- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998

[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998

========================================================================

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST 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 JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
DAN MILLER, Florida
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee

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 10
Page
Indian Health Service............................................ 1
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation................................ 109
Institute of American Indian Arts................................ 121
Smithsonian Institution.......................................... 151
National Gallery of Art.......................................... 261
John F. Kennedy Center........................................... 277
National Endowment for the Arts.................................. 297
National Endowment for the Humanities............................ 421
IMLS Office of Museum Services................................... 497
Commission of Fine Arts.......................................... 521
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation........................ 535
National Capital Planning Commission............................. 569
Holocaust Memorial Council....................................... 603
Testimony of Member of Congress.................................. 627
________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

40-644 WASHINGTON : 1997

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,
Washington, DC 20402

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California
TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania
HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama

James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

=======================================================================

Department of Health and Human Services

Indian Health Service

=======================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998

----------

Thursday, April 10, 1997.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

WITNESSES

MICHAEL H. TRUJILLO, M.D., M.P.H., ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, DIRECTOR,
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
MICHEL E. LINCOLN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
LUANA L. REYES, DIRECTOR, HEADQUARTERS OPERATIONS
W. CRAIG VANDERWAGEN, M.D., DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CLINICAL AND
PREVENTIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
GARY J. HARTZ, P.E., ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DENNIS P. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

[Page 4--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Regula [presiding]. We'll call the committee to order
and welcome Dr. Trujillo.
Dr. Trujillo. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. And you have your assistants with you.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Regula. We'll put your statement in the record and
appreciate if you'll summarize for us.

Introduction of Associates

Dr. Trujillo. Yes, I would like to summarize, Mr. Chairman.
Today I have Mr. Michel Lincoln on my right, who's our
Deputy Director; Mr. Gary Hartz, who's in charge of our
Facilities and Environmental Engineering Division.

Summary Statement of Dr. Michael Trujillo

And we will be submitting--we have submitted our written
statement for the record, and I would like to summarize a few
of the comments from that and also add some new items.
I would also like to introduce in the audience Mr. Rolin,
who is the Chairman of the National Indian Health Board. He is
seated directly behind me. We have worked very diligently
together with the National Indian Health Board in developing
the priorities for the Indian Health Program. They have also
submitted their request and their statement to you and the
committee members.
First, I'd like to begin with a little more personal point
of view. I had an opportunity to talk with an individual who
visited the old site of the Carlisle Indian School in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania. In their records was an article from the
``Carlisle Arrow,'' which was published by the students of the
United States Indian School. This one's dated February 28,
1913. In the front page it notes that William Paisano, who was
then governor of Laguna, and his brother, Ulysses G. Paisano,
were on their way to Washington to represent their people. They
had left Laguna on February 1. Ulysses G. Paisano happens to be
my grandfather and his brother was William Paisano. My father,
Miguel Trujillo, also came many times to Washington from Laguna
and Isleta and represented the All Indian Pueblo Council in the
late forties and early fifties. I guess today, I follow some of
the tradition of sitting before you--but in this capacity as a
Federal representative responsible for upholding the United
States Government's obligation to American Indians in regards
to their health care. So I hope I can represent my forefathers
and certainly my grandfather as he came in 1913.
As the Director of the Indian Health Service and as an
American Indian from Laguna Pueblo, the continuing support of
this committee as the principal health care program for the
American Indian people and your influence over the programs
that affect Indian people has helped the Indian Health Service
and our tribal and urban health partners meet many of the
health care needs of Indian people nationwide. We depend upon
your continued support and advocacy to enhance health services
to America's first citizens. I am committed to work with you
and address any of the concerns that you may have regarding our
present budget request.

health status

Together we have made much progress over the years, and
Infant mortality rates, maternal death rates, illness and death
from infectious diseases have all decreased dramatically. The
increase in life expectancy for Indian people we enjoy today is
something that I think all of us can be very proud of and take
a measure of credit. However, the American Indian and Alaska
Native continues to bear the increased burden of illness and
premature death compared to other U.S. populations.
Contributing to lower health status is still a lack of safe
water supply, deteriorating buildings with outdated systems,
limited access to health care professionals and services, and
lower per capita health care expenditures. In Fiscal Year 1996,
the Indian Health Service per capita health care expenditure,
based upon appropriations, was $1,578, compared to the U.S.
citizen per capita of $3,920.
Poverty, lack of employment and educational opportunities,
and communities in crisis also contribute significantly to
health care problems. I believe thesolution is a partnership
between all communities--State, Federal, and tribal programs--for
American Indians and Alaska Natives. Managed care must integrate not
just with the health care programs and manage only costs, but also
integrate other programs that can help people fully participate in
society by building truly healthy communities.

budget request

Our budget request for $2.122 billion is 3 percent over our
1997 request. This includes some pay cost payments for tribal
and Indian Health Service programs, first phase construction
for two replacement facilities, contract health services
increases, funds for tribes assuming some operations for
management and administration of their own health care
programs, some additional staff for new facilities, and
sanitation facilities construction. Finally, it includes
services for the most vulnerable segments of the American
Indian and Alaska Native population, and that is women, elderly
people, children, and urban Indians.
While these are the highest priority items for the agency,
we must recognize that the burden of illness and health care
gap continues to exist despite the agency's request. Together
we must close that gap.

external pressures

The dramatic change in pressure remains a constant part of
daily operations of the health care programs of tribal, urban,
and the Indian Health Service. There are continuing changes as
States implement their managed care systems and new welfare
legislation. There are continuing pressures to adjust to
inflationary and mandatory cost increases--with no
appropriations to meet those needs. Those are in addition to
the continuing population increases and the increasing need for
services.
The agency's request includes funding for clinical and
preventive services, to help address some of the increasing
needs for elderly people, women, and children. We are also
requesting funding for the rising impact of chronic disease
such as diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases.
On a recent trip to New Mexico I made last month, I visited
a number of tribes, including the Pueblos, such as Zuni,
Laguna, Acoma, and Isleta in particular. They have
deteriorating water systems that were implemented in the early
fifties. Those systems are now deteriorating, and the quality
of water and the access to water is a major concern. In fact,
this morning I met with elected officials from Acoma and we
discussed their water system and the concerns that they have
with that. Laguna Pueblo is very concerned about obtaining some
additional funding for an exemplary health care system for
elderly people, and their facility. The Canoncito Navajo
community, which is about 20 miles west of Albuquerque, has
major problems with domestic violence, gangs, drugs, and
problems in regards to outreach and public health services. The
Pasqua Yaqui in Arizona have an increasing population, and we
are trying to maintain their continuing support and health care
system in a unique and viable health care maintenance system
that they have had ongoing for a period of time.
New tribes are coming into the Indian health care system.
The Samish of Washington are coming in; and, the availability
of new dollars for them and others is of major concern.
We have had some major costs that have arisen out of the
weather situations in the Dakotas, Minnesota, the Northwest,
and in California. In addition, we are very concerned about
some emergency situations such as the burning down of a
facility in Lame Deer, Montana, that have come out of
appropriated dollars.

restructuring and business plan

Our restructuring effort and the business plan have
developed incentives, governance policies, and performance
standards to meet the expectation of IHS, tribal, and urban
programs. Our business plan integrates more corporate business
planning into our agency at all levels. Our planning operations
include many of the aspects that the Government Performance and
Results Acts are now requesting. In fact, in many respects we
have had to do this for a long period of time. I believe in
many ways that other agencies of the Federal Government are now
catching up to the Indian Health Service efforts for a long
period of time to operate with very restricted and minimal
resources.
The agency continues to reach out to develop and foster new
partners. We have developed avenues of communication and
cooperation with foundations and universities, especially this
past year and with tribal colleges, and professional
organizations. We will also concentrate very diligently this
year in the training and development of future Indian health
care leaders, so that they may take on the responsibilities of
managing Indian health care programs throughout the Nation.

government-to-government

The United States Government, I believe, has committed
itself to a trust responsibility with tribal nations. It is our
responsibility to uphold and strengthen that government-to-
government trust relationship. The trend of decreasing budgets
and downsizing the role and responsibilities of the Federal
Government cannot be used to diminish historic treaty and trust
obligations of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
You and I recognize that this budget request does not meet
all the documented needs and increasing costs for health care
for American Indians and Alaska Natives. In the context of the
proposed five-year Federal budget, this year's request is
critical for viability of the Indian health care system it
supports. Federal funding for Indian health care programs must
be a priority for this Nation. It is an issueof honor. It is an
issue of dignity. It is an issue of respect. It is the right thing to
do. Together let us strengthen the bonds between the American Indians
and Alaska Natives and this great Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with
you, the other committee members, and the staff for this coming
year.
[The prepared statement of Michael H. Trujillo follows:]

[Pages 9 - 13--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

deteriorating water systems

Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen?
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr.
Trujillo. It's good to have someone sitting before me from the
Indian Health Service that actually knows where Laguna is and
Zuni----[Laughter.]
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Skeen [continuing]. And all the rest of them. I was a
consultant moisture engineer at Zuni in 1951, and I always
enjoyed the service, but I always enjoyed the association with
the Indian Health Service. I lived in that community at the top
of the hill where the lake is----
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, yes.
Mr. Skeen [continuing]. In the apartments that were right
across from the hospital.
Dr. Trujillo. Right.
Mr. Skeen. Every time we had a full moon, we had all the
ladies coming in to have babies. [Laughter.]
Dr. Trujillo. I don't believe it's changed that much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. No, sir, and I'll bet that same apartment is
still there. [Laughter.]
Dr. Trujillo. It probably is. Unfortunately, it probably
needs a new water system. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. Well, you and I are on the same wavelength
because that's been one of the most severe problems.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Skeen. I just want to congratulate you on your
position, and I'm delighted to be here with you today and
talking about Indian Health Service. The Health Service had a
very severe problem in the past and we've struggled against a
lot of hardships to get this thing developed to the point that
it is now. I think that, with you at the helm of this thing,
we're going to see even more expansion and improvement.
Dr. Trujillo. I hope so.
Mr. Skeen. And certainly you have great credentials and you
have great assistants, and so forth. But it used to be that the
money would come to the Indian Health Service in Albuquerque
and that's the last you ever heard of it. I think that today
we're doing a better job. I'm not criticizing anybody, but it's
part of the system, and I hope we can improve it because the
facilities at Laguna--you have that cooperative medical
facility out there that's had a tough row to hoe.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, the Acoma Hospital.
Mr. Skeen. At Laguna.
Dr. Trujillo. Right, yes.
Mr. Skeen. And I hope that we can improve that kind of
situation. I know this is very parochial, but I would assume
that probably the same problems exist throughout the entire
Indian Health Service.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, Mr. Skeen. In fact, we've also had
difficulties, especially in Alaska, as you can imagine.
Mr. Skeen. I can understand that, too.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, yes.
Mr. Skeen. It's very remote. How many Native Americans do
they have in Alaska?
Dr. Trujillo. In Alaska I believe we're looking at around
about 100,000, 150,000.
Mr. Skeen. How many health facilities?
Dr. Trujillo. Right now all our facilities in Alaska are
presently managed directly by the tribes and corporations. One
Indian----
Mr. Skeen. The tribes themselves?
Dr. Trujillo. Yes. There's one facility that is now managed
by the Indian Health Service, and that is the Anchorage Medical
Center.
Mr. Skeen. Anchorage.
Dr. Trujillo. We are going to be opening a new referral
center there in mid-May.

health care organizations and management systems

Mr. Skeen. Is there any possibility of putting some of this
responsibility on the health service organizations? I know that
I've had a lot of Native Americans that ask us why don't they
have a health service organization or something of that kind
that they can pay into and help themselves for medical
attention or health plans? Is there any possibility of doing
that or is going to remain--or is that inconsistent with the
Indian Health Service operation?
Dr. Trujillo. In some of our regions we're working with
health care organizations and management systems, including the
States as they implement some of the managed health care
programs in each of the States. In New Mexico, for example----
Mr. Skeen. So you've incorporated it already?
Dr. Trujillo. In some areas.
Mr. Skeen. In some areas?
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, such as in New Mexico the State is now
meeting with tribes and trying to develop their new plan called
SAUUDE.
Mr. Skeen. Oh, I'm familiar with it.
Dr. Trujillo. And, I was out there last March and I was at
a tribal/State Health Department meeting in which they were
explaining some of the new concepts in that plan with the
Health Care Financing Administration. We hope to go forward
with some of the plans that will include the tribes in New
Mexico and address some of their concerns about
implementationaspects of that plan.
Mr. Skeen. Well, I appreciate it because it's been a long,
hard road, but we've made some progress and I'd like to see
some more. I think with your help, and the rest of us that are
interested in that particular problem, we'd like to help you
with it.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Skeen. So bien venidos.
Dr. Trujillo. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. And we're delighted to have you here.
I notice you've taken the best, in your name over there,
the best parts of both areas that you derive from; you're
Native American and Spanish last name, but you've got an
anglicized first name. [Laughter.]
It's not ``Miguel''; it's ``Michael'' Trujillo. [Laughter.]
Dr. Trujillo. Yes. Well, when I went to----
Mr. Skeen. Doctor, you represent the whole span.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Trujillo. In fact, my baptized name is Miguel Trujillo,
but when I went to school, they anglicized the first name.
Mr. Skeen. Anglos have a propensity for doing that sort of
thing. [Laughter.]
Dr. Trujillo. And, all my credentials and everything came
out ``Michael.'' [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. Well, congratulations once again.
Dr. Trujillo. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. It's good to be working with you. Thank you.
Dr. Trujillo. Thank you, and thank you very much for your
assistance.

tribal revenues and resources

Mr. Regula. Just a couple of quick questions, and then
we'll go on to you, Mr. Nethercutt.
Do the tribes that have gambling casinos provide enhanced
medical services for their members, or do they still just
basically use your services?
Dr. Trujillo. In the majority of areas that have developed
gaming facilities and have gaming proceeds, the majority of the
tribes, from my understanding, and also from some of my visits,
do contribute significantly in a number of ways. Many of the
tribes have built their own health care facilities. Others have
expanded their own programs in additional staffing, additional
insurance, and looking at behavioral components in the medical
care system. Some have also provided health insurance for their
employees, Natives and non-(tribal) Indian members and those
staff who are non-Indians who work for their facilities. They
have also expanded coverage in emergency care, including social
service/educational programs in many, many areas.
One example that is very outstanding is the Grand Portage
Tribe in Minnesota in the Arrowhead portion of Minnesota. They
were a very economically-depressed tribe. They have become the
primary employment program in that whole district and have
really turned around the economy in that whole county. They
have provided exemplary health care services, educational
programs, scholarships, as well as social/behavioral assistance
to their own tribal members.
Mr. Regula. So when the resources are there, they enhance
the system in most instances?
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, yes.

DRG

Mr. Regula. Another question: in many of the Government-
financed health programs we have the DRGs which limit stays
depending on the type of treatment. Is there anything like that
in the Indian hospitals or in the Indian Health Services that
puts any kind of a cap on the extent of services, to somehow
hold down the costs, or is it pretty much free choice by the
doctor?
Dr. Trujillo. In regards to our inpatient services, when we
have reimbursements for Medicare we are under the same
reimbursement regs.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Dr. Trujillo. But one of the things that we have to
consider is that many of our facilities are in remote areas,
like in Alaska, including Anchorage. You need to consider the
transportation, the problems in regards to the living
situation, and the conditions that they may have when a patient
returns home, many times that patient may have to stay longer
because of those conditions, especially for transportation,
such as in Alaska.
We are certainly under the edict of looking at quality of
care, looking at the length of stay and the provisions by which
services are provided, including the reimbursement rates. Our
attempt has been to look at length of stay, which has been
decreasing in many respects through most of our facilities, as
well as the inpatient days in general across our facilities.
Just as they are in most hospitals nationwide, there's an
increasing concentration of ambulatory care programs and
ambulatory care surgery.
Mr. Regula. So the enhancement of your outpatient
facilities--where it's feasible?
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Nethercutt?

mandatory costs

Mr. Nethercutt. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Trujillo, welcome.
Dr. Trujillo. Good afternoon.
Mr. Nethercutt. We're glad to have you here.
Dr. Trujillo, I represent the fifth congressional district
of Washington, the east side of the State of Washington. We do
have several clinics in my district, and I'll get to them in
just a minute. But I first want to inquire of you, how much in
mandatory and inflationary cost increases has your agency had
to absorb over the last couple of years? I know that budgets
have been tight, and I'm just wondering if you can quantify
that for us.
Dr. Trujillo. Well, yes, budgets have been tight. Even
though we've had some minimal increases to our appropriations,
we have still had to deal with the mandatory costs of pay
increases that have occurred and inflationary costs, of course,
in the medical care area, which is in some regions fairly
expensive. I believe over the past four to five years it comes
to around a total of a quarter of a billion dollars that we've
had to absorb in those particular categories.
Mr. Lincoln, you have more specific figures than that, I
believe?
Mr. Lincoln. Thank you, Dr. Trujillo.
Over the last five years, the difference between what the
mandatory requirements are and what was appropriated is about
$250 million. In this year's budget the mandatory requirements
are about $91 million, and we've requested $13.75 million
toward those mandatories.
Mr. Nethercutt. It doesn't seem to me like you're getting a
fair shake from the President's budget. It looks like an
increase of about 3.3 percent for the Indian Health Service for
Fiscal Year 1998. It can't cover all your mandatory and
inflationary cost increases over the next year, I would
imagine. Is that true?
Dr. Trujillo. That is true.
Mr. Nethercutt. What kind of a budget request did you make
to OMB before it was finished with you, I could say?
Dr. Trujillo. Well, we had several requests to OMB. Our
initial request to the Department, based upon the parameters
that were given to each of the agencies in regards to the
windows that we could request, was around about $2.3 billion.
The request from the Department to OMB was $2.29 billion. And
we appealed a number of times. The National Indian Health Board
and the self-governance tribes also met directly with OMB on
several issues and priorities. We also made an appeal back to
the Department of $2.4 billion.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, I'm concerned for you, and as I look
at my district, as I mentioned a moment ago, we have Wellpinit
Indian Health Service clinic there that serves the Spokane and
Kallispel Tribes and we have the Colville Reservation Indian
Health Service clinic. Both are in terrible shape. I'm told
that in Wellpinit they have to close their doors at one o'clock
in the afternoon just because they have their patient load for
the day. They have trouble caring for the basic health services
of their population.
I have a particular interest in the subject of diabetes.
The disease of diabetes disproportionately affects Native
American I'm worried, and the tribes in my district are
worried, that funding for preventive care for that disease,
whether it's dental-related or otherwise, is not there like it
should be. There have been discussions, and I believe your
agency has taken a look at the cost of new clinics or the cost
of temporary or less-than-brand-new construction clinics that
would service their needs, and the cost is high. There has,
therefore, been some imagination flowing around and discussion
about what can be done to meet the cost, so that the population
can be provided for.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.

joint venture

Mr. Nethercutt. Having said all that, my question to you
is: to what extent would the agency be receptive to a joint
venture arrangement, whereby perhaps the tribes pay
construction costs and the Indian Health Service pays personnel
costs and some other costs, such as administration costs? Would
that make sense? Or some other combination of the two or three?
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, a couple of things, just to go a little
bit further in some of your description of the area there: I
used to be the Chief Medical Officer in the Portland area and
am familiar with the Spokane Tribe----
Mr. Nethercutt. Sure.
Dr. Trujillo [continuing]. And the facilities both at
Wellpinit and Colville, and also the facilities in Idaho. It
just so happens our Area Director from the Portland Area, Mr.
James Floyd, is presently in the room, and he can speak later
on this, too.
We have had in legislation, joint authority with tribes to
expand alternative ways of construction of facilities. One was
the sharing of the process by which tribes would be able to
construct some of their programs and facilities, and the Indian
Health Service would also be part of that. A fine example is
the Warm Springs Confederated Tribes, where we've developed a
very fine facility and program that was built by the tribe and
staffed by the Indian Health Service. The authority is there.
Unfortunately, funding for that authority has not come forth.
It is a very viable, very feasible way of looking at
construction for future facilities, especially ambulatory care
facilities, which are in great need. And, as you say, Wellpinit
and the Colville facilities are facilities that are much needed
in that area.
Mr. Hartz has some specific information on this point.
Gary, you might be able to expand a little bit further.
Mr. Hartz. He took a lot of my thunder because of his
knowledge of the whole program, specifically the Warm Springs
example. There was another one done under the joint venture
demonstration program in Oklahoma when it was first authorized
and appropriations were provided. There's a couple of other
authorities that we have where small ambulatory health center
grants and other types of joint venture cooperative-type
projects. The authorities are there. It's the resources to pool
together that oftentimes become the constraint.

proposed diabetes research center

Mr. Nethercutt. Sure. I see. My understanding is that
Senator Domenici, perhaps with the assistance of Congressman
Skeen, plan to establish a diabetes research center in New
Mexico to study the incidence of diabetes among Native
Americans and the Indian population, and I think that makes
some sense, too. I haven't seen any budget proposals, but my
understanding is that something may be in the works.
Do you think there's the need for this kind of research to
study diabetes among Native Americans?
Dr. Trujillo. There has been a lot of research, basic
research, in the etiology of the disease of diabetes. It's been
well studied. We have a cooperative program in the Phoenix
Indian Medical Center with NIH. The CDC has also been a part of
that program, and many of the programs in Arizona, where those
tribes have one of the highest diabetes incidence in the world.
In this area of the discussion, Senator Domenici is now
having talks with a number of individuals. He also had a formal
hearing on diabetes in Gallup last week, which we did attend.
We testified that the need for basic research may not be the
aspect that Indian people and communities need. What is needed
is research on how to replicate successful primary preventive
programs to decrease the amount of end-stage renal disease, the
end consequences of diabetes, and methodology by which
communities develop community and wellness programs. Zuni in
New Mexico has been a good example in developing community
programs. How can that knowledge and that type of community
involvement be transferred to other communities sothat it
becomes successful, so that the disease itself is prevented, so that
there is much less progression of the disease of diabetes? I believe
those are the areas that need to be stressed, and I believe the Senator
is also looking at that too.
If a center or a program like this is going to be funded or
established, it would be emphasized that it should be
nationwide in regards to its assistance for Indian communities.

diabetes

Mr. Nethercutt. The Indian Health Service had a program to
reduce the incidence of periodontal disease among Native
Americans who were diabetic. Are you familiar with that?
Dr. Trujillo. A little bit.
Mr. Nethercutt. I'm just wondering to what extent the
findings that have been done by the ADA on that subject might
be able to be incorporated into your program.
Dr. Trujillo. I don't know. I could find that out
specifically, and we can send you some information on that, but
that's an area in which I believe we have gone further in
regards to the public health outreach in having patients also
be part of a comprehensive program. Not only are they screened
for oral disease, but also eye disease, the peripheral vascular
diseases, and also neurological consequences, when they come
through in diabetic clinics.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, there is a bill that's pending now in
the House that has to do with prevention in the Medicare
program, not only for diabetes, but for other diseases.
Diabetes is, as you may know, a substantial part of the
Medicare expenditure, about 27 percent. 27 cents out of every
dollar that is provided to Medicare is for caring for people
with diabetes: for end-stage renal disease, heart disease,
kidney failure, blindness, amputations. Medicare pays for
that----
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Nethercutt [continuing]. But it doesn't pay for the
front end. So Members of both parrties Republicans and
Democrats, are supportive of changing to that concept of
preventive care.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Nethercutt. So I thank you for your good work and hope
that a lot of what we're doing here can translate over to the
IHS and back the other way as well.
Dr. Trujillo. Well, thank you very much. Unfortunately, the
incidence of end-stage renal disease and other consequences are
still rising in Indian communities and among Indian people. I
attended an opening about a year ago of a new dialysis center,
which was very nice, a very up-to-date, modern facility with
excellent machines and excellent nursing staff and physician
coverage. I told the audience that I would be much happier if I
were there to close it.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes. Those people are saints. I don't know
how they do it in life. I mean, I've been through these
hospitals in my district and talked to people who are on the
machines sitting there, and I'll tell you, they're heroes.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Nethercutt. I don't know how they do it.
Dr. Trujillo. The aspect is to prevent the patients coming
to that stage, so we can prevent the dialysis.
Mr. Nethercutt. And it is prevention.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Nethercutt. I think you're right; it is prevention.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

life expectancy

Mr. Regula. You mentioned life expectancy is going up. I
think you said that in your testimony. How is life expectancy
in the Indian population as compared to the average American
numbers?
Dr. Trujillo. It has risen over the number of years. It is
now around about two or three years below the national average,
whereas several years ago it was not the case.
That brings up the other point which needs to be explored--
is while the Indian population is still a much younger age
group, with the median age of around about 22, 24, and in some
communities such as in the South West and in parts of South
Dakota we have a median age of about 18. But there's a rising
amount of elderly people in communities, and difficulty in
establishing outreach programs for elderly people. How do they
access care, home health care needs, reimbursement for those
individuals; how do they access care in the medical and welfare
programs and the institution of managed care in the States.
These have become increasing concerns of the Indian Health
Service and tribal programs, who have to look after the elderly
people within their communities.

medical mobile/modular units

Mr. Regula. Do you do anything with mobile units, because
your population is pretty heavily scattered over wide areas and
probably in pockets of small communities? Have you done
anything where you've got a mobile unit with maybe a doctor and
a paramedic who would visit these communities periodically?
Dr. Trujillo. The majority of our facilities are not in
mobile units. We do have--the emphasis, when we do go out, is
primarily through the public health nursing program, the public
outreach community health aides, and the community health
representatives within our programs, rather than having a
mobile facility. The quality of care is, I believe, much more
comprehensive in a facility, an ambulatory care clinic or
ambulatory care facility or a hospital.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Moran?
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To follow up on the questioning by my two colleagues, I
understand that some Native Americans have to travel three
hours three days a week to get to a kidney dialysis treatment
center. That just seems too much to expect for any individual,
and it doesn't strike me that enough is being made of modular
and mobile units.
In that same regard, this committee put a million dollars
in last year for mobile and modular dental units, and, yet,
there's no money in this year to do that, and I get a sense
that you don't want to do it, and I'd like to know why.
Dr. Trujillo. Mr. Hartz can address the issue in regards to
the mobile dental units more fully than I can. What we have
done in regards to dialysis units is that, because of the need
as well as the cost to run the dialysis units and the expertise
to manage those programs, the Indian health care or tribes have
associated with nephrology programs in university settings or
other health care facilities to establish facilities on the
reservation or in association with our ambulatory care program,
or sometimes within space within an Indian health care
facility. Patients would come to that facility, but it's not
managed by the Indian Health Service. The difficulty is that in
many locations there may not be an accessible dialysis unit.
There are places and locations where patients do have to be
transported three times a week and a significant distance. This
becomes very difficult in some areas when you have the
weatherconditions to contend with, too.
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Dr. Trujillo. And that's a major area.

dental units

Mr. Hartz, can you address a little bit more the dental
units that we have talked about?
Mr. Hartz. Sure. Also, Mr. Moran, just a brief followup on
the home dialysis is that the sanitation facilities in many of
the locations does not make it advisable to use the water
because of the quality that might exist for some of the home
dialysis-type units. So sanitation facilities needs still
become a major deterrent to providing some of the health care.
On the dental issue, we certainly do thank the committee
for the million dollars that we did get because the need is
very great. With that money that was provided, we went out for
applications to distribute those funds, and we received over 30
applications for the million dollars. We prepare a five-year
plan of facility needs that includes a whole variety of
hospitals, clinics, including money for the joint venture,
issues that we touched on a little bit ago, and included in
that is the dental program. In that five-year plan, we
initially were looking at about a couple million dollars, but
things are tight these days, and in the course of going through
the priorities, they didn't get supported amidst all the other
needs for health care delivery.
Mr. Moran. You're saying it's in your five-year plan, but
the bottom line is that you cut it out of this year, even
though you needed the money and want the money?
Mr. Hartz. It's in there every year. We start out with that
as one of the requests, and we had a $2 million request in.
Mr. Moran. You had a $2 million request to OMB? Is that
what you're telling us?
Mr. Hartz. We develop a five-year plan that we share
publicly with the committee, and that's part of the request,
that we start out with, but in the course----
Mr. Moran. So you're telling us, if we had a ``who struck
what'' table, it would have been struck by OMB, but it came out
of Indian Health Service requesting $2 million----
Mr. Hartz. It would have been struck in the process, yes,
sir.

direct care and administrative costs

Mr. Moran. Okay. Let me ask you a couple of general
questions about the Indian Health Service. One, have you done
an analysis of how much of the appropriation actually goes into
health care for Native Americans?
Dr. Trujillo. In regards to the services?
Mr. Moran. Yes. In other words, if you were to take the
whole appropriation, deduct what is spent on administrative
cost, how much is actually attributable to the delivery of
health care?
Dr. Trujillo. Mike, we have some figures on that.
Mr. Lincoln. The Indian Health Service budget basically is
about a $2.2 billion budget. Included, in addition to that,
there are the reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid and
private insurance. So the budget rises to a total of about $2.3
to $2.4 billion. All of the collections that are Medicare and
Medicaid in origin, $290 million of those are at the facility
level, at the service unit for services. There is about $300
million of the $2.2 billion request in 1998 in facilities of
various forms, such as sanitation facilities. And so if you
would allow me to count the sanitation facility construction,
the building of water and sanitation systems, as part of the
total, then that is another major portion.
We have administrative costs of about $140 million of the
total amount that is included for administration and support at
the headquarters and at the area levels. I think I would call
those administrative costs. That would bring an administrative
cost rate, if you calculate it--you would divide that number by
$2.3 billion----
Mr. Moran. You'd say it's about 5 percent?
Mr. Lincoln. It's going to vary--it's going to depend on
what the numerator and denominator is. It will be somewhere
less than 10 percent, in my opinion. Various reports count
administration at the service unit and in the hospitals and in
the health centers. The numbers I just gave you do not include
these costs.
Mr. Moran. Okay. Of the total, how much do you spend on
prevention, instead of waiting after the fact, after people get
sick? Are you doing the same thing that NIH does? It's all
cure-focused instead of prevention-focused? Do you have an
allocation for prevention? Do you have a policy priority that
emphasizes prevention?
Dr. Trujillo. In our budget request for this year, we have
$82.5 million in our preventive services. And even though we
may have hospitals and clinics, dental services, mental health,
and alcohol and substance abuse categories that are in what we
call the clinical services, many of those programs also deal
with preventive services, such as the preventive programs that
are within the dental aspects of the total care program.
In regards to mental health, the preventive aspects of
behavioral health are employed in that. Certainly, of course,
in the line category of substance abuse and alcohol programs, a
lot of that is devoted toward preventive programs and outreach.
So when you take a look at the line items or the items called
clinical services and preventive health care programs, there's
a mixture of preventive and public health outreach.
The aspects that we're trying to institute, not only within
the Indian Health Service, but certainly within tribal programs
and the urban programs, who also manage some of the clinics, is
the aspect that the total care of the individual does not occur
within the facility. The care of the individual and the health
care of that individual comes from the family and the
community. That is where the emphasis on prevention of illness
and healthy lifestyle is of critical importance.

epidemiology

Mr. Moran. I'm glad to hear you say that. I'm also
interested in epidemiology, how much focus you put on
epidemiology. It seems, particularly when you've got tribes and
in isolated areas, having epidemiological surveys would be
particularly helpful in making your delivery of health care
most effective and efficient.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, that I believe has been one of the major
success stories of the Indian health care programs. We have
produced on a yearly basis for a number of years statistical
reports based upon morbidity, mortality, and those regional
differences. We have comparative data on diseases and disease
categories. We also have an epidemiology program within the
Indian Health Service. We had grants made to health boards who
have taken on some of that responsibility for epidemiology,
such as the PortlandNorthwest Area Indian Health Board that
also facilitates much of the epidemiology program for the Northwest
States.
The concern that we have at the present time is assuring
that the continuation of an internal data system for clinical
programs is run in an effective manner, so that we can
correlate data from States, correlate data from other managed
care institutions, correlate data from the Indian Health
Service, and also from those tribes and urban programs who are
taking on the direct responsibility of managing and
administering their whole health care program.

recruitment and scholarships

Mr. Moran. That's good. So you catch the clusters.
I have just one last question, if I might, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to hear what you're doing to recruit more Native
Americans into the health professions. There was an Indian
Self-Determination Act. I'd like to see what progress has been
made in doing that, and the only other area really is, What
incentives do you offer to attract health professionals across
the board to go into the Indian Health Service since it's not a
necessarily popular location in many of the rural and even
urban area centers?
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, we can forward you some data and some
history upon our recruitment/retention program, as well as our
scholarship and the incentives out of the Act.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 25 - 28--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Dr. Trujillo. What we do have are scholarship programs for
Indian health professionals, not only in the clinical fields,
but also for those who wish to go into administrative or
aspects of the management program for Indian people. The Indian
Health Service----
Mr. Moran. Do you pay for their medical education?
Dr. Trujillo. We also pay for their pre-medical or pre-
dental. We also have scholarships in those categories, as well
as categories by which they can obtain their master's of public
health degrees, and----
Mr. Moran. So this is for the tribal members, if they want
to go into health professions? It would pay for their college
as well as their medical education?
Dr. Trujillo. For their pre-medical courses.
Mr. Moran. Well, that's college, yes.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes. They also, then, have an obligation to
return to a program that serves Indian people.
Mr. Moran. How many years?
Dr. Trujillo. It depends upon the number of years that
they----
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman [speaking to Mr. Regula
as Mr. Regula leaves the hearing room].
Dr. Trujillo [continuing]. Wish to stay within the program.
We also have incentives for professionals who are out of
professional school in regards to loan repayment. We are
attempting to have competitive salaries with surrounding
communities and other health care systems, but with the Federal
system those sometimes are not as competitive as we would like
to see, especially in the hardship locations that are remote
from metropolitan areas.
However, we can offer, and tribes can offer and urban
programs can offer, I believe, a very exciting health care
career. It's a unique program that, again, attempts to
emphasize that you're just not a clinician in a hospital or a
clinician in a box, but, rather, you're working in a
interdisciplinary approach. The aspect and the emphasis is upon
public health and preventive services. The emphasis is not just
upon the patient, but really is on the community.
Mr. Moran. So you'll finance the education of practitioners
and paraprofessionals?
Dr. Trujillo. Those that are of Indian heritage. And a
number of tribes have also emphasized the necessity of
education for their own youth, and many of them are also
offering scholarships for their youth, not only in
administration or obtaining a law degree, et cetera, or other
programs, but also in health careers.
Mr. Moran. Does the Indian Health Service pay for people's
medical education now, even if they're not Native Americans, if
they agree to work in the Indian Health Service for the future?
Dr. Trujillo. The only way that that can be done is if they
join the U.S. Public Health Service in the program in which
they are in a medical school, and then they also----
Mr. Moran. So they have to be in medical school?
Dr. Trujillo. Then they would obtain an obligation to
provide services in the Public Health Service Commission Corps.
Mr. Moran. Yes. So that's not--that's the Commission corps,
okay.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Nethercutt [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Is there more you wanted to add?
Mr. Lincoln. May I, Mr. Chairman?

administrative cost rate

Mr. Nethercutt. Certainly.
Mr. Lincoln. I wanted to clarify the administrative cost
rate. And what I'd like to do is ask the committee's indulgence
that you will let us submit something for the record.
I'm aware of two reports, and one is called the Chief
Financial Officer's Report that all of Government provides. And
the reason I mentioned the numerator and denominator, it's how
you calculate things. In that report, the administrative cost
rate at all levels through theorganization would be 15 percent
to 16 percent. The number that I gave to you, though, is still a good
number, but it's a different database. And if we could, we'd like to
submit that for the record.
Mr. Moran. Yes, it's just that 15 percent is high, whereas
5 percent is pretty much consistent.
Mr. Nethercutt. We'd be glad to have your submission. We'd
appreciate that.
[The information follows:]

Administrative Costs Clarification for the Record

IHS provided two different figures for its administrative
cost rate during the course of the hearing. The $140 million
figure (7% of the FY 1998 budget request) includes only the
budgets for IHS' Headquarters and its 12 Area Offices (see
Simplified Budget Structure Table proposed for FY 1998,
specifically the Agency Management column). However, the
preliminary FY 1996 Chief Financial Officer's Report indicates
that the administrative costs and support percentage could be
18%. This figure is higher because it attempts to capture
administrative costs occuring at the local or Service Unit
level. It was estimated by Counting the funding for IHS cost
centers 1-10 in the Services Appropriation, and the Facilities
and Environmental Health Support activity in the Facilities
Appropriation Federal. Funding from these two sources was 18%
of total IHS funding (in FY 1996) excluding funds administered
by tribes and tribal organizations.
The cost center codes 1-10 are 01-Executive Direction, 02-
Financial Management, 03-Personnel, 04-Property & Supply, 05-
General & Administrative Services, 06-Patient Accounts, 07-
Procurement & Contracting, 08-Program Planning & Evaluation,
09-Program Services, 10-Systems Development.

[Page 31--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

employment incentives

Mr. Nethercutt. Let me just ask a couple of other
questions, following up on the issue that Mr. Moran raised with
regard to trying to get more people, more Native Americans, to
study medicine----
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
Mr. Nethercutt [continuing]. And get back in the system.
What incentives are there that you provide or that you need
assistance in funding to provide for people to come back to
reservation locations and provide that kind of good health
care? What can you tell the committee about that?
Dr. Trujillo. Certainly competitive salaries in regards to
coming in as a clinician or a professional in whatever
profession, clinical profession they may be. I can use myself
for an example. I went to undergraduate school and then went
into graduate school and then finally to medical school. When I
graduated in the mid-seventies, I was about the 80th Indian
physician nationwide. We now have over 500 Indian physicians.
The majority, however, are not within the Indian Health
Service, but many are involved in Indian health care.
My position in regards to attracting Indian physicians back
into the Indian Health Service per se is that they, as
professionals, certainly can bring the professionalism and the
quality of care that are there, but they also can bring in the
aspect of cultural knowledge, sensitivity, communication, the
ability to know the people, know the circumstances, know the
history, and know what we're striving for as Indian people
toward healthy communities.
But I think they also can serve in other capacities. Having
an Indian physician or an Indian clinician at a university
setting is also a primary example of the accomplishment of what
an Indian can be and also entice others and educate others into
Indian health care, and the circumstances and the needs of
Indian people. Having somebody in a foundation or a research
center who is an Indian clinician also brings that same
credibility, not only to that person, but also to Indian people
in general nationwide.
So when I look at the development of Indian people and
Indian leaders, it's not just for Indian Health Service, but
it's for tribes, urban programs, and also university settings,
research facilities, and other programs where Indian
professionals can advocate for the needs of Indian people.
Mr. Nethercutt. I happen to have a young nephew who's in
his third year of medical school, and he's struggling. He is a
bright young guy and really a hard-working student, and
struggling with the idea of where he'll go: whether to
research, whether to delivery of medicine in some one location
versus another, or the traditional route of getting his
residency and being a surgeon, or whatever it might be. So I
think with the challenges to the medical industry today,
whether it's Medicare or the increasing cost of Medicare and
health care delivery, maybe there's an opportunity here to
encourage people to turn to the Indian Health Service and go do
a service, whether they're a Native American or non-Native
American, to go out and give good service to this segment of
our society.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, I believe our program is a unique
program that covers not only delivery of health services,
clinical services, but with the addition of environmental,
sanitation program's. You have the addition of public
preventive services, community outreach programs. You have a
service that is unique in the United States. The Department of
Health and Human Services has no other health care program such
as the Indian Health Service. And, when you look at services
that the Department of Defense, the Veterans Affairs, and other
Federal agencies have, there is no other agency that delivers
the type of care under the circumstances that we have, for the
population that we have, and also have developed, I believe, a
quality health care system, knowing that we also have to have
some improvements, too. I believe we are a unique health care
program in the United States.

dialysis patient travel

Mr. Nethercutt. Just as an aside also, on the issue of
transportation of dialysis patients, out in my district I went
to our veterans' hospital last week and met with my veterans'
advisory board. They were saying we really need this
transportation to get veterans to a veterans' hospital for
care. I have such a large district; it's 11 counties and from
Canada on the north to Oregon on the south and Idaho on the
east. It is long and remote, so we're trying to get a donation
of a van from a local car dealer just to service those
veterans. Perhaps we could think about that or some other way
to get transportation donated or somehow work through the
system, so that it's not necessarily a budget item, but the
service could be provided to assist.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, we're trying to work out some
cooperative agreements such as that in various locations. In
fact, we've worked in that area with a VA facility, where we've
had a VA physician come into those locations. After they've
seen the veterans in that particular facility, they've also
assisted in seeing Indian patients.
I believe there's an avenue in which we could
certainlyfacilitate an increasing amount of cooperative agreements with
the veterans' association and other Federal facilities. That avenue
will help everyone.
Mr. Nethercutt. Sure.
Dr. Trujillo. And, we're willing to explore that as much as
we can.

budget priorities

Mr. Nethercutt. Sure. I'm looking at your budget request,
the 3 percent increase, and looking at the various
expenditures, one through seven. Are these in order of
preference for you? I'm looking at your Indian Health Service
opening statement executive summary--increased pay cost for
both tribal and Indian Health Service employees, and there are
seven items listed: contract care, health care services,
sanitation, and so on. Are those in an order of priority or are
those just expressed by way of providing a list?
Dr. Trujillo. They are priorities of the agency. The
emphasis has been upon providing--assuring that we have
essential clinical services continued. The aspects in regards
to the preventive and public health programs are a component of
that. Then there are aspects of assuring that tribes and those
tribes who wish to manage and administer their program also
have the same type of capabilities, just as the Indian Health
Service may have, and assuring that they also have the
administrative cost built into their programs as they manage
their programs for clinical services and preventive and public
health programs.

partnership with tribes and urban

The other priority, I believe, we are trying to emphasize
within the Indian Health Service, especially since I have come
in, is the partnership and the cooperative working relationship
with urban and tribal programs to develop an Indian health care
program versus just an Indian Health Service.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, Mr. Chairman, I see you're back, and
if there's anything----
Mr. Regula. I just have one question.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes.

accountability and standards

Mr. Regula. If we give the money to--what would it be, a
compact? Do you have any control over the standards or the way
in which it's administered if it's given in a lump sum to a
compact?
Dr. Trujillo. We negotiate with a tribe in regards to the
components by which they will be providing services. It is more
specific in a contract versus a compact. The tribe has more
flexibility in utilizing funds that come from the Indian Health
Service in a compact methodology, in a compact program.
However, they also have to utilize those funds in health care
services.
In the discussions that we've had and negotiations that
we've had with tribes so far, they are looking at how they will
also deliver quality of care. They are continuing many of the
joint commission surveys and have passed accreditation. They
also have internal management controls, and we also work
through an audit system with them.
Mr. Regula. Do you do any privatizing or contract services,
if, say, a tribe were close to a city hospital, or with HMOs?
Do you go outside, I guess, the normal procedure in order to
give better care at less cost?
Dr. Trujillo. A number of tribes who have had the
availability of compacting or contracting, have had that
available. In fact, there are some tribes, the Coeur d'Alene
Tribe in Idaho, not only provides services to their own members
but they also provide services to the community members; and,
they also obtain reimbursements. So, tribes who wish to compact
or contract and utilize their funds have an increased
flexibility than a Federal managed program in these aspects.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen, for
your testimony. There may be some questions that will be
submitted to you in writing from other members, and we'd
appreciate having your responses to those.
Dr. Trujillo. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
Dr. Trujillo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nethercutt. The hearing will be adjourned.
[The following questions and answers were submitted for the
record:]

[Pages 36 - 107--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

=======================================================================

[Pages 111 - 120--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

Institute of American Indian Arts

=======================================================================

[Pages 123 - 149--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

Smithsonian Institution

=======================================================================

Wednesday, March 19, 1997.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

WITNESSES

I. MICHAEL HEYMAN, SECRETARY
CONSTANCE B. NEWMAN, UNDER SECRETARY
J. DENNIS O'CONNOR, PROVOST
L. CAROLE WHARTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
RICHARD H. RICE, JR., SENIOR FACILITIES SERVICES OFFICER
DOUGLAS LAPP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE RESOURCES CENTER

[Pages 154 - 160--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Welcoming Remarks

Mr. Regula. Well, we will get the committee started. We are
pleased to welcome you, Dr. Heyman.
Mr. Heyman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. And your institution is on the side of the
angels most of the time.
Mr. Heyman. Yes, I was going to say I try to keep it that
way, but there are times.
Mr. Regula. Some of the beef producers, I am sure.
Mr. Heyman. As you and I said, I really stepped in it that
time.
Mr. Regula. Let's go off the record a minute.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Regula. Back on the record.
We are pleased to welcome you, Ms. Newman and Mr. O'Connor
and Ms. Wharton, Richard Rice. Where is Richard? He is right
back there. Okay.
What we will do is put all your statements in the record
and ask you to summarize. And I know I have a number of
questions, and I am quite sure when the committee members get
here they will also. So Dr. Heyman, it is all yours.

