think Pennsylvania has done, New York has done, the major States, they could not take down those funds on a matching basis. I think I will say that much for that side of the program.

Now, for the side of the program that goes into the National Park System, I would like to see a rather substantial increase, but when you increase the take, you naturally decrease the revenues then that are available for other priorities in the Government. So you have to weigh those two things.

I think we have made a $100 million jump here. I would like to see us make the next jump of about $200 million. This would put this Land and Water Conservation Fund up to half a billion dollars a year with a larger percent going into the National Park System as the percent going into other park systems.

Now, obviously this would take a bigger bite, but if we can continue with the development of our oil resources on the Outer Continental Shelf without running into too many difficulties in other coastal areas, I think that we can increase the Land and Water Conservation Fund markedly without necessarily taking a bigger percent of those assets.

So my position would be to go ahead and develop our coastal zones so that we get more money from that source and moderately increase the percent, hopefully bring the Land and Water Conservation Fund up within the next 2 or 3 years to half a billion dollars a year.

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, Mr. Secretary, the next question, and I give you a little history before I ask you the question. For almost 150 years this Congress and this country operated without an Appropriations Committee. The various authorizing committees of the Congress took care of seeing to it that each bill that was reported provided for the revenue to take care of that bill.

There is, at the present time, an increase in the attitude of Congress that the authorizing committees should have more and more power and the Appropriations Committee have less and less power. And very frankly, the Appropriations Committee has found itself hamstrung in the last 4 or 5 Congresses because the authorizing committees have not come up with the authorizing legislation so that the Appropriations Committee could make their report to the Congress. Now, with that background, do you feel that a new policy as far as parks are concerned might be in order so that when this committee authorizes, upon the recommendation of the executive branch of the Government, a new unit of the park system, that we appropriate to the Interior Department the amount of money which the Parks Service says is necessary for acquisition and development of that area?

Secretary MORTON. Now, Mr. Saylor, next week I go before the Appropriations Committee to seek my 1973 budget. May I defer the answer until after I have experienced that? [Laughter.]

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, I can appreciate the hot seat that you are on now and the hot seat which Julia Hansen and the members of the Appropriation Commitee will have you on next week.

Secretary MORTON. Then after this experience is over, before we go into a new cycle, let's you and I get together and solve the problem. Mr. SAYLOR. I think this may be one of the approaches that is necessary, because, Mr. Secretary, in the years that I have been privileged to be on this committee, I have watched the various individuals in the Park Service come forward under the urging of the executive.

branch of the Government, telling us what their best estimate is for the cost of acquisition of an area, and I am satisfied that because of the work of this committee, and the corresponding committee in the other body, that the Park Service does a better job today in giving us an estimate than they have ever done, and because of that great gap between authorization and final appropriation, the escalating costs makes it necessary for the Park Service and the Interior Department to come up here and ask, just as they did last week, for us to pass a bill increasing all of these prior authorizations.

This is one of the things that I think is a disservice to the Interior Department, the Park Service, and to the Federal Government.

Secretary MORTON. I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Saylor, and I think we have got to our whole method, our whole management method between the time an idea is crystalized in an authorizing committee and something actually happens on the ground, a structure is built, a piece of land is acquired, or what have you, have got to be revised.

I think the most classic example of this is not in the Park Service but is in the whole water resource development, in the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers. It is almost to the point of being ridiculous. And I couldn't agree more that the method that we are using now has got an awful lot of slip in it and is a very, very difficult thing to manage under the present structures.

Now, you almost get into massive reorganization. I think if we can go with the natural resources bill and can go with the reorganization plan we can compress it, but still I think we are going to have the problem of the gap between authorization, appropriations, and finally what happens on the ground. I mean between the time the obligation authority is granted and the structure is built.

In the case of a dam it takes 20 years to build, or in the case of a master plan of a park, it takes 15 years perhaps to fully implement it. All of those costs will historically have gotten out of kilter. Mr. SAYLOR. The last question, Mr. Secretary. You have called our attention to the dramatic increase in law enforcement. In view of the fact that there has apparently been a cooling off as far as the colleges are concerned and the youth of our country is apparently taking another look at the establishment, do you feel that maybe the increased costs which you have had over the past couple of years in law enforcement could be reduced during the coming year?

