troit, and practically every city in the Nation had to build out of its own funds.

Seattle, Wash., conceived this great merry-go-round. It had an exposition in 1962, I think. We put up $12.5 million to build an auditorium for Seattle, Wash. It constructed permanent buildings for itself; the State of Washington constructed an office building. We put up the auditorium.

That is Washington; San Antonio is in the making. In New York we put in $17.5 million for an auditorium.

Florida wants $15 million. Alaska wants now $5 million.
Senator BARTLETT. $7,200,000.

Senator LAUSCHE. It has been sort of modified.

Mr. RIVERS. If I may say, it is an underdeveloped area, and it looks like a modified program. Doesn't that make our request rather modest and worth while?

Senator LAUSCHE. So you have $12.5 million for the State of Washington; $17.5 million for New York; I will say $12 million for Texas. That is $42 million; $15 million for Florida is $57 million for exhibition halls. You could spend that $57 million for a much better service. You could spend it for the elimination of pollution in the streams, elimination of pollution of the air, helping of the poor.

But now you have got the program developed, established by Washington where every community, when it has a sesquicentennial, or a centennial, comes to Washington and says we want a stadium, we want an auditorium, we want an exposition hall.

Congressman Rivers, you will pardon me, but I feel deeply about this. I think every city in the country that on its own put up its building ought to be down here saying, "Reimburse us for what we have done."

Do you have a stadium in Detroit, Senator Hart? And an auditorium?

Senator HART. It used to be called Briggs Stadium.
Senator LAUSCHE. Do you have a city auditorium?
Mr. RIVERS. Yes, we do.

Senator LAUSCHE. Cleveland, within the last 3 years, spent $15 million to build its underground exposition hall. It didn't come to Washington.

Ohio had a sesquicentennial celebration, the 150th anniversary honoring those men who formed the government of the State of Ohio, the first one west of Appalachia, the first one in the Northwest Territory. Our program was plant a tree, shrubs, grasses, flowers, recover the land. That was the principal theme of our celebration, plant a tree in 1953. We didn't get a nickel from the Federal Government—and I wouldn't have had the audacity to ask for it. I was the Governor of the State.

And so you can well understand why I am becoming alarmed about State after State coming in here with a cup. asking for contributions from the general taxpayer. My query is, Where is it going to end!

Senator HART. Congressman, do you want to make any response to that? Senator Lausche does feel this very deeply. It is not. I should hasten to explain. directed at Alaska at all. He has voiced his concern with respect to other earlier programs.

Senator LAUSCHE. May I interrupt? Alaska probably, on the basis of alleged poverty, would be entitled. But the Gold Coast people down in Miami wear nothing but diamonds in summer-and even fur coats in the summer-and with luxurious hotels they want this $15 million to help build an auditorium. For what purpose? To take people away from Ohio and move them into Florida.

Senator HART. I want to assure our distinguished colleague from Alaska that this concern has been voiced by Senator Lausche with equal vehemence concerning other proposals, and it in no way suggests that he feels that in your presentation you are deviating at all from earlier practice.

Senator LAUSCHE. No, no.

Mr. RIVERS. I have deep respect for the Senator's feelings in the

matter.

Senator LAUSCHE. That is all I have.

Subsequently, after the Commerce Department testifies, we ought to put in the record this tabulation which you mentioned of the previous expositions.

Senator BARTLETT. That is incorporated already, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RIVERS. It has been submitted already.

Senator BARTLETT. I want to congratulate Congressman Rivers and Mr. Arnold for making a splendid explanatory statement.

Senator LAUSCHE. I want to congratulate you, too, for your desire to help your own State.

Senator HART. If we have indeed finished, Congressman, let me thank you again. It will be in seeming contradiction to the point of view expressed by Senator Lausche, but we have on the floor on occasions disagreed on this concept. I think that you have portrayed a chapter in the history of this country which, if we are to celebrate any chapter, just cries out for this sort of celebration. You have done it eloquently.

This is the point where we rub shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russians. Here is an opportunity to display dramatically what we think is our strength. I hope very much we do it.

Mr. RIVERS. Thank you.

Senator HART. There are two witnesses, as I understand it, here from the Department of Commerce.