Opening Statement

Mr. Heyman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try
to compress what I said in my written statement and emphasize a
few things.
There really are two major subjects. One is the priorities
of the Smithsonian in future directions and theother one is a
brief overview of the 1998 budget request.
As I think you know, my priorities during my Secretaryship
have been to maintain the quality of the programs of the
Smithsonian and to make the Smithsonian accessible to the
American people outside as well as within Washington.

america's smithsonian

My appointment coincided with the Institution's 150th
birthday. Planning had occurred, which I was able to implement,
which supported bringing the Smithsonian to people across the
country. That huge exhibition, which you saw in Los Angeles,
America's Smithsonian, went to six cities in 1996. It opens in
Portland, Oregon, in April 1997. It will go to Birmingham
thereafter. I have my fingers crossed that we will be able to
raise the monies necessary for Columbus, Ohio, and for San Jose
and maybe one or two others but those are less probable.
So far it has had about 2 million visitors. It has had
really rave reviews. It has had tremendous coverage. No Federal
money has been in this; it was all trust money. There was good
corporate sponsorship but obviously not enough, and the costs
were in this first year more than we expected. We are quite
optimistic that we can henceforth cover expenses by reducing
expenditures and raising money in the places we are going and
that we also can make up the deficit in ways that I can explain
later if you are interested in that.

smithsonian sesquicentennial

The actual birthday party on the Mall, which was last
August 10-11, had a total of about 650,000 visitors in the 2
days, the Saturday and the Sunday. Each museum of the
Institution had a tent which was showing what it does and how
its research is carried out and how it exhibits.
There were three sound stages. There was continuous
entertainment. One of the entertainers made a very interesting
remark. He said that at this event Washington felt like an
ideal small town where everybody came together around this
celebration, and I had that feeling, too.
And then there were TV specials during the year and there
were a series of Smithsonian ``Minutes,'' and between the two
an awful lot of people around the country tasted a little bit
of the Smithsonian.

smithsonian home page

The two other programs of access are, first, the Internet.
We have a very large home page. It is about 35 hours. It
fluctuates and keeps going up because the museums and research
institutes keep adding more to their portions of it. We are
getting around 8 million hits now a month. I don't know how
long the people stay but that is a lot of hits, and as I
indicated, that really is always changing, which is what is
keeping up or increasing the number of hits. People keep coming
back for new things to see.

affiliations policy

And then, of course, we have the affiliations policy that
the Board of Regents adopted last year, which suggests that
really at the request of communities, the Smithsonian will
consider long-term loans of artifacts, mostly artifacts that
are in storage. The hook is that the museum that borrows has to
pay all the expenses in terms of transportation and insurance
and the like.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 163 - 168--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

collections on loan

Mr. Regula. Will the fact that you are going to rehab some
of these facilities cause you to make more loans instead of
putting the materials that are in storage while you rehab?
Mr. Heyman. It would be lovely if it worked out in that
organized a way. I don't think it is going to. Because this
whole idea is so new, it is going to take on very slowly.
You know, there is going to be a great rush of interest and
then when people find out they have got to pay the tab, that
will moderate how many people are, in fact--but I hope, you
know, 10 years from now we see a lot of Smithsonian artifacts
around the country.

agreement with bethlehem steel

The first formal agreement, which is a very preliminary
agreement, is with Bethlehem Steel, which is creating a museum
and has created the organization already. It is seeking to turn
the old Bethlehem steelworks in the center of Bethlehem into a
place of many activities, and one of them will be a museum of
industrial history.
It gives us the opportunity to move an awful lot of very
large artifacts we have never been able to display in a
contextual setting, and it gives us an opportunity to do a show
on the American Industrial Revolution in the way that we have
never been able to because we do not have the room. So if this
works out it is going to be wonderful.
Mr. Regula. Will you staff it or will Bethlehem?
Mr. Heyman. We are going to curate it but they are going to
pay for the time of the curators.
Mr. Regula. This would be promoted in a sense simply as a
satellite Smithsonian exhibit?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, satellite Smithsonian exhibit, not a
museum, that is not a Smithsonian museum.
Mr. Regula. Bethlehem is the primary sponsor?
Mr. Heyman. That is right. And I don't know what they are
going to call that. I guess they are going to call that museum
the Museum of Industrial History.
Mr. Regula. But it will be promoted in part of your
literature to attract a nationwide audience in terms of
visitation; is that correct?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, we certainly will reference it.
Mr. Regula. And will also be on the Internet, then?
Mr. Heyman. Oh, undoubtedly, it will end up on the
Internet. We are kind of in the beginning stages of all of
this. I just know we are going to have problems as we go on.
We are going to have political problems as we go because
some places we will not go and some places we will, but I think
it is worth taking on those kinds of problems both to get us
out and to help ameliorate our storage problems.

national air and space museum dulles center

As you know, I have taken on or at least I have urged no
new museums and I have urged no new researchinstitutes, but I
have had two big projects that were in the making when I became
Secretary. They had been previously authorized and in one instance
certainly commenced. One is the National Air and Space Museum and that
involves, of course, the Dulles Center. Under Admiral Engen's
leadership, the new director's leadership, the schematics for this
Dulles Center are just about finished and the fund-raising activity has
commenced.
Mr. Skaggs, nice to see you.
Mr. Skaggs. Good morning. Odd that you should recognize me
at this point.
Mr. Heyman. Well, we both understand why.
The Federal share is relatively small. It is $8 million,
all in planning money. All the rest has to come from elsewhere.
And we have just about exhausted the first $4 million which
have been appropriated, which will get us through schematics as
of July but we want to continue the design process if we can
possibly arrange it.
Virginia has turned out to be a very important player in
this. They have spent about a million dollars so far on
infrastructure design. They will spend an additional $50
million on construction of the infrastructure.
Mr. Regula. Fifty?
Mr. Heyman. Fifty. They are providing interest-free loan
money for financial and fund-raising planning and they are
providing bonding authority which will be one of the forms of
financing the project.
It is enormously important as we seek to raise what is
going to be around $100 million that the momentum on this
continue. If it flags, it makes it obviously more difficult to
raise money. I will return to that for a moment when I touch on
the budget.

national museum of the american indian

The other project is the American Indian Museum, and we
have spoken about that often. First, I am pleased to report
that the Smithsonian has reached its goal in raising $36.7
million for that museum.
When I became Secretary, I was clearly charged with
completing the American Indian Museum that had been chartered
by Congress to conserve and exhibit the Heye collection of over
a million artifacts, most of which are still in storage up in
the Bronx. And it has been a taxing but interesting
responsibility.
At its heart it has three structures: One, a branch in New
York City which has been completed, and it is in the old U.S.
Custom House down by the Battery. That cost $24 million. It was
split $8 million by the Federal Government, $8 million by the
city of New York, and $8 million by the State of New York, but
the Federal Government pays the operating expenses of that
museum.
The second is the Cultural Resources Center, which is the
collection center of the American Indian Museum to which all of
those objects in the Bronx shall be moved. That is under
construction now.
The Federal payments with regard to this are around $41
million. It is going to end up that the private part of that,
which I guess we had not thought we were going to have to do,
will be somewhere around $15 million. We have spent $3 million
of trust funds already in that project.
The crown project of the whole American Indian Museum
undertaking of course is the intended Mall museum. The cost of
that is $110 million, and the Federal Government and the
Smithsonian have already shared costs in planning and design.
That planning and design is completed or is becoming completed.
The remaining Federal share for construction is $58 million.
That appears in the President's budget.
It is no secret that the funding of this project has been
controversial. I don't think the concept has been controversial
but the monies to be invested have been controversial.
This is my fourth time before this committee on this issue.
The first three involved the rescission of the first phase of
construction of the Cultural Resources Center. The second
concerned the funding of the second phase of the CRC. The third
involved the final planning and design appropriation.
I argued unsuccessfully, unfortunately, here, strenuously,
that in addition to the programmatic importance of this
undertaking, promises have been made both to American Indians
and to the donors of that $36.7 million that I don't think
ought to be unfulfilled, for a variety of reasons, and I don't
really have to repeat them because I have said them with
frequency at these hearings.
Various committees' statements, conference committee and
the House committee and the Senate committee, have asked us to
give scenarios that consume less Federal money than is intended
here. I can say that we have worked very hard to conserve
construction dollars within two related constraints. The first
was maintaining the external shape of the building that you saw
in schematics and thus the interior volume.
That volume, by the way, in comparison to our places on the
Mall, is still relatively small. The foot print is about 25
percent of that small parcel of land. I think there is at least
a lot of consensus that a smaller building on that site would
be quite inconsistent with its place on the Mall and all of the
other buildings that surround it.
The second constraint has been honoring the external design
and the number of internal features. I want to stress something
that I have never stressed quite as much as I will now, but the
design of that building flowed from 17 consultations around the
country between 1990 and 1993 with Indian groups. I have only
had a little experience in that consultive process with the 535
tribes and other recognized groupings of Indians--coming to
consensus is not an easy thing in that culture--and this set of
consultations really came to a conclusion which has been
universally acceptable to these groups.
In addition, there were five additional regional design
workshops which included Indians and others. There has been an
enormous amount of process that preceded this design as well as
positive responses to the design from the Fine Arts Commission
and the National Capital Planning Commission.
But within those constraints that I mentioned, we have done
a number of things that are economizing since you saw the
schematics and the preliminary plan last year. The major one
was eliminating the mezzanine floor while also increasing
public exhibit space. The ingenious solution that was arrived
at was because the height of the building would be the same, it
was possible to hang the mechanicals off the floor above, if
you will, to lower the ceiling where those mechanicals hung
down and then to permit the ceiling to go up again in the
important exhibition space.
But what we have turned out to have is more public
exhibition space and new space than we have had previously. We
have also reduced the space for administration and collection
management, and more of that will be done at Suitland at the
CRC than was originally intended, and we have eliminated a
restaurant and we have reduced the museum store. And so the
result is a place with a very high proportion of public space,
in that sense more efficient than any of the other Mall
museums.
Mr. Regula. Have any of these activities reduced the cost?
Mr. Heyman. No, but they have kept it from going above what
was the originally intended cost and on which we have put an
absolute ceiling.
I, obviously, clearly hope there is going to be a positive
response, and if I got it then I could start talking about
other things the next year and the year following, so I will
keep my fingers crossed.

fy 1998 budget request

Now, let me talk about the budget submission itself. The
President's budget is not a very complex one. There is an
increase of $16.9 million in salaries and expenses. Of that,
$10.35 million is for mandatory increases and for inflation.
There are about $6\1/2\ million worth of enhancements.
Mr. Regula. You say $10 million of the $16 million is
mandatory increases and inflation. What is the balance?
Mr. Heyman. The enhancements are $1.2 million for SAO for
operations of the submillimeter telescope array at the Hilo
field station. And then theothers are support for new
facilities in the Natural History Building----
Mr. Regula. So it is all operations?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, it is all operations.
Mr. Regula. And what you do is you have to catch up on
fiscal year 1997 as well as 1998 on your salary and other
uncontrollables?
Mr. Heyman. Yes.
Mr. Regula. I don't think any other agency has gotten that
privilege in their budgets, fiscal year 1997 plus 1998.
Mr. Heyman. I will have to find out why we were so well
treated by OMB.
Mr. Regula. That is step one.
Mr. Heyman. I understand. If nothing else, I have found
that out.
Mr. Regula. A couple other hurdles. Okay.
Mr. Heyman. Well, the new facilities support is at Natural
History in the East Court, which is now coming to completion.
You know, the West Court improvement is all privately financed
but the East Court is the one that has been federally financed.
The NMAI Cultural Resources Center, where construction has
begun and will be getting along with respect to that, and then
federally-supported facilities in Panama at STRI that Dennis
knows all about that have been utilized in-depth for the first
time.
And then a little under a million dollars for trying to
continue to improve and make adequate our collection
information systems. It is just clear that we simply have to do
more than we have to date in digitizing information, in being
able to access it not only inside but now that we have such a
big Internet presence to start to permit people to look into
our collection from the outside, and in order to do that we
need a lot more equipment and a lot more software than we have
to date.

collections in storage versus on display

Mr. Regula. What percent is in storage versus what you have
on display?
Mr. Heyman. Well, somewhere around 95 percent.
Mr. Regula. Is in storage?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, a lot of those are very teeny.
Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, it probably is not in storage
but it is not on display. There are a large part of our study
collection that are used on a regular basis.
Mr. Regula. I am just concerned that you have things that
will never be used and you keep adding buildings to store this
stuff. It is like the attic in your home; you put it up there
and it is long forgotten and it costs a lot of money.
Mr. Heyman. We are concerned about that and we have been
and we have known about your concern and it is our concern,
too.
Mr. Regula. Are you somehow offering these to museums
around the country or in some way lowering the number of things
in storage that in all probability will never be on display or
used?
Mr. Heyman. Well, there are two things we are doing. One is
the policy on collection-based of affiliations. And in terms of
the gross amount of space, for instance, if the Bethlehem one
works out, that is a huge amount of space because the objects
themselves are enormous.
Mr. Regula. Will this include a lot of things that are
currently in storage?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, that is right. Or it will free up space
where it is presently on display and other things from storage
can be put on display.
A second thing that Dennis stressed, and I guess I want to
stress too, that the research collections are used, they are
used for research and not for public visitation. So that
collections can be seen, as you know, in terms of the research
mission of the Institution.
A second thing we are doing is that we are starting to look
much more closely at the de-accessioning policies and trying to
make easier de-accessioning of materials that are no longer of
primary use to the Smithsonian for research or potential
exhibits. And Dennis is working with those in the Institution
who are in the collection management operation. Those are the
major things that we are doing.
The other thing is that we are collecting at a somewhat
slower pace than we had been previously for a number of
reasons, not the least being that there is no place to store,
and that puts a kind of a cap on or at least induces you to
find other kinds of solutions with regard to materials. But we
have not created--as far as I know, since I have been
Secretary, we have created no new collection space except for
CRC and that in relationship to a collection that has been ill-
housed in New York.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Skaggs, as we go along, if something occurs
that you would like to ask about, don't hesitate.
Mr. Skaggs. Well, I sort of have been collecting, wool-
gathering over here, so whenever we are at that point, I will
just dive in.

fy 1998 capital budget request

Mr. Heyman. On the capital side of the budget, obviously
there is the $58 million in there, and you know that at OMB, it
has been just general knowledge, when there is a big
construction project to try to budget it all in the first
instance. I am told that is the way ships are also funded.
Mr. Regula. Assuming we may not have as much money as we
anticipate, would you be able to prioritize downward in the
sense of how we spread the $58 million and if there is $30
million, we will get back to you to prioritize so that we can
make the best use of whatever is going to be available in the
way of any, if any, additional funds.
Mr. Heyman. I would welcome that consideration.
Mr. Regula. I just don't want to arbitrarily make that kind
of decision in the markup.
Mr. Heyman. Right. But I would be pleased to be able to
speak with you about that when that comes to pass.
Mr. Regula. Good morning, Mr. Yates.
Mr. Yates. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Heyman. Good morning, Mr. Yates.
Mr. Yates. Good morning. How are you?
Mr. Heyman. Fine, thank you.
Mr. Yates. I didn't mean to interrupt. Sorry.
Mr. Heyman. We have about $3.85 million in the budget for
R&R at the Zoo, which addresses a lot of problems and a number
of those are safety and health problems. We have $32 million in
R&R in the balance for the Institution.
I have sort of two disappointments in this budget. One is
the level of repair, R&R monies, because we have been on a
wonderful pathway in the last 3 years, and I think that is very
sound, and as you know from the exposition of that subject that
we made last year, that if we could ever get up to $50 million
we really think we can take care of the Institution constantly
and not have major deferred maintenance.

national air and space museum, dulles center

The other disappointment is the Dulles Center because, asI
say, we will run out of planning money in July. And now that all of
this is coming together in terms of design, in terms of modular design
so that you can do it by phase, in terms of getting the fund-raising
operation really started, I really think it would be a shame to loose
the momentum and send out any signals especially to those who are
asking for big contributions.
Mr. Regula. Are you satisfied that the State is doing its
part?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, I am absolutely satisfied. In fact,
Governor Allen before he goes out of office wants to get this
all down, an absolute commitment, so that it will bind any
successive administrations in Virginia.

educational outreach

The last subject that I want to bring to your attention is
just a little taste of outreach and what we are doing in K-12
education. You have a packet in front of you. I hope at some
time you will take a look at this book. I think it is a
wonderful book. It is a ``Kid's Guide to the Smithsonian'' and
it is just wonderful; I encourage you to share it with your
grandchildren and others.
Everybody has it. Well, in any event, are those in the
package?
Mr. Regula. Yes.
The other things that you have in your packet are just a
few things from SITES, the Smithsonian Institution Traveling
Exhibition Service. You know, well before I was Secretary, you
started to provide Federal funding for the Smithsonian
Institution's Traveling Exhibition Service and I think that
that has permitted us to do something that we never were able
to do before, which is to get out in the rural areas and the
underserved areas in the United States with modest shows
actually most of the time but ones that are exceedingly
important.
Mr. Regula. When you say ``shows,'' do you mean that you
send Smithsonian people out to a rural school? I mean, define
what you mean?
Mr. Heyman. In your packet, you will see this eagle with
red, white, and blue on the cover. This is a nice, little
example. There was a SITES show on posters, World War II. It
was a small show. The people in Cozad had to pay a fee in order
to get it, as museums normally do to get traveling exhibits.
They are quite reasonable fees.
This turned out to be the centerpiece of a month's worth of
celebration in Cozad, Nebraska. It was just absolutely
extraordinary. And I just let you look at what was created--not
by the Smithsonian--but what was created within that part of
Nebraska as a celebration that was----
Mr. Yates. What is that? You showed us the book but what
does it contain?
Mr. Heyman. It contains all of the kinds of material, Mr.
Yates, that----
Mr. Regula. Did the school system do this?
Mr. Heyman. No, this was a group of people with two chairs
and then a whole committee.
Mr. Regula. Within the community?
Mr. Heyman. Within the community itself. It is really
absolutely superb.
Mr. Yates. It is remarkable.
Mr. Regula. How many of these have you had--dozens?
Mr. Heyman. We have about, what, 75 a year going around the
United States.
Mr. Regula. And you respond to the community's request?
Mr. Heyman. Right. But what we also do, and this is in your
envelope also, is that we put out a book that tells what is
available and then people request it and then we try to make
arrangements for it. But then whatever people want to build on
top of the exhibition that is coming, as for instance this, is
just an added plus, in my perspective.
Mr. Regula. How do schools know about this?

``barn again!'' exhibition

Mr. Heyman. It really is not a school project usually. It
usually is a around a museum in a community, a little museum in
a community. That is the way it usually occurs.
There is happening right now in Ohio, actually, a show
called ``Barn Again!'' And the same thing is happening in
relationship to that. This is a pot from St. Paris, Ohio, as
with this other material created in relationship to the events
that are going to surround ``Barn Again!''.
Mr. Regula. They are coming to my district in June or July,
Smithfield, Ohio. They have several in Ohio.
Mr. Yates. They all are coming to your district.
Mr. Heyman. Mr. Yates, I don't know if I should highlight
this, but in your package you have the new scheduled SITES
exhibitions in your state.
Mr. Yates. Mr. Heyman, I would congratulate you and commend
you upon listing all the exhibits in Ohio.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Skaggs has a question. We are just kind of
doing it informally here.
Mr. Skaggs. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, I have got another
subcommittee going on. I just want to get a couple questions in
and then I need to leave.
I first seized on the comment I think you made in
connection with the status of part of what was going on with
the Museum of the American Indian, which was ``becoming
completed,'' which I think has a nice metaphysic to it. But
more seriously, I have asked this question in years past just
to get a feel for the research part of the budget.

research

What percentage of the overall request for Federal funds
will be going into intramural research activities?
Mr. Heyman. I am hesitating because we have had a financial
management system that has never told us that. It has grouped
research with exhibitions essentially.
When I have sought to look at us overall and get a feel for
it, I really came to the conclusion we are about 50/50, about
50 percent on public programs and exhibitions and about 50
percent on research. In fact, I came to the conclusion in the
Museum of Natural History it was maybe 60 or 70 percent
research in relationship to public programming.
We ought to start to be able to pick up that information
now in a systematic way since we changed the management
information system but that really harkens back to our origins
as both a set of research institutes and a set of museums.
Mr. Skaggs. That leads to another topic that we have
visited before and that is whatever system of coordination and
avoidance of duplication that you all have in place with the
other Federal agencies that fund research. If you could again
remind me of where things stand in making sure that your
astronomy work is not duplicating what NSF is funding, what you
are doing in history is not duplicating what NEH may be doing,
and so on, and what systems are in place to make sure that in a
structured way we are talking to each other across those lines.
Mr. Heyman. I am going to let the Provost take a shot at
that.
Mr. O'Connor. Congressman Skaggs, one of the ways of not
being duplicative in any extreme sense, especially in
theexample you cite, astronomy, has to do with the structure of
astronomy nationally and the fact that one of the most precious
commodities in astronomy is telescope time. And consequently most
telescopes are receiving NSF dollars to support them. There are groups
that assign time in a competitive fashion for those projects.
And, so, our work, when we are going on to a telescope,
say, other than the three--the submillimeter array that is just
now being completed--is done in a competitive fashion and in a
nonredundant fashion and largely that is the result of a
national structure in astronomy.
In other areas such as taxonomy or in evolution, our work,
in general, complements that kind of work that goes on in
universities around the country, and it also offers venues such
as the venue in Panama to do the kind of tropical evolution and
ecology that other universities don't have. And so in large
part our science is part of a large national picture and there
is really very little redundancy in what we do.
Mr. Skaggs. What are the mechanisms, though, to assure
that? I mean, are the appropriate program officers in the
Smithsonian talking to their counterparts at NSF or NEH on a
regular basis?
Mr. O'Connor. Regular basis. And with the Department of
Agriculture and with the Forest Service. In all of those areas,
we are in conversation on a regular basis with them.
Mr. Skaggs. And we would hear a similar story if we asked
the folks at NSF?
Mr. O'Connor. Oh, I think so, yes. The program directors,
in fact, at NSF, we don't directly compete for any of their
resources. The only resources that we generally get from NSF
are educational resources.
Mr. Skaggs. I didn't mean that you tried to get any of
their money, but again whether the people who are doing biology
at NSF are talking with people doing biology in the Smithsonian
to make sure that you are not overlapping in the funding that
you or the activities that you are engaged in.
Mr. O'Connor. That is true, sir. And a large part of that
again goes back to the peer review system that is in place at
NSF.
Mr. Skaggs. Is there any document that lays all of this out
anywhere or does there need to be or is this sort of common
law?
Mr. O'Connor. I can put some materials into your hand. I
will do that.
Mr. Skaggs. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me for
having to go to another hearing.
Mr. Regula. That is perfectly all right. I am glad you can
get those in.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 178 - 179--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

smithsonian environmental research center

Mr. Regula. Following up on Mr. Skaggs, have you a research
facility in Maryland, and do you work with EPA at the
Chesapeake Bay office to avoid duplication?
Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Regula. I think Mr. Skaggs has an important point. We
had USGS yesterday, and I assume you communicate with them on
some of your science to ensure that the government is not
spending money on duplicative efforts.
Mr. O'Connor. In mineral sciences, our volcanologists, the
people that study volcanos, are in constant contact.
Mr. Heyman. SERC in the Chesapeake Bay is an interesting
one because so much of their work is done in a consortium with
a whole variety of the other agencies and consequently the
research on the Chesapeake is really well or pretty well
coordinated because they are all working together in a single
consortium.
Mr. Regula. Have you finished?

smithsonian office of education

Mr. Heyman. One other thing I wanted to do was I wanted to
tell you something that I am only becoming aware of in a
systematic way, which is the amount of activity that we have
that is devoted to K through 12 education. And Dennis just
created out of a number of entities at the Smithsonian, the
Smithsonian Office of Education, so we are really beginning to
see what all of those things are.
The variety of things that we do within the District of
Columbia, for instance, we have two magnet schools, teacher's
nights, a whole variety of things that we do in curriculum.

national science resources center

But I just wanted you to have one example of this, and I
asked Doug Lapp, who is the Executive Director of the National
Science Resources Center which puts together science curriculum
for public schools or schools in general all over the United
States, just to give you a sense of what that is and what that
means. It will be very quick.
Mr. Regula. I was wondering what that was all about.
Mr. Heyman. I am sorry Mr. Skaggs had to go. I think he
would have had fun with this.
Mr. Lapp. We wanted to illustrate a little bit about what
we have been doing with school districts across the country.
One of the problems we have had in the past with kids
learning science and technology is that it has all been
mediated through reading--textbooks and diagrams. So we
developed a program called Science and Technology for Children
that involves 24 different units for grades 1 through 6. We
developed and field tested it in districts across the country
and it is now nearing completion. It has been under development
for the past 8 years, funded by the MacArthur Foundation
initially, a lot of support from Dow Chemical Company, later
support from the National Science Foundation and Department of
Education, and a number of other corporations.
The idea is to get kids into science through hands-on
investigations of their own, not just demonstrations but
actually getting engaged with the phenomena. And I just put
something in front of you here as an example of an activity
that we have done in a lot of contexts.

electric motor demonstration

The last time I did this was in Durban, South Africa,
actually with a bunch of teachers; and the South African
government has gotten interested in this as well. This is an
``ugly compass,'' we call it. It has got a couple of what we
call refrigerator magnets; and if you get far away from
anything else magnetic, it will point north.
You will see there is another little magnet there on your
tray, and I am going to ask you to pick it up and see if you
can affect the armature of this thing. And I will give you a
clue, the poles of this magnet, unlike the ones we used in
school when we were there, are the flat faces. So the North
Pole is the flat face on this magnet, so that is the powerful
one. And just see if you can use that magnet to make that
armature keep going around. Because not only does that act like
a compass----
Mr. Regula. It works.
Mr. Lapp. Not only does that act like a compass, it also
acts like the armature of a motor. See if you can use the
opposition, the repelling part the magnet to get it to go away
perhaps.
Mr. Yates. They don't repell; they will attract.
Mr. Heyman. Just turn it around, Mr. Yates.
Mr. Lapp. Try the other side there.
Mr. Yates. I can't get the balance.
Mr. Lapp. There it goes.
Mr. Regula. I see what you mean.
Mr. Lapp. So kids can learn this by switching the poles of
the magnet. They can get this one to repell and this one to
attract and that one to repell. They are reversing the field in
this case and they are acting like the commutator. So they get
the first idea of the motor straight. Then we bring them to the
fact that there is electricity involved, in motors. That is
what this other cup is concerned with because you see there is
a coil there. That little push-button will energize it.
See with your compass if it will swing around when you
press down the button. You can see the compass responds. Then
bring it closer to your armature here, close to the magnets,
and just push the push-button and see what happens.
Mr. Yates. Nothing.
Mr. Lapp. Maybe you can bring the coil near the magnet
there.
Mr. Regula. It pulls it in.
Mr. Lapp. What does it do on the other side?
Mr. Yates. I think I ruined it.
Mr. Lapp. With a little bit more practice, they can
actually get this going so that on one side it attracts and on
other one it will repell, and as they keep on doing this, they
can make a motor out of this, an impulse motor.
It is all building up to an idea. You know, kids have lots
of toys at home that have motors that look like this, and when
they pull them apart they find there are magnets inside and a
little armature, but they really can't see it work because it
is all closed up.
Mr. Yates. Why don't you apply your talents toward making
an electric automobile?
Mr. Regula. This is step one.
Mr. Yates. That is why I asked the question.
Mr. Lapp. We have materials that address that with kids.
They discuss reducing pollution, using electric automobiles,
and then they get to thinking about, well, where does the
electricity come from that operates electric automobiles; and
it sometimes comes from polluting power plants, so then they
begin thinking about that as well.
But what we have done here is to take this armature out for
kids to get it where they can see it as it is working. They
suspend it on a set of brushes. So if you bring the magnet up
close to the armature here, it turns. It is a little more
efficient than the coil was, obviously. But we wanted you to
see this. This is just one part of a K through 6 elementary
school program.
We have field tested this unit across the country and we
have brought in school district people from over 200 school
districts over the past several years to learn about hands-on
science. We have brought them into the Smithsonian for a week-
long institute--we bring in superintendents of schools, their
science supervisors and people that can provide some real
leadership.
Mr. Yates. How long have you been doing this?
Mr. Lapp. About 7 years. There is a list of districts that
have participated in your book here, but there are over 200
districts across the country. A number of them are districts
from large urban centers.
We have been working very closely with the New York City
schools. We have Chicago involved with Leon Lederman's group in
Chicago. We have formed some partnerships with a number of
industries, such as Hewlett-Packard and Dow Chemical, that help
their districts to support this kind of science in their
schools.
Mr. Heyman. What proportion of kids do you think are using
this NSRC hands-on curriculum?
Mr. Lapp. Well, from the districts that are participating
in the institutes alone, we have over 2 million kids in grades
K through 6, so it is getting close to 20 percent of the kids
in the Nation.
Mr. Yates. How do you do it? Do you make these devices and
send them out or do they make it themselves?
Mr. Lapp. Both actually. Our publisher-manufacturer's kits
provide everything a class of 30 kids needs to do these
experiments, and then we encourage school districts to make
their own little factories to create these kits and recycle
them. So for instance, in Schaumburg, Illinois, outside of
Chicago, they have had a science material center for many years
that assembles these kinds of materials, into science kits.
They will send a kit to the sixth-grade teacher; she uses it
and sends it back to the center where it is refurbished and
sent out to another school. They can really get economies of
scale this way. We have now hundreds of these centers operating
across the country.

funding for education

Mr. Yates. Has your budget for this operation been growing?
Mr. Lapp. Actually, it is always a struggle.
Mr. Yates. What do you mean by ``struggle''?
Mr. Lapp. It is always a struggle to raise money for
education.
Mr. Yates. But does your budget for this operation come out
of the Smithsonian's budget or does it come from a private
donation?
Mr. Lapp. It is shared. There is a small part that comes
out of the Smithsonian, both trust and Federal. We have grants
from a number of industries. We have some grants from the
National Science Foundation, grants from the Department of
Education, so this is a shared thing.
Mr. Yates. What is your budget?
Mr. Lapp. About $3 million a year total, including the
grants.
Mr. Yates. Has this grown?
Mr. Lapp. It has grown over the past several years, yes.

sao education program

Mr. Regula. I see you have this program, Micro Observatory
News, where the high school girl explores the birthplace of
stars. Of course, this is not quite parallel but it is in a
sense; it is part of the outreach program.
Does this mean that a school in Illinois can communicate
with one of your observatory people?
Mr. O'Connor. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. It is out of
our astrophysics operation up in Cambridge, and anybody who can
have access to the Internet can have access to telescopes
that----
Mr. Regula. Are you saying that the student could actually
use the Internet system? Is it hooked into thetelescope so that
you would reach the equivalent experience of actually being there and
looking through the telescope?
Mr. O'Connor. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Heyman. Most telescope observation now is not like
peering through a telescope, it is really looking at a screen.
So what they are seeing over the Internet is the same thing as
the astronomer sees who is sitting at the base camp of any of
our telescopes.
Mr. Regula. Is there a schedule so that the student or the
teacher will know whether this will be available?
Mr. O'Connor. There is a schedule. I don't have it with me
but there is a schedule. There is a way of getting queued up in
order to access the material.
Mr. Regula. Do you get a lot of activity, and is it growing
as people learn about it?
Mr. O'Connor. It is relatively new so it is starting to
grow. It is starting to pick up now that schools are gaining
access to the Internet.
Mr. Heyman. What it really requires is high school teachers
who are really interested in it, who know what they are doing
and who cooperate with regard to the creation and the use of
the curriculum which comes out of SAO. And there are going to
be about five or six dedicated telescopes. These are ones with
a lot of range. You cannot look this way so much but you can
look out very far, and they will be queuing and they will be--
and you can always see them because they are going to be placed
in various locations in the world so at least some of them will
always be in the dark.

distributing education information

Mr. Regula. How do you alert the schools as to what you
have to offer? How do people learn about it?
Mr. Lapp. We do a broad mailing every year for these
institutes. That is one of the brochures in front of you
attached to that list.
Mr. Regula. It goes out to schools across the country?
Mr. Lapp. Across the country. We especially target the
school districts that are receiving support from the National
Science Foundation Systemic Initiatives. What we try to do is
be a catalyst for them, and help get them organized. We run our
institutes on a very, very organized basis.
We got help from Hewlett-Packard in developing a strategic
planning manual, because we feel one of the things that school
districts lack is this ability to plan for the long range, 5
years out. We help them to plan all the things they need to do
to get a good science program in place, including the teacher
training, the materials, the assessment, and all the rest,
including building community support with local industry.
So that is something we think we really have gotten a
handle on and we are helping lots of school children across the
country. By the time they leave us, they have the strategic
plan that they need to go back to their school boards, and
their local business and industry partner, to get something
moving.
Mr. Regula. I assume that the National Education
Association must have a publication that goes out to all the
members, which would be mostly teachers, in the country that
maybe they would give you public service type of announcement
where you put a little blurb in about this?
Mr. Lapp. That is a very good question, and we also
approach school district administrators through their
publications.
Mr. Regula. These are great but people have got to know
about them.
Mr. Lapp. We have more demands than we can supply. We are
just at the selection point now for two institutes and we have
had about twice as many applications as we can accept.
Mr. Yates. I would follow-up on your question, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Certainly.
Mr. Yates. You brought out the fact that students through
their entry into the Internet can look through these
telescopes. Am I stating this correctly?
Mr. Lapp. Yes.
Mr. Yates. What about the person who isn't a student who
has a computer? Is there any way they can do it?
Mr. Regula. The public.
Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir, anybody who has access to the
Internet would have access to these images.
Mr. Heyman. I don't think they are going to end up being
able to program them, but they will be able to observe whatever
is being observed at the school level.
Mr. Yates. Well, suppose just as you publish what you are
doing for the schools of the country, how can the public in
general get this kind of information so that with their
computers they can engage in the activities that you are making
available to the schools?
Mr. O'Connor. This I believe, Congressman Yates, that this
particular example of the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory
material would be accessible through the Smithsonian Home Page,
and so the public in looking at our home page and our events
and activities would ultimately be able to access this. But it
is not a particularly--today the access that way is not
particularly user friendly; it has to be refined. It takes too
many hits on the old mouse to actually get to the site.
Mr. Yates. What do you mean by hits on the mouse?
Mr. O'Connor. It takes too many instructions.
Mr. Yates. I am not familiar with the mouse. I feel at a
real loss because I don't know how to operate a computer. I
grew up without computers, computers became popular after I was
65 years old, and I was not smart enough to leave the golf
course and learn about computers.
Mr. O'Connor. I would be happy to demonstrate for you, sir.

smithsonian's financial resources

Mr. Yates. Okay. I may take you up on that as soon as I
learn how to punch a button. This is just another example of
what an incredible and unique institution the Smithsonian is.
In my mind, it is one of the truly great institutions of the
world. I don't know of another institution in the world that
compares with the Smithsonian. There are museums, there are
scientific organizations, there are art museums in various
parts of England, France, and other civilized countries of the
world, and yet I don't know of any of them that holds a candle
to the Smithsonian. And that is why I kind of shudder at the
prospect of your not having adequate money to carry on your
activities, and that is what I am leading up to.
Do you have adequate funding to carry out your mission? I
think that in former times when there was not quite the
emphasis on a balanced budget that we seem to be having now
that your funding was adequate to carry out your purposes. Now
that the emphasis is on cutting the budget, are you getting by?
You are growing aren't you?
Mr. Heyman. Well, you will always have to grow some.
Mr. Yates. Yes. Well are you growing?
Mr. Heyman. Yes. I mean, we are growing in some kinds of
programs. Like, for instance, this whole educational
undertaking is expanding. Our budget--well, it is hard tosay.
Certainly our Federal budget is not growing in this regard. But we are
finding other sources of revenue to help.
Mr. Yates. What other sources are you finding and in what
amounts?
Mr. Heyman. I don't have those but I could really give
those to you, Congressman Yates.
Mr. Yates. Well, we are interested in what your total
budget is, both appropriations and private donations. As long
as I can remember, and I think you still do have a private
budget and an appropriations budget.
Mr. Heyman. That is correct.
Mr. Yates. And both of them of course are subject to the
purview of this committee. Although there was a time when that
was disputed.
Mr. Regula. Dillon Ripley.
Mr. Yates. That is right. Dillon Ripley thought you were a
private institution. And I think it was 1977 when we had the
showdown, and I said to him, you are getting a hundred million
dollars from the government. That has the essence of having
some quality of being a public institution. So we had a long
investigation. Have you ever read that?
Mr. Heyman. I have not but this Secretary has no question
about the fact. What kind of Federal entity is another issue,
but I have no doubts about Federal connection.
Mr. Yates. But anyway, that is what I am interested in is
making sure that the Smithsonian, which again I consider it a
unique institution, does have the funding to carry on its
activities.
Now do you have to cut back as a result of not having
adequate funds in any of your activities?
Mr. Heyman. Well, what we have been doing obviously is,
putting aside the Indian Museum, the only thing that has been
growing, we have been losing FTEs so we have fewer full-time
equivalent positions now then we did previously.

work year reductions

Mr. Yates. Well, I keep getting word that as you lose your
FTEs, you are making your existing employees do the work, too.
Mr. Heyman. Well, to the extent we can get away with it.
Mr. Regula. If you will yield, Mr. Chairman, I don't think
we have lost FTEs; have we?
Ms. Newman. Oh, yes.
Mr. Yates. You heard Ms. Newman's expression, Mr. Chairman.
She said, oh, yes.
Mr. Regula. That is Vice President Gore's initiative that
caused that, not this committee.
Mr. Yates. I would agree with that. The fact that he does
it does not make it any better.
Ms. Newman. Do you want to do the numbers or do you want to
hear those later?
Mr. Regula. Have you finished your statement?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Yates. Did you want to tell the Chairman about the
FTEs?
Mr. Regula. Go ahead.
Ms. Newman. If we look at fiscal year 1993 as a beginning
point, we have gone from 4,825 FTEs down to 4,598. These are
authorized. In the 1997, 1998 budget, we are talking about
4,378 FTEs. So you see there is a major reduction since fiscal
year 1993.
And the plan, based on our agreement with the Office of
Management and Budget is after 1999 we would go down to 4,303,
which is one of the reasons why we were so pleased with the
buy-out authority because it allowed us to bring these numbers
down in a way that did not disrupt the organization. But there
is a reduction.
Mr. Yates. Well, how much of a cut can you stand in your
budget this year?
Mr. Heyman. Well, I am certainly--I am going to plan on at
least at the moment on our getting what is being asked for.

fiscal year 1998 budget

Mr. Yates. Is this a minimum budget?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, the S&E increase is really a minimum
budget. The $10\1/2\ million, Congressman Yates, will keep us
even in relationship to last year but adds for wage increases
and for inflation.
The other part, which would be $6\1/2\ million in
enhancements, are activities that will become a little bit more
enriched than previously but at a fairly modest level.

voluntary contributions

Mr. Yates. Do you collect from the public at the entrances
to your museums now?
Ms. Newman. We have boxes for voluntary contributions in
it.
Mr. Yates. How much does that bring in?
Ms. Newman. Very little funding. To be honest, we have
pretty much covered the cost of the operation of the boxes.
Mr. Yates. Mr. Regula and I have had some differing
opinions on this, and he has won, frankly.
Mr. Regula. On the parks.
Mr. Yates. Yes, I was just going to say, parks now have a
substantial entrance fee for people coming to them. I forget
what it is for Yosemite, but I was shocked by the amount of
money they have to pay to get in.
But at any rate, I hope it will keep your institutions free
as long as we can. It would be nice if we can do it for the
next 2 years, as long as I am here. After that, do what you
want.
Mr. Heyman. I have somewhat similar plans.
Mr. Yates. Well, perhaps we can get a sympathetic chairman.
He is usually sympathetic.

national museum of the american indian

But, at any rate, now that we know that you need the amount
of money that OMB has approved for you--what are you doing
about the Indian Museum? Is the Congress being derelict about
that? Do you have an agreement where we would put up a certain
amount of money--assuming we collect a third I think of the
total cost from the public. I am told you have collected a
third from the public.
Mr. Heyman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Yates. And how much money do we have to put up now--we
being the Federal Government.
Mr. Heyman. Well, in terms of the construction cost for the
museum, $58 million; and that is in the President's budget.
Mr. Yates. And that will construct the museum?
Mr. Heyman. Yes.
Mr. Yates. What else will you need beyond that?
Mr. Heyman. Well, operating money, obviously, as time goes
on.
Mr. Yates. But nothing in connection with the construction
or furnishing of the building?
Mr. Heyman. There is a $6 million equipment fund
thereafter. That is about it.
Mr. Yates. But that goes on over the years, doesn't it?
Mr. Heyman. Well, yes, it certainly can be gradual. But the
other problem we are all going to have to face is moving the
materials down from New York to Maryland, which is going to be
a costly operation.
Mr. Yates. Any idea as to what the cost will be?
Mr. Heyman. Well, we are estimating around $10-20 million,
because we have to conserve the materials.
Mr. Yates. Over how long a period? It depends on the amount
of money you get.
Mr. Heyman. That is right.
Mr. Yates. If you get $2 million, you move $2 million worth
of stuff.
Mr. Heyman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Yates. What happens if you don't get the $58 million
this year?
Mr. Heyman. Well, if we were assured that we were going to
get the $58 million in the course of construction, in other
words if this were phased in and we were permitted to start,
that would be fine. I think the Chairman was alluding to the
possibility in any event that we might discuss this before
markup.
Mr. Yates. Have you drawn an alternate plan for phasing? By
that I mean, if instead of getting $58 million the committee
decides to provide funds for phasing in the construction
program, do you have any plans for the number of years that you
would want to undergo this?
Mr. Heyman. Well, I mean I am now talking off the top of my
head Mr. Yates, but my sense about this is once we really get
started constructing this in the manner in which it is designed
it ought to go on and get completed. It is not going to be
usable otherwise. Unlike the Dulles facilities where we have
really tried to think in terms of modules, on this one it is an
entire building.
Mr. Yates. So even if you phase it in over time, you have
to get a pretty substantial appropriation this year for it?
Mr. Heyman. Yes.
Mr. Yates. I see.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Moran, we have been busy asking questions,
so we will give you a shot at it.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first want to ask Sid, did you bring this in for show and
tell?
Mr. Yates. No. No. They brought it, and they have shown and
they have told.
Mr. Moran. I was impressed.
Mr. Yates. I could never do this.
Mr. Heyman. We would be pleased to put on a little show for
you afterwards.
Mr. Moran. Not necessary.
Mr. Yates. This is for smart kids. I couldn't do it.

smithsonian affiliations

Mr. Moran. Let me ask you--it is nice to see you, Mr.
Secretary, Madam Under Secretary. I want to follow-up on the
questioning that both the Chairman and the Ranking Democrat,
former chairman, asked of you, how we are using the--our plans
to use the resources that are not adequately being made
available to the public now, what are our future plans really.
It seems one of those areas is to use private resources
where they are available, supplemented by your professional
expertise and some of your artifacts. For example, we have
talked about a couple museums in northern Virginia that would
complement the Smithsonian but for which the Smithsonian would
not be responsible, whether it be liability for the cost of
construction or even operations, but they cannot be done right
without consultation from the Smithsonian and, of course,
lending the artifacts that you might have.
Now, have you thought about that? Do you have any kind of
contingency plan? Is there any ability for a private
organization to set itself up to fund something with the use--I
think it would have to be pledged in order to generate the
private money, the professional expertise that you have
available? The Indian Museum is kind of hybrid in that way,
with private money that you are raising, but I would like to
hear from you.
I mentioned to Mr. Berry, for example, that we talked about
a national sports museum where we would build on Ken Burns'
video and the experience of the Negro leagues and development
of women and sports and so on and make a technologically up-to-
date facility with an IMAX screen and so on. And then the Army
wants a museum because it has a half million really priceless
artifacts that it cannot display. Can you give us some guidance
on what the possibility of something like that might be?
Mr. Heyman. Well, Mr. Moran, the Regents last year adopted
a set of policies which I will be happy to make available to
you which talk about collection-based affiliations. And the
short of it is that we are beginning to explore, at the request
of places that would like to borrow, lending on a semipermanent
or long-term basis artifacts, objects from museums in the
Smithsonian, where all the costs would be paid by the
receivers.
But this is part of a desire on the Smithsonian's part to
get out around the country and not solely be here, number one;
and, number two, to be able to display, often in context,
materials that we simply do not have enough room to display in
our existing museums.
So we are open to conversations with respect to those
matters, but the first thing we should really do is to provide
you with a set of policies so that you see what the contours
are of what the Regents adopted.

national air and space museum dulles center

Mr. Moran. That would be very helpful. It is a shame that
there is so much gathering dust that is inaccessible to the
public for lack of financial resources. We can understand a
lack of public resources, but if there are potential private
resources that would enable the displaying of those artifacts,
we ought to pursue that, and I think there are such
opportunities.
I am also very much interested in the Indian Museum. I
think that is a terrific idea that we want to advance. And I
know that you have been making progress on the Air and Space
Annex out there at Dulles. It is in Mr. Wolf's district. I know
Mr. Wolf has been speaking with the Chairman and has spoken----
Mr. Regula. He has already.
Mr. Moran. I am sure he has. But I gather that you will
finish spending the $4 million that was initially available,
that will be concluded this fiscal year I gather.
Mr. Heyman. Well, it will be concluded by July. There is
some hope that there will be a supplemental appropriation bill
this year that might result in a little bit of money topermit
us to continue into the next fiscal year.
Mr. Moran. Okay. Well, I know that you have been very
accommodating to that. I know it is important to Mr. Wolf and
others who want to be able to show these kinds, whether it be a
plane or missile or spacecraft or whatever; and you just cannot
conceivably find the room down at the Air and Space Museum, so
it does make some essential----
Mr. Heyman. That is really the problem. We can't show large
aircraft there.
Mr. Moran. But I think you are doing a wonderful job. It is
a priceless resource, as Mr. Regula and Mr. Yates have said;
and we just want to find out how we can best give you the kind
of financial support and political support to keep it the best
in the world.
Mr. Heyman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Moran. So we thank you for what you are doing.
Mr. Yates. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a few more questions?
Mr. Regula. Sure.

sites catalogue

Mr. Yates. I just want to congratulate you on the update of
the SITES catalogue. I think they are spectacular. I remember
years ago when SITES was just a closet institution, really just
a minor part of the Smithsonian. Now it is the country's
museum. You go out to the country through SITES. And these
catalogues are just beautiful, particularly the ones for 1996
and 1997.
That cover is like a French impressionist. It is a
beautiful thing. I note from the your explanation within the
cover that it was commissioned for your 150th anniversary.
Ms. Newman. Yes.
Mr. Yates. Where is this painting?
Ms. Newman. We have posters, Mr. Yates.
Mr. Yates. I love these posters.
Ms. Newman. It has already been noted.
Mr. Heyman. We have certain efficiencies.
Mr. Yates. I would hope Chairman Regula, upon receipt of
that poster, would think it was not too artistic and would put
it up in this committee room.
Mr. Regula. You will get it framed for us?
Mr. Yates. Sure, they will frame it for us. We will take
down the piece that talks about the Cuyahoga Valley.
Mr. Regula. I think Georgia O'Keefe might go.
Mr. Yates. Okay. I will put it up in my office.

smithsonian expansion

At any rate, I think this is a spectacular operation. It is
growing all throughout the country.
I remember years ago the question came up as to--when the
Smithsonian was building new buildings, the question came
before our committee, why should they build new buildings in
Washington? Why shouldn't the Smithsonian be made a part of the
country? Why don't you have a Smithsonian West, for example,
and have a branch in Canton, Ohio--you know, as far west as
Canton?
You were shaking your head a moment ago, Mr. Chairman. But
I can see now that perhaps it is not needed. But the SITES
operation is a real possibility for bringing the Smithsonian to
every part of the country, rural as well as urban; and I think
that is great.
Mr. Heyman. Well, I think that is where our expansion
really is; and it is in traveling and lending. It is in getting
out of Washington. It is communicating in ways--taking
advantage of technology, probably doing more with television
than we have done before. In other words, it is not going to be
building-based. It is going to be information-based or object-
based but not building-based. And I think that is a healthy way
for us to think about--of expansion.
Mr. Regula. But the cost is local.
Mr. Heyman. And then the cost gets distributed in a whole
bunch of ways that are different from the classical ways of
paying.
Mr. Yates. You talked about expanding. Do you have an
expanded building program as well? Do you require other new
buildings in order to carry on your activities?
Mr. Heyman. Well, I will be happy if, in the balance of
your term and mine, I get this Indian Museum and Dulles Center
really concluded. Those are two very large undertakings, and I
think they are going to strain all our capacities in fund
raising and Federal funding.
Mr. Regula. Costs don't stop with the building, because you
have staff; and that is why we need fees.
Mr. Yates. Oh, yes. That is why you need fees.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Yates. Well, I can see that in the Dulles part of it,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Well, I think you anticipate fees at Dulles,
don't you?
Mr. Heyman. Well, that is an open question, not one that I
have certainly put to bed.
Let me also say that we are also trying very hard to find
some opportunities for office space which would be a trade-off
against rent, largely because I don't think we are doing this
as efficiently now as we could. I think we could end up with
more space if we do it essentially in terms of ownership rather
than paying inflated rent. Our rental account is pretty big.

smithsonian children's book

Mr. Yates. Now are these sold or distributed?
Mr. Heyman. They are sold.
Mr. Yates. What is the cost?
Ms. Newman. $14.95.
Mr. Yates. Is anybody buying them at that price?
Ms. Newman. Yes, very successful.
Mr. Regula. Are they in your catalogue? Shops but not the
catalogue?
Ms. Newman. It is in the press catalogue. It is not in the
mail order catalogue.
Mr. Regula. Will you put it in the mail order catalogues?
Ms. Newman. Yes.
Mr. Yates. What are your new musical albums?
Mr. Heyman. Congressman Yates, I don't know if you have
been down, or, Mr. Regula, if you have been down to the
Portrait Gallery, but we have a show called ``Red, Hot and
Blue'' which is just absolutely extraordinary. It is just so
much fun. And, in connection with that, we put out a set I
guess of three CDs and a catalogue that is a book on the
history of American music.
Mr. Yates. I have a book, and it is just beautiful.
Mr. Heyman. You ought to try to get down there. It is just
a wonderful show. We have been having a succession of
celebrities come.
Mr. Regula. How long will that go on?
Mr. Heyman. It closes in July. There is still plenty of
time.
Mr. Yates. Well, you have not had enough celebrities unless
you can get the Chairman down.
Mr. Heyman. I went over to greet a distinguished graduate
of Berkeley--you know that I once taught and was once
chancellor there--Gregory Peck, and he came and stayed two and
a half hours, and he was just absolutely enchanted by it.
Mr. Yates. I would think he would be. All your galleries
are just beautiful. Air and Space still gets the bulk of your
trade, though.
Mr. Heyman. Yes.

repair and restoration funding

Mr. Regula. One of the things I am concerned about is, as
you know, we have been pushing the, repair and restoration, and
last year we got it up to $39 million, and of course you said
you needed $50 million; and now it is back to $32 million. As a
matter of policy, I think that we are only building big costs
in the future by failing to meet repair and restoration that
ought to be done today; and I have to say that I would feel
compelled to get that number up.
Mr. Heyman. Well, that certainly would not disappoint me,
Mr. Regula. I think that the cut in the OMB budget is due to
the fact that they have only a certain amount of money that
they felt they could devote to the Smithsonian. And under the
policy of doing all of the funding for a major building in the
first year, they ran out of money; and thus they looked
elsewhere for it.
Mr. Regula. Well, I see repair and rehabilitation took the
hit for the Indian Museum in the final analysis. Isn't that a
fair analysis?
Mr. Heyman. Yes, I think so.

national zoological park safety needs

Mr. Regula. Well, that is what concerns me. And of course,
as you add these facilities, then you only exacerbate your
repair and rehabilitation problems. The zoo, for example, I
think has some real health and safety concerns; and yet the
request is level; and that means some of those are not going to
get taken care of. This is a potentially dangerous situation.
Ms. Newman. Mr. Chairman, we are interested in working on
the buildings and planning for the buildings at the zoo; but I
want to assure you that we have determined the extent to which
there are safety problems there; and those have been addressed.
There were this last year some problems with fire alarms, and
we--in conjunction with resources that we had and some
conversation here with the committee staff, we are able to
handle that. So as far as the zoo is concerned, we do have it
on a schedule of repair and restoration; but I don't want you
to be concerned about the safety issue.

smithsonian research

Mr. Regula. I would be interested in what concrete results
you have from research. I saw this article about the xenon gas
research yields new potential for medical imaging. That sounds
like a very productive activity or very productive result of
some esoteric type of research that you are doing.
Mr. O'Connor. Well, it is, I think, going to enhance the
magnetic resonance imaging enormously. And the pictures that we
have already generated with some of the earlier teams Mr.
Chairman, I think it is going to enhance the capacity for
physicians in diagnostics.
Mr. Regula. I would like for you to put in the record an
example of each of the research centers, like Panama, for
example, of maybe one or two instances where what has been
produced is having impact on people in the United States and
enhancing their quality of life. If you will put these in the
record, I just want to be sure that we are not doing research
for research's sake.
Mr. O'Connor. Well, sir, in Panama in particular, we have
started and now are cooperating with 12 other countries in what
I think is a very exciting project.
Mr. Regula. Do they contribute part of the cost?
Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir. It has to do with tropical forest.
Through those studies, we are discovering which trees grow very
rapidly, and that then will permit reforesting of particular
areas with commercial hardwoods.
Mr. Regula. Well, that is the kind of thing I would like to
get in the record. Xenon gas is a good example that our
investment is paying off in terms of the quality of life for
people.
Mr. Yates. Off the record, Mr. Chairman.
[Discussion held off the record.]
Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, we will provide you with
examples.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 194 - 196--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

comparison of visitation to funding levels

Mr. Regula. Okay. Some of the visitation costs, I was
looking at the Custom House in New York. I figure it comes out
to the about $50 a visit.
Mr. Heyman. We have really got to look at those figures
again, and I better get back to you on that analysis. Because I
only saw it yesterday, and I wasn't satisfied with that. I just
don't understand it, and I have got to look into it.
Mr. Regula. The Indian Museum is $14.7 million, and the
same number of visitors at Cooper-Hewitt in New York is $5.16
million. That is almost triple the cost per visitor.
Mr. Heyman. Well, I have got a lot of problems with this
piece of paper.
Mr. Regula. Well, maybe it is not accurate. I don't know.
Mr. Heyman. I got a fiscal year 1997 Federal budget. I have
1995 visitation. Some of the museums were not open for all of
1995. I just really want to look at this, but we will get that
back to you.

non-federal funding sources

Mr. Regula. Also, I notice in--where is it--one of your
statements you said--this was in the Washington Post on
December 18 of 1996. It is talking about Orkin, and it quotes
you: ``The only way for museums to survive and thrive if we
find funds nowhere else,'' said Heyman, ``we are doomed at
least to a static future and, worse, to one of continuing
erosion.''
And I assume that represents a real concern that you have
and why you are reaching out to corporate sponsors.
Mr. Heyman. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Frankly, I would rather have fees than
corporate sponsors, but that is a trustee decision at this
juncture.
Mr. Heyman. It is, and I find the fee issue a really tough
issue and I thought a lot about the parks.
Mr. Regula. I might tell you that I have asked the parks,
what the reaction on the part of the public has been to fees?
And they have had no complaints.
Mr. Heyman. One of my problems here--there are a lot of
problems. But one of my problems here, we get a lot of sporadic
and erratic use of the museums and people go over for lunch,
for an hour, and it is a very different kind of user pattern
than parks.
Mr. Regula. That is sort of like Golden Eagle, where you
buy the ticket that lets you in any museum for a period of 12
months.
Mr. Heyman. Well, it is a never-ending subject of inquiry
within the Smithsonian as well as outside.
Mr. Regula. Right. But I am concerned about the
Orkinapproach.
Mr. Heyman. That has been a tremendous success. It really
has been.
Mr. Regula. I understand that.
Mr. Heyman. Well, I was making a little joke in the
Washington Post; and the Post did not seem to get what I was
saying.
Mr. Regula. Off the record.
[Discussion held off the record.]
Mr. Regula. That was off the record.
You are opening a new shop at National Airport. I think you
have had one in Baltimore since 1995.
Ms. Newman. Right.
Mr. Regula. You see this as a pattern of outreach and do
you make some profit on these?
Ms. Newman. Yes. First of all, the agreement is that we do
not use our funds for the development of the shop. The risk is
all on the part of the developer, of the third party. We,
however, have a great deal of input in the design of the shop,
the products sold and the image of the Institution. Royalty
then comes to the Institution.
As a matter of fact, we are being approached by other
airports, given the extent to which the developers believe this
is useful in airports. From our point of view, it is another
way of communicating to people coming into the city that here
is a wonderful stop while you are in Washington.
Mr. Regula. Well, do you anticipate going beyond the
periphery of the greater D.C. area? I mean, basically, it would
be Baltimore, National; but would you contemplate Chicago or
Cleveland?
Ms. Newman. We have had questions raised about shops in
Chicago and New York and Grand Central Station, for example.
But, for us, the first question is where is the money coming
from, because we are not going to----
Mr. Regula. You mean to develop the shop so the developer
has to do this?
Ms. Newman. That is right. But it is a wonderful
opportunity for the Institution.
Mr. Regula. It is, obviously, a success. I just saw the
gentleman that had the duty free shops and sold them for an
enormous profit.
Mr. Heyman. One of them, in any event.
Mr. Regula. Yes, one of the two. He gave away the vast bulk
of a couple billion dollars.
Mr. Heyman. I wish he had known about the Smithsonian.
Mr. Regula. I noticed that, according to the article I
read, he only kept $5 million out of an enormous fortune. So
this is sort of something you develop little by little.

fundraising

Mr. Heyman. We are trying to do modest incremental
development of a number of those kinds of activities, and
perhaps the one that has the most potential is to do more
product development. We do very little. But there are so many
objects and patterns and the like at the Smithsonian that
people could use usefully if we get the right way of doing it.
I think it would probably add to our profit in that regard.
Mr. Regula. All but the quilts.
Mr. Heyman. Well, it depends on who makes them.
Mr. Regula. How have your contributions been? Are you going
up or down?
Mr. Heyman. Our contributions this year are a little lower
than last year, but that is because of fewer very big, major
gifts. And last year we had a $10 million gift that was not
replicated this year.
But if you look at contributing membership, which is sort
of like the annual funds, we are doing okay. And I keep looking
at that and try to nudge that up and nudge that up, because it
is the contributing members who, over time, make larger gifts
when they are able and when they are really interested in it.
So it is the base that I am really interested in.
But we have got to do more with that, and we are
contemplating very seriously having a capital campaign for the
Smithsonian and position ourselves in terms of fundraising in a
much more organized way than we have been.
Mr. Regula. And that would be capital for what?
Mr. Heyman. Mainly endowment. Not for buildings but for
mainly endowment. It is what has happened in the big State
universities. And now if you look at places like University of
California or Ohio State University or University of Michigan,
all of them are involved in serious fundraising in which a
campaign is usually one of the ways to organize and also
attract a big bump-up in terms of contributions.
Mr. Regula. Let me say off the record.
[Discussion held off the record.]

government grants and contracts

Mr. Regula. Well, back on the record.
I note in your nonappropriated funds you have government
grants and contracts for $46 million, which is a pretty good
chunk. What kind of activity did you do for that $46 million?
Mr. O'Connor. The largest single component of that, Mr.
Chairman, is up at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
and those grants are largely from the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
Mr. Regula. And they are conditioned on your producing
information that they find useful?
Mr. O'Connor. We submit proposals for particular attempts
of observing phenomenon; and if they like the proposal, it is
funded.
Mr. Heyman. And then they go out sometimes for requests
which we can keep.
Mr. O'Connor. For example, they had a request out recently
for the management of the new satellite observatory, and we
will be managing that facility.
Mr. Regula. And you have some among your own facilities and
some you will manage for other agencies?
Mr. Regula. This would be a tribute to the quality of your
scientists, I would think.
Mr. O'Connor. I think, Mr. Chairman--without being too far
off base, I think it is nationally acknowledged that the
Smithsonian-Harvard Astrophysics Group is the best astrophysics
group in the country and probably in the world. It is not a
particularly widely known group, but they have made some really
substantial observations.
Mr. Regula. I think the whole area of research that you do
is very little known as far as the public. They think of the
Smithsonian as being these buildings down on the Mall. But
Panama, astrophysical, it is quite an asset of the country and
most of the world.
Mr. Heyman. I really believe that, but you never know how
much you ought to talk about your research. It is a little
like--I keep going back to the analogies of running a State
university, how much you talk about your research andhow much
you talk about undergraduate teaching. So it is a little tender from
time to time. But we have been making our story known in research I
think in the last number of years with greater frequency.

smithsonian outreach

Mr. Regula. I like the outreach programs. As you know from
prior hearings, I have always pushed hard to get agencies to
outreach so the country can benefit; and I think what you are
doing in many of the things we have discussed this morning is
making it available to schools in an educational program.
I assume that colleges and universities can also take
advantage of what you are doing, and what we are going to have
very shortly in Stank County, which is interactive programs
where both the scientists and the students will be actually
able to converse.
Mr. Heyman. Yes, the Natural Partners Program; and I am
looking forward to increasing that activity. Because we are
doing it now in Mississippi and Tennessee and Alabama, and now
we are going to be moving to Ohio. And that can be a wonderful
program. I really do think so.
We have close to 700 interns every year from--largely from
colleges but also from high schools from around the country.
Some get paid. Some don't. But each of them has an experience
working with some folks at the Smithsonian, and it is really
sought after, and people really like it.
Mr. Regula. I would think so, yes. We have had some from
our district that get involved in these programs, and I am
quite sure that the people would certainly welcome that
opportunity.
Some of your donors give money for specific purposes, I
assume, where you have an earmark and then some for general
purposes, is that correct?
Mr. Heyman. Mostly designated and less unrestricted. I am
always partial to the latter, but----
Mr. Regula. Yes, I can understand that.
Well, I think we will have questions for the record; and I
am quite sure some of the other members will. We have a real
problem because members have three subcommittees going.
But we are going to have a challenge here to prioritize
this, because OMB gave you perhaps a better boost than they
have many of the other agencies that we have in this committee.
And they are all very substantive needs that we find in Park
Service, Forest, et cetera, so I am quite sure we will get back
to you and say, this is how much we have that we can do, given
our 602(b) allocation, and in light of that would you
prioritize. We want to work with you to make the best use of
the funds available.
Mr. Heyman. I would be very pleased if you could do that,
sir.
Mr. Regula. So once we get a 602(b) allocation, then we
will have a better idea of what we can do.
Thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Heyman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Newman. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. The committee is adjourned.
[The following questions and answers were submitted for the
record:]

[Pages 202 - 259--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

National Gallery of Art

=======================================================================

[Pages 263 - 275--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

John F. Kennedy Center

=======================================================================

[Pages 279 - 295--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

National Endowment for the Arts

=======================================================================

Thursday, March 13, 1997.

