Fiscal year 1970,
The increase

(c) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation support;
$81,500; fiscal year 1971, $102,500; increase, $21,000.
consists of:

(1) Two permanent positions at average annual rate of $7,200, $14,400; general expenses and equipment, $6,600.

Need for increase: Following the passage of Public Law 89-665, (the National Historic Preservation Act), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was established. The Council was charged with the responsibility for advising the President and the Congress on matters affecting historic preservation, to comment to Federal agencies on undertakings that have an effect on historic properties on the National Register, and to perform certain studies, such as studies concerning historic properties on military bases, surplus historic properties of the United States, and legislative and budgetary activities. The work of the Council has increased because of the increasing number of Section 106 cases being referred to it and the increasing number of authorized studies to the point that it has become necessary to augment the original staff of two positions by two additional positions, a clerk and a secretary.

These employees assist the Council in the staff work necessary to advise the President and Congress on matters pertaining to the national program of historic preservation. They make recommendations concerning coordination of programs, studies and legislation. The workload of the staff will be significantly increased to support the Council in its continuing program of review of all historic preservation programs of Federal agencies and private organizations and agencies as a basis for the recommendations of the Council.

Program of work: Under the Council's mandate to perform certain studies, the following are underway:

1. Historic properties on military bases how to protect them, how to utilize through adaptive use while maintaining historic integrity; how to fund under budget restrictions.

2. Surplus property of the United States how historic properties can be

maintained and utilized.

3. Environmental studies to determine how the public can best be made aware of the part historic preservation plays in our cultural environment and the effects of "visual pollution."

4.

Legislative and budgetary

information as to the role States and localities can and do share in preserving historic properties; the processes of evolving, implementing, and budgeting the programs through the legislative processes.

In cooperation with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Council is working on a preservation guide to advise States, localities, and private citizens of the available programs in the preservation field.

Examples of Recent Accomplishments: The foremost activity of the Council continues to be its advice to Government agencies on Federal undertakings under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. An Action of the Council in recommending a different location for the proposed riverfront expressway through the Vieux Carre in New Orleans is credited with helping to prevent the desecration of this historic district. In addition, the Council has been successful in delaying the destruction of such significant historic properties as the Old San Francisco Mint Building, the First Telephone Exchange, New Haven, Connecticut, and Las Flores Adobe, Camp Pendleton, California. The Council has commented formally and informally on 43 proposals submitted to it by the Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Power Commission, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the United States Marine Corps.

The Council has also worked with several government agencies in developing procedures for complying with the National Historic Preservation Act.

The Council, at the request of the State Department, disseminated to government agencies and private preservation groups a UNESCO Recommendation on the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works. The Council prepared the coordinated response for the State Department to transmit to UNESCO.

(d) Historic Sites Survey: Fiscal year 1970, $210,200; fiscal year 1971, $210,200; no change.

Program of work: The Historic Sites Survey is the Federal program for identifying and evaluating districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects of National significance in American history, architecture, archeology, or culture. A continuing activity, the Survey constitutes a major aspect of the national program of historic preservation authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Sites classified as nationally significant are designated National Historic Landmarks, and public attention is focused on them by the award of a bronze plaque and certificate attesting to their significance. To date, 808 sites have been approved for Landmark eligibility. A National Historic Landmark is a special part of America's heritage--it is Bunker Hill, Mount Vernon, the Alamo, or the Robert Frost Farm. Identification and public recognition as a National Landmark plays a vital role in heightening the appreciation of Americans for their historical heritage and in stimulating meaningful effort to ensure its preservation.

The Survey identifies and evaluates sites through thematic studies. The field of American history has been divided into periods, or themes, ranging in time from prehistoric man to the 20th century. The subthemes "Architecture" and "Literature, Drama, and Music" are the major tasks for the Survey in fiscal 1970 and 1971. The architecture subtheme is proving to be one of the most difficult yet undertaken because of the highly technical evaluations required and the very large number of buildings to be considered. With completion of the study of the 374 sites and structures in Part L Colonial Architecture, the Survey is now working on the 660 sites already scheduled--with perhaps more to be added--for Parts II and III, 19th-Century and Modern Architecture. Much of American history is embodied in American architecture--a cultural form that by its nature represents the collective efforts and ideals of a civilization. Architecture is affected by social structure, climate, technology, religious beliefs, and tides of fashionable taste to a degree rare in the more individualistic arts.

A publication program heightens the impact of the Survey on the general historical conservation movement. Survey volumes deal with the great "outdoor archives" of American history as found in historic sites and structures. A projected series of 25 volumes incorporating the several thematic studies enables the

Mrs. HANSEN. $1.6 million was appropriated for Preservation of Historic Properties in 1970. You are requesting $6,950,000 for 1971. In a year of "severe budget restraints" this is quite an accelerated expansion for this program. What are the considerations that prompted an increase of the budget estimate of this proportion?