If they would care to present their statements, jointly or separately, we will hear them. John Orchard, of the Bureau of International Commerce, and John Wagner, of the General Counsel's Office.

STATEMENT OF JOHN WAGNER, GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN ORCHARD, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. WAGNER. I am John Wagner. Here beside me is Mr. Jack Orchard, of the Department of Commerce.

I believe Mr. Orchard will lead off in reading the comment on S. 2614.

Senator HART. Certainly.

Mr. ORCHARD. Mr. Chairman, we have a letter in support of S. 2614, copies of which have been distributed to members of the committee.

Senator HART. That is correct. Are you referring to a letter dated October 11, 1965, addressed to Chairman Magnuson?

Mr. ORCHARD. Yes, sir.

Senator HART. It will be printed in full in the record. It is short, if you care to read it.

Mr. ORCHARD. I will read it, if you want me to.

Senator HART. I think it will be helpful.

Mr. ORCHARD (reading):

This letter is in reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to S. 2614, a bill to provide for U.S. participation in the statewide exposition to be held in Alaska during 1967.

The bill would provide for U.S. participation in the 1967 statewide Alaska centennial celebration by authorizing appropriations (i) not to exceed $7,200,000 for Federal participation in projects which contribute to the celebration and result in an enduring contribution to the economy of Alaska, each of which must be financed at least one-half from non-Federal sources; and (ii) not to exceed $600,000 for participation by the United States in ceremonies and exhibits which are part of the celebration.

On May 27, 1965, pursuant to Public Law 88-610, approved September 24, 1964, the Secretary of Commerce submitted to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House his report of recommendations favoring U.S. participation in the Alaska centennial celebration. The bill follows the basic approach set forth in the Secretary's report, including the recomendation that primary emphasis be placed by the Federal Government on projects contributing to the long-range development of Alaska. (Copies of the Secretary's letter are attached for your convenience.)

If I may interject at this point, Mr. Chairman, I believe the copies of the Secretary's report letter are not in front of you. They are on page 7 of the Public Works Committee hearing.

Senator HART. The document entitled "U.S. Participation in the Alaska Purchase" in hearings before the Committee on Public Works. Mr. ORCHARD (continues reading):

Accordingly, the Department recommends enactment of this legislation, subject to the following comment.

The Department construes the provision in section 3 (a) of the bill "for appropriate participation by the United States in ceremonies and exhibits" as leaving the U.S. Government free to refrain from inviting foreign countries to participate in the celebration, through diplomatic channels, if there is any question that such action will hinder approval by the Bureau of International Expositions (BIE) of our anticipated bicentennial exposition in the year 1975 or 1976.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely,

ROBERT E. GILES, General Counsel

Senator HART. Thank you very much, sir.

Is it counsel's opinion that a comment in the report by this committee, in the event the bill is favorably reported, covering your concern, lest section 3(a) be construed as complicating life with BIE, would be adequate?

Mr. WAGNER. Such a comment in the report would be helpful.
Senator HART. And would be sufficient?

Mr. WAGNER. And would be sufficient.

Senator HART. Thank you.

The Senator from Ohio.

Senator LAUSCHE. Your name again?

Mr. ORCHARD. John E. Orchard.

Senator LAUSCHE. How long have you been in the Department of Commerce?

Mr. ORCHARD. Three years, Senator.

Senator LAUSCHE. Are you in that division which handles the participation of the United States in expositions and international shows? Mr. ORCHARD. In the Bureau of International Commerce; yes, sir. I came on board the Department to be the Director of the Office of International Trade Fairs. I am now in the Bureau Director's Office as a Special Assistant.

Senator LAUSCHE. You were not in the Department at the time the Seattle Exposition was acted upon?

Mr. ORCHARD. No, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. Were you in the Department when the New York show was a part of the discussion?

Mr. ORCHARD. No, sir; I came on board in September of 1962, and the New York legislation had already been passed and discussed.

Senator LAUSCHE. Did the San Antonio legislation come before you? Mr. ORCHARD. Yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. Did you, with respect to that legislation, require the elimination of any language that would hinder the United States in getting the approval from the BIE of our intended 200th anniversary?