Secretary MORTON. I hope so. I think we don't have really finite ways to make those estimates. The indications would be that crime in the parks, incidents in the parks which require law enforcement expenditures are on the wane.

Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. STEPHENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't any specific questions I would like to ask. However, I would like to say that I am glad to see oversight hearings were being held. I have become concerned in the last 12 years over the fact that on a general basis we pass legislation-I don't mean this about this subcommittee, but I mean as far as Congress is concerned as a whole-we pass legislation and then seem to forget about it. We have done it on the Housing

Subcommittee and others. I have complained about it since the first of the year so the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee has put me on a special task force. I haven't put my feet on the ground for 3 weeks. I have been to San Juan, Atlanta, Athens, Ga., and Dayton, Ohio. I think the policy you have in oversight hearings is fine to start off with the Secretary and Mr. Hartzog-I think we should do more and more of it.

However, one problem, Mr. Chairman, I found that we have, is that when we as a member of a congressional committee undertake to make a trip when the Congress is not in session, to visit and do these oversight programs, we get written up in the newspapers as being on a junket at the taxpayers' expense. Then if we take those trips when we are in session and we miss rollcall votes, then we get written up as being absentee Members of the Congress.

I feel that sometimes the press is not quite responsible to us in this. I say if we are on a committee trip, we are doing our duty just as much as if we are here in the legislative session.

Secretary MORTON. I take it those remarks were over my shoulder. Mr. STEPHENS. I have made them at home to the press and I have made them here. I do think that it is a problem that we face, especially in an election year.

Secretary MORTON. I can assure you, Congressman Stephens, that members of the executive are under the same exposure.

Mr. BEGICH. Will you yield?

Secretary MORTON. May I comment a little bit further on this? I hope that more--so that we are on the record on this because I think I should say this about the oversight functions and this hearing is really something we welcome, we welcome also the field trips that the Members of Congress, both from the House side and from the Senate side make into the field to see what the problem is on the ground. I think we can talk about it and we can talk about the difficulties we are having and the very things that Congressman Johnson brought up about preserving the values of the back country, but the real appreciation you get is seeing, and I know the difficulties and I know sometimes the harrassment the committees of Congress are under when they go to the field, but in spite of that I think the judgments that are exercisedI think the Park Service Director would agree with me-the judgments that are exercised by subcommittees after they have seen the problem on the ground, after they have heard it from the mouths of rangers and visitors alike, that they meet in the parks, those judgments are the best judgments we get and the best advice we get and direction we get from this committee is based on those experiences. And I would encourage you wherever you can to visit the parks and to share with us these problems so that we can mutually solve them in the best fashion. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Secretary, in your opening remarks, and in response to a question that was asked, you said something about present authorizations totaling $5 billion for projects. Is that correct?

Secretary MORTON. No. I was talking about water resources development. The backlog of projects authorized, and in some manner started, either in the planning phase or early construction phase, of all of our water resources development projects within the Bureau of Reclamation, totals well over $5 billion. And those authorized but not started total some $10 billion to $12 billion.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Can you give me the same figures now for our Park System?

Secretary MORTON. About $2 billion.

Mr. SKUBITZ. $2 billion for the Park Service. And how much are we spending each year on the park programs?

Secretary MORTON. Well, are you talking about the total appropriation to the Service for development?

Mr. SKUBITZ. Yes.

Secretary MORTON. Well, we are spending about 10 percent of that; $220 million a year. That is about what the total Park Service appropriation is.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Secretary, if we were to stop authorizing projects, it would still take about 10 years to catch up on projects already authorized for the Park Service. Is that correct?

