Mr. RIVERS. It is either pending or has been tabled, I don't know which. Senator Bartlett will have to answer that. Senator LAUSCHE. It is either pending or has been tabled. Was the thought then conceived that since the Public Works Committee refused to pass it out, that a new bill ought to be introduced, with changes, conforming to what the Commerce Department said, and have it sent to the Commerce Committee of the Senate? Mr. RIVERS. It is my understanding that they redrafted it to conform with the markup of the House bill, which clarified and improved the bill. And now the Senate has put in this perfecting bill. Senator LAUSCHE. Doesn't it become a circumvention of what is the duly constituted committee to pass upon this when it has either not taken action or tabled the measure, to have the bill directed to another committee in the hopes that that committee will pass it out? Mr. RIVERS. I understand that this referral to another committee was based upon unanimous consent of the body, presumably including the Senator. Senator LAUSCHE. I would like to hear from Senator Bartlett on this. Senator HART. I think the record could more correctly state that situation. Senator Bartlett? Senator BARTLETT. Yes. It was the conclusion of Senator McNamara, of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, that a centennial bill should not be acted upon by his committee and it was at the suggestion of Senator McNamara initially that it was decided to draw up a new bill, incorporating the recommendations of the Department of Commerce, and the Bureau of the Budget, and introduce the new, clean bill. Consultation was had with the parliamentarian, and as a consequence, the bill, when introduced, was referred to this committee. Senator LAUSCHE. It did, however, require a unanimous consent to have it sent to this committee instead of the Public Works Committee? Senator BARTLETT. I don't know that it required unanimous consent agreement or not. Senator LAUSCHE. It was asked for? Senator BARTLETT. It was asked for because-and I think the record ought to be very clear on this point-it is my understanding, before I had talked with either of them, that Senator McNamara had suggested to Chairman Magnuson that the bill appropriately should go to the Commerce Committee. And Senator Magnuson had agreed. It was after that that we prepared this new bill and introduced it the other day. Senator LAUSCHE. In any event, there is a bill still pending in the Public Works Committee which has either been tabled or not acted upon, and we also have this bill, S. 2614, pending before this committee. Do you know whether or not Alaska has made application for funds from any one of the separate agencies of the Federal Government such as Area Redevelopment, Public Facilities, or any other division of the Economic Development Administration, for either loans or grants to develop facilities for this centennial? Mr. RIVERS. Senator, when the area redevelopment program, or accelerated public works program was in effect, which it no longer is, Alaska had several applications. And I understand they obtained some loans and grants in connection therewith. But that ran out. All of that program is now embodied in the Economic Development Act of 1965. But that program is so new that I don't think Alaska has any applications in yet. Senator LAUSCHE. My question is, Is Alaska obtaining grants or loans for the development of these facilities which are to be matched in the event the Federal Government comes in under this bill? Mr. RIVERS. No, absolutely not. They haven't applied through any other route whatsoever for these particular centennial funds. Senator LAUSCHE. I ask you this, because we have the Interama of Florida, where they want $15 million for the development of a show, and they need that $15 million because the Community Facilities or the Area Redevelopment has said we will loan you $22 million providing you get $15 million as a grant. You have no such situation in Alaska? Mr. RIVERS. No, Senator. Senator LAUSCHE. That is, you are not getting Federal money, either by way of grant or by way of loan, to match this $5 million?" Mr. RIVERS. That is absolutely correct; we are not. Senator LAUSCHE. Now, then, I want to get into the bill for a moment. Page 3 of the bill, line 5. There will be authorized $5 millionand if this bill is passed with this suggested amendment, it will conform with your bill in the House; is that correct? $5 million? Mr. RIVERS. That is correct. Senator LAUSCHE. Now, it says shall remain available for expenditure until June 30, 1968. SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary may provide for appropriate participation by the United States in ceremonies and exhibits which are a part of the centennial celebration, whenever the national or international significance of any event of the centennial celebration will be enhanced by such United States participation. Is