Mr. WISBY. In 1970 and in 1971, the sums appropriated by the Congress for our operations and maintenance were $1,118,000 and $931,000 respectively. Of that amount $500,000 in 1970 and $400,000 in 1971 were removed from us and used for pay costs in the Department of the Interior.

Professor BICKEL. Removed from your general operating

Mr. WISBY. They were removed from the National Fisheries Center's operating budget and transferred.

Professor BICKEL. But these are separate from the $9.1 million? Mr. WISBY. They are separate from the construction funds; yes. Professor BICKEL. May I ask: footnote 1, is that $75 or

Mr. WISBY. $75,000. These are all in thousands.

Professor BICKEL. That is what is left of the planning money which amounted to $810,000; is that right?

Mr. WISVY. It is what is not in reserve or obligated of the $10 million; yes, sir.

Professor BICKEL. Which would be the leftovers from planning money?

Mr. WISBY. Yes.

Professor STOLZ. As I understand, as a practical matter, from the 1966 figure, when the $9.1 million was appropriated, that money could not have been used?

Mr. WISBY. NO. Actually we would not have been ready to use the money until 1969 when our contract called for completed plans from the architect.

Professor STOLZ. So, by anybody's definition the first time the money was impounded was in 1970, or 1969?

Mr. WISBY. Yes, I suppose. At least we were not delayed by placing it in budgetary reserve up until then.

Professor BICKEL. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record)

Professor MILLER. Excuse me just a moment.

What sort of order, transmission, memorandum, et cetera-I am not asking for the contents, but how were you notified about this and by whom? Just the mechanics or the procedure for this, please? Mr. WISBY. Of the termination of the project?

Professor MILLER. The impoundment and so on.

Mr. WISBY. Simply through the Office of Budget of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. I do not know how

Professor MILLER. Did they send you a memorandum, or call you up on the phone?

Mr. WISBY. They called us up on the phone.

Mr. MILLER. This is not something you could file. It has to be a matter of record?

Mr. WISBY. I think somebody in the Office of the Budget has a memorandum in the files. We were simply told to cease operations. Professor BICKEL. But it would be a matter of record if you asked for the money and could not get it.

Professor MILLER. Just as a matter of interest-perhaps this is an improper question-why do you not ask for a written memorandum? Mr. EDMISTEN. I think maybe we should.

Mr. COULTER. A written memo of what?
Mr. EDMISTEN. Termination of the project.

Professor STOLZ. Does it not come in the form of an apportionment memorandum from the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. COULTER. This comes to Dr. Wisby through his own bureau budget office, which comes from the departmental budget office, down that route, and from OMB to them.

Professor MILLER. This is all by telephone?

Mr. COULTER. I cannot answer that, Professor. I am sure there must be some written documents somewhere.

Professor BICKEL. Could I just follow this down a little farther? And I am going to be repeating just to make it clear in my own mind. Mr. WISBY. Yes.

Professor BICKEL. As of 1966, here is this $9.1 million. You are ready to let a contract at that point?

Mr. WISBY. No, sir.

Professor BICKEL. You were not at that point?

Mr. WISBY. No, sir. Planning started at that point. That is, design of the structure started at that point.

Professor BICKEL. So, in 1966-when was the contract ready?

Mr. WISBY. In the spring of 1969, we had all the products in our hands which would be required to build a building.

Professor BICKEL. So, for the first 3 years of this thing you have, in effect, in reserve, the money put in reserve because it is not ready to be spent?

Mr. WISBY. Yes, sir.

Professor BICKEL. Now, when you are ready to spend it, which is in the spring of 1969, and you are ready to let the contract, you were satisfied or whatever has to be gone through to satisfy whoever has to be satisfied, that this could be done at this price, had been gone through. You were satisfied that it could be done at that point for the $9.1 million figure?

Mr. WISBY. Yes, sir.

Professor BICKEL. Does that remain true as of today?

Mr. WISBY. I think it would be difficult to say. We have designed a number of deductible alternates into the building, which is common practice. It may be that we could build a building today which, even if some things were omitted, would still be a modern, progressive, educational aquarium. I think the only way we could find out today is if we actually went out for bids.

Professor BICKEL. Candidly, but no doubt in estimate, would it be your feeling that if 2 months from now you suddenly got a call through the same channels that says: the policy is changed; inflation has been beaten; raise the flag and build a building. Would it be your estimate that what you would have to do is pretty well start afresh, go to Congress for some more money, because the situation over that period of impoundment had changed sufficiently so that in effect, that project back in 1969 was dead and you would have to really start again?

Mr. WISBY. I think it would be highly unlikely that we could build the finished building today for that amount of money.

Professor BICKEL. So you would have to start afresh with some replanning or some redesigning?

Mr. WISBY. Yes, perhaps by insertion into the original act an escalation clause of some sort.

Professor BICKEL. Thank you.

Professor MILLER. Into the contract, you mean, the escalation clause?

Mr. WISBY. Into the act of authorization, which then would enable our money to keep pace with escalation of costs.

Professor BICKEL. What I am driving at, of course, which is not a conclusionary statement from these facts, is that, especially in construction contracts, an impoundment for a period of years, like this, amounts pretty well to saying that that project is dead. Mr. WISBY. I think that has happened.

Professor STOLZ. Do you know when this appropriation will lapse? Mr. WISBY. I do not think there is any lapse date.

Mr. COULTER. This is no-year money.

Professor STOLZ. So at least in theory the building can be built tomorrow, or at least you think it can, assuming it can be built for that cost?

Mr. WISBY. A building, if not the building originally planned. Professor STOLZ. This morning, I think it was Mr. Cohn, who was with Mr. Weinberger-first used the phrase that the project had been terminated. You used the phrase "terminated." Is that just your gloss on what has happened?