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

WITNESS

JANE ALEXANDER, CHAIRMAN

[Pages 300 - 301--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Regula [presiding]. Well, we'll get the hearing
started.
We're pleased to welcome Ms. Alexander to testify on behalf
of the National Endowment for the Arts. I don't have an opening
statement.
Mr. Yates, would you like to make some opening remarks?
Mr. Yates. Well, I had opening statements for years about
the National Endowment for the Arts. I think it's one of the
shining agencies of our Government. Its record of performance
over the years, in spite of the fact that some have tried to
mark it by the few mistakes that have been in this agency, has
been one of a distinguished performance.

place of the arts in society

And I know that at the moment there are some who threaten
it with going out of existence, but I feel quite sure that the
Congress, in its wisdom, will continue it not only for this
year, but for years to come. Every President who has been in
office since 1965, and even before, has spoken of the necessary
place of the arts in the culture and in the life of our
country. And I endorse their statements. I should say, my
research started with Dwight Eisenhower who looked to the place
of the arts in our society. And so I look to its continuation
under the very able leadership of our witness this morning, Ms.
Alexander, and I welcome her as being the chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Obey.
Mr. Obey. No opening statement; I just want us to report
out the money. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. That's fairly clear.
Mr. Yates. It's even more powerful than mine. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. You didn't say how much, though.
Mr. Yates. Yes, I did--$136 million.
Mr. Regula. Oh. [Laughter.]

future of the nea

Mr. Regula. Let me preface my questions today with a few
remarks. As you all know, the House leadership agreed two years
ago that Fiscal Year 1997 would be the last year of funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts. This was not formally
voted on in the House; and the Senate, in fact, does not
endorse this course of action; however, it is at this moment a
fact of life in the Republican House.
This, as a matter of fact, is one of the top goals of our
Conservative Action Team on the Republican side. However,
having said that, there are many Members who feel quite
differently. And there's a substantial number of Republicans
and a majority of Democrats who do not support this goal and
who are trying to resolve the problems.
I would hope today to have some constructive dialogue on
alternatives. To simply take a position that we stick with the
current system and merely advocate the increased funding does
not achieve the goals that we have to try to address with
respect to the issues that exist within the House. I think we
need to determine today what is the appropriate role of
Government in the preservation of the culture of this country?

nea and the preservation of culture

Ms. Alexander, I have a hypothetical question for you, and
you may comment on it or you can enlarge upon it in the record.
The question I would ask--and I will have the same question for
the Humanities--is, if we were a Parliamentary system and if
the Prime Minister named you the Minister of Culture, how would
you preserve, enhance, and educate the people of this country
as to our cultural heritage as a Nation?
Ms. Alexander. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee,
I'm pleased to be able to come and talk about the National
Endowment for the Arts this morning.
In response to your question, Congressman, I feel that what
the Endowment is doing now is trying to preserve the heritage
of our great cultural legacy, our arts legacy, which perhaps
has never been more vibrant than it has been in the Twentieth
Century of the United States of America. All you have to do is
think about what has happened in the world of dance which has
impacted the history of dance and dance worldwide, visual arts,
theater, literature, and on and on, not to mention music and
museums.

arts education

What I would do would substantially expand on what we have
already begun. For example, arts education, which has been in
decline for the past 25 years--I would make sure that every
child in America from the very earliest age had the opportunity
for arts education in their lives.
Why? Not only does it enhance their own quality of life,
their spirit and problem-solving skills, and critical thinking,
but we need to build creative minds for the future. We need to
build creative minds for America because all the new
technologies that are coming at us so quickly need fast
interpretations; they need problem-solving; they need creative
and imaginative thinking. And business knows this already, and
they have actually looked to the world of the arts and arts
education for the leaders of the future. So that would be one
main priority, which is that every child, from the earliest
stage, would have the arts in their lives.

strengthen arts institutions

Secondly, I would embolden and enhance the arts
institutions that already exist, that preserve our cultural
legacy, and are an investment for the future by developing
those in the arts for tomorrow; by making sure that our museums
were open to all people at all times, that they were able to
acquire what they needed to acquire for their patrons, that
they were able to interact with arts education, as so many of
them are trying to do now.
They would need some more opportunity to do that; the same
with our orchestras, which have been having some problems
lately; the same with our theaters in the United States. Part
of arts education involves the facilities that produce art
themselves, so they need to be a in a very healthy situation
where they are being sustained.

international exchange

Those would be some of my major priorities. And, also,
let's not forget international exchange. I think that's a very
important component which has been neglected in the past few
years. The world knows us through our popular culture, through
our dissemination of video, film, and audio art, but doesn't
know us in the real, live performing arts. So I think we need
to have a little more international cultural exchange, as well.

arts education

Mr. Regula. How would you enhance the education program?
I've heard the statement--I don't know how accurate it is--that
one-third of the congressional districts receive nothing from
the National Endowment for the Arts. And it would seem to me,
if that is accurate, that there would be an opportunity for
education in every district, because you mention education in
your statement here.
How do we enhance that? I know that in my own district
there was a grant that allowed a string ensemble to go around
to the schools and discuss music with students. How could we
enhance that kind of a program?
Ms. Alexander. Well, first of all, you need to have an
infrastructure for arts education that makes sense. Certainly
Goals 2000 has arts education as part of the curriculum, but
not all schools are taking Goals 2000 into their programming
and into their curriculum at this time. We hope in the future
they will.
So we need to build the infrastructure through our State
education programs that give training to teachers for arts
education. We need to help the teachers that are in the school
systems already work with artists and learn about arts
themselves so that they're not overburdened and taking on more
than they can chew.
This is not for a minute to eviscerate the three R's, or
any of the basics that we want in school, but this is to work
in conjunction with the basics in school. We know that this can
happen and that the arts only make learning in all subjects
easier.
So, one thing is to build an infrastructure through the
educational system that makes sense in the States and the
locals----
Mr. Regula. And you would envision NEA providing some help
in that effort?
Ms. Alexander. We already have partnerships with the
Department of Education in this regard. The Endowment, as you
know, is a very small agency, and what we do is try to leverage
through partnerships and increase advocacy information about
arts education and artists in the schools--let's not forget
artists in the schools. But we can't have artists in the
schools unless we have very strong arts institutions, because
they can't eviscerate their own reason for being, which is to
produce arts for their audiences.
Mr. Yates. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Regula. Yes; I'll yield.
Mr. Yates. Following up on your question, would you permit
Ms. Alexander to tell you about the Ying Quartet and how it
served in Iowa? Can you tell the chairman about that? It was in
the schools. It follows up on your own question.

chamber music rural residencies

Ms. Alexander. That is our Chamber Music Rural Residencies,
which includes not only chamber music, but jazz ensembles as
well. They go into rural areas that apply to the Endowment for
these residencies, which are about nine months. And the Ying
Quartet, of course, was in Jessup, Iowa--for actually over a
year--and they absolutely changed the life of the community,
and the community changed their lives as well. The young
ensemble become very proficient at what they do; they're now in
residence in Rochester at the Eastman School of Music as
performers and teachers.
So, this is just one way that we interact with communities
in the United States. They went into the schools and educated,
and they taught lessons to all people in the community as well.

the arts and the states

Mr. Regula. Are you comfortable, generally, with what the
States are doing? Because part, of course, of the NEA funding
flows on through to the States and is supplemented by State
appropriations.
Ms. Alexander. Mr. Chairman, States have fluctuated just as
the Federal Government has in their individual State arts
budgets, and I think that they need a little more solidity,
year-in and year-out. Some States, because of the money that we
give them--which makes up, in many cases, fully half of their
State appropriations for the arts--have been severely
diminished because we're not able to give them as much money
because of our almost 40 percent cut last year.
So, this has been problematical. A few States have
increased their State arts budget in the past year, but it
still doesn't add up to a whole lot if you look at the
nationwide profile.

private sector support for the arts

Mr. Regula. One last question before we go around the
table. I heard the allegation that there is about $10 billion
contributed by the private sector to arts. Do you think that's
accurate?
Ms. Alexander. Oh, yes. The private sector is, of course,
the main funder of the arts in the United States, and it is
almost exactly in reverse to what the rest of the world does.
The rest of the industrialized nations have maybe 90 percent of
public subsidy for the arts and 10 percent private, and we have
90 percent private and 10 percent public. But it is the
partnership and what the private sector is able to leverage
through its imprimatur of excellence from the NEA. What we do
at the National Endowment for the Arts simply is unequalled by
any other entity in the Nation.
Not only are we the largest single funder of the arts in
the United States, but we bring together people from all across
the United States--private citizens--to adjudicate the
applications. So it's a very fair and equitable process we
feel. And what the Government does best, what the Endowment
does best, is to provide opportunity and access for all. No
other entity, as I say, does this except at a Federal level.
Mr. Regula. The staff reminded me--would you like to make
an opening statement? [Laughter.] I think your opening
statement was a response to my question.
Ms. Alexander. Yes, it seemed to be. I would, Mr. Chairman,
like to submit my written testimony for the record if I may.
Mr. Regula. No, I understand; that's a given.
[The prepared statement of Jane Alexander follows:]

[Pages 307 - 312--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Ms. Alexander. Thank you. And I have a feeling you want to
get right to the questions, but I would like to say that if the
Endowment didn't exist today, I do feel that you would have to
invent it because of this imprimatur of excellence that I spoke
of that has the ability to leverage so much other public and
private money, and also for the Endowment's ability as a
convener.

american canvas

We had a very interesting, I think, and important
initiative this past year called American Canvas. We went into
six--seven cities, actually, if you include Rock Hill, South
Carolina, as part of our Charlotte, North Carolina visit--and
asked people in the communities about the value of the arts to
their communities and how they intend to sustain them for the
future. We're concerned about no infrastructure being built
when you start to diminish the public sector role at the
Federal, State, and even local level--because there is a domino
effect there.
American Canvas, we felt, was a very important initiative,
and it will result in a report that will tell people how they
might build a network within their own community to have
sustained support for their cultural institutions. And that
could only be done at the Federallevel. We were able to attract
leaders from all kinds of fields: educators, legislators, business
leaders, people in health services, and religion, to come together as
part of a committee for American Canvas. And that's another thing that
can only be done at the Federal level.

interagency partnerships

Another is interagency partnerships, Federal partnerships.
We have 30 Federal partnerships with other Federal agencies. We
have one with the Department of Justice for young kids who are
in trouble, because the arts are a natural to keep kids off the
street, to keep them engaged, to keep them building a skill.
The child who picks up a trumpet is less likely to pick up a
gun or a needle. That's our thinking, and it's also the
thinking of the Attorney General as well.
And we have partnerships with the Park Service for cultural
tourism, which is the fastest-growing entity for tourism in the
United States.

partnerships with the private sector

And then we also have the ability at the Federal level to
leverage partnerships, not only with States and regional
agencies, but also with the private sector. We have a very
important initiative right now in the area of access on-line
called Open Studio, with the Benton Foundation. It will create
access points in the new technologies for on-line sites across
the country for arts organizations, and these range from
Telluride, Colorado to inner-city Chicago, and so on. And those
will just increase exponentially.
Mr. Regula. Are these on the Internet?
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Regula. So any student who has a school with equipment
can benefit from this?
Ms. Alexander. Absolutely it's not all in place yet; we
just started. Each site that we're helping to get going now has
to mentor 10 to 20 other sites in a year, so you can see that
this is going to grow exponentially.

nea web site

Not only that, if you are on-line, I urge you to check out
the Endowment's own Web site, which we're very proud of, which
has twice been cited by USA Today as one of the hottest sites,
and also serves an average of 2,000 people a week. We've had
over 1.7 million hits since we inaugurated it last April. This
is a very fast-growing Web site, and what we will be expanding
in the years is a database for artists and arts organizations
and people interested in the arts across the United States. In
other words, it will be the entry point for the arts in the
United States, on-line.

nea and the international arts community

These are the kinds of things that I feel only can be done
by a Federal entity, not to mention hosting my colleagues from
other countries of the world. If the arts Endowment, and I as
its chairman didn't exist, who, in fact, would a cultural
minister come to visit?
The minister of Greece paid me a visit last week, and he
said, ``Thessaloniki is the cultural capital of Europe this
coming year, and we have a very large cultural festival going
on in the summer, and I regret to say that the arts from the
United States are under-represented. Can you do anything about
it?'' And to my great chagrin, and to the shame of the American
people, I had to say, ``I'm afraid we don't have any money to
be represented by the United States at your international
festival.''
Mr. Regula. How would we be represented, assuming there
were enough money?
Ms. Alexander. Well, we have plenty of dance groups, music,
and so on----
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Alexander [continuing]. That we could send, were we,
and USIA also, in a healthy position to have international
exchange. As the Cultural Minister of Greece said to me, ``You
are very well represented through audio, visual, and so on, but
we don't see the real thing.''
Mr. Regula. How long does this festival go on? Several
weeks?
Ms. Alexander. Several months.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Yates, did you want to defer to Mr. Obey?
He may have to leave.
Mr. Obey. No, no. You go.
Mr. Regula. All right.
Mr. Yates. I found your statement most impressive. I found
the Chairman's question a little disturbing, his question
raising the question of a minister of culture, because I think
the critics of NEA who seek to kill NEA are calling NEA a
harbinger of Government culture. And I don't think NEA creates
or spreads Government culture, as such. I think whatever grants
NEA makes are made pursuant to private citizens. I want to go
into that for a moment.
But here, for example, we have a ``Dear Colleague'' letter
sent out on February 27 to all Members of the House by John T.
Doolittle, a congressman from California, in which he says, ``I
want to make sure you have the opportunity to read today's Wall
Street Journal, which endorses free-market principles rather
than Government bureaucracies to determine the course of
American culture.'' And, of course, free-market principles do
determine the course of American culture, do they not?
Ms. Alexander. I believe they do.
Mr. Yates. Okay. And then he goes on to say, ``My goal and
the goal of the Conservative Action Team is to end all funding
for the National Endowment for the Arts.'' And then he
continues, ``However, the Federal Government is often the major
force behind the direction that our culture's heading. The
preservation of our culture is dependent on the creativity and
the ability of our citizens, not on the benevolence of
bureaucrats.''

nea grant making process

And, of course, I think Mr. Doolittle indicates by that
statement that he has a total misconception of how NEA works,
and I want to take you through the procedures of how NEA works,
not only for the record so that Mr. Doolittle may read it, but,
as well, for some of the members of the committee who may not
be as familiar with it as they would be after this hearing.
Applications are filed with NEA by ``wannabes,'' people who
want grants and hope for approval by the National Endowment for
the Arts. What happens to those grants when they are filed? Do
you approve them by yourself? Or what is the procedure that
takes place?
Ms. Alexander. Thank you, Congressman Yates, for giving me
the opportunity to explain this.
We disseminate broadly our guidelines for applicants in the
country, and anybody can apply who has been a 501(c)(3) for
four years or more. The applications come to the agency--we now
only allow one per organization; we used to allow multiple
applications--they come into the agency, and they are reviewed
by our staff and put into the proper discipline category; in
other words, music would go into ``music,'' and so on, and
multi-disciplinary would go into anarea we call ``multi-
disciplinary,'' where many different disciplines are served, such as an
arts festival.
Then we convene panels, and we try very carefully to
balance them geographically, aesthetically, and by gender,
race, and ethnicity. We don't discriminate in terms of age.
Mr. Yates. But you do have a pool of panelists, do you not,
made up of people from all over the country----
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Yates [continuing]. Who have some familiarity with the
field in which you're asking them to serve?
Ms. Alexander. Absolutely. They need to know, they need to
be experts, if you will, to the best of their ability in the
chosen field. We also include one lay-person on each panel.
Mr. Yates. Right, and that was----
Ms. Alexander. And that's a person who does not make their
living in the arts.
Mr. Yates. And that was pursuant to the request of this
committee some years ago.
Ms. Alexander. That's right, in fact, it was a very wise
decision, and we are very happy with the lay-people. Not only
have they been extremely contributive to the panels, but, also,
I feel that they have learned a lot from the panelists as well
about the field that they're adjudicating.
Mr. Yates. Okay; now we have this pool of panelists, and
these are private citizens.
Ms. Alexander. That's correct. And I'd like to add, if I
may, that the turnover rate is close to 88 percent a year, so
that we don't have, like in the old days, people who would
serve on one panel year-in and year-out for three to four
years; that doesn't happen any more. We really look for new
panelists all the time, and we're always increasing our panel
data bank.
Mr. Yates. How do the panels work? You organize a panel--
you go to your pool, you select people for a particular
discipline, and they will meet and review applications, will
they not?
Ms. Alexander. That's correct.
Mr. Yates. All right. And they recommend approval or
disapproval of the grant?
Ms. Alexander. That's correct.
Mr. Yates. Once they have acted, what happens to those
grants--to their actions?
Ms. Alexander. Then they move the approvals and the
rejections to the National Council on the Arts.
Mr. Yates. And the National Council on the Arts is made up
of whom?
Ms. Alexander. Twenty-six people chosen by the President,
confirmed by the Senate, to serve on the National Council. They
are people from all over the country as well, different
discipline backgrounds and patrons of the arts as well.
Mr. Yates. And they either approve or disapprove of the
actions taken by the panels.
Ms. Alexander. That's correct.
Mr. Yates. All right. And once they have approved or
disapproved of those actions, then their recommendations go to
you.
Ms. Alexander. That's correct.
Mr. Yates. What is your function with respect to that?
Ms. Alexander. I can approve or disapprove those that
they've passed on to me for recommendation. I cannot approve
those they have rejected.

rejection of grants

Mr. Yates. How many--in your capacity as the head of NEA--
how many of the recommendations of these private citizens who
make up the panels and the council have you rejected?
Ms. Alexander. In my history as chairman of three-and-one-
half years, I would say not more than 25.
Mr. Yates. Not more than 25? And what was the number of
grants that have gone out the----
Ms. Alexander. In the past few years, since I've been
chairman?
Mr. Yates. The comparable figure to the 25 that you
projected. How many have been approved?
Ms. Alexander. Probably about 12,000.
Mr. Yates. Twelve thousand; okay. So that there is no
control of culture, as such, by NEA. You don't control it,
except in the final analysis you either approve or disapprove
of the action that has been taken by private citizens. Is that
not correct?
Ms. Alexander. That's correct.
Mr. Yates. Okay.
I see you looking at me.
Mr. Regula. Well, I'd like to get a round in and then I'll
give you all the time you want.
Mr. Yates. All right, I thought I would finish----
Mr. Regula. Yes, that's fine. Are you going to follow up on
that?
Mr. Yates. Now that's the procedure that has taken place?
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Yates. That takes place--not has taken place, but takes
place. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Wamp?
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Despite the fact that in the last Congress I did support
the phase-out of NEA funding, I want to make a couple of points
that have come up since you were in my office, Ms. Alexander,
last week.

decreasing corporate funding for the arts

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, where I hail from, we've had a
tremendous history of giving to the arts from the private
sector. But the empirical data showed that a lot of our
corporations that have traditionally supported the arts are now
not owned--some from within our region, some not even from
within our country--and their giving to the arts is actually on
the decline.
And I've checked into the facts, because I try not to get
involved in which way the wind is blowing, but where is the
science behind some of this? And what is the hard evidence? And
the hard evidence in our part of the world is that arts funding
is decreasing, that the State of Tennessee is under increased
financial pressures.
State funding is decreasing; corporate funding is
decreasing, and kind of unlike public broadcasting, where they
go to the airwaves and tell their viewers to make it up as the
Government phases out, arts funding is going to decline. I want
to raise that as an issue and let you discuss what corporate
America is actually doing, because in our experience in
Chattanooga, where we've had a great history there, corporate
giving is down substantially and programs are now starting to
really suffer.

federal funding priorities

Secondly, I also studied, since you were there last week,
this 90-10 differential between other industrialized countries'
funding for the arts and the humanities versus science and
technology, and I just want to raise the issue, not to at all
suggest that we should reduce funding for science and
technology, but just to point out that I think there may be a
relationship between the nuclear build-up and the arms race in
our country and our investment in science and technology versus
arts and the humanities.
And now that the Cold War is over, we might want to re-
visit what our priorities are on education funding for arts and
humanities versus science and technology, and whether or not
that balance at 90-10 is justified in the post-Cold War era.

private sector support for the arts

Ms. Alexander. Wow! [Laughter.]
Well, that's fascinating. First, to respond to your
corporate giving; I do want to bring to your attention the
report to the President that the President's Committee on the
Arts and Humanities, a bipartisan committee, recently released.
In it they call for corporations in America to step up their
funding for the arts because there are many, many areas, as you
point out--and I didn't know Tennessee was one of them--where
corporate giving is actually on the decline as priorities
shift, as the agendas of the CEOs shift.
And that's another reason that you need to have a
Federalrole in the arts; it's about addressing those areas in the
United States that have no corporations--and there are many of them
that are rural or in inner-cities--and that would not have access to
private giving at all, and that's what the Endowment is about. It's
about opportunity and access for all--opportunity and access for all.

federal funding priorities

To address your question about science, I'm probably not
the right one to do it because I do think science has been an
extraordinary liberator for many areas of our lives in the
United States. However, it would also be valuable, I think, to
take a look at your priorities and how you may want to re-order
them in the United States, and so be it.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Wamp mentioned that there are more and more
owned by foreign corporations, and from your testimony it would
indicate that there's not a big history of private giving in
other countries, that they tend to rely on Government. And,
therefore, these foreign corporations that now own United
States companies just simply don't have that as part of their
corporate culture.
Ms. Alexander. Very good point.
Mr. Regula. Are you finished?
Mr. Wamp. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Obey.

authorization status of the endowment

Mr. Obey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me simply
observe that much has been made of the fact that this program
isn't authorized. This committee, through the years, has funded
a lot of programs that weren't authorized. The National
Institutes of Health have been funded in years when there was
no authorization. The Centers for Disease Control--I doubt we
would want all the immunization programs going on in the
country just because Congress didn't pass an authorization. The
Commerce Department authorization--various portions of that
agency, year-after-year, have been unauthorized.

appropriations status of the endowment

The appropriations status was made quite clear on page 65
of the committee report last year when it pointed out that the
House and the Senate had not reached agreement, and whether or
not there should be an ending of funding for the Endowment.
That's still up in the air, and I would be very surprised if,
in the end, it isn't funded.
But let me also make some other observations. To put things
in perspective, the $136 million that you're requesting this
year would run the Pentagon for about five hours, so I hardly
think that this is a case of budgetary overreach.

importance of the arts to all americans

I would also make another observation. There is an argument
made that the arts are really just--you're funding high culture
items, that there really is no significant benefit that accrues
to average citizens of this country. I don't know; everybody
has their favorite philosopher--Plato, Aristotle--mine is
Archie, the cockroach. [Laughter.]
And if you take--Archie wrote something a long time ago
which he applied to the movies, but I think applies, generally,
to the arts at this time. It was written in the 1920s, and he
said: ``The movies are young and crude. They're not afraid of
gusto and the heroic, whether they sentimentalize some lousy
gunman and his doings, or put across an incredible Western, or
splurge with hope and melodrama, or embark on an adventure of
pure fantasy, like Walt Disney stuff.
They are instinctively trying to hand the public some kind
of stuff that wins the audience away from the often-sordid
surface of everyday existence. They may do it badly; they may
do it obviously; they may do it crudely. But they do have the
hunch that what millions of people want is to be shown that
there is something possible to the human race besides the dull
repetition of the triviality, which is often the routine of
common existence.''
Mr. Yates. Good for you.
Mr. Obey. I think that's pretty good stuff for a cockroach.
[Laughter.] It's probably pretty good stuff for a congressman
as well. Sometimes people equate the two. [Laughter.]

purchasing power of nea dollar

But I served on this subcommittee, my very first
subcommittee, in 1969, when I came on this committee on April
Fool's Day, and I've seen a lot of changes in this Endowment
since that time.
My understanding is that your budget request represents a
70 percent reduction in the purchasing power of this program
since 1979. In fact, it is roughly equivalent to the funding
level which we were providing in 1972----
Ms. Alexander. That's correct.
Mr. Obey [continuing]. In real dollar terms, and I think we
ought to remember all of that when we decide whether it
deserves a tiny amount of public funding.
Let me just ask you two questions in the interest of time.
First of all, many people in the Congress who are opposed to
funding will find some outrageous example of a grant that had
been provided in the past, and they will use that to assert
that somehow funding for this program is destructive of the
kind of values that we want to inculcate in our children.
I'd like you to do two things: first of all, explain to the
committee how you believe funding can help expose young
children around the country to good values; and, secondly,
because the stereotype of the arts that has been peddled by a
lot of people is the outmoded stereotype that this really is
just a high-culture thing for the cultural elites of the
country, would you explain to the committee how funding
patterns have changed geographically, moving from large
metropolitan centers to small communities? Would you explain
how this funding exposes people in those towns to popular arts
as well as the symphony and ballet and things like that?
And what do you think the bottom-line loss would be to the
country if we were to rely, as the Wall Street Journal tells
us, if we were to rely simply on the private sector to fund
arts in this country?

the arts in communities

Ms. Alexander. The proliferation of the arts in the United
States of America has been truly revolutionary, I think, since
the inception of the Endowment--of course, not only because of
the Endowment. Were there arts before? Of course; there is
always art where there are human beings in the world in one way
or the other. But what happened when the Endowment came into
being was there was a climate, both from the American people
and from the legislators, that said, ``We want the arts in our
community. We don't want them just in the major urban
environments. And we want the facilities; we want orchestras;
we want museums; we want all these things.''
And what the Endowment made it possible to do was to give
the catalytic money to that community that applied and create
these facilities. So the proliferation has been outstanding in
every single arts discipline and in every region ofAmerica. In
fact, the arts are, as you know from your own district, all over your
own districts and they continue to grow. Everywhere I travel in the
country, and you may have examples in your own districts, there are new
facilities being built.
And what we're trying to say to the people is, ``All right,
you want to build the facilities, but hold on here. You have to
have an infrastructure to maintain and support them in the
future and to maintain and support your artists.'' That hasn't
happened yet. And I can cite over and over again examples of
communities that suddenly found their facilities in deficit
because they hadn't planned ahead efficiently. Some communities
are addressing that, but not enough. And that's what our
American Canvas Initiative is really all about.

value of the arts to children

Secondly, with regard to good values to children, as I
cited earlier, we know that there are studies done now about
the arts, math and music, that came out of UC Irvine. These
have been very, very important, showing that children who from
the very early stages of life have music in their lives do well
in other subjects. What music does is actually open
neurological paths for patterning and learning in all subjects,
specifically math, physics, and other pattern-oriented subjects
of that kind.
I would like to bring your attention to a new publication
of the Endowment's called ``Imagine,'' which is about
introducing children to the arts. This has been one of our
very, very popular publications at the Endowment in years past
and we've renovated and put it out now as ``Imagine.''
Mr. Regula. Could you supply one for each of the members
here?
Mr. Yates. Each of us has one, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Regula. Oh, I see.
Mr. Yates. There's one in front of us.
Mr. Regula. Oh, Okay.
Mr. Yates. As there is the other book, ``Creative
America,'' that she mentioned.
Ms. Alexander. So not only do the arts enhance learning and
build skills because they are problem solving, but they also
address, as your cockroach ``Archie'' addressed, that other
part of life that we sometimes call ``soul''; we sometimes call
``entertainment''; those other areas of life that we sometimes
don't value enough or put a premium on.

reach of nea grant money

With regard to your ``high culture only,'' which we're
sometimes accused of, in fact, just the opposite has happened.
The Endowment spreads its money pretty fairly across the
country and according to the number of applications we get. Do
we fund more in New York and California? Yes, we do, because
the preponderance of applications that we get come from both of
those areas. But by and large we reach rural areas; we reach
very small arts organizations and very large ones as well.
And let's not forget, when we give money to a place like
the Houston Grand Opera, most of the time it's not necessarily
for funding of a new opera, but it's for their outreach program
so that kids can come in and see opera for nothing. That's what
the Endowment's money very often goes to. But let's not forget,
and I must repeat this, we have to keep the organizations, the
arts organizations, healthy. We have to keep the artists
employed in the organizations in order for them to do the
outreach.

health of america's arts institutions

And that's the problem, the bind that we're in right now.
These facilities are not as healthy as they could be. More than
50 percent of the theaters in the United States of America are
carrying significant deficits. And they don't have companies
anymore. When I started at Arena Stage, I was a member of a
company. My husband, Ed Sherin, was the artistic director, and
we had more than thirty in the company. That was in the late
sixties and early seventies. Today the Arena Stage carries one
full time artist. This is downsizing a vision of America at the
very time we should be expanding our vision. At the very time
that we have the healthiest economy in the world, we should be
expanding our vision of the arts and celebrating the Millennium
through the arts and the humanities.
Mr. Obey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

authorization of the nea

Mr. Regula. Thank you. I might enlarge a little bit on Mr.
Obey's comments as to the authorization, and that is that Mr.
Yates was always successful in getting a waiver from the Rules
Committee to overcome the lack of authorization.
Mr. Yates. And you can do, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Regula. Well, I think there may be a somewhat different
Rules Committee
Mr. Yates. Well, there is, but you're much more persuasive.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Just so we have the record straight, I think
the Rules Committee historically has followed the guidance of
the leadership in the House.
Anyway, Mr. Skaggs?
Mr. Skaggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
I don't want to sow any bad will within the cultural
community, but when you were saying if it weren't for the
Endowment for the Arts, where would a Minister of Culture pay a
call, you should have seen Mr. Hackney. [Laughter.]
After the weekend that some of us had in Hershey,
Pennsylvania, I'm also intrigued at the notion of having
painting and music workshops for Members of Congress as a way
perhaps of making some progress in relationships, but we'll put
that aside as well. [Laughter.]
Mr. Moran. Yes, don't push it too far. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skaggs. I don't know, you and finger paint. [Laughter.]

importance of art to society

But I really am glad that Mr. Obey started the line of
comment and question that he did because, you know, we are so
wrapped up in the pragmatic. As important as that is, as
important as our free market, profit oriented system is, you
get the sense that as a culture we have lost contact too much
of the time with the value of imagination and inspiration, and
where do we get that in the economy? It's hard to find, as
worthwhile and rewarding in the traditional sense as most of
our jobs might be. So I really see this modest, and it is very
modest, investment that the Federal Government makes in the
individual and community soul of the country as meeting a very,
very important human need.
One thing, again, to play off of this last weekend, that I
think we have realized more and more in this place is that we
are a community and that we need the arts--if anybody is going
to improve the fabric of this community, it has to be us. And I
would like again, looking at the way that your grants have been
placed around the country, for you to give us a little bit of a
homily about the importance of those arts related activities to
building communities. We are constantlyreminded about the
fraying of the social fabric in the countryside. My sense is that,
second perhaps only to sports teams, arts organizations are what have
some prayer of knitting things back together again.

the arts as community builders

Ms. Alexander. Thank you, Congressman Skaggs. I couldn't
agree more that the arts are a natural community builder. And a
recent research report that we put out--the Endowment also is
the main research arm for arts research in the country--shows
that there are more people that attend non-profit arts events,
and more money is made from them than all the professional
sporting events.
Mr. Skaggs. So I had it wrong. [Laughter.]
Ms. Alexander. Well, the interesting thing is, we subsidize
the funding of sports stadiums, you know, and a lot of money
goes into that. But if this is the statistic, why aren't we
putting more money into the arts? Non-profit arts? So that's
some interesting research that came out, but it does build
community. If you think, outside of houses of worship, outside
of sporting events, we don't come together as a people in any
given community as much as throughout the arts. We meet at
museums, we meet at performing arts events, we meet at
galleries, and so on, concert halls, and arts festivals. There
are 45,000 arts festivals in the United States. It's a very
important meeting ground for the public in any given community.
And that's growing as well.

practical applications of art

Mr. Skaggs. Why haven't we figured out a way of proudly
asserting the value of that to ourselves more? I mean, we may
do it here this morning, but you know, there is that sense that
it is an enormous, uphill battle for the value to this society
that comes out of that enterprise to even hold a candle to the
bottom lines of any number of other things. And I--you know,
it's bewildering. Maybe we need to get back to the point you
were making, and I'd love for you to elaborate on it, that this
is all ultimately very pragmatic, that the growth of parts of
our minds that come from arts and music are very practically
transferable to the other activities that this society tends to
value more in math, or physics, or whatever. And if you've got
more data like that, maybe that's your best case in this very
pragmatic place.

importance of the arts to learning

Ms. Alexander. Well, I'd like to bring your attention to,
and I'll ask my colleagues to find it for me, but there was a
recent article, a long supplement in Business Week about what
the arts do for creative minds of the young, young creative
minds, and what businesses look for in the future. And I think
this is really germane to what we are talking about--what the
arts do.
Mr. Regula. Without objection, we'll make this part of the
record.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 324 - 339--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Ms. Alexander. Would you make it part of the record? It's
called ``Educating for the Work Place through the Arts.'' And
this was a supplement that was sponsored by business leaders
and corporate leaders in Business Week.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Moran?
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since we're all revealing our biases, I'll do the same. We
have all studied the history of western civilization, of world
civilization really, and most of what we study is the result of
patronage of the arts. Now, during most of that civilization
the patronage was conferred by monarchs. And it's a lot easier
if you're a monarch to simply fund the arts with almost
infinite resources, but the real test is for a democracy to do
the same. Greece did. And that's why we study that Greece was
almost the pinnacle of civilization. And we take, in many ways,
our lead from their standard setting. But every year it will be
difficult for this democracy to develop sufficient support to
give the arts their due and to recognize their invaluable role
in our society.

arts and inner-city youth

And what I wanted to share with the members of this
committee is the testimony that we received from outside
witnesses by a person that I think gave us the most compelling
testimony. She was a young woman that grew up right here in
this neighborhood, in Washington, D.C.--not far from the
Kennedy Center, but a world away from it. She had never seen an
opera until she was a teenager. And she is now one of the
world's greatest opera singers, Denyce Graves. And she spends
much of her available time promoting the National Endowment for
the Arts, because she recognizes that it is one of the very few
opportunities that can be made available for children like her
to experience arts, and that's to fulfill their potential, as
she has been able to fulfill hers.
And with that inspiring example, I would like to ask of
you, Ms. Alexander, how much of the money that we make
available actually goes to the Denyce Graves of the world;
young children in depressed neighborhoods who otherwise would
never have an opportunity to realize their talent and to share
it with us?
Ms. Alexander. I'm glad you're giving me the opportunity to
talk about one of my favorite places which, is Space One Eleven
in Birmingham, Alabama. Space One Eleven is a small visual arts
organization that is in one of the poorest areas of Birmingham
and in the census track of one of the poorest areas in the
United States. And it opened its doors to its neighborhood
children one day when they saw that the children were coming
home after school and they didn't have much to do and the
children were hanging out in the streets. And these were
little, tiny kids up to teenagers. And a wonderful woman who
runs Space One Eleven named Anne Arrasmith opened up the doors
of Space One Eleven one day and said, ``Come on in,'' and she
got someof the artists in and said, ``Let's teach these kids
something about art.''
To make a long story short, when I visited, there was a
little girl named Lakeisha, six years old, who was making this
brick. Now, Birmingham has a perfectly wonderful museum that
the Endowment also helps support that has the largest
collection of Wedgewood in the United States. So the artists
took these kids to study the Wedgewood in the Birmingham
Museum. And they taught them a little bit and said, ``Let's
make Wedgewood bricks.'' Then they found out that one of the
government buildings in Birmingham decided to go under
renovation of a big, blank wall that it had and it wanted an
art work on the wall. They applied, with the help of an
architect, to fill that wall with Wedgewood--``Wedgewood
bricks.'' Now, this one is just little Lakeisha's who was six
years old, but imagine that the bricks became more
sophisticated as the kids got older and they began to do them
even more interestingly.
That wall is sixty feet long and three stories high, I
believe. And they are filling it as we speak. They won the
contract, these young people, and they're filling it with a
dragon--they decided to make a ``beast,'' they called it. That
was what they felt representative of the steel industry and
things that came out of Birmingham a long time ago. That was a
$100,000 contract that they got to do this wall, from the
government. And they're working on it as we speak.
Lakeisha is now several years older and her cousin, who
came into the program a little before her, is now a working
ceramicist. And two of the children that were in the program
are now in art school. This is a perfect example of what
happens with a little bit of money that we put into a visual
arts organization.
Mr. Moran. Do you have any idea of the proportion of grants
that actually go to these low income communities? I mean, you
can supply it for the record, you don't have to.
Ms. Alexander. Yes, we'd like to supply it for the record,
because it's a little tricky, you know, but we have a pretty
even balance.
[The information follows:]

NEA Funding to Inner-city Areas

By statute, 7.5% of NEA program funds ($6.069 million in FY
97) are reserved for the states arts agencies specifically for
projects benefitting underserved communities. Such communities
are defined as ones in which individuals lack access to arts
programs due to geography, economic conditions, ethnic
background, disability, or age. The states, particularly urban
states, have used some of these funds for inner-city projects.
Although we do not have exact figures, as there is no
common definition of ``inner city,'' it is clear that many
grants made through the four funding divisions have the effect
of benefitting inner-city populations. Examples of some of
these NEA-assisted projects include the Inner City Latchkey and
Residency Program offered by the California Arts Council with
the assistance of an NEA grant. This program enables artists to
work with children in neighborhoods in the Los Angeles area.
These kinds of arts activities in schools, arts centers, and
community centers provide a creative alternative to the dangers
of street life.
Among the Education & Access grants awarded recently by the
Endowment was one to the Dance Theater Foundation in New York
in a consortium with Urban Gateways in Chicago and Network Arts
in Philadelphia to expand the Ailey Camp Program (using the
Alvin Ailey Dance Company) to reach inner-city youth in
Philadelphia and Chicago.
Among the Creation & Presentation grants was one to the
Forum of Contemporary Art in St. Louis, Missouri, to support
residencies by nationally-known African-American artists
working with inner-city high school youth--to use the study of
the visual arts as an opportunity to expand beyond the gang and
drug activity so prevalent in their lives and perhaps to choose
the visual arts as a constructive and positive career.

possible consolidation of NEA and NEH

Mr. Moran. And at one point I think it would be useful, if
it hasn't already been brought up--on perhaps a less positive
note--but to share with us what you think might be the downside
of consolidating NEA with NEH, because I know it's going to
come up and I think you ought to get onto the record in advance
of any further discussions the subcommittee might have.
Ms. Alexander. If we could submit that for the record, I
would be pleased to do so.
[The information follows:]

Pros and Cons of NEA/NEH Consolidation

The issue of combining NEA and NEH functions was discussed
during the 104th Congress, Senate Labor Committee hearings.
Section 103 of the reported bill, S. 856, called for joint
administration of the Office of Inspector General, and ``non-
duplication of administrative functions, such as provision of
facilities and space, records management, contracting,
procurement, printing and provision of mail and library
services.'' Responding to the reported legislation, the two
endowments convened a series of high-level staff meetings
during 1995 to discuss how to implement the proposed
legislation. While a number of preliminary observations were
made, the meetings were quickly overtaken by events when both
endowments faced budget cuts on the order of 40 percent and
massive staff reductions.
In a general sense, representatives of the two endowments
found that there were a number of fiscal and managerial
problems associated with combining offices. The economies of
scale normally associated with combining like offices were
difficult to obtain given the small size of both agencies and
the numbers of personnel involved. Combining very different
agency data processing systems and changing long-held standard
operating practices would have proved relatively costly in
relation to the small savings that would have been realized by
consolidating the small numbers of staff.
The National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities serve very different
constituencies--artists and arts and cultural organizations as
opposed to scholars and universities. There is some overlap
between the programs of the two agencies in the area of
documentary filmmaking, support for museums and a few other
areas which could be better differentiated. With the exception
of those areas, however, the programs of the two agencies are
very different. In this context, it is important to note that
since 1996, both agencies have been operating at very reduced
program staff levels. At NEA each arts discipline generally is
represented by two knowledgeable staff people. It is difficult
to see how the two agencies could continue to support the range
of arts and humanities projects now being assisted throughout
the country, if staff were further reduced as part of a plan to
combine the agencies.
The advantages of consolidation appear to be more political
than policy oriented. A newly consolidated entity to which
additional Federal cultural programs are added could be viewed
as less vulnerable to political attack.

Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms.
Alexander. It's nice to see you again and you're welcomed to
the subcommittee.

alternate funding sources for nea

It's hard to argue with anybody who advocates the value of
the arts. I have no quarrel with valuing the arts. You and I
have talked over the past couple years about ways to have some
Federal involvement in the arts at a time when we have a
tremendous debt and we are battling deficits and trying to cut
corners where we can in this country. I would be happy to have
you respond today. Maybe there's been some progress. But my
sense is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there has been no
real serious effort--at least that I have knowledge of today--
that you or anybody in your agency has thought about or imposed
ways that you can engage the private sector. First, from the
standpoint of encouraging mega-corporations that are making
zillions of dollars a year to support the industry that they
want the public to support.
And, second of all, in those instances where there is
commercial success from artists who have benefitted from NEA
grants. There have been many, and I'm proud of all those people
who've done so well, because they enlighten the Nation with
their scholarship and their artistic nature. However, it seems
to me, in an environment of financial pressure that the country
is under that it would be in your best interest to not only
require NEA artists who go on to commercial success to give
back a percentage, a royalty if you will. Maybe that's not
acceptable to you and your agency, but to me it seems to make
sense that they would make this contribution to that resource
which gave them commercial success.
So I wonder if you could enlighten me and the subcommittee
as to, No. 1, what efforts you have undertaken to say to the
Disneys of the world, and the Sonys, and all the others, ``Why
don't you give one penny of every ticket that you sell to the
NEA?'' And have 2 percent of every commercial dollar that
inures to the benefit of an NEA beneficiary, give that back to
the Endowment and let it get beyond $136 million. Could I have
you respond to that?

office of enterprise development

Ms. Alexander. Absolutely, and I'm very pleased that you
did ask this question, because in fact we took you very
seriously last year. I did begin an Office of Enterprise
Development at the agency. It is a very small staff of two, and
I detailed one of my assistants to it. And we really encourage
the private sector, corporate leaders, and particularly the
Hollywood community--I've been doing that for a couple of years
now--to recognize that an awful lot of their roots, the talent
that is nurtured through theincubator part of the Endowment's
funding, ends up in the commercial sector, and that we need their help.

recapture of funds

However, I bring to your attention two things. We don't
give individual grants anymore. So we wouldn't be able to ask
individuals who are performing in a concert or in an
institution to pay back in that way. And an institution like,
for example, the New York Shakespeare Festival that went on to
great commercial success with, ``Chorus Line,'' and now ``Bring
In Da Noise, Bring In Da Funk'' on Broadway--all that money is
now plowed right back into the system so that more people have
opportunity and access within it. So we wouldn't want to tap
those funds either.
Mr. Nethercutt. In what system?
Ms. Alexander. Excuse me, I didn't mean system--
institution. For example, the New York Shakespeare Festival
which made money on ``Chorus Line'' then used that money to
increase and expand the number of productions they did in other
areas. It's a very equal opportunity kind of outfit. So that
was, we felt, very admirable.
The other thing is, if we wanted to have any kind of
supplemental income we would need professional--excuse me,
congressional--help in this regard. We can't do it on our own,
Congressman.
Mr. Yates. As a matter of fact, the law prohibits it.
Ms. Alexander. Yes. We're not allowed to solicit and invest
funds and I've found that a great drawback for us at the
agency. I mean, I couldn't go out and actually ask corporations
to give money to the government and I also found even if asked,
people would say to me they weren't comfortable giving money to
the government. They already gave it in taxes. Why should they
give any more?

solicit and invest authority for nea

Mr. Nethercutt. Would you be willing to explore that
option, of changing the law so that perhaps a private
foundation could be created that would be subject to
solicitation? The Smithsonian does that, as I remember. I mean,
would you be willing to explore that as an alternative to
simply coming to the Congress and saying, ``We need $136
million or we need 350,'' or whatever it is you want to do the
job you need to do? And if the Congress could then pave the way
to allow you that freedom, would that be acceptable?
Ms. Alexander. Well, that would certainly be acceptable,
because I think supplemental income would be warranted in any
case. And it might be a very good national initiative to try to
challenge, if you will, the private sector to come up with
funds to fund individual artists, to fund a lot of the things
the Endowment doesn't do.
At the same time, though, I still think that you need a
Federal presence, a Federal role, for many other reasons--
Federal liaison, international liaison, convener, major
database information research, and so on. You would still need
that role from the Federal Government.

appropriate level of federal funding for nea

Mr. Nethercutt. I guess the challenge, the question then is
what's the level of that Federal role, I mean financially? How
much is enough to meet the role requirements that you're
suggesting? Is it $18 million, which is essentially your
administrative costs, as I look at this? Unless I'm mistaken,
it's about $18 million you're asking for?
Ms. Alexander. I believe the $18 million would be if we had
the request level of $136 million.
Mr. Nethercutt. Exactly. It's just under $17 million now.
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Nethercutt. And would that be adequate, as a stamp of
approval from a Federal agency that supports the arts to allow
you to have the administrative support, but to seek the grant
support in the private sector? I saw Alec Baldwin on television
the other day talking passionately about how ``we must fund the
NEA.'' But, I'm wondering how much Alec Baldwin would be
willing to contribute to his passion and his profession to
allow your agency to proceed if you had some core funding from
the Federal Government and the taxpayers at large, along with
the other conglomerates who make so much money in the arts and
live on it.
I'm exploring this with you because, frankly, I want to see
you survive some way. But I know there's pressure in the
Congress as we face this budget problem. We face those who'd
say, ``We can't afford you.''
Ms. Alexander. I understand what you're saying and I really
appreciate your concern. We're concerned as well. And in
defense of somebody like Alec, let me say that Alec does give
privately to a great many different organizations, in addition
to paying hefty taxes to the United States government.
[Laughter.]
And there are other young people--there's a wonderful,
young Grammy recording artist who believes strongly in the NEA,
named Richard Marx, who is giving an awful lot of his own
private money to enhance arts education for young people all
through the United States.
So it's beginning to happen. They're beginning to
understand that they have to give a little bit more. But let me
point out, Congressman, that the Endowment is already pretty
bare-bones at $99.5 million for what it needs to serve the
country. And for us to be diminished, it would have to be only
in proportion to how much a private entity such as you're
talking about, or a quasi-public or private one, could sustain
or even enhance the service to the United States arts community
and the people of America. So that would take a while, it seems
to me.
We're the largest single funder of the arts in the United
States; $99.5 million is very difficult to raise. And it might
take many, many years. I'm not saying that I'm against it, but
you can't just reduce one without making sure that the other
pot is there and is sufficient to provide the needs.

establishment of a true endowment

Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, but if I'm in your chair, I'm planning
for the worst. I'm thinking defensively and I'm out there
working to have independence, rather than dependence. I mean,
the benefits I could see of your being more independent is not
having to worry about a grant that you----
Mr. Skaggs. Would the----
Mr. Nethercutt. Let me finish--worrying about a grant that
you just issued six months ago that's perceived to be obscene
and you're having to fight that battle and then justify your
existence. It just seems to me you ought to strive for
independence and freedom from----
Ms. Alexander. But I can't do that, Congressman. I can't
strive myself because I'm a Federal official.
Mr. Nethercutt. I know. I understand that. I'm saying to
you, though, maybe we can work through the law to allow you to
have a way to satisfy your needs, but also to satisfy the
public needs as well and the public involvement and the
taxpayers' involvement in your existence. That's what I'mtrying
to persuade you to think about.
Ms. Alexander. Well, you may remember that last year
Congressman Williams suggested that the government make a $9
billion endowment and that wouldn't be too bad. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skaggs. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Moran. Or too likely. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skaggs. This is a terribly important question for this
society. I have people in my district that don't think it's a
great idea for $2,000 a person to go to defense right now with
all of the things that are pressuring on this budget. They
realize that's their responsibility, but it makes it a little
bit easier to swallow because they've got fifty cents a year
going to the arts. We need to be aware of the diversity of this
land and we need to keep it together. And we need to give
everybody a sense that they have a stake in the whole
enterprise.
Mr. Nethercutt. I understand that. But what's better--to
lose the National Endowment for the Arts or to be creative to
the point where we can keep the National Endowment for the Arts
and still meet the other responsibilities?
Mr. Skaggs. What's better is to keep both, because if we
lose the National Endowment, there are going to be more people
revolting against paying their taxes for other things that far
eclipse this.
Mr. Regula. I want to suspend a minute and just informally
with the committee members discuss the remainer of the
schedule. Depending on how much time each of you would still
like--Mr. Dicks has some time yet--perhaps finish by 11:30, so
that the National Endowment for the Humanities could come on
and we could finish by 12:30 or so. Or we can come back after
lunch. How much time does anyone seek yet?
Mr. Yates. I would want ten minutes, I think.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. All right. We'll try
to finish up with the Arts and then finish the Humanities and
run over a little bit at noon if that's okay.
Mr. Yates. I'll be short.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Mr. Dicks.

importance of the arts in washington state

Mr. Dicks. Well, I want to welcome Jane Alexander to the
committee today on the National Endowment for the Arts. I have
been a very strong supporter over the years under the great
leadership of Congressman Yates and our committee and, frankly,
I think the National Endowment for the Arts has been one of the
great successes in our country's history. When you look at all
the help that has gone out to establish art organizations and
institutions all over this country--I mean, in the last--since
1965, when the Endowments were created, I mean, it is utterly
amazing.
And I can remember being in Seattle with Livingston Biddle
in 1977 when we gave three major challenge grants, and that
went to the Northwest Ballet, to the Seattle Symphony, and to
the Repertory Theater. And those institutions have grown
because of those challenge grants into some of the finest
institutions in the country. And they can work all over
Washington State and the Northwest, they've come to Washington,
DC. It has been really utterly, I think, very spectacular.

role of the private sector

And we talk about the private sector. And the reality is,
if you look at the history of this, the private sector gave
very little to the arts of this country until the Endowment was
created. And if you follow--The Wall Street Journal did a
series on this a few years ago--you follow, as the Endowment
grew, the amount of support from the private sector grew. I
mean, the Endowment has been a catalyst to get the private
sector to be involved in the arts in this country.

panel process

And many people say they like the panel system. They think
the way the grants are approved and sorted out gives them
guidance about what people who are real professionals from all
over the country think is important in the arts, and if the
endowment supports it, then for a lot of these private sector
companies it's a good guide about where they should invest.

importance of the arts to society

And I kind of agree with Congressman Skaggs. I come from an
area where defense is a very important part of our economy, but
I can tell you that one of the greatest things in the Northwest
is the arts. And the people who--the quality of life there is
better because of the arts. And I really worry that if we--you
know, the budget deficit is coming down. Some of us had the
courage to vote for a budget resolution in 1993 that has taken
the deficit from $290 billion down to $107 billion. And by
making hard, tough decisions, we're going to get the budget
balanced. But to completely eliminate the National Endowment
for the Arts and Humanities would be one of the great tragedies
of the Congress in its history.
At our conference on civility, David McCullough urged us to
try to think of trying to do important things, of trying to
look out and see what we can do to make this country really
better, on a bipartisan basis. And after the last Congress in
which we saw the government shut down, we saw an attack on the
arts and humanities, and an attack on the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting--I mean, that does not represent the
American people. That is not the direction the American people
want to go. And I just hope my friends and colleagues on the
other side, some of which I think are just blindingly committed
to ending this program or that program, in order to go home and
tell people they've eliminated it, I think they're going to go
home and wind up with a lot of political embarrassment, because
a lot of people who are community leaders in every community in
this country support the arts. If I look at the people who are
the leaders of the business community, the professional
community, in the city of Seattle, in Tacoma, in my district,
they're all involved in supporting the arts. And I don't think
they're going to look very kindly on a Congress that takes a
kind of reactionary step backwards and eliminates the
endowments.
And I hope we've learned something from the last Congress--
that moderation, judgment, good sense, bipartisan support can
be established, and I hope that we can come together. I hope
the moderate Republicans and the Democrats together can save
the Endowment on the floor of the House. And that's where, when
it came down to it last year, we were able to win that fight.
And I hope that this year we can avoid that and give the
Endowment some support. They used to--your funding used to be
up around $175 million. It was cut back to $99 million. Now the
President, I think properly has said, ``Let's take if up to--
what, $132 million?
Ms. Alexander. $136 million.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, but that's still a significant reduction.
So for those people who genuinely are concerned about balancing
the budget--and I accept that as something we have to achieve--
you made your contribution to that effort. And it's a very
small amount of money when you look at thecontext of this
entire Federal budget. And I just applaud you for the job you've done.
When we went out to Seattle and went to the Central
District and saw all the kids at Garfield High School in the
innercity of Seattle working on arts projects--we've got to
give these kids something to do, other than be in gangs and
street violence. And to eliminate the Endowment would be a
tragedy. And I hope you'll lead the fight so we don't do that.
Mr. Yates. She is.
Ms. Alexander. Thank you so much, Congressman Dicks. And
Seattle is such a wonderful case in point, because I really
think it's the Athens of the West today. Look at just those
three areas that you talk about that got Challenge Grants back
there, and the Seattle Repertory Theatre is now the incubator
for Broadway shows now.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Wamp, and then Mr. Yates.

effect of lower taxes on the arts

Mr. Wamp. Very briefly. I'll try to leave Ms. Alexander out
of a little exchange. Having followed the logic and the facts,
I want to make one quick point. That is, you can't plead the
defense that Alec Baldwin's taxes are too high and not support
tax relief in our country. Taxes haven't gone down in my entire
lifetime. And if Alec Baldwin had fewer taxes to pay, I'll
guarantee you he'd give away more of his money. So I want to
point that out to all of our friends on the left that tax
relief is long overdue.
Mr. Dicks. I do remember the 1981--and I know you're a very
young Congressman, but I think you were around then----
Mr. Wamp. Not that young.
Mr. Dicks [continuing]. And taxes were cut very
dramatically here is this Congress.
Mr. Wamp. Well, taxes have gone up five times since I----
Mr. Yates. I want to point out, she did not say that Alec
Baldwin's taxes are too high.
Ms. Alexander. No, he didn't say that, and he gives a lot
of money away.
Mr. Wamp. Well, she certainly made the inference that Alec
Baldwin was paying exorbitant, very high taxes----
Mr. Yates. No, not at all.
Mr. Dicks. I'm sure with his income he does pay heavy
taxes.
Mr. Wamp. Secondly, for the good of this institution, I
want to remind my friends from the left to the right that if we
had entitlement reform underway in this Congress, we wouldn't
even be here today arguing over funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts. We would fund it without question if we
had entitlement reform. We're talking about planning productive
seeds in our society. Ms. Alexander came to my office and made
the point that this is good for economic development. This is
good for planting seeds that can lead to productivity, vision,
imagination, and things that are good for our society. We can't
continue to let entitlements go unchecked and be able to fund
these programs that many people believe in.
Let's have the courage to address the CPI in a bipartisan
way. Let's have the courage to come together on Medicare and
Social Security so we can afford discretionary spending where
we do serve on the Appropriations Committee.
I yield back.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Yates?
Mr. Yates. Zach, you make a very good argument, except I
don't think it's founded in fact. John Doolittle is not worried
about cutting the entitlements. John Doolittle and his group of
CAT's--I don't know whether you're a member of a Conservative
Action Team--says that it's culture that he's worried about and
that NEA is guiding that culture. He isn't talking about its
being too much money or too little money. He's just talking
about the fact that they're guiding the country along certain
paths. And, of course, he's wrong as we tried to point out when
we went through the procedures there.

youth poetry in the metro

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, you were asking about education
for the young people. There's a little article from, Fort
Lauderdale, January 31st from the Sun Sentinel. ``At age six,
Malik Waleed, from Washington is a published poet--not in those
little magazines nobody buys, but where his work can be seen by
some of the most influential people in the city: on the walls
of the subway station near the Capitol. He's one of 15 children
from city public schools whose work is being displayed in 10
subway stations as a way to promote reading. Curly-headed under
his baseball cap, wearing a nubby sweater, jeans, new black
boots, Malik took part in his first ever poetry reading this
week at the Library of Congress. After a little difficulty
finding him something to stand on to bring him up to the
microphone level''--and here's what he read--``fear is like
underpants that are too tight,'' he read, ``you can't get in
them. Green underpants outside on the grass, underpants you
don't like to wear. Make fear go away. Loosen up.'' [Laughter.]
Afterward, Malik, reticent like other poets who want the
work to speak for itself, wouldn't say what he was afraid of
when he wrote the poem. Malik writes his poems on a computer--
now I'll skip some of it.
And there's another little girl, 13-year-old Natasha, whose
poetry was on the walls, too. ``I'm running into a new year,''
she wrote. ``I let the old years twirl back like a whirlpool.''
The poetry program began in 1994 as a way to encourage
literacy and promote reading. Poems have appeared on ad panels
on Washington busses. This is the first time they've been
displayed in the Metro. The project is sponsored by the Library
of Congress, the Center for the Book, The Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, the D.C. Commission on the Arts, and the
National Endowment for the Arts. There you are; that's one of
the things that they are doing that I think has resulted in
some outstanding poetry being written, Mr. Chairman.

nea support to museum exhibitions

I want to bring out the fact that you cited a few moments
ago that more people attend our chosen museums than attend
sporting events. Millions and millions of Americans are going
to the museums to look at the art shows. There was an article
that appeared in Time Magazine on Dutch treats, a review on the
Vermeer show. I don't mean to be partisan on this, but this is
what it says. ``Two of the casualties of the Republican
Congress's petulant drive to shut down parts of the Government
have been well, you would hardly guess. Not only nine cabinet
departments and Federal agencies, but the artists Winslow Homer
and Johannes Vermeer.''
But it goes on to say ``Meanwhile, at the National Gallery,
lines have been forming at 6:00 a.m. in below freezing weather
and stretching around the block. What are the unticketed
missing? Quite simply, one of the most perfect shows ever
installed in an American museum.'' That's from Time, January 8,
by Robert Hughes.
It was an unfortunate circumstance that closed the museum
at a time when one of the great great shows that ever graced a
museum was being held at the National Gallery. I see you have a
Cezanne catalogue there. That was from where, the Philadelphia
Museum?

indemnity program

Ms. Alexander. That was indeed an Endowment-funded
catalogue. The Endowment also indemnified the show. I think Ed
Able, of the American Association of Museums, testified before
your subcommittee last week, saying that this exhibit would not
have happened without the Endowment's ability.
Mr. Yates. That's correct. Now if the Endowment goes down,
the Indemnity Program goes down too. Does it not?
Ms. Alexander. We do administer it, yes.
Mr. Yates. You do administer it? And what function does the
Indemnity Program perform? I have the impression that if the
Indemnity Program were not in existence, that many of the shows
that take place throughout our country today in rural areas as
well as in big cities, which depend upon the ability of the
museum to ensure their loans would not take place. Is that
correct?
Ms. Alexander. The international loans, yes.
Mr. Yates. Yes. There is no domestic program for indemnity,
it's just for loans from international sources?
Ms. Alexander. Yes. The only partis the international
component of a domestic exhibition.
Mr. Yates. You couldn't have had the Vermeer show, for
example, could you?
Ms. Alexander. We indemnified the Vermeer.
Mr. Yates. That's correct. You probably indemnified the
Cezanne show?
Ms. Alexander. And Byzantium currently at the Metropolitan
in New York. Almost all the shows that come from abroad.
Mr. Yates. If you did not have, if there were no Indemnity
Program, which is a Federal program, correct?
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Yates. If you did not have the Indemnity Program, could
you have had the Vermeer show or the Cezanne show because of
what the insurance costs would likely be?
Ms. Alexander. I doubt it. These are priceless works.
Mr. Yates. To insure them, it would be impossible to insure
them.
Ms. Alexander. Millions, multi-hundreds of millions.
Mr. Yates. For premiums?
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Yates. Just for the premiums themselves.
Ms. Alexander. Well, I don't know the cost actually.
Mr. Yates. Well, yes. Except that, well, you have one Van
Gogh selling for $80 million. You have a Picasso selling for
multiple million dollars and the other masterpieces selling.
They have to have insurance if they are to be borrowed from
other places, as though they could be replaced anyway.

nea and the health of the arts in america

I think you were outstanding in your explanation as to what
is likely to happen in the event that those who seek to kill
the endowment were successful. There is a letter which I have
in my office by Congressman Doolittle, again containing an
article which I think appeared either in the Post or in one of
the magazines, that said that the endowment is not necessary.
Mr. Regula. It was in the Post.
Mr. Yates. Was it the Post?
Mr. Regula. Yes. It was an op-ed piece.
Mr. Yates. That's right. That the Endowment is not
necessary, that private giving would more than replace the
funding that the Endowment now makes available for the arts
throughout the country.
I gathered from your previous testimony here this morning,
that wouldn't be the case in your opinion?
Ms. Alexander. Oh, no, no. I think what the Endowment does,
Congressman, is grant the first little bit of seed money.
Because we adjudicate so carefully the applications like no
other institution in the United States does or can, our ability
to leverage is greater than any other imprimatur. So that's one
reason.
The other is as a convener, as a Federal liaison,
international entity, and also--I have lost my train of
thought. But I think I have said most of what I wanted to
earlier.
Mr. Yates. Usually it's the names that go first.
[Laughter.]
Then the knees go. Then the nouns go.
Ms. Alexander. Maybe I'm war wary.
Mr. Yates. Well, that's understandable. I think she has
covered everything, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Jane, for an outstanding performance.
Outstanding. I wish there were critics here.
Mr. Regula. I have just a couple I would like to ask. Then
Mr. Dicks, if you have any further.
Mr. Dicks. I'm fine.

grants to individuals

Mr. Regula. One of the problems has been the individual
grants, as you well know. That has been the subject of
controversy and criticism over a period of time. Under the
present system, you testified there are no individual grants.
Ms. Alexander. Except for literature and our honorifics--
Heritage Fellows, which are folk and traditional masters and
Jazz Masters.
Mr. Regula. This system will not result in some of the
egregious things, at least as oftentimes perceived, that might
have happened in the past. Would you say that the system is
designed to preclude that?
Ms. Alexander. I----
Mr. Regula. Well, activity or projects that offend a lot of
people.

project funding and accountability

Ms. Alexander. Well, we certainly try funding projects; we
try to be more accountable in telling the American people where
their money is going by adjudicating specific projects rather
than what we did in the past, which was seasonal support. So we
do feel we can tell people better where their money is going.
But as I have always said, sir, you are never going to
close down controversy because not everybody is going to like
everything that you are going to do.
Mr. Regula. I understand that.
Mr. Dicks. Would you yield on that point just for a second?
Mr. Regula. Yes.

grantee reporting requirements

Mr. Dicks. As I understand, when I read your statement, I
think you said one of the problems in the past had been that
sometimes people would come in and say one thing, they were
going to do one thing and then they would do something else.
Ms. Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Dicks. With the money or with the grant. But you now
require reporting during the time of the grant so that if there
is a dramatic change in what's going to be done, at least the
endowment knows about it. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Alexander. Absolutely. If there is a change, sometimes
we ask for the money back if we feel that the new project is
not worthy of support.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.

nea grantee subgrants

Mr. Regula. Do you have any control over sub-grants, where
of course, I think it was in Minneapolis there was a problem?
Ms. Alexander. That, Congressman, was not a sub-grant. That
was a grant to the Walker Arts Center, which is a very
prestigious museum, for some of their performing arts events.
But we do not sub-grant any more.

geographic reach of nea money

Mr. Regula. Okay. Do you have any ideas, and you might want
to do this for the record, as to how to get a greater outreach
if the statement that only two-thirds of the congressional
districts received any help is accurate. If it's an educational
objective, I think there ought to be some ideas about how to
get greater outreach.
Ms. Alexander. The problem is when we have a cut of the
size of 40 percent, something has got to give. We simply can't
reach all the districts we used to reach.
Mr. Regula. So it's not because you don't get applications.
You simply don't have enough to respond to allof them?
Ms. Alexander. We only ask for one application per
organization now because I don't have the staff. I had to cut
the staff by 45 percent, as you remember.
Mr. Regula. Right.

application statistics

Ms. Alexander. We don't have the staff to deal with the
number of applications that used to come in.
This year we had approximately 2,500 applications as
opposed to, in years past, up to 16,500. This year we are only
able to support 912 organizations and a few literature
fellowships. In the past, we supported 2,000 organizations, and
gave up to 3,800 grants.
So you see, a lot had to go. But that's going to happen if
you give us a cut of this size.
Mr. Dicks. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. Regula. Yes.

controversial grants

Mr. Dicks. A lot has been made about controversial grants.
I mean, how many grants? Have you ever added up how many grants
have been made by the Endowment?
Ms. Alexander. Yes. It is in the neighborhood of about
110,000 now over 32 years. We can't give you an accurate
estimate, I mean an accurate count of how many hit the papers
and were subject of investigations. But about 45 to 50 caused
some problems for some people. So that's a pretty good----
Mr. Dicks. That's got to be almost one-fifth of one percent
or less.
Ms. Alexander. Oh it's minuscule.
Mr. Dicks. Minuscule.
Ms. Alexander. Minuscule.
Mr. Dicks. And the arts are always going to be somewhat
controversial.
Ms. Alexander. Yes. Some art somewhere. But we do our best.
Sometimes we do fund less than the best, but we're trying
always through these citizen panels to make sure that we are
awarding what we feel is the best in America.

the arts and the economy

Mr. Dicks. Just one other point. I mean people talk about
the necessity for jobs and employment, I mean there are a lot
of jobs and employment created in the arts. I find that every
community is trying to do more for tourism, to bring people to
their community. Having these outstanding arts institutions is
a great thing for each of these communities. I know people come
from all over the world to Seattle now. When we used to have
the Ring there, people came from everywhere. I think it's
economically very positive for most of the communities.
Ms. Alexander. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Moran?

arts funding in other countries

Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, some
place I saw some figures on what other countries dedicate to
the arts, the proportion of their budgets, I know it's
available some place. I would like for you to submit that for
the record, the proportionate share that other nations are
willing to commit on a per capita basis. If you have any
numbers off hand, you might share them with us now. Otherwise,
I think it would be useful for the record.
[The information follows:]

Governmental Arts Support in Other Countries

The per capita investment in the arts by other countries is
based on widely variable cultural combinations within
countries, thereby creating an unreliable picture not only
between the country and the U.S. but from country to country.
Last year, UNESCO was working on a project that attempted to
document an accurate look at the per capita contribution to the
arts and culture in a broad range of countries; unfortunately,
UNESCO abandoned the project because of political pressure from
countries that did not agree with the UNESCO methodology.
Perhaps the most accurate way of determining levels of
monetary support is to compare the budget of the country's
equivalent to the National Endowment for the Arts. Many
countries have an independent agency that, like the National
Endowment for the Arts, supports and nurtures the national
cultural life. For instance, in 1994, three new agencies were
created out of the Arts Council of Great Britain: the Arts
Council of England, the Arts Council of Wales, and the Scottish
Council (the Arts Council of Northern Ireland already was a
separate body). The Arts Council of England is an autonomous,
nonpolitical organization operating at arm's length from the
government, and reporting to the Secretary of State for
National Heritage. For 1995/1996, The Arts Council of England
received 191.1 million pounds from the Department of National
Heritage, a 2.75 percent increase from the 1994/1995 budget. Of
that amount, 59.5 million pounds will be funded through the ten
regional arts boards (which operate like state arts agencies in
the U.S.), and the Arts Council will directly fund 131.6
million pounds. The majority of the Arts Council's support goes
to regularly funded organizations. Additionally, project grants
are made in dance, drama, mime and puppetry, film, video,
broadcasting, literature, architecture, and other disciplines.
In 1993, the government created a national lottery and gave
the Arts Council of England responsibility for distributing the
arts share of the lottery proceeds in England. Lottery money,
which is expected to raise more than 250 million pounds for the
arts each year, supports capital projects in the arts.
In comparison, the Arts Council of Ireland receives 18.4
million pounds, about 75 percent of which is from the
government and about 25 percent of which is from the national
lottery. The Arts Council's budget represents a steady increase
in government support for the arts from 10.2 million pounds in
1992. Further, a partnership between Aer Lingus and the Arts
Council of Ireland, formed in 1991, subsidizes travel for about
850 Irish artists and arts administrators each year.
The Arts Council of Ireland awarded 800 grants to
individuals and organizations in 1996, and focuses its
resources on increasing the reach of the arts throughout the
country, international activities, artist residencies, arts
festivals, broadcasting opportunities in the arts, and arts
training.
The Canada Council receives funding from three sources--
Parliament (about C$98 million); an endowment fund established
by Parliament in 1957 (now valued at approximately C$150
million); and individual donations and bequests. In 1995, the
Canada Council's budget for grantmaking was C$86.5 million. The
Canada Council awards about 4,200 grants a year--3,000 to arts
organizations and 1,200 to individual artists. The Council, an
autonomous agency, reports to Parliament through the Minister
of Cultural Heritage.
The Australia Council also is an autonomous agency and its
grant review is carried out by peer assessment based on
artistic merit and innovation. In 1996, the Council awarded
grants to 673 individual artists with an average grant of
A$14,500, and 1,432 organizations with average grants of
A$14,500.
Further, it is interesting to note that, in the
Reconstruction and Development Program launched by President
Nelson Mandela in post-apartheid South Africa, one of the
principal goals of the new government was to establish a
government funding policy for the arts, which was a remarkable
statement about the importance of the arts in a country faced
with overwhelming problems in the economy, unemployment,
housing, and health care.

Ms. Alexander. I do not have the numbers because they vary
according to the countries' appropriations at any given time.
But what we give is really a very tiny proportion of what other
countries give.
Mr. Moran. Is ours the lowest of any other civilized
country?
Ms. Alexander. Industrialized nation, yes. Thirty eight
cents per person per year.
Mr. Regula. I mentioned controversy. I have observed that
there is some controversy that goes with sporting events.
Ms. Alexander. Yes indeed. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. We are going to finish this hearing. We have a
vote on. We'll come back and we'll start the Humanities
hearing. So thank you very much for coming.
Ms. Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. There will be a lot of questions submitted for
the record.
Ms. Alexander. Thank you.
[Recess.]
[The following questions and answers were submitted for the
record:]

[Pages 356 - 419--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

National Endowment for the Humanities

=======================================================================

Thursday, March 13, 1997.

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

WITNESS

SHELDON HACKNEY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

[Page 424--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Opening Remarks

Mr. Regula. Well, we're pleased to welcome you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hackney. It's great to be here.
Mr. Regula. I have a commitment at noon, and Mr. Nethercutt
is going to take over the committee as soon as he gets here. I
hope to get back. But rather than have everybody come back,
it's a lot more efficient and everybody is so busy to begin
with, that you can see the degree of interest is somewhat less,
which you probably welcome.
Mr. Hackney. That is a metaphor for the humanities, sir.
Mr. Regula. Why don't you save your opening statement. I
don't know whether we'll get Members back, and I don't know how
quickly Mr. Nethercutt will be here.
Mr. Hackney. If you would, rather than give it, I would
appreciate it if the written version could be entered into the
record.
Mr. Regula. Oh yes. That goes without saying.
[The prepared statement of Sheldon Hackney follows:]

[Pages 426 - 433--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Hackney. I will not tell you what I was going to tell
you, but I will tell you that the budget cuts have been
painful. I worry a lot about things that we're not able to do
that we ought to be doing to preserve and present our cultural
heritage. You have asked us to be entrepreneurial and to do
things differently; we are doing that. We are slimmer; we have
reorganized. We are entrepreneurial. We are looking for
partners in the private sector to support the humanities.
Even at the lower level of funding, despite the fact that I
am worried a lot about it, we are still doing very interesting
and important things.

Supporting Culture In America

Mr. Regula. Why don't we wait for Mr. Nethercutt, and ask
you the same question I asked to the chairman of the NEA. If
you were a minister of culture, how would you suggest that we
enhance, preserve, educate students on the culture of this
Nation, because that's basically what we are talking about--
preserving what we have, enhancing it for future generations,
and educating, especially young people. How do we reach them to
get a better understanding of their culture? How would you
respond to that?
Mr. Hackney. I find that a fascinating question, actually.
I assume that you mean it heuristically: that is, for its value
as a way of getting us to think about this subject.
Mr. Regula. That's correct.
Mr. Hackney. Because we're not likely to have one. Let me
start by saying----
Mr. Regula. We're not going to convert to a parliamentary
system.
Mr. Hackney. That's right.
Mr. Regula. I think you know where I'm headed. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hackney. Yes. Let me say the reason we don't have a
ministry of culture is not only because we don't have a
parliament. It's probably more accurate to say that the reason
we don't have a parliamentary system is because we have the
kind of culture that we have. The Government was designed by
the Founding Fathers to disperse power among the branches of
the Federal Government and among different levels of
Government, per se. The American people are suspicious of all
forms of concentrated power, that's why we like to see power
decentralized and be much more pluralistic. To the extent that
the culture operates here in a self-conscious attempt to
express something about beauty and the meaning of life, the
cultural system in the United States is also dispersed and
decentralized. It operates in the public and private sector,
and at various levels--local, State, and national.
So I think the first thing to imagine, if there were a
ministry of culture, is that its primary function would not be
to fund everything that happened in the world of culture, but
to make sure that the pluralistic system that supports culture
in the United States is healthy, and to do that with grants and
activities in various areas--not to dominate, but really to
facilitate among cultural organizations.
It is particularly important that the institutional base of
cultural activities in the humanities and the arts remain
healthy. One of the things that NEH now does, and the NEA does,
is to help those basic cultural institutions remain viable.
That would be a continuing function of the two agencies. So I
think any sort of ministry of culture here would need to follow
a very balanced program of activities and grants that would
stimulate educational activity, the creation of new knowledge,
some performances, and the preservation of texts and objects of
our culture and to make them available through public programs.
You need to do all of those different activities at the
different levels and in the different regions of the country.

``Synergy'' Between the Humanities and the Arts

Mr. Regula. Do you think there is any synergy between the
humanities and arts?
Mr. Hackney. Yes. There really is. They do fit together,
even though it's very important to realize that they operate,
the humanities community and the arts community, operate
nationally in very different ways. The NEA and the NEH operate
in very different ways. They are in themselves different
cultures.
We don't do the same things, though there are some common
concerns. For instance, we both helped to fund the Byzantium
show that's at the Metropolitan Museum in New York now. We both
have also helped to fund the ``Splendors of Imperial China''
exhibition that's now at the National Gallery of Art. But we
fund different parts of those shows. So there is a
collaboration and not a competition, not an overlap, no
redundancy I would say.

NEH and Humanities Education

Mr. Regula. Out of curiosity, in terms of education, would
it be a fair statement that the humanities might impact more
the post high school level?
Mr. Hackney. No. We do a lot of K-12 education as well.
Sixty percent of the K-12 curriculum is the humanities, so we
need to continue to be active in this area.
Mr. Regula. Of course it was stated earlier that the arts
reach the schools, and it's a very important dimension.
Mr. Hackney. They may do more with pre-school than we do.
We have a hard time getting down to pre-school.
Mr. Regula. But you're trying.
Mr. Hackney. But we're trying. [Laughter.]
Mr. Nethercutt [presiding]. Nice to see you, sir.
Mr. Yates, do you have questions?

NEH Application Review System

Mr. Yates. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hackney, you were in the gallery this morning when I
was asking the questions of Ms. Alexander. The procedures of
NEH are very much like those of NEA, are they not? In the
sense----
Mr. Hackney. Well, in the broad sense in which she was
speaking this morning, yes. We have merit review panels and
outside reviewers.
Mr. Yates. The point I was trying to make in connection
with my interrogation of Ms. Alexander was that the work, the
decisions on grantmaking are made by groups of private citizens
rather than by you as the administrator. You have a supervisory
function, but primarily the grants are reviewed in the first
instance by peer panels, and the second instance by the
Humanities Council. Both of these groups are private citizens
from private life. Is that not correct?
Mr. Hackney. That is correct. Yes.
Mr. Yates. All right. Can you tell me how your procedure
works, applications are filed for grants, and are distributed
to various disciplines within the humanities?
Mr. Hackney. People actually apply to a particular program.
Mr. Yates. You have a pool of panelists, a huge pool of
panelists from all over, made up of people from all over the
country, private citizens, in no way affiliated with the
humanities except that they are subject to a call to act. They
have agreed to act as panelists. Do they have a greater
affiliation than that?
Mr. Hackney. A lot of them will be professionals in the
field. They are not affiliated with NEH or with the Federal
Government. We also have lay people as well as professionals.
Mr. Yates. Well, for example, you would have as your
panelist people like Fred Baumann of Kenyon College.
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Mr. Yates. Rick Beard of the Atlanta History Center;
Barbara Benson, executive director of the Historical Society of
Delaware; Doreen Bolger, director of the Museum of Art of the
Rhode Island School of Design; Wayne Booth, the Department of
English at the University of Chicago, my alma mater; Lloyd
Chapin, vice president and dean of faculty, Eckerd College, and
so forth.
Mr. Hackney. Exactly.
Mr. Yates. These are the panelists on whom you call from
time to time?
Mr. Hackney. Exactly.
Mr. Yates. They review the grants--the applications that
are placed before them for review. They approve some, they
reject some.
Mr. Hackney. Right.
Mr. Yates. Let me put it that way. Those that are approved
then go to your Humanities Council.
Mr. Hackney. Right and the Council also considers
applications that are not recommended for funding.
Mr. Yates. This is made up of members who are appointed by
the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.
Mr. Hackney. Exactly.
Mr. Yates. Is that correct?
Mr. Hackney. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Yates. Okay. When they are through with their job--in
one instance the peer panelists, in the other, the council--of
reviewing the applications, they go back to civilian life?
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Mr. Yates. Then, what they approve comes to you. You have
the function of approving or disapproving their work?
Mr. Hackney. Right.
Mr. Yates. Have you disapproved any of their work?
Mr. Hackney. Yes. But not often.
Mr. Yates. How often would you say?
Mr. Hackney. 99.9 percent of the time I have followed the
recommendation of the merit review system.
Mr. Yates. So when you and the Arts Endowment are accused
of shaping the culture of the country, that's not true, is it?
In the sense that if it's being shaped at all, it's being--in
the approvals that take place, it's being done by citizen
members of the panels and by citizen-members of the council.
Mr. Hackney. Yes.

impact, if neh were eliminated

Mr. Yates. All right. Now I am sorry I came a little late
and I do not know what you told the chairman in respect to what
would happen if you went out of existence.
Mr. Hackney. I have not addressed that question.
Mr. Yates. You haven't addressed that question. Well----
Mr. Hackney. I did say that I was worried.
Mr. Yates. I propound it to you at the present time. You
know that there are those in the Congress who think that you
ought to go out of existence. What would happen in the event
that you did? Just a broad question, I know, and I'm not being
precise, but I'm sure you can address it and state just what
would happen in your opinion.
Mr. Hackney. It would be a great tragedy for our culture.
It is probably easier to imagine the loss that would occur in
terms of some specific things, preservation of real objects to
be one. Even----
Mr. Yates. Preservation of real objects, one. Are you
talking about Chinese vases or about----
Mr. Hackney. Books.
Mr. Yates. I see.
Mr. Hackney. Newspapers and historical objects in museums.
Mr. Yates. All right. I shouldn't interrupt you, but
continue with what else would happen. Is that the sum?
Mr. Hackney. No. That is not the sum substance. I think it
is important to realize that NEH is the single most significant
funder of humanities activities in the U.S.
Mr. Yates. What do you mean by humanities activities?
Mr. Hackney. The creation, preservation, and presentation
of knowledge in the humanities: that is, our history, our
knowledge about literature, history of literature, history of
thought, religion, ethics, language, all of those things that
we do.
Outside of schools and colleges, NEH provides more funding
for humanities activities than any other single entity in the
country. In fact, we provide probably about half of the total
funding for humanities grants in the U.S. The Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation is the largest private foundation that has an
interest and a real program in the humanities. They give away
about $30 million a year. If you take all of the major
foundations in the country that support the humanities,
together they provide only about $50 million a year in funding.
So NEH is quite significant. If you take NEH out of the
system, then public programs in the humanities will suffer. Let
me give you an example here. This past fall there were three
major documentary films that appeared on PBS--the series on
``The West'' that Ken Burns did, the two-part series on
Theodore Roosevelt, called ``TR,'' and the series on----
Mr. Yates. Which I thought was outstanding.
Mr. Hackney. It was terrific.
Mr. Yates. I thought it was terrific.
Mr. Hackney. And I don't know whether you got a chance to
see ``The Great War,'' which was broadcast in November and was
a slightly longer series.
Mr. Yates. Was that World War I?
Mr. Hackney. World War I.
Mr. Yates. Yes.
Mr. Hackney. Which we also funded.
Mr. Yates. I saw it in part. It was a long one.
Mr. Hackney. It was a long one. It was a grim story. It's
hard for one sitting.
Mr. Yates. It was a very good documentary.
Mr. Hackney. Extremely good. Well, those three film series
were funded by NEH three or more years ago. It has taken them
this long to get to the production and presentation stage.
Our Media program has gone from $11 million to about $3
million a year. In future years----
Mr. Yates. From $11 million to $3 million, as a result of
the cuts?
Mr. Hackney. As a result of the cut.

impact of budget cuts

Mr. Yates. Well, while we're on that subject, why don't you
expand on that answer. We know what happened to the film
program. It was reduced from $11 million to $3 million. What
happened to your other programs? Were they reduced as well?
Mr. Hackney. Yes, most of them were. We first set
priorities: One starts with the notion or with the fact that
the State humanities councils, which are very important
affinities of the NEH, were to be held harmless in the cut;
that is, we level-funded them. In fact, they got a slight
funding increase in this past year. I think that was wise for
various reasons, but mainly because they really deliver
humanities programs at the local level in a marvelous way. So,
with State humanities councils getting roughly the same amount
of money and the rest of NEH getting cut, then other programs
had to be cut more.
The Preservation and Access program is a line item in the
appropriations bill. Preservation was protected somewhat
because it is important, but it still went from $22 million to
$17 million, roughly a 25 percent cut. I tried to protect
summer seminars for college teachers and high school teachers
because I think they are absolutely wonderful.
Mr. Yates. That's very important.
Mr. Hackney. And the NEH Fellowship programs. The seminars
and fellowships both got about a 25 percent cut. Having set
those priorities, that meant Public Programs and other programs
in the endowment had to be cut by 60 percent or more.

brittle books and other preservation efforts

Mr. Yates. I forget how long ago it is now. Is it as long
as 10 years ago that we in this committee joined with
universities and other organizations throughout the country to
try to save the important books of the country?
Mr. Hackney. Right. The brittle books preservation effort.
Mr. Yates. The brittle books of the country, which are
being consumed by slow fires. I wish we had samples of them
here to show Members of the committee but I'm sure, George,
that you have books that are old and the pages are falling
apart.
Well, the same things are happening to many of the great
books of the country. The libraries are losing some of their
outstanding volumes. So this committee took onto itself the
task of providing funding for a program of saving those books.
What is happening to that program?
Mr. Hackney. As you recall, Mr. Yates, that was to be a 20-
year program.
Mr. Yates. That's right.
Mr. Hackney. To microfilm three million books.
Mr. Yates. That's right. Three million books, and I
objected at the time I think to the fact that only three
million were being saved, point one. I still haven't found out
who determines what books are going to be saved.
Mr. Hackney. This was begun before my time. It was a great
contribution to American culture. NEH led in the creation of a
national plan whereby institutions apply to us for grants to
microfilm brittle books. We check to make sure that a
collection is being preserved by people who can really do it,
who are professional, and also that it fits into the plan to
make sure that we're not redundant and that we don't save the
same kind of material two or three times.
Mr. Yates. The Library of Congress also has a program going
for this purpose or is the Library of Congress's program a part
of the one in which you are engaged?
Mr. Hackney. They are putting their own collection in
digital form. They have a modest program of helping to digitize
other books that we are helping with.
Mr. Yates. Right. They have their own, as I remember,
having been on the subcommittee that funds them for one
Congress. They have a plant that they are building for this
purpose in one of the cities. You don't know much about that?
Mr. Hackney. No. But I should mention that we also support
regional preservation centers where people can get trained.
Mr. Yates. Right. You also have a program for preserving
the old newspapers.
Mr. Hackney. Yes, indeed. It's similar to the kind of
program that we're funding for the brittle books.
But to go back to your original question, we are on track
in those programs or rather, we were on track until the budget
cut. About 750,000 books will have been microfilmed by the
completion of the projects we are currently supporting. But,
because of the budget reductions of FY 1996/97, 39,000 fewer
books are being microfilmed than the plan calls for and some
804,000 newspaper pages are not being microfilmed. So we are
going to lose a lot of material.
Mr. Yates. Those are being consumed. You won't be able to--
--
Mr. Hackney. They will be lost.
Mr. Yates. In other words, the papers and the books at the
tail end are just going down the drain as the ones beyond the
three million that you originally proposed.
Mr. Hackney. Right.
Mr. Yates. Okay. What else do you want to tell us about
what you do? Is Guinevere Griest here?
Mr. Hackney. No. She retired for the third time.
Mr. Yates. What was her activity? I know you had Mr.
Cannon, and I met a few of the others who I'm sure we'll be
unable to hear from today and whose testimony I always enjoyed
so much. I don't know that the chairman now wants to hear from
them. But I was always enchanted by their testimony,
particularly Ms. Griest, who came in with books all the time.
Mr. Hackney. Yes. Right.
Mr. Yates. I take it you're not a Greek bearing books----
Mr. Hackney. No show and tell. No, but we do have a project
to put all of the surviving texts of classical Greece and Rome
in digital form in a project called Perseus, that will be
available in CD-ROM form, and eventually put on the Internet.

other effects of budget cuts

Mr. Yates. That sounds good. What else do you want to tell
me about how you will suffer, our big country will suffer if
the Humanities goes out of existence?
Mr. Hackney. Well the creative work of individual scholars
will be dramatically curtailed because of the loss of our
fellowships. The summer seminars for teachers, which are the
best professional development programs for teachers in the
humanities now in the country. These would be lost.
Mr. Yates. In the country?
Mr. Hackney. In the country, right. So that will be a
terrible loss.
Mr. Yates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

neh income recovery policy

Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
Mr. Hackney, I just have a couple of questions. Sorry I
missed your testimony. I was pleased to have a chance to talk
with you privately and enjoyed that earlier, I guess it was a
week ago.
Could you for the record, please, sir, recognizing that you
are different than the NEA----
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Mr. Nethercutt. And you do different things, and you are
distinct and should be considered separately, would you comment
on as we discussed, as I discussed this morning with Ms.
Alexander and talked with you a little bit about this concept
of trying to get some commercial benefit back to the endowment
from those who succeed by your grants.
Mr. Hackney. We do have a program, income-recovery policy
that has been in effect for some time. We have recently changed
it to make it a little more aggressive, if you will. The Ken
Burns films are really the only things in our experience that
have earned enough money, but I think there may have been two
or three other projects in the distant past that have also
earned money. We have recovered our costs from the Ken Burns
films there and put them back into his other media projects.
What we have just done with our program income recovery
policy is to take the cap off it. Traditionally, we had limited
our recovery to the amount of money that we had invested in the
project. We have now taken that cap off so that we can, if
there is great commercial value and a revenue stream, share in
income earned up to seven years after the end of the grant
period.
Mr. Nethercutt. There was a witness who testified before
the committee last week, I have forgotten who it was, but she
brought several books, one of which was the new book about
Lincoln, which is a wonderful book.
Mr. Hackney. Written by David Donald.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes. She testified, if I remember
correctly, that he was a recipient of an NEH grant. I believe
that has achieved some commercial success. I have the book.
Mr. Yates. Have you read it? [Laughter.]
Mr. Nethercutt. Stephen Ambrose has also published a study
of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. I have heard that's a
marvelous book. To what extent can we in the future, is this
the kind of recovery that you are talking about, get some sort
of commercial benefit back? I should say benefit back from the
commercial successes, a royalty of some kind.
Mr. Hackney. Yes. We have never had a book that has earned
enough money to come into our policy. The one feature of our
policy that we perhaps ought to re-think is that we allow the
grantee to keep the first $50,000 of program income sort of as
an incentive and as an acknowledgement that they had to go
through a lot of effort. The grantee keeps the first $50,000.
We start recovering with all the income above that amount.
Well, in our previous policy, we recovered only up to the
amount of the grant. NEH fellowships for scholars are only
$30,000, so we never get that back because it's under the
$50,000 threshold. I think that's probably the right policy,
but it may need some rethinking.
One of the interesting features of the question about how
and should we recover from individual scholars who write books
is the question of how much of--I mean they all come to their
subject with a lifetime of learning. We provide research
experience for a few months or longer. So, how much of the book
is ours, if you will, and how much is theirs? The real purpose
of NEH is to facilitate the creation of new knowledge and make
it available to the public. We have to think about whether we
might have a counter-productive effect if we tried to be too
aggressive.

forging partnerships and becoming more entrepreneurial

Mr. Nethercutt. I understand. There are realities to that.
I'm not suggesting it's a simple solution. I am just trying to
figure out a way that it can be employed in some fashion to try
to benefit your agency.
Mr. Hackney. I should say though, Mr. Nethercutt, that in
line with your question this morning, we have been looking for
partners outside the endowment. The Mellon Foundation is one
that we have induced to invest heavily in the humanities
fellowship programs at independent centers for advanced study,
which I am very pleased with. We have some other partners.
There is also a group of people who have come together to
form a 501(c)(3) organization called the National Trust for the
Humanities, which is in existence and does not yet have a
staff, but it is already with volunteer help, raising some
money for the humanities. I would like to pursue this much more
aggressively than we can now. We need to have ``solicit and
invest'' wording added to our authorization legislation to
allow us to really be much more aggressive and to draw in those
private funds to which you would like for us to have access.
Mr. Nethercutt. I just think it makes sense in this, again,
difficult financial climate we find our country in, and the
Congress finds itself in, budget pressures here and there.
We're always trying to squeeze somewhere and are not going to
make everybody happy. It is very difficult.
I have some concern that you are linked so closely both in
budget requests and in hearings with the NEA, because I think
there is a clear distinction. The idea that we want to preserve
books and great books is extremely important and should be
pursued. That's different from promotion of the humanities,
although it does certainly promote the humanities.
As an English major in college, I have some sensitivity to
what you do and why, but yet I am also mindful of the fact that
my responsibility isn't just to you or your agency or what I
like in Government, but what everybody does. That is the
balancing act we go through.
Other than just saying I hope you'll be patient. We'll do
our best on this subcommittee to be fair and do what we can
within our budget requirements, I'll be happy to take any final
comments you have, or yield back to Mr. Yates.
Mr. Yates. May I have one more question?
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, sir.

private sector unlikely to fill void

Mr. Yates. Or two more. Mr. Rawlings, president of Cornell,
appeared before us as an outside witness last week, and said
that there's no way the private sector would be able to provide
the same kind of financial assistance to the humanities that
the Endowment does in the event that you went out of existence.
Do you agree with him on that?
Mr. Hackney. Absolutely. The point also has been made over
and over by William G. Bowen, who is the president of the
Mellon Foundation. He has been rather adamant on the fact. The
1995 Nina Cobb report on philanthropy in the humanities, funded
by the Rockefeller Foundation, also makes the point that it's
unlikely that the private sector could fill in for loss of
Federal funds in the arts and humanities.

importance of neh support for humanities education

Mr. Yates. And with all of the emphasis being made by both
parties now in favor of expanding funding for education, which
the loss of NEH would undercut.
Mr. Hackney. It would undercut humanities education
efforts, absolutely. I think the big interesting new area in
education is going to be professional development for teachers
in the K-12 area. Any dramatic improvement in the performance
of schools in America is going to be done with the teaching
core that's there. With new technology coming in, we need to
ask how those teachers are going to make progress in their own
ability to use the newtechnology and in their teaching
techniques. Professional development opportunities for these teachers
is something that NEH provides through our summer seminar programs.
Mr. Yates. Who would take your place in financing programs
of that type in the event you went out of existence?
Mr. Hackney. I don't think there is any candidate for that.
Mr. Yates. Could the Department of Education do it?
Mr. Hackney. They handle a lot of money. Most of their
money flows through in categorical programs that are governed
by--
Mr. Yates. Especially with grants to States now.
Mr. Hackney. Right. Exactly. So they don't do exactly what
we do.
Mr. Yates. Thank you.

universities and other sources of support

Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, sir. Can the universities take a
greater role in humanities promotion? Do you see that as a
possible outlet in perhaps cooperation with foundations across
the country or industry? Again, in the exploration phase, we're
trying to figure out how to make this all work.
Mr. Hackney. They do a lot now.
Mr. Nethercutt. But I mean do you think more can be done? I
am thinking of the alternative to NEH, if it ever comes to
that.
Mr. Hackney. Well, if NEH did not exist, public humanities
activity basically would be limited to local historical
museums, which would be scrambling for money wherever they
could, but the humanities would mainly exist in schools and
colleges. They do wonderful things. They allow their faculty to
do research, but there would be much less research without NEH,
and it would be much less good. There would be no hope of
public programs. There is no other source for this sort of
funding--such as documentary films for television, which reach
more people than anything else we do--other than NEH.
Mr. Nethercutt. Isn't there a commercialization of the
potential for the public television broadcasting? I know the
Ken Burns Jefferson series, is that sold in cassette?
Mr. Hackney. Indeed, yes.
Mr. Nethercutt. I assume that goes back to PBS though?
Mr. Hackney. Some goes to PBS. I'm not sure what their view
is, but Ken Burns has a non-profit organization to which his
share of those funds go. He puts that into the production of
new films.
Mr. Nethercutt. I see.
Mr. Hackney. So it's all non-profit. Let me make one point
there. It is now sort of easy to imagine Ken Burns generating
funds from his films because he is very good and he is well
known now. NEH started funding his documentaries in the late
1970s, actually, and have supported him a lot. The question is
not so much about how Ken Burns will survive, though he says
that he couldn't do without us, but the question is who is
going to discover the next Ken Burns and make it possible for
them to get a start in making documentary films. We fund a lot
of first-time filmmakers that work very hard to put together a
project from which they can produce a film. That's a very
important function for our culture.
Mr. Nethercutt. I'm sure it's an important function for our
culture. I guess the question is how do you measure the
effectiveness of it and the value to the public. I mean maybe
obscure filmmaker A has done a wonderful work, but if nobody
ever sees it, perhaps nobody in the broad sense, then perhaps
certainly it has value, but minimal value other than to those
who care about the work.
Mr. Hackney. Most of the films that we fund are shown on
PBS. They are very successful, I should say. But they all have
shelf life, which means that they can be used later for
educational purposes even if they don't have a mass audience.
One of the things that I hope the new National Trust for
the Humanities, the 501(c)(3), can do is to raise private funds
to put those films that are now sitting on someone's shelf,
unused and not benefitting anyone, put those in every classroom
in the country so that they can be used for educational
purposes. So, there is an afterlife for those projects.
Mr. Nethercutt. Any more, sir?
Mr. Yates. No. Thank you.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thanks for your testimony.
Mr. Hackney. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr. Nethercutt. The hearing is adjourned.
[The following questions and answers were submitted for the
record:]