GRANTS-IN-AID PROGRAM

Mr. HARTZOG. Madam Chairman, in 1966 the Congress authorized a matching grant-in-aid program to the State and to the national trust for historic preservation to encourage them to save the cultural resources of our Nation.

Mrs. HANSEN. Congress authorized a lot of money for schools and education.

Mr. HARTZOG. And they funded quite a bit of it.
Mrs. HANSEN. Not all of it.

Mr. HARTZOG. For this program, out of a $32 million authorization less than $2 million has been funded and we have simply reached the point in this program where we have to make a substantive effort to validate it or the States and the local governments are going to lose confidence in the entire operation. For example in the 1968 fiscal year seven States and the national trust put up $1,755,500, while the Federal Government put up $300,000 all of which went to the national trust for historic preservation.

Mrs. HANSEN. What was the total matching funds appropriated by the States?

Mr. HARTZOG. Actual money appropriated by State legislatures? Mrs. HANSEN. Were the funds used for the acquisition of property, or for maintenance costs?

Mr. HARTZOG. No, ma'am; it went into surveys in order to expand the "National Register," the red book I gave you yesterday. In 1969 the States and the national trust put up $1,292,000 and the Congress appropriated only $100,000, and in the 1970 fiscal year 36 States and the national trust put up $3,224,565, and the Congress appropriated only $969,000.

Mrs. HANSEN. Of course you know why. The States aren't providing any money for Vietnam or Laos. Those total costs are being funded at the Federal level. This is what the budget restraints have been about. As long as we spend approximately $30 billion a year for these purposes, it is very difficult to provide ample funds for other activities. Mr. HARTZOG. I recognize it is difficult, but as you mentioned yesterday the amount that we are asking for is very insignificant in that

context.

Mrs. HANSEN. The whole Interior budget is insignificant when compared to the total national budget.

This Government must recognize that the Department of the Interior's budget is one of the major ingredients in providing a better land and a better management of its resources.

Mr. HARTZOG. This year we made an actual survey and 33 States and the national trust have responded and said that the administration in their States either recommended or the legislatures had appropriated $17,245,000. Our budget contains $6,119,000 to match this amount of money, so we are matching it on scarcely more than a 1 for 3 basis whereas the policy of the Congress as enunciated in the legislation calls for a 1 for 1 basis.

Mrs. HANSEN. I may point out to you that the States are now demanding cash grants from the Federal Government. It seems to me the States are being just a little unreasonable in their attitude on some of these things.

Mr. HARTZOG. You know it is very difficult for me to take issue with what you say, because I know how deeply committed you are to historic preservation.

Mrs. HANSEN. I am, but at the same time I get a little provoked when the States are unreasonable in their demands for Federal grants. I think the States ought to understand some of the fiscal considerations and difficulties that the Federal Government has had ever since 1965.

Mr. HARTZOG. I think that in this program they have demonstrated an understanding of our plight. I am simply suggesting for your consideration that in a program that has been authorized for 4 years, it seems to me we really need to validate it with the bicentennial of our Nation just 5 years away. If we are going to have any kind of meaningful celebration or if we are going to have any kind of meaningful program that communicates to the people of this country that we are concerned about preserving the finest in our culture, we have to make a positive, affirmative move to match the money by the States.

FUNDS WITHHELD FROM OTHER BUREAUS

Mrs. HANSEN. I agree, but at the same time you must consider some of the problems of this committee. For example, funds to manage our natural resources have been curtailed. When the Bureau of Land Management testified before us, they said at their present funding level they could only adequately manage 2 percent of their recreation lands. The Geological Survey's funds for the EROS program were reduced by $2.7 million. This was a program that was supposed to enable us to find, understand, and better manage our natural resources. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries funds were cut by $5 million. The funds for the Navaho Indian irrigation project has been placed in reserve. Why is the Department of the Interior continually being curtailed?

Mr. HARTZOG. I agree that it is a matter of concern and I know it is a matter of concern to the Secretary.

Mrs. HANSEN. Why did the Bureau of the Budget allow you to request almost $7 million for Preservation of Historic Properties when other necessary programs were being reduced.

PRIORITY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM

Mr. HARTZOG. I will tell you frankly how it was. I took it out of the construction program for the simple reason that I believe that at this juncture in our history it is more important to say to our people that we are concerned about judgments of those who have gone before us and what they contributed to the viability of this Nation than it is to build more projects. The question was raised with me as to whether I was going to put the money in this program or in additional construction and I made the judgment to put it in this program because I think it is absolutely vital.

Mrs. HANSEN. Did you anticipate that your construction program would be cut?