Secretary MORTON. This is correct. Now, this doesn't mean, though— one of the things that you have got to put into that so that this is not misleading is the fact that there is great usage in the parks during the interim period in the parks that are not fully developed, whereas in a dam, for example, it is of no use to anybody until it is completed and until a water distribution system or power system is also developed. However, a park which may have $30 million, $40 million of development yet to take place to achieve a master plan is still a very useful tool and is a very viable park in terms of visitors and experiences and everything else.

So you have to be a little bit careful in jumping to the conclusion that the park that has development yet to take place in it is not a developed park at the stage it is in now.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Well, the thing that bothers me, we will have Gateway East and Gateway West before us

Secretary MORTON. Hopefully.

Mr. SKUBITZ (continuing). Which will call for a tremendous expenditure of money.

Secretary MORTON. Well, Gateway East

Mr. SKUBITZ. If these were authorized and we give them top priority and our present level of spending continues, what happens to the parks that we have authorized in the past? Are they to be pushed into the background?

Secretary MORTON. No. I think what you are saying is, are we going to spread are we going to continually spread the butter thinner as we have done in water resources development, and the answer perhaps is, slightly, but if you don't preserve those areas, you probably will never be able to. This is what I tried to get to at the conclusion of my remarks, that we have been generally under a philosophy of acquisition. We now are going into more of a philosophy of development on the theory that primarily most of the major acquisitions have been achieved.

So. I think we have got to move toward development, toward an increase in funding and I tried to make that clear earlier, that I believe we are at the beginning of establishing a new plateau of funding for the development in the parks that is far greater, a multiple, in fact, of anything we have had before for that purpose.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. TAYLOR. Let's go off the record for just a minute. (Off the record discussion.)

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Montana?

Mr. MELCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my colleague from Wyoming, who has another committee engagement.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you very much. I don't care which of the witnesses might answer these questions, but I have been asked to ask you five questions, Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Director. I boiled them down to two questions. These two don't have to be answered now if you can provide them for the record.

The project description of an expansion of an airport at Jackson Hole, Wyo., has put both me and my colleague, Cliff Hansen, on a hot spot. We worked long and hard to get the money and thought we would be welcomed with open arms and lo, and behold, the project specifications state that the expansion, the airport expansion, is to allow for safe operation of 737 commercial jet aircraft.

Does the Park Service consider jet aircraft noise to be compatible with the basic purposes for which a national park is created, and with the "park experience?"

Would you elaborate on that for the record at some other time, please?

Question No. 3—I will skip numbers 2, 4, and 5-is this: We understand that one argument advanced in justification for expansion of the airport in the first place, and this is important in Wyoming and to the Nation, was that your predecessor, Conrad Wirth, made the previous commitment that the expansion would be necessary under a master plan that this would enable use of the airport for smaller aircraft. Now, the question is, can the Convair 580 can this be justified to allow 737 under this commitment?

I would like to suggest that I hope it can. I hope your answer buttresses that.

Mr. HARTZOG. I agree it could, but I also agree you can only go 300 feet north of where you are, and we have got to take the other 1,400 feet south, and that is where the rock and the hard spot is. They don't want to buy that land outside the park.

Mr. RONCALIO. I thank you for the answer.

I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any answers to be furnished for the record, in the absence of objection, will be furnished at this point. (The material follows:)

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY MR. RONCALIO

1. The National Park Service encourages the location of any needed commercial airport facilities and services to be located outside of a national park. Where aircraft operations, either jet or propeller-type, adversely affect the environment of a natural area, the cooperation of agencies exerting flight control over public aircraft is often sought to institute such measures in order to minimize or eliminate disturbance created by these and their adverse effect on the park experience.

2. The improvements that are being proposed under the provisions of Public Law 92-184 are being made with safety in mind for the aircraft that is presently utilizing the airport. The aircraft using the airport at this time is Frontier's Convair 580, and the improvements proposed were predicated on the safe use of the airlines by this aircraft. During many periods of the summer, it is necessary for the aircraft to utilize the Jackson Airport under penalty or reducedload limitations; therefore, the 1,700-foot extension to the existing 6,300-foot runway and widening and strengthening of the runway, providing for taxiways and parking aprons, as well as relocating various utilities necessitated by the