  available  resources 
have  been  severely  strained.    As  we  have  looked  towards  developing  expertise  in 
these  areas,  we  also  see  the  benefits  of  having  in-house  staff  on  site  to  handle  the 
daily  needs  of  the  Museum.    As  available  administrative  resources  continue  to 
decrease  at  NPS,  the  recruitment  of  in-house  staff  seems  the  most  appropriate  and 
feasible  step.   We  have  discussed  the  situation  with  our  contacts  at  NPS.   All 
involved  agree  that  the  situation  has  become  overwhelming,  as  available  personnel 
resources  continue  to  diminish  at  the  NPS.   The  Museum  is  grateful  for  the 
expertise  and  guidance  we  have  received  from  the  NPS  over  the  years,  and  we 
hope  to  continue  this  relationship  at  a  reduced  level  in  the  future. 

Question:   The  budget  reflects  an  increase  for  additional  space  rental  of 
nearly  $300,000.   Of  that,  over  $200,000  is  for  new  office  space.    Can  you 
provide  a  detailed  list  of  each  FTE,  grade  level,  title  and  associated  activity? 
Please  be  sure  to  list  separately  any  SES  positions. 

Answer:    The  increased  space  request  is  necessary  because  of  extreme 
over-crowding  in  the  office  space  at  the  Museum  and  the  Annex  Building,  in  part 
due  to  the  increase  of  positions  through  donated  funds  or  restricted  grants.    The 
Museum  hopes  to  move  the  Departments  of  Procurement,  Technology  Initiative, 
Oral  History,  Film  and  Video,  and  Wexner  Learning  Center,  to  4,500  square  feet 
of  off-site  office  space.    These  departments  contain  40  employees.    A  list  of  titles 
and  grades  follows: 


323 


Job  Title 


Pay  Schedule 


DEPARTMENT  OF  PROCUREMENT 
Contracling  Officer 
Purchasing  Agent 
Contract  Specialist 
Purchasing  Agent 
Contract  Specialist 
'Contract  Specialist 
*Clerk  Typist 
•Purchasing  Agent 
•Contract  Specialist 
•Contract  Specialist 


GS-14 
GS07 
GS-13 
GS-09 
GS-14 
GS-12 
GS-04 
GS-05 
GS-12 
GS-12 


DEPARTMENT  OF  TECHNOLOGY  INITIATIVES 
Supervisory  Computer  Specialist 
•Administrative  Assistant 
Supervisory  Computer  Specialist 
Computer  Specialist  (Systems) 
Computer  Specialist  (Programmer) 
Computer  Technician 
Computer  Specialist 
Applications  Programmer 
Production  Assistant 


GS-15 

GS-09 

GS-14 

GS-13 

GS-11 

GS-09 

GS-13 

8a  Contractor 

8a  Contractor 


FILM  AND  VIDEO 

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


GS-14 
GS-05 
GS-09 
GS-12 


WEXNER  LEARNING  CENTER 

Supervisory  Computer  Specialist 

•Graphics  Artist/Cartographer 

•Cartographer 

•Production  Editor 

•Historian/Researcher 

•Researcher 

•Photographic  Scanner 

•Historian 

•Text  Editor 

•Consultant 

•Consultant 


GS-12 
GS-05 
GS-11 
GS-09 
GS-11 
GS-05 
GS-05 
GS-12 
GS-07 
GS-13 
GS-13 


ORAL  HISTORY 
Historian 
Program  Assistant 
•Program  Coordinator 
•Researcher 
•Consultant 
•Consultant 
•Consultant 
•Consultant 


GS-13 
GS-06 
GS-07 
GS-07 
GS-13 
GS-13 
GS-13 
GS-09 


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


324 


Question:  Please  also  list  any  grade  or  SES  promotions  since  your  opening 
in  April  of  1993. 

Answer:  When  the  U.  S.  Holocaust  Memorial  Museum  opened  in  1993, 
most  of  its  positions  and  its  organization,  were  undergoing  a  transition  from  the 
planning  phase  to  the  operational  phase.  In  1993,  as  directed  by  legislation,  those 
positions  which  were  responsible  for  "inherently  governmental  functions.. [to] 
continue  after  the  opening  of  the  Museum"  were  brought  into  the  Federal  service. 
Beginning  in  1994,  as  the  Museum's  true  organizational  functioning  began  to 
become  more  clear,  a  concentrated  personnel  management  effort  was  made  to 
determine  actual  duties  and  career  patterns  for  these  positions  in  relation  to  the 
nanjre  of  the  work  being  performed.  Also,  these  promotions  represent  a  response 
to  changes  in  the  scope  of  work  required  to  support  the  operational  Museum. 

PROMOTIONS  SINCE  APRIL  1993 


New  Title 

Promoted 

Promoted  to 

Effective 

from  Grade: 

Grade: 

Date 

Executive  Office 

Deputy  Assistant, 

Museum  Director,  Admin 

GS-0301-13 

GS-0301-14 

01/23/94 

Personnel 

Personnel  Mgmt  Spec 

GS-0201-12 

GS-0201-13 

02/18/96 

Personnel  Mgmt  Spec 

GS-0201-07 

GS-0201-09 

02/19/95 

Personnel  Mgmt  Spec 

GS-0201-07 

GS-0201-09 

02/19/95 

Personnel  Act  Clerk 

GS-0203-05 

GS-0203-06 

05/28/95 

Administration 

Office  of  Administration 

Administrative  Officer 

GS-0341-07 

GS-0341-09 

01/07/96 

Office  of  Technical  Services 

Dep  Dir  of  Operations 

GS-0334-13 

GS-0334-14 

04/02/95 

Computer  Specialist 

GS-0334-12 

GS-0334-13 

11/12/95 

Computer  Specialist 

GS-0334-09 

GS-0334-11 

12/25/94 

Computer  Specialist 

GS-0334-09 

GS-0334-11 

12/25/94 

Computer  Specialist 

GS-0334-09 

GS-0334-11 

12/25/94 

Computer  Specialist 

GS-0334-09 

GS-0334-11 

12/25/94 

Computer  Specialist 

GS-0334-07 

GS-0334-09 

04/30/95 

Administrative  Officer 

GS-0341-07 

GS-0341-09 

11/13/94 

Photographer 

GS- 1060-05 

GS- 1060-07 

11/13/94 

Office  of  Support  Services 

Support  Srvcs  Super 

GS-0342-12 

GS-0342-13 

01/08/95 

325 


Tele  Specialist                       GS-0391-06  GS-0391-07  12/19/95 

Office  of  Building  Management 

Rigger                                   WG-5210-09  WG-5210-10  02/19/95 

Laborer                                 WG-5210-07  WG-5210-08  01/23/95 

Office  of  Contracting  and  Procurement 

Purchasing  Agent                  GS-1 105-07  GS-1 105-08  10/01/95 

Office  of  Protection  Services 

Security  Specialist                 GS-0080-11  GS-0080-12  04/30/95 

Security  Specialist                 GS-0080-07  GS-0080-09  06/11/95 

Office  of  Financial  Services 

Budget  Analyst                      GS-0560-07  GS-0460-09  10/01/95 

Accounting  Technician          GS-0525-07  GS-0525-09  07/23/95 


Research  Institute 

Office  of  the  Deputy  Director  for  Research  Institute 

Research  Prog  Spec               GS-1701-12  GS-1701-13     09/04/94 

Administrative  Officer           GS-0341-07  GS-0341-09     01/07/96 

Senior  Historian's  Office 

Historian                               GS-0170-07  GS-0170-09     08/20/95 

Department  of  Archives 

Archivist                               GS-1420-11  GS-1420-12     07/24/94 

Archivist                               GS-1420-09  GS-1420-11     02/24/96 

Archivist                               GS- 1420-07  GS-1420-09     12/02/94 

Department  of  Oral  History 

Program  Mgmt  Asst  (OA)     GS-0303-05  GS-0303-06     01/21/96 

Registry  of  Holocaust  Survivors 

Registrar                                 GS-0301-12  GS-0301-13     09/04/94 

Historian                               GS-0170-11  GS-0170-12     03/05/95 

Department  of  Photo  Archives 

Supvr  Archivist                     GS-1420-12  GS-1420-13     09/18/94 

Wexner  Learning  Center 

Supvr  Comp  Spec                 GS-0334-11  GS-0334-12     09/04/94 


326 


Public 

Programs 

Education 

Director 

GS-1701-I4 

GS-1701-15 

10/16/94 

Program  Coord 

GS-1701-11 

GS-1701-12 

10/01/95 

Training  Spec 

GS-1712-09 

GS-1712-11 

11/26/95 

Training  Spec 

GS-1712-09 

GS-1712-11 

10/15/95 

Training  Spec 

GS-1712-09 

GS-1712-11 

11/27/94 

Volunteer  Coord 

GS-0301-09 

GS-0301-11 

08/21/94 

Program  Asst 

GS-0301-07 

GS-0301-09 

03/17/96 

Supv  Museum  Spec 

GS- 1016-07 

GS-1016-09 

01/08/95 

Supv  Museum  Spec 

GS- 1016-07 

GS-1016-09 

01/08/95 

Supv  Museum  Tech 

GS-1016-06 

GS- 101 6-08 

04/02/95 

Supv  Museum  Tech 

GS-I016-06 

GS-1016-08 

04/02/95 

Museum  Technician 

GS-1016-05 

GS-1016-07 

04/02/95 

Training  Spec 

GS-1712-05 

GS- 17 12-07 

02/10/96 

Museum  Technician 

GS-1016-05 

GS-1016-07 

10/29/95 

Museum  Technician 

GS-1016-05 

GS-1016-07 

10/29/95 

Museum  Technician 

GS-1016-05 

GS-1016-07 

10/29/95 

Museum  Technician 

GS-1016-05 

GS-1016-07 

10/29/95 

Museum  Technician 

GS-1016-05 

GS-1016-07 

10/29/95 

Admin  Assistant 

GS-0303-05 

GS-0303-06 

07/09/95 

Collections 

Museum  Spec 

GS-1016-12 

GS-1016-13 

08/07/94 

Museum  Spec 

GS-1016-09 

GS-1016-11 

10/16/94 

Museum  Spec 

GS-1016-07 

GS-1016-09 

01/07/96 

Exhibitions  and  Publications 
Program  Manager      GS-1701-11 


GS-1701-12     10/01/95 


Community  Programs 

Admin  Assistant         GS-0303-05 


GS-0303-07     07/10/94 


327 


Advisory 
Council  On 
Historic 
Preservation 

The  Old  Post  Office  Building 

1100  Pennsylvania  Avenue.  NW.  #809 

Washington.  DC  20004 


Statement  Submitted  by  the 

Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preservation 

to  the  Subcommittee  on  Interior  and  Related  Agencies 

Committee  on  Appropriations 

U.S.  House  of  Representatives 

March  27, 1996 

Agency  Mission  and  Functions.  The  Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preservation,  an  independent  Federal 
agency  created  by  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act  of  1966,  plays  a  pivotal  role  in  the  public-private 
partnership  to  plan  for,  manage,  protect,  and  use  historic  resources  in  the  United  States.  Federal  agencies. 
State  Historic  Preservation  Officers,  state,  local,  and  tribal  governments,  applicants  for  Federal  assistance, 
the  National  Park  Service,  the  business  community,  citizens'  groups,  and  members  of  the  general  public  all 
participate  in  these  efforts  and  all  have  important  roles  to  play.  The  Council  itself  is  a  cabinet-level  body 
composed  of  private  citizens  and  experts  in  the  field  appointed  by  the  President,  along  with  Federal  agency 
heads  and  representatives  of  State,  local,  and  tribal  government.  It  provides  a  forum  for  influencing 
Federal  policy,  programs,  and  decisions  as  they  affect  historic  properties  in  communities  and  on  public 
lands  nationwide.  The  Council  is  served  by  a  small  professional  staff,  with  offices  in  Washington  and 
Denver. 

TTie  Council's  primary  statutory  role  is  to  advise  and  assist  Federal  agencies  so  that  the  agencies  can  and 
will  do  a  better  job  of  planning  and  making  decisions  about  the  fate  of  historic  properties  when  carrying 
out  their  programs.  TTie  vision  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act  is  to  have  Federal  agencies 
operate  as  responsible  stewards  of  the  Nation's  cultural  heritage.  Development  and  implementation  of 
effective  policies  and  program  initiatives  supporting  this  vision  is  the  key.  With  continued  Council 
involvement,  we  believe  that  agencies  will  ultimately  succeed  in  fully  meeting  their  responsibilities  under 
the  law.  However,  in  the  interim  before  this  long-term  goal  is  achieved,  there  needs  to  be  a  process  to 
ensure  that  historic  preservation  needs  are  balanced  with  Federal  project  requirements.  The  principal 
mechanism  to  achieve  this  balance  is  known  as  the  Section  106  review  process  (see  below). 

As  directed  by  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act  of  1966,  the  Council: 

•  Advocates  fill!  consideration  of  historic  values  in  Federal  decisionmaking; 

•  Oversees  Federal  agency  planning  and  review  of  actions  which  may  affect  significant 
historic  resources,  and  mediates  in  controversial  cases; 

•  Evaluates  Federal  programs  and  policies  to  further  preservation; 

•  Provides  essential  training,  guidance  and  information  to  make  the  planning  and  review  of 
Federal  actions  operate  efficiently  and  with  effective  citizen  involvement;  and 

•  Recommends  administrative  and  legislative  improvements  for  balancing 

protection  of  the  Nation's  heritage  with  other  national  needs  and  priorities. 


328 


Level  of  Operations  and  FY  1997  Request.  Under  the  current  continuing  budget  resolution  for  the 
Department  of  the  Interior  and  Related  Agencies,  the  Council  is  funded  at  $2.5  million  for  FY  1996, 
supporting  a  staff  of  34.  This  represents  a  15%  downsizing  of  the  Council  from  its  operating  level  in  prior 
years.  The  President's  budget  for  FY  1997  requests  $2.5  million  to  continue  the  FY  1996  funding  level. 
Our  current  estimates  indicate  that  continuation  of  Council  operations  in  a  number  of  key  areas  will  have 
substantial  challenges  to  meet  at  this  funding  level.  Due  to  additional  costs  of  doing  business,  the  $2.5 
million  figure  will  occasion  a  further  12%  reduction  in  the  Council's  operations  in  FY  1997.  Staff  level 
will  shrink  to  30  FTEs,  a  25%  reduction  from  FY  1995  for  a  small  agency  in  which  81%  of  the  budget  is 
personnel  costs  due  to  the  labor  intensive  nature  of  our  workload. 

Program  Commitinents  at  Projected  Budget  Level.  Recognizing  Congress'  desire  for  downsizing  the 
Federal  government,  and  the  Administration's  'reinvention'  objectives,  the  Council  is  seriously  re- 
examining both  its  duties  under  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act,  and  the  manner  in  which  it 
conducts  business,  to  determine  how  best  to  ensure  efficient  yet  effective  participation  in  the  Federal 
preservation  program  at  this  budget  level. 

Given  current  and  likely  future  budget  constraints,  the  Council  will  concentrate  on  developing  more 
efficient  ways  to  monitor  and  improve  Federal  agency  program  performance,  devising  more  cost-effective 
means  for  tracking  and  overseeing  system  operation  of  the  Section  106  review  process,  and  focusing  its 
limited  personnel  and  other  resources  on  the  most  critical,  controversial,  or  precedent-setting  historic 
preservation  cases  and  issues. 

The  Council's  principal  program  objectives  in  FY  1997,  in  particular  through  the  implementation  of 
proposed  revisions  to  the  Council's  regulations  that  are  currently  under  development,  will  include: 

—  Greater  deference  to  local  solutions  in  individual  situations  arising  under  Section  106,  while  attempting 
to  ensure  quality  control,  consistency,  adequate  public  involvement,  and  necessary  conflict  resolution  to 
the  extent  feasible 

—  Better  focus  on  truly  significant  properties  at  all  levels  of  significance,  as  well  as  due  attention  to  historic 
resources  that  members  of  the  public  care  about  and  value 

—  Development  and  provision  of  necessary  advice,  guidance,  training,  and  other  assistance,  especially  for 
other  Federal  agencies  and  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers,  through  electronic  media, 
teleconferencing,  desktop  publishing,  and  other  more  limited  means  than  in  past  years 

—  Gathering  of  information  on  creative,  precedential,  or  otherwise  successful  solutions  to  preservation 
problems  that  can  be  made  available  to  parties  to  the  Section  106  process  for  broader  application,  in  order 
to  use  the  lessons  learned  in  individual  cases,  and  to  avoid  "reinventing  the  wheel" 

—  Cooperative  work  with  agencies  to  assist  them  in  developing  better  ways  to  integrate  historic 
preservation  into  agency  planning,  resource  management,  and  decisionmaking 

—  Examination  of  ways  to  effect  better  coordination  of  preservation  activities  among  Federal  agencies,  and 
of  Federal  agency  preservation  activities  with  State  and  local  priorities 


329 


"Continued  assurance  of  public  access  to  Federal  decisions  affecting  historic  resources  at  the  state,  local, 
and  tribal  level,  to  the  extent  that  time  and  financial  resources  allow 

In  a  positive  vein,  the  Council  is  responding  to  the  projected  FY  1997  budget  level  with  the  following 
strategies: 

Simplify  the  Section  106  process.  Within  the  next  few  months,  the  Council  will  publish  for  comment 
revised  draft  regulations  governing  compliance  with  Section  106  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act. 
This  is  the  culmination  of  several  years  effort  to  make  its  regulations  more  'user  friendly,'  efficient,  and 
streamlined.  An  anticipated  achievement  of  these  revisions  is  that  more  Federal  activities  will  be  reviewed 
and  resolved  at  the  State  level  rather  than  automatically  elevated  to  the  Council  level.  This  will  speed  the 
process  and  involve  fewer  staff  at  all  levels,  although  the  approach  certainly  runs  the  risk  of  sacrificing 
consistency,  sufficient  expertise,  or  adequate  public  involvement  in  some  instances,  any  of  which  could 
lead  to  costly  administrative  delays,  disputes,  or  litigation.. 

The  Council  has  long  played  a  central  and  unique  role  in  carrying  out  Section  106.  Through  the 
government-wide  procedures  it  prescribes,  the  guidance  and  interpretations  it  provides,  and  the  training, 
information  and  technical  assistance  it  offers,  the  Council  has  ensured  the  smooth  functioning  of  Section 
106.  Questions  of  application  to  a  wide  diversity  of  Federal  programs  have  been  addressed  and  effective 
information  to  the  public  made  available  so  that  citizens  across  the  country  can  effectively  participate  in 
the  planning  of  Federal  actions  that  affect  their  cherished  heritage.  This  program  area  will  continue  to 
receive  attention  to  the  extent  practicable. 

Shift  focus  of  review.  With  diminished  resources  the  Council  has  become  more  selective  in  case  review, 
and  concentrated  its  efforts  and  involvement  on  those  projects  affecting  the  most  important  resources, 
setting  an  essential  precedent,  or  raising  a  major  public  controversy.  This  trend  will  continue  and  intensify 
under  the  FY  1997  level. 

While  much  of  the  interaction  with  Federal  agencies  in  the  Section  106  process  involves  the  State  Historic 
Preservation  Officers,  the  Council  serves  an  irreplaceable  function  in  assuring  consistency  between  States 
and  coordinating  historic  preservation  reviews  for  multi-state  undertakings  such  as  pipelines,  transmission 
lines,  and  interstate  highways.  Without  the  Council's  substantive  involvement,  such  projects  would  risk 
delays  and  conflicts  in  the  environmental  review  process.  This  role  is  expected  to  continue,  but  is  likely  to 
be  further  restricted  by  declining  resources. 

The  Council  has  also  played  an  important  role  in  large,  complex,  controversial  development  projects, 
involving  diverse  parties  with  differing  concerns  and  agendas.  Hundreds,  or  even  thousands,  of  citizens 
may  show  up  at  public  hearings  or  otherwise  make  their  views  known.  The  Council  has  demonstrated 
repeatedly  that  it  can  serve  as  a  facilitator,  mediator,  and  catalyst  for  helping  to  resolve  these  sorts  of 
conflicts  and  make  sure  that  the  diverse  concerns  of  various  parties  are  considered  and  addressed  in  that 
solution.  The  Council  will  continue  to  play  the  role  of  mediator  in  a  small  percentage  of  Section  106  cases 
that  fit  these  characteristics. 

Seek  cost-sharing  arrangements  and  reimbursable  agreements.  In  an  effort  to  compensate  for  budget 
deficiencies,  the  Council  has  pursued  reimbursable  agreements  with  several  Federal  agencies  in  FY  1996, 
including  the  Department  of  the  Army  and  the  General  Services  Administration.  While  these  are  helping 
to  meet  our  immediate  fiscal  shortfall  and  will  result  in  program  improvements  for  the  Federal  agencies 


330 


involved,  they  are  not  without  cost.  Development  of  such  arrangements  is  time  consuming,  often  yields  no 
results,  and  creates  pressures  to  choose  programs  to  assist  on  the  basis  of  immediate,  short-term  fiscal 
realities  rather  than  on  the  long-term  potential  to  advance  historic  preservation  needs,  good  government 
practice,  or  the  broader  purposes  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act. 

The  projected  budget  levels  will  result  in  the  following  adverse  impacts: 

Personnel  cuts.  The  15%  cut  in  FY  1996  appropriations  has  necessitated  a  personnel  reduction  from  an 
authorized  level  of  40  in  FY  1995  to  an  actual  level  of  34,  a  loss  of  4  professional  historic  preservation 
specialists  and  2  clerical  positions.  As  professional  staff  diminishes  and  workload  remains  heavy,  some 
Section  106  projects  deserving  more  substantial  staff  involvement  get  only  cursory  review.  Some  historic 
properties  are  undoubtedly  being  compromised  or  lost  because  of  this,  but  perhaps  more  important, 
agencies  and  project  proponents  from  business  and  private  industry  are  unable  to  take  advantage  of 
Council  staff  recommendations  that  could  save  them  both  time  and  money.  In  addition,  the  likelihood  that 
a  percentage  of  projects  will  be  challenged,  and  either  stopped  or  delayed,  in  court  will  undoubtedly 
increase.  In  the  thirty  years  of  the  Council's  existence  to  date,  the  courts  have  never  overturned  a  Section 
106  agreement  document.  With  reduced  secretarial  and  administrative  support,  professionals  must  perform 
much  clerical  and  adminstrative  work  themselves,  an  obvious  inefficient  use  of  resources.    A  further  12% 
reduction  necessitated  by  the  FY  1997  level  of  $2.5  million  will  require  removal  of  additional 
professionals  from  work  on  both  individual  cases  and  programmatic  issues,  where  agencies  and  project 
proponents  could  benefit  fixim  the  Council's  advice  and  could  otherwise  avoid  time  delays,  increased  costs, 
or  duplicative  efforts. 

External  communications.  While  adoption  of  revised  regulations  is  expected  to  vastly  improve  the 
overall  process,  the  Council  will  not  be  in  a  position  to  publish  and  distribute  the  new  documents  and 
supporting  guidance  to  the  extent  desirable  or  necessary.  Training  for  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers, 
local  governments.  Federal  agency  personnel,  private  industry,  contracting  firms,  and  other  parties  on 
implementation  of  the  new  regulations  may  have  to  be  curtailed,  undermining  their  effectiveness. 

Conclusion.  The  Council  is  committed  to  ensuring  effectiveness  and  efficiency  in  the  implementation  of 
Section  106  by  removing  unnecessary  layers  of  bureaucracy  or  redundant  review,  and  promoting 
programmatic  solutions  to  recurring  planning  and  resource  management  problems.  The  Council  and  the 
Section  106  process  stand  as  a  successfiil  example  of  an  alternative  dispute  resolution  process  availabe  at 
the  national  level.  At  the  same  time,  the  Council  remains  committed  to  ensuring  quality  control, 
consistency,  coordination,  and  public  access  to  the  process  to  the  extent  that  limited  budgetary  resources 
will  permit.  We  appreciate  the  Committee's  support  for  our  program  and  our  efforts. 


331 


ADVISORY  COUNCIL  ON  HISTORIC  PRESERVATION 

ADDITIONAL  COMMITTEE  QUESTIONS  FOR  THE  RECORD 

Fiscal  Year  1996  Reductions 

Question.    What  has  been  the  impact  of  the  reductions  taken  in  FY  1996? 

Answer.    The  reduction  of  $447,000  from  FY  1995  to  FY  1996,  approximately  18%  of  the 
Council's  budget,  has  occasioned  a  downsizing  of  the  agency  and  a  reduction  of  activity  in  those 
areas  where  the  Council  has  some  discretion  over  how  it  commits  its  resources.  At  the  outset,  it 
should  be  noted  that  the  uncertainty  of  FY  1 996  funding  levels  greatly  hindered  planning  for 
these  changes.  The  prospects  ranged  from  having  only  enough  funds  to  shut  down  the  agency  in 
FY  1996  to  continued  funding  sufficient  to  maintain  the  FY  1995  level  of  operations. 
Accordingly,  the  Council  approached  FY  1996  with  a  variety  of  contingency  plans.    The  series 
of  continuing  resolutions  and  the  protracted  government  shutdown  ftirther  complicated  planning. 

A  management  decision  was  made  late  in  the  summer  of  FY  1995  to  trim  the  staff  by  four 
positions,  from  38  to  34.  Two  positions  were  eliminated  by  attrition;  the  other  two  required 
reduction  in  force  procedures.  Recognizing  that  the  strength  of  the  Council  lies  in  its 
professional  staff,  every  effort  was  made  to  retain  experienced  professionals.  However,  at  the 
same  time,  we  acknowledged  that  the  $2,500,000  level  was  insufficient  to  maintain  34  positions 
and  also  provide  necessary  associated  costs  of  doing  business,  such  as  travel,  printing, 
equipment,  supplies  and  administrative  services.  Encouraged  by  the  report  language  to  pursue 
reimbursable  activities,  we  entered  FY  1996  gambling  that  we  could  make  further  cost  savings  in 
our  operation  and  generate  sufficient  income  to  meet  a  shortfall  of  approximately  $150,000. 

Our  strategy  required  examining  every  element  of  the  Council  program  and  eliminating  or 
deferring  expenditures  wherever  we  could.  Where  possible,  FY  1996  needs  were  met  with  FY 

1995  monies.  For  example,  we  rescheduled  our  fall  Council  meeting  from  October  to 
September,  saving  about  $15,000  in  FY  1996  money.  We  purchased  equipment  with  FY  1995 
ftmds  and  have  not  spent  any  money  in  FY  1996.  Our  normal  budget  is  around  $30,000  for  these 
essential  needs.  Our  annual  report,  required  by  statute  and  widely  praised  by  its  readers,  was 
turned  into  a  biennial  report  and  funded  out  of  FY  1995  monies.  This  saved  $10,000  in  our  FY 

1996  printing  budget.  Supplies  were  pre-bought  in  FY  1995,  so  that  we  have  committed  only 
$200  so  far  this  year.  A  normal  year  sees  $20,000  spent  on  necessary  office  supplies. 

After  October  1,  travel  has  been  restricted  to  that  reimbursed  by  other  agencies,  with  virtually  no 
Council-funded  travel.  As  a  result,  we  have  spent  only  $13,000  in  the  first  half  of  this  year; 
nearly  half  of  that  was  member  travel  for  the  one  Council  meeting  that  has  been  held  this  fiscal 
year.  Our  normal  annual  travel  budget  is  $  1 00,000.    Likewise,  all  printing  has  been  held  to  a 
minimum;  less  than  $4,000  has  been  obligated,  compared  to  a  normal  annual  expenditure  of 
$40,000.  The  same  effort  has  been  made  in  all  accounts,  large  and  small. 


332 


Combined  with  the  successful  closing  of  a  reimbursable  agreement  with  the  Army,  we  have  been 
able  to  make  ends  meet  for  FY  1996.  However,  this  has  not  been  without  its  costs.  Priorities 
have  been  redirected,  not  on  the  basis  of  what  is  best  for  the  National  Historic  Preservation 
Program,  but  rather  by  what  will  either  provide  funds  to  maintain  the  essential  staff  to  do  our 
work  or  what  can  be  trimmed  so  that  we  do  not  have  to  cut  further  into  our  most  precious 
resource.  Deferred  expenditures  cannot  be  put  off  indefinitely;  we  will  have  to  return  to  a  budget 
that  adequately  provides  for  the  essentials  of  supporting  the  Council  and  its  staff. 

Underlying  this  was  the  hope  that  we  could  weather  FY  1 996  and  then  stabilize  our  operation  at 
the  downsized  level  of  FY  1996  for  FY  1997  and  beyond.  Our  budget  request  of  $2,888,000 
reflects  the  needs  for  maintaining  that  level,  with  a  staff  of  34,  and  restoring  the  travel,  other 
services,  equipment,  printing  and  supplies  accoimts  that  have  been  diverted  in  FY  1996  to  meet 
basic  salary  and  benefit  needs. 

Question.  What  services  were  you  unable  to  provide  as  a  result  of  this  reduction?  What 
programs  or  activities  were  delayed?  Which  were  eliminated? 

Answer.  Because  we  are  legally  obligated  to  respond  to  request  for  project  reviews  imder 
Section  106,  most  cuts  fell  in  other  areas.  It  should  be  noted,  though,  that  the  travel  restrictions 
have  impeded  our  ability  to  assist  Federal  agencies.  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers, 
applicants  and  the  concerned  public  in  expediting  Section  106  reviews.  We  cannot  accurately 
assess  the  effect  of  this,  but  it  is  clear  that  numerous  problems  and  conflicts  could  have  been 
better  and  more  promptly  resolved  had  we  the  fimds  to  travel  in  those  case  where  our  presence 
could  make  a  difference. 

The  burden  of  the  reductions  fell  on  our  efforts  to  improve  Federal  agency  preservation 
programs.  This  was  ironic,  as  the  entire  thrust  of  our  regulatory  revision  efforts  and  our  program 
initiatives  is  to  invest  more  Council  resources  in  this  vital  area.  Likewise,  users  of  the  Section 
106  process,  ranging  firom  SHPOs  to  Federal  agencies  and  industry,  universally  see  the  most 
important  long-term  contribution  of  the  Council  to  be  its  work  to  improve  Federal  agency 
historic  preservation  programs.  However,  because  these  activities  do  not  have  statutory  or 
regulatory  time  deadlines,  we  have^more  flexibility  in  pursuing  them.  At  the  outset,  we 
determined  that  we  would  only  spend  time  on  Federal  agency  program  where  an  agency  was 
willing  to  reimburse  us  for  our  time  and  costs.  As  a  limited  exception,  we  agreed  to  continue 
efforts  that  were  well-advanced  and  a  few  particularly  high-priority  endeavors  that  we  could 
afford.  As  a  result,  we  did  not  proceed  with  a  number  of  important  efforts.  These  include  review 
of  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  preservation  program  and  development  of  regional 
programmatic  approaches  for  the  General  Services  Administration. 

Likewise,  we  cut  back  on  a  variety  of  other  services  we  have  traditionally  provided  Federal 
agencies,  preservation  partners  and  the  public.  Two  positions  lost  were  in  the  office  that 
produces  publications  and  manages  the  Council's  training  program.  This  has  had  serious 
repercussions.    We  have  had  to  cut  back  on  the  development  of  guidance  publications,  including 


333 


Council  FedNotes.  a  periodic  publication  aimed  at  bringing  information  on  a  variety  of  topics  to 
users  of  the  Section  1 06  process.  These  are  important  components  of  our  efforts  to  improve 
agency  preservation  programs.    FedNote  topics  from  1994  included  Militar>'  Base  Realignment 
and  Closure  and  the  Department  of  Housing  and  Urban  Development's  Home  Partnership 
Reinvestment  Program.  We  have  been  unable  to  produce  any  this  year. 