[Pages 445 - 496--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

IMLS--Office of Museum Services

=======================================================================

[Pages 499 - 519--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

Commission of Fine Arts

=======================================================================

[Pages 523 - 533--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

=======================================================================

[Pages 537 - 568--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

National Capital Planning Commission

=======================================================================

[Pages 571 - 602--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

Holocaust Memorial Council

=======================================================================

[Pages 605 - 626--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

=======================================================================

Members of Congress

=======================================================================

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

----------

ALASKA INDIAN PROGRAM

WITNESS

HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. Regula [presiding]. The committee will be in session.
We are happy to have the chairman, the big chairman of the
Resources Committee and the gentleman from the biggest State in
the Union.
Mr. Young. Not quite as pretty as the State the chairman is
from, but very pretty and quite large.
Mr. Regula. Well, it's quite nice.
Mr. Young. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to testify on
Alaska Native programs. I have been doing this for a long time,
as long as you and I have been here. I have a longer writter
statement that has been submitted for the committee record.
The Indian Health Service is crucially important, Mr.
Chairman, to my constituents in Alaska. Since Congress amended
the Indian Self-Determination Act, the Indian Health Service,
IHS, has entered into self-governance compacts with tribes.
Alaska entered into an All Alaska Compact with the IHS, which
has provided a more direct and improved service to Alaska
natives and has greatly reduced administrative costs of having
the IHS administer these services. I fully support the
appropriations within the IHS self-governance compact fund to
continue for the All Alaska Compact.
One thing, Mr. Chairman, not in my written statement. At
some point along the line we're going to have to look into the
compacting process. Alaska has tried to compact with the IHS,
reached an agreement, signed an agreement. Then the IHS delay
and delay and delay. It's a terrible burden upon those tribes
who thought they were getting the money.
Mr. Regula. You like the compacting programs?
Mr. Young. Yes. They work well. Other than out in
Rockville, Maryland, where the IHS has a little hold-up on the
money. They like to hang onto the money too long. Once the
agreement is reached, we ought to release the funds to the
compacts because it does work.
Alaska Native Medical Center--I greatly appreciate the
funding allocated for the completion of Alaska Native Medical
Center in Anchorage, Alaska, which will admit its first
patients on June 2, 1997. Our great concern is over the
administration's plan to reduce the second fiscal year of
funding for this hospital to $4.8 million. I respectfully
request that this subcommittee increase funding for fiscal year
1998 back to the original $11.3 million to meet the needs set
forth in the planned level of operational needs.
A little explanation there, Mr. Chairman. We appropriated
the money for this hospital. It was programmed over a period of
time where they had to have operating funds. Now the
administration is proposing to cut back on it. I think it's
like building and buying an airplane and not getting any gas
for it. You can't run a hospital unless you have the
appropriate money for it.
This is something that I am encouraging here, the General
Accounting Office study of Venetie case impact. Currently, the
health care delivery in Alaska has been provided by 12 regional
non-profit health corporations. However, within the last three
years, IHS has allowed several villages to break away from the
regional concept to administer their own health programs and
receive funding directly from IHS. While I admire the desire
for direct contracting with IHS, it is absurd that the IHS
would consider entering into 226 compacts with the villages and
tribes of Alaska. I respectfully request that language be added
to the appropriations bill that would provide for a General
Accounting Office, GAO, study on the report of the Venetie
decision on health care delivery systems in Alaska prior to any
restructuring of the regional health care system. Appendix A of
my testimony is language for your consideration of the GAO
report on the impact of the Venetie case in Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, I considered doing this in my committee
myself, but I do not have jurisdiction over the appropriations
or any part of it. So I thought it would be appropriate for
your committee to ask for this study, this little breakdown.
Indeed, it's something no one has ever done before. It should
recognize 226 new tribes in the State, more tribes than we have
in all the rest of the lower 48.
Mr. Regula. Two hundred and twenty six?
Mr. Young. Tribes. Every village is recognized as a tribe
in the State. What has happened, you diminish the effects upon
the village to provide health care if you break it down into
small independent units. It's an administrative nightmare. I
don't know why Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary of the Interior
for Indian Affairs, did it. She did have the authority, we
didn't think she did. But she has caused I think, chaos. Before
they change the health care delivery system, because I am
interested in the patients more so than the political
ramifications of this. The patients can not receive health care
from a small village of say 55 people, which is considered a
tribe. But they would probably apply for it and receive the
money and the people, the patients would get no adequate health
care.
Alaska sanitation needs, water and sewer facilities.
Reports have stated Alaska has identified unmet sanitation
needs exceeding $1 billion. This is based on the non-existence
of water and sewer facilities in more than 85 percent of the
rural villages of Alaska. As the leading Nation of the world,
our 49th State shouldn't be experiencing such Third World
conditions. I urge that we maintain or enhance the IHS
appropriations of $90 million for Alaska for sanitization
facilities construction in 1998. Currently the Alaskan share is
approximately $20 million. It is very important to keep the
level that has been recommended.
Alaska patient travel funds. This is one that's unique to
Alaska. Patient travel is an expensive cost which Alaska must
incur each year due to geographic and non-existence of
interstate road system in the State. Rural Alaskan 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 the subcommittee to review the IHS's budget and include a
separate appropriation of $5 million for patient travel costs
in Alaska.
If it sounds like I am contradicting myself, Mr. Chairman,
when I say we can't do it in these villages, we just do not
have the proper equipment. What happens in a lot of the smaller
villages, people that have something that could be treated very
quickly and solved just can't afford to fly in and get it taken
care of.
Alaska Legal Services Corporation, Mr. Chairman, you know I
rarely support any project with attorneys involved. However, I
strongly believe that representation Alaska Legal Services
provides for people who cannot afford their own attorneys is
justified. It's hard for me to say this as a conservative, but
in fact, one of the problems we have had inthe rural areas is
that there was no legal people who would like to go out. Alaska Legal
Services takes care of that.
Bering Sea Fishermen, this is something dear to my heart.
This subcommittee included $800,000 in its Fiscal Year 1997
budget to address the Chum Salmon fishery disaster in the
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim areas of Alaska. The Bering Sea
Fishermen's Association, on behalf of all its membership, is
requesting $1 million. I know that's a lot, but this is one of
the biggest things we have to develop the economy in the State.
I support the request to design and implement cooperative
projects with Alaska Native villages in Kotzebue Sound, Norton
Sound, and Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers, et cetera. I
respectfully urge this subcommittee to honor this request to
help fund fishery development in economically deprived regions
of my State.
Indian Child Welfare case needs justification. In the past,
BIA has not provided adequate data to support or justify budget
requests on child welfare services and needs for all tribes. I
am requesting that this subcommittee require a detailed budget
justification report from the Bureau on child welfare cases
which include the following: Types of services provided, number
of children and families to whom services were provided, number
of out-of-home placements of children, average length of time
children are in out-of-home placements, numbers of children who
are able to receive performance through family reunification,
legal guardianship, kinship or adoption.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, 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 natives, the Alaska Native
Medical Center in Anchorage, a GAO study which I think is
crucially important to health care delivery in Alaska, a report
on Indian child welfare cases, the Alaska Legal Services Native
Allotment representation and funding to develop and improve a
fisheries in the most economically deprived regions in my
State. Additionally, I am briefly listing the requests I have
received from Alaska and ask this subcommittee to consider each
one of those requests.
Lastly, I would like to add my support to the Institute of
American Indian and Alaska Native Arts for their appropriations
request. They are continuing in their efforts towards a move to
their own campus. I support these efforts and respectfully ask
the subcommittee to honor their appropriations request of $5.5
million for operations until they have moved to their permanent
campus.
Mr. Chairman, that's within five minutes.
Mr. Regula. Thank you. You didn't mention Tongass.
Mr. Young. Unfortunately, that's not under the
appropriation process. That's something you and I can talk
about later on. As you know, we have lost all our mills. We
have shut down everything, and now this administration is
trying to shut down the remaining saw mills. We have got about
9 million acres of dead trees and it's very very discouraging.
Mr. Regula. One question. Our next witness isn't here yet.
Yesterday Ada Deer was here for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The issue came up, what impact will the welfare reform bill
have on the Indians, because employment is not readily
available. Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Young. Well, two things have happened. On the welfare,
at my instigation, we have passed the flexibility to the State
to help delivery systems, using an example, a non-profit
corporation to administer the welfare program in the rural
areas that have no employment. We believe it's adequate. There
still have to be efforts put forth to receive money on the
welfare rolls, but one of the biggest problems we have is we
don't want the natives moving out of the rural areas back into
the urban areas creating a ghetto. We think we can do this by
letting them have work programs in the communities for
community improvement run by the non-profit corporations.
Mr. Regula. So you are really trying to address what you
see as the coming problems.
Mr. Young. Yes. And it will be a problem. You have to
understand two things that have occurred, Mr. Chairman, and a
little history, because we do have a little time. We never had
a problem until the Government got involved in this about 25
years ago, actually 30 years ago. There was no welfare and
everybody took care of themselves. We believe that can be done
again. The welfare system is a very debilitating system for a
lot of young people. It has caused a tremendous, just like you
read in the papers here, a tremendous racial, unmarried
mothers, family breakdown, heavy drinking, heavy drug use, a
lot of what we call funny money, because no one has to work for
it. We believe this is a better way. Most of the native groups
support the concept. They know it's not working. They don't
want to cold turkey it. We can't do that because there's no
jobs available in those rural areas. That's what we are trying
to do.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Young. Please re-look at my testimony, Mr. Chairman,
and you and I will talk on the private side on some of these
things that we want to do.
Any other questions?
Mr. Regula. No.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 634 - 637--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

U.S. FOREST SERVICE--COLUMBIA GORGE

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--METROPOLITAN GREENSPACES RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM

WITNESS

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON

Mr. Regula. Okay. Your statement will be put in the record
in full. I hope you can summarize for us.
Mr. Blumenauer. I'll try my best, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I am impressed with the wide range of people that you are
patiently listening to today.
Mr. Regula. Yes. We have got quite a round up here.
Mr. Blumenauer. I guess basically what I wanted to do was
to spend less than my five minutes to reinforce the major point
of my testimony, which is that the investment in the green
infrastructure of the Columbia River Gorge is a unique
opportunity for the Federal Government. It is a geologic wonder
that is world famous. Investment that the Federal Government
makes in the Columbia River Gorge----
Mr. Regula. Investment in what? What kind of investment?
Mr. Blumenauer. Well, I am glad you asked me that, Mr.
Chairman. There are 292,000 acres in the Columbia Gorge, as
well as a series of small scale parks, greenways and trails.
What I am here today is to seek this subcommittee's investment
in following through on the purchase of land in the gorge
that's in sensitive areas. Part of what we have done in the
gorge is develop a long-term management plan of the Federal
lands in that area and to promote partnership between the local
governments and the private land owners. The main Federal
components of the gorge partnership are the acquisition of
sensitive lands and some modest payment to the counties to
assist in the economic development for the changes.
Mr. Regula. Once we have acquired it, who manages it?
Mr. Blumenauer. It's Forest Service.
Mr. Regula. So it would be still Federal management?
Mr. Blumenauer. That's correct.
Mr. Regula. The problem is that in tight budgets, every
time we buy something we end up with some ongoing management
expense. That is why we are trying to make sure that we only
buy what is vitally important.
Mr. Blumenauer. I appreciate that, and why I am hoping that
the committee will give a little attention in terms of what is
going on in the Columbia River Gorge. For instance, Multnomah
Falls is the most visited attraction in the entire national
forest system. We have already helped secure 30,000 acres that
are critical parcels in Washington and Oregon, but this work is
far from over.
The president's budget suggests $1.5 million for land
acquisition.
Mr. Regula. In the gorge?
Mr. Blumenauer. In the gorge. There are at least $5 million
in critical properties that can and should be acquired in the
course of the next Fiscal Year, to maintain their protected
status. Time is of the essence because the act gives the Forest
Service a limited amount of time to purchase the available
property.
Mr. Regula. Are these properties presently owned by timber
companies?
Mr. Blumenauer. In some cases. There are a variety of
private ownerships. But if we don't move quickly, they will
revert to a less protected status. Frankly, you are going to
hear lots of requests for money. I saw the list. But in terms
of the impact, the national impact for this scenic and natural
area, you will have more impact for fewer dollars than any
place else. The $5 million actually represents a reduction over
what has happened in the past.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Blumenauer. The last piece speaks to the request the
president has for $300,000 for Metropolitan Greenspaces. These
are the regional government has identified through a
comprehensive planning process, opportunities to leverage this
with private contributions. It has a lot of impact for the
education of young people about natural areas and further
preservation of green space in the metropolitan area. My
testimony goes on in some length of why the $300,000 is a
minimum investment and has a great deal of pay back.
Mr. Regula. Well, we are going to do the best we can. We
have a limited amount for land acquisition as you know. We'll
try to meet the challenges. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much for your courtesy.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 640 - 643--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

WITNESS

HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
IDAHO

Mr. Regula. Mr. Crapo, I think you are next.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. We'll put your statement in the record.
Mr. Crapo. I appreciate that. I'll summarize it very
quickly. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today
and would like you to pay special attention to some of the
projects that I have identified in my statement. In particular,
the Sawtooth National Recreation Area easements.
The Sawtooth National Recreation Area is an area that was
established in Idaho in 1972 to ensure the preservation and
protection of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral and fish
and wildlife values there. It's a place, if you ever do get to
Idaho, you ought to see. It's one of the most grand and
beautiful places in the world.
A part of that whole process was that there's a lot of
private land there.
Mr. Regula. Are these in-holdings?
Mr. Crapo. In-holdings, yes. It was intended over time that
the private land would not be purchased, but that scenic
easements be purchased so that the value was protected. That
effort kind of got forgotten over time. Recently some
developments, actual proposed developments started taking place
there because there was no progress being made. So the land
owners decided well, if a lot of the public movement to stop us
from grazing our cattle takes place and if the easement process
is not proceeding, we will develop our land. Last year, we were
able to get $800,000 as a start to head off some very
significant possible problems. This year, we are asking that we
continue that process. It looks like over time we are going to
need around $9 million.
Mr. Regula. What are the scenic easements? What kind of
cost breakdown?
Mr. Crapo. It is in different amounts. I'm sorry I can't
give you the amounts. The Forest Service has actually
categorized them in category 1, category 2, and category 3.
Some are actually quite expensive.
Mr. Regula. This limits it to the present usage?
Mr. Crapo. That's right. It basically requires that the
current scenic values be preserved. They are allowed to graze
cattle, the current usage, and actually construct buildings
that are consistent with the scenic and historic times.
Mr. Regula. So they could run a dude ranch, for example?
Mr. Crapo. I believe that would be correct.
Mr. Regula. Or a farm or a ranching operation?
Mr. Crapo. Yes. What we are asking is that this year that
$1.8 million has been requested by the president. We would like
to go as far beyond that as we can and treat the $1.8 million
as a bare minimum in the request. We do ultimately need $9.2
million to make the purchases. This again is a very critical
and important project in Idaho, and I would encourage your
attention to that.
Mr. Regula. You get a bargain, in a sense. You don't have
to buy the title to the land and even the use of it enhances it
in a way. I assume that we don't get into any costs beyond
purchasing the easement?
Mr. Crapo. Is still under private ownership.
Mr. Regula. In the private sector.
Mr. Crapo. And Mr. Chairman, this is one of those win-wins,
where everyone, the private land owners are willing buyer-
willing seller arrangements. The environmental community is
very supportive of this. The people across the State of Idaho,
and I assume the Nation, are very supportive of this type of
protection.
Mr. Regula. Would the State be able to put up any money if
we would condition a larger amount on a match?
Mr. Crapo. You know, I have not checked with the State on
that, but I would be glad to ask.
Mr. Regula. Would you? Because what we are trying to do is
leverage our dollars, whether it's a visitor's center, whether
it's land acquisition, by getting the States, particularly to
come up with part of the money. It's a possibility. I wish you
would check and get back to us.
Mr. Crapo. I will investigate that. Your suggestion that
perhaps a larger amount would be made available if there were
some matching monies from the State?
Mr. Regula. At least it would be an inducement for us to do
as much as we can. We would condition whatever we put in the
bill on a match from the State if they are interested, because
obviously it would double the amount of acreage we could do.
Mr. Crapo. I would be glad to check into that. I would hope
that the committee would look at least at the $1.8 million as
the president has requested.
Mr. Regula. Of course we don't know what we are going to
have. As you well know, we don't have the $602 billion at this
juncture. Some negotiation is going on on the budget issue
right now.
Mr. Crapo. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention
today. I appreciate your interest in this issue. It's a very
important issue.
Let me just quickly get the other items I have.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Crapo. The Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument is an
important request. That is covered in my testimony. The
Peregrine Fund we have been working with you on for some time.
I am just asking you to continue the efforts there that we have
already been working with you on.
The Raptor Research Facility is a very important facility
of Boise State University. We are requesting $2.847 million for
the design and construction of a Raptor Research Technical
Assistance Center at the university.
Mr. Regula. Has this got some matching money in it?
Mr. Crapo. That, I do not believe. Well, yes and no. This
is a participation with different groups, the BLM, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the
Peregrine Fund, the Boise State University would also be
assisting, Idaho State University and the University of Idaho.
I do not know the details of how the funding is--
Mr. Regula. Does this facility serve all those agencies?
Mr. Crapo. It serves all of those groups and agencies.
Mr. Regula. It's at a university?
Mr. Crapo. It's at a university.
Then finally, as I am trying to hurry through here, we have
been working very hard within the Sun Valley area, again in the
Sawtooth National Recreation Area, to get a dedicated trail
constructed. The authorization is in place and we have been
working closely between all of the Federal and State agencies.
We need to now move ahead with some of the already authorized
operations with the $350,000 grant for trail construction, and
$100,000 for recreational structures. Again, supporting the
tremendous environmental heritage we have in that area that is
a national recreation area.
Mr. Regula. I assume you are getting more and morepressure
for development out there.
Mr. Crapo. Much more.
Mr. Regula. That seems to be the pattern in Colorado, Utah,
Idaho, that people are moving out there.
Mr. Crapo. That is true. One of the things that is
important is that we provide the upkeep and the continued
maintenance of these trails for the public as they come out to
participate and to see the tremendous scenic beauties that we
have set aside as a national recreation area.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Wamp, do you have any questions? Interrupt
any time if you have questions.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 647 - 649--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

U.S. FOREST SERVICE--MIDEWIN NATIONAL TALLGRASS PRAIRIE

WITNESS

HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS

Mr. Regula. Mr. Weller? Jerry?
Mr. Weller. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see
you all. I appreciate the opportunity to have a chance to be
before your subcommittee and to once again make a presentation
regarding a very important priority for the State of Illinois,
a bipartisan priority for the State of Illinois.
As you probably recall, Mr. Chairman, thanks to your
assistance, and of course this Congress, this past year the
former Joliet Arsenal military facility in my district was
converted to peace-time uses. The key components of this
redevelopment plan, this conversion of the Joliet Arsenal was
to create a 19,000 acre conservation area, the first ever
national tallgrass prairie, which is the largest tallgrass
prairie, a national veterans cemetery, and two industrial
parks.
Mr. Regula. Did you get buildings that were useful?
Mr. Weller. The buildings at the facility, most of them are
in disrepair because of their age and the Army, while they were
not being used, did not maintain them as well as one would
hope. There is of course the cost of upgrading those that would
be used for purposes.
I do want to note that the first 15,000 acres of the land
transfer has occurred out of that 19,000 acres. There is some
environmental clean-up costs because of munitions production at
the facility. As that land is being assessed for that purpose,
the remaining land will be established. But the prairie is
really a key component of our efforts to preserve land for
conservation and open space in an area that is rapidly
suburbanizing and rapidly developing. Of course it's already
been nicknamed the Yellowstone of the midwest by many of those
that are very active. It's an important part of our effort to
preserve open space and conservation.
I noted in the last two years that your committee has
invested $4 million in initial development costs for the
tallgrass prairie. Now that the Midewin National Tallgrass
Prairie has been formally established, land has been
transferred, it's necessary to begin to make the prairie park
more visitor friendly, and also to begin natural habitat
restoration. Today I wanted to submit formally a request of
$4.7 million for the coming Fiscal Year, and just kind of break
down how these dollars would be allocated.
First, $1.6 million would be used for operation costs, as
well as restoration and habitat projects, $1.2 million is
needed for recreational construction. That would include
restrooms, parking lots, trails, and of course a picnic area.
As I noted, the Yellowstone of the Midwest, Midewin National
Tallgrass Prairie, is expected to attract thousands of
visitors. Of course when it is potentially opened to the public
sometime in the near future we need these facilities to
accommodate them.
Also we would like to mention an addition $1.9 million is
requested as part of this overall $4.7 million which is
requested for additional land acquisition. There are two
closeby small parcels of property, one 11 acres, which would
cost approximately $100,000 to acquire, a second which is
almost 900 acres is expected to cost about $1.8 million. In
this case we have willing sellers, local community and local
governments are supportive of this land acquisition. It may be
a valuable asset to add to the Midewin macrosite, and continue
to protect valuable wetlands and open space.
I particularly want to note that this project has had
overwhelming bipartisan support. I have attached to my
testimony a letter signed by the entire Illinois delegation of
both Republicans and Democrats. Of course Mr. Yates, the
ranking Member of this subcommittee has been a tireless
advocate of the Midewin Prairie, and a real leader in our
efforts to obtain funds. The continued development of this
project not only has included Federal dollars and Federal
investment, but I do want to note that already 1,200 hours of
volunteer time have been contributed by local volunteers. We
have also received some substantial contributions from the
private sector, from private foundations, corporations,
conservation organizations, which have contributed to the
efforts. So it's been both a public and private partnership.
Mr. Regula. As I understand, the governor has been very
supportive too in giving staffing and so on.
Mr. Weller. Yes. The Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, formerly known as Department of Conservation, is in
a partnership arrangement with the Forest Service. Of course
not only is public-private, but also State-Federal cooperation.
Mr. Regula. As you know now, we have this program of fee
collections in the parks. Does this lend itself to that? Is
there one entrance, for example, where we could get a modest
fee and the money goes back?
Mr. Weller. The enacting legislation gives the Forest
Service the authority to collect fees. They do intend to pursue
that authority as helping support the----
Mr. Regula. One last question. Suppose we would condition
some of this on a match from the State. Do you think this would
help leverage? Could you get the State to come up with some
money to expand what we could do? We are trying to leverage
every dollar.
Mr. Weller. I understand that. Of course the State of
Illinois is now going through an education funding reform,
where they are shifting a lot of funds to our schools as part
of our property tax swap. Perhaps your State of Ohio is doing
the same thing. So that has set priorities, and in the last
couple of years, the Department of Natural Resources has not
been in a land acquisition mode now because of that shift. But
we can certainly explore that.
Mr. Regula. Why don't you talk to the governor and get back
to us because this is an asset for the State and if we could
get the State to help some we could leverage the dollars we
have. As you know, it's tight. Particularly acquiring land that
might otherwise get away, you talk about ancillary, this
acreage that maybe ought to be included.
Mr. Weller. Really what's so important about this is the
Chicago suburban area growth, and suburban sprawl comes in.
This is a key effort to protect the valuable open space, which
also enhances the property that is developed I guess you would
say. But also the point is, is that timing is important for us,
that we move forward.
I really appreciate the support your subcommittee under
your leadership has given in the last few years.
Mr. Regula. We want to do that. We want to continue to try
to help here, but as I say, if we can get some help from the
State, it expands what we can accomplish. So give it a try.
Mr. Weller. I will pursue that with Governor Edgar and the
Department of Natural Resources and see what opportunities are
there. Of course I do wish to once again request that full $4.7
million. I appreciate the support you have given. You have been
terrific, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you and
Mr. Yates and Mr. Wamp and other Members of the subcommittee.
Mr. Regula. You might include Mr. Kasich in this equation
too.
Mr. Weller. We would love to have him come visit.
Mr. Regula. He simply needs to get us a good allocation
through the budget process. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Weller. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 653 - 656--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

BAIR ISLAND/DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

WITNESS

HON. ANNA ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Regula. Ms. Eshoo?
Ms. Eshoo. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Your statement will be put in the record.
Ms. Eshoo. All right. I will try to make very good use of
your time and be as brief as possible.
I am very excited to be here today to speak to you about
the $10 million appropriation that we are requesting from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund to make Bair Island a part of
the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
I have come before this subcommittee many times requesting
an appropriation to buy Bair Island. But while the purchase had
been authorized, the owner of the property was not willing to
sell. You always said to me do you have a willing seller, and
we did not. All of that changed in January of this year, Mr.
Chairman, when Kumagai Guma Company, Ltd., which owned the land
agreed to sell it. Peninsula Open Space Trust, a non-profit
group dedicated to conservation, purchased the land for $15
million. I would like to acknowledge the presence of Audrey
Rust, who you may have noticed when I walked in, I gave her a
great hug. She is the executive director of POST, and we really
consider her a super woman in the Bay area because it was
through her deft negotiations with the corporation that they
agreed to sell. POST also agreed, POST made a commitment to
raise $5 million of the $15 million purchase price from the
private community, from the private sector toward the total
purchase price. So that's why even though $15 million is the
purchase price, I am requesting today $10 million for Fiscal
Year 1998 in the Interior Appropriations Bill to cover the
remainder of it.
In terms of management, the Fish and Wildlife Service is
now staffing and covering the maintenance. They are prepared to
continue doing that of the refuge. So I think that we are
bringing forward a very pragmatic sensible package because
we're not asking the Federal Government to pick up the tab for
everything.
Mr. Regula. One, would the State put some money in if we
conditioned ours on their participation?
Ms. Eshoo. I am not sure. I am not sure. I think that to
date, there has been some talk as to the public access and what
might be done with some State funds, but it was premature,
because any kind of planning for public access, et cetera,
really needs to come after the lands have been procured.
Mr. Regula. Is this truly an island or is there a causeway?
How do you access it?
Ms. Eshoo. Well, there is access. There is some access in
terms of city of Redwood City. Audrey?
Ms. Rust. There is a bridge from a major highway over
tothis island. That's the only access.
Ms. Eshoo. It's the only access there is.
Mr. Regula. How many acres are involved?
Ms. Eshoo. Sixteen hundred.
Mr. Regula. Sixteen hundred acres. Is it all marsh?
Ms. Eshoo. It's all wetlands.
Mr. Regula. So all wetlands.
Ms. Eshoo. This is really the last portion of wetlands of
the Bay area that remains for preservation. That is why it
would be moving over into what has already been designated by
the Congress, the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge. It is a very
unique opportunity for us. I think that it is structured really
very well. It is easily restorable habitat. If you were to come
to the Bay area, and of course we would welcome you there, you
could walk around the islands, paddle the marshes in a canoe,
you can see the brush that's alive with animals. The islands do
provide a home to 125 different species of birds. I can go into
all of that.
Mr. Regula. No.
Ms. Eshoo. I will submit that for the record.
Mr. Regula. The one thing I would like you to do is check
with the State of California and get back to us, to see what
the possibilities are of leveraging this. So we'll wait until
we hear from you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 659 - 660--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Ms. Eshoo. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to also draw
attention to the broad base of support that this project
enjoys. The local community obviously has made a huge
commitment. They will certainly follow up with that. There are
dozens of letters that have come to you and the subcommittee
Members. I would also like to submit for the record statements
by Audrey Rust, who is the executive director of POST, Florence
La Riviere, chairperson of the Citizen's Committee to Complete
the Refuge, and a letter from the Bay area congressional
delegation in support of the appropriation. This is a top
priority for us in the Bay area. We are again, very excited
this year because we have worked hard to put something together
that is both fair and marketable, as it were to the committee.
Mr. Regula. Let's see if you can market it to the State.
Ms. Eshoo. All right. Here is something that Audrey just
gave me. Bair Island, well we did it.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you very much.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 662 - 663--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

U.S. FOREST SERVICE--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

WITNESS

HON. ROBERT F. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON

Mr. Regula. Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, sir, Your Honor.
Mr. Regula. Too much of that gets expensive when you put
those adjectives in there.
Mr. Smith. I commend your patience for listening to all of
us.
Mr. Regula. We've got quite a day.
Mr. Smith. I don't know how you do it. I'll make this as
concise as possible.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have a couple of
thoughts that primarily surround the question of how we manage
timber in America. You have had the opportunity to go out to
the west and witness first hand what we are and are not doing.
It's in the past been dependent upon science, the gang of four
was brought together in the Agriculture Committee, you recall,
in the mid-1980s, which prompted option 9 by the Clinton
Administration, which prompted the no management concept.
Since that time, we recognize that dependence upon science
is vitally important. The result is but a scientific panel
discussion of forestry in America by nine scientists, plus one
Forest Service liaison person. It took them a year. Charles
Taylor was really the instigator of this program. I want to
leave this with you for your staff to look at, Mr. Chairman.
But basically what they do, they don't recommend anything. They
suggest eight options. The most interesting one I think is the
one that says if you do nothing, as we are doing, setting aside
forest for a particular purpose, if you do not enter those
forests or you don't manage them, you lose everything
environmentally that you want to obtain. You lose endangered
species. You lose stream bank protection. You lose quality and
quantity of water. You will ultimately lose all the timber.
So the timber resource is in a state of active change. The
less you do, the more chance to have to lose all of the things
that we want to protect.
Mr. Regula. So you are saying we need good management.
Mr. Smith. What we need is management. That's the first
step because there are those who say no, no, no, that we can't
enter those forests for any reason. You have heard those.
The other thing I want to suggest is that I have been
working closely with our governor in Oregon. We're trying to
identify model areas where we can go in and make something
happen on the ground that will prove that management is a good
idea and that the Forest Service is trustworthy again. The
Forest Service has lost its place really in the minds of many
people, caused by a lot of things.
But for instance, you are familiar with a study that has
been ongoing in Oregon which was called the Eastside Project,
four years, $35 million. It still hasn't been completed. We are
saying for a very small amount, why aren't we putting that
money on the ground where we know that if we for instance, pre-
commercially thin, take those few loadings off the floor of the
forest, take the dead and dying timber out, then you'll have
less forest fire, you'll have less reason to appropriate all
this money for fire protection.
Mr. Regula. I understand that.
Mr. Smith. You know exactly what I am talking about. So I
am not prepared yet to make a request, but I just wanted to
prepare you because we want to put money on the ground through
the Forest Service, people that we have educated to do this.
Mr. Regula. To enhance the management?
Mr. Smith. Exactly. We don't want any more studies. We
think we ought to end the studies.
Mr. Regula. I agree with that.
Mr. Smith. Let's put some money on the ground where it
belongs, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Smith. Thank you so much.
Mr. Regula. I think we're going to have a meeting on our
other project one of these days.
Mr. Smith. Yes, we are.
Mr. Regula. We can tell part of this story there.
Mr. Smith. Yes, we could. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. It's not well understood at all.
[The information follows:]

[Page 666--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

SANDY HOOK/GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

WITNESS

HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
Mr. Regula. Mr. Pallone? Your statement will be part of the
record. We appreciate your summarizing.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will. I'll just
basically briefly go through the projects and give you the
money amounts and why I think they are important.
Again, I know you and the committee and the subcommittee
have been very helpful to me and the projects in my district in
the past. I certainly appreciate that. I wanted to talk
initially about the Sandy Hook Unit, which is part of Gateway
National Recreation Area. I have requested $5.935 million for
park operations at Sandy Hook. I understand that that's usually
part of a larger pot of money, but that's the amount that is
estimated as needed for Sandy Hook.
Most importantly at Sandy Hook though, and I have mentioned
this in the past, is that the access to the Hook is really
jeopardized at this point because it's very narrow and it gets
washed over by the ocean and the Bay where they meet. You put
some language in the bill last year that basically asked the
Park Service to address this problem. But now they estimate
that they would need $4.8 million for the next Fiscal Year,
which is in the president's budget.
Mr. Regula. Is this beach replenishment?
Mr. Pallone. It is basically no, it is not. It's not part
of replenishment. That's in Energy and Water. This is to
construct a pipeline from the northern end of the Hook to the
critical zone. They pump sand from the northern end through the
pipeline to replenish the area where the critical zone is. But
what you are really doing is paying for the pipe essentially.
Then also on Sandy Hook is the lighthouse, the oldest
actual lighthouse in the United States. That is in need of
help. We have asked for $884,000 in the coming Fiscal Year for
stabilization and rehab of the lighthouse.
Mr. Regula. Is it open now? Is there an exhibit?
Mr. Pallone. It's not open as an exhibit. It is actually an
operational lighthouse.
Mr. Regula. Oh is it?
Mr. Pallone. It's the main lighthouse used by the Coast
Guard.
Mr. Regula. Should they rehab it then?
Mr. Pallone. The way I understand it, the Park Service owns
the lighthouse and it's not open to the public because of its
condition. So this would serve to rehabilitate the lighthouse
and set up a little museum area. But the actual beam is
operated by the Coast Guard.
Mr. Regula. Is this automatic equipment?
Mr. Pallone. Yes.
Mr. Regula. There's no person?
Mr. Pallone. No, no individual.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Pallone. Then also at Sandy Hook is Fort Hancock, which
is basically a series of historical structures. What we are
trying to do is put together a plan to basically entice private
industry to come in and rehabilitate the buildings for
different facilities there. I have asked $150,000 for a market
analysis of the lands to basically try to accomplish that. We
couldn't possibly do it with Federal funds, but if we could at
least put together Federal seed money to put together a plan
and do a market analysis, that would be very helpful.
Also there's a proposal to build a bikeway and pedestrian
trail as part of Gateway's General Management Plan. That's $2.4
million. Utilities rehab at the Hook----
Mr. Regula. Have you looked at the possibility of ISTEA
money for that?
Mr. Pallone. To be honest, my understanding is that we have
I guess requested this, but I am asking you as well. So maybe
we'll see how that works out. You have got to try, right?
Mr. Regula. Hedging your bets. Okay, we've got half a
minute left.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I won't go through all the others.
There's more at Sandy Hook. I have some requests referring to
Church of the Presidents, the Edison MemorialTower. These are
historic areas.
I just wanted to mention two more things, if I could. Then
you have the written testimony to rely on. One is to continue
the Mid-Atlantic OCS Moratorium, which I know I come every year
asking for that. I know there are others who feel the same.
But I also have a request which is new with regard to a New
Jersey moratorium on OCS sand and gravel lease sales. There is
an applicant who has now asked to actually mine sand and gravel
off the continental shelf or the outer continental shelf off
the coast. I am very much opposed to that. It basically would
jeopardize our fishing, our tourism industry.
Mr. Regula. Is this in the State's jurisdiction or ours?
Mr. Pallone. It's Federal jurisdiction. The State I guess
is out to three miles. I think they are trying to do that too.
But this is actually beyond.
Mr. Regula. Is it beyond the 10-mile limit?
Mr. Pallone. This is beyond the three-mile limit.
Mr. Regula. Are they going to just suck it up out of the
bottom and barge it away?
Mr. Pallone. Exactly. That is exactly what they do. The
problem is that not only is it a problem in terms of the
profile and the effect on fisheries, but also my concern is
that that's the same sand that's used for the beach restoration
fund. So I don't want to open it up to private use for gravel
and other purposes.
Mr. Regula. So what agency is involved?
Mr. Pallone. It's Mineral Management. They so far haven't
moved ahead with it.
Mr. Regula. MMS?
Mr. Pallone. Yes. They have had a request, but they haven't
moved ahead with it. I am asking you to look at it.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 670 - 677--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

RUST AND TOUGALOO COLLEGES

WITNESS

HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Regula. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't hedge my
bets, I am asking the committee for money.
Mr. Regula. It's the amount that's the problem.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, well, I know. First of all, I appreciate
the opportunity to come before the committee. I am speaking
specifically with reference to the Historically Black Colleges,
Historic Building and Restoration and Preservation Act. A lot
of us who are Members of the Congressional Black Caucus would
not be here had it not been for those institutions. To the
extent that those institutions survive, they have deteriorating
buildings, and they have needs. Congress recognized that
sometime ago and provided money to meet those needs.
I have a request for $4 million in this appropriation.
Mr. Regula. Is this totally restoration?
Mr. Thompson. Yes. It's already on the register. It's been
identified and everything.
Mr. Regula. Now are these colleges, I see Rust and----
Mr. Thompson. Tougaloo.
Mr. Regula. Tougaloo. Do they get any money from the State?
Mr. Thompson. No. They are private.
Mr. Regula. They are both private?
Mr. Thompson. Right. They are members of the United Negro
College Fund.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Because in Ohio we have a school,
Wilberforce, but it gets State money.
Mr. Thompson. Right. No, there is, believe it or not, a
prohibition in our State against giving private college monies.
However, we did get a tuition assistance program finally
approved by our State for students who go to private college.
Mr. Regula. It goes to the individual.
Mr. Thompson. That's right. Not to the college directly.
Mr. Regula. We have the same thing in Ohio.
Mr. Thompson. It's helped. For example, Rust College, which
is at Holly Springs, Mississippi, served as an office for the
Holly Springs slave market and as quarters for General Grant's
troops during the Civil War.
Mr. Regula. Let me ask you this because in the interest of
time. Could you prioritize this? I don't think we're going to
have $4 million. Is there a building that is probably more
significant than others?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Regula. I assume your request covers a number of
buildings?
Mr. Thompson. Actually the request only covers three
buildings.
Mr. Regula. But of the three, is there one that maybe has
great significance?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Get that information to us and what that one
would cost. I am just trying to prioritize because of the
limited amount of money.
Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. Now there are two colleges we're
talking about. I will get you the information you need.
Mr. Regula. If we condition that some money on a State
matching, do you think you could maybe get the State of
Mississippi to put up some money? We're trying to leverage our
dollars.
Mr. Thompson. If not, not from the State, could we talk
about other local funds.
Mr. Regula. Yes, any source, private.
Mr. Thompson. You know, we'll take what we can get.
Mr. Regula. Well, sometimes if you have language that says
we'll do this if private or local or the State has this, that
helps to get them energized and come up with their share.
Mr. Thompson. Again, these institutions are most deserving.
We're here asking for whatever support we can get. It's clearly
needed and we respect the direction and authority of the
Committee.
Mr. Regula. If you could get back with the priority of the
buildings, which structures would be the most significant.
Secondly, whether there would be a possibility of getting State
and/or local or private assistance, just get this information
to the staff and we would like to do what we can.
Mr. Thompson. We'll get it back to you this afternoon.
Mr. Regula. There's no big rush. We would like to leverage
our dollars. This is a question I am pretty much asking
everybody today, what they can do.
Mr. Thompson. As you talk leverage, what are you looking
for, 75-25, 80-20?
Mr. Regula. Normally what we have been talking about is 50-
50. Take a look at it. You might be surprised what the
possibilities are.
Mr. Thompson. Okay.
Mr. Regula. Again, and that's not a hard and fast rule, but
understand what our goal is, to just stretch our dollars.
There's lots of people here today. We have to keep the parks
open.
Mr. Thompson. Remember those who are not hedging their
bets. This is all the requests we have for this amount. I
appreciate the opportunity.
Mr. Regula. Get us the information.
Mr. Thompson. I will get it to staff. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 680 - 684--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

WITNESS

HON. BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA

Mr. Regula. Let's see, Mr. Sherman, I think you are next on
the list here.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before the subcommittee to request $8.5 million.
Mr. Regula. You must be from Beilenson's district,
obviously. I remember. Santa Monica is an old friend. We'll put
your statement in the record, and you can summarize for us. I
have been there. I am pretty familiar with Santa Monica.
Mr. Sherman. Well, we have a tremendous local effort.
Mr. Regula. I know that.
Mr. Sherman. There are over 30 million people who come to
the beaches and the mountains within the boundaries of the
National Recreation Area. While I am asking for $8.5 million,
the local effort should be double that. But the key is to
complete the Backbone Trail, which goes for 65 miles.
Mr. Regula. I have been on it.
Mr. Sherman. Tony has done such a good job, I don't need
to----
Mr. Regula. Tony was always very persuasive. We put a lot
of money in there, as you know. It's expensive. That's one of
the problems.
Mr. Sherman. It's very expensive per acre, but it's very
inexpensive per visitor.
Mr. Regula. I understand. I am sympathetic to urban
recreation because of my district. Can you leverage anything
with California and/or Los Angeles, and/or private?
Mr. Sherman. Well, in terms of leverage the Federal
component would be about a third of what we would be spending
in the next year on land acquisition. So I have told the local
officials look, don't put any money in.
Mr. Regula. Are they putting money into land acquisition?
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Mr. Regula. And this is going into the Santa Monica
Recreation Area?
Mr. Sherman. Exactly.
Mr. Regula. In other words, they are buying the land and
giving it to the Federal Government to be part of this?
Mr. Sherman. Whether they are giving it to the Federal
Government, they are coordinating its ownership and operation
with the Federal Government.
Mr. Regula. I think California has a major park facility
that's basically contiguous to this I think as I recall a map.
It's kind of intermingled.
Mr. Sherman. What you have is a National Recreation Area
which includes county and State and Federally owned lands, and
then additional lands that need to be acquired. As I say, local
government, State government, are going to put $17.5 million
into acquiring some key parcels. My hope isthat the Federal
Government can focus on this Backbone Trail.
Mr. Regula. And in terms of acquisition?
Mr. Sherman. Yes, in terms of acquiring.
Mr. Regula. Is this land presently owned by private owners?
Mr. Sherman. Yes. The thing is with the pressures, you
know, we had a recession that was particularly compounded in
L.A. that served better than any zoning law to prevent
development of key ecological properties. Well, the recession
is ending. We need to acquire these properties now or in a few
years, we won't be able to.
Mr. Regula. I think we had some land out there that we're
hoping to get, and he hasn't been overly generous.
Mr. Sherman. I can give you county money, I can give you
State money. Bob Hope. The one other thing I'll mention, Mr.
Chairman, and you well know this. We have got $900 million a
year coming into Land and Water Conservation Fund, and spending
14 percent of it.
Mr. Regula. I had a reporter from the area call me and I
suggested a solution. I said we'll open up off-shore drilling
off California and then we'll earmark all the money for
California. How's that?
Mr. Sherman. We have off-shore drilling just a few miles
north of my district. If we could just have the revenue from
California's off-shore drilling go to land acquisition in
California, I won't have to come before this subcommittee
again.
Mr. Regula. I understand. I'm trying to think maybe if 50
States owned that land.
Mr. Sherman. I understand.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you for coming. We've been
sympathetic to Santa Monica in the past.
Mr. Sherman. I hope that we can do a bit more than the
president has put in his budget.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 687 - 688--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Mr. Visclosky?
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify. I want to thank you as I have in the
past for all of your generosity and the generosity of the
Members of the subcommittee for the----
Mr. Regula. And the taxpayers.
Mr. Visclosky. And the taxpayers of America for the Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore. I am here to report that the money
set aside two years ago for land acquisition for Crescent Dune
has consummated that.
Mr. Regula. I thought it was finished.
Mr. Visclosky. Yes. That's done. Monies were set aside last
year in your bill also for demolition that was desperately
needed. That is being pursued.
I am here essentially for two requests. One is for a $1.5
million add-on for land acquisition. We have a number of vital
properties that are in danger of being destroyed, as well as
hardship cases.
Mr. Regula. This would be adjacent lands to the Dunes?
Mr. Visclosky. In the authorized boundary that still have
not yet been purchased. My second request is construction
monies of $1.5 million for phase II development of the
Goodfellow Camp, which was formerly owned by the U.S. Steel
Corporation. Again, the subcommittee several years ago provided
$800,000 for completion of Phase I, which again, has taken
place. Phase II includes an environmental education center. We
want to make that camp and facility available for the young
people in our area.
Mr. Regula. Okay. My standard question, can we leverage
some money out of the State?
Mr. Visclosky. I don't know about the State in this
instance, but as far as land acquisition, within the last
couple of years I would note that you have had donations made
as far as property by various environmental interests that have
purchased lands, as well as the public utility company in our
area.
Mr. Regula. The Cuyahoga Valley, which is near my area, has
an environmental education center, which I think is something
very similar to what you are talking about. A lot of that money
came from foundations. This may be an avenue that ought to be
pursued.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, they have attempted to work
out an agreement with some of the local corporations and
environmental groups. To date, I must in all honesty tell you
those negotiations have not born fruit as far as trying to find
that local support.
Mr. Regula. Suppose that we put some money in and condition
it on a match. Do you think that would stimulate them?
Mr. Visclosky. Let me talk to the Park Service and the
individuals involved, and I would be happy to get back to you.
Mr. Regula. Explore that and get back to us. A lot of times
you can leverage by saying okay, if we get a dollar, you get a
dollar local to match. That stretches what we have available
and I think it is very helpful many times in getting local
communities to take action.
Mr. Visclosky. The long-term problem you would face on the
subcommittee is not necessarily the $1.5 million for the
construction. For example, the administration's request for
Goodfellow is an additional $400,000. That is in the
administration's proposal for some of the services that are
scheduled to be provided once construction is complete.
Mr. Regula. I know; I understand. That's why we're always a
little wary, because every time we buy something, a piece of
land or whatever, you've got the long-term operating costs.
Mr. Viscloskly. Exactly, exactly.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 691 - 693--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

RIO GRANDE NATIONAL WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

WITNESS

HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS

Mr. Regula. Mr.----
Mr. Skeen. It's good to see you, sir, again.
Mr. Hinojosa. Again. Hinojosa.
Mr. Regula. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. That's it.
Mr. Regula. Joe can handle that one; he's a southwesterner.
Mr. Hinojosa. Well, we share the border.
Mr. Skeen. Paisano.
Mr. Hinojosa. Muy paisano.
Mr. Regula. Well, thank you for coming. Your statement will
be made a part of the record, and if you'll summarize for us.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. And maybe address the matching fund issue.
You've heard me say this enough to know what I'm interested in.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank you and
Congressman Skeen for allowing me----
Mr. Regula. Are you in Kiki's former district?
Mr. Hinojosa. I am taking the place of Congressman Kiki de
la Garza, the 15th district on south Texas.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I kind of figured that.
Mr. Hinojosa. I'm learning. I have a great deal of interest
in trying to do some of the good things that Congressman de la
Garza did.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I think I've heard of the Rio Grande
before. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. What an act to follow.
Mr. Hinojosa. If I can only accomplish a few of the things
he did, I'll be very happy.
Mr. Skeen. Oh, I think you're probably up to it. He was
certainly a grand individual.
Mr. Hinojosa. Yes, he was. He still is.
Mr. Skeen. Buena juente.
Mr. Hinojosa. Gracias.
The project that I wish to speak to is a Fish and Wildlife
Service project, better known as the Lower Rio Grande Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. It was a project that was started
back in 1979, and we've been able to get about half of it done.
In the 1998 budget there is a request for $2.8 million for land
acquisition.
Mr. Regula. This is the President's budget.
Mr. Hinojosa. Yes, sir; that is correct. And as I said
earlier, of this project, begun in 1979, I highlighted a few of
the areas that have been bought so that you can see that we've
made a lot of headway in that period of time.
Mr. Regula. The pink is I assume Federal.
Mr. Hinojosa. Yes.
Mr. Regula. We've already acquired it. Is it connected?
Mr. Hinojosa. We're trying to connect it.
Mr. Regula. So that's your mission, in a sense, is to buy
the end-holdings to get it into a continuous part.
Mr. Hinojosa. Eventually we would have 132,500 acres that
would all be connected, and it's an area that has a lot of the
birds and a lot of----
Mr. Skeen. A lot of diversity.
Mr. Hinojosa. A lot of diversity.
Mr. Skeen. Up and down the whole Rio Grande.
Mr. Hinojosa. That's exactly right, and it's an area that
can be bought, acreage that can be bought at very low prices.
Mr. Regula. What is the chance of Texas coming in with some
money if we could suggest a match?
Mr. Hinojosa. Mr. Chairman, from what I could research on
it, Texas has not been able to participate, at least in the
past. I would like very much to attempt to try to get some
funding, but from what I was able to find I didn't find any
matching funds.
The Department of the Interior has had this quota amongst
its top priorities----
Mr. Regula. Yes, that's true.
Mr. Hinojosa [continuing]. For the last 10 years. And what
I find is that in having met with Larry Ditto of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, that there is a lot of support.
Mr. Regula. Is this the State or the Federal?
Mr. Hinojosa. He's a Federal employee.
Mr. Regula. Well, at least take a try at the State and see
if they would help, because it would leverage more money. And
buying in-holdings ought to be done as quickly as possible,
because it gets more expensive after every year.
Mr. Hinojosa. What I saw was that for $1 million, we can
get a thousand acres. So the price is very cheap and an
opportunity for us to try to connect, and thus protect the
species that are there now.
Mr. Regula. Joe, are you familiar with this?
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Chairman, there is a question I would like
to ask Ruben, and that is, all these lands that you are talking
about are privately owned? There are no Federal lands; there
are no State lands in this?
Mr. Hinojosa. That's correct.
Mr. Skeen. This is all private land, private ownership.
Mr. Hinojosa. That is correct.
Mr. Skeen. Which is unique along the border, of course.
Mr. Hinojosa. It's unique, and the good thing is, according
to what I learned from Larry, they are willing to sell. So I
think that we have an opening, an opportunity here that we
could take advantage of.
Mr. Skeen. Some of it is agricultural land, producing
crops?
Mr. Hinojosa. That is correct.
Mr. Skeen. By way of irrigation from the river?
Mr. Hinojosa. That is correct.
Mr. Skeen. So it has a water right as well.
Mr. Hinojosa. Yes; yes they do. And you know that, just
like your State----
Mr. Skeen. Riparian.
Mr. Hinojosa [continuing]. We have a water crisis. We have
a drought that is in the beginning of----
Mr. Skeen. I know, because we owe you water all the time.
Mr. Hinojosa. Right, that's correct.
Mr. Skeen. From the Pincus and the Rio Grande.
Mr. Regula. Is this a boundary river with Mexico?
Mr. Hinojosa. It is.
Mr. Skeen. It is.
Mr. Regula. And what do we own, to the center of the River,
or what's the boundary?
Mr. Skeen. You have the border with all of Mexico, but then
it runs through the western center of the State of New Mexico.
Mr. Regula. In other words, we're buying land on the north
side of the river.
Mr. Hinojosa. We're buying just on the Texas side.
Mr. Skeen. On the east side.
Mr. Regula. So NAFTA would have some impact on this.
Mr. Hinojosa. We have several bridges that are doing lots
of business with Mexico in Rio Grande City, in McAllen Farm, in
Progresso, and Brownsville, and all of that area is in this
habitat.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Hinojosa. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for the
opportunity.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hinojosa. I hope to get to know you better.
Mr. Skeen. We'll make that opportunity, and thank you.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Joe.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 697 - 699--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

STONES RIVER NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD

FORTRESS ROSECRANS

WITNESS

HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE

Mr. Regula. Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon. Chairman Regula, and Chairman Skeen.
Mr. Regula. Your statement will be a part of the record.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Good to see you.
Mr. Gordon. And I also thank Ms. Weatherly for the good
staff advice that she has given us along the way. I feel like
this is a family reunion. We're meeting again, annually, on an
issue that is very much a family to me.
Mr. Skeen--Mr. Regula, I'm sure, has instant recall on all
these items over the years.
Mr. Regula. I have some vague recollections.
Mr. Gordon. Since you weren't here the last couple of
times, let me give you just a quick update. In my hometown of
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, there is a battlefield named Stones
River Battlefield. During the Civil War there were over 50,000
battles and skirmishes, yet only 45 of those were thought to
be, or have a major impact, on the outcome of the war. Stones
River was one of those.
Secretary Lujan, some years back, put it on his list of the
25 most endangered battlefields in the country. And what's
happened is, it's right next door to the fastest-growing
community in Tennessee and one of the fastest growing in the
country. And so it's a real struggle to keep up with the
improvements there.
Mr. Skeen [presiding]. What community is it?
Mr. Gordon. Murfreesboro, my hometown.
Mr. Skeen. Murfreesboro.
Mr. Gordon. Over the last 12 years that I've been in
Congress, I can't think of a weekend that I've been home that I
haven't spent some time there trying to go through the good
progress that they have been making.
With this committee's help, and I am grateful for that,
over the last few years you've helped us to do two things. One,
because we're a fast-growing suburban area, and the battlefield
was created back in the 1920's, even though the original
battlefield had 3,000 acres, the current battlefield only has
about 300, and it simply wasn't created large enough at the
time.
And so there are different sections in the community that
we're trying to connect with a trail along the river. It's
impossible to get a lot of that property now in some of the
floodplains, and so we're taking a trail along the river to
connect these, which I think will be interesting for the linear
park in the future.
It was also, if not the first, one of the first agreements
where there's an agreement with the community that the Park
Service is making a capital investment of building the trail,
and then the community is taking all of the expense of
maintenance. So I think it is a good partnership.
We are here to ask for funds to complete the final section,
which takes it on into the park. And one particularly
interesting section, which is maybe a half-mile, is an old
trace like the Natchez Trace that is still cut out and will
allow folks to walk through that trace in that regard. So we
need $375,000 to complete that.
The other project--and I'm here with some bit of apology; I
came last year saying that I was only going to come, that that
was the last time, on what's called Fortress Rosecrans. It was
the largest earthen fort ever built in the United States, and
what they have done is, as they have cut through 130 years of
privet and bushes, they have discovered that it was even larger
than expected. And so the Park Service wants to be able to
preserve the other section, and that will take about $275,000.
These are modest requests. And what I have tried to do over
the years--I admire some things the Park Service does, but
their promptness is not one of them, and you have to go through
all of these things; and I think that I'm trying to get in
synch with that and let my impatience settle down a little bit.
And so we really are asking each year for just what they think
their estimates are. We're not trying to pad it. Again, I think
these are relatively modest for what we need. We're not trying
to stockpile any money. It's just what it takes.
And, Mr. Chairman, as I said before you got back in, last
year I came in and told you that Fortress Rosecrans would be
completed, and I'm chagrined to say that, again, they found--
I'm glad they found the extra--but the $275,000 is what they
say will complete that project, and the last two little links
of the trail will be completed, so that should be done. So
those are our requests for construction.
I know land acquisition is always a continuing problem with
you and that you wish you had more money for the whole works.
Let me just make a quick statement there, and I know you're
going to deal with this later. I guess my first request is, get
the pot as big as you can get it. And then I know that when the
time comes to separate it that you'll probably do so in an
equitable manner.
As I mentioned earlier, the reason Stones River Battlefield
was on Secretary Lujan's 25 most endangered battlefields is
because of this enormous growth around. Two years ago there was
initial money, then it was left out for land acquisition. Last
year we were able to get $500,000.
There is a pot of money there that is in an account, so it
looks like there is a balance, but it's all being held for one
final piece of property that should be closed on very soon.
This is a get-it-or-lose-it situation with this growth here
right now.
I noticed that you asked the question earlier about
partnerships. I'm pleased that the National Trust--the one that
sold the coins--they came in and partnered on a piece. The
Battlefield Preservation Group is coming in and partnering on a
piece, but, you know, it's $30,000 to $40,000 a shot.
Mr. Regula [presiding]. We'll do the best we can.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 703 - 706--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