Mr. WISBY. No; we have been instructed to cease planning for the National Fisheries Center and Aquarium and to terminate the operation in 1972; beginning now and finishing in 1972.

Professor BICKEL. What is meant by "terminating" in those terms? Mr. WISBY. Simply that the project will not be constructed. Professor BICKEL. Why would you need so much leadtime in order to terminate it? Why is it not terminated as of this minute? What do you have to do to terminate it?

Mr. WISBY. I do not know why that language was used. We have equipment on hand which will have to be disposed of. There are certain kinds of things that will have to be done in order to unwind an ongoing machine.

Professor STOLZ. That is presumably what you were spending the money on that you did spend in 1969, 1970, and 1971.

Mr. WISBY. In building that machinery.

Professor STOLZ. Yes.

Professor MILLER. The order, then was not just to impound, but to stop the whole ball game?

Mr. WISBY. Yes; this was in the President's last budget.
Professor MILLER. So it goes beyond impoundment.

Professor BICKEL. How do you understand the time lapse that is put in there? Why do they say: "Let us terminate this as of 1972"? Why not now?

Mr. WISBY. I think the project is effectively terminated as of now. I think the time lapse is there in order to dispose of the properties that have been accumulated, in order to turn laboratories into other functions, and in order to dismantle a planning and research team. Mr. WISBY. Yes, we have started that.

Professor JOHNSON. Have you had experience with impoundment before?

Professor BICKEL. Which you are now in the process of doing?

Mr. WISBY. No; I have had experience with water impoundment, but not this.

Professor BICKEL. Perhaps fish out of water might be a good analogy.

Mr. EDMISTEN. I am sure that Mr. Coulter has had experience with it, but he is not up here for that particular subject. But in the Interior Department, National Park construction, as of February 23, 1971, there was $71 million impounded; Indian Affairs road construction; $84 million; under the reclamation loan program, there was $18 million impounded. And other Interior, current: $33 million and permanent: $56 million. So I would assume that Interior has had some experience with impoundment.

Mr. COULTER. Yes, sir. We have had some experience with impoundment.

Senator ERVIN. Are there any further questions?
Professor MILLER. I have one further question.

To your knowledge, either of you gentlemen, have you ever seen a termination notice or whatever it is, like this, in any other relationship? I am interested because I think it goes beyond mere impoundment. What they are doing is cutting off the whole program; not just deferring or reserving funds for a while, but they are stopping the whole thing: in effect, repealing an act of Congress. But I do not say "you." I would say the Executive is doing it.

Do you know of any other instances where termination has taken place in this similar fashion?

Mr. COULTER. Not in this similar circumstance; no.

Professor MILLER. A remarkable instance, I think, Senator, that goes far beyond impoundment.

Senator ERVIN. In other words, as I understand it, this was a specific authorization for a specific project and then a specific appropriation to carry out the project, and the executive not only withheld the funds, but ordered the project terminated.

Professor MILLER. Yes.

Professor BICKEL. They did it in stages. First they withheld; then they went into reserve before the contract was ready. First the reserve within the terms of the Anti-deficiency Act; then they impounded; then they terminated.

Mr. EDMISTEN. Över the phone, too.

Professor STOLZ. The statement was made that there was a specific appropriation for this particular item; is that true? Was this not part of the Interior's general appropriation?

Mr. WISBY. I believe the $9,240,000 was part of a supplemental appropriation in 1966 for the aquarium.

Professor STOLZ. It specifically referred to this item?

Mr. COULTER. Yes, this item.

Mr. EDMISTEN. I think we have no further questions, Mr. Chair

man.

Senator ERVIN. I want to thank you gentlemen for your appearance and for the aid you have given the subcommittee in its study of this very important question.

Mr. EDMISTEN. The chairman would like to insert this in the record at this point.

60-337-71- -15

(The documents referred to follow :)

NATIONAL FISHERIES CENTER AND AQUARIUM

AUTHORIZATION (FEBRUARY 10, 1971)

87th Congress, 1st Session:

House: H. R. 8181 passed August 28, 1961. Yeas: 208, Nays: 135; Not voting: 96.

87th Congress, 2d Session:

Senate: H.R. 8181 w/amendments passed Sept. 21, 1962. Yeas: 42; Nays: 20; Not voting: 38.

House: H.R. 8181 w/Senate amendments passed October 2, 1962. Yeas: 244; Nays: 104; Not voting; 88.

President signed H. R. 8181, October 9, 1962.

Public Law 87-758, 87th Congress.

1964-June 4, architect contract (Becket).

1966-Jan. 18, Fine Arts Commission rejects design. March16, architect contract terminated. June 28, new architect, contract (Roche).

1967-Feb. 12, FAC approves design. May 4, National Capital Planning Commission approves.

1969-Jan. 20, final plans and specifications received. Feb. 7, plans approved (GSA & NFC&A). April 21, construction funds placed in reserve. 1971-Feb., funds remain in reserve and Administration recommends termination of project.

Operation and Maintenance funds have been utilized for staff planning, operational research, exhibit design contracts and operation of the existing National Aquarium in the Commerce Building.

In accordance with the decision to terminate this project all activities and contracts to further the project are being discontinued.

A total of $3,201,000 has been expended on this project.

NATIONAL FISHERIES CENTER AND AQUARIUM

FACT SHEET (MARCH 24, 1971)

1. Authorization. Authorized on October 9, 1962, by P. L. 87-758 (76 Stat. 752). Ten million dollars authorized for construction of the building. Con struction costs to be repaid in 30 years, and operating costs also are to be repaid, both from admission fees.