The  reductions  have  also  impacted  the  training  program.  The  development  of  needed  workshops 
on  Section  1 06  for  State  departments  of  transportation  has  ceased.  Staff  cuts  and  the  extended 
shutdown  made  it  impossible  to  deliver  materials  to  the  GSA  Interagency  Training  Center  on 
time  for  scheduled  training  courses.  The  ensuing  rush  printing  increased  GSA's  cost  by  about 
$10,000.  More  importantly  for  the  long  run,  the  loss  of  staff  in  this  area  has  hindered  our  ability 
to  cultivate  opportunities  for  new  cooperative  initiatives  with  other  agencies  and  institutions. 
This  imdercuts  our  effort  to  build  cost-effective  reimbursable  arrangements. 

While  no  project  reviews  were  actually  delayed,  those  without  time  frames,  such  as  the 
development  of  programmatic  agreements  that  reap  long-term  benefits  in  the  saving  of  time  and 
money  for  both  agencies  and  the  Council,  have  taken  longer  to  advance.  Further  development  of 
a  programmatic  agreement  for  the  activities  of  the  Tennessee  Valley  Authority  has  been  delayed, 
as  has  creation  of  State-based  programmatic  agreements  for  enhancement  projects  funded  under 
the  Intermodal  Surface  Transportation  Enhancement  Act.  Revision  of  the  Council  Section  106 
regulations  has  also  suffered  as  essential  human  resources  were  diverted  to  meet  immediate 
program  needs  related  to  our  legally-mandated  Section  106  obligations. 

Project  Delays 

Question.  To  what  extent  were  Federal  or  private  projects  delayed  by  the  reduction  in  Council 
staffmg?  Which  major  projects  do  you  know  of  that  were  delayed  due  to  personnel  shortages? 
What  is  the  economic  impact  on  developers  or  the  Federal  government  of  these  delays? 

Answer.  As  stated  in  the  answer  to  the  previous  question,  we  have  sought  in  our  response  to 
budget  reductions  to  safeguard  those  personnel  resources  committed  to  carrying  out  our  review 
functions  imder  Section  106.  We  took  this  course  of  action  to  ensure  that  we  remained  capable 
of  meeting  our  legal  obligations  under  the  Section  106  regulations  and  to  minimize  impact  to 
other  parties.  Failure  of  the  Council  to  meet  these  obligations  could  unfairly  penalize  Federal 
agencies,  local  and  State  governments  attempting  to  carry  out  projects  with  Federal  assistance,  or 
private  parties  engaged  in  some  form  of  development  activities  requiring  Federal  approvals  or 
licenses.  Because  of  this  programming  decision  we  believe  that  the  Council's  budget  reductions 
have  not  to  date  been  responsible  for  the  delay  of  any  projects.  However,  those  activities  without 
specific  regulatory  timeframes,  such  as  the  development  of  programmatic  agreements  for  multi- 
state  projects,  may  move  ahead  somewhat  slower  than  they  have.  That  is  why  our  budget 
justification  shows  an  increase  in  the  number  of  cases  carried  over  into  the  following  fiscal  year. 


334 


Question.  You  indicate  in  your  prepared  testimony  that  level  funding  at  the  $2.5  million  mark 
would  occasion  a  further  12%  reduction  in  Council  operations.  Why  would  there  be  such  a  large 
reduction  given  level  funding? 

Answer.  In  an  agency  as  small  as  the  Council,  there  are  virtually  no  places  to  absorb  the  normal 
increases  in  the  cost  of  doing  business.  Salaries  and  benefits  take  up  81%  of  our  budget  and 
fixed  costs  such  as  rent,  administrative  services  from  the  Department  of  the  Interior  and 
equipment  maintenance  diminish  our  discretionary  funds  even  more.  Accordingly,  something 
seemingly  minor  such  as  the  3%  classified  Federal  pay  raise  scheduled  for  January,  1997,  will 
cost  us  $46,000.  This  translates  into  the  annual  salary  of  a  Historic  Preservation  Specialist 
position  at  the  GS-12  level. 

It  is  also  critical  to  acknowledge  that,  because  we  had  slashed  non-personnel  costs  to  the  bone  in 
FY  1996  and  met  our  deficit  by  reimbursables,  we  have  no  other  funding  categories  to  draw 
upon.    We  believe  that,  while  we  were  able  to  make  ends  meet  by  concluding  the  Army 
agreement  in  FY  1 996,  we  caimot,  and  should  not,  base  our  core  staff  level  on  the  hope  that 
future  reimbursables  may  come  along.  Reimbursable  agreements  have  good  potential  for 
expanding  our  capabilities;  they  should  not  be  relied  on  to  fund  our  basic  operation. 

The  other  major  factor  affecting  the  impact  of  level  or  reduced  funding  is  based  on  our  response 
to  the  FY  1 996  reduction.    As  noted,  this  year  the  Council  has  disproportionately  slashed 
spending  in  non-personnel  areas  that  are  essential  to  supporting  the  work  of  our  members  and 
professional  staff.  We  cannot  continue  to  run  the  agency  this  way  over  the  long  run.  If  the 
Congress  decides  to  keep  our  funding  level  or  reduce  it  even  further,  we  will  have  to  downsize 
permanently  to  a  level  below  34  FTEs.  As  demonstrated  in  our  FY  1997  justification  for  the  $2.5 
million  level,  we  will  reduce  staff  to  a  number  that  we  can  afford  and  still  have  the  funds  to  meet 
travel,  printing,  equipment,  administrative  services,  maintenance,  supplies  and  communication 
costs  properly  associated  with  that  staffing  level.  This  would  mean  a  reduction  to  30  FTEs  from 
the  current  34. 

Personnel  Cuts 

Question.  You  state  that  labor  and  expert  personnel  are  key  to  your  functions.  Why  does  this 
level  funding  result  in  a  25%  reduction  in  personnel?  What  priorities  come  before  the  need  to 
keep  this  persormel?  Are  you  able  to  outsource  some  of  your  personnel  needs? 

Answer.  The  25%  reduction  in  personnel  represents  the  reduction  from  our  authorized  level  in 
FY  1995  of  40  to  our  projection  for  FY  1997  at  the  $2.5  million  level,  30  people.  Frankly,  there 
is  no  priority  that  comes  before  maintaining  our  capable  professional  staff.  The  hard  truth  is  that 
we  have  nowhere  else  to  cut  now.  All  the  discretionary  expenditures  have  been  cut  to  the  bone- 
travel,  printing,  equipment,  maintenance,  supplies  and  so  on.  We  are  unable  to  achieve  any  more 
efficiencies  without  reducing  staff.  Our  one  experience  with  outsourcing  is  our  ongoing 
administrative  services  agreement  with  the  Department  of  the  Interior  to  provide  certain 


335 


administrative  services  that  are  uneconomic  to  provide  in-house.  These  include  fiscal,  personnel, 
procurement  and  some  other  administrative  services.  We  pay  $1 17,000  annually,  demonstrating 
that  outsourcing  still  requires  the  wherewithal  to  pay  for  the  service.  Our  assessments  show  no 
cost  savings  by  going  that  route  in  other  areas.  We  have  some  concern  that  we  might  actually  be 
better  served  by  using  the  $11 7,000  to  hire  the  in-house  expertise  to  provide  administrative 
services. 


Possible  Savings 

Question.  What  potential  is  there  to  achieve  clerical  and  administrative  savings  by  collocating 
with  other  federal  or  planning  agencies  so  you  could  centralize  this  support? 

Answer.  The  staff  reductions  of  FY  1995  fell  most  heavily  on  the  clerical  and  administrative 
staff.  The  Administrative  Officer  position  (GS-15)  was  left  vacant  upon  retirement  of  the 
incumbent;  two  administrative  support  and  clerical  positions  (GS-6  &  7)  were  eliminated,  out  of 
a  total  of  6  in  the  entire  agency.  One  professional  staff  position  (GS-12)  was  left  unfilled.  While 
we  had  not  given  serious  thought  to  possible  collocation  until  this  question  was  posed,  our 
assessment  is  negative.  There  are  few  services  we  currently  provide  that  could  be  shared.  Our 
current  clerical  staff  is  one  receptionist,  who  handles  the  telephones  for  the  Washington  office  as 
well  as  providing  clerical  services  to  the  bulk  of  the  professional  staff;  an  administrative  assistant 
who  provides  secretarial  services  to  the  Executive  Directorate  and  supports  the  members;  an 
administrative  assistant  who  handles  publications  and  information  support;  an  administrative 
assistant  who  supports  the  training  and  education  program;  and  a  secretary  for  the  Denver  office. 

As  noted,  we  already  draw  on  the  Interior  Department  for  administrative  support  in  the  fiscal, 
procurement  and  personnel  area.  This  is  conducted  on  a  reimbursable  basis  per  Section  205  of 
the  Act.  Renegotiation  of  the  Interior  charge,  reflecting  the  downsizing  of  the  Council,  is 
underway.  We  hope  to  realize  some  savings,  possibly  as  much  as  $25,000. 

Collocation  could  possibly  provide  us  with  more  service,  but  it  is  doubtful  that  we  could  cut  back 
on  the  current  support  staff.  Offsetting  any  savings  would  be  the  significant  costs  of  relocating 
the  agency  to  a  site  where  collocation  could  occur.  This  includes  moving,  telephone  and 
computer  wiring,  and  the  purchase  and  installation  of  fiimiture.  Our  current  Washington  office  is 
furnished  with  modular  furniture  that  belongs  to  GSA  and  would  remain  in  the  Old  Post  Office 
were  we  to  move. 

Question.  Is  there  potential  for  a  closer  cooperative  relationship,  including  administrative 
services  with  either  the  National  Park  Service  or  the  National  Trust  for  Historic  Preservation? 

Answer.  Section  205  of  the  Act  says  that  financial  and  administrative  services  "shall  be  provided 
the  Council  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior."  We  believe  that  this  language  restricts  our  ability 
to  arrange  for  the  provision  of  such  services  elsewhere.  Were  that  not  the  case,  it  is  possible  that 


336 


we  could  transfer  our  arrangement  for  administrative  services  to  another  agency,  such  as  the 
National  Park  Service.  However,  it  is  doubtful  that  significant  cost  savings  could  be  achieved, 
unless  the  provider  agency  were  to  underwrite  the  cost  of  the  service  as  a  form  of  contribution  to 
the  Council.  We  are  not  optimistic  in  the  current  fiscal  climate  that  another  agency  would  see  fit 
to  do  that.  Likewise,  the  National  Trust,  besides  being  a  non-Federal  entity  and  therefore  not 
really  able  to  meet  all  the  needs  of  a  small  Federal  agency  such  as  ours  in  personnel,  procurement 
and  fiscal  matters,  could  not  be  expected  to  do  the  job  for  appreciably  less  than  Interior  currently 
charges  us. 

We  can  be  more  successfial  in  specific  program  areas.  For  example,  the  Council  is  developing  a 
closer  cooperative  relationship  with  NPS  in  its  educational  efforts.  Our  respective  areas  of 
expertise  and  jurisdiction  complement  each  other  in  presenting  a  comprehensive  course  in  the 
full  range  of  Federal  historic  preservation  laws.  In  FY  1993-94,  the  Council  and  NPS  jointly 
developed  a  new  and  greatly  needed  course,  "Introduction  to  Cultural  Resource  Management 
Laws  &  Regulations."  Course  development  was  supported  by  funds  from  NPS  and  the 
Department  of  Defense's  Legacy  Resource  Management  Program,  with  assistance  from  the 
National  Conference  of  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers,  and  NPS  and  Council  staff.  In  FY 
1995,  the  Coimcil  and  NPS  jointly  undertook  revising  and  upgrading  the  course  for  DoD,  which 
provided  funding.  The  Council  and  NPS  are  presently  working  to  institutionalize  the  course 
within  DoD. 

In  addition,  NPS  and  the  Council,  in  partnership  with  the  Coast  Guard,  jointly  undertook 
tailoring  the  new  course  in  FY  1995  for  the  Coast  Guard  as  part  of  a  multi-faceted  project  to 
initiate  a  comprehensive  historic  preservation  program  for  the  Coast  Guard.  Funding  was 
provided  by  the  Coast  Guard.  Continuation  is  dependent  upon  Coast  Guard  funding  priorities. 
Likewise,  NPS  and  the  Council  are  presently  seeking  means  to  adapt  this  course  for  NPS 
personnel,  as  well  as  for  a  general  audience. 

While  this  has  been  a  successful  ongoing  partnership,  the  Council  has  contributed  most  of  the 
staff  time  and  effort  for  developing  curriculum  and  instructional  materials  and  overall  course 
administration.  NPS  has  been  an  essential  partner,  but  the  initiative  added  work  for  Council 
staff.  As  with  most  of  the  Council's  joint  initiatives,  such  partnerships  supplement  rather  than 
replace  Council  resources  and  efforts,  and  provide  ways  for  the  Council  to  leverage  assistance 
and  support  for  mutually  beneficial  goals. 

Question.  You  have  both  an  eastern  and  a  western  office  of  review.  What  cost  savings  could  you 
realize  by  combining  these  offices?  Given  modem  means  of  communications,  is  there  still  a  need 
to  maintain  an  office  in  the  west?  What  communications  system  do  you  use  to  link  offices? 

Answer.  About  the  only  cost  saving  would  be  in  the  area  of  rent,  which  would  be  partially  offset 
by  adding  space  in  Washington.  Employee  costs,  communication,  other  services,  equipment  and 
supplies  would  remain  about  the  same,  with  slight  savings  in  some  offset  by  increases  in  others. 
For  example,  we  might  save  on  equipment  maintenance  contracts  by  having  a  single  one  in 


337 


Washington,  but  would  spend  more  in  telephone  and  express  services  to  communicate  with  other 
Federal  offices  located  in  Denver  and  currently  within  the  local  area  of  our  Denver  office.  The 
big  increase  would  be  in  travel  costs,  as  much  business  is  now  transacted  with  other  agencies  that 
have  regional  offices  in  Denver  or  are  located  in  cities  more  cheaply  reached  from  Denver  . 

The  Council  has  occasionally  considered  whether  there  are  benefits  to  closing  its  one  field  office. 
Each  time,  including  our  current  assessment  as  we  contemplated  downsizing  for  FY  1996  and 
beyond,  we  have  determined  that  the  level  of  service  we  can  provide  Section  1 06  users  in  the 
West  would  suffer  inordinately  and  outweigh  any  possible  cost  savings.  Not  only  does  the 
Council's  western  office  offer  a  geographic  proximity  to  western  SHPOs,  Indian  tribes.  Federal 
agencies  and  the  public,  but  it  also  brings  an  important  regional  perspective  to  our  work  that 
cannot  be  quantified  in  dollar  terms. 

The  western  office  connects  electronically  to  the  Washington  office  using  a  communication 
router  providing  a  direct  line  between  our  two  local  area  networks.  Also,  hardware  and  software 
is  currently  being  installed  to  connect  to  the  Washington  office  and  other  Federal  agencies  via  the 
Internet.  Fax  communications  are  used  on  a  daily  basis. 

Legal  Services 

Question.  Why  do  you  need  to  maintain  your  own  legal  services  office?  Given  the  substantial 
experience  of  other  Federal  departments,  such  as  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  in  historic 
preservation  issues,  could  you  not  utilize  such  services? 

Answer.  When  the  Council  was  given  its  independence  from  the  National  Park  Service  in  1 976, 
one  of  the  reasons  for  that  was  the  problem  of  getting  independent  legal  advice  and  counsel.  At 
that  time,  the  Council  received  legal  services  from  the  Solicitor's  Office,  which  was  also 
advising  the  National  Park  Service,  the  Bureau  of  Land  Management  and  other  Interior  agencies 
that  had  cases  pending  regularly  before  the  Council  for  review.  Using  the  legal  services  of  the 
Department,  or  for  that  matter,  any  other  Federal  agency,  presents  inherent  conflicts  of  interest 
that  undermine  the  essential  independence  of  the  Council.  For  example,  it  is  not  unusual  for  the 
Council's  attorneys  to  be  advancing  before  the  Justice  Department  the  Council  position  on  a 
lawsuit  against  another  Federal  agency.  The  Council's  legal  staff  reflects  the  policy  positions 
taken  by  the  independent  membership  of  the  Council,  positions  that  sometimes  are  at  odds  with 
an  agency  accused  of  violating  Section  106;  it  is  doubtful  the  Council  could  rely  on  legal  counsel 
from  another  agency  to  provide  this  kind  of  independent  representation. 

These  conflicts  become  even  more  apparent  in  the  day-to-day  workings  of  the  Council.  Most 
legal  work  occurs  in  the  informal  advice  provided  to  staff  on  Section  106  case  reviews  and 
reviewing  agreements  for  legal  sufficiency.  This  requires  two  abilities:  first,  a  familiarity  with 
the  workings  of  the  Section  1 06  process;  and,  second,  freedom  from  the  duty  to  advise  other 
clients  who  also  may  be  engaged  in  the  Section  106  process,  but  on  the  other  side  of  the  table.  It 
is  possible  that  skilled  lawyers  could  be  found,  possibly  even  without  the  taint  of  conflicting 


338 


clients.  However,  it  is  doubtful  there  would  be  any  cost  savings  and  there  is  not  a  doubt  that  the 
quality  and  timeliness  of  service  to  our  staff  and  members  would  diminish  greatly. 

The  Congress  recognized  the  ftill  range  of  this  problem  when  it  passed  the  1976  amendments 
creating  the  Council  as  an  independent  agency.  Section  205(g)  of  the  Act  specifically  enabled 
the  Council  to  have  its  own  General  Counsel,  charged  with  advising  the  members  and  staff  and 
given  the  express  authority  to  represent  the  Council  in  court.    Our  experience  over  the  past 
twenty  years  has  confirmed  the  wisdom  of  that  action. 


Question.  What  was  the  cost  of  your  Office  of  General  Council  in  FY  1995  and  what  is 
anticipated  in  FY  1996?  What  do  you  anticipate  the  cost  would  be  in  FY  1997  if  you  are  funded 
at  (1 )  the  budget  request,  (2)  at  the  FY  1996  level,  and  (3)  at  a  10%  reduction  below  the  FY 
1996  level? 

The  Office  of  General  Counsel  is  made  up  of  three  individuals.  However,  it  is  important  to 
understand  how  their  time  is  spent.  First,  the  Assistant  General  Counsel  (GS- 1 2)  is  part-time, 
working  26  hours  a  week.  She  is  planning  to  go  on  maternity  leave  in  October,  1996.  Second, 
the  General  Counsel  serves  as  the  Deputy  Executive  Director,  the  number  two  management  and 
policy  position  in  the  agency.  Roughly  70%  of  his  time  is  devoted  to  senior  executive  matters  for 
the  Council,  including  the  lead  role  in  budget  formulation  and  fiscal  oversight  now  that  the 
Administrative  Officer  position  has  been  eliminated.  Only  one  attorney,  the  Associate  General 
Counsel  (GS-14),  is  devoted  full-time  to  legal  work. 

Recognizing  this,  the  cost  (salaries  and  benefits)  of  staff  devoted  to  legal  matters  in  FY  1995  was 
$1 74,000;  in  FY  1996,  it  is  projected  at  $1 78,500,  but  this  does  not  reflect  the  maternity  leave.  If 
we  were  funded  at  the  requested  level  of  $2,888  million,  we  would  anticipate  the  cost  to  remain 
about  the  same.  The  $2.5  million  level  would  necessitate  a  reduction,  ranging  from  $35,000  to 
$65,000,  depending  on  exactly  how  legal  staff  was  cut  back.  At  $2.25  million  (10%  below  FY 
1996),  we  anticipate  the  higher  figure  would  have  to  be  cut,  resulting  in  $1 13,500  allocated  to 
legal  services. 

Cuts  of  this  nature  would  be  particularly  problematic  in  FY  1 997,  as  we  plan  to  put  revised 
Section  106  regulations  into  place.  Loss  of  legal  staff  would  delay  getting  new  regulations 
published,  as  legal  staff  has  led  the  regulation  drafting  effort.  Also,  our  experience  with  the  last 
round  of  regulatory  revision  has  shown  us  that  many  questions  of  application  arise  with  new 
regulatory  provisions.  If  the  Council  can  anticipate  these  and  provide  guidance  and 
interpretations  in  advance,  we  can  ease  the  transition  for  all  users  and  reduce  potentially 
significant  costs  borne  by  agencies  and  other  users. 


Question.  What  opportunities  are  there  for  you  to  receive  legal  assistance  from  outside  sources, 
either  private  or  other  Federal? 

As  noted  previously,  there  are  inherent  difficulties  in  obtaining  the  necessary  legal  services  from 
outside  the  agency  on  a  timely  and  cost-effective  basis.  Our  work  requires  daily  contact  between 
the  professional  staff,  as  well  as  the  members,  and  the  legal  staff.  Litigation,  counseling  on  cases 
and  program  improvement  activities,  ethics,  legislative  issues,  the  myriad  requirements  of  such 
Federal  laws  as  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act  and  recently-enacted  regulatory  reform 
legislation,  and  administrative  law  issues,  such  as  procurement,  persormel  and  reimbursements, 
demand  a  legal  expertise  that  is  well  versed  in  the  unique  attributes  of  the  Council.  Our 
experience  in  the  1970s  of  relying  on  able  but  detached  lawyers  confirms  the  wisdom  of  the 
NHPA  in  giving  the  Council  this  critical  in-house  capability. 

Increased  Efficiencies 

Question.  What  specific  steps  are  you  undertaking  to  increase  your  efficiency  in  monitoring 
Federal  agency  implementation  of  Section  106? 

Answer.  As  the  agency  responsible  for  administration  of  the  Section  106  process,  the  Council 
has  a  primary  responsibility  to  oversee  the  overall  operation  of  the  Section  106  process  to  ensure 
that  it  is  being  carried  out  consistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  Act  in  a  cost-effective  and 
reasonable  manner.  Under  the  Council's  existing  regulations  this  oversight  is  largely 
accomplished  through  our  review  of  individual  cases  submitted  for  Council  review.  These 
regulations  require  that  when  a  Federal  agency  reaches,  in  consultation  with  the  State  Historic 
Preservation  Officer,  the  threshold  determination  that  an  undertaking  will  have  an  effect  to 
historic  properties  then  subsequent  review  by  the  Council  is  required.  This  case  review  enables 
the  Council  to  monitor  how  well  each  Federal  agency  is  meeting  the  requirements  of  Section  106. 
Likewise,  the  absence  of  cases  from  an  agency  informs  us  of  potential  problems  with  how  it  is 
considering  project  effects  to  historic  properties.  As  resources  permit,  we  are  then  able  to 
address  these  program  deficiencies  through  staff  contacts,  or  more  general  training  approaches. 

Changes  the  Council  is  now  proposing  to  its  regulations  will  fundamentally  alter  the  role  of  the 
Council  in  individual  case  review.  Under  the  proposed  changes  the  requirement  that  an  agency 
submit  to  the  Council  for  review  a  finding  of  "no  adverse  effect"  has  been  eliminated.  The 
proposed  revisions  would  also  require  only  that  an  agency  file  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  of 
agreement  it  has  executed  with  the  State  Historic  Preservation  Officer;  no  action  on  the 
agreement  by  the  Council  will  be  required. 

Thus,  as  the  Council  steps  back  from  engagement  in  the  more  routine  individual  project  reviews 
new  techniques  will  need  to  be  developed  to  enable  the  Council  to  monitor  how  well  the  Section 
106  process  is  operating.  Frankly,  at  the  present  we  do  not  have  specific  proposals  on  how  this 
will  be  achieved,  and  we  are  somewhat  concerned  about  reduced  funding  levels  impairing  our 
ability  to  operate  an  effective  monitoring  system  that  is  premised  on  an  entirely  different 


340 


10 

relationship  between  the  Council  and  individual  cases.  We  do  anticipate  that  we  will  develop 
methods  by  consulting  with  Federal  agencies  and  SHPOs.  We  would  hope  to  realize  the 
maximum  benefit  from  recordkeeping  and  reporting  systems  already  in  place  within  a  given 
agency,  thus  avoiding  the  costs  of  establishing  and  maintaining  a  separate  and  duplicative 
datakeeping  system. 


Question.  What  savings  do  you  anticipate  from  increased  efficiency  at  tracking  the  Section  1 06 
process?  Are  you  establishing  a  computer  database,  or  modifying  existing  systems? 

Answer.  We  anticipate  increased  efficiency  for  Federal  agencies,  and  thus  for  the  Section  1 06 
system  as  a  whole,  through  revisions  to  the  Section  1 06  process  that  would  shorten  review  times 
and  eliminate  Council  review  for  routine  cases.  By  shifting  the  Council's  monitoring  strategy 
away  from  individual  case  review,  we  will  produce  savings  government-wide. 

Our  current  Section  1 06  database  records  closed  cases  we  have  reviewed  with  minimal 
information  regarding  agency,  project,  location,  properties  affected,  and  nature  of  closure  (No 
Adverse  Effect  determination.  Memorandum  of  Agreement,  etc.)  In  the  future,  as  we  adjust  to 
downsizing,  revised  regulations  and  new  technology,  we  intend  to  put  into  place  a  system  that 
will  provide  fundamental  information  on  pending  and  closed  cases  and  allow  us  to  track  the 
status  of  the  case  at  the  Council.  Our  ability  to  do  this  will,  of  course,  depend  on  the  availability 
of  adequate  resources. 

From  a  technical  perspective,  the  Council  is  currently  using  Microsoft  Access  software  on  our 
Local  Area  Network  that  connects  all  Council  staff  users.    We  anticipate  adapting  our  current 
case  database  system  to  meet  the  changing  needs  in  accordance  with  changes  in  the  Section  1 06 
process  and  the  further  evolution  of  the  Council's  monitoring  methodology.  We  believe  our 
current  technology  will  support  our  needs  for  the  foreseeable  future,  recognizing  the  rapid 
advances  being  made  in  computer  technology  may  present  us  with  more  efficient  options  if  we 
have  the  resources  to  invest  in  them. 

Question.  What  computerized  systems  do  you  have  for  tracking  your  activities?  Can  these 
systems  be  checked  and  utilized  by  the  States,  private  concerns,  or  other  Federal  agencies?  What 
privacy  measures  would  be  needed  on  such  systems? 

Answer.  As  stated  above,  the  current  system  records  only  closed  Section  1 06  cases.  It  does  not 
provide  current  status  information.  When  we  shift  to  a  revised  system,  one  of  its  objectives  will 
be  to  provide  up  to  date  information  on  pending  cases.  At  present,  we  have  not  given  detailed 
consideration  to  the  design  of  such  a  system,  other  than  establishing  some  general  objectives. 
We  would  not  anticipate  privacy  problems,  as  the  information  included  would  be  derived  from 
material  in  our  files  that  is  a  matter  of  public  record.  It  is  unlikely  that  sensitive  information  of 
concern  from  a  proprietary,  national  security,  archeological,  or  Native  American  perspective 
would  be  included. 


341 


11 

The  case  data  base  is  only  one  aspect  of  useful  information  within  the  Council's  possession.  As 
we  move  more  toward  Federal  program  improvement,  the  opportunity  exists  to  organize  and 
share  valuable  information  on  Federal  agency  historic  preservation  programs.  We  anticipate  that 
in  the  course  of  working  with  Federal  agency  programs  on  a  government-wide  basis,  the  Council 
could  serve  as  a  clearinghouse  for  others.  We  will  soon  have  our  Home  Page  on  the  Internet  in 
full  operation.  Initially,  it  will  include  information  about  the  Council,  the  National  Historic 
Preservation  Program,  the  Section  106  process,  training  and  publications,  policy  papers  and 
studies,  news  and  preservation  information.  It  will  be  a  valuable  resource  for  the  users  of  the 
Section  106  process  and  the  public,  permitting  access  to  essential  information  and  documents  to 
promote  greater  understanding  of  the  system. 

Its  long-term  potential  for  assisting  the  Coimcil  in  improving  the  Federal  preservation  program  is 
even  greater.    For  example,  the  Council's  home  page  could  feature  a  collection  of  information 
about  the  historic  preservation  programs  of  any  Federal  agency  wishing  to  participate.  In  addition 
to  identifying  the  agency's  Federal  Preservation  Officer  and  other  descriptive  information  about 
the  agency's  historic  preservation  program  or  initiatives,  each  agency  could  submit  reports  from 
its  own  data  tracking  systems,  as  appropriate  for  public  dissemination  and  interest.  With  links  to 
other  home  pages,  the  opportunity  exists  to  significantly  improve  the  public's  understanding  of 
and  access  to  Federal  preservation  activities.  The  potential  for  cooperative  activities  with  other 
Federal  agencies  is  substantial. 

The  critical  ingredient  to  realizing  the  potential,  of  course,  is  adequate  resources  for  both  the 
technology  and  the  operation  of  a  useful  system. 

Significant  Properties 

Question.  Your  testimony  suggests  that  you  may  be  able  to  incur  savings  by  focusing  more  on 
"truly  significant"  properties  and  projects.  This  suggests  that  some  of  your  dealings  are  for 
projects  which  are  not  truly  significant.  What  consistency  is  there  among  the  states  at 
determining  the  levels  of  significance  for  properties  to  achieve  protection?  What  role  does  the 
Council  have  or  is  this  primarily  a  National  Park  Service  function? 

Answer.  The  meaning  of  the  statement  is  that  the  current  process  often  involves  the  Coimcil  in 
cases  where  the  nature  of  the  resource  and  the  degree  of  impact  does  not  really  require  Council 
attention.  These  can  be  effectively  resolved  by  consultation  between  the  Federal  agency  and  the 
SHPO.  Our  regulatory  revisions  will  address  that  situation.  However,  this  should  not  be 
construed  to  mean  that  the  Council  should  concern  itself  with  only  properties  of  exceptional 
significance.  The  Council  seeks  to  ensure  that  the  Section  106  process  carries  out  the  intent  of 
the  NHPA,  that  the  Federal  government  avoid  unnecessary  harm  to  historic  properties  held  in 
regard  by  local  citizens.  Accordingly,  it  is  involved  in  many  cases  where  the  property  in  question 
is  one  of  purely  local  significance,  but  highly  valued  within  the  community  as  a  prime  element  of 
its  heritage.  The  Council's  role  is  to  ensure  that  the  Federal  agency  gives  adequate  consideration 
to  those  values  and  the  public  concern  about  them. 


342 


12 

In  order  to  be  considered  in  the  Section  106  process,  a  property  must  have  sufficient  historic 
significance  to  be  listed  on  or  eligible  for  listing  on  the  National  Register  of  Historic  Places. 
This  fundamental  requirement  was  designed  to  ensure  that  the  review  process  is  triggered  only  by 
properties  important  enough  to  merit  the  resulting  expenditure  of  public  resources  by  Federal 
agencies.  The  National  Register  is  maintained  by  the  National  Park  Service,  which  has 
established  objective  criteria  against  which  properties  are  evaluated.  If  correctly  applied,  these 
criteria  ensure  that  only  historic  properties  that  merit  consideration  are  addressed  in  the  Section 
106  process. 

