3. That recreational development on existing public land begin as soon as the Council develops and receives congressional approval of the interim plan for national recreation area development.

4. That hearings on the bill be held in La Crosse, Wis., the area most directly affected by the bill.

I think this is a significant point in any type of congressional hearing and I think we are well aware of the problems of bringing Congressman and Senators out to the area most directly affected.

This is a bill that has the sympathy of many people. It has fantastic recreational advantages to the large metropolitan areas. However, we become the direct recipients of all of the problems that will result from any type of legislation of this sort.

Our greatest concern, and I will use Congressman Kyl's words, on the establishment of the national recreation area, is sneaking up on the blind side.

We are definitely in support of recreational use. I have got to concur with Dr. Curtis. I have got to concur with the conservationists and the other people who have testified. But we are very much concerned that this bill is not a subterfuge for something else and that something else, of course, is the 12-foot channel.

Mr. TAYLOR. You really surprise me that you have that fear.

Dr. MULLALLY. I speak for many, many people. The people in the La Crosse area have lived with many Federal agencies. They have been subjected to flooding. They have been subjected to commercial navigation. They have been subjected to many, many Government agencies and there is an inbred fear on the part of many people in the Mississippi Valley of the encroachment by certain Federal agencies.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, as one of your conditions, you state that development on the existing public lands begin as soon as the council develops and receives congressional approval of the legislation. There is no way in he world we can give you that assurance.

Dr. MULLALLY. Yes, sir. We realize this but I think I concur with what Dr. Curtis said, that it is not the funding that is the important thing. It is the establishment of the area.

We currently have much of the land in public ownership and what we are saying is let's develop that land now. Why do we need to wait. for complete funding or for complete purchase of the property area? Mr. TAYLOR. Again I say that we have authorized a great many projects. There has been some delay in land acquisition and there has been great delay in development of these projects. The attitude of the Government has been that it is more important to get the land first because the longer we wait, the more difficult it is to secure. We have been very disappointed-by "we" I mean those of us on the committee that have worked with these projects-that Office of Management and Budget has been so slow in recommending development funds and that the Congress has been slow in providing them. I think the main part goes to the administration and the Bureau of Management and Budget because they just have not been approving any money in the President's budget. By "any money" I mean any significant amount. The requests have been very limited in the budget.

The gentlemen from Iowa.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sincerely appreciated your hospitality and the opportunity to visit with you yesterday. A lot of

people here have not had an opportunity to know about the fish laboratory, for instance, that you have in your area which is doing some tremendous and exciting things.

This is the second opportunity you have given me to straighten out the misconceptions that you have. This bill is designed in the first instance to change a part of the mission of the Corps of Engineers, and without a change, we cannot accomplish the things that you want or that the corps is willing to do. These people who are involved for the corps, in environmental business, in the fish and wildlife business, are as cooperative and as visionary, and as interested and devoted as any group I have ever found anywhere; but we have to give them legal tools. That is one of the purposes of the bill.

I know the great concern you have which you expressed a moment

ago.

Now, do you want to leave the impression with the committee that you at the La Crosse Chamber of Commerce would like to stop navigation on the Mississippi River?

Dr. MULLALLY. In no way. I think we are very definitely committed to a multiuse concept. It has to be. But, on the other hand, I think we might have reached a point in survival of the area and the retaining of what we have, and this has been discussed a great deal, that again there is a fear that increased commercial navigation might destroy the aspects of the river that we are tryng to preserve.

Mr. KYL. And, of course, no one blames you for having this kind of a concern. But it is my belief again, I must say, that the people involved in the corps are personally desirous of doing the same things that you are.

Dr. MULLALLY. I think we have quite a quandary, as I say, a dichotomous position. It certainly is. We have no quarrel with the individuals. I think the quarrel, if there is one, is the mission of the organization itself.

Mr. KYL. Exactly, and that is what we are trying to straighten out with this piece of legislation.

Now, we find this worry expressed in the desirability of having one corps person on the council rather than two. Actually, I suppose probably to be honest, having two people there may be redundant because whatever the Department wants to do can be expressed by one as well as two. But at the same time no one would minimize, as you have just indicated, the importance of the corps management of certain efforts on the river.

Now, I want to point out again that on page 2 of this bill which we are now considering, line 15, paragraph (b):

The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary" shall establish the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area . . .

And the other places where we talk about the management, it is the Secretary of Interior, not the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of Defense who is the prime administrator of the area, and that because again under the existing statutes, the recreation areas are managed by the Interior Department. For example, in the case of a recent bill which we passed in the committee, the Secretary of Agriculture is the one who administers the National Forest Service, of course.

Dr. MULLALLY. Yes, sir. In the original task force--and I know the terminology has changed in 10539-but in the original task force report, and I am repeating what many of our people have said, the management of the area is the premise of the Corps of Engineers to establish a field office, secretarial staffs, and so forth, and I guess we are feeling that this also is incompatible because of the mission of the organization.

Mr. KYL. But you realize again, for emphasis once more, that we are now considering not that original bill. The hearings are on the second bill. We are in no way considering the first bill.

Dr. MULLALLY. Right.

Mr. KYL. This bill supersedes that.

Thank you very much.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, you stated that one of your conditions was that the area be administered by the Department of the Interior or the Secretary of the Interior, not by the Corps of Engineers. That is a basic decision

Dr. MULLALLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR (continuing). We must make. Why do you take that position?