Mr. ORCHARD. We didn't require language in the bill, sir, but we saw that the record was complete insofar as the hearing was concerned that that would be the case. That is all we need.

Senator LAUSCHE. That is, you don't intend to allow the San Antonio show to in any way hinder you in getting a legitimate international exhibit approved.

Mr. ORCHARD. Correct. For our bicentennial.

Senator LAUSCHE. Now with regard to the 50-50 matching, has that been done anywhere before?

Mr. ORCHARD. Not to my knowledge, Senator.

Senator LAUSCHE. You have answered the question.

Do you believe that is the principle to follow, that when there are held these expositions, and shows, that the Federal Government should go into those States on a 50-50 matching basis on the theory that you are going to provide permanent improvements?

Mr. ORCHARD. There would be one other criteria that I would want and that I think the Department of Commerce wants in the light of its initial report on this matter, and that is that the celebration be a centennial or other commemorative event of a land purchase or land acquisition. The precedents seem to limit wide-scale Federal participation to recognize world's fairs, but for State shows only principally for land acquisition celebrations or centennials.

Senator LAUSCHE. So you have created a special category, and that is that when you are celebrating a land acquisition or purchase, you feel that a 50-50 participation is the course that ought to be followed? Mr. ORCHARD. Yes, sir; so long as the emphasis is primarily on economic development rather than transient ballyhoo.

Senator LAUSCHE. Now then with respect to other celebrations, what is your policy?

Mr. ORCHARD. The Department's policy, I think, is manifested by the attitude it took in connection with Alaska vis-a-vis HemisFair.

vis-a-vis Interama. In the case of Alaska we made a definite recommendation for Federal participation. In the case of HemisFair, Interama, we merely said we had no objection to it.

Senator LAUSCHE. Does that mean you do not support HemisFair, nor Interama?

Mr. ORCHARD. It means simply that we didn't recommend it, sir. Senator LAUSCHE. That has me confused. If you want to help Alaska, you had better speak the other way, directly.

Why didn't yon want to express an opinion when you say we voiced no objection? I can see a difference between Interama, and between HemisFair from Alaska. If you see a difference, why didn't you tell us what the difference is?

Mr. ORCHARD. I thought I had.

Senator LAUSCHE. You ought to listen to this.
Senator BARTLETT. I am.

Mr. ORCHARD. I see the difference very clearly. In the case of Alaska, you have the celebration of the purchase in the national interest 100 years ago, or it will be in 1967. This you do not have in Interama or in HemisFair. Also in the Alaska bill that is a specific emphasis, as recommended by the Secretry of Commerce, for projects which would contribute to the economy of Alaska. Alaska is in far greater need of economic development now than is Miami or than is San Antonio.

And I see also, insofar as Alaska is concerned, a concerted effort on the part of the local cities in Alaska to make this celebration and to have this celebration whether or not the Federal Government participates.

Senator BARTLETT. I did listen closely to what you had to say. Senator LAUSCHE. I want to spend a little time on Interama. Can you tell me whether your records show to what different Federal agencies this Florida Interama group went to get financial help before they came to the Congress?

Mr. ORCHARD. No, sir; I do not know that.

Senator LAUSCHE. Do you know whether they went to the Interior Department to aid in the removing of a swamp?

Mr. ORCHARD. I do not know, Senator. You did not ask—excuse me. Within the Bureau of International Commerce which has jurisdiction within the Department over these matters-principally because we want to protect the bicentennial year of the Bureau of International Exposition-the Interama matter was handled by the Deputy Director of the Bureau of International Commerce. I was the one who did the preliminary work on Alaska and on HemisFair. I am quite ignorant of Interama, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. But you do know that the Department refused to express an opinion and filed a letter saying we have no objections? Mr. ORCHARD. Yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. Was that before you were afraid to say that you didn't think it was worthy-not worthy of support?

Mr. ORCHARD. I would put it the other way. We did not wish to give it the same recommended effort that we gave Alaska, and also I don't know that the Department wished to presume on a free decision by the committee.

Senator LAUSCHE. I am trying to find out just what the Interama project is. I have a piece here from the Reporter magazine of May