The  process,  though,  is  highly  decentralized.  Individual  SHPOs  make  judgments  on  specific 
properties  by  interpreting  and  applying  the  criteria.  At  a  conference  held  last  fall  jointly  by  the 
Council  and  the  NPS,  it  appeared  that  there  are  differing  views  regarding  the  application  of  the 
criteria,  suggesting  a  lack  of  consistency  among  the  States.  While  the  Council  does  not  play  a 
role  in  determining  the  eligibility  of  properties,  we  have  observed  through  our  administration  of 
the  Section  1 06  process  numerous  instances  in  which  Federal  agencies  and  SHPOs  accept 
marginal  properties  as  eligible  for  the  National  Register.  This  is  an  unfortunate  byproduct  of  the 
increasing  decentralization  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Program. 

Currently,  we  are  engaged  in  an  effort  with  the  NPS  and  our  State  partners  to  address  this  issue. 
We  all  agree  that  while  the  statutory  basis  for  the  National  Register  program  is  sound,  steps  need 
to  be  taken  to  ensure  greater  consistency  and  predictability  in  judging  properties  to  be  eligible  for 
the  National  Register.  We  hope  to  jointly  issue  guidance  with  the  NPS  later  this  year  to  clarify 
the  application  of  the  criteria  in  the  Section  106  process  and  thereby  improve  consistency. 

Preservation  Coordination 

Question.  Given  the  proliferation  of  federal  historic  activities  in  the  various  agencies  what 
coordinating  committees  or  bodies  exist  and  what  is  the  role  of  the  Council  in  these? 

Answer.  The  success  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Program  is  dependent  on  close 
coordination  among  Federal  agencies,  our  partners  in  State  and  local  governments,  and  related 
interests  in  the  professional  and  private  sectors.  The  Council  itself  was  created  to  serve  as  a 
means  of  coordinating  the  views  and  interests  of  important  players  in  the  program.  In  many 
ways,  its  membership  is  a  vehicle  for  cooperation  and  exchange.  The  members  are  appointed  by 
the  President  or  assigned  by  statute,  and  represent  a  range  of  Federal,  State,  and  professional 
backgrounds.  The  twenty  members  are  the  Secretaries  of  Interior  and  Agriculture;  four  other 
Federal  agency  heads;  the  Architect  of  the  Capitol;  four  members  of  the  general  public,  one 
Native  American  or  Native  Hawaiian,  four  historic  preservation  experts,  and  one  governor  and 
one  mayor;  the  chairman  of  the  National  Trust  for  Historic  Preservation,  and  the  president  of  the 
National  Conference  of  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers. 

Council  members  meet  several  times  a  year  to  discuss  and  consider  the  impact  of  Federal 
activities  on  historic  properties,  formulate  recommendations  concerning  administration  of 


343 


13 

Federal  programs  that  impact  historic  properties,  and  develop  Federal  policy  positions  on  historic 
preservation  issues.    Often  these  meetings  seek  the  input  of  others  with  an  interest  in  the 
preservation  program.  Over  the  past  few  years,  we  have  met  with  Native  Americans,  industry 
representatives  and  citizens  across  the  Nation  to  get  input  on  the  issues  before  the  members. 

The  Council  is  also  a  member  of,  and  participates  in,  several  committees  and  organizations 
whose  express  purpose  is  to  facilitate  an  exchange  of  ideas  and  communicate  information 
concerning  historic  preservation  issues.  A  sampling  of  these  include: 

National  Preservation  Coordinating  Council  (NPCC)  provides  a  forum  for  discussion  and 
consensus  building  among  the  nation's  preservation  organizations  and  agencies.  Members  of  the 
Coordinating  Council  are  the  American  Institute  of  Architects,  American  Association  for  State 
and  Local  History,  National  Alliance  of  Preservation  Commissions,  National  Alliance  of 
Statewide  Preservation  Organization,  National  Center  for  Preservation  Law,  National  Conference 
of  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers,  National  Coordinating  Committee  for  the  Promotion  of 
History,  National  Trust  for  Historic  Preservation,  Preservation  Action,  Society  for  American 
Archaeology,  Society  for  Historic  Archaeology,  US  Committee/International  Council  on 
Monuments  and  Sites.  The  Council  and  National  Park  Service  have  been  granted  observer  status 
and  attend  monthly  meetings  of  this  group. 

Federal  Preservation  Forum  seeks  to  enhance  the  quality,  efficiency,  economy,  and  cooperation 
among  all  aspects  of  federal  historic  preservation  programs.  These  goals  are  achieved  through 
dialogue  among  the  participants  in  the  federal  historic  preservation  program,  information 
exchange  at  meetings,  tniining,  and  workshops.  It  also  seeks  to  improve  lines  of  communications 
between  field  persormel  implementing  federal  programs  and  policy-making  personnel  in 
headquarters  offices.  The  Council  is  a  participating  member  of  the  Forum,  and  one  Council  staff 
member  is  a  past  member  of  the  Forum's  Board  of  Directors. 

National  Conference  of  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers;  Standing  Committee  on  the 
Council.     The  Council  attends  and  participates  in  the  NCSHPO  quarterly  Board  meetings  and 
annual  meeting.  Individual  states  can  bring  issues  to  the  Council,  request  clarification  of  Coimcil 
policy,  and  report  on  Federal  agency  activities  in  their  states.    The  Council  provides  information 
on  new  federal  programs  and  policies  that  impact  historic  properties,  and  emerging  trends  within 
existing  federal  programs. 

National  Task  Force  on  Emergency  Response.  The  Council  is  an  active  participant  in  the 
National  Task  Force  on  Emergency  Response,  a  partnership  of  Federal  agencies,  national  service 
organizations  and  private  institutions  representing  a  wide  range  of  cultural  and  historic 
preservation  interests.  The  goals  of  the  Task  Force  are  to  safeguard  the  nation's  heritage  from 
natural  disasters  and  other  emergencies  and  to  use  its  expertise  to  help  the  general  public  recover 
from  disasters.  Members  are  committed  to  working  together  to  meet  future  emergencies,  with  a 
swift  and  coordinated  response.  The  Council's  Executive  Director  chairs  the  FEMA  Liaison 
Working  Group.  More  detail  on  these  activities  is  found  in  the  answer  to  question  3 1 . 


344 


14 

Transportation  Research  Board;  Committee  on  Historic  and  Archaeological  Preservation  in 
Transportation.  The  Council  serves  on  this  Committee  with  representatives  of  State 
Departments  of  Transportation,  Federal  Highway  Administration  Divisions,  and  private 
consultants.  The  Committee  provides  a  National  forum  for  concerns  about  cultural  resources  in 
transportation  planning  and  implementation,  and  to  advance  state-of-the-art  research  and 
evaluation  of  cultural  resource  practice  and  policies.  A  recent  TRB  study  addressed 
rehabilitation  of  historic  bridges. 

Task  Force  on  Historic  Urban  Neighborhoods  was  organized  to  address  ways  to  implement  the 
Council's  policy  statement  on  affordable  housing  and  historic  preservation.  It  is  comprised  of 
the  Council,  the  National  Trust,  NCSHPO,  NPS  and  HUD.  Using  private  foundation  funding, 
the  Task  Force  will  sponsor  demonstration  projects  to  serve  as  models  for  the  use  of  preservation 
techniques  to  advance  affordable  housing  goals. 

Council  staff  also  serve  on  numerous  Federal  interagency  committees  and  professional  panels. 
These  include:  the  National  Maritime  Heritage  Grants  Advisory  Committee;  the  FHWA 
Committee  for  selection  of  innovative  technological  methods  to  rehabilitate  and  maintain  the 
historic  quality  of  roads;  DOI  Historic  Preservation  Fund  Grants  to  Indian  Tribes,  Alaska  Natives 
and  Native  Hawaiian;  and  various  Federal  awards  committees  and  selection  panels.  These 
bodies  provide  a  forum  for  the  exchange  of  information  and  ideas  that  reduce  duplication  of 
effort  and  disseminate  new  techniques  and  technologies. 

Failure  To  Agree 

Question.  You  state  that  few  projects  ever  fail  to  reach  final  agreement  on  historic  preservation. 
How  many  projects  failed  in  FY  1995  and  how  many  to  date  in  FY  1996?  What  percent  of 
projects  are  delayed  due  to  Council  oversight  and  involvement? 

Answer.  Cases  which  have  failed  to  reach  agreement  through  consultation  and  thus  require 
comment  by  the  Council  membership  have  traditionally  been  an  extremely  small  percentage  of 
the  Council's  caseload.  In  recent  years  this  number  has  been  further  declining.  In  FY  1992  the 
Council  had  8  such  cases,  2  in  FY  1993,  2  again  in  FY  1994,  and  only  one  case  requiring  full 
Council  comment  in  FY  1995.  For  FY  1996,  we  are  projecting  3  Council  comment  cases. 

We  do  not  have  any  quantitative  figures  that  would  enable  us  to  provide  a  specific  answer  to  the 
second  question.  It  is  our  sense,  however,  that  no  projects  are  delayed  as  a  direct  result  of 
Council  oversight  and  involvement.  The  Council  is  constrained  to  act  with  specific  timeframes 
(usually  30  days)  under  the  Section  106  regulations.  If  it  fails  to  meet  those  deadlines,  the 
Federal  agency  is  free  to  proceed,  having  afforded  the  Council  its  "reasonable  opportimity  to 
comment." 

Certainly  there  are  projects  that  are  delayed  because  of  the  need  to  complete  the  Section  1 06 
process.  In  our  experience  these  delays  are  most  often  the  result  of  agencies,  contrary  to  the 


345 


15 

advice  in  our  regulations,  initiating  the  Section  106  process  late—rather  than  early—in  project 
planning  or  failing  to  carry  out  the  steps  in  a  careful  manner.  In  such  instances,  agencies  may 
find,  perhaps  as  a  project  is  moving  toward  construction,  that  historic  resource  issues  remain 
unresolved  or  members  of  the  public  may  raise  grievances  that  effects  on  certain  historic 
properties  were  not  addressed.  Having  to  resolve  these  issues  late  in  project  planning  certainly 
can  result  in  project  delays.  Likewise,  a  Federal  agency's  failure  to  properly  do  the  Section  106 
process  can  result  in  court-imposed  injunctions,  delaying  a  project  fiirther.  Fortunately,  these 
cases  are  few,  particularly  in  comparison  to  projects  subject  to  other  review  requirements,  such  as 
the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act. 

Often,  of  course,  such  planning  shortcomings  by  an  agency  are  inadvertent  or  honest  mistakes 
and  the  agency  or  project  sponsor  could  face  serious  problems  if  steps  are  not  taken  immediately 
to  bring  the  Section  106  process  to  closure.  Other  times,  a  project  may  simply  be  on  a  fast  track, 
requiring  a  quick  response.  Regardless,  the  Council  always  tries  to  be  responsive  to  such 
situations,  often  adjusting  our  priorities  in  order  to  be  helpful.  We  believe,  if  the  number  and 
sincerity  of  letters  of  appreciation  we  receive  from  agencies,  local  governments,  and  developers 
are  an  accurate  indicator,  that  our  performance  record  in  this  regard  is  quite  good.  We  cite  as  just 
one  example  of  our  efforts  the  work  we  have  recently  done  with  the  Corporation  for  Olympic 
Development  in  Atlanta  to  accommodate  the  extremely  tight  schedule  to  prepare  for  the  1 996 
Olympics  this  summer. 

We  would  also  like  to  add  that  a  concern  for  timely  completion  of  the  Section  106  process  is  for 
us,  as  well  as  agencies,  a  principal  motivation  in  the  development  of  programmatic  agreements. 
By  stepping  back  from  the  press  of  project  schedules  and  looking  at  an  agency's  programs,  it  is 
frequently  possible  to  develop  programmatic  agreements  that  help  to  better  integrate 
consideration  of  historic  properties,  and  thus  Section  106  concerns,  into  program 
implementation.  In  our  experience,  programmatic  agreements  are  extremely  effective  in  ensuring 
that  needless  project  delays  are  avoided. 

Section  106  Case  Litigation 

Question.  What  is,  the  level  of  court  involvement  in  historic  preservation  cases?  How  many 
projects  were  delayed  by  litigation  during  FY  1995?  Does  the  Council  or  its  staff  participate  in 
litigation  or  testify  in  court  on  occasion? 

Answer.  On  average,  each  year  about  a  half  dozen  federally-funded  or  -permitted  projects  are 
challenged  in  Federal  court  under  Section  106  (and  occasionally,  under  Section  1 10  as  well). 
The  suits  are  brought  by  private  citizens,  Indian  tribes,  private  historic  preservation 
organizations,  or  occasionally  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers.  To  our  knowledge,  two 
projects  were  delayed  in  FY  1995  because  of  litigation. 

The  Council's  legal  staff  provides  litigation  reports  and  other  legal  guidance  about  the  NHPA  to 
the  Department  of  Justice  and  to  United  States  Attorneys'  Offices.  Often  Council  legal  staff 


346 


16 

works  closely  with  Justice  attorneys  and  counsel  for  defendant  Federal  agencies  to  craft  the 
government's  answer  to  a  complaint  or  prepare  an  appellate  brief  A  frequent  outcome  of  our 
involvement  is  the  Federal  agency  agreeing  to  take  the  steps  necessary  to  complete  the  Section 
106  process,  thereby  making  the  lawsuit  moot  and  ensuring  that  the  NHPA  is  followed. 

On  occasion,  the  Council's  professional  staff  has  provided  affidavits  for  the  record  or,  rarely, 
been  deposed  during  the  discovery  process  about  the  extent  of  compliance  with  the  NHPA  in  the 
case.  Very  seldom  have  the  staff  ever  been  required  to  testify  in  court  proceedings. 

Training  Activity 

Question..  What  training  programs  did  you  develop,  implement  or  participate  in  during  FY  1995 
and  FY  1996?  What  were  the  audiences  and  roughly  how  many  persons  did  you  serve? 

Answer.  Training  programs  developed,  implemented,  or  participated  in  FY  1995  and  FY  1996 

include  the  following: 

Continuing  the  program  of  introductory  Section  106  courses  (open  enrollment).  The  Council 
offered  18  introductory  Section  106  courses  in  FY  1995  for  695  persons.  To  date,  we 
have  held  6  such  sessions  in  FY  1 996  for  222  persons,  with  7  additional  sessions 
scheduled.  We  also  expect  to  hold  2-3  additional  "overflow"  sessions  this  year,  as  most 
of  the  1996  classes  have  had  waiting  lists.  In  FY  1995,  the  audience  was  54%  Federal, 
14%  State,  7%  local,  20%  private  sector,  and  5%  Native  American.  The  FY  1996 
audience  to  date  has  been  50%  Federal  (nearly  3/4  from  the  Departments  of  Agriculture, 
Defense,  Interior,  and  Transportation),  15%  State  (representing  13  States),  6%  local,  23% 
private  sector,  and  6%  Native  American  (representing  8  tribes). 

Continuing  the  program  of  advanced  seminars  on  preparing  agreement  documents  under  Section 
106  (open  enrollment).  The  Council  offered  6  advanced  seminars  in  FY  1995  to  163 
persons,  with  an  audience  that  was  39%  Federal,  30%  State.  2%  local,  26%  private  sector, 
and  3%  Native  American.  Three  seminars  have  been  held  to  date  in  FY  1996  for  about 
66  persons;  the  composition  of  the  FY  1996  audience  is  likely  to  be  close  to  that  of  FY 
1995. 

Upgrading  and  presenting  a  new  course  for  Department  of  Defen.se  officials.  Building  on  an  FY 
1993-94  joint  initiative  with  the  National  Park  Service,  DoD,  and  NCSHPO  to  develop 
and  pilot  a  new  course  on  Federal  cultural  resource  management  laws  and  regulations,  the 
Council  in  FY  1995-96  revised  and  upgraded  the  new  course  and  offered  it  twice  for  DoD 
audiences.  The  Council  took  the  lead  in  revising  curriculum  materials  and  coordination 
and  administration  of  the  multi-agency  initiative.  Fifty-five  DoD  personnel  attended 
"Introduction  to  Cultural  Resource  Laws  &  Regulations"  in  1995.  This  training  initiative 
has  been  an  important  component  of  the  Council's  efforts  to  help  DoD  personnel 
understand  DoD's  preservation  responsibilities  and  integrate  preservation  planning  and 


347 


17 

compliance  into  DoD's  programs  and  procedures.  The  Council  and  NPS  are  working 
with  DoD  to  develop  the  means  and  venue  to  continue  offering  this  course  for  DoD 
officials. 

Adapting  and  presenting  a  new  course  for  the  Coast  Guard.  As  part  of  an  effort  to  initiate  a 
comprehensive  historic  preservation  program  for  the  Coast  Guard,  the  Council,  in 
partnership  with  NPS  and  NCSHPO,  adapted  the  course  on  Federal  cultural  resource 
management  laws  and  regulations  for  the  Coast  Guard.  Sixty-five  Coast  Guard  persormel 
attended  two  sessions.  The  Coast  Guard  is  seeking  means  to  support  additional  sessions 
in  FY  1997, 

NPS  has  assessed  e  the  course's  suitability  for  Park  personnel  and  is  now  working  with 
the  Council  to  adapt  and  offer  the  course  for  NPS  personnel.  This  is  particularly  needed 
as  NPS  Section  1 06  responsibilities  have  become  decentralized. 

Special  courses.  The  Council  also  provided  special  courses  in  1995  and  early  1996  for  the  BIA, 
northern  Indian  tribes,  and  California's  Department  of  Parks  and  Recreation.  The  1995 
course  on  Federal  historic  preservation  law  for  Native  Americans  included  23  BIA 
officials  and  24  representatives  of  tribes  in  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  Iowa. 
Twenty  persons  with  the  California  Department  of  Parks  and  Recreation  participated  in  a 
special  session  of  our  introductory  Section  106  course  that  incorporated  information 
about  relevant  California  environmental  statutes  and  tailored  the  curriculum  for  State 
officials.  Several  requests  for  additional  special  courses  are  pending,  and  the  Council 
expects  to  add  at  least  two,  one  for  the  Air  Force  and  one  for  the  NPS,  to  its  summer 
training  schedule.  All  these  courses  were  or  will  be  conducted  on  a  reimbursable  basis. 

Workshops.  The  Council,  NPS,  and  the  National  Conference  of  State  Historic  Preservation 
Officers  cosponsored  a  2-day  workshop  in  October  1995  for  over  60  staff  of  State 
Historic  Preservation  Offices.  After  assessing  responses  to  a  1 994  Council  survey  of 
SHPO  needs  and  priorities  that  clearly  identified  a  need  for  training  that  addressed 
eligibility  for  the  National  Register  of  Historic  Places  and  its  relationship  to  the  Section 
106  process,  the  Council  initiated  the  cooperative  effort  and  played  an  active  role  in  its 
development  and  implementation. 

In  addition,  the  Council  has  on  numerous  occasions  provided  speakers  for  workshops, 
seminars,  and  conferences  sponsored  by  a  broad  range  of  agencies,  organizations,  and 
institutions.  The  audiences  are  very  diverse,  including  Federal,  State,  and  local 
government  officials.  Native  Americans,  industry  organizations  and  citizen  groups. 
Examples  include  a  one-day  session  in  Vermont  on  Section  1 06  that  drew  1 70  Federal, 
State  and  local  officials  and  consultants  and  participation  in  conferences  held  by  the 
Utilities  Roundtable  on  Cultural  Resources  in  Boise,  a  group  of  30  electric  companies 
primarily  in  the  Northwest  and  by  the  Eastern  Mineral  Law  Foundation  in  Baltimore, 


348 


where  175  mining  attorneys  were  present.  This  year's  constraints  on  travel  funding  has 
severely  limited  the  Council's  ability  to  provide  guest  speakers  and  instructors. 

Question.  What  would  be  the  training  program  activity  for  FY  1997  at  (1)  the  requested  funding 
level,  (2)  the  FY  1996  conference  action  level,  and  (3)  a  further  10%  reduction  below  that  FY 
1996  level? 

Answer.  At  $2,888,000,  the  Council  could  maintain  a  slightly  reduced  level  of  special  courses 
and  "scheduled"  introductory  and  advanced  courses,  as  well  as  develop  and  coordinate  the 
considerable  training  and  retraining  activities  that  will  be  necessary  to  implement  anticipated  new 
regulations. 

At  the  $2,500,000  level  of  FY  1996,  the  Council  would  need  to  drastically  reduce  its  program  of 
"scheduled"  introductory  and  advanced  courses  and  suspend  availability  of  special  courses  in 
order  to  develop  and  coordinate  the  training  and  retraining  activities  necessary  to  implement  new 
regulations.  The  timing  of  issuance  of  new  regulations  would  affect  exactly  how  far  back  normal 
training  activities  would  be  cut.  If  they  come  late  in  the  year,  some  regular  courses  might  be 
held. 

A  further  reduction  of  10%  ($2,250,000),  would  at  a  minimum  greatly  reduce  and  more  likely 
postpone  any  "scheduled"  courses  for  FY  1997,  eliminate  any  possibility  of  special  courses,  and 
seriously  impede  the  Council's  ability  to  provide  sufficient  and  timely  training  and  retraining  to 
implement  new  regulations. 

Question.  Have  you  developed  or  explored  the  use  of  computerized  training  modules  to  replace 
or  supplement  your  training  programs? 

Answer.  Certainly,  computerized  or  other  "exportable"  training  modules  would  be  valuable 
supplements  to  our  training  program,  especially  for  those  who  cannot  travel,  and  we  would  very 
much  like  to  develop  them  and  make  them  available.  Developing  and  marketing  such  items, 
though,  requires  a  substantial  up-front  investment  in  staff  time  and  technology.  At  present,  the 
Council  lacks  funds  either  to  enable  its  education  staff  to  acquire  the  training  and  expertise 
necessary  for  developing  computerized  training  modules,  or  to  out  source  such  development.  We 
have  begun  dialogue  with  the  National  Center  for  Preservation  Training  and  Technology  to 
explore  whatever  resources  or  expertise  the  Center  might  be  able  to  make  available  for 
developing  such  modules.  Indeed,  one  of  the  Council's  expert  members  chairs  the  Center's 
training  committee,  and  is  most  interested  in  partnership  initiatives  that  might  support  such 
activity. 


349 

19 

Internet  Activity 

Question.  What  is  tlie  progress  of  your  Internet  home  page?  If  implemented,  how  many  hits  is  it 
getting  per  month?  What  time  and  expense  is  involved  in  establishing  the  home  page  and  in 
answering  inquiries  that  it  generates? 

Answer.  The  Internet  Home  Page  is  in  the  final  editorial  review  stages  and  we  expect  to  be  in 
operation  by  the  end  of  May.  We  have  been  regularly  receiving  requests  from  the  public  for  our 
home  page  site  address  and  our  agency  e-mail  addresses,  but  have  not  kept  detailed  records  of 
them. 

We  started  working  with  a  contractor  last  fall,  carrying  out  a  contract  that  had  been  put  into  place 
in  FY  1995.  A  staff  working  group,  led  by  the  director  of  our  Information  and  Technology 
Center  has  coordinated  the  effort.  The  contract  was  for  $24,500  and  covers  hardware  upgrades, 
installation  of  an  ISDN  line,  software  installation,  setup,  programming,  and  training.  The  actual 
development  of  the  home  page  includes  materials  (mainly  existing  documents,  but  some 
revisions  of  these  are  being  done  and  some  new  materials  are  being  written  expressly  for  the 
electronic  medium),  editing,  layout  and  design.  The  contract  cost  includes  one-year  connection 
costs  for  thirty  accounts  and  home  page  hosting  for  the  year.  Longer  term  costs  will  include 
monitoring  by  a  Librarian,  and  regular  maintenance  and  modification  to  keep  materials  up  to  date 
and  responsive  to  user  needs. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  contract  to  develop  the  Council's  home  page,  establish  the  connection 
to  the  Internet,  and  provide  e-mail  for  all  staff  was  paid  for  with  FY  1995  funds.  No  FY  1996 
monies  have  been  available  for  these  purposes.  Approximately  $10,000  will  be  needed  to 
maintain  our  home  page  and  Internet  accounts  for  the  office. 

Question.  To  what  extent  might  on-line  services  supplement  or  replace  training  and  public 
outreach  efforts?  What  publication  or  training  cost  savings  do  you  anticipate  eventually  getting 
from  enhanced  on-line  service? 

Answer.  Because  the  Council  is  only  this  spring  coming  fiilly  on-line,  it  is  too  early  to  be  able  to 
predict  with  any  precision  to  what  extent  on-line  services  might  supplement  or  replace  our 
training  and  public  outreach  efforts.  We  anticipate  that  on-line  services  may  partially  substitute 
for  and  supplement,  but  not  replace,  existing  training  and  public  outreach  efforts.  Certainly,  the 
on-line  services  will  make  information  about  the  Council,  as  well  as  many  of  the  Council's 
publications  and  educational  materials,  available  to  a  lot  of  people,  streamline  transmittal  of 
information  to  those  who  have  access  to  the  Internet,  and  reduce  some  of  our  costs.  We  will 
eventually  be  able  to  realize  some  savings  on  postage  and  handling  and  personal  telephone 
contact  time.  Making  documents  available  on-line  will  allow  us  to  reduce  print  runs.  We  are 
particularly  optimistic  about  using  on-line  services  to  provide  ready  access  to  Section  1 06 
informational  material. 


350 


20 

Training  is  somewhat  different.  On-line  access  may  slightly  reduce  the  number  of  persons  who 
need  to  attend  formal  training  courses,  although  it  is  not  yet  clear  how  effectively  we  can  use  on- 
line services  for  training  purposes.  The  number  of  persons  and  offices  with  such  access  is 
presently  small  enough  (current  estimates  run  about  5%)  that  we  are  unlikely  to  realize  many 
such  savings  in  FY  1997.  Also,  although  on-line  capabilities  present  many  possibilities  for 
transmitting  information  to  distant  users  and  constituents,  we  are  not  presently  aware  of  any  on- 
line means  of  replacing  the  kind  of  multi-person  dialogue,  interaction,  and  group  applications 
that  are  possible  in  a  classroom. 

As  mentioned  earlier,  we  plan  to  explore  some  distant  training  options  that  could  include 
computerized  modules,  on-line  services,  or  other  possible  technologies  that  might  be  pursued  in 
cooperation  with  other  agencies  or  organizations.  Academic  institutions  that  participate  in  the 
National  Council  on  Preservation  Education,  as  well  as  the  National  Park  Service-affiliated 
National  Center  for  Preservation  Technology  and  Training,  represent  possible  partners  in  such 
endeavors. 

Question.  What  involvement  do  you  have  in  Geographic  Information  Systems?  What  additional 
hardware,  software,  or  training  needs  do  you  anticipate  in  the  GIS  arena  during  FY  1997  and  FY 
1998? 

Answer.  We  have  no  direct  involvement  in  either  the  use  or  development  of  Geographic 
Information  Systems,  although  we  believe  GIS  can  be  extremely  useful  for  Federal  agencies  and 
SHPOs  locating  historic  properties  and  using  that  information  in  Section  106  plaiming.  Our 
experience  with  GIS  has  been  limited  to  examining  its  potential  application  by  individual 
agencies  for  planning  and  management  purposes  at  Federal  facilities  or  on  Federal  lands,  usually 
under  a  specific  Programmatic  Agreement.  This  is  the  kind  of  Federal  program  improvement 
activity  that  we  would  like  to  have  the  resources  to  pursue.  It  involves  cooperation  with  NPS  and 
other  agencies,  but  the  Council  would  bring  its  unique  perspective  as  administrator  of  the  Section 
106  process  and  have  the  capability  to  widely  disseminate  information  on  the  use  of  GIS  and 
related  technologies  for  preservation  planning.  If  the  budget  picture  brightens  for  FY  1997  and 
beyond,  we  could  invest  some  time  assessing  how  best  to  use  this  technology  and  what  we  would 
need  to  commit  to  its  application. 

Question.  Are  you  involved  in  the  Federal  Geographic  Data  Committee?  Are  you  helping  to 
develop  national  standards  for  geographic  data  regarding  historic  properties  or  landscapes? 

Answer.  The  recordation  and  retrieval  of  information  regarding  the  location  of  historic 
properties  is  of  primary  importance  to  users  of  the  Section  106  process.  As  such,  the  Council  has 
a  great  interest  in  systems  that  can  be  used  to  improve  the  use  of  this  information.  However,  it  is 
primarily  the  responsibility  of  the  National  Park  Service,  in  its  role  as  administrator  of  the 
National  Register  and  State  survey  requirements,  to  address  these  issues.  We  have  worked  with 
them  in  the  past  and  will  continue  to  do  so  in  the  future. 


351 


21 

With  this  said,  we  are  not  a  member  of  the  Federal  Geographic  Data  Committee,  nor  have  we 
been  directly  involved  in  its  work  on  national  standards  for  the  comparability  of  geographic  data. 
Frankly,  it  is  not  an  area  where  we  had  chosen  to  expend  our  resources.  However,  we  are  well 
aware  of  the  potential  pitfalls  of  collecting  geographic  information  for  GIS  uses,  and  of 
computer-assisted  land-use  planning  that  approaches  its  task  with  varying  scales  and 
incomparable  data  elements.  As  GIS  and  related  technology  becomes  more  widely  used  for  land- 
use  and  resource  management  planning  for  purposes  like  Section  1 06  review,  it  would  naturally 
become  more  important  for  information  to  be  collected,  presented,  and  interpreted  in  comparable 
ways  between  jurisdictions,  from  agency  to  agency,  and  across  different  levels  of  government. 
Better  ways  to  include  and  use  information  from  historic  maps  and  other  archival  sources  for 
current  planning  needs  also  need  to  be  developed.  Cost-effectiveness  argues  for  more 
intergovernmental  attention  to  these  approaches,  and  we  will  attempt  to  stay  attuned  to  these 
developments  and  their  implications  for  improving  historic  resource  planning  to  the  extent  that 
our  own  fiscal  and  staffing  resources  allow. 

We  have  worked  with  the  NPS  on  related  activities  that  bear  more  directly  on  the  Section  1 06 
process.  We  have  periodically  joined  in  discussions  on  its  National  Archeological  Data  Base  , 
which  is  a  computerized  listing  of  archeological  inventory  projects  and  some  of  the  results  of 
those  inventories,  as  well  as  NPS'  development  of  standards  for  identifying  and  evaluating 
significant  cultural  landscapes.  We  have  also  participated  in  forums  with  the  Corps  of  Engineers, 
BLM,  the  Natural  Resources  Conservation  Service,  the  Forest  Service,  and  the  Army  on  their 
uses  of  GIS  and  related  technology,  and  discussed  these  same  issues  informally  with  State 
Historic  Preservation  Officers  as  such  systems  might  be  used  for  Section  1 06  and  related 
planning  purposes.  On  occasion,  individual  Council  staff  have  been  asked  to  participate  in 
professional  peer  review  of  methodological  and  technical  publications  and  guidelines  being 
developed  by  individual  agencies  on  these  issues. 

Council  Members 

Question.  Council  members  have  sjjecial  expertise  and  backgrounds  in  historic  preservation. 
Are  they  able  to  provide  objective  solutions  for  the  greater  public  good  even  when  that  may 
cause  reductions  in  historic  preservation? 

Answer.  The  unique  attribute  of  the  Council  is  the  diversity  of  views  and  experience  the 
members  bring  to  the  table.  This  was  the  original  intent  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation 
Act.  The  Council  was  not  to  be  a  single-issue,  preservation  advocacy  group.  Rather,  it  was 
designed  to  balance  the  often  competing  interests  of  Federal  program  agencies,  preservation 
experts  and  advocates  such  as  the  National  Trust,  State  and  local  government,  Native  Americans 
and  just  plain  citizens.  Over  its  history,  the  Council  has  sought  to  find  and  advance  the  public 
interest  in  historic  preservation.  This  does  not  mean  preservation  at  all  costs.  It  means  finding 
the  public  benefit  in  a  particular  preservation  issue,  measuring  the  costs,  financial  and  social,  and 
making  recommendations  that  acknowledge  the  important,  but  not  overarching,  role  the 
preservation  of  our  heritage  plays  in  today's  society. 