Dr. MULLALLY. The basic position is that the Corps of Engineers mission is different from the intent of the national recreation area. It is incompatible, we feel, with the mission of the national recreation area.

Mr. TAYLOR. In other words, you think that the Department of the Interior, working through the National Park Service, perhaps, has had more experience in operating recreation areas?

Dr. MULLALLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. And that is nearer its mission?

Dr. MULLALLY. Yes, sir.

I think there is another point of principle of Government in that the Department of the Interior is closer to Congress than an agency such as the Corps of Engineers and for this reason I think it is closer to the people, where it should be.

Mr. KYL. Will the gentleman yield?

Dr. MULLALLY. More responsive to the needs of the people. Mr. TAYLOR. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. KYL. Here again, for the purpose of explanation and education, I have to point this out. I do not know of any big project related to water, anywhere in the Nation, which the Corps of Engineers initiated. The impoundments, the dredging, all of these things have been requested by the people. They did not originate with the corps. And in regard to your statement that the Interior Department is closer to the Congress, I like to think maybe that we somehow have more influence than somebody else. I suppose every Member of Congress feels that way. But let me tell you about the process that is involved through which the corps must go on every single project, and the 12-foot channel would be such a project, and again in preface I say this bill in no way deals with any channelization, any 12-foot channel program.

First, if that were a project which was submitted to the Congress, it goes before the authorizing committee, the legislative committee.

The legislative subcommittee considers it, the full committee considers it, we will say in the House, and then all 435 members of the House vote on it. Then the bill goes to the Senate and goes through the same process and if there are differences between the two Houses, they are worked out by conference committees before the bill is submitted to the President for signature.

Then, after the project is authorized, be it a 12-foot channel or anything else, after it is authorized by the committees of the Congress and signed into law by the President, then it must go before the Appropriations Committees, and the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses approve these matters as line items in the civil functions bill. In other words, there can be no project of this sort unless the authorizing committees and the appropriating committees of the Congress approve it.

A 12-foot channel project cannot sneak up on you. It cannot because it has to be authorized the same way these things are authorized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. And our subcommittee and our full Interior Committee have no authority to authorize it. It isn't in our field. Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Henry H. Webster, head of the Department of Forestry, Iowa State University.

STATEMENT OF HENRY H. WEBSTER, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Sebelius. I am Henry H. Webster, head of the Department of Forestry at Iowa State University. This department administers the ISU program in outdoor recreation resources and, over the last 7 years, has carried out research concerning outdoor recreation preferences and use patterns in this State. Several members of this and associated departments have also carefully considered special development properties in Iowa and adjacent areas. Speaking as individuals, we strongly support creation of the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area.

I emphasize this position. We believe that our role as natural resource professionals is to provide information on the consequences of alternative actions not to conclude which should be chosen based on our own preferences. But in this case the evidence seems extremely clear.

The Upper Mississippi Valley is an unusually attractive area in terms of both landscape and cultural/historic features. It is relatively little developed at this point in time but it is extremely close to major centers of population-Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, St. Louis, and numerous smaller centers. Quite probable changes in transportation will effectively move it still closer to these centers. By our calculation, construction of ony 60 or 70 miles of additional freeway in Illinois, for example, would put Dubuque the same effective distance from Chicago as is very heavily used and developed Wisconsin Dells.

For these reasons, considerably more use and development of the resources of the valley seems likely whether or not there is adequate planning to direct such use into attractive, and environmentally aware forms. And it seems apparent that current planning is inadequate in many areas. For example, the Iowa county with the most attractive resources to our knowledge is one of only six in the entire State that does not even have a county conservation board. The risk of fragmented and short-sighted development is great.

The Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area would effectively bring into the valley strong agencies concerned about orderly resource planning. Thus it would contribute substantially to orderly, as contrasted with haphazard, resource planning and use. For this reason in particular we strongly support creation of the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area.

We share the concern of earlier witnesses concerning the reduced scale proposed by H.R. 10529. But we believe a focused start now is urgently required. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Webster. It seems to me that you are saying that change is going to come along the river whether we like it or not

Mr. WEBSTER. Very much so.

Mr. TAYLOR (Continuing). And that we need to prepare for that change and plan for it and direct it.

Mr. WEBSTER. I think we need to go forward facing front rather than be dragged that way backwards which I believe is going to

occur.

Mr. TAYLOR. And we need to plan orderly development.

The gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. KYL. I would just like to take 1 minute, Mr. Chairman, to say something I have not been able to say publicly as a member of the Interior and the Agriculture Committees dealing with the forest needs of the country. Both, in the national forests system and that managed by the Office of the Public Land Management Agency of Interior, I have been constantly amazed and very pleased by the fact that Iowa State University has so many forestry graduates who have risen to positions of great responsibility in all of the States of the Union, insofar as forest management is concerned. You and the Department are to be much congratulated for that fact, sir.

Thank you very much.

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much, Congressman Kyl.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much.

Mr. Elton Fawks, chairman, Rock Island County Citizens Committee Forest Preserve.

STATEMENT OF ELTON FAWKS, CHAIRMAN, ROCK ISLAND COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE

Mr. FAWKS. Congressman, first, before I make a brief statement, I have two points I wish to make. I live on Campbell's Island. This is off East Moline. This is one of the areas on the first plan. Perhaps it is still included. I have no opinion. I want this very much even though I lose my home eventually.

The second statement I want to make, I have studied bald eagles in the Mississippi Valley for a number of years. I conducted a Febru