THE PRESIDIO

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Nancy?
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Skeen, thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. I thought we took care of you last year. I
can't believe you're back. [Laughter.]
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, you took very good care of us
last year, and I'm here to thank you.
Mr. Regula. Good.
Ms. Pelosi. And to thank the committee and the staff for
all of your work and cooperation.
Mr. Regula. Thank you. Next witness. [Laughter.]
Ms. Pelosi. Now to protect your investment. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Oh, okay.
Mr. Skeen. This is the second round.
Mr. Regula. Well, we have your statement in the record. If
you could summarize, that would be helpful.
Ms. Pelosi. I'll be as brief as possible in respecting your
time. But thank you for the opportunity to be here. I'm hoping
that within the next few days--and I've said this to you a
number of times--that the President will name the appointees to
the Presidio Trust, and we can go forward with what you have
helped us accomplish.
All of us who care about the Presidio as a national park
are forever in your debt.
Mr. Regula. I see a few problems on the homeless issue
emerging out there, from what I read.
Ms. Pelosi. Would you like me to go into that?
Mr. Regula. Well, you ought to tell me about it when we
have more time, but I am interested.
Ms. Pelosi. Well, my view is that a national park's purpose
is not to house homeless people.
Mr. Regula. I agree.
Ms. Pelosi. As much as I'm committed to solving that
problem in our community, a national park is not the answer to
the problem.
Mr. Regula. That's why it's important to go forward with
the development of the program that was outlined in the bill
last year.
Ms. Pelosi. Absolutely. As you know, much community input
was provided in terms of the general management plan, and the
Presidio is a national park governed by national park
legislation.
But, anyway, I am here to request the $24.6 million that is
in the President's budget for the Presidio and appreciate your
consideration of that request. I am pleased to answer any
questions about it and the $300,000 in the budget for San
Francisco Maritime National Historical Park.
I join my colleagues in the San Francisco Bay Area
delegation for fudning from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund to acquire Bair Island to be included in the Don Edwards
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and join the
delegation, also, in the reques for the Bay Area Ridge Trail.
I also want to lend my support to the National Endowment
for the Arts. I support the President's budget request.
My full statement elaborates much more on the Presidio and
other issues, and I would be pleased to answer any questions
that you may have. And once again, I want to thank you and your
excellent staff for all that you have done to make this
possible. Simply put, without you, it would not have gotten
done.
Mr. Regula. Well, it was a squeaker last year, but we
finally got it through.
Ms. Pelosi. Yes, indeed, thanks to your help; I'll be
forever grateful.
Mr. Regula. Well, it seems to be a very responsible plan.
Now, if we could just lift the moratorium on drilling, we would
have some more money in the entire Land and Water Conservation
Fund. [Laughter.]
You don't have to comment. Okay, thanks for coming.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. We'll talk about that other issue on thefloor
some day.
Ms. Pelosi. Whenever, at the chairman's convenience. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 709 - 711--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

WITNESS

HON. EARL F. HILLIARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ALABAMA

Mr. Regula. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. Hilliard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Welcome. Your statement will be made a part of
the record. Tell us what you're interested in, briefly.
Mr. Hilliard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
make it brief, but I am very appreciative of your time and of
this committee.
I'm here today to testify in support of the HBCU Historic
Building Restoration and Preservation program; and this is a
program that is administered by the National Park Service. Last
year, $29 million was authorized in the Omnibus Park Act to
fund this program. I am here today to ask you to request the
subcommittee to fully fund this program at the $29 million
amount.
I attended three HBCUs: Morehouse College in Atlanta,
Atlanta University, and Howard University, and all three of
those schools have contributed greatly to the growth of this
country. Their alumni have done so throughout this country and
throughout the world, and there is a need to preserve those
buildings, many that are historical in nature. Many of them
were built by freemen back in the Reconstruction period of our
country. Some of them date back more than 150 years, and they
are part of our national heritage.
Mr. Regula. Well, this is an ongoing program of the Park
Service, is it not?
Mr. Hilliard. It is; it is. It's an ongoing program, but
this is the first time that this amount has been set aside.
They have never had enough, and this is not enough, but this
goes a long way.
Mr. Regula. Okay, well thank you for coming. We have a lot
of priorities we have to address, but we'll keep it in mind.
Mr. Hilliard. I understand, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
your making this part of the record.
Mr. Regula. Okay, this would be for building rehab, is that
correct?
Mr. Hilliard. Yes.
Mr. Regula. And they would selectively rehabilitate these
buildings because of their historic character?
Mr. Hilliard. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you for your statement.
Mr. Hilliard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 713 - 714--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

WITNESS

HON. JERROLD NADLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
YORK

Mr. Regula. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I have submitted a written statement, which I therefore
will not read; this is a summary, but I ask that it be made
part of the record.
Mr. Regula. Right, without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am here to urge
strongly full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts,
the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute
for Museum and Library Services, and urge you to fund these
programs at the level requested by the President: $136 million
for the NEA, the same for the NEH, and $26 million for the
museum portion of the IMLS.
I will not go through all the reasons why Federal support
of the arts through the NEA and Federal support of the NEH is
vital. I am sure you're familiar with that debate; you've heard
that. I would refer you to the transcript of our press
conference and to the previous press conference--I think it was
last week--but let me just make a few observations.
The arts working group estimates that the $116 million
provided by the NEA in 1992 fostered economic activity
totalling $1.86 billion, which would not have occurred without
the NEA--in other words, with this private support of the arts,
a 20-fold return on investment in jobs and other services.
Studies show that the non-profit arts industry alone
generates $36.8 billion in annual economic activity, supports
1.3 million jobs, and returns $3.4 billion to the Federal
Government in income taxes--$3.4 billion for an investment of
$116 million. Very few Federal programs cost so little and
return so much, simply as an economic investment or even just
for the budget.
But that's not the whole picture. We know all the reasons
why the arts are vital. And let me say that the NEA--and let me
make just one observation. Helping children learn, reaching out
to disadvantaged communities, boosting the economy, and
providing national access to great performances, that's what
the NEA is doing today to support the arts and to improve
America, and that is why we in Congress must continue our
bipartisan support for the arts.
Now some--I want to make some observations on a number of
things that have been said in the course of this debate in the
last couple of years or weeks. One, it's been said that Federal
arts funding benefits, predominantly, a few cities like my own
New York and certain other States, and I have two observations.
First of all, of course a State like New York or California
will get a disproportionate share of Federal artsfunding for
the same reason that a State like Indiana or Illinois or Kansas will be
getting a disproportionate share of the Federal wheat subsidy. I might
observe that I am shocked that New York City and my own district in
Manhattan gets not a penny for wheat subsidies.
Mr. Regula. Do you have the Lincoln Center in your
district?
Mr. Nadler. Yes, I do. I was going to make an observation
about that in a moment; that's my second point. The first is,
obviously, some of our large cities like New York, like Los
Angeles, like others like you've named are meccas for the arts;
people come from all over and, of course, a disproportionate
share of the arts activities earn a disproportionate amount of
the arts funding----
Mr. Regula. But it has outreach?
Mr. Nadler. That was my second point.
Mr. Regula. Outreach through--TV and radio?
Mr. Nadler. But it's not just the TV and radio. The NEA
grants to organizations in New York or wherever--for instance,
if an organization--I forget the name of it--they got a
$770,000 grant; it was in the New York Times last week; that's
a theatre troupe based in New York, so it counts to New York,
but its performances are not in New York; they're all over the
country, and that happens all over the place.
Frankly, if the NEA were to be eliminated, which is on the
table this year, unfortunately--if the NEA were to be
eliminated, Lincoln Center in my district, the Museum of Modern
Arts, all the big New York museums; Lincoln Center would
survive--Lincoln Center, I think it's eight-tenths of 1 percent
of its budget from the NEA. What would not survive are all the
different groups that bring the arts to rural America and to
small-town America. You wouldn't have, except in very small
proportion, the traveling symphony orchestras, the traveling
theatre groups, the traveling dance groups; they simply
wouldn't be funded, because the corporations in large measure
fund different kinds of things. They fund, frankly, more
stationary things. Lincoln Center would be funded by the Ford
Foundation, by General Motors, and so forth. But the traveling
theatre group that brings the theatre to the small towns in
Iowa--they wouldn't exist, and that's a situation you had
between the WPA and inauguration of the NEA 30 years ago. And
so--and you also wouldn't have arts education which is so vital
not only for the arts and for humanity in the United States
but, frankly, for education. Those are two specific
observations I would make.
If I could make a very political observation: I think it
was the chairman who said that we shouldn't re-fund the NEA
this year, though I think the chairman has supported it in the
past, if I'm not mistaken, because a deal was made two years
ago, an agreement--I don't want to use a word that's
pejorative--an agreement was made two years ago; we should be
bound by that agreement.
Let me observe that no Congress is legally or should feel
bound by an agreement made by leaders or members of a previous
Congress. We have elections intervening and the people of the
United States make their feelings felt, and people were elected
partially based on saying, ``I don't agree with that agreement;
I want to continue funding of the NEA.''
And people are elected saying the opposite. And the fact is
that agreements shouldn't--cannot bind future administrations
or future Congresses.
Mr. Regula. Well, you understand our problem; there's no
authorization and it's subject to a point of order.
Mr. Nadler. Well, I understand that problem; I observe the
following: We should be consistent, and I wish that Congress
would observe its own rules. [Laughter.]
And I don't want to make a partisan point of this; I think
this is more now than under the Democrats, but I won't swear to
that. I didn't notice it then; now I notice it. So, it may
not----
Mr. Regula. It changes your perspective.
Mr. Nadler. Well, perhaps; I certainly didn't notice it
then, and maybe it was true then, and maybe not; I don't know.
But what I'm referring to is that every rule that comes--I
shouldn't say every--almost every rule that comes to the floor,
maybe, in fact, every rule that comes to the floor has a
standard line in it that says, ``All points of order are
waived.''
Mr. Regula. Well, I think that has changed to some extent.
Mr. Nadler. Well, I don't think that--that hasn't changed
unless it wasn't done before the partisanship took over; now it
is. Now, it certainly hasn't changed to be done less; I mean,
I've been watching that one carefully; that it's virtually
unanimous now. I mean, every rule says that.
We passed the Omnibus Budget Act that we passed last year
at the end of--that marathon thing was 2,000 pages, and we
waived the point of order that had to be in print for three
days; it was in print, I think, for 35 minutes. And we voted on
it--an hour and 35 minutes, and we couldn't even get a copy;
one copy was on the minority side; one on the majority side,
and you couldn't get one to take to your office. And that was
waived because they had to pass that day and not a day later.
So, let me say that if, in fact, we consistently follow the
rule on authorizations--and I would urge that we do, but don't
start with this one----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nadler [continuing]. If we consistently follow the rule
on authorizations--and as I said, I think we should, because
for a lot of reasons it's a good rule--then I would not
recommend or suggest or urge that that not be done here. But
since that rule is generally ignored--I mean, the NEA, itself,
has been unauthorized for several years. I could--a lot of
different programs have been unauthorized for years, and they
go on. I think even the Defense budget was unauthorized for
years, and we appropriated the money.
So, to suddenly make that a sticking point, frankly, it's
very simple: Either there's a majority of people on the House
floor who want to fund the NEA, or there isn't. I think it
would be wrong to try to deny those of us, whether in majority
or not, I think we are, but I don't know now; we'll find out,
hopefully.
Mr. Regula. I think you might find out on a motion to
instruct.
Mr. Nadler. We might, but the fact is, I think it would be
wrong on an issue of this prominence, a degree of
contentiousness--or whatever you want to call it--to try to
deny the regular up and down vote and then say it's a
procedural motion; it's a motion on the rule, or something. As
long as we have generally been waiving points of order, the
points of order on this one should be waived. The amendment to
add the appropriations should be made in orderby the Rules
Committee, because, frankly, this is a major national issue--not just
on the amount but on the existence--and there ought to be a straight
vote on it, and that's the only way--if we want to run the House with a
small ``d''; not a big ``d''; with a small ``d'', that's the way we
ought to do it; we shouldn't hide behind points of order.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 719 - 722--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

TERRITORIAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. I have a statement that I'd like to submit for
the record.
Mr. Regula. And, without objection, it will be in the
record. Just summarize it for us, please.
Mr. Underwood. I want to thank you again for the support of
Compact Impact, and I want to draw my testimony primarily to
the snake program. In the Interior budget under the territories
budget there's been a $1 million increase--and I'm happy for
that--but the $1 million increase is actually for the snake
program. My concern with that is that that's really in my
estimation a Fish and Wildlife responsibility. The situation on
Guam is that the Fish and Wildlife Service has declared 20
percent of the island a wildlife refuge overlay and has not
specifically funded any money to deal with the snakes. Instead,
the snake money that has been appropriated has been through
money that is generally earmarked for territories, primarily,
technical assistance programs. And so, what I want to suggest,
and I would like to strongly recommend is to leave the $1
million that's in there--that has been boosted--and leave if
for territorial technical assistance, and ask Fish and Wildlife
to fund out of their budget $1 million for snake eradication--
--
Mr. Regula. Tell me how they do this; I'm curious. Is this
a snake that lives in the trees?
Mr. Underwood. The brown tree snake; it migrates from one
end of the island to the other.
Mr. Regula. How do you eradicate it?
Mr. Underwood. Well, there is no fool-proof method, and the
program up to now has been designed primarily to keep it from
leaving the island, and, of course, we're interested in working
towards its eradication.
Mr. Regula. What impact does it have, what's the negative
part of this?
Mr. Underwood. Well, the negative part of the snake, of
course, is that it has totally, almost nearly destroyed the
bird population on the island. It is a threat to neighboring
islands, and of course, it hurts our tourist-driven economy;
there's a lot of scare stories about it. People ask me if I
want snake repellent? I said, ``No, I'd rather have media
repellent on this issue.''
Because it's the media that's----
Mr. Regula. It's not poisonous, I assume.
Mr. Underwood. It's only mildly poisonous, but it will
attack anything that is small enough to get into its mouth. So,
there have been reports where it has crawled into cribs and
have started to chew on an infant's hand.
Mr. Regula. How big is it? Is it three feet?
Mr. Underwood. Well, it would go anywhere from three feet
to about nine feet. It's a serious problem----
Mr. Regula. I can understand that.
Mr. Underwood [continuing]. And I'm very much interested in
working towards a solution, but I do find it curious that the
money usually earmarked for technical assistance for the
territories is being used to fund this.
Mr. Regula. Its habitat is strictly trees?
Mr. Underwood. Trees and any--it doesn't live on the
ground, but it does migrate up; it causes power outages. In my
own home over the course of 25 years I've seen about three
snakes in the house.
Mr. Regula. In the house?
Mr. Underwood. In the house, yes.
Mr. Regula. Now, I'm sure this doesn't enhance your
tourism.
Mr. Underwood. No, it doesn't; no. It's a major problem,
and it's a major public relation's problem, but it also has a
dramatic impact on----
Mr. Regula. Did it migrate there?
Mr. Underwood. It came in from military ships bringing in
lumber from the Philippines and Solomon Island. And in its own
natural habitat in the Solomon Islands the ecosystem is such
that its numbers are kept down, but in Guam there is not the
same ecosystem.
Mr. Regula. It has no natural enemy?
Mr. Underwood. There's no natural enemy on Guam other than
people.
Mr. Regula. What keeps it down in the Solomons?
Mr. Underwood. In the Solomon Island, you know, it's a
complicated thing. They have different species of birds,
different food supplies, and that's part of the reason we're
asking to bump up the funding--to understand this a little bit
more.
Mr. Regula. To see if there is some way to control it?
Mr. Underwood. Right. In a natural way.
Mr. Regula. Right. Right.
Mr. Underwood. Although, you know, my office is inundated
with strange ideas about how to deal with the snakes.
Mr. Regula. I'm sure that's true. [Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. I think I've attracted every snake charmer
in the world.
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 725 - 726--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

LEWIS AND CLARK TRAIL INTERPRETIVE CENTER

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Okay. Mr. Bereuter; the people who are
scheduled aren't here, so we'll go forward.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Regula. Let me give an aside: I had the Romanian
delegation in this morning, and they suggested that we ought to
include that in the May trip.
Mr. Bereuter. I'm sure they would.
Mr. Regula. So, I said, I would just perhaps----
Mr. Bereuter. Discuss it with me?
Mr. Regula. Exactly.
Mr. Bereuter. All right. I'll look for your counsel.
I'm a little reluctant to begin after the last word about
snake charmers, but I put their----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. The Big Red's done pretty well on the football
field. [Laughter.]
Mr. Bereuter. Well, we do play a snake charmer down in the
locker room.
Mr. Chairman--and I want to address myself to the members
of your subcommittee, as well--I am requesting, and have a one-
page summary perhaps in front of you, that National Park
Service direct $300,000 in funding for construction of the
Lewis and Clark Trail Interpretation Center. These funds are
needed to complete a project which was first authorized by
Congress in 1987, and I list for you and for the committee
staff the appropriation history on this which dates back to--
first appropriation in Fiscal Year 1990 and 1991.
Mr. Regula. When you say complete, is this thing partly
built or----
Mr. Bereuter. The land purchase took quite a while. The
plans have been prepared, in fact, there are two sets of plans,
and then we had the change so that it required a 50 percent
match, and this set the community back quite awhile until they
worked things out internally and with the State of Nebraska to
come up with the 50 percent match.
Unfortunately, the Park Service spent part of the
appropriated funds for other activities in that region; so,
they had spent some of what was available. But that is needed
to supplement what is available now, and I gave you details for
your staff about the kind of plans--the state of affairs there,
and I hope that finally the Nebraska city having suffered a
setback because of the change in our decision here and the
administration about matching funds can now proceed with it to
complete--and the State will, as the Park Service wants, either
take it over or the community will take it over so that there
will no ongoing National Park Service commitment for
maintenance and operation.
Secondly, I would like to mention the fact that I support
the administration's request of $315,000 from State and private
forestry funds for the National Agroforestry Center in Lincoln.
I also support the administration's request for $600,000 in
research funding for the center.
This funding is necessary to help ensure the continuation
of valuable research being conducted at the center for the
semi-arid parts of the Nation.
This was authorized in the 1990 Farm bill; its received
funding; they have changed, at the request of the
administration, to some extent their orientation, but I'd like
to keep this center organized, viable, and therefore, I support
the administration's request.
Third and finally, I remain strongly committed and
supportive of the establishment of a new Fish and Wildlife
Cooperative Research Unit at the University of Nebraska. I've
patiently requested funding for this cooperative research unit
each year since 1990--watching, while such units were located
in other States. I think it's finally time to meet the needs in
Nebraska.
The administration's Fiscal Year 1998 budget includes an
increase of $1 million for those cooperative research units.
I'm sure they're convinced this is for operation, and I don't
think they're committed to starting another center, but I think
with the fact that Nebraska's only one of 10 States without a
cooperative fish and wildlife research unit within the State is
an important deficit.
Nebraska is the heart of the most important waterfowl
migratory pattern on the continent, and the effort of this fish
and wildlife unit would be particularly important to the Platte
environment which serves as the major stopping point for not
only the sandhill cranes which draw thousands of people each
year to see them, but also the full array of geese and ducks
that come and go across this region.
So, I am asking, as I have since 1991, the subcommittee for
funding for that kind of research unit in Nebraska, undoubtedly
on the campus of the University of Nebraska in cooperation with
the State's effort.
Those are my requests, Mr. Chairman, and I know you face a
formidable task, although it's not quite clear yet, I guess,
how formidable.
Mr. Regula. That's true. You have the--what is it?--the big
arbor--in your distrist?
Mr. Bereuter. The Arbor Day Foundation is headquartered--
Arbor Day was started in Nebraska City.
Mr. Regula. Does that have any relationship to the
Agroforestry Center at Lincoln?
Mr. Bereuter. No, but the Lewis and Clark Center has a
relationship since the Arbor Day Foundation would do the
landscaping for the site that would be the Lewis and Clark--
it's only two miles from their headquarters.
Mr. Regula. How does this tie into the one that was
dedicated in Iowa--I think that was for the beginning of the
Lewis and Clark trail. Well, it was just opened or it's being
opened.
Mr. Bereuter. For better or for worse, I have to admit to
the fact that when I was a member of the Interior Committee I
was responsible for the authorization language that permitted
interpretive centers. And the first one authorized in the
Nation was in Nebraska, but we faced this delay and Iowa came
along and kind of hijacked the process; in fact, diverted some
of the funds on one occasion to the Iowa Center. The Iowa
Center's being located in the middle of a industrial area next
to a dog track, and I think it's an abuse of the appropriation
process to have located in our good neighbor's location across
the river in Council Bluffs.
But as we prepare for the year 2003 with lots of activities
planned for the Lewis and Clark bicentennial, I would like to
see this center up and operating.
I'm also responsible for the fact that there are now across
the State, on an authorization I got through and you helped
fund, markers at each of the Lewis and Clark campsites which on
a State historical marker--paid for in part if not totally by
Federal funds--excerpts from the journal from of the Lewis and
Clark expedition that day including all of the misspellings and
everything that they used at the time.
Mr. Regula. This is a fascinating story; I read part of it.
Mr. Bereuter. It is.
Ambrose--who's the author that just--Stephen Ambrose. I
keep hearing people from all directions and all orientations
talking about this incredible book, and I need to get to it,
but I did buy the Lewis and Clark Journals, a three-set volume,
and I've sort of been through the entire coming and going
stretch through Nebraska to see what they had to say, and they
complained about the mosquitos just like I do. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. We're not in that business of eradicating
those.
Thank you.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
consideration.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 730 - 733--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PROPERTIES

U.S. FOREST SERVICE ROAD PROGRAMS

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Mr. Stupak. And without objection your
statement will be made a part of the record and we appreciate
your summarizing it for us.
Mr. Stupak. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Let me go through it if I
can and summarize it as you suggest.
As you know, we have two national parks and two lakeshores
in my district. We support the President's funding as requested
on each of those; the two lakeshores and the two national
parks.
I do believe, though, if I can draw your attention a little
bit to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore--you know, in
Michigan we now have the experimental user fees in the national
parks. We really have a problem with parking at Sleeping Bear.
We're just asking if this committee somehow could fashion
something which would direct the Secretary to move towards
using user fees for additional parking. We have a canoe
station, Canoe Liberty Station, and these people are parking
along the State highway and have to cross roads to access the
park.
Mr. Regula. Is an area available and what you're suggesting
is we purchase some land?
Mr. Stupak. Or just take some of the area that's there and
put in a parking lot. There's land available that the park owns
that really is an abandoned farm.
Mr. Regula. So, what it needs is to be upgraded for
blacktop.
Mr. Stupak. Sure, and now what they're saying is, ``We
never have any money.''
So, we're saying, ``Use part of these user fees.''
That's what the purpose of the whole experimental program
is.
Mr. Regula. Have you approached the superintendent? Is he
sympathetic to that cause?
Mr. Stupak. He's sympathetic, but no one wants to make a
decision. Once in a while Congress has to help along these
decisions.
Mr. Regula. So, you'd like if he's helped to make a
decision?
Mr. Stupak. You bet.
Mr. Regula. I've got it.
Mr. Stupak. Let me talk just quickly about the Keweenaw
National Historical Park. The President's request is only
$280,000; we'd like to see that raised to $600,000 which would
provide some additional rangers and really some preservation
grants. Up there, they've still got two feet of snow on some of
these buildings we're trying to preserve, and every winter we
lose a couple, and we keep asking the President to put some
money in, and it gets part way there but never what we need.
Last year, you were a great help to us in allowing us to
put a prevention on the Park Service where we're going to build
the Beaver Rim Basin road, or Beaver Basin Rim road, through
the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore; we put language in and
said, ``Don't spend any more money on this road, because you're
going to cut a road 13 miles through at $13.5 million, and
you've been using H-58 since * * *.''
H-58's a county road.
``* * * since 1968, so just improve H-58.''
So, we prevented them from cutting up the woods and
spending $13.5 million. So, we're saying use H-58, and they are
saying, ``Well, we would, but we can't use our money on a
county road, even though half that road or part of that road is
* * *''
Mr. Regula. You're talking about the money that comes to
the Park Service from the road ISTEA money, and they can't use
it because H-58 is----
Mr. Stupak. It's a county road.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Stupak. Even though half of it goes--oh, I shouldn't
say half--a good portion of it goes to the parks----
Mr. Regula. So, you're suggesting that we give them
authority to do so?
Mr. Stupak. Correct; and we have the language there, and
we're really grateful for the work you did with us, and I know
there may be a point of order, and again, we're willingto work
with the Rules Committee to try to get that point of order corrected.
Let me, if I can, jump to forests for a few moments.
Forests products is the largest industry I have in my district.
You know, it's a great financial, environmental--our whole
lifestyle depends on out there. Back in 1985, beginning 1986,
there was a 50-year forest plan implemented, and in each decade
there was so much timber that was supposed to be cut from the
Hiawatha National Forest. We all agreed to it:
Environmentalists, industry, everybody. We went from below-cost
timber-sale forests to above-cost. What has happened in the
last five years, however, has been a 32 percent reduction in
the timber sales available. Now, to make this management plan
everyone agreed not to sue, so there was a valid contract here.
Forest Service is saying, ``Well, we don't have the people.''
They actually have more people, but they are doing things
like archeology and they're paying the people out of timber
sales. What we're asking, again, is to use the power of this
committee to direct them to maintain this contract. It's the
only one in the Nation where we gave up certain rights for
timber sales. And again, if there's any problem with waivers,
we're happy to help you out.
The President's program devastates timber roads; it also
really devastates the timber sales. In my testimony, I've
pointed out certain things we need. We can find a balance to
ensure we have healthy, productive forests, providing jobs and
at the same time protecting the environment. Ninety-seven
percent of these roads we put in there are used for
recreational purposes after we're done logging in the area. So,
we'd ask that timber sales programs and that timber roads be
put back into the budget.
Last, but not least, we've discussed it just about every
year I'm here: abandoned mines. Northern Michigan at one time
was a great mining community, but once a year we will lose a
young person who's walking along, or playing by an abandoned
mine; goes in; sinks in, and every year the Federal Government
tells us, ``Stay away from them.''
And every year we tell the Federal Government, ``Where are
they?''
And they say, ``We don't know.''
So, I mean, it's foolishness, and we're just saying,
``Let's put some money into it. We got proposed legislation to
pass; it's part of my testimony. We're willing to work with you
to make sure it's----''
Mr. Regula. I'm familiar with the problem; they are around
where I live too. They certainly are dangerous.
Mr. Stupak. Very dangerous. I said, we lose one young
person a year.
Mr. Regula. I can believe that.
Mr. Stupak. And I know counties just don't have the money
to do it. The mining companies got out; converted the land back
to the State or to the counties, and they're stuck; they don't
have the money to do it. You understand it.
With that, if there's any questions I'd be happy to answer,
but thanks for your help in the past especially on the Beaver
Basin Rim road, hopefully we can do something to get that road
fixed up for the visitors and surrounding communities.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 737 - 740--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Mr. Oberstar, I think you're next on our list
here. We're a little behind schedule so, without objection,
your statement will be in the record, and anything you can do
to shorten it will help.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, I come to this committee and
each year I understand more and more the meaning of, ``It's
lonely at the top.''
You get to do all the work, listen to all this testimony,
and the others are scattered someplace. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Well, that's interesting, I must say.
Mr. Oberstar. And you're very patient, and you do----
Mr. Regula. So many good things we can do if we had more
money.
Mr. Oberstar. You do invest your time, and you are very
patient and listen--and you have listened to us in the past,
and as Mr. Stupak said, we are appreciative for all that you
have done.
I have a very few items. Voyageurs National Park--we've
been trying to complete the consolidation of the land within
the park boundaries. The authorization 27 years ago provided
for the Land Acquisition program; there's $3 million, 68 tracts
of land left. The Park Service--the landholders themselves, Mr.
Chairman, would like to get this matter settled.
Fond du Lac Indian Reservation--I have just recently, and
several times over the years visited the Fond du Lac school.
I've been in ghetto schools, and they would be a step up from
what we have on the Fond du Lac Reservation. How can you expect
learning to take place in conditions where the ceiling is
falling and the rain is coming through, and the snow is
entering the windows. It's a relatively--well, you know, $12
million for a new school, but that's a permanent investment; so
much better than anything they've ever had.
The 1854 Treaty Land to provide funding for the law
enforcement on the reservation and biological services--which
is actually management of their wildlife--they have done such a
great job throughout the Chippewa tribes in Minnesota to
improve the quality of law enforcement and wildlife
enforcement. Their officers work hand-in-hand with the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and they're first-
class people. They need this funding if they're going to
continue to maintain those resources.
``Circle of Flight'' is something that--it's just so
intertwined in the whole culture of the Chippewa people that I
just think this is one of these--it's wildlife management, but
it's also a cultural issue now with the Chippewa people.
Mr. Regula. Does the Fish and Wildlife Service manage this?
Mr. Oberstar. Jointly with the Indians and with the
Minnesota DNR.
Finally, you heard Mr. Stupak talk about the importance of
forestry to his district; it's vitally important in my
district. We have iron ore mining and thank goodness the steel
industry is doing well; that's our economic mainstay, but the
wood fiber industry has gone through a $2 billion upgrading of
their pulp and paper mills and particle board plants. Access to
timber is vitally important, but those timber roads represent 1
to 3 percent, depending on the forest--nationwide----
Mr. Regula. Let me suggest when we get the floor amendment
to cut back on the roads money, come help us.
Mr. Oberstar. I have been there every year, Mr. Chairman--
every year.
Mr. Regula. It's easy to attack forest roads.
Mr. Oberstar. There is a former member of Congress who made
that his annual event, and I think one of the reasons he's no
longer in the Congress is that he made too much about an issue
he didn't understand.
Mr. Regula. Yes. Well, they don't recognize that this is
access for sportsmen; it has a recreation dimension; it's more
than just for the timber industry.
Mr. Oberstar. Total cost of the construction of the road is
written off against and in the first year against a timber
sale, but the 50-year road benefits everybody else long after
the timber sale is complete. You've got three to five years to
complete that sale, and once that's done that road stays; it's
a permanent benefit and while they're logging, the snowmobilers
are in there and the cross-country skiers, and the summer
hikers, and all the recreational enthusiasts, and they all
using it, and they don't pay a dime.
Mr. Regula. You know, you and I are in complete agreement.
In fact, the Forest Service testified that they have triple the
visitor days of the Park Service just to illustrate how much
these are used, and the multiple use that you get from each
one; a variety of choices.
Mr. Oberstar. And I think they ought to be fair, and I'm
willing to stand up for it, and I disagree with what the
administration has set forth in their proposal, and we're going
to stand arm-to-arm with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. There we go. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. We appreciate your coming.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 743 - 745--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

GREAT MEADOWS SALT MARSH AND STEWART B. MCKINNEY, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

WITNESSES

HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
HON. ROSA DELAURO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT

Mr. Regula. Chris, I understand you and Rosa are coming up
together; you have the same interest in the Great Meadows and
the Stewart B. McKinney, NWR.
Mr. Shays. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Your statements will both be made part of the
record, and if you can both summarize--we appreciate your doing
this together; we're a little behind schedule.
Mr. Shays. We'll help you out.
Ms. DeLauro. We'll be glad to try to help you out. Thank
you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I'm delighted to join in with my
colleague, Chris Shays, to testify about an issue that we've
heard about before. It clearly is important to the district
that I represent and to Congressman Shays and his district and
to the entire State.
We are in the home stretch, if you will, on the Great
Meadows Salt Marsh. In terms of the request for Federal funds,
what it is at this juncture is purchasing the remaining
critical habitat. We're talking about $3.6 million in land and
water conservation, and essentially what we want to try to do
is to maximize the effectiveness of the $7.8 million in Federal
funds already invested in this purchase.
Mr. Regula. This is all the Fish and Wildlife Service, I
assume.
Ms. DeLauro. Yes.
Mr. Regula. And they manage it.
Ms. DeLauro. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Do they use it as an educational tool; is there
access for the public?
Mr. Shays. The answer is access and the 30 acres that we're
looking to purchase now will help that access. That's the kind
of a last stretch----
Mr. Regula. I'm assuming it's school groups that go out
there
Ms. DeLauro. That's exactly--and I will just tell you, it's
the Stratford Development Company which has worked with
community groups over the last 20 years of this development.
They are using non-Federal funds in order to make this a place
where you can have an education facility, pedestrian walkways,
parking, so that you're making it accessible to the broader
community.
Mr. Regula. Is there any way we can leverage this in
getting some match from either private, local, or State that
will finish it up?
Ms. DeLauro. In terms of the 3.6, that probably isn't the
case; the State has to put in money; they are working on an
additional 10 acres--which is not the ecologically critical
piece--with the non-Federal dollars. But this is the final $3.6
million in terms of request in terms of Federal funds.
Mr. Regula. Well, the reason I keep asking people if they
can get help locally is we're trying to leverage our dollars as
much as we can, because you can understand, we're probably
going to be flat-funded in the allocations based on what we did
in 1997; that makes it a challenge to do all the good things
we'd like to.
Ms. DeLauro. And I think that, both with Congressman Shays
and myself support that. I mean, there is already very good
evidence of the use of that kind of leverage. They have been
doing this; as I say, the State and the private effort. We can
create in this facility between 3,000 and 5,000 jobs in an
economically troubled area.
Mr. Regula. This is an aside: Are you in the demonstration
fee project. You know, we've given the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Forest Service, and the Park Service the ability
to charge some entrance fees with the proviso they keep the
money.
Mr. Shays. This is basically the salt marsh share, and the
challenge with the salt marsh is with the number of people
around and the tidal basin that comes all the way down from New
Hampshire, we are polluting the sound to such an extent that
the way it cleans itself in spite of the abuse--it's the salt
marsh. And so, frankly, a lot of the salt marsh----
Mr. Regula. It's the filter.
Mr. Shays. It's the filter. So, when you talk about match,
the focus is more on protecting the Sound andmaking sure the
bald eagle and the other wildlife are able to grow, part of the 30
acres we're looking to purchase will allow for us to restore the flow
of water the way it was so that the migratory birds and other shell
and----
Mr. Regula. The northern everglades.
Mr. Shays. Yes. Exactly, exactly. So, there are parts of
this that you would not walk through, but they have paths, and
it's right next to major areas: New Haven and Bridgeport.
Ms. DeLauro. And I mean, there's oyster-seed beds there;
that's a shellfish industry--as Chris has pointed out, a
crucial breeding and feeding ground.
Mr. Regula. I understand.
Mr. Shays. You know the other thing is we're just here to
thank you, because we've already gotten 400 acres and we're
looking----
Mr. Regula. There's so many of these worthwhile things.
Mr. Shays. We're with you--we're here with you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman--we appreciate
your time and your consideration.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 748 - 751--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

SOUTHERN FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION INITIATIVE

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Okay, next on the list here is Mr. Deutsch. I
think we're trying to stay on the way we have these listed.
And, Mr. Deutsch, I'm very familiar with this so let's save our
time. We'll make your statement a part of the record.
Mr. Deutsch. Well, I appreciate that; it's feels like this
is our annual exchange, and I appreciate the work of the
committee and four-plus years that I've been in Congress.
Unfortunately, we're back. You know, this is a long-term
commitment. The administration's budget calls for a $135
million for the----
Mr. Regula. Well, I think we're going to get a lot down
there, because we've put in a good bit--you have the Farm Bill
which, I think, had a $200 million----
Mr. Deutsch. I will add, though, I was just in the park
this weekend--as much as we've done--I mean, if you look at the
numbers--I mean, we've made a big investment; there really is
lots to be done, and some of the things are really specific.
I was with the director of the park, at Everglades Park
itself, and they don't have one hydrologist on their scientific
science staff.
Mr. Regula. Well, we've been pushing them to do the science
before they do the digging and whatever else.
Mr. Deutsch. And I think, but there's sort of a couple
parts: One is the land acquisition part that everyone is
talking about the land acquisition side, and even with that
other money, we're still under the same constraint--let me
emphasize too, the State is doing its share, in fact, on Sunday
I found out--the lieutenant Governor was with me in the park--
Florida's State Land Acquisition program, Florida State, is the
largest land acquisition program in the world.
Mr. Regula. Yes, they've done their share.
Mr. Deutsch. I mean, even larger than the entire Federal
Government's. And even it's not just State that's doing its
share, I mean, it really is down to the county level and the
water management district level. I mean, we are taxing
ourselves as a community. In fact, property tax is at the max
in terms of what have been done; it's about $30 million. Local
property tax do land acquisition, and it really is a national
treasure--I mean, it's an international treasure.
Mr. Regula. Staff was there for a couple of weeks.
Mr. Deutsch. Yes, and I appreciate the work you've been
doing, but it hasn't stopped, and it's not going to stop
probably for, you know, when our kids are still in Congress.
Mr. Regula. It's a classic example of act in haste and
repent in leisure.
Mr. Deutsch. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula. Because in years past we did things that never
should have been done.
Mr. Deutsch. And I really think it's a really success from
the Congress--as good a success story is.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. Well, I'm going to keep supporting it.
Mr. Deutsch. All right; I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thanks for coming.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 754 - 757--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

JOCASSEE GORGES-LAND ACQUISITION

WITNESSES

HON. BOB INGLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. Regula. Next is Bob Inglis; Bob and Mr. Lindsey
Graham--I didn't know we dealt with tires here. [Laughter.]
Okay, without objection, both of your statements will be
made a part of your record. We appreciate very much any
summarization you can do and briefly, I think you both talked
to me about this project.
Mr. Inglis. Right. And I'd be happy to defer to the man who
represents the district----
Mr. Regula. Okay. You're adjacent to it, I assume.
Mr. Graham. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be
brief.
Mr. Regula. Is this the Fish and Wildlife Service? I
recall, is it a refuge?
Mr. Graham. Forest Service.
Mr. Regula. Forest Service, okay.
Mr. Graham. Well, I bet you have a million good projects.
Mr. Regula. We really do.
Mr. Graham. Well, now you've a million and one. All right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. A million and two's coming behind you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graham. A million and two. Well, we're trying to
appreciate what you have to do. I know there's a limited amount
of money and when you buy land, I think we need to get as big a
bang for the buck as possible for the taxpayer. And that's
where I'm coming from on this; we're looking at a 3,575-acre
tract which will be an extension of Sumter National Forest.
Mr. Regula. This is owned by power companies.
Mr. Graham. I'm most certain. There's a 33,000-acre tract
that's going to be created; $10 million has been set aside by
the State of South Carolina to purchase 30,000 acres from a
power company, and at the end of the day we're going to have a
33,000-acre tract that will take some of the most pristine land
in the Appalachian region, the Blue Ridge Escarpment, and have
multi-purpose use, but set it aside for generations to come.
Mr. Regula. Excuse me. This will be operated by the State,
the 33,000 acres?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. As a multi-purpose recreation
area?
Mr. Graham. Absolutely. In conjunction with North Carolina;
this is going to be a project that goes across the border of
South Carolina; there's a lot of energy at home from the
private sector, State government, local community, to come up
with the money to buy the major portion of the Jocassee Gorge.
And here's where we come into play: these pink areas--I'm
colorblind; I'll take their word for it that it's pink--
represents 3,575 acres of Forest Service land that would weave
the pattern to be a complete 33,000-acre tract. If we purchase
the lands that you see here in the pink color, it would fit in
with what South Carolina and North Carolina's trying to do for
the Lake Jocassee region; it would be one of the largest
preservations on the eastern----
Mr. Regula. Is Lake Jocassee--is that a natural lake?
Mr. Graham. No, sir. It was created--the gorge area we're
talking about--the Lake was created by Duke Power, but the
Jocassee Gorge is one of the most pristine areas for wildlife
and nature and the whole Blue Ridge Mountain----
Mr. Regula. The lake is hydro?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Regula. Is it still operating?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir; absolutely.
Mr. Regula. And so they would retain that?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir. They would retain the use of the----
Mr. Regula. But do they open it for recreation?
Mr. Graham. That's part of the agreement; that the State of
South Carolina and North Carolina would have a deal to allow
multi-purpose use--but the Jocassee Gorge area is the
designation in question, and the Sumter National Forest lands
fit in together so, the puzzle's complete; it's about a $6
million purchase price, and I don't know if we could get by
with less, but our 3,500-acre acquisition leverages over 30,000
acres to make it a seamless web, and I think it is a great buy
for the taxpayers.
Mr. Regula. Can we do this on a stretch-out basis, or does
it have to all be done in one year?
Mr. Graham. That's a good question, Mr. Chairman. I
really--I think they're looking for an appropriation in this
year's budget to go ahead and seal the deal. The Crescent
Resources Company, that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke
Power, is in really deep negotiations now with South Carolina.
South Carolina's got a $10 million bond issue set aside for
this--I mean, people are very serious; the private sector's put
thousands, soon to be millions, of dollars into it. North
Carolina is working with South Carolina to come up with a per-
acre purchase price. And if we could add the 3,500-acre tract--
--
Mr. Regula. Is this privately-owned in separate tracks or
is it one block?
Mr. Graham. It's separate tracts owned by the same company;
it would sold as a block. That's what we're talking about.
You're asking some great questions.
Mr. Regula. One property owner?
Mr. Graham. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula. So one--okay.
Mr. Graham. It's a 30,000-acre purchase deal with one
property owner that will encompass many tracts of lands, and
when the quilt's made, you've got the Jocassee Gorges preserved
forever for multi-purpose use, and it's sort of the window's
closing on opportunities like this in the eastern part of the
United States.
Mr. Regula. There already has been Nantahalla.
Mr. Graham. Nantahalla National Park.
Mr. Regula. Nantahalla.
Mr. Graham. And when you put it all together, there will be
some development on Lake Jocassee that won't be covered. I
think it's a good accommodation of needs, but it puts this area
offlimits to development, but can be used by the public and
logging and hunting in a reasonable fashion.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Well, we're familiar with it.
Mr. Graham. Thank you.
Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to add just
three very quick points. One, I'm here because it's a beautiful
spot, and my son and I enjoyed canoeing recently on Lake
Jocassee, but also because I happen to represent the fourth
district of South Carolina, major population areas that would
access----
Mr. Regula. That would use this?
Mr. Inglis [continuing]. This facility.
Within the SMSA, I believe we have about a million people
that live from Spartanburg, Greenville, down to----
Mr. Regula. You have a lot of growth in your State.
Mr. Inglis. Yes. So the quality-of-life enhancement by
having this available is huge to those nearly million people--
Anderson being is Lindsey's district.
But the second point is that these properties are
contiguous to existing U.S. Forest Service property, which is
an important point, I know, to the committee.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I see that on the map here.
Mr. Inglis. In fact, one of them in North Carolina, as you
can see, is an outparcel----
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Inglis [continuing]. Which would, I'm sure, be
something that the Forest Service would be interested in
getting control of.
Mr. Regula. Oh, yes, it's an in-holding there.
Mr. Inglis. An in-holding, yes, an in-holding.
And then the third and final point is this truly is a
beautiful piece of property, and we've already given--Lindsey
and I have already given you Tommy Wyche's book on this, and
it's just as beautiful as the pictures that he's taken of it.
Mr. Regula. If we make it so nice, we'll lose people from
Ohio going down there. [Laughter.]
Mr. Graham. No tax, either. You come down; no passport
needed; you just come on down.
Mr. Regula. There's a chicken plant down there that they're
home-based in my district and you have BMW, and I think you may
have Michelin.
Mr. Inglis. Yes, we've got a tire company. I can talk to
you, if you want. Can we go into that subject now? [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Okay. Well, thanks for coming.
Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 761 - 763--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

VIRGINIA BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY INTERPRETATIVE CENTER

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Okay, now Ohio's next here. What happened? Do
you want to wait for David?
Mr. Hall. Sure. He's here.
Mr. Regula. Do you want to wait?
Then Bob Goodlatte is--next.
Mr. Goodlatte. Sure.
Mr. Regula. Okay, come on, Bob. I know your project. So we
can get yours out in a hurry.
Your statement's a part of the record. You and I've talked
about it.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about it for a minute
again, and I will be brief and would like to submit my
statement for the record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Goodlatte. This is a proposal that we have put forth on
behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia and Roanoke County,
Virginia for an interpretative center on the Blue Ridge Parkway
in Roanoke County, Virginia. This is the largest metropolitan
area on the Blue Ridge Parkway in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
and it is one of the heaviest traffic areas.
This interpretative center would be at the conjunction of
the Blue Ridge Parkway and a spur road that this committee has
previously funded that goes into what's called the Explore
Park. It's a Blue Ridge historic settlement village.
Mr. Regula. Well, let me just ask a couple of questions
here that are important. Who owns this land that you're
proposing to put this on?
Mr. Goodlatte. The County of Roanoke owns the land.
Mr. Regula. They would contribute this. Who would have
title when it's done, the Park Service?
Mr. Goodlatte. The Park Service would own it.
Mr. Regula. Do you contemplate that the State would operate
it?
Mr. Goodlatte. The Commonwealth or the county would operate
the facility.
Mr. Regula. It would not be--the Federal Government?
Mr. Goodlatte. No. We're not asking for any operating
costs. We have submitted documentation to show that they would
be covered by the Roanoke County government. They have come up
with $200,000 in capital funds each year for the next four
years. They have also contributed the land. The Commonwealth
has already appropriated $250,000 for engineering studies, and
what we are asking for is a total of about $2.05 million over
two or three years, $600,000 this year, which would match
another $2.05 million that would be put up by the Commonwealth
and the County.
Mr. Regula. So this would be a 50/50 match on the
construction?
Mr. Goodlatte. That's correct.
Mr. Regula. And State or local operation----
Mr. Goodlatte. The Federal Government's obligation is
simply to match what the Commonwealth is willing to do to get
it built, and nothing beyond that at all, and I don't favor any
operating expenses.
Mr. Regula. Okay, well, thank you for coming. We are
familiar with this project.
Mr. Goodlatte. Great. And if there's anything else we can
tell you about it, please don't hesitate to let us know.
Mr. Regula. Well, we'll be in touch. Okay.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you, Bob.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 766 - 769--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

WRIGHT BROTHERS PRINT SHOP BUILDING

WITNESSES

HON. TONY P. HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
HON. DAVE HOBSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Regula. Thanks for your patience here. This is the last
one this morning. We're trying to stay on schedule; it's not
easy. We have a lot more this afternoon.
But what I need is a printing press.
Mr. Hobson. Well, we'll try to help you out.
Mr. Regula. Yes. Well, I'm very familiar with it, as you
both know. I had a delegation from Dayton in the office, and
there's great local support, and I know the time constraints
you're both working on to get this thing done in time. I think
you've got the governor interested now. I believe we had a
letter from the governor on this one.
Mr. Hobson. Well, it's very important to the community, Mr.
Chairman, and you were instrumental in helping us get this
statute passed some years ago. I remember that well. It was one
of the first things that we worked together on.
Mr. Regula. Yes, that was touch-and-go, as I recall.
Mr. Hobson. Well, we did it on suspension. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Which is kind of an unusual way to do it.
Mr. Hobson. But, with your help, standing next to me on the
floor on our side anyway----
Mr. Regula. Well, we'll try to make this one work.
Mr. Hobson. Okay, well, we appreciate it. We'll submitt
some written testimony, but this is a bipartisan project; it is
a bi-communal--I mean, Miami Valley project. This is all in
Tony's testimony.
Mr. Regula. Well, I was impressed with the enthusiasm of
the team that came in. I think you had the editor of the paper
and the banker.
Mr. Hobson. Right.
Mr. Hall. We have great support. Dave and I both support
it. You know, the park is in both of our districts. This
particular building is in mine, but we support each other on
it. You know about it and you've been very helpful to us.
There's a match that would come from the people of Montgomery
County and the 2003 Committee. So we just seek your help.
Mr. Regula. Can we put a little burr under the State to get
them to contribute?
Mr. Hobson. Well, they're going to be in it----
Mr. Regula. Are they going to put some money in it?
Mr. Hobson. Yes, we hope--we think that's going to happen.
Mr. Regula. I see that in your testimony.
Mr. Hobson. We think that's going to be part of the deal.
The governor's expressed an interest in it.
Mr. Regula. You've got the funds budgeted.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, and the local community, and with the
people that are involved in the local community, I don't have
any hesitancy, and you've seen them raising the money. So we
think we've got a long-term committee.
Mr. Regula. Okay, we'll try to make it work.
Mr. Hobson. Okay, thanks.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. I like these where you get some local
involvement because it leverages our money so much more.
Mr. Hobson. The governor and the State have already put in
$1.2 million for many of the projects in the park.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 772 - 776--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Regula. We'll be back. The committee will be in recess
until 1:30.
----------

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

WITNESS

HON. RICK HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. Regula [presiding]. We'll reconvene.
Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Hill from the great
State of Montana. Your statement's a part of the record, and
we'll appreciate brevity in telling us what you're concerned
about.
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to testify before
you and the subcommittee today in support of projects important
to my State of Montana and on initiatives regarding Yellowstone
National Park. In my written testimony I urge the subcommittee
to support several projects important to my State; namely, the
Tongue River Dam Project, Yellowstone Control Ground Water
Project, the Whirling Disease study at Montana State
University, the Fish and Wildlife Service Western Montana
Project, and the Taylor Fork Project. And while I will not
address these in my oral remarks, they are important to
Montana, and I do wholeheartedly support them.
In these brief remarks I will concentrate on asking the
subcommittee to direct the Secretary of Interior to undertake
several actions to help us improve the management at
Yellowstone National Park. For the past 30 years, the
Yellowstone bison herd has been managed under a philosophy
known as natural regulation. In effect, natural regulation
means management by no management. Without interference from
man and with no management, the total bison population simply
increases until it uses the available range within the park. It
then either migrates out of the park or starves for lack of
food, as occurred last winter.
Failure to manage the bison population presents two serious
problems. Inside the park itself, research indicates that these
animals are overgrazing available rangeland and are wiping out
many of the plants and animals important to the park's ecology.
Outside the park, the migrating Yellowstone bison pose a
serious health risk to the citizens and cattle industry of
Montana. This is primarily due to the fact that more than one
out of every two bison carries the infectious disease
brucellosis that causes abortion in cattle and undulant fever
in humans.
Mr. Yates. That many?
Mr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Yates. One out of two?
Mr. Hill. That is true.
Current management is doing nothing to control the
overgrazing or the disease. I will speak about the disease
brucellosis in a moment. However, I first want to encourage the
subcommittee to take action on the overgrazing. What is needed
is an independent, scientific assessment of Yellowstone's range
resources. I, therefore, urge the subcommittee to instruct the
Secretary of the Department of Interior to contract with the
National Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology to conduct a scientific study of the ecological
effects of hoofed animals on the range resources of Yellowstone
National Park. To facilitate the study, the subcommittee should
direct the Secretary to make available to such study all
National Park Service and Yellowstone data, records, and
studies pertaining to the range resources, and the subcommittee
should require the Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology to report the findings of the study directly to
Congress.
Regarding the disease brucellosis, I strongly urge the
subcommittee to take two additional actions. First, I ask the
subcommittee to direct the Secretary of Interior to undertake a
contract with the National Research Council's Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology for the development of an
improved and more effective vaccine against this contagious
bacterial disease. As you know, the Secretary recently
negotiated such a study, and I support that decision, and I ask
the subcommittee to ensure continued support for such research.
Second, I urge the subcommittee to follow up the search for
a more effective vaccine with a managed program within the park
to control brucellosis and bison using vaccines that are
already available. We all know that no vaccine is totally
effective. Nevertheless, we vaccinate cattle against the
disease under a national program begun by Congress in 1956.
Vaccinating bison calves presents an opportunity to reduce the
incidence of disease.
All that is required to begin this program is for the
Secretary of the Interior to lift his prohibition against
access to the diseased herd. Therefore, I urge the subcommittee
to direct the Secretary to invite, welcome, and work with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal, Plant, and Health
Inspection Service to vaccinate bison calves. APHIS is
Government's foremost agency for this job. All they need is
permission, a permission slip, from the Secretary of the
Interior to begin the program.
Mr. Chairman, these three elements--a study by the Board of
Environmental Studies and Toxicology on the overgrazing effects
of Yellowstone, research for the same board into a better
vaccine, and a reasonable, good-faith, well-managed vaccination
program--would achieve a great deal. Mr. Chairman, the
subcommittee can play an historic role in the guidance of a new
policy toward the management of Yellowstone Park. I strongly
urge your solid support for language to accomplish these
important recommendations. Together they provide a common-sense
integrity we require to improve the overall environment of the
park for ourselves, and generations of Americans to follow.
Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Yates. No questions.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yates. You didn't mention the ``big sky.'' [Laughter.]
Mr. Hill. It's a wonderful place, and I love it greatly.
Mr. Yates. I'll bet you do.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 779 - 781--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