OA-T^  1      e\c 


352 


22 

Two  examples  demonstrate  this  characteristic  and  its  value  to  the  National  Historic  Preservation 
Program.    The  first  involves  Council  concern  that  efforts  to  rebuild  communities  and  provide 
affordable  housing  have  failed  to  use  preservation  techniques  to  meet  these  goals  and  have  often 
worked  at  cross  purposes  with  local  preservation  initiatives.  Building  on  staff  work  and  initial 
Council  recommendations  to  HUD  in  FY  1994,  in  FY  1995  Council  members  adopted  a  major 
policy  statement  to  guide  planning  and  review  of  federally-funded  housing  projects,  in  order  to 
totally  revamp  and  streamline  review  and  procedural  handling  of  affordable  housing  projects. 

The  strategy  is  intended  to  improve  the  relationship  between  historic  preservation  and  housing 
needs,  by  introducing  more  flexibility  to  the  application  of  historic  preservation  standards  so  that 
housing  rehabilitation  becomes  less  costly  and  the  product  is  more  in  keeping  with  contemporary 
lifestyles  of  residents.  Eventually,  plans  call  for  broad  dissemination  of  information  on 
mechanisms  for  streamlined  review  to  target  communities,  and  tailoring  of  the  approach  to  such 
areas  as  designated  Empowerment  Zones  and  Enterprise  Communities,  in  partnership  with  HUD, 
SHPOs,  and  the  affected  communities.    We  are  pleased  to  note  that  the  policy  statement  and  its 
related  implementation  strategies  are  being  increasingly  adopted  and  used  by  a  growing  number 
of  communities  throughout  the  country,  who  are  eager  to  make  historic  preservation  work  to  help 
meet  their  affordable  housing  needs. 

The  second  example  is  the  current  rewriting  of  the  Council's  Section  106  regulations.  These 
guide  the  involvement  of  Federal  agencies.  State,  tribal  and  local  governments,  applicants,  and 
the  public  when  the  effects  of  Federal  actions  on  historic  properties  are  assessed  and  dealt  with. 
The  path  to  the  draft  now  being  prepared  for  public  comment  has  been  marked  by  sharp 
differences  of  opinion  regarding  the  nature  and  extent  of  a  revised  Section  106  process.  In  public 
meetings  and  through  written  comment  on  questionnaires  and  earlier  proposals,  the  Council 
received  a  tremendous  amount  of  input  and  opinion.  Federal  agencies  argued  for  greater 
autonomy  in  meeting  Section  106  obligations.  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers  expressed 
concern  about  a  diminishing  Council  presence  in  the  process  and  increasing  burdens  on  their 
offices.  Native  Americans  voiced  objections  to  a  greater  role  for  SHPOs  and  less  access  to  the 
Council.  Industry  and  business  asked  for  a  bigger  role  in  the  process  and  a  reduction  in  the 
requirements  for  considering  historic  properties.  Local  government  sought  a  place  at  the  Section 
106  table.  Preservation  professionals  and  citizen  groups  decried  anything  that  could  be  construed 
as  a  reduction  of  the  Council's,  and  the  Federal  government's,  commitment  to  preserving  historic 
properties. 

As  policy  makers,  the  Council  members  tackled  these  tough  issues.  Through  meetings  of  the 
members'  Task  Force  on  Regulations  and  at  sessions  of  the  full  Council,  a  consensus  emerged 
among  the  various  members  on  how  to  strike  a  balance  among  all  these  competing  views.  The 
position,  conveyed  to  the  staff  in  policy  direction  and  now  embodied  in  the  current  draft, 
reflected  the  middle  ground  among  the  parties,  carefully  refined  and  crafted  to  carry  out  the 
policies  and  purposes  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act.  The  resulting  proposal  will  not 
be  a  "preservation  at  all  costs"  solution.  However,  it  will  reflect  the  thoughtful  consideration  of 


353 


23 

the  full  range  of  forces  and  players  that  shape  historic  preservation  decisions  involving  Federal 
undertakings.  Efficiency  will  be  balanced  with  public  access  and  ensuring  the  rights  of  various 
parties  to  participate  in  Federal  decisionmaking. 

The  reason  that  this  balanced  approach  will  prevail  can  be  traced  directly  to  the  composition  of 
the  Council  membership.  It  lies  not  just  in  having  members  with  preservation  expertise  and 
backgrounds.  It  lies  in  the  mix  of  those  members  with  Federal  agency  leaders,  their  State  and 
local  counterparts  and  general  public  members.  This  attribute  has  served  the  Council  and  the 
National  Historic  Preservation  Program  well  for  30  years. 

State  Involvement 

Question.  Which  States  did  you  have  the  most  involvement  with  in  FY  1995  and  FY  1996?  Are 
there  States  that  are  not  anxious  to  have  Council  involvement? 

Answer.  The  Coimcil  enjoys  involvement  with  virtually  all  States  and  their  respective  State 
Historic  Preservation  Offices  through  conduct  of  Section  1 06  reviews.  States  with  the  largest 
annua]  number  of  Section  106  reviews  include  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  California,  Michigan, 
Illinois,  New  Jersey,  and  Georgia.  When  viewing  these  numbers  it  is  important  to  note  that 
Council/State  involvement  is  roughly  proportionate  to  a  State's  level  of  federally-assisted 
activity;  it  is  also  determined  by  how  well  Federal  agencies  conform  to  their  Section  106 
obligations.    Some  agencies,  or  certain  regional  or  area  offices,  are  less  than  conscientious  about 
following  the  procedures.  As  a  result,  cases  the  Council  should  be  notified  of  and  involved  in  are 
often  not  brought  to  our  attention. 

Any  State  not  anxious  to  have  Council  involvement  has  always  had  the  option  found  in  Section 
800.7  of  our  regulations  which  allows  states  to  substitute  a  State  review  process  for  the 
procedures  contained  in  the  Council's  regulations.  New  Mexico  is  the  only  State  to  exercise  this 
option,  and  it  provides  for  Council  involvement  should  the  SHPO  reach  an  impasse  in 
negotiations  with  a  federal  agency. 

A  good  indicator  of  SHPO  attitudes  towards  the  Council  can  be  found  in  their  written  comments 
on  our  October,  1994,  draft  of  revisions  to  the  Section  106  regulations.  Of  43  commenting 
SHPOs,  37  were  supportive  of  the  draft,  finding  it  responsive  to  recent  amendments  to  NHPA. 
One  frequent  SHPO  observation  regarding  our  draft  regulations  was  "removal  of  Council  from 
meaningful  review  of  individual  Agency  undertakings  will  leave  SHPOs  vulnerable  to  local 
political  pressures  within  the  context  of  Federal  law."  Two  SHPOs  would  rather  keep  the 
existing  regulations,  and  another  wanted  to  shift  more  responsibility  back  to  the  Federal  agencies. 
Three  foimd  the  draft  regulations  overly  burdensome  and  advocated  major  revisions. 

This  high  proportion  of  SHPO  concern  was  echoed  in  comments  on  the  July,  1995,  informal 
discussion  draft,  which  revamped  the  October  draft  substantially.  Again,  while  SHPOs  wanted 
to  be  able  to  reach  agreements  bilaterally  with  Federal  agencies,  a  sizable  majority  still  felt  it  was 


354 


24 

essential  that  the  Council  review  the  outcomes.  This  was  felt  necessary  to  ensure  accountability 
among  Federal  agencies,  to  promote  national  consistency  and  to  prevent  undue  political  pressure 
being  placed  on  SHPOs. 

While  SHPOs  are  generally  supportive  of  less  Council  involvement  in  'routine'  cases,  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  SHPOs  welcome  the  Council's  involvement,  particularly  in  complex, 
controversial  cases.  Our  current  working  draft  of  regulatory  revisions  respects  this  sentiment  and 
significantly  reduces  the  Council's  involvement  in  project  review  while  retaining  a  role  in  those 
cases  where  it  is  truly  needed. 

Federal  Involvement 

Question.  Which  Federal  agencies  did  you  have  the  most  involvement  with  in  FY  1995  and  FY 
1996?  Are  there  Federal  agencies  that  are  not  anxious  to  have  Council  involvement? 

Answer.  Agencies  with  which  the  Council  had  the  most  involvement  during  FY  1995  and  FY 
1996  include  the  Department  of  Housing  and  Urban  Development  (HOME,  Hope  III,  Section  8 
and  Community  Development  Block  Grant  programs  carried  out  by  local  governments),  the 
Federal  Highway  Administration,  the  Corps  of  Engineers  (civil  works  construction  and  Section 
10/404  permitting),  the  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  Commission  (hydropower  relicensing  and 
natural  gas  pipeline  certification),  the  Bureau  of  Land  Management,  the  National  Park  Service, 
the  General  Services  Administration,  the  Forest  Service,  the  Federal  Emergency  Management 
Agency,  the  Resolution  Trust  Corporation/Federal  Deposit  Insurance  Corporation,  the 
Department  of  the  Army,  the  Air  Force,  and  the  Department  of  the  Navy. 

Asking  what  agencies  "are  not  anxious  to  have  Council  involvement"  might  be  better  stated  as 
"What  agencies  would  like  more  autonomy  over  their  cultural  resource  decisionmaking?"  These 
fall  into  two  categories.  The  first  would  be  those  agencies  that  wish  to  better  integrate  Section 
106  with  their  normal  planning  processes,  recognizing  the  particular  attributes  of  their  own 
programs.  This  would  lead  to  less  involvement  by  the  Council,  or  the  SHPO  for  that  matter, 
involved  in  their  routine  Section  106  compliance. 

Some  agencies,  such  as  the  Bureau  of  Land  Management,  the  Forest  Service,  and  the  National 
Park  Service,  are  making  progress  internalizing  cultural  resource  management  practices.  Other 
agencies  are  generally  satisfied  with  the  regular  Section  106  process,  but  would  like  to  resolve 
most  cases  at  the  State  level.  These  agencies  customarily  act  through  a  capable  State  counterpart 
agency  and  the  Federal  agency  objective  is  to  encourage  the  State  agencies  to  resolve  Section  1 06 
issues  with  the  SHPO.  The  leading  example  here  would  be  the  Federal  Highway  Administration, 
which  encourages  State  transportation  and  highway  departments  to  work  with  SHPOs. 

Both  of  these  approaches  are  desirable  objectives  for  an  agency's  Section  1 10  program  and  ones 
that  the  Council  supports.  To  meet  the  purposes  of  the  NHPA,  such  agencies  will  have  to  adopt 
sound  procedures,  maintain  suitable  in-house  expertise  and  demonstrate  a  commitment  to  give 


355 


25 

historic  preservation  concerns  their  proper  due  in  agency  decisionmaking.  The  Council's  role  in 
these  situations  is  threefold;  first,  it  works  with  the  agencies  to  assist  them  in  establishing 
internal  processes  that  achieve  their  goals  while  honoring  the  principles  and  requirements  of  the 
NHPA;  after  such  procedures  are  in  place,  it  continues  to  be  involved  in  those  cases  where  thorny 
problems  resist  resolution  or  the  outside  advice  of  the  Council  is  sought  by  the  agency;  and 
finally,  the  Council,  through  its  oversight  role  for  the  Section  106  process,  monitors  performance 
to  ensure  that  the  agency's  process  continues  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  NHPA.. 

There  is  another  group  of  agencies  that  are  not  "anxious"  to  have  the  Council  involved:  the 
agencies  that  just  do  not  want  to  be  troubled  with  Section  106  and  the  Council.  Not  surprisingly, 
such  agencies  have  not  expressed  this  opinion  to  us.  There  are  certainly  some  Federal  agencies 
fi-om  which  we  seldom  hear.  While  this  silence  could  be  interpreted  as  a  result  of  active  policies 
to  exclude  the  Council  from  involvement,  it  more  likely  reflects  a  poor  understanding  of  the 
agency's  legal  obligations  under  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act. 

Question.  Can  you  tell  us  which  agencies  you  will  be  focusing  on  in  1997? 

Answer.  This  answer  is  highly  dependent  on  completion  of  revisions  to  the  Section  1 06 
regulations,  interest  on  the  part  of  particular  agencies  to  work  with  us  to  develop  better  internal 
procedures,  the  level  of  the  Council's  FY  1997  appropriation,  and  the  ability  of  those  agencies  to 
reimburse  the  Council  for  its  efforts  in  this  regard.  As  noted,  program  improvement  activities  are 
discretionary  for  the  Council,  so  the  brunt  of  any  budgetary  reductions  will  have  to  fall  there. 

To  offset  the  decline  in  Council  ftinding,  we  expect  to  continue  the  arrangements  that  we  have 
begun  with  the  Army  under  an  interagency  agreement  this  year,  and  are  pursuing  discussions 
with  other  Federal  land  managers  (notably,  BLM  and  the  Forest  Service)  about  nationwide 
programmatic  agreements  or  similar  mechanisms  to  better  integrate  historic  preservation  needs 
into  their  ongoing  mission  activities.  If  these  materialize,  those  agencies  will  be  priorities  for  FY 
1997. 

There  are  a  number  of  other  agencies  that  could  benefit  from  review  of  their  programs  and 
recommendations  for  improvement,  as  well  as  training  and  guidance  tailored  to  their  program 
needs,  but  we  cannot  predict  at  this  time  which  such  agencies  might  be  willing  cooperators. 

Question..  Which  Federal  agencies  have  the  most  well-developed  programs  for  historic 
preservation? 

Answer.  We  recently  prepared  a  lengthy  answer  to  this  question  for  the  Subconunittee  on 
National  Parks  and  Public  Lands  of  the  House  Resources  Committee.  A  copy  of  that  response, 
number  one  of  the  questions,  has  been  provided  to  you.  Rather  than  reprint  that  in  its  entirety 
here,  we  would  refer  you  to  it  as  the  answer  to  this  question. 


356 


26 

Question.  What  involvement  did  you  have  during  the  past  2  years  in  disaster  assistance  and 
disaster-related  projects? 

Answer.  The  Council  has  worked  closely  with  the  Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency 
(FEMA),  providing  advice  and  assistance  when  historic  properties  are  threatened  or  damaged  by 
disasters.  The  Council  and  FEMA  have  developed  a  series  of  innovative  Programmatic 
Agreements  (PAs)  that  have  enabled  FEMA  to  meet  historic  preservation  responsibilities  for  its 
Disaster  Public  Assistance  and  Hazard  Mitigation  Grant  programs.  Successful  implementation 
of  individual  PAs  following  the  Midwest  Floods  of  1993  and  the  Northridge  Earthquake  of  1994 
have  led  to  the  joint  development  of  a  model  PA  now  available  to  States  to  provide  reasoned  and 
prompt  consideration  of  historic  properties  in  the  aftermath  of  presidentially-declared  disasters. 

Versions  of  the  PAs  have  been  applied  on  a  case  by  case  basis  to  meet  the  needs  of  each  State 
and  the  circumstances  associated  with  each  disaster.  During  the  past  two  years,  agreements  have 
been  developed  for  Georgia,  Texas,  Missouri,  Puerto  Rico,  Virgin  Islands,  Florida,  Oregon, 
Idaho,  Washington,  California  and  Pennsylvania.  These  and  similar  PAs  executed  prior  to  FY 
1995  include  provisions  to  exclude  specific  routine  activities  from  Section  106  review  and 
streamline  project  evaluation  during  various  phases  of  emergency  response.  They  recognize  the 
key  role  of  the  SHPO  and  earmark  funds  so  the  SHPO  can  actively  help  FEMA  save  a  devastated 
community's  historic  landmarks.  The  agreements  encourage  early  coordination  among  FEMA, 
the  SHPO  and  State  Emergency  Management  Office  to  exchange  information  regarding  historic 
properties  in  the  disaster  area  and  allow  SHPO  participation  in  initial  recovery  efforts. 

The  PAs  recognize  FEMA's  responsibility  to  perform  emergency  actions  in  response  to  an 
immediate  threat  to  human  life  or  property  and  specifically  allow  FEMA  to  conduct  such 
activities  without  the  SHPO  or  Council  review.  To  avoid  unnecessary  demolitions,  however,  the 
PAs  provide  an  expedited  review  process  for  emergency  actions  immediately  following  the 
disaster.  They  also  set  out  procedures  for  the  review  of  non-emergency  stabilization,  demolition, 
and  repair  activities.  In  recognition  of  the  SHPO's  expertise  and  FEMA's  commitment  to 
consider  historic  preservation  concerns,  the  PAs  waive  Council  reviews  on  routine  projects. 

The  Council  works  regularly  with  FEMA  in  other  areas.  The  Council's  Executive  Director  chairs 
the  FEMA  Liaison  Working  Group  of  the  National  Task  Force  on  Emergency  Response  and 
participates  in  other  activities  of  the  Task  Force  as  requested  by  FEMA.  The  Council  and  FEMA 
are  also  pursuing  a  nationwide  approach  to  Section  106  with  the  FEMA  Historic  Preservation 
Consultation  Forum,  a  vehicle  for  involving  each  and  every  FEMA  Directorate  in  historic 
preservation  issues,  and  FEMA's  Federal  Preservation  Officer.  The  goal  is  to  establish  a 
National  system  overseen  by  FEMA  and  the  Council,  relying  on  State  Disaster  Plans  for  a  state- 
based  approach  to  historic  preservation  concerns  following  a  disaster. 


357 


27 

At  FEMA's  request,  Council  staff  have  served  as  instructors  for  agency  training  sessions  at  their 
training  facility  in  Emmitsburg,  Maryland  in  1995,  and  have  been  invited  to  do  so  again  in  1996. 
In  addition,  training  has  been  provided  on  several  occasions  at  FEMA's  Northridge  Disaster  Field 
Office. 

The  success  of  programmatic  agreements  in  a  number  of  states  recently  prompted  unanimous 
passage  of  a  Resolution  of  Thanks  to  FEMA  by  the  National  Conference  of  State  Historic 
Preservation  Officers.  FEMA's  appreciation  for  the  Council's  assistance  was,  in  turn,  expressed 
by  letter  to  the  Council's  Chairman.  FEMA's  reiteration  of  its  firm  commitment  to  their 
partnership  with  the  Council  and  SHPOs,  stands  as  testimony  to  that  partnership's  importance  to 
Federal  disaster  recovery  policies  that  recognize  the  public's  appreciation  for  their  historic 
communities. 

Not  all  disaster  work  has  been  with  FEMA.  For  example,  the  Coimcil  worked  closely  with  the 
Oklahoma  SHPO  to  develop  a  Programmatic  Agreement  for  the  City  of  Oklahoma  City's 
Community  Development  Block  Grant  Emergency  Supplemental  Fund.  This  fiind  was 
established  for  projects  for  the  recovery  from  the  bombing  of  the  Alfred  P.  Murrah  Federal 
Building.  Congress  has  appropriated  $39  million  and  additional  sums  of  State,  local,  and  private 
monies  will  be  committed.  The  Agreement  provides  an  expedited  process  for  identifying 
historic  properties  and  exempts  numerous  projects  from  review  by  the  SHPO  or  Council.  The 
SHPO  has  reviewed  nearly  425  eligibility  determinations  under  the  Agreement  and  is  confident 
that  the  Agreement  will  greatly  assist  the  recovery  of  downtown  Oklahoma  City. 

Base  Closure 

Question.  What  is  your  on-going  involvement  in  military  base  closures?  What  is  the  cost  of  this 
involvement?  Is  there  an  opportunity  for  reimbursement  for  this  work? 

Answer.  The  Council  has  been  working  closely  with  the  Army  to  develop  a  comprehensive 
approach  to  base  closures  that  includes  a  prototype  programmatic  agreement,  implementing 
guidance,  training  for  Army  staff,  and  community  outreach.  The  agreement  will  expedite  the 
consultation  process,  ensure  that  historic  properties  do  not  deteriorate,  and  provide  recipients 
with  reasonable  flexibility  in  marketing  and  reusing  historic  properties.  Subsequent  guidance 
and  training  will  assist  the  Army  in  maximizing  benefits  from  the  agreement.  Community 
outreach,  intended  to  inform  and  empower  communities  to  participate  in  the  Section  1 06  process 
and  to  fiilly  realize  the  redevelopment  potential  for  military  historic  properties,  has  included 
presentations  at  conferences  sponsored  by  the  Army  and  DoD's  Office  of  Economic  Adjustment 
and  training  and  reference  material  for  the  DoD  Base  Transition  Office. 

These  ongoing  efforts  have  contributed  to  the  timely  and  successful  resolution  of  historic 
preservation  issues  for  Army  base  closures.  Much  of  the  draft  language  has  already  been 
included  in  agreements.  Published  materials  have  helped  both  Army  staff  and  communities  in 
understanding  historic  preservation  issues.  The  consultation  process,  even  where  standard 


358 


28 

resolutions  have  been  applied,  has  provided  a  forum  for  interested  parties,  especially 
communities  and  other  local  groups,  to  express  their  views.  Recent  examples  of  successful 
resolutions  that  accommodate  viable  reuse  of  historic  properties  and  the  need  of  local 
communities  include  Fort  Des  Moines,  lA,  Fort  Sheridan,  IL,  Fort  Devens,  MA,  Fort  Ben 
Harrison,  IN,  and  Lexington  Army  Depot,  KY. 

The  Council  has  invested  staff  time  and  effort  over  the  past  two  years  to  address  military  base 
closures.  We  estimate  the  expense  of  providing  this  assistance  to  be  about  $125,000.  To  enable 
us  to  make  a  meaningful  contribution  to  this  important  Federal  program  we  have  researched  the 
base  closure  process,  reviewed  DoD  regulations,  policies,  and  guidance,  consulted  with  DoD  and 
Army  offices,  and  consulted  with  communities  and  private  groups  such  as  the  National 
Association  of  Installation  Developers.  Thus,  we  have  developed  a  thorough  working  knowledge 
of  the  Base  Realignment  and  Closure  Program  (BRAC)  and  integrated  this  with  our  experience 
with  historic  preservation  in  Federal  programs  such  as  community  development  to  develop 
sensible  solutions  that  benefit  both  the  Army  and  the  local  communities  affected  by  base 
closures. 

Our  assistance  to  the  Army  and  our  successful  resolution  of  a  number  of  significant  Army  BRAC 
actions  has  been  largely  responsible  for  our  success  in  negotiating  an  Interagency  Agreement 
with  the  Army.  Under  this  agreement,  the  Army  provides  the  Council  with  full  reimbursement 
for  staff  time  and  expenses  for  base  closure  assistance  and  a  broad  range  of  other  historic 
preservation  program  assistance  to  the  Army 

Technical  Preservtion  Solutions 

Question.  What  is  the  importance  and  value  of  technical  solutions  to  historic  preservation?  What 
are  you  doing  to  enhance  technology  and  applications  in  preservation? 

Answer.  New  technical  solutions  to  preservation  problems  can  increase  efficiency  and 
effectiveness,  provide  a  more  cost-effective  (and  therefore  more  attractive  and  "saleable") 
solution  to  balancing  preservation  with  other  needs,  and  result  in  net  cost-savings  over  the  long- 
term.  As  noted  in  the  responses  to  earlier  questions,  Council  staff  keep  abreast  of  advances  in 
technology  and  their  application  to  historic  preservation  problems  in  their  particular  disciplines, 
and  advocate  use  of  such  technologies  when  appropriate  in  guidance,  Section  1 06  consultation, 
and  agreement  documents.  Staff  members  have  been  involved  on  a  professional  basis  in 
researching  and  advising  on  such  technical  applications  as  sampling  and  predictive  modeling  for 
identification  of  archaeological  resources,  energy  efficiency  studies  for  historic  buildings, 
window  repair  and  replacement,  lead-based  paint  abatement,  birdproofing,  bridge  repair  and 
replacement  standards,  remote  sensing  and  non-invasive  site  investigation  procedures,  and  a 
variety  of  other  technical  approaches  and  tools. 

We  work  closely  with  such  research  and  development  organizations  as  the  U.S.  Army  Corps  of 
Engineers  Construction  Engineering  Research  Laboratory  (CERL),  the  various  technical 


359 


29 

branches  of  the  National  Park  Service,  and  the  Transportation  Research  Board  (TRB),  and  stay 
attuned  to  programs  and  projects  of  the  National  Center  for  Preservation  Technology  and 
Training  (NCPTT).  The  unique  perspective  the  Council  brings  to  these  endeavors  is  a  real-world 
understanding  of  how  certain  technical  solutions  relate  to  solving  problems  arising  in  the  Section 
106  process  and  the  competing  factors  of  cost,  viability  and  project  demands. 

Cooperative  Agreements 

Question.  You  describe  an  important  agency  cooperative  agreement  being  established  with  the 
BLM.  Given  the  substantially  similar  missions  and  lands  administered  between  the  ELM  and  the 
USA-Forest  Service,  have  you  considered  including  the  Forest  Service  in  this  agreement  with  the 
BLM? 

Answer.  We  have  had  discussions  with  both  the  Forest  Service  and  BLM  about  cooperative 
activities.  However,  our  understanding  is  that  currently  both  the  Forest  Service  and  BLM  are 
considering  rather  different  approaches  to  addressing  their  historic  preservation  program  needs, 
and  that  the  Forest  Service  is  placing  a  high  priority  on  developing  internal  policy  and  guidance 
documents.  Likewise,  any  final  agreement  reached  with  either  agency  will  reflect  the  unique 
internal  structure,  policies  and  procedures  that  distinguish  the  two  agencies.  The  principles  of 
such  arrangements  will  certainly  be  similar,  but  application  through  the  respective  administrative 
structures  of  the  two  agencies  will  require  differences.  Of  course,  due  to  the  overlapping 
interests  and  commonalities  of  land  and  resource  management  mandates  and  needs,  particularly 
in  the  western  states,  we  will  be  working  with  both  agencies  in  parallel  fashion 

Question.  At  what  point  of  Federal  program  development  is  the  need  for  Coimcil  assistance, 
involvement,  or  monitoring  reduced  to  the  point  where  the  Council  is  better  served  by 
concentrating  on  other  higher  priority  agencies? 

Answer.  Given  the  scope  of  Federal  programs  and  the  diversity  of  historic  preservation 
challenges  they  face  and  given  the  Council's  very  limited  fiscal  resources,  the  Council  must 
exercise  great  care  in  how  it  allocates  its  assistance  to  Federal  agencies.  Without  doing  so,  it  is 
quite  likely  that  the  Council  could  be  consumed  by  the  needs  of  a  few  Federal  programs  at  the 
risk  of  being  unable  to  assist  others.  To  help  ensure  maximum  success  for  our  investment  of 
time  and  resources,  our  program  initiatives  are  guided  by  a  number  of  priority-setting  principles, 
e.g.,  the  likelihood  of  substantial  impacts  to  historic  properties  fi-om  a  program,  the  degree  of 
agency  commitment  to  improvement,  the  adequacy  of  agency  resources  to  ensure  that 
improvements  are  carried  out,  the  effect  of  our  involvement,  the  priority  of  the  program  as  seen 
by  State  Historic  Preservation  Officers,  and  the  availability  of  Council  staff  resources  to 
complete  the  initiative.  An  additional  issue,  necessitated  by  our  reduced  budgetary  resources  is 
whether  or  not  the  agency  is  able  to  reimburse  the  Council  for  expenses  it  may  incur. 
Unfortunately,  this  latter  factor  may  outweigh  many  of  the  preceding. 


360 


30 

Of  course,  circumstances  for  each  Federal  program  are  different  and  making  judgments  regarding 
beginning  or  terminating  our  involvement  are  usually  difficult.  There  are,  however,  some 
benchmarks  that  are  useful.  For  example,  the  successful  development  of  a  programmatic 
agreement  is  often  the  occasion  for  the  Council  to  remove  itself  from  active  engagement  in  a 
situation.  The  programmatic  agreement  sets  into  place  a  system  that  the  agency  can  then  carry 
out;  only  in  the  need  to  resolve  a  disagreement  or  amend  the  programmatic  agreement  is  further 
involvement  b\'  the  Council  necessary.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  much  of  the  assistance  the 
Council  provides  to  agencies  is  of  an  informal  nature;  responding  to  specific  issues,  proving 
suggestions,  and  sharing  information  about  how  similar  issues  have  been  handled  by  other 
Federal  agencies,  what  seems  to  work  and  what  doesn't. 

Question.  Could  monitoring,  oversight  and  technical  assistance  functions  be  implemented  by 
one  of  the  more  advanced  Federal  agencies?  What  legislative  changes  would  be  needed?  What 
would  be  the  fiscal  and  service  implications  of  such  a  change? 

Answer.  In  1976,  the  Congress  recognized  that  effective  oversight  of  the  National  Historic 
Preservation  Program  really  required  an  independent  agency  that  had  historic  preservation  as  its 
sole  responsibility.  The  Council's  previous  status  of  being  staffed  by  the  National  Park  Service 
had  led  to  conflicts  of  interest  when  the  Council  sought  to  review  actions  taken  by  the  Park 
Service  affecting  historic  properties. 

Twenty  years  of  evolution  of  the  program  has  not  changed  that  fundamental  problem.  It  will  not 
work  to  entrust  project  and  program  oversight  to  an  agency  or  department  that  has  its  primary 
mission  something  else,  whether  it  is  national  defense,  building  highways  or  managing  the 
National  Park  System.  Preservation  will  always  take  a  back  seat,  in  resource  commitment  and  in 
policy  decisions,  to  the  agency's  primary  mission.  One  need  only  look  at  the  way  agency 
commitments  of  resources  to  carrying  out  preservation  obligations  has  diminished  as  budgets 
have  shrunk  to  realize  that  this  Avill  always  be  viewed  as  a  secondary  responsibility. 

We  cannot  responsibly  suggest  legislative  language  to  implement  such  changes. 

Federal  Leadership 

Question.  Now  that  the  values  of  historic  preservation  are  widely  recognized,  why  should  the 
Federal  government  still  desire  to  be  the  leader  in  the  movement? 

Answer.  While  many  of  the  values  of  historic  preservation  are  recognized,  the  best,  most 
effective,  and  most  efficient  ways  to  protect  and  enhance  those  values  in  the  public  interest  are 
not  necessarily  obvious  or  widely  recognized.  The  Federal  government  is  one  player  in  the 
partnership  that  has  evolved  with  States,  localities,  Indian  tribes,  and  the  private  sector  to  address 
these  needs.  As  a  principal  owner,  manager,  and  steward  of  the  Nation's  lands  and  resources,  as 
a  highly  visible  presence  (through  post  offices,  courthouses,  national  parks  and  forests,  military 
installations,  and  other  facilities)  in  local  communities,  and  as  a  principal  planner  and  shaper 


361 


31 

(through  housing,  transportation  and  development  funding  and  environmental  and  economic 
permitting)  of  the  Nation's  land-use  patterns,  the  Federal  government's  responsibility  to  historic 
preservation  and  the  public  interest  remains  as  it  was  so  clearly  articulated  by  the  Congress  in  the 
preamble  to  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act  thirty  years  ago. 

Preservation  Benefits  and  Limits 

Question.  What  are  some  of  the  economic  benefits  of  preservation? 

Answer.  The  benefits  are  myriad  and  permeate  all  segments  of  the  American  economy. 
Numerous  lengthy  studies  have  been  done  on  just  certain  aspects;  we  would  be  pleased  to 
provide  a  bibliography  if  the  Committee  so  desires.  The  following  brief  discussion  highlights 
several  broad  categories  of  economic  benefits  derived  fi-om  historic  preservation. 