there contemplated under this language the construction of buildings? Mr. RIVERS. Senator, there are two phases to this bill. One is the phase which would involve construction of buildings, and the $5 million applies to that, with the State and local governments matching the Federal Government, dollar for dollar, on each project. This second phase of the bill, under section 3, provides for ceremonies and exhibits, and it applies to the $600,000 which is authorized. Senator LAUSCHE. That makes it quite clear. There will be $5 million for buildings, with the money to be matched by either State or local governments? Mr. RIVERS. That is right. Senator LAUSCHE. And $600,000 for other participation, different from construction of buildings? Mr. RIVERS. Yes, Senator. That second phase is in section 3 to which you have referred me. Page 3, line 9. And then everything under section 3 is covered by the $600,000 for the Federal presentation of exhibits and historical knowledge, and that type of historical exhibits. Senator LAUSCHE. Has this commission, which you identified a moment ago, decided on what type of buildings will be constructed and where? 55-099-65 Mr. RIVERS. My assistant, Mr. Arnold, was director of that same body at one time, and I refer that to him. STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. ARNOLD, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN RALPH J. RIVERS Mr. ARNOLD. Yes, sir, Senator Lausche. In most cases, that is, in the cases of the communities now planning Senator LAUSCHE. I can't hear you. Mr. ARNOLD. The kinds of buildings are planned by communities. Whether they are historical reconstruction, as in the case of Ketchikan, which is Fort Tongass, is up to the local committee. Senator LAUSCHE. Can you tell me what would be the largest expenditure for one single construction and where that will be? Are you building an auditorium? Mr. ARNOLD. An auditorium in the sense of a place to present the Alaska Day pageant is planned for Sitka, Alaska, the place at which the transfer took place. This will be presented not only on Alaska Day, but the name of the pageant is Alaska Day. It is an attraction there. But it is not at Sitka that the largest single expenditure will take place. The largest expenditure projected by the centennial commission is at the city of Fairbanks, in northern Alaska, where the "Alaska 1967" expositionsort of a focus of the statewide celebration-will take place. Senator LAUSCHE. I am sorry. I don't hear you. You might speak into the mike. Senator HART. I think if you zero in on it and assume it doesn't work very well, it will work all right. Mr. ARNOLD. The great single expenditure for a building planned for the centennial is planned for Fairbanks, Alaska, which is the focus of the statewide celebration. Senator LAUSCHE. What will be the cost of that building? Mr. ARNOLD. Under the figures projected by the centennial commission, to include Federal spending, the cost of that building would be $4.5 million. Senator LAUSCHE. Will that be an auditorium in which the pageant will be given? Mr. ARNOLD. No, sir. The use of the Fairbanks building will be primarily to tell the story of the Federal Government's role in the development of Alaska. Senator LAUSCHE. Will that be an auditorium, an exhibition hall, or what will it be? Mr. ARNOLD. It has been characterized as an exhibition hall at Fairbanks. That would be later utilized for economic development purposes by making Fairbanks more attractive on a permanent basis, as a site for conventions. Senator LAUSCHE. Yes. Well, in other words, there will be $4.5 million expended to construct an exposition hall that, after the celebration is completed, will be used for conventions and exhibitions of industry, agriculture, and other economic aspects of Alaska? Mr. ARNOLD. Yes, sir; that is correct. Now, I might add, to make that plain, that figure I gave is based upon total anticipated State-community-Federal and private spending of $15 million. So that the Federal contribution here might be only, if the authorization, the total authorization remains at $5 million, the total Federal spending on this building might only be $1 million or thereabouts. Senator LAUSCHE. But it is supposed to be matched, isn't it? Mr. ARNOLD. Yes, sir; it will be matched. It will be more than matched in this case, I would say, sir. Senator LAUSCHE. The $4.5 million, if you matched that, we would put up $2,250,000 on that building, if there was a matching directly. Now, where will the other $2,750,000 be expended? Mr. ARNOLD. I have before me a list of 22 projects. Shall I give them? Senator LAUSCHE. Just a moment. I saw in the book here a tabulation, I believe, a tabulation of expenditures, I think, in Sitka. Senator HART. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Senator LAUSCHE. Do you have a tabulation? You might as well give it to us. Mr. ARNOLD. Yes, sir. Now, I have mentioned the building in Fairbanks. A multipurpose building for conventions and so forth in Anchorage is projected-I made a mistake. I said Fairbanks is the largest. I see the Anchorage project is $5 million. So the amount projected at Anchorage for total spending Federal, State, local, and private spending is $5 million. Convention and exhibit center at Sitka, $2 million. State museum and archives at Juneau, $2 million; amphitheater for presentation of a historic drama at Kodiak, $50,000; Alaska Prehistory Museum at Homer, $65,000. Fort Kenai reconstruction, another early fort in Alaska, $65,000; A reconstruction of a barrabara at SoldotnaKasilof, $3,000. Barrabara was a prehistoric-type native dwelling. A memorial to William H. Seward, at the town of Seward, $65,000. A restoration of Russian-American Company School at Ninilchik, $5,000. Alaska Railbelt Historical Museum at Talkeetna, $15,000; a library addition for historical display at Kotzebue, an Eskimo village, $2,000; a reconstruction of authentic Tlingit tribal house at Yakutat, $2,000. For the gold rush town of Skagway, $40,000; tourist information and community center at Valdez, $15,000; Vitus Bering Memorial at Cordova, $25,000; a carving of authentic Tlingit war canoes, more than one, at Haines-Port Chilkoot, $5,000; Petroglyph preservation at Wrangell, $10,000. These are carving in rock. An aquarium of local sea life at Petersburg, $15,000; Fort Tongass reconstruction at Ketchikan, $75,000; Tsimshian Library exhibition at Metlakatla, $18,000; Tsimshian is a minor native Indian group. A building to preserve gold rush relics at Nome, $25,000. The State expenditure, independent of these amounts, is calculated to be $1 million, with the grand total projected spending of $15 million. Senator BARTLETT. May I interrupt right there? Senator LAUSCHE. Surely. Senator BARTLETT. For two purposes, Mr. Chairman. I should like to note the presence in the hearing room, unexpectedly as far as I am concerned, of Alaska State Senator Frank Peratrovich, who is seated right here. Senator HART. Senator, we welcome you. Senator BARTLETT. Second, I should like to ask Senator Peratrovich, if I may, if Mr. Arnold has correctly pronounced the name of the Indian group at Metlakatla. Senator PERATROVICH. Senator, you refer to the Tsimshian? Senator LAUSCHE. Are you Tsimshian or Russian? Senator PERATROVICH. Half Yugoslavian and half Tlingit. Senator HART. Senator, even if you can't speak it, I think it would help this bill if you plan to testify in support of it, before you go back. Senator PERATROVICH. I would like to offer a sentence or two in connection with it. I certainly agree with the chairman as to the statement he made just recently. Senator BARTLETT. And, Frank, would you agree not to talk in the Tlingit language, which you do very well? Senator PERATROVICH. I certainly do. I do better in the Tlingit language than I do in English. Senator LAUSCHE. Well, I think we ought to put into the record the paper from which he read." Senator HART. Yes. Without objection, it will be inserted. (The referred to list follows:) Alaska centennial permanent projects for which planning is nearly complete or in an advanced stage 1. International house and related buildings (Fairbanks). 2. Multipurpose building for conventions, etc. (Anchorage) 3. Convention and exhibit center (Sitka). 4. State museum (Juneau) -- 5. Amphitheater for presentation of historic drama (Kodiak) 6. Alaska Prehistory Museum (Homer). 7. Fort Kenai reconstruction (Kenai) __. 8. Reconstruction of a barrabara (Soldotna-Kasilof). $4,500,000 5, 000, 000 2.000.000 2,000,000 50.00 65,000 9. Memorial to William H. Seward (Seward). 11. Alaska Railbelt Historical Museum (Talkeetna). 10. Restoration of Russian-American Co. School (Ninilchik) 6.5. 12. Library addition for historical display (Kotzebue). 15. 16. Vitus Bering Memorial (Cordova ) --- 15. Tourist information and community center (Valdez) – 13. Reconstruction of authentic Tlingit community house (Yakutat) _ 14. Auditorium for "Days of '98" show (Skagway) – 2.000 2.000 40,000 15,000 18. Petroglyph preservation (Wrangell)--. 17. Carving of authentic Tlingit war canoes (Haines-Port Chilkoot). 25.000 3,000 19. Aquarium of local sea life (Petersburg) 10,00 20. Fort Tongass reconstruction (Ketchikan) 1.000 21. Tsimshian Library (Metlakatla) -- 75,000 18 25.000 1.000. 22. Building to preserve gold rush relics (Nome). Independent State expenditure_-_. Total---- 15.000, 000 Senator HART. What is the total of the sums you enumerated there? Mr. ARNOLD. The total here is $15 million. Senator HART. What I am trying to determine early in the hearing is whether the figure, the several dollar figures you used there reflect Federal plus all other, or simply are the total of the Federal expendi ture. Mr. ARNOLD. The $15 million, Senator, represents funds from all sources. That is based on the assumption that the Federal Govern |