WITNESS

HON. PETE HOEKSTRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN

Mr. Regula. Mr. Hoekstra? And I want you to know, Mr.
Hoekstra, that Mr. Yates just came for your testimony.
Mr. Yates. Oh, that's an honor that I've been waiting for
for a long time. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. He has some interest in this subject that
you're going to address.
Mr. Yates. Well, so does Mr. Hoekstra.
Mr. Hoekstra. Well, good, let's talk about prevailing wages
this morning. [Laughter.]
Mr. Yates. Before you start, is it true that you were once
a vice president of Herman Miller?
Mr. Hoekstra. That is correct.
Mr. Yates. Well, congratulations and commendations. I was
your biggest customer. We were--my wife and I were--disciples
of Mies Van der Rohe and your contemporary furniture just
filled our house. We spent a lot of money with Herman Miller.
Mr. Hoekstra. Do you still have it?
Mr. Yates. Oh, yes.
Mr. Hoekstra. You are a very wealthy man--[laughter]--not
only because it was a good investment, and that stuff is now
very valuable.
Mr. Yates. Oh, I know. The Eames chairs and the other
chairs--as a matter of fact, we just bought one of the Eames
lounge chairs from Herman Miller. I guess I shouldn't be
talking.
Mr. Regula. Oh, you can talk as much as you like.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Yates. But, you know, I shouldn't say this at this
time. I was going to say it later, but this man, a vision, my
admiration and respect for him go up immensely because Herman
Miller was one of the pioneers in contemporary furniture----
Mr. Regula. It's very artistic, too, was it not?
Mr. Hoekstra. That's correct.
Mr. Yates. It's contemporary furniture design, and I don't
understand how a man with this kind of vision can have that
kind of an attitude toward the National Endowment for the Arts.
[Laughter.]
But, at any rate, go ahead with your testimony.
Mr. Regula. On that note, we'll make your testimony a part
of the record and you can address in your four minutes whatever
you choose.
Mr. Yates. Are you still with Herman Miller? [Laughter.]
I don't mean that. I mean, do you still have a connection
of some kind with Herman Miller?
Mr. Hoekstra. Only friendship.
Mr. Yates. Okay.
Mr. Hoekstra. Only friendship and own a few shares of
stock.
Mr. Yates. Yes, that's what I meant. It's still a great
company.
Mr. Hoekstra. The stock has doubled in the last 12 months.
Mr. Yates. And it should; their products are so good.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you. Is this all on the record that I
can send this to them?
Mr. Yates. Yes, it's on the record.
Mr. Regula. If you check with us, we'll give you a copy of
the transcript. I know they'd like to have it.
Mr. Hoekstra. All right.
I'd like to thank the chairman, Mr. Regula, for allowing me
to testify, and, Mr. Yates, thank you for being here. My
subcommittee that I chair on the Education and Workforce
Committee, we've been doing oversight work on the National
Endowment for the Arts as part of our ongoing oversight
efforts, and we've really asked three questions: ``Is funding
the NEA an appropriate Federal role? Is the NEA operating in an
effective and efficient manner? And is it operating consistent
with congressional intent?'' And I'd like to just briefly
summarize, I think, what we've found in each of those areas.
Does the NEA fulfill an appropriate Federal role? One of
the things that we looked at in this area is we took a look at
the condition of the arts as an industry within America today.
Our evidence shows that this is a thriving industry. This is a
very good profession to be in. Attendance is up in all arts
categories--for museums, operas, plays, and ballets. Total
receipts for performing arts now approach those of the motion
picture industry and spectator sports. Employment and earning
levels for artists are up. As a matter of fact, they are well
above the average of the rest of the labor force in America.
The unemployment rate is equal or below that for people
employed in other industries in America.
So the arts in America are flourishing, and I believe that
they're flourishing and that the NEA is not the primary reason
that they are flourishing. The biggest reason that they are
flourishing is because they are producing products, goods and
services, that are being consumed by the American public.
People are supporting the arts in their local community because
they're producing a good product. The level of private support
for the arts continues to grow and to skyrocket, and the end
result is, when you take a look at that, NEA funding today
accounts for less than 1 percent of the total receipts for the
arts.
This is not a debate about whether the Federal Government
should be involved in the support of the arts. We are involved.
We're involved in a significant way outside of the NEA. We
provide more than $1 billion in art subsidies through the
Federal income tax deduction for charitable giving, and we have
a number of other programs, so that the NEA, in and of itself,
is only about 6 percent of the total Federal Government
support. Even though the NEA funding has been cut--has gone
down over the last several years--private giving and State and
local government contributions to the arts have increased
significantly. This industry is doing extremely well.
Is the NEA operating in an effective and efficient manner?
We have this organization. Does it work? I think the evidence
that we have would say no. The administrative costs keep
climbing. In 1996, we estimate that their administrative costs
will be about 18.8 percent of their total budget. So that means
for every dollar that we send here, about 81 cents only gets
back to support the arts. The NEA has said that this would fall
below 17 percent, but they have been able to do that.
Their administrative costs may be due in part to the lack
of strict accounting and management standards. The NEA is not
subject to the types of accounting standards maintained in the
private sector and which have recently been placed on other
Federal agencies, such as the Chief Financial Officers Act.
Finally, few, if any, significant outside reviews of the
NEA's accounting or management structures have been performed
in recent memory. In short, I think this is a bureaucracy that
is not working very well.
Does the NEA follow congressional intent? I think it is
operating outside the intent and will of this and past
Democratically-controlled Congresses. I always thought that one
of the things that NEA was supposed to do was promote the arts
on a broad basis throughout America. One-third of the
congressional districts, 143 out of 435, failed to get any
direct support from the NEA. Approximately one-third of the
direct NEA grants go to six large cities: New York, Boston, LA,
San Francisco, Chicago, and D.C. Furthermore, a large
percentage of these funds go to the large organizations that
have significant budgets that indicate they're being
successful: the Metropolitan Opera, total income, $133 million;
the Lyric Opera, $37 million; the Boston Symphony, $43 million;
the Art Institute of Chicago, $96 million. These successful
organizations experienced cuts in NEA funding; yet, each
reported a dramatic increase in total income in 1996.
Congress also has repeatedly tried to limit the NEA's
funding of performers and exhibits that run counter to common
decency standards. I think, as Mr. Regula, you know, my former
colleague, Mr. Henry, tried to correct that problem. That's now
been declared unconstitutional by the Federal district courts.
My testimony will be submitted for the record. I think that
this is an ineffective bureaucracy. It's a minuscule part of
the total funding of arts in the United States, and the arts
will continue to thrive and be successful in spite of the NEA.
Mr. Regula. I have one question.
Mr. Hoekstra. Yes?
Mr. Regula. Do you think the Federal Government has any
role in the preservation and enhancement of the cultural
heritage of America?
Mr. Hoekstra. The historical elements, yes, I think so.
Mr. Regula. Mr. Yates?
Mr. Yates. Yes. Mr. Hoekstra, you talked about the Federal
Government now giving subsidies to cultural endeavors, to the
arts, through charities. Does that mean that you favor Federal
funding for the arts other than the Endowment?
Mr. Hoekstra. Well, there are certain other organizations
that we fund, such as the Smithsonian and those types of
things.
Mr. Yates. That's right.
Mr. Hoekstra. We have not taken a look at those. I think in
some ways there may be an appropriate Federal role for those
types of institutions. I think where we get differentiated from
the National Endowment for the Arts is where Washington gets
into putting the stamp of approval and trying to pick winners
and losers and trying to identify what's good art.
Mr. Yates. But Washington does not pick winners and losers;
Washington gives that job to private citizens who select who
the grants should go to through their panels, and that is not a
Government operation, except in the framework of letting the
private citizens do that. Is not that your understanding, too?
Mr. Hoekstra. That, I think, is how the system operates.
It's still Federal dollars going to specific individuals and
designers and artists. I can tell you that when we were at
Herman Miller, the toughest question that we had to deal with
was identifying the next Bob Probst, identifying the next
Charles Eames, identifying that next successful designer that
could bring together form and function in a very successful
way, and I think the most effective way to do that is through
the charitable tax writeoff and not having artists trying to
pick who's going to be successful.
Mr. Yates. Well, Charles Eames and Bob Probst and the
others you mentioned could just as well have been trained under
NEA's financed programs, could they not?
Mr. Hoekstra. Charles Eames and Bob Probst became very
successful and they became very wealthy individuals----
Mr. Yates. Oh, I know.
Mr. Hoekstra [continuing]. Because they were judged in the
private sector.
Mr. Yates. I have one more question.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Yates. Do you favor Federal funding for symphony
orchestras, for example, like the New York Philharmonic?
Mr. Hoekstra. No, I don't think that there's a necessary
role in Washington for us to pick one orchestra----
Mr. Yates. I don't mean one; I mean any symphony orchestra
that applies throughout the country.
Mr. Hoekstra. No, I don't think that's necessary. I think
the symphony orchestras are flourishing and they're doing well
without Washington subsidizing some and not others.
Mr. Yates. What about art museums?
Mr. Hoekstra. No, I don't think that there's a necessity
for Washington to be involved in that.
Mr. Yates. Okay, and what about art education for children?
Mr. Hoekstra. I think art education, I think as the
Secretary of Education has recently identified, is instrumental
in developing children's capacity for creative skills and that.
So I think art education is a very important component of a
total curriculum.
Mr. Yates. Now you indicated that the arts community, apart
from NEA, is flourishing at the present time.
Mr. Hoekstra. Yes.
Mr. Yates. Suppose the facts indicated that it was not
flourishing; would you then change your mind about Federal
funding, including the Endowment?
Mr. Hoekstra. I don't know. I'd want to take a look at why
I thought that--why people were speculating that that industry
was not flourishing. So, without knowing why, it would be hard
to say.
Mr. Yates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Hoekstra.
Mr. Hoekstra. Hey, thank you.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 787 - 790--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING

SOUTH FLORIDA INITIATIVE

WITNESS

HON. PORTER GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA

Mr. Regula. Mr. Goss, you're next on the list.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hi, Mr. Yates. How are
you?
Mr. Regula. I'm familiar with yours; Joe's going to take
over here for a little bit. I've got about a 20-minute
appointment.
Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, I come before you today with a
prepared statement for the record, which I'd ask be included in
the record.
Mr. Skeen. [presiding] It will be done.
Mr. Goss. Thank you. And I would, therefore, like to
abbreviate and make myself available for questions.
Mr. Skeen. With much appreciation.
Mr. Goss. The standard area of the Outer Continental Shelf
problem in Florida has not gone away; we could talk about it at
length. There's very little new dimension from the testimony I
made last year. Perhaps the most important thing I can say is
that we do have a good bill ready to move; we are trying to
move it, which I think will get us out of the annual moratorium
business and into a more meaningful, long-term solution.
With regard to the South Florida Initiative, which you all
have so generously assisted, the State and the citizens of the
area of south Florida, we are moving forward. We're dealing, as
you know, with the Everglades science and research activities.
We're doing the land acquisition; we're dealing in Big Cypress;
we're in Florida Bay, and, most importantly, I think that we
are dealing with the question of water flows, which is really
the major problem for the future health of the system and the
bay. And all of that is a coordinated program called the South
Florida Initiative, which has got a whole lot of players,
including the Federal Government. Your wisdom, vision,
foresight, generosity would be much appreciated. We hope it
will continue in our program.
With regard to the wildlife refuge funding, I do have a
wrinkle that is relevant to my own district, and that's in the
Ding Darling Refuge, which is a particularly good one, well-
run, in fact so well-run I understand the manager is receiving
a national award.
Mr. Yates. You have Sanibel in your district then, don't
you?
Mr. Goss. Yes, Sanibel is, indeed, in my district, and not
only is it in my district; it's in my back yard; it's where I
live, and I love it dearly.
In that area, the refuge manager has identified some in-
holdings--some out-holdings that he would like to have become
in-holdings as part of the refuge. [Laughter.]
And he has gotten the city and local government to
basically take that land out of what I would call private
development--with the idea that eventually the Federal
Government will include it in the refuge. That's a good
program, and one that I hope you will be able to help with.
Coastal Barrier Resources System is a very important issue
for us. We've got lots of coast, and the highest point on
Sanibel above sea level is 14 feet, and that's one very small
part of it. Most of it is just about at sea level, and we can
talk all day long about the flood program, and so forth, but I
think it's very important that we honor the commitments we've
made in the Barrier Resources System, and my testimony speaks
briefly to that.
Historic preservation, Mr. Yates, I know you've been
interested in that before. I think Florida is a State that has
proven it's put its money where its mouth is in historic
preservation, and we would like to continue to be able to
participate to the degree that the Federal Government
participates. As Mr. Yates knows, I believe that it is
appropriate for there to be some Federal Government-type
participation in the arts and historic preservation and the
humanities.
I'd be very happy to respond to any questions or
amplification.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Speaking of the Everglades and that
problem there, I understood it was tied in, too, with some of
your agricultural production. Would you want to comment on that
or has anything been----
Mr. Goss. I would, indeed. Obviously, we have interested
parties, and that includes agricultural production; it includes
primarily sugar----
Mr. Skeen. Sugar production.
Mr. Goss. Sugar primarily. And I believe we have a close
working, cooperative relationship with the sugar industry. It
gets stressed and strained from time to time by referendums,
initiatives, and differences of view about how much is the
right amount for the sugar industry to pay. Sugar is a
participant in the payout of this. Whether it's the right
formula or not, I would be happy to discuss at length. The
governor believes that a good deal has been made; I think
that's fair to say; he's endorsed it. The taxpayers are
participating, even those downstream who were not part of the
pollution problem. The taxpayers in my district are paying into
the solution. The principal the polluters pay is being applied.
Whether it's being applied to the right degree is debatable,
but so far we have a degree and it is going forward.
I don't think that problem is going to be resolved until
billions of dollars have been spent, and I suspect we'll be
arguing about what the right percentage is right down to the
last of the billion dollars.
Mr. Skeen. I think you've answered a fair surmissal----
Mr. Goss. I think so.
Mr. Skeen. But the sugar industry is involved----
Mr. Goss. Yes, it is.
Mr. Skeen [continuing]. And they're not offering
participation?
Mr. Goss. I would say that the sugar industry understands
that they have a responsibility.
Mr. Skeen. But they don't want to quantify it as far as
money is concerned?
Mr. Goss. It's a little hard on a day-to-day basis to get
total agreement from everybody on exactly where that
responsibility translates out into the balance sheet, but
they're trying.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Yates?
Mr. Yates. Mr. Goss, you indicated that you had some
concern about the Ding Darling Refuge?
Mr. Goss. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Yates. What is the problem?
Mr. Goss. The problem really is that the refuge manager has
identified some properties in the area that are truly
threatened by development. They would appropriately be part of,
and they're certainly part of, the ecosystem; no doubt about
that. They would make an appropriate part of the refuge. This
is not an expansion. It's basically taking care of what's in
the circle.
Mr. Yates. Right. I've been out to the Ding Darling Refuge
several times. It's a wonderful, wonderful refuge.
Mr. Goss. Thank you.
Mr. Yates. And Sanibel is a lovely community, as is
Captiva. I'll certainly want to help preserve Ding Darling.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Yates. And I read somewhere that it had some trouble
for a brief period.
Mr. Goss. If you're referring to the Government shutdown
last year----
Mr. Yates. Yes.
Mr. Goss [continuing]. That was endemic elsewhere. I hope
that isn't going to happen again this year.
Mr. Yates. Oh, I hope not.
Mr. Goss. I don't think there's any problem with Ding
Darling. There have been some user fees involved there. There
have been a lot of issues that have been discussed. The
wonderful thing about Ding Darling is basically it's located in
a community that is absolutely sympathetic to the refuge
purpose. There is a lot of symbiosis, and my view is that right
now we've got a refuge manager receiving a national award,
national attention, for the job he's done. The hallmark of it
is that we've been able to work out the areas of discussion or
controversy very well locally.
The one thing we haven't been able to do is get all the
necessary funds, even though the citizens and the municipality
of Sanibel have contributed very substantially to the
enlargement of the wetlands holdings, taking them out of the
private mix and putting them aside for conservation.
Mr. Yates. Do I understand that the whole Florida
delegation supports the moratorium on off-sea drilling?
Mr. Goss. Yes, sir, I believe that is a fair statement.
There is an exception up in the northwest part for one gas well
that was at a certain degree of development, and I understand
that is basically the terminus for that operation is in an
adjoining State, and it is not going to be in Florida. But I
think it's fair to say--I don't want to put words in my
colleagues' mouths, but I believe they've all signed on my
bill--they've co-sponsored--which is looking for a permanent
solution. So I think it's a nonpartisan, statewide concern, and
I know the governor, who happens to be, as you know, a very
fine gentleman, is very concerned and very supportive.
Mr. Yates. Okay, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. Your five minutes are up, but I'd like to ask
you one last question, and that's on citrus research
installation. Did we get it moved?
Mr. Goss. You know, I don't know what finally happened to
that. I know that there's still some feeling, very strong
feeling, down in my area.
Mr. Skeen. Well, I think it's in progress. I didn't mean to
pin you on this thing, but I----
Mr. Goss. I will be happy to get the chairman the answer to
that question, but it's still a sore subject in some places.
Mr. Skeen. Very tender; I understand.
Mr. Goss. Yes, sir.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Goss. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 795 - 797--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--FOSSIL ENERGY R&D

WITNESS

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

Mr. Skeen. Okay, Mike Doyle, welcome.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. You've got five whole minutes to tell us what
all your problems are. [Laughter.]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity. I'd like to thank the ranking member, Mr. Yates,
and all members of the committee for the opportunity to come
before you today to highlight a couple of areas of concern that
I hope can be addressed in Fiscal Year 1998's Interior
appropriations bill.
My written testimony primarily focuses on the Department of
Energy's fossil energy budget. In it, I point to a number of
funding adjustments that need to be made in various fossil
energy programs, which I won't get into in great detail in my
oral remarks.
Let me say that the merger that has created the Federal
Energy Technology Center has been quite successful, and it's
probably the best example of the type of efficiencies that DOE
should be pursuing as we embark on a glide path toward a
balanced budget. There's one issue pertaining to the FETC
merger that remains outstanding. That's the equity between
Pittsburgh and Morgantown sites and the reduction of site
support contractors.
I also urge this committee to look at the possibility of
including in the FETC structure the work of FE's oil program,
which used to take place at the Bartlesville projects office.
It is my understanding that it is DOE's intention to move this
work to the Tulsa field office, despite the fact that it could
be handled in a more cost-efficient manner by the FETC.
While the administration's request for fossil energy is not
as disappointing as it has been in the past few years, there
are a few areas which need improvement. Most important is the
funding for the FETC program direction. Specifically, this
funding--funding this line at $51.1 million for Fiscal Year
1998 is necessary to preserve up to 100 positions at the center
that are needed to meet FETC's core mission.
I would like to point out to the members that H.R. 1277,
the DOE R&D authorization bill, currently being marked up in
the Science Committee, contains this level of funding for FETC
program direction. Other items of the FE budget that need to be
looked at include LEBS, advanced clean efficient fuels, Solid
Oxide Fuel Cell Program, and possible restructuring of the
Advanced Turbine Systems Program.
Looking beyond this year's budget, I want to make members
of this committee aware of legislation I plan to introduce next
week to merge the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil
Energy with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. This bill combines the administrative functions of FE
and EE, achieving budgetary savings while preserving the
programmatic efforts and research missions of these offices.
I'm introducing this bill, along with Chairman Ken Calvert of
the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, and it is also being
co-sponsored by Science Committee Ranking Member George Brown
and Energy and Environment Ranking Member Tim Roemer.
In the past there's been politically-motivated rivalry
between congressional supporters of FE and EE, one that is
based on labels rather than fact. This has been detrimental to
both programs and seems foolish when one recognizes that when
DOE was originally formed these research areas were all located
under the jurisdiction of a single Assistant Secretary for
Energy Technology. This bill eliminates that rivalry without
harming important energy R&D.
Chairman Calvert has assured me that we will hold hearings
on the bill and possibly move to markup prior to the end of
this summer. In the interim, I would welcome input from the
members of this committee with regard to this effort.
Mr. Chairman, the rest of my testimony I've submitted in
writing, and in the interest of time, I'll stop at this time
and thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Skeen. It will be entered in total in the record, and
we appreciate your presentation and the brevity of it.
I don't have any questions of you. I think you pretty well
covered the energy situation as far as these areas are
concerned.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skeen. We'll give you every consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. I appreciate that. Have a good day.
Mr. Skeen. You do the same.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 800 - 803--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

RESTORATION OF SALMON ON THE ELWHA RIVER

WITNESS

HON. RICK WHITE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON

Mr. Skeen. Rick White?
Mr. White. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I
do have a----
Mr. Skeen. Welcome.
Mr. White. Thank you. I have a written statement that I'd
like to ask be included in the record.
Mr. Skeen. It shall be done.
Mr. White. And I prefer not to read it. I prefer just to
say two or three things----
Mr. Skeen. Abstract it, if you will, and we appreciate
that.
Mr. White. Great. Just to summarize, what I'm asking for is
an appropriation of $24.6 million for salmon restoration
efforts on the Elwha River, most of which is in Olympic
National Park in the State of Washington. And I brought some
maps which I think do a much better job of telling why more
than anything I could possibly say. So, with your indulgence,
let me just show you what we're talking about.
As you can see right here, this is the Olympic Peninsula of
Washington; this is the Pacific Ocean; this is the Strait of
Juan de Fuca. And the Olympic National Park occupies a big
chunk of the Olympic Peninsula.
Mr. Skeen. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I was there
at the dedication when Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt was
President.
Mr. White. Well, it hasn't changed much since then.
Mr. Skeen. That have been a little place called Port
Angeles?
Mr. White. That's right. There you go.
Mr. Skeen. There you go right there. Are the sands pit
still there?
Mr. White. Yes, sir, it is, and it's a wonderful place. I
was out there with my kids just a few months ago.
Mr. Skeen. Well, I've worn down a whole lot, and I think
the sands pit's probably still growing. [Laughter.]
Mr. White. It has.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Mr. White. As you can see, we put this big red line on the
park here. That shows the Elwha River, which starts at the
glacier just east of Mt. Olympus and flows all the way down the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, about 50 miles, into the Pacific Ocean.
Mr. Skeen. It's a beautiful piece of country.
Mr. White. Now the reason I wanted to show you this map is
that we spend about $435 million every year to restore salmon
on the Columbia and Snake River systems, which have dams and
agriculture and all kinds of other very important uses that
make it kind of hard to figure out how to restore the salmon.
Here virtually all of this river is in a national park. There
is no agriculture. Except for these two old dams, there's
nothing else impeding the restoration of the salmon. If we want
to actually get some bang for our buck in spending money to
restore salmon, this is the place to do it because all of this
river is in a national park.
Mr. Skeen. That's one of the largest spawning areas.
Mr. White. Yes, sir, it had--all five species of salmon
have spawned here for centuries. It's just an opportunity
where, if we spend a little bit of money, $24 million, on a
one-time basis this year, that will allow us to acquire these
dams, plan a little bit for the best way to restore salmon, and
once we've spent that money, we've got something that will
actually work. We don't have to deal with agriculture and
irrigation and all the other problems because this river is in
a national park. I think if we're looking for a place where we
can spend our money and really make some difference, this is
just a wonderful opportunity.
Mr. Skeen. So all the water rights belong to the Federal
Government then?
Mr. White. The last 15 miles is outside of the park, and--
--
Mr. Skeen. Which is private then?
Mr. White. It is----
Mr. Skeen. Riparian?
Mr. White. Yes, it is riparian. That's exactly right.
That's an issue I think we could deal with very easily. The
great bulk of the river is in the national park, and it's in
the same condition it's been in for thousands of years. It's a
perfect spawning habitat for salmon.
Mr. Skeen. Has there been a large decline in the spawning
numbers, and so forth?
Mr. White. Well, yes, sir, because one of the dams is
actually in the park, and then there's another dam just a
little bit down the river.
Mr. Skeen. I see.
Mr. White. And there's just--I was out there six months ago
with my kids. There's no way in the world a salmon could get
over that dam without an elevator or a helicopter, or something
else. I mean, it is a big dam.
Mr. Skeen. They don't have a fish ladder or----
Mr. White. No fish ladder. This was all built before the
time when we knew that we should put fish ladders into this
sort of river.
Mr. Skeen. Yes.
Mr. White. So it's just a wonderful opportunity to actually
get some value from the $24 million we spend, instead of
putting $435 million every year into the Columbia River, where
we're not seeing much bang for our buck. And I just appreciate
the committee's consideration of that.
Mr. Skeen. Well, we appreciate the presentation, and I have
to tell you that I lived in Port Angeles and in Seattle, and
it's a beautiful part of the country, but the greatest thing
was all of us coming from New Mexico into that area. My father
was an engineer, worked around the paper mills----
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. Skeen [continuing]. And he went fishing out there, and
we're used to catching nice trout or bass, and so forth. He
caught a 35-pound salmon, and he had that--in those early days,
this was back in the thirties or forties, or somewhere along in
that area----
Mr. White. That's right.
Mr. Skeen [continuing]. And he had it shipped to New Mexico
just to show people what a real fish looked like. [Laughter.]
Mr. White. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman--or, Mr. Acting
Chairman--if you guys can appropriate a little money for this
dam, in a few years we'll catch a 100-pound salmon up there in
that river. [Laughter.]
That's what there used to be in----
Mr. Skeen. Let's go for it.
Mr. White. Okay, thank you, sir.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 807 - 808--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

FOREST SERVICE

WITNESS

HON. JOHN E. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Skeen. The Honorable John E. Peterson, welcome.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you and good afternoon.
Mr. Skeen. You've been very patient.
Mr. Peterson. Yes. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Skeen, and
fellow members and staff. I'm pleased to be here today to
testify on behalf of the Allegheny National Forest. I have
detailed testimony which we'll submit for the record, and I'll
just go over it very quickly.
Mr. Skeen. Your whole testimony will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, sir.
The Allegheny National Forest is 513,000 acres which lie
completely in my congressional district of Pennsylvania. Today
I would like to recommend to the committee three priority
projects on the forest that fall under the jurisdiction of the
United States Forest Service, two under Recreation and
Construction and one under Fire, Administration, and Other.
The first project is construction of a Marienville office.
Currently, the Allegheny National Forest employees work out of
two small office buildings, a trailer, and two warehouses
located separately in different areas. This leads to
inefficiencies in work coordination, additional travel,
communications costs, additional administrative and management
costs.
For over a decade, the Allegheny National Forest has been
requesting funds to construct a central office at Marienville
and has been unsuccessful. This would allow for disposal of
inadequate office space and would free-up land in the center of
Marienville, a small town in Forest County, to some other use
than the Forest Service warehouse. This would benefit the rural
development of one of Pennsylvania's poorest counties. The
total size of the new office space is estimated to be 12,000 to
14,000 square feet. Much of the existing infrastructure--roads,
water, sewer system, electrical, storage buildings--would be
used in the construction. New construction would include
expanding parking for employees and visitors, a new sewage
treatment system, and a new workshop warehouse of approximately
5,000 square feet. The total cost of this first project is
$1.75 million.
The next two projects fall under Recreation and
Construction. The first project is boat-access campgrounds on
the Allegheny Reservoir, which involves the rehabilitation of
three of five boat-access campgrounds on the 12,000-acre lake.
Completion of this project will finish a larger project started
by rehabilitation of the first two boat-access campgrounds on
the reservoir.
The prime reason for rehabilitation is environmental
protection--leaking underground sewage facilities. In addition,
this would reduce future maintenance needs and reduce
backlogged maintenance.
The capacity of the campgrounds is considerably exceeded on
the weekends due to poorly defined campsites. Use at this
campground has totalled 11,800 recreation visitor days
annually. These sites were constructed in 1960 and have
outlived their expected lifespan. Repairs also include
replacing pit toilets with sweet-smelling toilets, redefining
existing sites and additional sites, where appropriate; provide
accessible path from the shoreline to some campsites, water
pumps, and toilets; install underground sewer pumping line for
easier, more sanitary pumping of the vaults. Total cost:
$200,000.
Finally, the third project is the Buckaloons Recreation
Area rehabilitation. This area is located well within the
heritage resource area and is within the designated Wild and
Scenic River Corridor of the Allegheny River. Customer
complaints center around water facilities, parking, and access.
The primary purpose of this project would be to provide
improved shower/toilet facilities, increase parking at the
boat-access lot, add electrical hookups to some sites, and add,
again, the sweet-smelling toilets. Total cost: $291,000.
Mr. Skeen and members, I think it's important to note that
the Allegheny National Forest is a very profitable forest.
During Fiscal Year 1996, the Allegheny National Forest
generated a profit of nearly $9 million from its timber sale
program that goes back into the U.S. Treasury. In addition, the
Allegheny National Forest is saddled with a $10 million
maintenance backlog. Funding for this project would return
needed dollars to the forest area to better serve our customers
and visitors, and would really enhance the tourism of this
area.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. What is--where did the name
Buckaloons derive from?
Mr. Peterson. Well, it's an Indian settlement. All along
the Allegheny River that was an Indian settlement, and that--
I'm not sure how they retained that, but it was an area that
was highly inhabited by Indians.
Mr. Skeen. But that's where it came from?
Mr. Peterson. That's where it came from, yes.
Mr. Skeen. Well, thank you. It sounds like you've got a
beautiful recreational area.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, the Allegheny National Forest----
Mr. Skeen. All it needs is sweet-smelling toilets.
Mr. Peterson. That's right. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. I'm very interested in that project.
Mr. Peterson. Okay. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson. You betcha. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Skeen. I thought that would get a chuckle. You raised
our interest level. [Laughter.]
[The information follows:]

[Pages 811 - 814--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

THE EDWIN B. FORSYTHE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

WITNESS

HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY

Mr. Skeen. Do we have any other presenters? Shall we just
wait on them.
Oh, here we go. We've been looking for you. The sheriff's
out after you. [Laughter.]
Welcome.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Jim Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. It's nice to be here again.
Mr. Skeen. We're delighted to have you here.
Mr. Saxton. I'm delighted to be here.
Mr. Skeen. What can we do for you?
Mr. Saxton. Well, we've got this little area back in the--
--
Mr. Skeen. We'll put your entire written testimony into the
record.
Mr. Saxton. That would be great.
We've got this little area back in New Jersey which is
known as the Forsythe Wildlife Refuge. It consists of about
42,000 acres. We have been able to acquire property all the way
from Cape May to Sandy Hook, which is a run of about 100 miles,
and that 42,000 acres has been of tremendous benefit to
wildlife, particularly migratory birds. And of course we
protect the entire ecosystem and manage it very carefully.
And what we have found is that most of the land that we
have been able to acquire has been land which is wetlands,
which is right along the bay and the estuaries that feed into
it, and we have found now that it is necessary to acquire
uplands to protect the land that we have already acquired,
where the drainage begins and drains down into the uplands. As
you know, I guess, New Jersey is one of the most densely-
populated States in the country, and the population along the
coast east of the Garden State Parkway is where the growth
takes place, and it jams people continually into this area
because of the dynamics of the area and the places that people
want to live.
And so if we are going to have an area there that is
friendly to wildlife and friendly to migratory birds in
particular, then we need to protect it, and, therefore, we are
asking for $3 million to acquire additional uplands to protect
the investment that we have already made.
Secondly, the land which is immediately inland from the
Garden State Parkway is known as the Pinelands Preserve, and
there has been established a State and Federal partnership to
protect this land and this ecosystem, and we're asking for $9
million as a match to the State of New Jersey, who is also
putting up $9 million for environmental protection facilities
and efforts in that area.
It seems to me there is one other thing of importance in my
testimony here. Oh, yes, the administration has requested $10
million for Canada goose research. These birds are quite
fascinating and quite complicated. I had no idea until a year
or so ago that there are at least a half a dozen or maybe more
subspecies, and----
Mr. Regula. Three hundred of them are on my pond.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Saxton. And those are the kind that don't migrate;
they're the bigger birds, and they're, besides being called
``geese,'' they're called a number of other things. [Laughter.]
But our understanding of the subspecies, while those birds
are so darned prolific that we're trying to invent new ways to
get rid of them, the species that migrate along the East Coast
from northern Canada are in very short supply, and the
biologists are trying to figure out how to get this thing back
in balance, so that we don't have so many geese messing up our
front yards on a year-round basis while the other ones are
becoming endangered or even extinct. So that's what that $10
million is for.
So those are my very modest requests, and I'm sure you'll
see fit to put them all as they are in your markup.
Mr. Skeen. We'll modestly try. [Laughter.]
Mr. Saxton. Well, we modestly--we greatly appreciate it,
without any modesty at all. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. We thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. The geese do enhance the fertility of golf
courses.
Mr. Skeen. Let me ask you a question. You mentioned the
water runoff, and if you--you're trying to purchase them or
purchase the uplands, so that you can control the water?
Mr. Saxton. Well, controlling the water in a passive way.
If we leave the ecosystem and if we leave the habitat the way
it is without building----
Mr. Skeen. But you would manage the water better? Or has it
been causes erosion, and so forth?
Mr. Saxton. It's not erosion; it's more pollution.
Mr. Skeen. Just pollution?
Mr. Saxton. It's from fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides--
Mr. Skeen. I see.
Mr. Saxton. And if we don't have houses there, we don't
have lawns in there; therefore, those issues are not problems
to the Forsythe Refuge.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you, Joe, for
covering.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 817 - 819--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--LOW EMISSION BOILER SYSTEM

WITNESS

HON. RAY LaHOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS

Mr. Regula. Mr. LaHood I think is----
Mr. LaHood. Yes, sir.
Mr. Regula. You're next.
Mr. Skeen. Is that the infamous Ray LaHood?
Mr. Regula. And he'll be civil to us.
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Chairman, of course I will be. [Laughter.]
Thank you for allowing me to make an appearance here and
offer a few comments about a project known as Low Emission
Boiler System Project, which is in my district. It's just south
of Lincoln, Illinois. It's between Peorie and Springfield,
along a corridor of Illinois 155, and this is a project that
has been coordinated by the Department of Energy's Office of
Fossil Fuels. And the Prairie Energy Project was one of three
projects. It was awarded a cost-share contract by DOE. It is in
the final design work, and construction on the proof-of-concept
facility would be located in my district at the Ziegler
Company/Turris Coal Mine in Elkhart.
The State of Illinois has pledged $3 million for support of
the project. The team and the State of Illinois have committed
together nearly 75 percent of the total project, and the
remaining 25 percent of the funds is being sought from Federal
sources. And this is, obviously, a very good public/private
partnership.
It would provide 30 new jobs in this small community of
Elkhart and stability for 20 coal miners and work for 50
engineers. It has a very positive impact on the coal-mining
industry. It currently employs 100,000 coal miners. It would
provide 20 percent more efficient than current power plant
technology, keep the U.S. at the forefront of coal-fired power
plant technology, and provides a potential export market for
American companies, and provides 70 percent less nitrogen oxide
emissions than current conventional systems, and removes 98
percent of sulfur dioxide pollutants.
It's obviously a very important project, and we believe,
because of the partnership here and the funding, we hope you
will deem it as meritorious and give it your most serious
consideration.
And if a copy of my full testimony could be entered into
the record, I would be grateful for that.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Is this a mine mouth operation?
Mr. LaHood. Yes.
Mr. Regula. And they must have a generating plant there now
that would close?
Mr. LaHood. Yes. It's one of the few still underground
mining operations that exists in Illinois.
Mr. Regula. Is it deep?
Mr. LaHood. It is.
Mr. Regula. Oh, Barbara says she's been there.
Mr. LaHood. Oh, I'm planning to go there in about the next
10 days. I had to cancel a tour, but I hope to be there very
soon. But it is underground, yes.
Mr. Regula. Sounds a little scary. [Laughter.]
Mr. LaHood. Well, if you're claustrophobic, I guess it will
be.
I'd love to have you come. Ralph, if you'd love to, I'd
love to have you come out and tour with me.
Mr. Regula. Well, I grew up around the coal industry.
That's why I've got the picture.
Mr. LaHood. You're more than welcome to come along.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. LaHood. I'm sure they'd love to have you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 822 - 823--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

WITNESS

HON. PATRICK KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND

Mr. Regula. Patrick Kennedy, you're next on the list here.
Mr. Patrick Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't need
to tell you about the value of heritage corridors.
Mr. Regula. No.
Mr. Patrick Kennedy. You can well appreciate. You've been a
great champion of heritage corridors, and I'm grateful for
that, because the Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor in my
State and in southern Massachusetts has revived an historical
area that had been in desperate shape as the result of the
post-Industrial Revolution Era, where all those manufacturers
went away, but those historical structures are still there,
where the birth place of the Industrial Revolution in
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which is right in the middle where our
visitor center is.
And as a result of some modest Federal support, we have
been able to put boats on the river that would take tourists
around and to help expand our tourist economy incredibly.
Businesses along the river corridor are thrilled to have this
in their back yards, and they've done a lot to work with the
local people to comply with zoning ordinances and the like.
And, basically, we were thrilled that we got your support
to have this passed through the authorization bill, and now we
need to make sure there's the adequate funding to ensure its
implementation. We are asking double the amount of operating
funds because the corridor has been expanded by----
Mr. Regula. Is this--your request, is that offset by a
matching amount from the State and/or local community?
Mr. Patrick Kennedy. Yes, it has been. The local community
is matching the dollars that the Federal Government provides.
Mr. Regula. I thought that's the way it is.
Mr. Patrick Kennedy. Yes. And it backs a good punch for its
dollar, I can assure you.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I understand. Okay.
Mr. Patrick Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 825 - 826--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

WITNESS

HON. TOM BLILEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA

Mr. Regula. Mr. Chairman, your statement's a part of the
record.
Mr. Bliley. Thank you very much, and I'll be brief in
respect to the committee's time.
I'm here on behalf of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. You know all about them. I'm requesting $11.5
million----
Mr. Regula. Oh, this is for the Foundation, yes.
Mr. Bliley. Yes, that's $7.5 million for Fish and Wildlife,
$2 million to the Bureau of Land Management, and $2 million,
Forest Service. You know, for every dollar you give them, they
raise two on the outside. They pay all of their operating
expenses with private money.
Since it was founded, since Fish and Wildlife was founded,
it's awarded over 1,400 grants and 199 million. I'm
particularly here today because last year Chesterfield County,
Virginia, which is suburban Richmond, was offered the
opportunity to purchase more than 800 acres of wildlife areas
along the James River, an area that industrial development was
encroaching on, for a price of $1.65 million. Chesterfield
envisioned establishing the first county-owned and -operated
wildlife protection area in Virginia, and it's known as the
Dutch Gap Conservation Area. It's known as Dutch Gap because in
the war of northern aggression there was a----
Mr. Regula. They don't quit, do they? [Laughter.]
Mr. Bliley [continuing]. There was a bend in the river, and
the Union, very smartly, dug a channel across and bottled up
the Confederate fleet in the Dutch Gap.
But, anyway, they went to Fish and Wildlife, and Fish and
Wildlife worked with the North American Wetlands Council to
secure grants of more than $531,000, and today that 800 acres
is now available, and will be available for all time for the
public.
Mr. Regula. Do Union folks go there and visit?
Mr. Bliley. Yes, sir, absolutely. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
So I can't commend them too highly, and I know you'll do
the best you can within the constraints you have to work with.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. It sounds like a good project, and I think the
Foundation has done a lot of good work.
Mr. Bliley. Excellent work.
Mr. Regula. It's a partnership. We're trying to encourage
those.
Mr. Bliley. Yes.
Mr. Regula. It maximizes our dollars.
Mr. Bliley. Absolutely.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Bliley. Thanks a lot.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 828 - 829--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BERRY HILL PLANTATION SLAVE CEMETERY

WITNESS

HON. VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF VIRGINIA

Mr. Regula. Let's see, I think you're up. We're missing
some Members here.
Mr. Goode. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I know the
Chair has to sit through committees through this, and I thank
you for hearing----
Mr. Regula. Well, it's quite interesting. I just wish I had
a printing press because we've got so many good projects.
Mr. Goode. Exactly.
Mr. Regula. And there are limited funds. You're talking
about a Park Service project. Is this a preservation?
We'll put your statement in the record.
Mr. Goode. Right.
Mr. Regula. Tell me a little bit about it.
Mr. Goode. All right. This is asking for a study of the
slave cemetery located at Berry Hill Plantation in South
Boston, Virginia.
And I would like to quote from the letter of Dr. Jerome S.
Handler. You've got the full letter there. ``[I]f this cemetery
contains 200 to 250 slaves and if it dates to the antebellum
period and if it has not been disturbed since the original
interments were made, then this cemetery is, as far as I am
aware, the largest and earlier undisturbed African descendent
plantation cemetery yet reported in the Americas, including the
United States, the Caribbean, and South America.''
And Berry Hill was a plantation near South Boston, Virginia
that now sits on a 682-tract of land, and I have been down
there and looked at the cemetery, and it is very elementary,
but you can see the rows and rows of rocks.
Mr. Regula. Well, was this a cemetery that served an entire
area?
Mr. Goode. Right.
Mr. Regula. All the slaves, as they were deceased, were
they buried here; is that right?
Mr. Goode. That's right.
Mr. Regula. Who maintains it at the moment?
Mr. Goode. It's not maintained. It's in the woods on Berry
Hill Plantation.
Mr. Regula. It's overgrown then?
Mr. Goode. It's overgrown.
Mr. Regula. Is the plantation surrounding it?
Mr. Goode. The plantation--the cemetery is here and the
plantation is here. The cemetery is located on the plantation
property.
Mr. Regula. So, technically, the owner of the plantation
owns the cemetery?
Mr. Goode. That's correct.
Mr. Regula. Do you contemplate that this would be given to
the Park Service?
Mr. Goode. There's likely going to be a new owner. Several
corporations have looked at Berry Hill, and Berry Hill is a
national historic landmark, and it would--I can't--I couldn't
presume to speak for who----
Mr. Regula. What would a corporation want it for?
Mr. Goode. On retreats.
Mr. Regula. Oh.
Mr. Goode. And it not only has the manor house, if you
will, but it also has all the slave quarters, outbuildings. It
was one of the largest plantations in operation before the war.
Mr. Regula. Was it tobacco or cotton? Do you know?
Mr. Goode. Tobacco and wheat.
Mr. Regula. How many acres is the plantation?
Mr. Goode. It's 682 now, but at one time it was thousands
and thousands of acres. It's been whittled down to that.
Mr. Regula. So this cemetery is just overgrown, but it's
part of the plantation?
Mr. Goode. It's part of the plantation. It's kind of on the
back side on a hill. And we would like--if the Park Service and
other entities could----
Mr. Regula. Well, you say the preservation of the slave
culture, including mansion, outbuildings, the residence, stone
quarry, et cetera, ice pond. Now is this part of what this
corporation would include in their retreat facility?
Mr. Goode. I would--you know, I generally couldn't speak
for them, but I would think they would only want the main house
and maybe the outbuildings right near that, and not--the slave
quarters are scattered throughout the plantation, and there are
some quarters over next to the slave cemetery.
Mr. Regula. So what you contemplate would be sort of an
overall example of the slave culture of yesteryear?
Mr. Goode. That's right. And there have been persons from
the Park Service down and touring it.
Mr. Regula. Has the Park Service expressed any opinion on
it?
Mr. Goode. Yes, they--I have a letter from the Northeast
Field Area Director, Marie Rust, and here's what she states:
that ``the slave quarters, work buildings, and slave cemetery
and the cultural landscape of the plantation constitute one of
the best preserved slave environments surviving in the United
States today. These rare resources would benefit from sensitive
conservation planning.''
Mr. Regula. I don't know that there's anything like that in
the United States at this time.
Mr. Goode. No.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Goode. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Regula. Who's district did you take?
Mr. Goode. L. F. Payne.
Mr. Regula. Oh, okay.
Mr. Goode. Fifth district of Virginia.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 832 - 834--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST

SILVIO O. CONTE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

WITNESS

HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. Regula. Okay, Mr. Deal--oh, Mr. Bass, you're next on
the list, right? Okay.
Mr. Bass. Here we go.
Mr. Regula. Here we go.
Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As one who has
been through two weeks of Member days on the ISTEA
reauthorization, I want to thank you very much----
Mr. Regula. You're even more popular than we are.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bass. I want to thank you very much for taking the time
to listen to folks like me.
I appeared here both two years--I guess last year--in
support of an acquisition proposal--Matt, do you have an extra
copy of the map?--the Lake Tarleton Project. I'm going to give
you my talking points, so I'm going to be very----
Mr. Regula. Yes, we'll put them in the record.
Mr. Bass. I have a full testimony here for the record, but
I'm going to give you this, so that you can--it's a summary
here.
What we're looking for is $2.65 million to complete the
Forest Service land acquisition of 1,900 acres----
Mr. Regula. That would be these white spaces?
Mr. Bass. They're out. The part I'm talking about now is
the purple area.
Mr. Regula. Oh, I see.
Mr. Bass. You bought last year the red area.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Bass. We're looking for the purple area in the lower
part, not the upper part. Set your pencil on it and --yes,
right there.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Bass. That's correct.
Mr. Regula. What's the nearest city to that?
Mr. Bass. How do you define a city?
The largest city in my district is probably smaller than--
--
Mr. Regula. Well, I think in our area it's anything over
5,000.
Mr. Bass. Oh, Lebanon, which is about 30 miles away as the
crow flies to the southwest.
Mr. Regula. It seems to me when I was up there, Bob Dole or
somebody pointed out this lake, but I'm not sure----
Mr. Bass. If he did, you were not where Bob Dole should
have been in order to win the election, unless he was trying to
get the animal and the wildlife vote. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Well, then it must have been a different lake.
Mr. Bass. This is rural Grafton County way up pretty far
north. I've been on this lake before, and what it consists of
is three different efforts here. There's the Forest Legacy
Fund, which is in orange; the purple is the part we're looking
for to complete the project for the Federal Government, and
then that pink section, which is right on the edge of the lake
there on the west side, is the part that the State is going to
purchase with their resources, which would be--I can't recall
the exact amount, but it's something less than a million
dollars.
Mr. Regula. Now what is this, a playground for----
Mr. Bass. Say that again?
Mr. Regula. Is this a playground for fishermen, sportsmen?
Mr. Bass. Well, this particular area is----
Mr. Regula. How is it used?
Mr. Bass. It's used mostly for recreation. There's a summer
camp on the lower part of the lake, which is a small out-block,
and it's just part--it's annexed and part of the White Mountain
National Forest. It's--it would be the largest, or is the
largest, lake in the White Mountain National Forest, and
obviously it's undeveloped.
The most expensive part, frankly, is the part, on a per-
acre basis, is the part the State is contemplating purchasing.
At the present time there's a huge sewer system installed. So
it's going to be a very large developmentconstructed there. The
State is going to buy all the lots along the west side of the lake.
You might be interested to know that the President's budget
request has this item in it at $2.65 million. It's their
fourth--ranked fourth on the Forest Service Acquisition
Priority List. So I would, obviously, appreciate your support
for this because it would protect this undeveloped lake, and as
I said a minute ago, provide recreational opportunities, and it
has a lot of, obviously, a lot of local community support, and
the State of New Hampshire, which is highly unusual, is willing
to make--or will be willing to make--a very significant
contribution to complete this project. So we've certainly shown
our interest in this project, and we hope that the Congress
will do the same.
Mr. Regula. I assume that you get visitors from
metropolitan areas----
Mr. Bass. Yes.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Boston, New York----
Mr. Bass. We have excellent transportation routes up here.
If you look in the middle of the map, right above the legend,
over ``New Hampshire,'' the letters ``New Hampshire,'' you'll
see Route 93, which is a very big highway that goes to the
north country, and it is--it's fairly easy, actually, to get to
this place. That's one of the reasons why it's so endangered,
because you get a four-lane highway up to within about--let's
see the scale--oh, yes, about five miles from the lake, and
then it's just five miles to the northwest of that. So,
obviously, there was enormous pressure to develop this area.
Mr. Regula. I'm sure they had.
Mr. Bass. It would be a great asset to the State and to the
White Mountain National Forest, of course.
Mr. Regula. Do you have something on Silvio O. Conte?
Mr. Bass. Well, there is an item in the President's budget
request for $2 million for land acquisition in the Conte
Refuge. This is a--I believe it's been earmarked to purchase a
piece of land up in Whitefield, which is much farther north, up
in Coos County. I'm hopeful that the subcommittee might
consider including language that would prevent the Fish and
Wildlife Service from taking land from an unwilling seller with
any of this money. Now there isn't any unwilling seller, but I
had a bill in last year which passed both the House and Senate,
and was vetoed by the President, and it would be, I think,
symbolic, but important, if the appropriation language included
that limiting language, even though it won't have any impact
one way or the other on this particular appropriation.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Bass. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
going to give you these talking points because it's a quick
reference.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 838 - 841--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

CHATTAHOOCHEE NATIONAL FOREST NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY

CHICKAMAUGA AND CHATTANOOGA NATIONAL MILITARY PARK

WITNESS

HON. NATHAN DEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
GEORGIA

Mr. Regula. Mr. Deal?
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
address your subcommittee today. I have two issues, both of
which you're familiar with.
I'll start with the one that you have helped me wrestle
with over the last couple of years, and that is the completion
of the bypass around the Chickamauga/Chattanooga Battlefield.
As you'll recall, this is U.S. Highway 27. It is to be four
laned from the Tennessee border in the north all the way
through the State of Georgia to the Florida line in the south.
We are talking about a segment at the very uttermost northern
part of this corridor. The Chickamauga/Chattanooga Battlefield
is within 10 miles of the Tennessee border.
The plan was designed back in 1985, in which the State of
Georgia requested the right to expand the existing roadway
which traverses through the middle of the park. The Interior
Department and the Park Service said, no, they didn't want to
do that, that they wanted to reroute it around the edge of the
park. This is a project that began in 1985, and we are still
not anywhere close to completing it. A substantial part of it
has been done.
Mr. Regula. It's built, part of it?
Mr. Deal. Part of it is built. The more expensive part is
on the northern border in which you have to have a rather
elaborate bridge interchange to connect it back and get it back
to the roadway in the north.
Mr. Regula. So this would bypass the park?
Mr. Deal. It bypasses the park around the edge of the park,
yes.
Mr. Regula. And you've built part of it?
Mr. Deal. They have built part of it.
Mr. Regula. How did you do part of it----
Mr. Deal. Well, we've had to--it's an ongoing battle. As
you'll recall, this had been an item in the budget up until two
years ago, in the Interior budget. Whatever their reasons were,
they did not see fit to include it in their budget request.
With your help, we were able to amend the National Highway
System language to allow them to use their national parkway
program out of the trust fund money.
I would not be making this request except for the fact I
feel like I'm getting caught in a crossfire. I have asked the
Park Service for a commitment as to how much money they would
be willing to spend through that funding source to begin to
complete it. We would like $17.7 million of Federal
appropriations remaining under the authorized amount to finish
it.
Mr. Regula. Which you need to complete it?
Mr. Deal. We need to complete it.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I mean, the $17 million would finish it?
Mr. Deal. The $17.7 million would finish it. It is 75
percent Federal, 25 percent State.
Mr. Regula. Twenty-five local?
Mr. Deal. The State has been more than willing to put up
their money. In fact, they would like to have an appropriation
that would finish the project this Fiscal Year. They're willing
to do their part to complete that.
Mr. Regula. This wouldn't be an interstate, but it would be
a four-lane divided?
Mr. Deal. It would be a four-lane--parts of it have a
median; part of it would not, yes.
My request in my written testimony, which I would hope you
would make a part of the record, is----
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Deal [continuing]. Is to divide that in half, ask for
the $8.85 million this year, and then, hopefully, get the
remaining half in the next year. Now the thing that concerns
me, Mr. Chairman, is where we might be if we totally look to
the trust fund money. I requested them to give me a figure that
they were willing to commit from that funding source for this
Fiscal Year----
Mr. Regula. The Park Service would commit from their trust
fund money?
Mr. Deal. Yes. I felt that, in order to secure this
project, I had to ask that question, to tell the State how much
money they should be expecting to try to match----
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Deal [continuing]. I did not get an answer in terms of
a dollar figure. The answer I got was that it was all
contingent upon reauthorization of ISTEA, and that they are
asking for a separate category. As I understand it, they would
put this project in a systems completion category in ISTEA.
Now, to me, that is very ``ify.'' We don't know whether or not
that's going to ever even be approved or not, and I don't think
it is fair for the State of Georgia or for my constituents, or
for anyone else, to leave this project uncompleted. It's a
terrible inconvenience in that area. It's a very congested part
of the State. As you know, Chattanooga sits right at the
border, spills over into my district, and this is traffic
coming right out of Chattanooga that we need to move.
Mr. Regula. How much was built?
Mr. Deal. Mr. Chairman, probably--it's only 5.7 miles.
Mr. Regula. The whole thing?
Mr. Deal. Most of the road work part has been completed.
Some of the supports for overpasses have already been built.
The most expensive part is this northern section to tie it back
in----
Mr. Regula. It's a cloverleaf?
Mr. Deal [continuing]. And because of its terrain, it's a
cloverleaf, yes.
Mr. Regula. So the right-of-way is purchased?
Mr. Deal. The right-of-way is purchased. That was what took
so long in the initial stages and the most expensive part was
right-of-way acquisition and the initial construction phases.
The most expensive part at the tail-end is this interchange,
and that's where the 17.7 million Federal dollars has to come
from.
I appreciate your indulgence on that. Let me skip quickly
to the second project, and it is relatively small in the
overall scheme of things. That is the Chattanooga Forest
National Fish Hatchery. The administration has included
$244,000 in their budget to cover continuing operation of this
fish hatchery. It is rather unique, and I simply ask that you
keep that request in the President's budget for that $244,000.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 845 - 846--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST

WITNESS

HON. LEE H. HAMILTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA
Mr. Regula. Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much.
Let me give you a map here that will be helpful to you. I
ask my statement be put into the record, of course.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Hamilton. This is just a request for $500,000 for land
acquisition.
Mr. Regula. What is this, to buy----
Mr. Hamilton. Hoosier National. As you can tell from that
map, Hoosier National is quite a large area. There are two
segments to it, but it's a very fragmented ownership. Only
about 30 percent of the land is now acquired.
Mr. Regula. Do you mean only 30 percent inside the red
boundaries?
Mr. Hamilton. That's right. This shows you a little better
because it shows you the green is the part that is now Hoosier
National.
Mr. Regula. Oh, yes.
Mr. Hamilton. There's an awful lot of land that needs to be
acquired.
Mr. Regula. We had the same problem with the Wayne.
Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
Mr. Regula. I think they're almost twins.
Mr. Hamilton. They're very similar. Wayne is very similar
to the Hoosier. And, of course, it would be done on--there are
no condemnations here. There are a lot of significant pieces of
land that are ready to be purchased, the sellers want to sell
it, so we need to continue the funding, and I'd appreciate very
much a similar amount as we had this past year in the 1997
bill, $500,000; we're making the same request this year.
Mr. Regula. Okay. You'd like to eventually connect all of
these?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, eventually. It's a long-term process.
Right now you've got a situation where the management is very
difficult because the land ownership pattern is fragmented, and
we're gradually putting it together is what we're doing.
Mr. Regula. I assume this land is not terribly expensive as
land goes anymore?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, it's very inexpensive. I'm reluctant to
give you a figure, but it's a few hundred dollars an acre or
less there. It's not very productive land. It's very hilly
and----
Mr. Regula. It's very much like the Wayne.
Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Do you get a fair amount of usage, sportsmen?
Mr. Hamilton. We sure do, yes.
Mr. Regula. Indianapolis is how far?
Mr. Hamilton. Oh, it's a couple of hours away.
Mr. Regula. Probably Cincinnati?
Mr. Hamilton. Cincinnati is close-by; Louisville is close-
by. So you've got a lot of pressure on this land.
Mr. Regula. They make great playgrounds, these areas.
Mr. Hamilton. Oh, my, it's tremendous. This is a great
asset for the State of Indiana.
Mr. Regula. Oh, yes; Wayne is the same way.
Mr. Hamilton. Yes. And I'm very appreciative of the support
you've given in the past.
Mr. Regula. Well, I'm sure you experience the same as we
do. The farmers are getting urbanized; that is, the land.
People who want to hunt, fish, they've got squeezed, and this
is about it.
Mr. Hamilton. This is it.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Hamilton. We have in our State quite a push on farmland
preservation now. Do you have that in Ohio?
Mr. Regula. We have the same thing in Ohio. It's the same
thing. The only problem is they don't want to buy it. They just
want the farmer to preserve it free of cost.
Mr. Hamilton. That's right. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]

[Page 849--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

FOREST SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION

WITNESS

HON. ELIZABETH FURSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON

Mr. Regula. Yes, Mrs. Furse?
Ms. Furse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. You're welcome.
Ms. Furse. Mr. Chairman, I have a longer testimony which
I'll introduce.
Mr. Regula. Yes, we'll make it part of the record.
Ms. Furse. I'm here, Mr. Chairman, on two issues. One, to
urge the subcommittee to shift money away from new forest road
construction to maintenance of the roads we already have. It's
very, very important in my area. And I'm also here to request
$2 million in funding for the State of Oregon to inventory
potential landslide areas in Oregon.
Actually, the two issues are kind of linked. We have been
plagued with very damaging floods in the Northwest. It's caused
over $60 million of damage, our landslides, in the last two
years. And many surveys have come out since the big rainstorms,
showing that much of these landslides are the result of poorly-
maintained forest roads and poor logging practices.
Mr. Regula. I was going to say, Are these on public or
private lands?
Ms. Furse. Public.
Mr. Regula. Is this land that has been logged-over?
Ms. Furse. In many cases it has been logged, and sometimes
it has been logged as much as 10 years before.
Mr. Regula. So there is some second growth then?
Ms. Furse. Sometimes, yes.
Mr. Regula. Does the landslide result from the fact that
water is not retained by vegetation, which normally would be
the case?
Ms. Furse. That's right, and where there's been logging,
Mr. Chairman, on very steep lands we see even worse. We had a
very large tragedy in the State of Oregon. There was a mudslide
that came as the result of a clearcut, and five people died in
that mudslide. The entire house was swept away.
And we've also had problems with the water clarity in both
Portland and Salem. Again, we think it is because of these bad
logging practices.
Another issue with mudslides--and, again, connected to the
clearcutting and to poor roads maintenance--has been the effect
on our endangered salmon runs. We have many salmon runs going
endangered, and when salmon was a big industry, it brought
60,000 jobs and a little over a billion dollars a year in
income. So the loss of that fishery has also been a huge
economic loss. Moreover, there is now presently a great number
of miles of road.
And so I would like to ask the committee if they would
consider five recommendations that I would have: one, decrease
the construction of new forest roads. We already have 380,000
miles of forest roads. Shift the money, would be another
recommendation, away from building new roads to maintaining the
roads we have. We know----
Mr. Regula. And these are roads used largely by sportsmen?
Ms. Furse. And by logging companies.
Mr. Regula. Some logging yet?
Ms. Furse. And recreation use. And where the roads are not
maintained. Where the backlog is not kept up, recreation use is
very damaged; people can't get back into those areas.
Mr. Regula. I understand.
Ms. Furse. The Forest Service believes that there is a $440
million backlog in maintenance.
I would also recommend increased funding for the
decommissioning of unneeded roads. Sometimes it takes a little
funding to decommission those roads.
Mr. Regula. That is, you're trying to remove them? When you
say, ``decommission,'' obviously, you just walk away from them?
Ms. Furse. You have to----
Mr. Regula. Are you saying it should be restored to
probably bring in some drainage breaks, and so on?
Ms. Furse. Yes. And I would particularly suggest that the
committee look at decommissioning roads in critical fishery
habitats because those are where we see the real damage to
fisheries.
I think we need to also prohibit funds for logging and
road-building on steep and unstable slopes. We have got a lot
of evidence to show that building roads on those slopes is just
devastating for the entire ecosystem, and particularly for a
fishery.
And then if I could recommend the money for this geological
survey, so that we in the State of Oregon can look at those
areas which are particularly unstable, so that we can plan
ahead and make sure that we can mitigate that damage ahead of
time.
Mr. Regula. Do you have some kind of building codes that
keep people from building in these precarious areas?
Ms. Furse. Well, the problem is on public land. The State
has a State plan where people are restricted on how they build,
but this would be on the Forest Service land.
Now, of course, there are in-holdings on this Forest
Service land.
Mr. Regula. Yes, right.
Ms. Furse. So people could be on private land, but
threatened by roads and hills that might slide.
Mr. Regula. Yes. Okay.
Ms. Furse. And, as I say, I have more detailed testimony
which I will----
Mr. Regula. Yes, without objection, that will be a part of
the record.
Ms. Furse. I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Ms. Furse. Thank you so much.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 852 - 854--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION/NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Mr. Weldon?
Mr. Weldon. Hello, Mr. Chairman. How are you?
Mr. Regula. Good.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you for your time, and I will be brief.
And I have the unusual opportunity, as I've done in the past,
of not being here to testify on behalf of any parochial issue.
I'm not here to advocate anything for my State or my district.
These are national programs that you've been a leader on that
date back to the days of our good friend Sil Conte.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Weldon. The first program is the Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, which, as you know, is an outstanding example of
how to take a small amount of money and use it to leverage a
much larger investment. We get on average at least $2 for every
$1 that we put in, and the money is used for a wide variety of
voluntary conservation projects, bringing together business and
nongovernmental organizations, helping to continue and to
initiate new environmental activities.
The request this year is for $7.5 million, which is a
meager request, but that will go----
Mr. Regula. Is that the President's request?
Mr. Weldon. That's the President request. It will go a long
way. And you've been a leader, Mr. Chairman, on this issue, and
I've come to you in previous years, and you've always said,
``Curt, we've got a tight budget,'' but you've always managed
to come through, and, believe me, that is widely known.
Mr. Regula. What is the total budget? We get $7.5 million
Federal.
Mr. Weldon. Yes.
Mr. Regula. How much?
Mr. Weldon. I don't know what the--do you mean total--oh,
the Foundation?
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Weldon. I don't have that here. I can get that for you
for the record.
Mr. Regula. I think it's probably three to one.
Mr. Weldon. Yes, it's at least three to one in total
budget----
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Weldon [continuing]. But the actual dollars they use to
match is on at least a two-to-one basis.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Weldon. The second major initiative is North American
Wetlands Conservation Act. I succeeded Sil Conte and Dick
Shoals on the Migratory Bird Commission. I sit with John
Dingell for the House. We have a Republican and Democrat in the
Senate, and three of the Cabinet Secretaries. And we use this
money to leverage, again, significant amounts of private
dollars, groups like Ducks Unlimited, to voluntarily preserve
open space and the migratory bird flyaways and the habitats.
They're used for a variety of purposes from recreation to
hunting. It's a very cooperative program. It's a program that
Republicans can embrace because we're not forcing anybody to do
anything. We acquire and protect land, and that land, then, is
used for the kind of conservation activities originally
intended when Sil Conte and John Dingell's father first
initiated this whole program years ago.
The request again here is a rather modest request in terms
of the funding needs. The President--we authorized theprogram
to a level of $30 million for Fiscal Year 1998; the President's
actually requested $15 million. All I would say is if you can help us
get to that maximum of 15, that would be great.
So I thank you for your time and----
Mr. Regula. Are you a sportsman, Curt?
Mr. Weldon [continuing]. As always--limited. I'm not a
hunter, but, you know, I go out with a bow and do some bow-
shooting and all, but----
Mr. Regula. Is that right?
Mr. Weldon. Yes.
Mr. Regula. We need to get you up to Cuyahoga Valley. We
have a huge overpopulation of deer.
Mr. Weldon. Yes, I've heard that.
Mr. Regula. Yes, they'll be in downtown Cleveland pretty
soon browsing. [Laughter.]
Mr. Weldon. We've got that problem in Pennsylvania, too.
Mr. Regula. Yes, it's growing everywhere.
Mr. Weldon. All over.
Mr. Regula. Of course, there's not any natural predators,
and to certain groups every one of them is Bambi, and that
makes it tough to go out there and try to solve the problem.
Mr. Weldon. Well, that's why these kind of voluntary
programs are so great, because you're not forcing anybody.
Mr. Regula. No.
Mr. Weldon. It's all through voluntary cooperation and it
leverages the dollars.
Mr. Regula. And we leverage our dollars, yes.
Mr. Weldon. So thanks again. You've been great. We
appreciate it.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Weldon. Have a good day.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 857 - 859--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

APPALACHIAN TRAIL

WITNESS

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

Mr. Regula. Okay, Nancy, Appalachian Trail.
Ms. Nancy Johnson. That's right.
Mr. Regula. We share an affection for that even though I've
never been on it.
Ms. Nancy Johnson. Well, I appreciate the constancy of this
committee to the goal of achieving completion of the
Appalachian Trail.This is my 15th consecutive appearance before
you----
Mr. Regula. Well, I know that.
Ms. Nancy Johnson [continuing]. In support of the
Appalachian Trail and the Historic Preservation Trust Fund.
There are 2,160 miles of Appalachian Trail from Maine to
Georgia. It cuts through some of the most beautiful portions of
the Nation and some beautiful portions of northwest
Connecticut. It connects 75 public land areas in 14 States.
Virtually every mile of the trail is within easy access of a
major population center. It's supported by thousands of
volunteers who care for the trail. It really is an example of
the kind of public/private partnership that has made this
Nation remarkable.
A completion of the trail is within reach. In fact, the
trail is complete now in West Virginia, Maine, and New
Hampshire. In Connecticut, just six parcels of land are
remaining to be purchased. To keep us on track toward
completion of the----
Mr. Regula. Do we have willing sellers?
Ms. Nancy Johnson. Pardon?
Mr. Regula. Do we have willing sellers?
Ms. Nancy Johnson. Yes, we do have willing sellers. We did
go through a minor problem with that one year in Connecticut,
but the remainders are willing sellers. Northwest Connecticut
is a very conservation-minded area and preservation-minded
area.
To keep us on track, though, to completion by the year
2000, which is our goal, we urge the committee to approve the
$7.2 million in appropriations for acquisition of land and
rights-of-way, which is the same amount in the President's
budget.
Mr. Regula. And that's the same amount, I think, we had
last year.
Ms. Nancy Johnson. I think so.
And then I also wanted to state my support for the Historic
Preservation Trust Fund. Many regions of the country, including
New England and Connecticut, are blessed with old historic
buildings, and through the trust fund, we have really been able
to preserve them for future generations, and we use them in a
constructive way. I, myself, working with the National Historic
Preservation Trust Fund, helped to restore an incredibly large
factory complex in Connecticut called the Bigaloo Sanford
Carpet Mills, where Lowell Weicker's father worked, to a mixed-
use complex. It is really beautiful. It has preserved the
history of that part of town, but now houses people, small
businesses, small manufacturers. It's really been a tremendous
asset, where it could have been, and was for a while, an
extraordinary liability.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Nancy Johnson. So thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. Thanks, Nancy.
[The information follows:]

[Page 862--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

WITNESS

HON. PATSY MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. Regula. Patsy, we'll try to get you before we go vote.
Ms. Mink. Yes, yes, yes. I won't take much of your time,
Mr. Chairman. I simply want to thank you for giving me this
opportunity to appear----
Mr. Regula. We'll put your statement in the record.
Ms. Mink [continuing]. Before you support the funding
request for the National Endowment of the Arts. It's a program
that I believe is of vital interest, national concern, and I
regret that there is so much continuing controversy over its
continuance.
Art is something which brings out the nature of the
individual, whether they're children or adults or elderly. I
believe very strongly that a country, in support of its
uniqueness and its diversity and the importance of emphasizing
individuality and creativity, that this is an appropriate
function which the Congress should support.
So I'm here to ask that you support the President's budget
request of $138 million. You know that it's gone through a
great reorganization under the leadership of Jane Alexander,
and I think the criticisms of the past have been more than
adequately met by the new Chair. So I hope that you will
reconsider and give us the full funding requested.
Mr. Regula. You have a great champion here in my colleague,
Mr. Yates.
Ms. Mink. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Yes, I was hoping he
would be here, but I'm sure that he'll help monitor this whole
activity.
Mr. Regula. He was here for the opponents.
Ms. Mink. Oh, he was? Well, that's important. It's probably
more important than being here for me. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 864 - 866--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

SUMMIT HOUSE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

WITNESS

HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO

Mr. Regula. Joel, I think we can get you in yet before we
vote.
Mr. Hefley. All right, that's----
Mr. Regula. We'll put your statement in the record, if you
can be brief.
Mr. Hefley. I will try to be brief. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I have three things I'd like to talk about.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Hefley. The first is $6 million to replace the Summit
House Visitor Center on top of Pike's Peak, which----
Mr. Regula. It's operated by a concessionaire, is it?
Mr. Hefley. Yes, but it's owned by the Park Service.
Mr. Regula. The Park Service, yes, I've been there.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, and we put language in the bill last year
which said: study it; see if we can't renovate it or something
and save. And the report came back and said that it would cost
more to repair the existing structure than it would to build a
new one. The structure that's up there now is 32 years old, and
so they have recommended replacement of that. And so we're
making that request.
Mr. Regula. Do you suppose we could get the State to put up
some money?
Mr. Hefley. We might. We might.
Mr. Regula. Would you explore that and get back to us? What
I've been asking most of the witnesses today is to see if we
can get some matching money because it leverages what we have
available.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, yes.
Mr. Regula. So if you'd talk to the appropriate people in
Colorado and let us know, that would be helpful.
Mr. Hefley. All right, we could do that.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 868 - 870--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Hefley. The second one is a strange request because it
doesn't have anything to do at all with my district. It's just
a program that I believe in. It's $92,640 for continued
operation of three youth centers at the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation in South Dakota.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Hefley. I want to thank the subcommittee for its
appropriation of $37,000 for construction of stump shelters at
the Flourisant Fossil Beds National Monument in my district.
And the shelters will be dedicated next week, and the money was
sufficient to make a number of other needed minor repairs. So
that has gone well.
And then, last, Mr. Chairman--and you and I have worked on
this situation for a long time--and that's the heritage areas.
And you remember last year I was trying to develop that----
Mr. Regula. Yes, you had a generic bill.
Mr. Hefley. A generic bill, so we would set parameters
around the heritage thing. I believe in the heritage program,
but we do need some parameters around it.
Now I understand the Park Service has requested $11 million
for a Washington-based heritage area program, where they would
go out across the country and promote heritage areas. That
creates two problems. First of all, our whole idea when we were
working on this last year, Ralph, you'll remember, was that
these should be locally-generated, not top-down, but bottom-up.
Mr. Regula. Yes. I don't quarrel with that at all.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, we've got them out. I would ask that you
put a moratorium on that. So I'm coming to you asking you not
to spend the money. And we're working on the generic bill
again, and we hope to get through some of the hurdles we had
last year, and be able to redefine this, but certainly don't--
--
Mr. Regula. There might be a role for an information
center, but promoting it I think is maybe going a little bit
too far.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, I think so, too.
So, with that, I'll leave you.
Mr. Regula. So you hope to get the generic bill moved
again?
Mr. Hefley. Yes, we do.
Mr. Regula. They are a nice thing, and if you can get--like
in our case, we've probably got 3,000 people--people involved
in one way or another in these efforts, then it's driven from
the bottom-up.
Mr. Hefley. And when it is that way, the communities are
usually tickled to death with it----
Mr. Regula. Oh, yes, they love it.
Mr. Hefley [continuing]. And it's a good tourist
attraction.
Mr. Regula. I know.
Mr. Hefley. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 872 - 873--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Regula. The committee will suspend for voting here. We
have two more to go.
[Recess.]
----------

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

WITNESS

HON. LYNN WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA

Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, here I am.
Mr. Regula. Okay, we're always glad to see you.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. We'll put your statement in the record. You
tell us about your project.
Ms. Woolsey. My statement is in the record, and I have a
very short--I have two requests.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Woolsey. One is the one you were just referring to, and
that's the National Park Service land acquisition for Giacomini
lands, and I have three--there's been three--I'm requesting $3
million, and that's----
Mr. Regula. For Giacomini?
Ms. Woolsey. For the National Park Service----
Mr. Regula. To buy what?
Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. To buy the Giacomini. And it's a
ranch to be owned by the Department of the Interior, so that it
will then go into wetlands. But----
Mr. Regula. Would this be managed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service or the Park Service?
Ms. Woolsey. Park Service, yes.
Mr. Regula. Would this be melded into the Golden Gate?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. To save operating costs?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
Mr. Regula. It would be an extension of Golden Gate?
Ms. Woolsey. It's within it.
Mr. Regula. Is it contiguous to Golden Gate property now?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes, it's within the Golden Gate.
Mr. Regula. It's within the boundaries?
Ms. Woolsey. Right, it's inside the boundary. It doesn't
expand it.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Woolsey. But here's what you're going to like: it's
more than 500 acres of wetlands, will be part of this, but--
and, you know, it's one of the most pristine estuaries in the
country, where this sits. So we just want to keep it that.
But what you want to know about California is that
California--I've worked with them, and they are going to
provide over $3 million in matching funds for the project.
Mr. Regula. What is the total cost--we don't have an
appraisal yet; is that correct?
Ms. Woolsey. It's around six.
Mr. Regula. In the reappraisal?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
Mr. Regula. So you just need the balance then?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, they need the three, is what we've been
told. So that it's----
Mr. Regula. Well, we can check that. Would the State, then,
just make this as a contribution, but the land would really go
with the Golden Gate?
Ms. Woolsey. Right, it stays with the Golden Gate.
Mr. Regula. Become Federal land?
Ms. Woolsey. The State has an agreement with the
environmental groups around, that they need to restore
wetlands, because of the road that they reconstructed, and
rather than come up with their own wetlands restoration
project, they are willing to be in the Giacomini area.
Mr. Regula. Okay. It would be part of that then?
Ms. Woolsey. It would be part of that.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Woolsey. But here's what I assure you: with that $3
million, I will be not back here next year asking for any more
for Giacomini.
Mr. Regula. Well, shouldn't this finish it?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes, criss-cross my heart.
That will be it.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Woolsey. We'll be through. You won't have me come back
then.
Mr. Regula. Okay, we'll look at that one.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Then--and it is in the President's--the
administration budget, in the Department of the Interior
section. So they put it in there. It isn't something you have
to do, carve out separately.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Woolsey. The other thing I'm looking for to ask you is
to talk about the Point Reyes National Seashore, which receives
over 2.6 million national visitors to the national park every
year, and this is increasing. Every month it's more. It's such
a well-used park.
So that, plus the fact that the seashore area has sustained
several floods and shipwrecks and a 12,000-acre wildfire, which
I think you remember, in that area a few years ago--that
wildfire consumed over 15 percent of the park--that has put a
real burden on the Park Service staff. And so what I would like
to ask and request is $280,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 for Point
Reyes National Seashore, which is an increase of 1 percent to
help with their staffing and operating funds, $280,000.
Mr. Regula. Okay, we'll take a look at both of them.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Ms. Woolsey. All right. I thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. We'll miss you if you don't come back.
Ms. Woolsey. I'll be back. I'll have other things; you know
that.
Mr. Regula. Oh, oh.
Ms. Woolsey. But I won't have Giacomini, I promise.
Mr. Regula. Oh, okay.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay, thank you.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 877 - 878--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

WITNESS

HON. DAN SCHAEFER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO

Mr. Regula. Okay, Dan? That's all right; let's go ahead.
Mr. Schaefer. I'll be real quick here. Mr. Chairman, thank
you, and I'm here today as the co-chairman of the House Trails
Caucus----
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Schaefer [continuing] And a Member of Congress who is
really concerned with the status of trails in this country. As
the chairman knows, the National Trails System covers both
rural and urban areas, and it provides great recreational
facilities in this country and provides a positive
transportation alternative for citizens. Economically, trails
allow for greater access to towns across the country and to
businesses within them. They are also an attractive tourist
destination in and of themselves.
One of these trails in development is the American
Discovery Trail, which connects the Pacific Ocean to the
Atlantic all the way across the country. It links the urban
areas with rural America, giving people nationwide access to
the trail system. This project is the kind of thing that we in
the caucus are committed to promoting.
And the final thing I'll say is about the construction of
the Continental Divide Trail which runs all the way from north
to south from Montana to New Mexico. I think that the things
that we're doing there are not only environmentally good, but
they are a good way for people who have never been out into the
wilderness areas to get access.
Mr. Regula. Oh, I'm a big advocate of trails, and we'll do
as much as we can. Nancy Johnson was here on behalf of the
Appalachian Trail.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes.
Mr. Regula. We're about finished with land acquisition on
that.
Mr. Schaefer. That's great.
Mr. Regula. People love trails.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes, every year they have big trail events in
Colorado, and as for the Trails Caucus, Bruce Vento and I are
the co-chairs of this. So it's very bipartisan, too.
Mr. Regula. Yes, well, trails don't have political labels.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. They have health labels.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes, well, that's true.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we have a full
statement.
Mr. Regula. Yes, without objection, it's part of the
record.
[The information follows:]

[Page 880--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Wednesday, April 16, 1997.

MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM--MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION WARD VALLEY

WITNESS

HON. BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA

Mr. Regula. And, likewise, yours, Brian; your statement's
in the record.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact
of the tight ship you run here, keeping on schedule.
I would--let me just make an editorial note on the last
issue about trails, and that is there are benefits of trails
that a lot of people don't see. And the last thing you'll hear
from certain groups is the benefits for endangered species, but
we actually had a case in the Tijuana Valley where the
Leesville oriole were nesting all along the trails, and the
bureaucracy typically wanted to close-off those trails because
of the Endangered Species Act. It ended up being, when we
asked, well, could there be a reason why the species is
preferring the trail area, and when they came back, they said,
well, by the way, the human activity was scaring off the
predators and the birds were moving towards the humans, who
were giving a beneficial impact to the species rather than a
derogatory one. So there is a good example, something you don't
even think about, that there are benefits to having trails
going to wilderness areas.
But what I'm here talking about, again, are the type of
studies that we've been looking at in the southern California
area, the multi-species blend that we've developed in----
Mr. Regula. That's your HCP?
Mr. Bilbray. Yes.
Mr. Regula. A great idea.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, we're just trying to show that the
command and control top-down method is not the way to go with
the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Regula. A great idea.
Mr. Bilbray. Proactive, cooperative rather than punitive,
and this is really our chance to show that you don't have to be
anti-private sector, anti-individual rights to be pro-
environment.
And so I would ask you to consider the fact that the
regional cooperation has been put together. Mayor Golding is
the chairwoman of that.
Mr. Regula. I talked with her when I was in San Diego.
Mr. Bilbray. And I appreciate the fact that you have
historically supported this, and I think----
Mr. Regula. I tried to get Bob Dole to pick this up as a
great environmental issue in his campaign. I think he could
have run with it.
Mr. Bilbray. He could have highlighted it.
Mr. Regula. As a good way to go about it, because you
bounce everything out of it.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes, if you look at the big picture, and the
biggest thing is the holistic approach, and anybody----
Mr. Regula. Exactly.
Mr. Bilbray [continuing]. Who claims to be an
environmentalist who doesn't want to look at the big picture,
obviously, is not. And this is one of the things we keep
saying: you have to look at the big picture because
everything's interrelated.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Bilbray. One of the things, though, that's related to
that, and an issue that has come up with the Multi-Species Plan
and with the estuarian preserve that was formed back in the
seventies--the largest estuarian preserve in California,
southern California, is the Tijuana Estuarian Preserve. One of
the parcels just adjacent to it is up for purchase, Spooner's
Mesa, which has been one that I've personally looked at and
worked on for almost 20 years, but we finally got the owner,
who has the local coastal permit to strip-mine this property,
and is now willing to sell 396 acres of coastal marine scrub.
It's adjacent to the estuary, and one of the big concerns here
is that this property is so susceptible to erosion next to
Mexico that it could dump-in and actually close-off----
Mr. Regula. Is this straight on the border?
Mr. Bilbray. Right on the border. It has obviously has--
obviously, we prefer to have this area open for other reasons
other than just environmental, but I also need to point out my
home town of Imperial Beach, Mr. Chairman, was condemned by the
Federal Government, 50 percent of it, and set aside for the
wildlife preserve because this estuary was so important. Now
we've got a situation where that entire plan could go under if
we don't acquire a critical parcel. Most of the other parcels
in the area have been acquired.
And let me say that we will be talking about certain issues
such as the Fish and Wildlife Service acquisition and critical
habitat, and we'll talk about that later sometime, about
specifically where they're going for funding resources,
because, frankly, I think there's some shifting that can be
done to focus on these critical parts, rather than going
fishing, if I can use that term, in other areas. And so I would
personally say, as somebody who has worked at the regional park
and the estuary there, this is sort of the last keynote
critical highland right between the urban area of Tijuana and
this very rural preserve area.
Mr. Regula. Tijuana is across the border----
Mr. Bilbray. Right on the other side of the border.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Of San Diego? And does the Tijuana
River start in Mexico?
Mr. Bilbray. It comes in Mexico and comes north----
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray [continuing]. Into the United States and goes
across, and this is on the south side of the Tijuana River and
it's really the divider between the estuary and the wildlife
area and the urban area, and it is really choice to be able to
be used and it's----
Mr. Regula. It fronts on the ocean?
Mr. Bilbray. It fronts on the ocean, and it's almost--it's
surrounded on three sides by the wildlife reserve. And so it's
really----
Mr. Regula. By an existing wildlife reserve?
Mr. Bilbray. The existing--it's the Tijuana Estuarian--
well, actually, it's a research reserve, too. It's the highest
level of protection under the Federal act.
Mr. Regula. So is that Federal then?
Mr. Bilbray. Yes.
Mr. Regula. So this would just fill in?
Mr. Bilbray. This would be filling-in. The other parts east
of it now are county and city wildlife reserves, and then
Tijuana's on the other side. So this is the critical parcel
sort of sitting there.
One of the problems we traditionally have with anything
along the border, is that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Federal Government sort of have always had a strange look--
because they get intimidated by it, but this is a very critical
part, and the open space, as you know, must be compatible to
other strategies of the NAFTA.
The offshore drilling moratorium, I think you know our
support for that and why. One of the biggest arguments that
I've looked at is things that were reserves in California that
we'veopened up on land were much easier accessible, and we try
to encourage those easier, safer facilities taken, and we've looked at
that.
The Ward Valley issue, though, is one that we've been more
than patient about. We've reached a point to where it's
absolutely absurd to have the Interior Department start asking
for reprogramming authorization to do studies they have no
expertise in, and it's strictly a stalling tactic. The National
Academy of Science did an extensive research of the facility in
support of the safety of the site. There's just no legitimate
public health issue. There's other hidden political issues that
are drawn in here, and I would just hope that you strongly
oppose the use of tax money to further the delay. And I say
that as somebody who has major biotech facilities and medical
facilities in his district. The research in cancer, AIDS, and a
lot of other health issues are being held up now and slowed up
because the Interior Department is playing politics with this
rather than turning it over, and allowing those like the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of California's
health department to be able to regulate this, and it's a shame
that our public lands are being jacked around and used for
other political issues. So I would ask that you consider the
fact of making sure that Federal funds aren't used to further
delay that transfer.
Outside of that, I just thank you very much for the chance
to be able to proceed.
Mr. Regula. Thank you. Oh, just one question on this land.
You mentioned the Spooner's Mesa. Do we contemplate the Federal
Government buying the whole thing?
Mr. Bilbray. No, actually, what's going on right now is the
county has about $1.3 million, and they're now looking for
other money, too. Let me point out something else.
Mr. Regula. So this would be a partnership?
Mr. Bilbray. A partnership. In fact, the local property
owners in the area and their water district put up over a
million dollars for acquiring the land in the area for--and
it's a unique preserve, Mr. Chairman. It's wildlife and
agriculture and recreation, and the whole concept was to use
this area to show that compatible uses can be worked together;
you don't have to throw up fences to keep the public out, but
you can also preserve it. So this would be part of the Federal
Government's participation, the local government, and the local
citizens, who are not a very wealthy area; this is a poor,
working-class area. They've really come forward, and that's why
I really feel like going to bat for these people. I mean, how
often do you have a poor, working-class area putting aside
money that they raised in their own taxes saying, ``We're
willing to put this up if you guys will participate with us.''?
Mr. Regula. So they have a taxing district?
Mr. Bilbray. They did it through their water district.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Just on another subject, do you still
have sewage problems with Tijuana?
Mr. Bilbray. That's been my whole career, and this week on
Friday we're dedicating the new international sewer treatment
plant just to the east of this location, which is the treatment
plant to finally get the Mexican sewage that's been pouring in.
Mr. Regula. So this is a joint venture?
Mr. Bilbray. This is an International Boundary and Water
Commission project, which is a joint commission with Mexico
that is being built under the leadership of the EPA and the
city of San Diego, has built the outfall--was the lead agency
for the outfall.
So the primary treatment side of this issue will be
completed this week, and the next step is to upgrade it to
secondary. What's interesting about it is now that the Federal
Government realizes the cost of going to secondary, there may
be some question now about doing that, but it's--what goes
around comes around.
Mr. Regula. Mexico or Tijuana is participating, I assume?
Mr. Bilbray. They're participating to some degree, not as
much as we'd like, but the fact is that right now they are
participating and they're supposed to be paying back a portion
of the construction.
Mr. Regula. Do they have yet infrastructure to build?
Mr. Bilbray. That's where their big investment has been
made. They have been going through and they've actually been
doing a darned good job of putting in a new one. And, you know,
a big advantage we have is their engineers that they're using
now--so much of Baja is so socially and culturally and
economically tied to California that their engineers that are
working are all U.S.-trained engineers. So you have a
repetitive system; you have preventative maintenance--things
that you didn't used to have coming out of a Latin American
country. They really have upgraded their capabilities.
Mr. Regula. Baja is a peninsula, isn't it?
Mr. Bilbray. It's a peninsula.
Mr. Regula. Is it developed all the way to the end?
Mr. Bilbray. No. The real development--Tijuana is actually
one of the--the third or fourth largest city in Mexico and
could be the second within 10 years, but Baja is very rural. I
just came back from a week with my son off-roading and surfing
down there, and you can go a thousand miles down and----
Mr. Regula. In Baja?
Mr. Bilbray. Baja.
Mr. Regula. Is it that long?
Mr. Bilbray. It's a thousand miles from Tijuana down to
Cabo San Lucas.
Mr. Regula. Gee whiz.
Mr. Bilbray. And that's where Scanman's Lagoon is, where
the whales are, San Ignacio where you pet the whales, and it's
got the Sea of Cortez on the east side, and that is the part of
the Gulf of California. That's where the San Andrea Fault
literally splits California in half, and that's why Baja is a
peninsula. And then you've got the Pacific on the other side.
Mr. Regula. Are there resort facilities down--probably on
the tip?
Mr. Bilbray. They've got a lot of them at the tip, but they
have, periodically as you go down, they have what is called la
presidentes or la pintas every about 50 to 100 miles, and
that's what's really happened, is you see these little clusters
in the wilderness every once in a while. And so it's a quite
unique kind of experience. It's some place where like right now
I just came back--we have huge Saguaro cactus, big huge
boulders, and streams running through the desert, and the
cactus are all in bloom this time of year. So it's quite an
interesting--you don't think about cactus, the desert being
green and all the bright colors, and right now with all the
blooms--I mean, literally, there was one barrel cactus that I
saw that you had to stop and look at itbecause it looked like
it had snowed on this cactus because the blooms were so fine; it's just
a dusting of white.
Mr. Regula. Is this some of the desert?
Mr. Bilbray. Oh, yes, almost all of it is desert.
Mr. Regula. Is that right?
Mr. Bilbray. Almost all of the Baja is desert.
Mr. Regula. You'd think you'd get the rains coming off the
Pacific. I guess they float right over it because there's no
mountains.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes. Well, they get some--out in the mountains
they get it, but the problem you get is it doesn't rain on the
coast and it doesn't rain on the desert; it rains on top of the
mountain.
Mr. Regula. Is there a mountain chain on Baja?
Mr. Bilbray. It's the extension of the Sierra Nevadas that
California has.
Mr. Regula. What distance is it east and west?
Mr. Bilbray. East-west, about 50 miles wide. It could be as
much as 100 miles wide, but usually it's about 50.
Mr. Regula. If you look at a map, you don't think of it
being that large.
Mr. Bilbray. No.
Mr. Regula. Distances are pretty deceiving.
Mr. Bilbray. And it's sort of interesting because you go
from San Diego and drive for maybe two hours and be in a desert
atmosphere on the Sea of Cortez, and it will be 100 degrees and
no humidity.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Bilbray. We're going to have to take you down there
sometime.
Mr. Regula. I'd like to see it.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 886 - 888--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Regula. And the committee is adjourned.
[Committee note.--Several Members of Congress were unable
to attend the hearing to present their statements. These
statements follow:]

[Pages 890 - 940--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

W I T N E S S E S

----------
Page
Alexander, Jane.................................................. 299
Bass, Hon. C.F................................................... 835
Bereuter, Hon. Doug.............................................. 727
Bilbray, Hon. Brian.............................................. 881
Bliley, Hon. Tom................................................. 827
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl............................................ 638
Campbell, Hon. Tom............................................... 902
Cannon, Hon. Chris............................................... 891
Condit, Hon. G.A................................................. 926
Crapo, Hon. M.D.................................................. 644
Deal, Hon. Nathan................................................ 842
DeLauro, Hon. Rosa............................................... 746
Deutsch, Hon. Peter.............................................. 752
Doyle, Hon. Mike................................................. 798
Eshoo, Hon. Anna................................................. 657
Forbes, Hon. M.P................................................. 890
Furse, Hon. Elizabeth............................................ 850
Gilman, Hon. Ben................................................. 936
Goode, Hon. V.H., Jr............................................. 830
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob.............................................. 764
Gordon, Hon. Bart................................................ 700
Goss, Hon. Porter................................................ 791
Graham, Hon. Lindsey............................................. 758
Gutierrez, Hon. L.V.............................................. 931
Hackney, Sheldon................................................. 423
Hall, Hon. T.P................................................... 770
Hamilton, Hon. L.H............................................... 847
Hartz, G.J....................................................... 3
Hefley, Hon. Joel................................................ 867
Heyman, I.M...................................................... 153
Hill, Hon. Rick.................................................. 777
Hilliard, Hon. E.F............................................... 712
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben............................................. 694
Hobson, Hon. Dave................................................ 770
Hoekstra, Hon. Pete.............................................. 782
Inglis, Hon. Bob................................................. 758
Johnson, Hon. N.L................................................ 860
Kennedy, Hon. Patrick............................................ 824
LaHood, Hon. Ray................................................. 820
Lapp, Douglas.................................................... 153
Lincoln, M.E..................................................... 3
LoBiondo, Hon. F.A............................................... 909
Maloney, Hon. J.H................................................ 940
Miller, Hon. George.............................................. 904
Mink, Hon. Patsy................................................. 863
Nadler, Hon. Jerrold............................................. 715
Newman, C.B...................................................... 153
O'Connor, J.D.................................................... 153
Oberstar, Hon. J.L............................................... 741
Ortiz, Hon. S.P.................................................. 911
Pallone, Hon. Frank.............................................. 667
Pelosi, Hon. Nancy............................................... 707
Peterson, Hon. J.E............................................... 809
Reyes, L.L....................................................... 3
Rice, R.H., Jr................................................... 153
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos...................................... 934
Roukema, Hon. Marge.............................................. 928
Sanders, Hon. Bernard............................................ 892
Saxton, Hon. Jim................................................. 815
Schaefer, Hon. Dan............................................... 879
Shays, Hon. Christopher.......................................... 746
Sherman, Hon. Brad............................................... 685
Slaughter, Hon. L.M.............................................. 913
Smith, Hon. R.F.................................................. 664
Stupak, Hon. Bart................................................ 734
Thompson, Hon. B.G............................................... 678
Trujillo, M.H.................................................... 3
Underwood, Hon. R.A.............................................. 723
Vanderwagen, W.C................................................. 3
Viscloskey, Hon. Peter........................................... 689
Watts, Hon. J.C., Jr............................................. 900
Weldon, Hon. Curt................................................ 855
Weldon, Hon. Dave................................................ 899
Weller, Hon. Jerry............................................... 650
Wharton, L.C..................................................... 153
White, Hon. Rick................................................. 804
Williams, D.P.................................................... 3
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn............................................... 874
Young, Hon. Don.................................................. 629

I N D E X

----------

Indian Health Service

Witnesses........................................................ 3
Biography, Dr. Michael Trujillo.................................. 4
Introduction of Associates....................................... 5
Health Status.................................................... 6
Budget Request................................................... 6
External Pressures............................................... 6
Restructuring and Business Plan.................................. 7
Government-To-Government......................................... 7
Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael Trujillo....................... 9
Deteriorating Water Systems...................................... 14
Health Care Organizations and Management Systems................. 15
Tribal Revenues and Resources.................................... 16
DRG.............................................................. 16
Mandatory Costs.................................................. 17
Joint Venture.................................................... 18
Proposed Diabetes Research Center................................ 19
Diabetes......................................................... 20
Life Expectancy.................................................. 21
Medical Mobile/Modular Units..................................... 21
Dental Units..................................................... 22
Direct Care and Administrative Costs............................. 22
Epidemiology..................................................... 24
Recruitment and Scholarships..................................... 24
Administrative Cost Rate......................................... 30
Employment Incentives............................................ 32
Dialysis Patient Travel.......................................... 33
Budget Priorities................................................ 33
Partnership with Tribes and Urban................................ 34
Accountability and Standards..................................... 34
Questions from the Subcommittee.................................. 36
Questions from Congressman Jim Kolbe............................. 100
Questions from Congressman Sidney R. Yates....................... 102

Institute of American Indian Arts

Accreditation.................................................... 132
Appropriations Request........................................... 123
Board of Trustees................................................ 148
Embezzlement..................................................... 147
Endowments....................................................... 144
Facilities....................................................... 146
Fund Raising..................................................... 124
Future Funding................................................... 145
Governance....................................................... 130
Historic Overview................................................ 130
History of Tuition............................................... 131
Mission.......................................................... 129
Museum Exhibitions............................................... 127
Non-Federal Funding Resources.................................... 141
Summary.......................................................... 128
Tribal and Community Support..................................... 125
Tuition.......................................................... 144
Tuition History and Revisitation................................. 126

Smithsonian Institution

Additional Committee Questions..................................202-234
From Congressman Regula.....................................235-254
From Congressman Yates....................................... 255
On Implementation of the Government Performance and Results
Act.......................................................231-235
Admission Charges..........................................242, 251-253
Affiliation Policy.............................................162, 189
Agreement with Bethlehem Steel............................... 169
Beyond the Mall: Collections-Based Affiliations.............. 239
Fact Sheet..................................................235-239
Regents' Policy on Affiliations.............................239-240
Alterations and Modifications.................................... 218
``America's Smithsonian'' Traveling Exhibition...161, 223, 242, 255-257
``Barn Again!'' Exhibition....................................... 176
Biographies of witnesses........................................154-160
Budget Priorities...............................................202-205
Collections Information Systems.................................. 208
Collections in Storage Versus on Display......................... 173
Collections on Loan.............................................. 169
Commemorative Coin Sales......................................... 243
Comparision of Smithsonian Institution Museums and Resources..... 221
Comparison of Visitation to Funding Levels....................... 197
Corporate Patrons................................................ 222
Creative Artists Agency.......................................... 241
Downsizing.....................................................211, 244
Educational Outreach............................................. 175
Children's Book.............................................. 191
Distributing Education Information........................... 184
Electric Motor Demonstration................................181-182
Funding for Education........................................ 183
Office of Education.......................................... 180
Private Universe Project..................................... 229
Financial Resources.............................................. 185
Fundraising....................................................198, 253
Funds to Secure Against Terrorism................................ 210
FY 1998 Capital Budget Request................................... 174
FY 1998 Operating Budget Request................................. 172
Government Grants and Contracts.................................. 199
Government Performance and Results Act.....................221, 231-235
Museum Shop at National Airport.................................. 279
National Air and Space Museum Dulles Center....169, 174, 189, 219, 251,
257
National Museum of the American Indian.................170-172, 187-189
Cultural Resources Center.................................... 206
Facilities................................................... 217
Mall Museum.................................................248-250
National Museum of American History Military History Collection.. 223
National Museum of Natural History:
East Court................................................... 205
West Court..................................................253-254
National Science Resources Center................................ 180
National Zoological Park:
Construction and Improvements...............................212-215
Grasslands Exhibit........................................... 250
Safety Needs................................................. 193
Non-Federal Funding Sources...................................... 197
Voluntary Contributions.......................................... 187
Opening Statement, I. Michael Heyman............................161-168
Patent Office Building Renovation................................ 247
Reorganization......................................................210
Repair and Restoration of Buildings..............192, 216, 244-247, 258
Research...................................................176-177, 193
Astrophysical Observatory Xenon Gas Research................. 226
Coordination................................................178-179
Examples....................................................194-196
Sesquicentennial................................................. 162
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory:
Education Program............................................ 183
Private Universe Project..................................... 229
Submillimeter Array.......................................... 259
Xenon Gas Research........................................... 226
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center........................ 180
Smithsonian Outreach...........................................191, 200
Affiliations................................................211-235
Homepage, www.si.edu......................................... 162
Internet...............................................227-229, 259
SITES Catalog................................................ 190
Smithsonian Credit Card.......................................... 241
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute....................207, 224-226
Uncontrollable Costs............................................. 254
Serials Inflation...........................................203-204
Voluntary Contributions.............................................187
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Relocation...... 209
Workyear Reductions.................................................186

National Gallery of Art

Coordination With Other Agencies................................. 271
Energy Management................................................ 271
Fixed Cost Increases............................................. 268
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 273
Opening Statement................................................ 263
Security Guards.................................................. 268
Special Exhibitions.............................................. 269
Water and Sewer Costs............................................ 269

John F. Kennedy Center

FY 1998 Capital Repair Program................................... 281
FY 1998 Operations and Maintenance Program....................... 281
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 292
Introduction..................................................... 279
Kennedy Center Artistic and Education Programming................ 282
Performing Arts for Everyone..................................... 282
Sources of Income................................................ 279
Use of Appropriated Funds........................................ 280

National Endowment for the Arts

Administration................................................... 415
Administrative Budget..........................................390, 417
Alexander, Jane:
Prepared Statement........................................... 307
Biography.................................................... 300
Alternate Funding Sources for NEA...............342, 357, 360, 408, 416
American Canvas...........................................313, 361, 398
Application Statistics........................................... 353
Applications of Art.............................................. 323
Appropriations Status of NEA..................................... 319
Arts in Communities............................................320, 323
Arts and the Economy............................................. 353
Arts Education........................303, 304, 320, 323, 376, 377, 411
Arts Funding in Other Countries................................354, 409
Arts Institutions..............................................303, 321
Arts Organizations, Health of in U.S......................351, 363, 365
Authorization Status of NEA..........................318, 322, 356, 416
Business Week Arts Education Insert.............................. 324
Chamber Music Rural Residencies.................................. 305
Consolidation of Agencies.................................342, 370, 411
Controversial Grants......................................353, 369, 411
Corporate Support of the Arts.................................... 317
Department of Education Grants................................... 376
Elimination of Agency, Consequences of.........................397, 415
Enterprise Development, Office of.........................343, 357, 359
Entertainment Industry, NEA Partnership with..................... 408
Federal Role in the Arts.......................................364, 413
Fellowships, Elimination of...................................... 418
Funding Needs of the Arts........................................ 363
Funding Priorities:
Agency.....................................................373, 416
Federal...............................................317, 318, 344
Future of the NEA................................................ 302
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).................... 393
Grants:
Elimination of Some Types.................................... 371
Geographic Distribution....................................321, 378
Geographic Reach............................................. 353
Individuals...........................................352, 371, 418
NEA Process......................................315, 347, 366, 368
Number of..................................................372, 374
Rejection of...............................................316, 374
Reporting Requirements.........................................352, 369
Selection Criteria............................................... 383
Importance of NEA Funding........................................ 364
Indemnity Program................................................ 350
Inner-City Youth, Programs for................................... 340
Interagency Partnerships.......................................313, 385
International Exchange.........................................304, 314
Mayors' Institute on City Design................................. 381
Millennium Projects............................................381, 418
Museum Exhibitions, NEA Support of............................... 350
National Endowment for the Humanities Grants..................... 376
National Recognition Grants...................................... 375
National Theater of the Deaf..................................... 419
Panel Process.................................................... 347
Partnerships with Communities.................................... 384
Phase-Out of Agency............................................356, 408
Place of the Arts in Society.........................302, 319, 322, 347
Planning and Stabilization Grants................................ 383
Poetry, Youth on the Metro....................................... 349
Preservation of Culture.......................................... 303
Private Sector Funding of the Arts...305, 313, 318, 346, 363, 364, 366,
414
Programs of the Agency........................................... 374
Purchasing Power of NEA Dollar................................... 319
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Committee.................................................... 356
Representative Regula........................................ 397
Representative Yates......................................... 415
Recapture of Funds.............................................343, 358
Reorganization and Accountability at NEA........352, 369, 370, 397, 417
Solicit and Invest Authority...................................344, 361
States Arts Agencies......................................305, 388, 390
Subgranting by NEA Grantees...................................... 352
Sundance Film Festival........................................... 382
Taxes, Effect on the Arts......................................348, 413
True Endowment, Establishment of...............................345, 410
Underserved Communities.......................................... 380
Uniform Balloting System......................................... 368
Washington State, Importance of Arts to.......................... 346
Web Site, NEA.............................................314, 382, 391

National Endowment for the Humanities

Application-review system........................................ 435
Brittle books and other preservation efforts..................... 439
Budget cuts, impact of.........................................438, 440
Culture, support for in America.................................. 434
Impact on, if NEH eliminated................................. 437
Private sector unlikely to fill void......................... 442
Hackney, Sheldon:
Biographical information..................................... 424
Opening remarks.............................................. 425
Statement for the record..................................... 426
Humanities education...........................................435, 443
Universities and other sources of support.................... 443
Income recovery policy........................................... 440
``Ministry of Culture''.......................................... 434
Partnerships..................................................... 441
``Synergy'' between the humanities and the arts.................. 435
Questions for the record on the GPRA Act......................... 484
Questions for the record submitted by the Committee:
Administration............................................... 482
Alternative funding efforts.................................. 450
Authorization, status of..................................... 445
Education programming........................................ 465
Funding needs................................................ 453
Funding priorities........................................... 459
Income recovery from grantees................................ 448
NEH and other agencies....................................... 475
Partnerships................................................. 479
Peer review process.......................................... 478
Private sector and budget shortfall.......................... 454
Programs and grants.......................................... 465
Restructuring NEH, impact of................................. 457
Termination/phase-out........................................ 446
Questions for the record submitted by Cong. Yates................ 488

Holocaust Memorial Council

Communications Line.............................................. 620
Conferences and VIP Events....................................... 615
Council Activities and Expenses.................................. 618
Education........................................................ 609
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 620
Internet Sites................................................... 613
Maintenance....................................................608, 611
Opening Statement................................................ 605
Private Sector Funding........................................... 614
Rent of Storage Facilities....................................... 613
Restructuring of Organization.................................... 612
Security......................................................... 608
Staffing......................................................... 610
Use of Donated Funds............................................. 618