Cost-effectiveness  of  managing  and  maintaining  federally-owned  property.    Federal  agencies 
have  an  affirmative  responsibility  under  Section  1 10(a)(1)  of  NHPA  to  preserve  and  use  historic 
buildings  and  the  Council  facilitates  their  realization  of  that  mandate.    Particular  success  has 
been  achieved  with  the  Department  of  Defense  that  has  resulted  in  substantial  savings  to  the 
Federal  government.  For  example,  Department  of  Defense  studies  have  found  rehabilitation 
costs  to  be  about  one  quarter  to  one  third  of  replacement  costs.  Also,  the  process  of 
rehabilitating  a  historic  facility  consiunes  less  energy  and  resources  than  new  construction. 

Generation  of  investment  through  Federal  tax  incentives.  Federal  tax  law  offers  a  20%  tax  credit 
for  the  rehabilitation  of  historic  buildings  either  listed  on  the  National  Register  of  Historic  Places 
of  those  certified  as  contributing  to  a  state  or  local  registered  historic  district.  The  credits  are 
dollar-for-dollar  reductions  of  taxes  owed.  Since  1976,  despite  a  significant  reduction  in  the  tax 
benefits  in  1986,  over  25,000  buildings  have  been  preserved  using  the  historic  preservation  tax 
credit.  This  represents  an  investment  of  over  $16  billion  in  our  nation's  historic  resources  that 
yield  phenomenal  financial  benefits  to  all  segments  of  the  economy.  These  advantages  are 
illustrated  in  the  comparison  of  rehabilitation  and  new  construction  that  follows. 

Rehabilitation  vs.  new  construction.  When  comparing  the  impact  of  $  1  million  in  rehabilitation 
to  $1  million  in  new  construction,  it  is  foimd  rehabilitation  provides  that  (1)  $120,000  more  will 
initially  stay  in  the  community  (2)  five  to  nine  more  construction  jobs  will  be  created  (3)  4.7  new 
jobs  will  be  created  elsewhere  (4)  $34,000  more  retail  sales  will  be  realized  in  the  community  (5) 
$107,000  more  in  household  incomes  will  be  created. 

There  is  a  typical  cost  savings  of  about  4%  to  rehabilitate  than  to  build  new  with  no  demolition. 
However,  if  the  old  building  is  razed  and  replaced  with  a  new  one,  the  cost  savings  can  reach 
16%. 


362 


32 

Job  creation  and  other  economic  development  through  heritage  tourism.  Heritage  tourism  is  one 
of  the  fastest  growing  segments  of  what  is  becoming  the  worlds  largest  industry;  the  Travel 
Industry.  One-third  of  all  vacationing  families  in  the  United  States  visit  historic  sites.  The 
heritage  traveler  visits  one-half  day  longer  and  spends  $62  more  per  day  than  other  tourists.  In 
addition  to  obvious  economic  benefits  to  local  business,  between  10%  and  20%  of  every  dollar 
spent  by  the  heritage  tourist  goes  into  the  coffers  of  state  and  local  governments. 

Local  economic  development.  There  are  many  examples  of  historic  preservation  assisting  in 
economic  revitalization  of  towns,  cities,  and  rural  areas,  and  improving  the  quality  of  life  for 
local  residents.  One  such  example  that  is  supported  by  local-private  partnership  is  The  Main 
Street  Program  administered  by  the  National  Trust  for  Historic  Preservation.  The  Main  Street 
Program  has  involved  more  than  1,100  towns,  cities  and  neighborhoods  in  41  states  since  1980. 
In  addition,  hundreds  of  communities  have  independently  adopted  the  Main  Street  strategy  for 
revitalizing  their  commercial  core.  Cumulatively,  these  communities  have  realized  (1)  more  than 
$27  of  new  investment  for  every  $1  spent  to  support  the  local  Main  Street  program  (2)  more  than 
$5  billion  has  been  reinvested  in  physical  improvements  (3)  over  36,000  building  rehabilitation 
projects  have  been  completed  (4)  a  net  gain  of  more  than  102,000  new  jobs  (5)  a  net  gain  of 
more  than  28,000  new  businesses. 

Question.  There  are  occasional  reports  of  historic  preservation  being  required  of  unwitting 
property  owners  who  seek  to  rehabilitate  or  modernize  their  properties  but  are  prevented  by 
persons  who  are  accustomed  to  seeing  the  property  the  way  it  is.  What  are  some  of  the  limits  to 
preservation?  At  what  point  does  something  no  longer  new  become  historic  and  when  is  it  junk? 

Answer.  At  the  outset,  let  us  emphasize  that  the  Section  106  process,  or,  for  that  matter,  any 
other  provision  of  Federal  law,  cannot  prevent  a  property  owner  from  altering  or  demolishing  a 
historic  property.  The  NHPA  extends  only  to  Federal  actions  and  can  only  influence,  not  direct, 
a  FederaJ  agency  decision  that  might  affect  privately-owned  historic  properties.  This  is  a  critical 
and  often  misunderstood  aspect  of  the  Federal  historic  preservation  program.  It  leads  to  much 
unfounded  criticism  of  Section  106,  the  National  Register  and  the  Council. 

When  we  hear  these  reports,  most  of  the  time  the  problems  stem  from  a  local  jurisdiction 
establishing  and  enforcing  a  local  ordinance  that  is  based  on  locally  established  standards,  using 
criteria  that  are  applied  too  inflexibly  by  local  historic  preservation  review  boards,  or  have  arisen 
because  of  poor  communication  with  local  property  owners  or  die  desires  of  local  property 
owners  to  do  whatever  they  want  on  their  properties  no  matter  how  it  may  affect  their  neighbors' 
interests.  Use  of  clearly  established  standards,  agreed-upon  criteria,  a  recognized  process,  and 
adequate  public  involvement,  as  well  as  public  education,  can  alleviate  many  of  these  conflicts. 

In  the  national  preservation  program,  the  National  Register  criteria  and  evaluation  guidelines 
provide  a  yardstick  to  separate  historic  resources  from  "junk"  when  properly  applied.  Historic 
resources  must  not  only  have  demonstrated  significance  in  American  history,  architecture, 
archeology,  engineering,  or  culture;  they  must  possess  integrity  of  design,  setting,  materials. 


363 


33 

workmanship,  feeling,  and  association,  and  they  must  normally  be  at  least  50  years  old.  Federal 
agencies,  SHPOs  and  local  governments  carrying  out  Federal  legal  responsibilities  use  these 
criteria  daily  to  evalxiate  the  eligibility  of  properties  for  the  National  Register.  Eligibility 
determinations  follow  a  set  procedure  prescribed  by  Council  and  NPS  regulations  and  result  in 
decisions  whether  a  particular  property  is  given  consideration  in  the  Section  106  process. 

There  are  occasions,  albeit  rare,  where  the  criteria  are  not  properly  applied  .  This  is  an 
unavoidable  side-effect  of  the  generally  desirable  trend  of  decentralization  in  the  National 
Historic  Preservation  Program.  It  must  be  noted  that  mechanisms  exist  for  those  who  feel  that  a 
wrong  decision  has  been  made.  However,  the  proper  recourse  is  not  always  known  by  the  party 
in  question  and  the  result  is  the  addition  of  another  "horror  story"  about  misguided  government 
programs  and  bureaucratic  misdeeds. 

Section  106  Regulations 

Question.  What  is  the  status  of  the  reworked  Section  106  regulatory  guidelines?  When  will  they 
be  released  yet  again?  What  has  been  the  cost  of  reworking  these  guidelines?  How  many  staff 
members  have  been  engaged  in  this  process? 

Answer.  Revision  of  the  regulations  is  now  back  on  track,  after  the  unexpected  diversion  of 
resources  to  deal  with  the  threat  of  closure  of  the  Council  last  summer,  the  necessity  of 
accommodating  the  significant  downsizing  of  FY  1 996  and  the  protracted  government  shutdown 
last  winter.  The  Task  Force  of  Council  members  met  on  March  21  and  resolved  several 
fundamental  policy  issues  that  had  arisen  from  comments  on  the  July,  1995,  discussion  draft  and 
the  need  to  rethink  the  Council's  role  in  the  process  due  to  reduced  resources.  Based  on  this 
direction,  a  new  draft  has  been  circulated  to  the  Task  Force  members  this  week.  The  Chairman 
hopes  to  submit  a  proposed  rule  in  May  to  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  for  clearance  to 
publish  for  comment  in  the  Federal  Register.  The  time  it  will  take  for  clearance  is  uncertain,  but 
we  have  been  working  with  Federal  agencies  and  0MB  to  expedite  this  review.  When  published, 
we  anticipate  a  60-day  public  comment  period.  After  that,  it  is  difficult  to  predict  the  progress  of 
putting  final  regulations  into  place.  That  is  largely  dependent  upon  the  content  of  the  comments. 
New  requirements  for  congressional  review  of  final  regulations  will  also  add  time  to  getting 
these  revisions  into  effect.  For  that  reason,  we  have  projected  new  regulations  in  place  during 
FY  1997,  but  probably  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fiscal  year. 

The  cost  is  difficult  to  estimate.  Council  member  time  and  meetings,  both  task  force  and  ftill 
Council,  have  probably  involved  about  $80,000  since  1993.  The  full  professional  staff" has  been 
involved  in  varying  degrees  over  the  course  of  the  revisions.  Their  role  has  ranged  from  work 
groups  to  devise  new  approaches  to  Section  106  to  reviewing  public  comments  to  review  of 
innumerable  internal  drafts.  The  General  Counsel  has  taken  the  lead  on  this  effort,  assisted  by 
the  Assistant  General  Counsel  and  about  four  senior  staff.  We  reported  to  the  House  Resources 


364 


34 

Committee  an  expenditure  of  $146,755  in  FY  1995  alone.  Overall,  the  cost  of  this  has  probably 
exceeded  $300,000.  Fortunately,  much  of  these  costs  were  incurred  when  the  Council  was 
operating  at  a  higher  funding  level  in  FY  1994  and  FY  1995. 

Question.  How  many  public  and  external  comments  do  you  anticipate  when  you  release  the 
reworked  regulatory  guidelines?  What  will  be  the  cost  of  dealing  with  this  input? 

Answer.  When  we  first  published  the  regulations  for  comment  in  October,  1 994,  we  received 
nearly  four  hundred  comments.  These  ranged  from  Federal  agencies  and  State  Historic 
Preservation  Officers  to  affected  businesses,  Indian  tribes,  local  governments,  preservation  and 
professional  groups  and  the  concerned  public.  Last  summer  we  sent  a  revised  discussion  draft  to 
those  commenters  for  informal  review.  We  received  nearly  100  responses.  We  believe  the  lower 
response  rate  was  due  in  part  to  a  much  more  positive  reception  of  the  revised  draft;  people  are 
less  inclined  to  comment  on  something  they  do  not  find  objectionable.    Based  on  this,  we  would 
expect  public  comments  on  the  current  proposal  to  be  in  the  200-300  range.  The  cost  of  dealing 
with  this  input,  based  on  previous  experience,  will  be  about  $30,000  in  staff  and  member  time. 
This  assumes  a  comparable  amount  of  involvement  as  before  from  the  staff  that  has  been 
working  on  reviewing  comments  and  developing  changes  in  response. 

Question.  Who  was  able  to  provide  informal  comment  on  the  Section  1 06  regulatory  guidelines 
before  they  again  go  out  for  public  comment?  Have  you  had  any  problems  with  the  Federal 
Advisory  Committee  Act  in  limiting  your  ability  to  work  with  the  public,  the  preservation 
community,  and  the  States  at  enhancing  these  regulations? 

Answer.  Due  to  the  Administration's  commitment  to  work  closely  with  those  non-Federal 
parties  affected  by  Federal  regulations,  we  were  able  to  solicit  comment  for  the  full  range  of 
Section  1 06  users.  As  noted  earlier,  this  included  written  comments  from  all  kinds  of 
governmental  and  private  sector  users.  We  were  also  able  to  meet  with  Federal  agencies.  State 
Historic  Preservation  Officers,  representatives  of  industries  with  an  interest  in  the  Section  106 
process,  Indian  tribes  and  the  preservation  community.  We  have  experienced  no  problems  with 
the  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act  (from  which  we  are  statutorily  exempt)  or  any  other 
impediment  to  communicating  with  concerned  Section  1 06  participants. 

Question.  What  is  the  status  of  efforts  and  regulations  that  protect  Native  American  cultural 
sites?  Do  you  also  have  involvement  in  protecting  landscapes  with  cultural  and  historic  value? 

Answer.  The  revised  regulations  will  include  special  provisions  for  consultation  with  Indian 
tribes.  Native  Hawaiians,  and  other  Native  Americans,  as  anticipated  and  directed  by  the  1992 
amendments  to  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act.  Guidance  on  these  subjects  is  on  hold 
pending  regulatory  revisions.  We  have  also  participated  in  consultation  with  the  National  Park 
Service  as  they  have  finalized  the  regulations  implementing  the  Native  American  Graves 
Protection  and  Repatriation  Act  (NAGPRA;  regulations  published  at  43  CFR  Part  10),  and  have 
also  discussed  their  guidelines  for  tribal  preservation  programs  that  remain  in  draft.  We  are 


365 


35 

involved  with  protection  of  landscapes  of  cultural  and  historic  values,  to  the  extent  that  such 
landscapes  meet  the  criteria  for  inclusion  in  the  National  Register  of  Historic  Places,  and  are 
potentially  affected  by  Federal  undertakings  subject  to  Section  106.  Consideration  of  these 
historic  resources  would  occur  in  the  normal  course  of  the  Section  1 06  process. 

Reimbursable  Agreements 

Question.    What  ability  do  you  now  have  to  cost-share  your  activities  or  provide  technical 
services  on  a  reimbursable  basis?  What  legislative  changes  would  be  desirable  to  enhance  your 
abilities  in  these  areas? 

Answer.  At  the  request  of  the  House  and  Senate  Appropriations  Committees,  we  provided  a  full 
report  on  this  question  in  March  of  this  year.  Rather  than  restate  the  conclusions  here,  we  refer 
you  to  the  report  itself  It  contains  some  specific  legislative  recommendations. 

Question.    Is  the  Council  continuing  its  efforts  to  enter  into  agreements  with  States?  What 
progress  has  been  made  in  the  past  year? 

Answer.  Due  to  the  preoccupation  with  revising  the  Section  1 06  regulations  over  the  past  three 
years,  the  Council  has  not  pursued  further  agreements  with  States.    Nor  have  any  States  pursued 
such  agreements.  The  revisions  in  the  Council's  regulations  which  are  now  pending  will  serve  to 
address  many  of  the  same  issues  that  have  arisen  in  past  discussions  with  States.  New  Mexico 
remains  the  only  State  with  a  State-substitution  agreement,  and  Federal  agency  participation  with 
New  Mexico  under  that  agreement  as  a  substitute  for  following  the  Council's  regulations  remains 
volimtary. 

Council  Meetings 

Question.    How  often  will  the  Council  meet  in  1 996,  where,  and  what  are  the  agenda  topics? 

Answer.  The  Council  normally  meets  quarterly,  which,  depending  on  the  precise  scheduling, 
may  be  either  three  or  four  times  a  fiscal  year.  Council  meetings  have  been  restricted  to  only  two 
this  year  because  of  cost,  primarily  a  lack  of  travel  funds  to  bring  the  members  to  a  meeting  site 
from  various  points  around  the  country.  Each  Council  meeting  (travel,  salary  and  per  diem)  costs 
an  average  of  $  1 6,000-20,000,  depending  upon  location,  related  business  (such  as  pre-meeting 
task  force  deliberations)  and  any  special  itineraries  for  site  visits  to  gain  knowledge  of  local 
preservation  issues  or  problems.  Staff  preparation  time  is  not  included  in  these  figures.  Our 
October,  1995,  meeting  was  moved  back  into  September,  to  avoid  obligating  FY  1996  monies. 

The  Council  met  in  March  of  1996,  and  the  main  focus  of  the  agenda  was  on  working  with 
Federal  agencies  on  a  reimbursable  basis.  The  Army  hosted  the  meeting  at  Fort  Myer,  in 
Arlington,  Virginia.  Other  agenda  topics  included  action  on  the  reimbursable  activities  report  to 


366 


36 


the  Congress,  status  reports  on  the  regulations,  endorsement  of  a  proposed  preservation 
Executive  Order,  planning  for  the  Council's  future,  and  activities  to  commemorate  the  thirtieth 
anniversary  of  the  NHPA. 

The  next  Council  meeting  will  be  held  in  late  summer  or  early  fall,  at  a  place  and  with  an  agenda 
yet  to  be  determined.  It  timing  and  content  will  likely  be  determined  by  the  progress  of  the 
regulatory  revisions  and  the  decisions  made  by  the  Congress  on  reauthorization  and 
appropriations.  The  meeting  will  likely  be  scheduled  so  that  it  can  be  moved  to  either  side  of 
October  1 ,  depending  on  the  availability  of  funds. 


367 


NATIONAL  CAPITAL  PLANNING  COMMISSION 

HARVEY  GANTT,  CHAIRMAN 

STATEMENT  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THE  RSCAL  YEAR  1997 
APPROPRIATIONS  REQUEST 

MARCH  26,  1996 


To  the  Chairman  and  members  of  the  subcommittee,  I  thank  you  for  an  opportunity  to  submit 
this  prepared  statement  for  the  record  in  support  of  our  1997  Justification  for  Appropriation.  I 
am  excited  to  again  present  the  National  Capital  Planning  Commission's  (NCPC)  program  to 
you. 

During  fiscal  year  1996,  the  Commission  unveiled  the  draft  Monumental  Core  Framework  Plan, 
and  presented  it  to  the  American  public  for  comment.  The  draft  plan  was  presented  to  the 
President  on  March  19,  1996  and,  was  applauded  in  the  Oval  office  for  its  inspiring  21st  century 
vision  of  Washington.  President  Clinton  released  the  following  statement  after  his  review  of  the 
draft  plan: 

"This  nation  has  the  resources  and  imagination  to  create  a  more 
efficient  and  beautiful  capital  and  to  enhance  its  position  as  one 
of  the  world's  great  cities.  This  draft  plan  for  Washington 's 
Monumental  Core  can  be  a  key  instrument  in  this  continuing 
transformation.  I  commend  the  National  Capital  Planning 
Commission  for  its  leadership  in  preparing  our  nation's  capital 
to  be  a  vital  city  in  the  twenty-first  century  and  invite  all 
Americans  to  participate  in  the  process." 

Since  the  creation  of  the  Commission  in  1924  as  a  park  agency  and  its  expansion  as  a  park  and 
planning  agency  in  1926,  the  Commission  under  the  National  Capital  Planning  Act  of  1952,  was 
designated  as  the  central  planning  agency  for  the  Federal  and  District  of  Columbia  (D.C.) 
governments.  The  Act  was  amended  in  1973  by  the  D.C.  Home  Rule  Act  which  made  the  Mayor 
of  D.C.  the  chief  planner  for  DC,  while  the  Commission  continued  to  serve  as  the  central 
planning  agency  for  the  Federal  government  in  the  Washington  area.  The  Commission  takes  its 
responsibility  to  protect,  preserve,  and  enhance  the  functioning  and  image  of  our  national  capital 
very  seriously,  and  this  Monumental  Core  plan  ~  the  first  in  a  series  of  major  sector  plans  ~ 
provides  a  guide  for  our  capital's  development  well  into  the  next  century. 


368 


As  Chairman  of  this  small  federal  government  agency,  I  am  extremely  proud  to  present  an 
accomplishment  which  enjoys  support  at  the  Federal,  State,  and  local  levels  of  government,  and 
on  both  sides  of  the  aisle.  Speaker  of  the  House  Newt  Gingrich  has  released  the  following 
comments  on  the  draft  Monumental  Core  Plan: 

"This  Draft  Plan  embodies  exactly  the  kind  of  inclusive  planning 
and  new  thinking  we  need  to  create  the  best  capital  city  in  the 
world,  a  capital  city  all  Americans  can  take  great  pride  in.  The 
vision  is  a  bold  one,  blending  urban  pragmatism  with  majestic 
architectural  design,  promising  to  move  Washington  towards 
being  the  urban  jewel  it  should  be  in  the  21st  century.  America's 
capital  belongs  to  the  American  people,  and  I  encourage  all 
Americans  to  learn  about  this  plan,  to  comment  on  it,  and  to 
participate  in  the  process  to  define  their  capital's  fiiture." 

During  fiscal  year  1997  the  Commission  will  complete  its  review  of  comments  received  from  the 
American  public,  revise  the  plan,  and  adopt  related  policies  in  the  Comprehensive  Plan  for  the 
National  Capital  to  initiate  implementation  of  this  long-range  vision.  The  Comprehensive  Plan 
guides  Commission  approval  or  rejection  of  all  Federal  projects  throughout  the  District.  The 
Commission  also  uses  the  plan  to  advise  on  federal  projects  in  those  areas. 

Faced  with  the  challenges  during  fiscal  year  1996  of  operating  under  several  continuing 
resolutions,  and  of  doing  more  with  less,  NCPC  has  continued  its  work  on  the  development  of 
the  next  sector  plan,  the  Beltsville  Agricultural  Research  Center  area  which  comprises  16,000 
acres  and  includes  14  Federal  agencies  engaged  in  national  and  international  activities; 
reparation,  adoption,  and  submission  to  the  OMB  of  the  1996-2001  Federal  Capital 
Improvements  Program  for  the  region  which  totaled  more  than  $  5.1  billion;  review  and  approval 
of  plans  for  new  Federal  buildings  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  and  coordination  of  Federal  plans 
with  local,  state,  and  regional  programs. 

In  addition,  with  the  sunset  of  the  Pennsylvania  Avenue  Development  Corporation  on  April  1, 
1996,  NCPC  will  be  entrusted  with  the  responsibility  of  reviewing  development  proposals  and 
proposed  plan  amendments  to  ensure  that  development  and  redevelopment  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Avenue  area  is  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  PADC  plan  -  1974.  With  this  responsibility. 
NCPC  has  been  granted  an  additional  Fib. 

NCPC  strives  to  maintain  its  reputation  for  planning  excellence  and,  in  fiscal  year  1997,  will 
focus  on  fostering  partnerships  in  the  development  of  geospatial  data  for  use  in  decision-making. 
The  Commission  staff  is  in  the  process  of  collecting  data,  in  consultation  with  other  Federal 
agencies.  State  and  local  governments,  and  will  participate  in  the  standardization  of  this  data 
making  it  electronically  accessible  to  all  interested  and  affected  parties.  The  Commission 
supports  the  Administration's  goal  of  coordinating  geographic  data  acquisition  and  access  and 


369 


believes  that,  with  public  and  private  sector  application  of  geospatial  data  in  such  areas  as 
transportation  planning,  coinmunity  development,  emergency  response,  and  environmental 
management,  we  will  avoid  wasteful  duplication  of  effort  and  promote  effective  and  economical 
management  of  resources  by  Federal,  State,  and  local  governments. 

I  am  also  pleased  to  report  that  the  Commission  has  achieved  its  goal  of  streamlining  many  of  its 
administrative  processes  and  looks  forward  to  strengthening  and  enhancing  the  professional 
planning  programs  during  the  next  fiscal  year.  We  have  recently  completed  the  second  five-year 
organizational  review  resulting  in  an  increased  use  of  information  technology  and  the  re- 
engineering  of  several  manual  business  and  planning  processes.  With  an  increased  and  effective 
use  on  technology.  Commission  presentations  have  been  propelled  into  the  21st  century.  This 
effort  has  reduced  the  amount  of  time  for  project  review  and  approvals  and  has  substantially 
improved  the  quality  of  staff  analysis  for  each  of  the  Federal  projects  presented. 

As  the  Congress  and  the  Administration  continue  to  "re-size  and  redefine"  the  Federal 
government,  we  stand  ready  to  provide  professional  planning  advice.    As  professional  planners 
we  are  already  familiar  with  the  fundamental  issues  associated  with  right  sizing  and 
consolidating  government  functions  and  facilities. 

The  Commission's  1997  budget  justification  is  consistent  with  the  Office  of  Management  and 
Budget's  1996  planning  guidance.  It  reflects  a  net  increase  of  $795,000  over  the  FY  1996 
operating  level  and  only  $256,000  over  the  approved  1995  level. 

I  thank,  you  for  the  opportunity  to  submit  this  statement  for  the  record.  The  members  and  staff  of 
the  National  Capital  Planning  Commission  will  be  happy  to  answer  your  questions. 


370 


INTERIOR  and  RELATED  AGENCIES  APPROPRIATIONS 
SUBCOMMITTEE 

QUESTIONS  FOR  THE  RECORD 
FY97  REQUEST 


NATIONAL  CAPITAL  PLANNING  COMMISSION 

FY  1995  Appropriations $5,655,000 

FY  1996  Conference  Level $5,090,000 

FY  1997  Request $5,885,000 

Difference +$795,000 

FY  1996  Staffing 54 

FY  1997  Staffing 55 

Difference +1 


Proposed  Funding  Increases 

OUESTION 

1 .  Your  request  for  FY97  represents  an  increase  of  more  than  1 5%  over  the  FY96  conference 
level.  What  activities  will  be  enhanced  by  such  an  increase? 

ANSWER 

1.  While  the  FY97  request  represents  an  increase  of  15%  over  the  FY96  conference  level,  the 
Commission  operated  at  more  than  a  10%  reduction  in  the  FY95  enacted  level  with  a  50%  reduction 
in  several  object  classes  cumulatively  (travel,  consultants,  other  services,  supplies,  and  equipment). 
The  FY97  request  reflects  less  than  a  10%  increase  over  the  FT95  enacted  level.  This  increase, 
along  with  many  of  the  cost-saving  measures  taken  during  FY96,  will  allow  the  Commission  to 
restore  operations  to  its  FY95  level. 

OUESTION 

2.  Please  prioritize  the  increases  that  you  have  requested. 
ANSWER 

2.  Among  the  Commission's  priorities  for  FY97,  are  the  startup  of  Beltsville  Agricultural 

Research  Center  sector  plan,  and  a  joint  photogrammetric  geographic  information  system.  These 
projects  will  require  expertise  in  highly  specialized  areas  on  a  temporary  contractual  basis. 


371 


Because  much  of  the  Commission's  1996  work  plan  was  severely  impacted  by  operating  under 
continuing  resolutions,  the  contracts  and  consulting  object  class  (25.1)  has  been  assigned  the  highest 
priority.  Other  increases  are  prioritized  as  follows: 

1 1 .0  Personnel  Compensation 

1 2. 1  Personnel  Benefits 
24.0      Printing  &  Reproduction 

2 1 .0  Travel  &  Transportation  of  Persons 

23.1  Rental  Payments  to  GS A 

The  increases  are  necessary  in  order  for  the  Commission  to  meet  its  mandated  responsibilities. 

QUESTION 

3.         Are  there  any  decreases  in  your  proposed  budget? 

ANSWER 

3.  There  are  no  decreases  in  the  FY97  proposed  budget  when  compared  to  the  FY96  conference 
level,  however  there  are  decreases  in  the  following  object  classes  when  compared  to  the  FY95 
enacted  levels: 

Object  Classification  Decrease 


21.0 

Travel  &  Transportation  of  Persons 

$  18,944.00 

23.3 

Communications,  Utilities  &  Misc.  Charges 

$  36,934.00 

24.0 

Printing  &  Reproduction 

$  15,620.00 

25.1 

Contracts  with  Experts  &  Consultants 

$  52,485.00 

25.2 

Other  Services 

$  60,295.00 

26.0 

Supplies  &  Materials 

$  35,999.00 

31.0 

Equipment 

$  40,323.00 

QUESTION 

4.  Please  explain  the  proposed  increase  for  personnel  compensation  and  for  personnel  benefits. 
What  would  be  the  result  if  the  FY97  allocation  is  insufficient  to  fund  this  requested  increase? 

ANSWER 

4.  The  increase  for  personnel  compensation  reflects  full  funding  for  55  FTEs  and  assumes  no 
vacant  positions.  It  also  includes  funding  for  the  general  pay  increase.  The  actual  costs  for  FY95 
for  personnel  compensation  ($  2.6M)  and  benefits  ($.45M)  supported  only  5 1  FTEs.  While  the 
Commission  is  planning  to  fill  positions  during  FY97  at  the  lowest  possible  grade  and  pay  levels, 
several  career  ladder  promotions  scheduled  for  FY96  which  have  been  delayed  due  to  budgetary 
constraints,  are  now  rescheduled  for  FY97.  Several  vacancies  which  were  targeted  for  immediate 
fill  during  FY96  have  been  reprogrammed  for  recruitment  during  late  FY96  with  reporting  dates  in 


372 


early  FY97.  The  filling  of  vacant  positions  will  be  staggered  and  prioritized  during  the  fiscal  year 
to  lessen  the  impact  and/or  eliminate  the  need  for  furloughs  or  reduction  in  force  actions. 

If  delaying  promotions,  staggering  recruitment  for  vacant  positions,  and  normal  attrition  do 
not  result  in  the  Commission  being  able  to  fund  personnel  compensation  and  personnel  benefits,  a 
second  reduction-in-force  may  be  necessary. 

Potential  Savings 

QUESTION 

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

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

ANSWER 

5.  NCPC  saved  an  estimated  $146,320  (less  than  6%  of  total  salaries  expense)  by  leaving  vacant 
positions  unfilled  during  FY96.  By  eliminating  3  positions,  NCPC  saved  an  additional  $84,437 
(totaling  less  than  10%  of  total  salaries  expense).  There  were  no  savings  as  a  result  of  furloughs 
during  FY96. 

QUESTION 

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

6.  The  4  positions  left  vacant  during  FY96  must  be  filled  in  order  to  restore  NCPC  to  its  FY97 
operating  level  and  accommodate  additional  program  requirements  which  have  resulted  from  the 
sunsetting  of  the  Pennsylvania  Avenue  Development  Corporation  (P.ADC).  During  FY96  and  early 
FY95,  there  are  several  voluntary  retirements  planned.  These  positions  must  be  filled  immediately 
to  provide  required  services  in  several  of  the  Commission's  major  program  areas. 

QUESTION 

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

ANSWER 

7.  NCPC  has  just  completed  the  second  of  its  five-year  total  organizational  reviews  which 

resulted  in  the  elimination  of  several  personnel  and  positions.  A  new  organizational  chart  is  attached 
for  your  review.  The  Office  of  Administration  and  the  Intergovemmental  Planning  &  Public  Affairs 
Office  were  reduced  by  3  and  1  respectively.  The  separation  actions  were  effective  April  15,  1996 
and  resulted  in  an  estimated  savings  of  $  84,437. 


373 


QUESTION 

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

ANSWER 

8.  During  FY96,  the  streamlining  of  administrative  processes  was  given  top  priority  by  the 
Commission.  Utilization  studies  for  human  resources  are  conducted  periodically  by  the 
Commission.  The  most  recent  organization  review  completed  at  the  end  of  Januar>',  1996  resulted 
in  4  positions  being  abolished.  The  FTEs  will  be  programmed  to  support  central  mission  related 
activities  and  distributed  among  the  planning  operations  divisions.  Our  efforts  are  now  focused  on 
identifying  and  acquiring  the  critical  skills  needed  in  order  to  operate  in  a  streamlined  environment. 
We  plan  to  realize  additional  personnel  savings  by  using  intra-agency  detailees  selected  for 
developmental  assignments  and  Intergovernmental  Personnel  Assignments  (IP As),  where  possible 
to  supplement  the  planning  staff.. 

QUESTION 

9.  Have  you  investigated  the  opportunities  for  obtaining  outside  service  for  certain  of  your 
administrative  or  legal  functions,  such  as  personnel,  procurement,  budget,  or  legal  offices?  What 
savings,  and  what  changed  services,  might  you  [sic]  expect  to  obtain  from  outsourcing  these 
functions  to  another  Department,  agency  or  the  private  sector? 

ANSWER 

9.  With  more  than  a  30%  reduction  in  the  staff  of  the  Office  of  Administration,  we  are 
investigating  the  use  of  extended  cross-servicing  with  the  Department  of  Treasury,  General  Services 
Administration,  and  the  Department  of  Agriculture's  National  Finance  Center  to  provide 
personnel/payroll  support.  With  the  elimination  of  the  Procurement/Contracting  position,  we  will 
again  rely  on  the  Department  of  Transportation's  contracting  offices  for  assistance  with  competitive 
contracting.  Many  administrative  functions  have  been  consolidated  and  are  now  being  performed 
by  the  same  staff  person  with  the  use  of  information  technology.  Our  experience  in  1 994  with  using 
outside  legal  counsel  for  issues  and  advice  proved  extremely  costly,  inefficient,  and  ineffective. 

QUESTION 

10.  To  what  extent  are  you  able  to  recoup  some  of  our  [sic]  expenses  by  charging  fees  for  goods 
or  services  you  provide  the  public  and  other  government  agencies? 

ANSWER 

1 0.  The  National  Capital  Planning  Commission  has  few  goods  or  services  of  a  commercial  nature 
for  which  we  could  charge  either  the  public  or  other  government  agencies.  We  do  currently  provide, 
at  reproduction  cost,  maps  of  various  parts  of  the  National  Capital  Region  when  requested,  but  these 
funds  are  deposited  in  the  U.  S.  Treasury's  general  fund  account.  With  the  completion  of  several 
early  tasks  under  the  current  (digitizing)  contract,  we  will  have  data  to  produce  on  demand,  i.e. 


374 


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

At  the  present  time,  NCPC  has  no  statutory  authority  which  would  permit  us  to  retain  the 
proceeds  of  the  sale  of  any  of  these  products.  Such  authority  would  be  helpful,  but  since  such  maps 
and  geospacial  data  products  constitute  only  a  small  part  of  our  workload,  their  sale  would  permit 
the  recoupment  of  only  a  very  small  portion  of  our  expenses. 

QUESTION 

1 1 .  What  opportunities  are  there  for  you  to  either  solicit  or  to  accept  funds  as  either  fees  or  grants 
to  further  accomplish  some  of  your  long  range  planning  functions? 

ANSWER 

11.  As  noted  in  the  response  to  10,  above,  this  agency  has  no  statutory  authority  to  solicit  or 
retain  fees  for  certain  goods  and  services  which  we  provide  to  the  public  and  other  government 
agencies.  We  do,  however,  have  limited  statutory  authority  to  accept  gifts  from  outside  sources  for 
the  making  or  modification  of  a  general  of  comprehensive  plan  and  the  making  or  modification  of 
project  area  redevelopment  plans  and  for  surveys  . .  .and  other  administrative  expenses  in  connection 
therewith  (D.C.  Code  §5-815). 

In  addition,  that  same  code  section  authorizes  the  Commission  to  receive  from  states, 
municipalities  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  any  grant  funds  appropriated  by  Congress  to  those 
entities  for  comprehensive  planning  and  survey  purposes. 

The  agency  has  no  gift  or  grant  authority  beyond  those  set  out  above.  In  addition,  the  statute 
is  silent  on  the  Commission's  ability  to  solicit  funds  for  such  activities.  Although  the  rules  on 
solicitation,  generally,  are  somewhat  unclear,  any  solicitation  done  would  have  to  be  accomplished 
very  carefully  to  avoid  any  real  or  perceived  conflicts  of  interest. 

QUESTION 

12.  Your  FY96  allocation  was  a  10%  cut  below  the  FY95  funding  level.  What  services  and 
activities  were  cut  back  to  achieve  this  savings?  What  personnel  reduction  or  alterations  were 
involved  in  achieving  these  savings? 

ANSWER 

12.  Most  of  the  non-fixed  object  classes  were  frozen  for  the  first  half  of  the  fiscal  year.  Some 
remain  frozen.  Included  in  these  object  classes  are  staff  training,  travel,  awards,  transit  subsidy, 
supplies,  and  equipment.  Several  staff  promotions  were  delayed  and  4  positions  were  abolished. 
The  Commission  instituted  an  immediate  hiring  freeze  on  October  1,  1996.  Instead  of  incurring 
travel  costs  Commissioners  have  conducted  meetings  using  teleconferencing  and  have  on  occasion 
personally  assumed  the  full  cost  of  traveling  to  Washington,  DC  for  the  monthly  Commission 
meeting. 


375 


QUESTION 

13.  Your  rental  payments  to  GSA  constitute  fully  22%  of  your  FY96  allocation.  What 
opportunities  are  there  for  you  to  achieve  savings  in  this  category? 

ANSWER 

13.  We  have  investigated  the  possibility  of  exchanging  office  space  with  the  Internal  Revenue 
Service  (IRS),  who  are  rumored  to  be  relocating  to  their  headquarters  location.  When  contacted, 
GSA  was  not  aware  of  any  proposed  move  by  the  small  IRS  office  that  shares  space  on  the  third 
floor  with  the  Commission.  We  are  still  investigating  the  possibility  of  reducing  the  amount  of  space 
needed  by  the  Commission  and  hope  that,  if  the  small  offices  of  the  IRS  do  move,  the  Commission's 
request  to  exchange  office  spaces  will  be  seriously  considered. 

QUESTION 

14.  Your  request  for  other  services,  supplies  and  materials,  and  equipment  remain  substantially 
below  the  levels  that  were  funded  in  FY95.  What  kinds  of  items  are  included  in  these  categories? 
How  have  you  been  able  to  achieve  these  substantial  savings  in  these  areas?  Are  you  accumulating 
a  backlog  of  maintenance,  purchases  or  other  items  that  will  need  to  be  rectified  in  the  near  future? 

ANSWER 

14.  These  categories  include  training,  a  variety  of  maintenance  agreements,  agreements  for 
various  government  services,  supplies,  and  equipment.  Completion  of  initial  computer  technology 
training,  and  a  freeze  on  computer  hardware  and  software  purchases  for  systems'  upgrades  have 
produced  substantial  savings  in  these  categories.  Additional  savings  were  achieved  by  canceling 
several  subscriptions  and  annual  maintenance  agreements.  We  have  also  reduced  the  number  of 
telephone  lines  used  by  the  Commission  by  more  than  30%,  and  are  currently  investigating  a  transfer 
to  the  GSA  WITS  system  for  telecommunication  services.  While  we  do  not  anticipate  a  significant 
backlog  of  purchases,  we  do  recognize  that  future  purchases  to  support  increased  use  of  information 
technology  will  have  to  be  made  in  order  to  restore  efficient  operations. 

QUESTION 

15.  You  are  a  small  agency  with  just  54  FTEs  yet  your  organization  is  split  up  into  9  different 
administrative  units,  each  of  which  has  a  director  or  lead  person.  Have  you  considered  reducing  this 
organization  and  consolidating  the  supervisory  responsibilities  of  the  various  directors  and  section 
heads? 

ANSWER 

15.  In  order  to  delegate  day-to-day  management  responsibilities  down  to  the  lowest  possible 
level,  each  of  the  divisions  have  assigned  directors.  These  directors  manage  the  employees  who 
perform  planning  review  and  support  activities.  This  allows  the  Executive  Director  to  focus 
primarily  on  the  external  environment  and  the  statutory  requirements  to  coordinate  comprehensive 
planning  in  the  National  Capital  Region. 


376 


We  have  considered,  and  are  considering,  the  possibility  of  consolidating  two  of  the 
operations  divisions.  We  are  examining  the  potential  adverse  impacts  on  the  staff  and  the  resulting 
costs  to  effect  the  change. 

QUESTION 

16.  You  have  4  persons  providing  executive  director  office  functions,  and  in  addition  have  an 
executive  officer  in  your  administration  office  and  an  executive  assistant  in  your  Secretariat  office. 
What  opportunities  are  there  for  savings  in  your  executive  director  office  or  other  executive 
functions? 

ANSWER 

1 6.  The  Office  of  the  Executive  Director  was  reorganized  three  years  ago  resulting  in  the  transfer 
of  three  positions  to  operational  areas  experiencing  increasing  workload,  particularly  in  the  area  of 
planning  information  technology.  Although  four  positions  were  retained  in  the  office  in  the  interest 
of  maximizing  efficiency,  two  are  assigned  functions  that  extend  across  the  operational  divisions  of 
the  staff  The  Deputy  Executive  Director,  who  represents  the  Executive  Director  on  occasions  as 
required,  also  serves  as  Director  of  Operations.  In  this  capacity,  the  deputy  is  responsible  for 
coordinating  the  work  of  the  four  line  divisions,  making  assignments  that  cross  unit  lines,  and 
assigning  personnel  on  temporary  bases  to  cover  particular  staff  needs.  The  Assistant  Executive 
Director  for  Special  Projects  is  a  temporary  time-limited  position  for  managing  a  number  of  projects 
that  employ  teams  of  staff  members  from  the  operating  divisions,  while  also  requiring  high  level 
representations  on  behalf  of  the  Executive  Director.  For  example,  the  incumbent  manages  the 
Commission's  geospatial  data  acquisition  and  coordination  program.  This  effort  has  required 
coordination  at  the  highest  levels  of  the  District  of  Columbia  Government  and  with  senior  officials 
of  several  Federal  departments.  The  incumbent  is  also  assigned  responsibility  to  coordinate  and 
guide  initial  implementation  steps  in  the  Monumental  Core  Plan  with  Federal  and  District  agencies, 
and  with  the  private  sector.  This  position  was  not  placed  in  an  operating  division,  because  it  requires 
guidance  for  senior  level  staff  members  from  various  divisions,  and  close  collaboration  with  the 
Executive  Director,  i.e.  greater  efficiency  is  achieved  by  its  placement  in  the  Office  of  the  Executive 
Director. 

The  Executive  Officer  is  the  Director  of  the  Office  of  Administration  and  serves  as  the  top 
administrator  for  the  Commission.  Full  authority  and  responsibility  to  act  on  the  behalf  of  the 
Executive  Director  are  delegated  to  this  position  in  all  matters  of  financial  management,  budget, 
personnel,  organization  and  staff  utilization,  space  and  facilities,  procurement  and  supply. 

The  Executive  Assistant  in  the  Office  of  the  Secretariat  serves  as  the  primary  staff  liaison  and 
Secretary  to  the  Commission.  This  position  is  responsible  for  coordinating  Commission  meeting 
agendas,  serving  as  Commission  parliamentarian,  and  responding  to  all  Commissioner  scheduling, 
information,  and  coordination  needs.  This  is  historically  a  critical  function  and  one  of  such 
importance  that  the  appointment  is  made  by  the  Commission. 


377 


To  streamline  administrative  processes,  the  staff  of  the  Office  of  Administration  has  recently 
been  reduced  by  three  (3)  positions.  These  slots  will  be  transferred  to  the  program  areas  to  handle 
the  increasing  workload  in  the  operational  divisions.  This  "right-sizing"  was  accomplished  since  the 
submission  of  the  budget  justifications  and  is  not  reflected  in  the  organization  chart  accompanying 
the  justification. 

PADC  Responsibilities 

QUESTION 

17.  The  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  has  allocated  an  additional  FTE  for  you  to  help  with 
your  new  duties  regarding  responsibilities  of  the  former  Pennsylvania  Avenue  Development 
Commission.  To  what  extent  will  this  FTE  provide  adequate  coverage  for  these  duties?  Does  your 
funding  request  provide  for  coverage  of  these  duties?  What  is  the  additional  cost  of  these  duties?" 

ANSWER 

17.  With  only  three  city  squares  within  the  PADC  area  still  requiring  redevelopment,  it  is 
estimated  that  one  FTE  can  deal  with  all  possible  plan  change  and  project  change  requests,  as  well 
as  all  building  permit  applications  referred  by  the  District  govemment.  The  Commission  is  currently 
entering  into  a  Memorandum  of  Agreement  (MOA)  with  GSA  and  the  National  Park  Service,  for 
the  purpose  of  ensuring  that  the  development  and  redevelopment  within  the  PADC  area  complies 
with  the  Pennsylvania  Avenue  Plan  of  1974,  as  amended,  and  the  PADC's  General  Guidelines  and 
Square  Guidelines.  One  FTE  is  adequate  (working  with  the  existing  Review  and  Technical  Planning 
Services  staffs)  to  ensure  that  the  supervision  of  the  plan  is  carried  out  in  a  responsible  and  efficient 
manner  and  with  appropriate  public  participation. 

The  Commission  was  given  an  additional  $70K  to  fund  an  additional  FTE.  It  is  anticipated 
that  this  position  to  support  the  newly  assigned  PADC  responsibilities  will  be  a  j)ermanent  full-time 
position.  The  cost  will  not  exceed  the  requested  amount. 

Monumental  Core  Framework  Plan 

QUESTION 

18.  The  release  of  the  Monumental  Core  Framework  Plan  and  model  has  precipitated  a 
tremendous  amount  of  publicity  and  public  interest.  Please  provide  a  brief  summary  of  the  initial 
press  coverage  and  public  response. 


ANSWER 


A  DREAM  THAT  CLINTON  AND  GINGRICH  AGREE  ON 

U.S.  NEWS  &  WORLD  REPORT 

A  CAPITAL  THAT  IMPROVES  WITH  AGE  -  PROPOSAL'S  UNBUNKING  VISION 
BRINGS  THE  FUTURE  INTO  FOCUS 

WASHINGTON  POST 

Get  Thee  to  Union  Station  [to]  see  the  provocative,  beautifully  presented  Monumental  Core 
Framework  plan,  'a  proposed  vision  for  the  Nation 's  Capital  in  the  2 1st  Century. ' 

ROGER  LEWIS 


378 


18.  The  above  quotes  and  the  attached  chart  and  articles  highlight  the  unqualified  success  of 
Extending  the  Legacy  since  it  was  publicly  unveiled  in  a  standing  room  only  ceremony  at  Union 
Station  on  March  26.  Planners,  architects  and  engineers,  recognizing  that  something  important 
is  happening,  have  rallied  behind  the  plan  through  letters,  articles  and  endorsements.  At  the 
request  of  Union  Station,  the  exhibit  was  extended  for  an  additional  week  because  of  the 
noticeably  high  level  of  interest  in  the  project. 

And  most  important  of  all,  the  public  has  embraced  it.  In  three  weeks  NCPC  received 
over  2,300  responses  to  its  questionnaire,  many  of  them  written  on  both  sides,  and  up  and  down 
the  margins.  They  express  broad  support  for  the  plan's  specific  recommendations  as  well  as 
excitement  about  its  promise.  It  is  clearly  striking  a  cord  regarding  how  Americans,  locals  and 
tourists  alike,  feel  about  their  National  Capital.  A  summary  of  press  coverage  follows: 


379 


Summary  of  1996  News  Coverage  of  Monumental  Core 
PRINT  MEDIA 


OuUet/Reporter 

TiUe 

Date 

Washington  Post/Ben  Forgey 

"Plan  for  a  21st  Century  Capital; 
Commission's  Blueprint  would  Affect  all 
Quadrants  of  the  City" 

March  19.1996 

Washington  Times  /  Brian 
Bloomquist 

"Clinton  Hails  Futuristic  Plan:  But  Others 
Discount  Loopy  City  Design" 

March  20.  1996 

Roll  Call/Duncan  Spencer 

"In  the  Neighborhood"  (regular  column) 

March  21. 1996 

Montgomery  Journal/Matt  Hamblin 

"A  Planning  Report  that  Dares  to  Dream"  (op- 
ed) 

March  21,  1996 

Dayton  Daily  News  &  Times 
Union  /Marianne  Means 

"A  Monumental  Waste:  Beautiful  Plan  Ignores 
D.C.'s  Needs"  (op-ed) 

March  22.  1996 

The  Washington  Post  /  Ben  Forgey 

"A  Capital  that  Improves  with  Age: 
Proposal's  Unblinking  Vision  Brings  the 
Future  into  Focus" 

March  23.  1996 

Associated  Press/  LeRoy  Tillman 

"Plans  to  Revitalize  Nation's  Capital 
Overlooks  Current  Problems" 

March  26.  1996 

AP/LeRoy  Tillman 

"Proposal  Unveiled  to  Remove  Urban  Blight 
fi-om  Nation's  Capital" 

March  26,  1996 

USA  Today 

Untitled-part  of  "States"  section 

March  26.  1996 

The  Washington  Times  /Lisa 
Nevans 

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

March  26.1996 

The  Washington  Times/Adrienne 
Washington 

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

March  26.1996 

AP/Prince  George's  Joumal/LeRoy 
Tillman 

"Washington  Restoration  Planned" 

March  27.  1996 

380 


Outlet/Reporter 

Title 

Date 

The  Washington  Post/No  author 

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

March  27,  1996 

The  Bond  Buyer/Amy  Resnick 

"Federal  Commission  Announces  Plan  to 
Revamp  D.C.'s  Layout" 

March  27,  1996 

Investor's  Business  Daily 

From  wire  reports 

March  27.  1996 

Atlanta  Journal  &  Constitution  and 
Palm  Beach  Post  Bob  Dart 

"Washington's  Future  Could  be  Rosy, 
Planners  Say" 

March  27,  1996 

The  Times-Picayune/Wire  Reports 

"Panel  Proposes  Washington  Make-over " 

March  27,  1996 

The  Washington  Post/  Roger  K. 
Lewis 

"Fine-Tunmg  a  Vision  for  DCs  Next 
Century" 

March  30,  1996 

The  Washington  Times  /  Tom 
Sullivan 

"Commission  Lays  Out  Plans  for  21st-century 
Washington" 

April  6,  1996 

US  News  &  World  Repoit/Wire 
Report 

"A  Dream  that  Clinton  and  Gingrich  Agree 
On" 

April  8,  1996 

Architecture  /  Deborah  K.  Dienur 

"Make  No  Small  Plans" 

April  1996 

City  Paper/Mark  Jenkins 

"From  the  White  House  to  Your  House:  The 
NCPC's  Vision" 

April  11,  1996 

Historic  Preservation/Allan 
Freeman 

Capital  for  a  New  Century 

May/June,  1996 

381 


MEDIA  RESULTS  REPORT 

(AS  OF  4/2/96) 


Outlet 

Story  Date 

Notes 

TELEVISION 

C-SPAN  1 

3/26,  7: 10  pm 

46  minute  -  full  coverage  of  press  conference 

C-SPAN  2 

3/26,  6:00  pm 

WRC-TV  (NBC) 
Channel  4 

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

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

WRC-TV  (NBC) 
Channel  4 

3/26,  6:00  pm 

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

WJLA-T\'  (ABC) 
Channel  7 

3/26,  5:00  pm 
3/27,  6:00  am 
(re-run) 

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

WJLA-TV  (ABC) 
Channel  7 

3/26,  1 1 :00  pm 

Anchor  reader,  includes  visuals  of  plan 

WUSA-TV  (CBS) 
Channel  9 

3/26,  5:00  am 

30  second  story,  includes  graphics 

WUSA-TV  (CBS) 
Channel  9 

3/26,  5:00  pm 

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

WUSA-TV  (CBS) 

3/26,  6:00  pm 

1  minute  story,  includes  visuals 

Channel  9 

WTTG-TV  (FOX) 
Channel  5 

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

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

WTTG-T\'  (FOX) 

3/26,  12:00  pm 

20  second  anchor  reader,  includes  visuals 

WDCA-TV  (UPN) 
Channel  20 

3/26.  10:00  pm 

Newschannel  8 

3/26,  1 :00  pm 
6:00  pm  (re-run) 

3  minute  stor>'  includes  interview  with  Reg 
Griffith,  clips  of  Tom  Davis,  Marion  Barry 

C-SPAN  1 
Washington  Journal 

3/27,  9:00  am 

Interview  with  Reg  Griffith 

382 


Outlet 

Story  Date 

Notes 

C-SPAN  2 

3/27,  5:30  am 

35  minutes-partia]  coverage  of  press  conference 

C-SPAN  2 

3/27,  6:15  am 

15  minute  story,  clips  from  press  conference 

Newschannel  8 

3/27,  6:00  am 

RADIO 

National  Public 
Radio  (on  WET  A) 

3/19 

25  second  mention  during  classical  show 

WAMU 

3/26 

Story  reported  by  Danielle  Karson 

WTOP 

3/26,  7:00  am, 
8:00  am,  5:00  pm 
(re-run) 

Story  includes  focus  of  future  of  transportation 

WAMU 

3/27,  7:00  am 

4  minute,  very  positive 

ONLINE  SERVICES 

Washington  Post 
Digital  Ink 

3/26  to  present 

Graphics  and  text  of  25-page  Extending  the 
Legacy  digitized 

383 


QUESTION 


19.  Your  public  outreach  efforts  have  resulted  in  a  large  number  of  persons  sending  in  a 
survey  form  giving  their  opinions  of  the  new  plan  framework.  How  many  written  comments 
have  you  received  so  far  and  how  many  do  you  anticipate  receiving.  For  what  time  span  will  this 
public  input  continue?  What  amount  of  staffing  is  required  to  assemble,  analyze  and  respond 
to  this  large  amount  of  public  input?  What  do  you  anticipate  this  public  comment  analysis  will 
end  up  costing?  Have  you  interacted  with  other  agencies  with  more  extensive  experience  in 
public  comment  analysis  to  leam  of  cost  saving  or  efficiency  procedures  to  enhance  your  ability 
to  leam  from  and  respond  to  the  input? 

ANSWER 

19.  From  March  26  through  April  17,  NCPC  has  received  over  2,500  public  comments 
(2,300  questionnaires  plus  200  letters,  e-mails,  voice-mail,  etc.).  The  public  comment  period 
will  continue  until  October,  1996.  Comments  will  be  entered  into  a  database  for  analysis  and 
response  and  will  be  used  in  preparing  the  final  document.  This  analysis  will  be  done  by 
NCPC's  existing  staff  and  outside  experts  as  required.  Using  existing  resources  supplemented 
by  part-time  student  interns,  and  experts  in  specialized  fields  of  planning,  it  is  estimated  that  the 
direct  cost  of  this  analysis  and  the  planning  work  to  make  necessary  changes  and  refinements  in 
the  draft  plan  that  respond  to  the  comments  are  estimated  at  approximately  $140,076  through  the 
end  of  October.  We  have  discussed  public  comment  activity  with  experienced  agencies  such  as 
the  Smithsonian  Institution,  and  will  continue  to  explore  additional  sources  to  assist  in  the 
analysis  and  statistical  modelling  of  the  responses  to  the  survey. 

QUESTION 

20.  When  do  you  anticipate  completing  and  releasing  the  final  Monumental  Core  Framework 
Plan?  What  amount  of  staffing  and  funding  will  be  required  to  prepare  the  final  version  and 
what  distribution  and  printing  costs  are  you  anticipating? 

ANSWER 

20.  After  the  public  comment  period  ends  in  October  and  the  responses  have  been  analyzed  by 
the  staff  with  the  assistance  of  several  experts  in  each  of  the  specialized  planning  fields,  NCPC 
hopes  to  prepare  the  final  plan  for  release  by  the  end  of  this  year  (or  early  in  1997).  In  addition 
to  NCPC  staff  assigned  to  this  task,  the  agency  will  use  outside  experts  on  a  limited  basis  to 
support  the  final  plan.  Total  cost  for  the  preparation,  (including  the  formulation  of  proposals  that 
respond  to  the  public  comments)  printing,  and  distribution  of  the  final  plan  is  currently 
programmed  at  approximately  $500,000. 

QUESTION 

2 1 .  The  framework  provides  a  dramatic  vision  for  the  future.  How  will  the  NCPC  work  with 
other  federal  agencies,  the  District  of  Columbia,  states,  counties  and  the  private  sector  to  help 
realize  some  of  this  plan? 


384 


ANSWER 

21 .  NCPC  has  worked  closely  with  other  federal  agencies,  the  District  of  Columbia,  states, 
counties  and  the  private  sector  in  formulating  the  Monumental  Core  Framework  Plan  and  will 
continue  to  work  closely  with  these  parties  in  the  effort  to  help  realize  the  plan.  Given  the  50-to- 
100  year  time  horizon  of  the  plan,  the  implementation  effort  will  last  many  years.  The 
Commission  will  work  with  these  agencies  and  jurisdictions  through  a  variety  of  mechanisms, 
including  regular  consultations  and  discussions,  exchanges  of  information,  collaboration  on 
specific  projects,  and  public  meetings.  As  stated  in  the  Extending  the  Legacy  booklet  (pg.  24): 

Local  governments  and  federal  agencies  will  be  responsible  for  implementing  the 
plan,  with  technical  and  financial  help  from  the  federal  government  for 
extraordinary  public  expenditures  such  as  transportation  or  major  parks  and  river 
improvements. 

Projects  that  straddle  jurisdictions,  or  that  are  simply  too  complex  for  one  agency 
to  manage,  will  require  a  new  development  partnership  of  local,  federal  and 
private  interests. ..Other  projects  could  be  carried  out  by  coalitions  of  existing 
agencies.  Reconfiguring  the  highways  around  the  Kennedy  Center,  for  example, 
could  be  a  joint  venture  of  the  National  Park  Service  and  the  District  of 
Columbia's  Department  of  Public  Works. 

QUESTION 

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

ANSWER 

22.  The  District  of  Columbia  has  had  an  active  role  in  formulating  the  plan.  The  District  has  four 
seats  on  the  Commission,  the  Mayor,  the  Chairman  of  the  City  Council  of  the  District  of  Columbia, 
and  two  mayoral  appointees.  All  have  contributed  their  views  and  suggestions  during  the 
formulation  of  the  plan.  One  of  the  mayoral  appointees  is  the  Vice  Chair  of  the  Commission,  who 
as  Chairwoman  of  the  Monumental  Core  Task  Force,  has  been  particularly  involved  in  staff  strategy 
sessions,  major  briefings  and  discussions  at  Commission  meetings.  In  addition.  District  government 
officials  were  participants  in  several  work  sessions  that  the  Commission  organized  to  solicit  ideas  and 
suggestions  for  various  aspects  of  the  plan.  We  have  also  regularly  briefed  and  consulted  with 
District  agencies  such  as  the  Office  of  Economic  Development,  Tourism,  Department  of  Public 
Works,  and  the  City  Administrator. 

QUESTION 

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


385 


ANSWER 


23.  As  a  sector  plan  of  the  Comprehensive  plan  for  the  Nation's  Capital,  the  Monumental  Core 
Framework  plan  is  inherently  linked  to  the  Commission's  comprehensive  planning.  As  the 
framework  plan  is  completed  and  approved  by  the  Commission  it  will  become  part  of  the  overall 
Comprehensive  Plan  for  the  National  Capital  and  will  be  used  as  a  guide  for  orderly  development  in 
the  central  downtown  area. 

Other  Major  Activities 

QUESTION 

24.  Your  budget  justification  mentions  that  you  will  be  starting  new  major  sector  plans  soon. 
What  plans  do  you  anticipate  attempting  during  the  next  ten  years? 

ANSWER 

24.  Following  the  completion  of  the  Monumental  Core  and  Beltsville  plans,  we  anticipate 
initiating  sector  plans  for  Boiling  Anacostia  Federal  sector  area  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the 
Quantico  Federal  sector  area  in  Virginia. 

QUESTION 

25.  The  Beltsville  area  plan  has  made  slow  progress.  What  actions  do  you  anticipate  taking 
during  FY97  if  you  receive  the  allocation  for  outside  contracts  and  consultants  as  requested.  If  this 
category  is  reduced  to  its  FY96  level,  how  much  activity  on  the  Beltsville  Plan  will  result? 

ANSWER 

25.  The  Commission  requested  funds  primarily  for  outside  consultants  in  the  areas  of  the 
transportation  and  environmental  assessment.  If  these  funds  are  not  available,  the  Commission's 
work  on  the  Beltsville  project  will  continue  to  be  slow,  but  somewhat  facilitated  through  cooperative 
agreements  with  other  agencies  conducting  environmental  studies  in  the  same  sector  and  perhaps  by 
creating  detail  assignments  with  other  federal  agencies  to  supplement  the  staff  resulting  in  completion 
of  the  plan  much  later  than  originally  scheduled. 

QUESTION 

26.  Do  you  have  the  ability  to  use  in-house  planning  expertise  to  get  the  Beltsville  area  project 
underway.  What  are  the  opportunities  to  obtain  detailees  from  other  federal  agencies  or  other 
jurisdictions  with  specialized  skills  to  move  this  planning  project  along? 

ANSWER 

26.  The  Commission  does  have  in-house  planning  expertise,  and  the  Beltsville  project  is  already 
underway.  The  Long-Range  Planning  staff  has  begun  to  collect  data  and  develop  working 
relationships  with  other  agencies  for  the  project.  Because  we  were  successful  in  obtaining  detailees 


from  other  agencies  to  work  on  the  Monumental  Core  plan,  we  will  look  for  similar  opportunities  to 
detail  specialists  from  other  agencies  to  work  on  the  BARC  plan  as  needed. 

QUESTION 

27.  What  geographic  area  is  covered  by  this  Beltsville  effort?  What  jurisdictions  are  involved? 
Are  they  all  collaborating  with  you  on  this  effort?  To  what  extent  are  there  opportunities  to  develop 
a  shared  project  work  fund  so  the  various  agencies  and  jurisdictions  could  help  support  this  effort? 
Are  there  opportunities  to  share  personnel  of  equipment  in  lieu  of  exchanging  funds? 

ANSWER 

27.  The  Beltsville  Sector  generally  includes  the  federal  facilities  and  their  environs  in  northern 
Prince  George's  County,  Maryland  with  portions  in  Montgomery  County  (White  Oak).  These 
facilities  include:  the  USDA's  Beltsville  Agricultural  Research  Center,  The  National  Park  Service's 
Greenbelt  Park  and  Baltimore  Washington  Parkway,  a  State  Department  facility,  NASA's  Goddard 
Space  Flight  Center,  Department  of  the  Army's  Laurel  Armory,  U.S.  Secret  Service  Training  Center, 
Patuxent  Environmental  Science  Center,  FDA's  Center  for  Veterinary  Medicine,  Adelphi  Laboratory 
Center  and  the  FDA  Consolidation  at  White  Oak  in  Montgomery  County.  We  are  collaborating  with 
other  agencies  to  make  our  data  collection  more  efficient.  For  example,  we  have  already  begun 
working  with  the  US  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  who  are  collecting  data  on  the  Anacostia  watershed. 
We  are  presently  negotiating  an  agreement  with  the  Maryland  National  Capital  Park  and  Planning 
Commission  (PG  County)  to  share  digital  mapping  data. 

In  addition,  the  Beltsville  Agricultural  Research  Center  is  providing  substantial  digital 
information  on  their  site  as  part  of  the  update  of  their  current  master  plan.  On  May  9  we  will  meet 
with  a  task  force  of  agencies  in  the  Beltsville  sector  that  will  be  affected  by  planning  efforts  to  brief 
them  on  the  work  program  and  the  issues  we  have  uncovered  so  far  in  our  data  collection  effort.  We 
will  look  for  every  opportunity  to  partner  with  other  federal  agencies  in  this  effort  and  will  pursue 
interagency  cost-sharing  agreements  to  fund  the  project. 

QUESTION 

28.  What  is  the  status  of  the  2050  Plan? 

ANSWER 

28.  What  began  as  the  2050  project/plan  has  now  become  an  important  part  of  the  long  range 
planning  effort.  The  Commission  has  completed  initial  stages  of  work,  including  identifying  five 
regional  development  scenarios  that  should  be  tested  in  the  development  of  long-range  planning 
guidance  for  the  Federal  government  in  the  National  Capital  Region.  In  addition,  basic  methodology 
for  the  collection  and  coordination  of  planning  data  from  important  public  and  private  sources 
throughout  the  region  has  been  developed.  Successive  stages  should  include  developing  computer 
models  for  applying  the  regional  scenarios,  testing  altemative  Federal  employment  levels  and 
deployment  patterns  through  the  scenario  models,  and  developing  region-wide  policy  guidance  for 
the  Federal  establishment  well  into  the  21st  Century.  Projected  2050  plan  work  also  includes 
completing  and  implementing  models  for  coordinating  planning  data  through  advances  in  planning 
information  technology  from  various  public  and  private  levels  throughout  the  region,  including 


387 


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

QUESTION 

29.  Please  provide  some  examples  of  how  the  current  budget  problems  faced  by  the  District  of 
Columbia  have  directly  and  indirectly  affected  your  planning  activities. 

ANSWER 

29.  As  part  of  its  statutory  responsibilities  in  approving  plans  for  the  MCI  Arena,  the  Commission 
was  required  to  comply  with  Section  106  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act,  which  involved 
a  requirement  that  the  Commission  negotiate  a  Memorandum  of  Agreement  with  the  District  of 
Columbia  incorporating  measures  to  mitigate  impacts  of  the  arena  project  on  surrounding  historic 
resources.  Because  of  District  budget  limitations,  many  worthwhile  measures  could  only  be 
incorporated  in  prospective  or  general  terms,  limiting,  in  some  cases,  the  extent  of  possible 
mitigation. 

QUESTION 

30.  What  is  the  situation  regarding  federal  office  space  availability  in  the  planning  area?  To  what 
extent  are  you  able  to  control  the  overall  migration  of  federal  office  space  out  of  the  District  of 
Columbia  and  into  neighboring  jurisdictions? 

ANSWER 

30.  One  of  the  issues  to  be  addressed  in  the  Beltsville  Sector  plan  is  whether  additional  office 
space  is  needed  and  suitable  in  the  sector.  There  appears  to  be  some  current  demand  by  some 
agencies  to  place  headquarters  facilities  in  an  area  that  is  not  well  served  by  public  transit  and  has 
previously  been  devoted  largely  to  lower  density  research  use.  The  Commission  has  a  policy  in  its 
Comprehensive  Plan  to  maintain  a  ratio  of  60  percent  federal  employment  within  the  District  and  the 
other  40  percent  outside  the  District  in  the  National  Capital  Region.  Our  recommendations  are  only 
advisory  outside  the  District.  The  ratio  has  been  falling  for  many  years.  Recently  large  installations 
such  as  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  office  complex  have  been  built  outside  the  District  under 
congressional  mandate.  We  hope  that  our  efforts  with  the  Monumental  Core  Plan,  particularly  in  the 
South  Capitol  Street  area  will  promote  an  increase  in  this  ratio  in  the  District  in  the  future. 

QUESTION 

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


388 

ANSWER 

31.  The  Commission  rejected  a  proposed  $27,000,000  campus-type  office  complex  at  the 
Beltsville  Agricultural  Research  Center  in  Prince  George's  County,  Maryland.  This  action 
(recommendation)  was  contained  in  a  report  to  the  Department  of  Agriculture  dated  May  4,  1 995  and 
in  the  Commission's  Federal  Capital  Improvement  recommendations  for  FY  1996-2000  and  FY 
1997-2001. 

-  Excerpt  from  Federal  Capital  Improvements  Program  - 

PROJECT   NOT  RECOMMENDED  IN  THE  PROGRAM 

Although  submitted  by  the  respective  agency  for  inclusion  in  the  FY's  1997-2001  program, 
the  Commission  does  not  recommend  funding  and  construction  of  the  following  project  because  it 
is  inconsistent  with  Commission  policies. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE 

I ).        USDA  Office  Facility,  Prince  George's  County,  Maryland 

$5,000,000  additional  construction  fiinds  for  a  campus-type  office  complex  consisting  of  (4) 
low-rise  buildings  totaling  350,000  square  feet  of  space.  The  proposed  site  consists  of  45  acres  of 
land  located  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Beltsville  Agricultural  Research  Center  in  Prince  George's 
County,  Maryland.  This  project  is  a  major  element  of  the  USDA's  Washington  Area  Strategic  Space 
Plan  to  consolidate  and  reorganize  USDA  Headquarters.  The  proposed  facility  is  to  be  used  as  swing 
space  for  the  modernization  of  the  USDA's  South  Building  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  to 
permanently  house  1,500  personnel  from  leased  space  in  buildings  in  the  Washington  area.  Total 
Project  Cost:  $56,000,000;  Prior  Funding:  $46,000,000;  Parking:  878  automobile  spaces; 
Employment:  1,500  to  be  transferred  from  other  locations. 

Comment:  Not  recommended.  The  Commission,  at  its  May  4,  1995  meeting,  reviewed  the 
master  plan  modification  and  location,  program  and  design  concepts  for  the  Office  Comp'ex,  and  had 
a  number  of  concerns  as  follows:  1)  the  Beltsville  Agricultural  Research  Center  is  designated  in  the 
Comprehensive  Plan  as  an  important  regional  open  space  resource  whose  green  open  space  character 
should  be  maintained,  with  limited  building  development  and  employment  density;  2)  the  need  for 
this  proposed  facility  is  unclear  in  view  of  current  plans  to  "downsize"  the  Department  of  Agriculture; 
and  3)  the  transfer  of  employees  to  the  complex  from  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  conjunction  with 
the  modernization  of  USDA's  South  Building  is  inconsistent  with  Commission  policies  which  call 
for  retaining  60%  of  regional  Federal  employment  in  the  District,  the  established  seat  of  the  National 
government. 

Although  staff  has  had  a  number  of  meetings  with  USDA  and  its  representatives,  USDA  let 
a  design/build  contract  for  the  site  at  BARC  without  formal  action  by  the  Commission.  The  National 
Capital  Planning  Act  of  1952,  as  amended  (40)  U.S.C.  7 Id  (a)  ("Planning  Act")  requires  each 
Federal  agency,  prior  to  the  preparation  of  construction  plans  or  to  commitments  for  acquisition  of 
land  in  the  region,  to  advise  and  consult  with  the  Commission  in  its  preliminary  and  successive  stages 
of  planning.  The  Planning  Act  outlines  the  required  procedure  for  agencies  to  follow  which  do  not 
agree  with  the  Commission's  advice,  including  giving  suitable  consideration  to  the  views  of  the 


389 


Commission  before  pursuing  a  different  course  of  action.  The  Department  of  Agriculture  has  not 
advised  the  Commission  of  its  intent  in  response  to  the  disapproval  of  the  office  complex  proposal. 
Therefore,  no  final  action  by  the  Commission  on  the  project  has  been  taken  at  this  time,  and  the 
Commission  continues  to  recommend  against  funding  for  this  project  as  part  of  the  FYs  1 997-200 1 
Federal  capital  improvements  program. 

Other  proposed  capital  projects  that  the  Commission  has  recommended  for  deferral  include: 

$  1 ,600,000  construction  funds  for  six  new  family  housing  units  at  Walter  Reed  Army 
Medical  Center  -  Main  Section,  Washington,  D.C.  (Disapproved  because  of  unresolved  historic 
preservation  issues.) 

$3,000,000  in  design  costs  related  to  the  replacement  of  aging  medical  and 
pathological  incinerators  at  the  National  Institutes  of  Health,  Bethesda,  Maryland.  (Disapproved 
because  of  unresolved  environmental  issues.) 

QUESTION 

32.  Besides  the  Beltsville  area  plan,  what  other  activities  or  plans  do  you  anticipate  working 
on  with  contracts  for  experts  and  consultants  if  ( I )  you  get  your  request,  and  (2)  if  your  funding 
for  this  category  is  held  at  the  FY96  conference  level. 

ANSWER 

32.  Funding  at  the  requested  level  will  allow  NCPC  to  accelerate  the  development  of 
standardized  digital  cartographic  data  for  use  by  Federal  agencies  in  the  National  Capital  Region 
and  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  the  spirit  of  Executive  Order  12906,  NCPC  and  the  District  of 
Columbia  are  sponsoring  partners  under  contract  with  PhotoScience,  Inc.  to  acquire,  distribute 
and  utilize  geographic  data  and  mapping  for  use  in  community  planning.  We  will  coordinate, 
and  assist  other  Federal  and  local  partners  (see  question  #34)  in  the  identification  of  geographic 
location  and  characteristics  of  natural  or  constructed  features  and  boundaries  in  the  National 
Capital  Region.  Digital  files  of  all  geographic  data,  digital  plot  files  of  all  area  plots  (in  both 
computer  assisted  design  (CAD)  and  geographic  information  systems  (GIS)  formats)  showing 
certain  identified  features  in  three  dimensions  against  an  otherwise  two-dimensional  background 
are  critical  for  testing  in  the  preliminary  stages  of  this  project.  Successful  testing  will  lead  to 
immediate  implementation,  resulting  in  a  more  effective  and  economical  system  of  acquiring, 
processing,  storing,  and  distributing  geographic  data. 

Geospatial  Data 

QUESTION 

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


390 


ANSWER 


33.  NCPC's  need  for  geospatial  data  varies  across  the  National  Capital  Region.  As  a  result 
NCPC's  role  in  acquiring  geospatial  data  and  coordinating  with  other  agencies  also  varies. 

In  suburban  areas  NCPC's  current  requirements  for  geospatial  data  can  generally  by  met 
by  small-scale  data  from  the  Census  Bureau  and  U.S.  Geological  Survey.  In  the  vicinity  of 
federal  installations  it  is  desirable  to  have  more  detailed  geospatial  data.  Fortunately,  such  large- 
scale  data  is  rapidly  becoming  available.  All  of  the  major  suburban  local  governments  are  in  the 
process  of  creating  large-scale  geospatial  databases.  In  a  few  cases  federal  installations  have  also 
produced  geospatial  data  for  their  own  facilities  management  purposes.  Thus,  in  the  suburbs 
NCPC  has  not  taken  a  lead  in  data  acquisition.  Rather  we  have  focused  on  standardizing, 
exchanging,  and  coordinating  information  and  data  with  both  local  governments  and  other 
federal  agencies.  For  example,  NCPC  will  meet  the  geospatial  data  requirements  of  the 
Beltsville  sector  plan  by  cooperating  with  the  installations  and  with  local  governments  and 
without  buying  significant  amounts  of  new  data. 

Within  the  District  of  Columbia,  however,  NCPC's  need  for  large  scale  data  is  greater 
because  of  the  Federal  presence,  and  the  District  Government  does  not  have  a  program  in  place 
to  create  and  maintain  such  data.  NCPC  has  formed  a  partnership  with  the  District  of  Columbia 
Government  to  jointly  build  and  maintain  a  large  scale  geospatial  database  for  the  Nation's 
Capital.  The  project  is  called  the  Washington  Geographic  Information  System  (WGIS).  A  one- 
page  technical  description  of  the  WGIS  mapping  contract  is  attached.  A  full  briefing  on  the 
WGIS  can  be  provided. 

The  District  of  Columbia  Department  of  Administrative  Services  (DCDAS)  and  the 
Department  of  Public  Works  (DCDPW)  have  the  leading  role  on  the  District  side,  but  numerous 
other  District  agencies  participate. 

QUESTION 

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

ANSWER 

34.  In  addition  to  our  relationship  with  the  District  of  Columbia  government  (described 
above),  NCPC  is  seeking  to  share  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  WGIS  project  among  several 
Federal  Agencies  and  the  private  sector.  We  have  already  briefed  and  are  encouraged  by  the 
responses  of: 


391 


Organization 

Technical 

Staff 
Contact 

Technical 

Staff 
Briefing 

Policy 

level 

Briefing 

Partnership 
Agreement 
in  Process 

Federal 

Archiieci  of  the  Capitol 

XX 

Department  of  Defense 

XX 

Military  District  of  Washington 

Naval  District  of  Washington 

XX 

Arlington  Cemetery 

XX 

Corps  of  Engineers 

XX 

General  Services  Administration  -  NCR 

XX 

Library  of  Congress  -  Mapping  division. 

National  Park  Service 

XX 

XX 

Smithsonian  Institution 

XX 

State  Department 

U.S.  Department  of  Agricultiire  -  Arboretum 

U.S.  Department  of  Transportation 

XX 

U.S.  Postal  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  Justice 

XX 

XX 

XX 

XX 

U.S.  Geological  Survey 

XX 

United  States  Secret  Service 

XX 

Local  and  Regional  (non  District  of  Colombia) 

Arlington  County  Virginia 

XX 

D.C.  Financial  Control  Authority 

Washington  Metropolitan  Council  of  Governments 

XX 

XX 

Washington  Area  Metropolitan  Transit  Authority. 

XX 

XX 

Private  Sector 

Bell  Atlantic 

XX 

Environmental  Systems  Research  Institute 

XX 

XX 

Evans  and  Sutherland 

XX 

XX 

XX 

Local  Universities 

XX 

Lusk/TRW/Ready 

XX 

1  Potomac  Electric  Power  Company 

XX 

XX 

392 


Organization 

Technical 

Staff 
Contact 

Technical 

Staff 
Briefing 

Policy 

level 

Briefing 

Partnership 
Agreement 
in  Process 

VARGIS  Inc. 

Xx 

XX 

XX 

XX 

Washington  Gas 

XX 

QUESTION 

35.        What  hardware  and  software  do  you  already  have  in  place,  and  what  additional  needs  are 
you  anticipating  for  FY97  and  for  FY98  to  help  you  in  the  GIS  arena? 

ANSWER 

35.        Current  GIS  Hardware 

3  Sun  SPARC  Workstations 

Digitizing  Table 

Pen  Plotter 

10  gigabytes  of  storage 

FY97  &  FY98  Major  Hardware  Acquisitions 

3  Sun  Ultra  Workstations 

Silicon  Graphics  (or  comparable  workstation) 

Data  warehouse  system  with  at  least  120  gigabytes  of  storage 

Access  to  District  of  Columbia  Government  Wide  Area  Network 

CDROM  publishing  hardware 

Networked  Inkjet  plotter 

Large  format  full-color  scanner 

High-resolution  digital  camera 

Current  GIS  Software 

ESRI  ArcView  2.1  (1 1  seats) 

ESRI  Arclnfo  7.4  (9  seats) 

ESRI  Arclnfo  Network,  TIN,  and  Grid  packages  (1  seat  each) 

ARRIS  CAD  6.0 


FY97  &  FY98  Major  GIS  software  acquisitions 

Keep  ail  software  up-to-date  by  upgrading  as  new  versions  become  available. 

ESRI  ArcScan  and  ArcPress  packages 

AutoCAD  (1  seat) 

Real-time  3D  data  creation  and  simulation  software 

ESRI/Oracle  SDBE 

Develop  Applications 


393 


QUESTION 


36.  Have  you  established  a  system  to  share  geospatial  data?  Have  you  established  meta  data 
standards?  To  what  extent  are  you  involved  with  the  Federal  Geographic  Data  Committee  and 
how  is  that  group  assisting  the  coordination  functions  that  you  have  with  regard  to  planning  data 
in  your  area  of  responsibility? 

ANSWER 

36.  Public  access  to  WGIS  data  will  be  via  the  World  Wide  Web  (WWW).  Data  and  meta 
data  from  the  WGIS  mapping  project  will  begin  arriving  this  spring.  NCPC's  WWW  home  page 
will  be  linked  to  the  FGDC  and  other  relevant  sites.  NCPC  will  employ  FGDC  standards  for 
meta  data  and  geospatial  data  transfer.  Both  meta  data  and  base  mapping  data  will  be  available 
on  the  Web.  The  one  exception  will  be  the  Digital  Orthophoto  layer.  The  large  file  sizes 
associated  with  this  layer  will  make  distribution  over  the  Internet  impractical  until  technology 
improves.  NCPC  is  developing  a  method  of  handling  requests  for  and  distribution  of  the 
orthophotos. 

NCPC  is  a  member  of  the  FGDC's  subcommittee  on  base  cartographic  data,  but  as  a 
small  agency  with  a  regional  interest  it  is  not  practical  for  NCPC  to  extensively  participate  in 
many  of  the  FGDCs  activities.  In  particular  it  is  not  practical  for  NCPC  to  participate  in  the 
setting  of  standards  for  the  nationwide  mapping  programs  run  by  USGS  and  other  agencies. 
However,  once  the  standards  are  adopted  by  the  FGDC,  NCPC  benefits  by  not  having  to 
"reinvent  the  wheel"  for  such  things  as  meta  data.  NCPC  also  benefits  when  other  agencies 
follow  the  standards  and  make  their  data  available.  FGDC  provides  a  forum  (face  to  face  and 
online)  for  NCPC  to  make  contacts  and  exchange  data  and  information  with  the  appropriate 
people. 

The  District  of  Columbia  Wide  Area  Network  (DCWAN)  will  be  used  to  exchange  data 
with  our  partners  in  the  District  government.  A  similar  network  or  high  band  width  Internet 
connections  will  be  used  to  exchange  data  with  partner  federal  agencies  and  private  firms. 

The  U.S.  Army  Corp  of  Engineers  Center  of  Expertise  in  Photogrammetric  Mapping  has 
been  particularly  helpfull  to  NCPC  and  the  District  Government.  The  Corps  provided  NCPC 
with  a  technical  expert  who  helped  negotiate  our  mapping  contract. 

QUESTION 

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


394 


ANSWER 


37.  If  NCPC  were  granted  authority  to  accept  funds,  a  user  fee  schedule  would  he  estabUshed 
for  gaining  access  to  this  valuable  information  and  the  ability  to  manipulate  the  data  for  use  in 
producing  maps,  etc.  These  fees  would  be  used  to  support  the  cost  of  maintaining  and  updating 
the  databases  which  store  the  geospatial  data. 

QUESTION 

38.  What  involvement  with  the  Internet  and  World  Wide  Web  do  you  have  at  this  time?  How 
do  you  anticipate  this  changing  during  the  next  two  years?  Do  you  anticipate  making  some  of 
your  planning  data,  information,  or  geospatial  data  available  over  the  WWW  during  the  next  two 
years? 

ANSWER 

38.  NCPC  has  direct  access  to  the  Internet.  With  a  high  bandwidth  connection  to  the 
Internet,  all  users  have  access  through  the  agency's  wide  area  network.  This  gives  every  staff 
member  direct  access  to  the  WWW,  FTP,  Telnet,  and  extemal  E-mail.  NCPC  is  now  emerging 
as  a  provider  of  Internet  content.  As  a  prelude  to  publishing  data,  NCPC  recently  installed  a 
firewall  security  system  and  a  dedicated  WWW  server.  Work  on  NCPC's  homepage  is  well 
underway  and  is  expected  to  be  released  within  the  next  two  months. 

In  addition  to  the  geospatial  data  content  described  in  the  answer  to  question  #36,  NCPC 
will  be  posting  basic  information  about  the  agency's  mission  and  function,  the  Comprehensive 
Plan  for  the  National  Capital,  the  Draft  Monumental  Core  Framework  Plan,  and  the  Federal 
Capital  Improvements  Program  on  the  Web. 

QUESTION 

39.  How  are  you  able  to  track  open-space  or  natural  areas  values  within  the  planning  area? 
What  other  agencies  or  partners  are  you  working  with  in  these  areas? 

ANSWER 

39.  NCPC  does  not  currently  maintain  an  inventory  of  all  regional  open  space.  However,  we 
do  maintain  an  inventory  of  Federal  land  which  accounts  for  much  of  the  region's  open  space. 
NCPC  collects  and  uses  environmental  data  from  various  sources  such  as  topography  and 
hydrography  from  USGS,  soils  from  the  Soil  Conservation  Service,  flood  areas  from  FEMA,  and 
wetlands  from  the  National  Wetlands  Inventory.  In  the  early  stages  of  the  WGIS  mapping 
project,  WGIS  will  be  generating  a  variety  of  environmental  data  in  a  level  of  detail  never  before 
available  for  the  District  of  Columbia  including  a  database  of  parks.  It  is  expected  that  data 
sharing  with  local  governments  will  provide  a  regional  coverage  for  open  space  and  other  GIS 
layers.  If  it  is  determined  by  our  customers,  that  a  regional  open  space  inventory  is  needed,  we 
would  use  remote  sensing  to  develop  such  data. 


QUESTION 

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

ANSWER 

40.  NCPC  currently  has  the  equivalent  of  one  full-time  employee  dedicated  to  GIS.  In 
addition  to  administering  the  mapping  project,  he  is  in  the  process  of  training  the  agency's 
professional  staff  to  be  able  to  analyze  and  output  GIS  data  using  ESRI's  Arc  View  software. 
The  entire  professional  staff  will  have  been  trained  by  the  end  of  July  1996.  Two  additional  full- 
time  entry-level  technicians  will  be  needed  to  support  the  professional  staff  and  to  check  the 
quality  of  WGIS  geospatial  data  as  it  is  produced  by  the  partners  and  forwarded  electronically 
to  NCPC. 

Miscellaneous 

QUESTION 

4 1 .  What  has  been  your  involvement  in  the  closure  of  Pennsylvania  Avenue  in  front  of  the 
White  House  and  the  subsequent  planning  effort?  How  does  this  effort  fit  into  the  broader 
downtown  and  regional  plans? 

ANSWER 

41 .  At  the  request  of  the  Department  of  the  Treasury,  U.S.  Secret  Service,  the  Commission 
provided  professional  advice  and  consultation  on  possible  implications  of  the  closing  on  traffic 
circulation  in  the  area.  Subsequent  to  the  closing,  the  National  Park  Service  was  assigned 
responsibility  for  preparation  of  interim  and  permanent  improvement  proposals  for  the  closed 
portion  of  the  avenue.  At  the  Park  Service's  request,  the  Commission  has  served,  along  with  ten 
other  agencies,  on  an  advisory  group  formed  to  provide  input  into  the  planning  process  and  to 
react  to  proposals  that  emerged  from  the  process.  The  Park  Service  is  expected  to  release  a 
report  in  the  near  future  outlining  various  alternatives  for  landscape  treatment  of  the  closed  street 
space.  Following  a  public  comment  period,  the  Park  Service  expects  to  select  a  development 
option  and  then  proceed  with  preparation  of  plans  for  avenue  improvements.  The  Commission 
will  comment  on  the  "alternatives"  report  and  will  subsequently  review  plans  prepared  to 
implement  the  selected  option.  As  it  has  proceeded,  the  planning  effort  is  not  inconsistent  with 
applicable  plans,  and  the  Commission  will  focus  its  comments  on  continued  compatibility  with 
plans  for  the  surrounding  downtown  area  and  the  region. 

QUESTION 

42.  What  has  been  your  involvement  in  the  downtown  revitalization  efforts  of  the  District 
govemment?  To  what  extent  has  NCPC  has  been  involved  in  the  planning  of  the  MCI  Arena  and 
supporting  facilities?  What  is  the  cost  and  NCPC  time  involvement  in  these  efforts? 


396 


ANSWER 


42.  The  Commission  has  no  responsibilities  in  connection  with  private  downtown 
revitalization  efforts  underway  through  the  District  government.  If  rezoning  proposals  are 
involved  in  the  revitalization  effort,  the  Commission  has  a  Federal  interest  advisor  role. 

With  respect  to  public  (District)  buildings  such  as  the  MCI  Center,  on  public  land  and 
partial  public  funding  (public  improvements),  the  Commission  must  be  consulted.  The  location 
of  the  proposed  MCI  Center  is  in  the  "Central  Area"  of  the  city  in  which  the  Commission  has 
in-lieu-of-zoning  authority  (pursuant  to  D.C.  Code,  1981  edition,  sec.  5-432),  and  Downtown 
Urban  Renewal  Plan  revision  approval  (D.C.  Code  sec.  5-801  et  seq.). 

The  Commission  staff  has  been  working  on  the  MCI  Arena  with  the  District  government 
(Office  of  Planning,  Department  of  Housing  and  Community  Development,  Department  of 
Public  Works,  Corporation  Counsel  and  the  Office  of  Economic  Development)  for  over  the  past 
year  and  a  half.  In  October,  1995,  the  Commission  approved  the  site  and  building  plans  for  the 
Arena  along  with  associated  modifications  to  the  Downtown  Urban  Renewal  Area  Plan  and  the 
closing  of  the  600  block  of  G  Street,  NW.  As  the  "lead"  Federal  agency  involved  in  the  arena 
project,  the  Commission  was  responsible  for  compliance  with  Federal  environmental  and  historic 
preservation  statutes.  NCPC  time  devoted  to  the  process  was  4, 1 10  hours  at  an  approximate  total 
cost  of  $120,000. 

QUESTION 

43.  How  does  your  planning  role  fit  into  and  coordinate  with  the  Metropolitan  Washington 
Council  of  Government  (COG)  coordination  efforts?  What  has  been  your  involvement  with  the 
COG  25-year  transportation  and  land-u.se  planning  effort?  What  do  you  anticipate  your 
involvement  in  this  effort  will  cost,  and  what  personnel  time  is  required,  for  FY97  and  FY98? 

ANSWER 

43.  As  the  central  planning  agency  for  the  Federal  government  in  the  National  Capital  Region 
(NCR),  NCPC  has  responsibility  for  coordinating  Federal  policies,  plans  and  programs  with  the 
District  and  the  Maryland  and  Virginia  jurisdictions.  Our  operating  procedures  are  to  coordinate 
directly  with  the  affected  local  jurisdictions  and  COG,  since  COG  traditionally  has  served  as  the 
regional  clearinghouse  for  such  matters  with  the  local  elected  officials. 

In  an  effort  to  better  coordinate  planning  and  development  activities  in  the  region,  NCPC 
and  COG  entered  into  a  cooperative  agreement  in  1982  reinforcing  and  clarifying  the  general 
policies  under  which  planning  and  development  coordination  should  occur.  Under  this 
agreement,  COG  serves  as  the  regional  development  and  planning  mechanism  on  regional 
development  issues  for  the  local  elected  officials,  and  NCPC  is  recognized  by  COG  and  the  state 
and  local  jurisdictions  as  the  agency  that  represents  the  Federal  interest,  i.e.,  our  mandate 
pursuant  to  the  National  Capital  Planning  Act  of  1952,  as  amended,  and  the  concerns  of  the 
Federal  departments  and  agencies  who  may  be  impacted  by  state  and  local  plans  and  proposals. 
This  agreement  has  been  effective  in  ensuring  efficient  coordination  of  both  Federal  and  non- 
Federal  development  activities  in  the  NCR. 


397 


The  Commission's  involvement  in  the  COG/Transportation  Planning  Board's 
(COG/TPB)  Vision  Planning  effort  includes  formal  briefing  by  COG/TPB  on  the  overall  goals 
and  objectives,  and  the  process  for  developing  a  new  long  range  transportation  plan  for  the 
region,  participation  by  Commission  members  and  staff  in  the  initial  Vision  Workshop,  and  staff 
participation  in  the  monthly  Vision  Planning  Task  Force  meetings  that  will  provide  the  basis  for 
a  draft  plan  later  this  year.  COG/TPB  is  aware  of  our  ongoing  Monumental  Core  planning  work. 
As  part  of  our  process,  we  have  briefed  the  COG  and  TPB  leadership  and  their  staffs  on  the 
proposals  contained  in  our  Monumental  Core  Framework.  Within  the  next  month,  we  will 
formally  present  our  Monumental  Core  proposals  to  the  COG  Board,  TPB  and  Vision  Planning 
Task  Force  for  comment  and  consideration  as  part  of  the  draft  Vision  Plan.  We  do  not  envision 
our  involvement  in  the  COG/TPB  Vision  Plan  to  require  additional  funds  or  personnel  time 
above  our  normal  budget  requirements  for  FY  97  and  FY  98. 

QUESTION 

44.  Please  explain  how  you  do,  or  do  not  have  duplication  of  planning  effort  with  the  Council 
of  Governments,  the  DC  Public  Works  department,  or  other  institutions? 

ANSWER 

44.  NCPC  does  not  have  duplicative  planning  efforts  with  COG,  DC  Department  of  Public 
Works  (DCDPW)  or  any  other  instinjtion.  As  mentioned,  NCPC  is  the  central  planning  agency 
for  the  Federal  government  in  this  region  with  responsible  to  do  comprehensive  planning  for  the 
Federal  establishment.  No  other  agency,  body  or  institution  has  this  responsibility. 

This  planning  is  manifested  in  the  adoption  and  updating  by  NCPC  of  the  Federal 
elements  of  the  Comprehensive  Plan  for  the  National  Capital,  the  annual  adoption  of  the  Federal 
Capital  Improvements  Program  (FCIP),  and  the  review  and  approval  of  Federal  development 
activities  in  the  NCR.  The  Comprehensive  Plan  and  FCEP  documents  contain  planning  and 
development  policies  and  recommendations  for  the  Federal  departments  and  agencies  who  have 
or  need  to  establish  physical  facilities  in  the  NCR.  They  also  serve  as  an  effective  means  of 
planning  coordination  with  COG  and  the  state  and  local  jurisdictions. 

COG/TPB  planning  responsibility,  as  demonstrated  in  its  proposed  new  Vision  Plan,  is 
applicable  primarily  to  the  state  and  local  governments,  and  the  DCDPW  proposed  transportation 
vision  plan  will  establish  long  range  transportation  policies  and  guidelines  for  the  District.  Both 
are  important  to  the  Federal  establishment.  Plans  of  this  type  are  necessary  as  the  region 
continues  to  grow  and  new  problems  and  issues  emerge.  The  Commission's  role  in  coordination 
is  a  critical  component  in  comprehensive  planning  for  the  region. 


398 


o 

u 

is 
< 

p 

z 


H 

< 

Q£ 

< 

H 

g 

^11 

U 

<  -5   E 

u 

ri  £ 

b 

O 

,^ 

U 

c   ^  !i 

U 

—    0    ^ 

b< 

b 

Z  CO  Q 

O 

a:  Q  ^ 

^  Q     a. 

lis  s 
if"! 

U  Q    <    U 


^  i 

u 

u 

■g  t- 

fe 

J5 

o 

^ 

•< 

0     "= 

o 

s.  c 

u 

_2  — 

-) 

t/1  a. 

^  I 

is 

^  ;^ 

z  ('• 

O  U 


iliiJ 

3 1  i  s  s  -o 

UJ  <  u.  Q.  S  C/1 


5  O!  10  J  -i  _; 

u  <  Q  <  ?  ui 


^  5i  ^  S  I 


.  I  =  < : 

2  S  -  -  ■ 


S  -o   2   P  S 

5  u  1 1  P 

i«  X  _  d  1^ 

d  o:  J  u  S 


5Z 

§2 


S  o 
o  o 

z  a 
z  u 

<  w 


08  Q 


Z  0. 

is 


u  z 

zO 

z  ffi 
z  > 

^5 

a.  __ 
J  w 
<y 
u  > 

Z  B^ 

u 

&d 
H 


z 

o 

w| 

z  S 

21 


E   v:    ^   "■  "-  5  £   w 
^oa.tt.u££Eo. 

g£.EEEES!sE 


E  S       g-       „  .?  g 


0.  E 


^   £0.0.0.0.0.   £ 

SoeeeeeI 

gUEEEEES 


O  §  i  I  g  g  II 

x>J^SJ<a: 
db<-;irta:o:5 


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

qJ;<ux>cjJ 


ui  S  uj  i<:  »  -i  O 
a:  O  Q  S  z  <  S 


00.0.0. 
5  trt  u  u  u 


§  a 


uiS 


ill!  i 

t  ■=  5  T  S 

'^x-JSo: 
-;  d  vi  ui 


399 


Washington  Geographic  Informalion  System  (WGIS; 


Funding  Partners: 

-  National  Capital  Planning  Commission 

-  DC.  Department  ol  Public  Works 

-  D.C.  Department  of  Administrative 
Services 

WGIS  Committee  Participants: 

-  DC.  Board  of  Elections  and  Ethics 

-  D.C.  Department  of  Consumer  and 
Regulatoiy  AITairs 

-  D.C.  Department  of  Finance  and  Revenue 

-  DC.  Department  of  Human  Services 

-  DC.  Metropolitan  Police 

-  DC,  Office  of  Emeigency  Preparedness 

-  DC.  Office  of  Planning 

-  DC.  Public  Library 

-  Metropolitan  Washington  Council  of 
Governments 

Coverage  Area: 

-The  District  of  Columbia  , 

-  Plus  predominately  Federal  areas  of  Arlington  County  including:  Arlington  Cemetery.  Fort 
Mycr.  and  the  Pentagon. 

-  Pilot  area  includes  14  map  tiles  running  from  the  United  States  Capitol 
south  to  the  Anacostia  River 

Map  Products: 

- 1 :  MMX)  True  Color  Digital  Orthoimagcs 

-l:l(HX)  Detail  Plannemuics 

-Land  Ownership  Map 

-3D  CAD  of  Pilot  Area  and  the  Monumental  Core 

-Test  of  Raster  Intensive  3D  GIS 

Graphic  &  Attribute  Data  Integration  Products: 

-  Public  Utilities  Map  and  Database 

-  DC  Street  Inventoiy  System 

-  Land  Ownership  Database 

-  Computer  Aided  Mass  Apprai.sal  Databa.se  and  Images 

-  Building  Address 

Contractors: 

-  Photo  Science  Incoiporalcd:  Piime/Photogrammclry 

-  Dewberry  &  Davis:  Subcontractor  for  Data  Integration 

-  Bryant.  Biyant.  &  Williams;  Subcontractor  lor  3D  CAD 

To  Be  Complete  In  1996: 

-  Control  and  Aerotriangulation 

-  Pilot  Study  Map  Production 

-  Digital  Orlhoimage  &  DEM  Production  Entin;  Coverage  Area 

-  Detailed  System  Design 


400 


FRANKLIN  DELANO  ROOSEVELT  MEMORLU.  COMMISSION 
BUDGET  FOR  $125,000  FY  1997  REQUEST  FOR  ADMINISTRATION 


FDR 

MEMORIAL 


PsANKLiN  Delano 

BOOSEVELT  MEMOUAL 

Commission 

Honorary  Co-Chairs 
Presidcni 
WUliam  J.  dintoa 

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

COMMISSONEJtS 
Co-Chain 
Mark  O.  Hatfield 
Oanie)  K.  Inoufc 

Seimon 

Alibnsc  M.  DAmato 

Carl  Levin 

Represcntadvei 
Maurice  D.  Hindtex 
jerry  Lewis 

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

Capttal  Campaign 
Co-Chain 
David  B.  Roowdt 
jackValend 

Intematiortal  Chair 
Anna  C.  Chenitault 

ExBOTTTVE  Director 
Dorann  H.  Gundcrson 


S2^-A  Han  Senate 
Office  Buiidinc 
^a^aiinfton.  DC  20510 
202.228.2491 
FAX  202.224.1010 


Donor  Recognition 

$      2,000 

Equipment 

1,500 

Phone 

1,000 

Photo  Services 

1,500 

Postage  &  Courier 

1,500 

Printing 

5,000 

Salaries 

107,000 

Supplies 

3,000 

Travel  &  Expenses 

2,500 

TOTAL 

$125,000 

BUDGET  FOR  $375,000  FY  1997  ONE-TIME 
REQUEST  FOR  MEMORIAL  DEDICATION 

Two-Day  Celebration 


Security 

$175,000 

Equipment 

125,000 

(sound,  lights,  tents. 

chairs,  etc.) 

Overtime 

40,000 

Printing/banners/signs 

30,000 

Photographers, 

Video  record 

5.000 

TOTAL 

$375,000 

nSCAL  YEAR  1997  JUSTIFICATION  STATEMENT 

Project  Description:  The  FDR  Memorial  Conmiission  was  created  by  Public 
Law  372,  August  1 1,  1955,  as  amended  or  supplemented  by  Public  Law  86-214, 
87-842,  89-305,  91-398,  and  97-224  to  plan,  design  and  constiuct  a  permanent 
memorial  to  Franklin  Delano  Roosevelt,  the  nation's  32nd  president,  in  the  city 
of  Washington.  In  addition,  the  FDR  Memorial  Commission  was  mandated  by 
the  Congress  in  1992  to  raise  $10  million  from  non- federal  sources  to 
supplement  federal  appropriations  for  Memorial  construction. 


401 


The  business  of  the  Commission  continues  in  high  gear  as  the  construction  schedule  of  the 
$52  million  Memorial  is  approximately  at  the  half-way  point. 

As  of  March  1,  1996  the  Commission's  Capital  Campaign  has  raised  $3.9  million  in  cash 
and  $520,000  in  pledges  from  non-federal  sources. 

Assuming  that  the  full  funding  of  $147,000  for  Fiscal  Year  1996  takes  place,  the  following 
can  be  deemed  valid: 

Appropriation  of  the  current  request  of  $125,000  plus  approximately  $10,000 
(available  for  Fiscal  Year  1997  from  the  original  one-time  appropriation  of 
$500,000  granted  Fiscal  year  1993  for  Commission  office  expenditures  and 
fundraising),  will  enable  the  Commission  to  complete  it's  authorized  mission 
and  to  work  towards  fulfilling  the  Congressional  mandate  of  raising  $10 
million  from  non-federal  sources  to  supplement  federal  appropriations  for 
Memorial  construction. 

The  dedication  of  this  presidential  memorial  will  be  only  the  third  of  its  kind  in  the 
twentieth  century.  It  is  anticipated  that  Americans  from  across  the  nation  will  join  in  the 
dedication  events  which  will  honor  an  entire  generation,  as  well  as  our  32nd  president. 

Completion  and  dedication  of  the  FDR  Memorial  is  expected  in  the  Spring  of  1997; 
therefore,  the  Commission  anticipates  it  will  conclude  it's  activities  at  the  end  of  the  third 
quarter  of  the  fiscal  yeai'. 


402 


May  1,  1996 

Franklin  Delano  Roosevelt  Memorial  Commission 

Committee  Questions,  FY  1997  Appropriations 

Subcommittee  on  the  Department  of  the 

Interior  and  Related  Agencies 

1 .  What  date  do  you  anticipate  the  Memorial  will  be  completed  and  on  what  dates  will 
the  dedication  be  held? 

Answer:    Barring  conditions  similar  to  that  which  were  experienced  in  Washington,  D.C.  and 
other  material  resource  areas  for  the  Memorial  during  the  winter  of  1995-96,  the  National 
Park  Service  expects  the  Memorial  will  be  completed  sometime  within  the  projected 
timeframe  between  the  end  of  April  and  the  first  half  of  May  1997.    It  is  anticipated  that  a 
Memorial  dedication/public  opening  date  will  be  set  for  sometime  after  the  completion  of 
constructon,  therefore,  it  will  probably  take  place  in  the  last  half  of  May  or  early  June  1997. 
This  will  provide  time  to  test  all  electric  and  water  pumping  systems  and  other  equipment. 

2.  On  what  date  do  you  anticipate  turning  the  Memoriid  over  to  the  National  Park 
Service  and  what  date  do  you  anticipate  closing  the  Memorial  Commission  office  and 
terminating  personnel? 

Answer:   Upon  completion  of  the  Memorial  construction  and  after  the  dedication/public 
opening,  the  Commission  will  officially  turn  the  Memorial  over  to  the  National  Park  Service. 
The  Commission  anticipates  wrapping  up  activities  after  completion  of  the  Memorial 
construction  and  as  soon  as  records  are  transferred  to  the  National  Archives  and  vendors  from 
the  dedication/public  opening  have  been  paid,  which  will  probably  be  in  July  1997;  however, 
the  actual  timing  of  plans  to  close  down  the  Commission  will  be  based  on  the  construction 
schedule  of  the  Memorial  and  the  dedication/public  opening. 

3.  How  much  of  the  $42  million  appropriated  by  the  Congress  for  the  Memorial 
construction  has  been  spent? 

Answer:  All  of  the  appropriated  funds  have  been  obligated. 

4.  The  Commission  was  mandated  to  raise  $10  million  from  non-federal  sources  for  the 
Memorial  construction.    How  much  has  been  raised  to  date?   How  much  additional  is 
currently  pledged?    How  much  of  this  money  has  been  obligated? 

Answer:   To  date,  $4,400,000  in  cash  has  been  raised,  and  $420,000  in  pledges.   None  of  the 
funds  from  non-federal  sources  has  been  obligated. 

5.  You  indicate  that  the  Commission  has  raised  $3.9  million  as  of  March  1,  1996  and  has 
an  additional  $520,000  in  pledges.    How  much  was  raised  during  the  past  12  months? 

To  date  the  Commission  has  raised  $4,400,000  in  cash  and  $420,000  in  pledges.   A  year  ago 
in  the  Commission's  FY  1996  statement  to  the  appropriations  subcommittee,  it  was  reported 
that  $3,100,000  in  cash  and  $1,100,000  in  pledges  had  been  raised.(A  pledge  of  $500,000  was 
subsequently  recinded  from  the  $1,100,000  amount.)    A  total  of  $1,300,000  additional  cash 
has  been  raised  in  the  last  year. 

6.  Have  you  undertaken  a  direct  mail  campaign  for  fimdraising? 


403 


Answer:   Over  the  last  several  months  the  Commi^Jion  has  undertaken  a  test  program  of 
direct  mail  conducted  by  Steve  Cram  &  Associates.   The  Commission  will  decide  the 
feasibility  of  whether  to  move  forward  with  a  full-scale  direct  mail  program  as  soon  as  all 
results  from  the  tests  are  in  and  an  assessment  can  be  made. 

7.        What  are  the  prospects  of  other  fundraising  tools,  such  as  the  commemorative  coin? 
Answer:   To  date,  effort  to  enact  a  commemorative  coin  bill  for  the  FDR  Memorial  have  not 
been  seccessftil.  The  House  and  Senate  Banking  Committees  and  the  Administration  have 
expressed  concern  over  the  proliferation  of  commemorative  coin  programs  and  pending  coin 
legislation.   Currently,  there  are  two  bills  pending  in  the  Senate:    S.  446,  the  FDR  Memorial 
Commemorative  Coin  Act,  and  S.  885,  the  United  States  Commemorative  Coin  Act  of  1995, 
which  includes  the  FDR  Commemorative  Coin  Act  plus  five  other  commemorative  coin 
programs.    A  companion  bill  to  S.  885  is  also  pending  the  House.   The  Senate  Banking 
Committee  is  withholding  consideration  of  any  commemorative  coin  legislation  pending 
review  of  a  report  by  the  Government  Accounting  Office  (GAO)  on  the  commemorative  coin 
program.   GAO  expects  to  release  their  report  some  time  in  May. 
Highlights  of  the  Capital  Campaign,  including  prospects  of  other  fundraising  tools  are  as 
follows: 

•  The  Blum-Kovler  Foundation  contributed  $500,000  to  the  Memorial  fund. 

•  The  government  of  Great  Britain  made  a  major  contribution  to  the  Memorial  fund. 

•  The  AFL-CIO  Executive  Council  fulfilled  their  three-year  pledge  to  the  Memorial 
fund. 

•  1  he  Commission  conducted  two  mail  solicitation  appeals  to  its  "house"  list  (previous 
donors)  with  profitable  results. 

•  A  major  fundraiser  will  take  place  April  30,  1996,  with  activities  throughout  the  day, 
culminating  with  dinner  at  the  White  House,  hosted  by  the  President  and  Mrs.  Clinton. 

•  Mr.  Jack  Valenti  continues  to  meet  one-on-one  with  CEOs  of  major  corporations  to 
solicit  contributions. 

•  The  National  Association  of  Civilian  Conservation  Corps  laimched  a  national 
fundraising  campaign  for  the  Memorial  called  "March  of  Dollars  for  FDR"  and 
contributions  continue  to  come  in. 

8.  Will  the  Memorial  construction  be  completed  if  you  are  unable  to  fulfill  your 
$10  million  in  fundraising?   How  might  this  impact  the  dedication  date? 

Answer:    Yes.    Memorial  construction  will  be  completed  without  reaching  the  $10  million 
fundraising  level. 

9.  If  there  are  delays  will  you  need  to  request  additional  salary  to  maintain  your  staff 
beyond  the  third  quarter,  FY  1997  termination  date  you  now  predict? 

Answer:    Yes.    If  there  are  delays  the  Commission  will  need  to  request  additional 
administrative  funds,  including  salaries,  to  maintain  the  Commission  office  beyond  the  third 
quarter,  FY  1997  termination  date  predicted. 

10.  What  costs  will  be  involved  in  shutting  down  the  Commisson  office  and  in  transferring 
the  Memorial  to  the  National  Park  Service? 

Answer:   The  National  Park  Service  is  not  aware  of  any  transfer  costs.    Historically,  the  site 
has  been  maintained  by  the  National  Park  Service,  and  it  will  assume  Memorial  operation  and 


404 


maintenance  upon  dedication/public  opening.   The  National  Park  Service  budget  request  for 
the  Memorial  is  $825,000  and  fifteen  FTE's.    In  preparation  for  shutting  down  the 
Commission  office,  the  Commission  anticipates  additional  costs  in  the  area  of  sorting,  labeling 
and  packing  old  and  current  records  and  artwork  and  coordinating  these  efforts  with  the 
National  Archives,  the  National  Park  Service  and  the  Memorial  designer's  office  in  San 
Francisco.  An  estimated  $11,000  in  additional  costs  for  salaries  has  been  included  in  the  FY 
1997  request. 

1 1.  The  Commission  received  a  large  increase  in  funding  for  FY  1996  for  additional  salary 
costs.    How  has  this  increase  aided  the  raising  of  funds  for  the  construction,  facilitated  the 
construction  or  aided  planning  the  dedication  of  the  Memorial  and  subsequent  activities? 
Answer:    Funding  for  FY  1996  has  not  been  available  to  the  Commission  due  to  the  impasse 
over  the  passage  of  the  FY  1996  Department  of  Interior  appropriations  bill.    As  of  April  1, 
1996  through  a  series  of  continuing  resolutions,  an  aggregate  of  $21,355  has  been  made 
available  to  the  Commission  based  on  the  FY  1995  appropriation  of  $48,000.    Salary  costs 
and  the  number  of  personnel  have  remained  constant  since  1993.   The  FY  1993  one-time 
appropriation  of  $500,000  for  salaries  and  expenses  (P.L.  102-381,  Oct.  5,  1992,  amended  to 
be  available  until  expended),  has  been  utilized  for  administrative  expenses,  including  salaries. 
This  seed  money  has  supplemented  the  FY  1 994  appropriation  of  $49,000  and  the  FY  1 995 
appropriation  of  $48,000  ($3,000  recinded  for  "Emergency  Supplemental  Appropriations  for 
Additional  Disaster  Assistance,  for  Anti-terrorism  Initiatives,  for  Assistance  in  the  Recovery 
from  the  Tragedy  that  Occurred  at  Oklahoma  City,  and  recissions  act,  1995").   The  requests 
for  FY  1996  of  $147,00  and  for  FY  1997  of  $125,000  will  enable  the  Commission  to 
maintain  a  constant  level  of  oversight  for  this  multi-million  dollar  Memorial  project. 

12.  The  Commission  requested  a  one-time  request  for  $375,000  to  fiind  the  Memorial 
dedication.  This  request  is  not  part  of  the  President's  budget.    Why  was  this  request  rejected 
by  the  0MB? 

Answer:   The  Commission's  one-time  request  for  $375,000  to  fund  the  Memorial 
dedication/public  opening  was  sent  to  OMB  as  an  amendment  (December  11,  1995)  to  be 
attached  to  the  Commission's  original  request  for  FY  1997  of  $125,000  (August  30,  1995)  for 
administrative  expenses.    It  is  possible  OMB  failed  to  match  up  the  two  separate  requests. 

13.  Are  there  no  other  Federal  funds  available  to  cover  the  security  costs  of  the 
dedication? 

Answer:  The  Commission  is  unaware  of  other  Federal  ftmd  to  cover  the  security  costs  of  the 
dedication/public  opening.  The  National  Park  Service  offers  no  response,  given  the  unknowns 
of  the  scope  of  the  ceremony. 

14.  Your  dedication  celebration  request  includes  projected  overtime  costs  of  $40,000.   To 
whom  will  these  funds  be  paid? 

Answer:    The  projected  overtime  costs  of  $40,000  would  be  paid  as  reimbursements  to  the 
U.S.  Park  Police,  the  Department  of  State  security  service,  the  Metropolitan  Police  and  other 
federal  security  departments. 

15.  What  private  ftinds  are  available  or  will  be  raised  to  pay  for  the  dedication? 
Answer:    The  Commission  was  mandated  by  the  Congress  to  raise  private,  non-federal  ftinds 
to  help  offset  the  cost  of  Memorial  construction.   The  Commission's  Capital  Campaign  is 


405 


actively  engaged  to  meet  that  goal.  Until  the  goal  is  reached,  the  Commission  deems  it 
counter-productive  to  also  solicit  private,  non-federal  funds  for  the  dedication/public  opening. 
Any  private,  non-federal  funds  raised  in  excess  of  the  goal  will  be  turned  over  to  the  federal 
government  and  could  be  used  for  the  Memorial  dedication/public  opening. 

16.  Have  you  undertaken  any  special  fundraising  efforts,  or  solicitation  of  donations  of 
goods  and  services,  to  support  the  Memorial  dedication? 

Answer:    Until  the  goal  to  help  offset  cost  of  the  Memorial  construction  is  reached,  the 
Commission  deems  it  counter-productive  to  also  solicit  private,  non-federal  funds  for  the 
dedication/public  opening.   The  Commission  has  not,  therefore,  undertaken  any  special 
fundraising  efforts,  or  solicitation  of  donations  of  goods  and  services,  to  support  the  Memorial 
dedicatiori/public  opening. 

17.  Why  is  the  dedication  ceremony  expected  to  cover  2  days?   What  cost  savings  would 
be  realized  by  having  a  one-day  dedication? 

Aiiswer:   The  dedication/public  opening  celebration  for  the  FDR  Memorial  will  be  only  the 
third  time  in  the  twentieth  century  that  our  nation  will  have  dedicated  a  presidential  memorial. 
The  last  presidential  memorial  to  be  dedicated  was  the  Jefferson  Memorial,  dedicated  by 
President  Roosevelt  in  1943  at  the  height  of  World  War  11.   The  scope  of  the  dedication 
celebration  will  include  international  representatives  of  U.S.  allies,  veterans.   Social  Security 
recipients.  Civilian  Conservation  Corps  alumni  and  scores  of  Americans  from  across  the 
country.   These  various  groups  will  have  their  own  special  events  spread  over  the  two  days, 
which  will  require  additional  traffic  control  and  security.  All  of  this  will  be  in  addition  to  the 
acttial  dedication  ceremony  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  at  the  Memorial  site.   This 
presidential  memorial  dedication/public  opening  will  have  appeal  and  interest  to  a  broader 
spectrum  of  visitors  than  the  July  1 995  dedication  of  the  Korean  Memorial,  which  included 
several  days  of  activities  and  received  $350,000  in  federal  funding. 

18.  What  special  fundraising  efforts  are  now  underway  as  the  dedication  is  now  only  one 
year  away? 

Answer:    Same  as  for  question  #  15. 

19.  The  Commission  has  no  FTE's  yet  salaries  constitute  fully  86%  of  the  FY  1997 
budget  request.    How  many  people  are  supported  by  the  requested  salary  level?   During  FY 
1996  you  had  a  similar  ratio  of  salary  to  total  request.   Since  the  Commission  will  terminate 
at  the  end  of  the  third  quarter,  why  are  there  not  larger  salary  savings  during  FY  1 997?   What 
are  the  aruiual  pro-rated  salary  requests  for  FY  1996  and  FY  1997? 

Answer:    The  Commission  staff  are  full-time  contract  employees  of  the  Commission.    The 
requested  salary  level  will  compensate  three  full-time  contract  employees.   The  salary  savings 
for  FY  1 997  comes  from  the  fact  that  the  Commission  anticipates  operating  75%  of  the  fiscal 
year  instead  of  100%  of  the  fiscal  year.   The  business  of  the  Commission  will  remain  at  a 
high  level  throughout  its  last  months  of  existence  as  it  continues  fundraising,  continues  to 
oversee  all  aspects  of  the  Memorial  construction,  oversees  the  planning  and  implementation  of 
the  dedication/public  opening,  and  implements  the  transfer  of  forty-  two  years  of  historical 
records  to  the  National  Archives.   The  annual  salary  request  for  FY  1996  was  $125,000  (April 
19,  1995  answers  to  Additional  Committee  Questions).   The  annual  salary  request  of  $107,000 
for  FY  1997  includes  $11,000  for  a  special  part-time  employee  for  shut-down  tasks,  leaving 


406 


$96,000  for  all  other  staff  salaries  for  3/4  of  FY  1997.   The  $96,000  extrapolates  to  $128,000 
for  a  full  fiscal  year. 

20.  How  many  visitors  do  you  anticipate  will  use  the  Memorial  during  the  next  2  years? 
Answer:    It  is  estimated  by  the  National  Park  Service  that  6  million  visitors  will  pass  through 
the  site  over  a  two  year  period. 

21.  What  economic  impact  on  the  tourism  of  the  National  Capital  area  is  anticipated  due 
to  the  presence  of  the  FDR  Memorial? 

Answer:   The  new  FDR  Memorial  will  be  an  added  attraction  to  the  Nation's  Capital 
experience,  thereby  increasing  the  National  Capital  Area  tourism  base. 

22.  What  are  some  of  the  other  benefits  of  the  Memorial? 

Answer:      As  a  nation  we  share  a  common  memory,  which  helps  define  who  we  are  as 
Americans,  whether  we  are  Americans  by  birth  or  by  choice.    Our  national  memorials  are 
symbols  of  this  common  memory.   The  FDR  Memorial  will  honor  not  only  President 
Roosevelt,  but  an  entire  generation  of  Americans.   The  Memorial  will  provide  extensive 
opportimities  to  generations  yet  to  come,  for  interpretation  of  the  events  of  the  f)eriod  and  the 
direct  impact  President  Roosevelt  had  on  national  and  world-wide  affairs  during  some  of  the 
twentieth  century's  most  momentous  years. 


WITNESSES 


Page 

Bass,  Hon.  C.  F  207 

Beilenson,  Hon.  A.  C  194 

Bereuter,  Hon.  Doug 1 

Bilbray,  Hon.  Brian  230 

Blitzer,  Charies  285 

Blute,  Hon.  Peter 221 

Bono,  Hon.  Sonny  135 

CUnger,  Hon.  W.  F.,  Jr 105 

Coyne,  Hon.  W.  J  25 

de  la  Garza,  Hon.  E  (Kika)  248 

DeLaiiro,  Hon.  R.  L  252 

Deutsch,  Hon.  Peter  56 

Doyle,  Hon.  Mike  61 

Eshoo,  Hon.  Anna  185 

Farr,  Hon.  Sam  131 

Gejdenson,  Hon.  Sam  94 

Geren,  Hon.  Pete 102 

GUchrest,  Hon.  W.  T 159 

Goodlatte,  Hon.  Bob 69 

Gordon,  Hon.  Bart  165 

Goss,  Hon.  Porter 179 

Hamilton,  Hon.  Lee  271 

Hefley,  Hon.  Joel 190 

Herger,  Hon.  Wally 170 

Johnson,  Hon.  N.  L 88 

Johnson,  Hon.  Tim 8 

Jones,  Hon.  Walter  240 

Kennedy,  Hon.  P.  J 145 

Lantos,  Hon.  Tom  200 

LaTourette,  Hon.  S.  C  79 

Ligon,  Clara Ill 

Lofgren,  Hon.  Zoe  73 

Meyers,  Hon.  Jan 152 

Mica,  Hon.  J.  L  214 

Molinari,  Hon.  Susan  260 

Moton,  Grace  Ill 

Nadler,  Hon.  Jerrold 272 

Neal,  Hon.  Richard  225 

Oberstar,  Hon.  J.  L 46 

Ortiz,  Hon.  S.  P 275 

Pallone,  Hon.  Frank,  Jr 29 

Payne,  Hon.  L.  F  Ill 

Pelosi,  Hon.  Nancy 36 

(i) 


u 

Page 

PervaU,  L.  R  Ill 

Reed,  Hon.  Jack  155 

Reich,  Dr.  Walter 300 

Richardson,  Hon.  Bill  264 

Riggs,  Hon.  F.  D 51 

Roukema,  Hon.  Marge 276 

Sanders,  Hon.  Bernard 140 

Saxton,  Hon.  Jim  148 

Schumer,  Hon.  Charles  126 

Shays,  Hon.  Christopher  256 

Stark,  Hon.  Pete  77 

Stupak,  Hon.  Bart  40 

Underwood,  Hon.  R.  A 93 

Visclosky,  Hon.  P.  J  19 

Ward,  Grace  Ill 

Weldon,  Hon.  Curt 83 

Weller,  Hon.  Jerry  244 

Young,  Hon.  Don 281 


INDEX 


Woodrow  Wilson,  Opening  Statement 285 

Funding  Level  Requested 286 

Mrs.  Smith/Mr.  Stenholm  Colloquy 287 

Fixed  Cost  Absorption  291 

Private  Funding  292 

Move  to  Federal  Triangle 294 

Conference  List  296 

World  Wide  Web  298 

Holocaust  Memorial,  Opening  Statement 300 

Artifact  Conservation  301 

Visitation  302 

Staffing  304 

Requested  Budget  Increase 306 

Membership 308 

Endowment  Drive  311 

Security 313 

World  Wide  Web  316 

Activities  in  FY  96  318 

Staffing  323 

Historic  Preservation,  Opening  Statement 327 

Fiscal  Year  1996  Reductions 331 

Projected  Delays  333 

Personnel  Cuts  334 

Possible  Savings 335 

Legal  Services  337 

Increased  Efficiencies  339 

Significant  Properties  341 

Preservation  Coordination  342 

Failure  to  Agree  344 

Section  106  Case  Litigation  345 

Training  Activity 346 

Internet  Activity  349 

Council  Members  351 

State  Involvement 353 

Federal  Involvement 354 

Base  Closure  357 

Technical  Preservation  Solutions  358 

Cooperative  Agreements  359 

Federal  Leadership  360 

Preservation  Benefits  and  Limits 361 

Section  106  Regulations  363 

Reimbursable  Agreements  365 

Council  Meetings  365 

NCPC,  Opening  Statement  367 

(iii) 


IV 

PBfB 

Proposed  Fxinding  Increases  370 

Potential  Savings  372 

PADC  Responsibilities 377 

Monumental  Core  Framework  Plan 377 

1996  News  Coverage,  Monumental  Care 379 

Other  Major  Activities 385 

Excerpt  firom  Federal  Capital  Improvements 388 

Geospatial  Data  389 

Internet 394 

Miscellaneous 395 

FDR  Memorial  Commission,  Opening  Statement 400 

Construction  Completion 403 

Increase  in  Funding 404 

INDEX  OF  MEMBER  REQUESTS  BY  AREA  OF  INTEREST 

Acid  Mine  Drainage 109 

African  Elephant  Conservation  Fund  198 

Alaska  Legal  Services  Corporation  283 

All  Nations  University  152 

Allegheny  National  Forest  105 

Appalachian  Trail 90,  140 

Baldwin  Ranch  132 

Bering  Sea  Fishermen's  Association  282 

Blackstone  River  Valley  National  Heritage  Corridor 145,  155,  221,  225 

Blue  Ridge  Parkway  69 

Church  of  the  Seven  Presidents  29 

Dismal  Swamp  30 

Don  Edwards  NWR 78,  185,  200 

E.B.  Forsythe  NWR  148 

East  Central  Florida  Land  Acquisition 214 

Endangered  Species  Act 138,  159,  177 

Fish  and  Wildlife  Cooperative  Research  7 

Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  135 

Fond  du  Lac  Indian  Reservation  47 

Forest  Inventory  47 

Forest  Management 171 

Forest  Service 193 

Fossil  Energy  R&D  , 61 

FWS— Chesapeake  Bay  Field  Office  163 

Garfield  National  Historic  Site 79 

Gateway  National  Recreation  Area 126,  260 

Glorieta  Battlefield  267 

Grand  Portage  National  Monument 47 

Guam,  Territory  of 93 

Gulf  of  FaraUones  N.  Marine  Sanctuary  201 

Hetch  Hetchy  37 

Historic  Preservation 88,  111,  180 

Homestead  National  Monument 4 

Hoosier  National  Forest  271 

Indian  Health  Service  281 

Indiana  Dunes 19 

Institute  of  American  Indian  and  Alaska  Native  Arts 265,  283 

Jones  Center  for  the  Sounds 240 

Kawerak,  Inc  283 


V 

Page 

Ladd  S.  Gordon  NWR  266 

Lassen  Park  Visitor  Center  176 

Long  Branch  Historical  Musevun  Coop  Research 34 

Lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  Nat.  Wildlife  Corridor 248 

Lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  Nat.  Wildlife  Refuge  275 

LWCF 73,  135 

Mark  Processing  Center 36 

Metlakatla  Indian  Community  284 

Midewin  National  Tallgrass  Prairie 244 

Mojave  National  Preserve  36 

Mora  Fish  Hatchery  264 

National  Biological  Survey 34 

National  Endowment  for  the  Arts 268,  272 

National  Endowment  for  the  Humanities  274 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Foundation 83,  101 

National  Lakeshores 41 

National  Parks  40 

Naval  Training  Center  231 

North  American  Wetlands  Conservation  Act  86 

OCS  Moratorium 38,  51,  131,  179,  235 

Oil  and  Gas  Lease  Sales  35 

PILT 142,  175 

Presidio  36 

Quinebaug  &  Shetucket  Rivers  National  Heritage  Corridor  96 

Rhino/Tiger  Conservation  Fund  198 

Rio  Rancho  Water  Table  Study  265 

Sandy  Hook  Unit  29 

Santa  Monica  Movmtains  194 

Seminole  Tribe  59 

South  Florida  Ecosystem 56,  182 

Southwestern  Fisheries  Technology  Center  266 

Steel  Industry  Heritage  Project 25,  66 

Sterling  Forest  276 

Stewart  McKinney  NWR 252,  256 

Stones  River  National  Battlefield 165 

Timber  Harvest 40 

Timber  Sales 9,  170 

Torres-Martinez  Indians  135 

Tribal  Issues 8 

WallkillNWR  278 

Weatherization 140 

White  Mountain  National  Forest  207 

Whitefish  Point  Light  Station 42 

O 


^°STON  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 


3  9999  05577  168  5 


ISBN  0-16-052694-9 


9  780160"526947 


90000