ably omitted accidentally some land, very substantial land which is publicly owned just to the south of what they have in this map. It is wild land.

There certainly are deer upon it, possibly bear and possibly panthers. And it is not the type of land that should be left out of this, in my opinion. And I think an arrangement could be made at least with the city of Jacksonville, to hold that land wild, because all it is is a city prison farm and it's just the edges of the city prison farm and there would be no real reason why the city should ever want to develop it in any hard way. I believe that at least esthetic easements or some kind of easements ought to be put into that land. At the present time it is left out and that is the bulk of the city owned land and it's quite a bit of land, as I do think an arrangment should be made to extend the perimeter in order to follow the parameter of the National Park Service in this field.

Mr. TAYLOR. You will work with the officials of the city of Jacksonville in an effort to get assurances for us that that land will be donated? Mr. BENNETT. I certainly will and the city has indicated already by resolutions that they have passed, and that the county commission has passed, and the city-county planning board have already passed resolutions which strongly endorse this park and indicate that any lands that they own which the National Park Service wants will be included but of course, the National Park Service hasn't actually said it wants any of the lands that the city owns, at the moment.

And I'm just pointing out at this hearing that they probably overlooked the fact that there is some good land and a nice swamp area there, origins of this watershed, city-owned lands. The city is not likely to have a hard use for it anyway.

At the very least a request should be made to include it, from the standpoint of esthetic boundaries if nothing else.

Mr. TAYLOR. How much privately owned land is there in the area and how many owners are there?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, there are a lot of large owners. The National Park Service is a better authority on this than I am.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, anything you don't know we try to get from Mr. Hartzog.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, there are many big tracts owned by large interests, most of whom have been very cooperative.

Mr. TAYLOR. Why do you call it a cultural park?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the concept I had originally about this was simply to commemorate the southernmost battlefields of the American Revolution but that idea was expanded by park officials. The type of language that is applied here is that of a new type of park. There is one like this in Idaho, I believe, similar in concept.

George Hartzog can tell you more about it, but the idea is not to acquire all of the State parks and other features into Federal ownership in a hard, fixed thing, but rather to tell the total culture of a particular area, in this case going from the St. Mary's to the St. John's, and south to the Matanzas River,

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

I have only one or two questions. I wish to commend my colleague. He is one of the most genial and hospitable hosts I think we've ever had on any of our visitations.

Second, he is certainly enthusiastic in support of this legislation, and as a historian, he can advise us and entertain us for a long time. Third, I want to thank him for his cooperativeness on matters of legislative import that we handle here in Congress.

I have two questions. Just for my own benefit, what is the origin of the word "sawpit"? And how does it fit into your description of the area?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, sawpit I guess could be shown on some other map. Sawpit was a place

Mr. ASPINALL. There's no need to show it on the map. I've got a sawpit in my area, about a mile above sea level, but I want to know what its designation is.

Mr. BENNETT (continuing). Well, this particular sawpit got its name because a plantation owner on Black Hammock Island dug out a big piece of land approximately the size of this wall, in which people would long ago stand on logs and saw a log into planks, as the log extended down into the hole. So, it was in fact a pit in which sawing of timber was done to create usable timber for siding and for braces and for things of this type. It was a prerevolutionary industrial site.

Mr. ASPINALL. Did they have the pit in order to catch the sawdust or in order to handle logs?

Mr. BENNETT. No; the latter. They handled logs easier because they stood on the bridge across the pit, and therefore they didn't have to worry about weight. It was down in the pit, and the two men sawed the logs on top of the bridge as the timber was down into the pit.

Mr. ASPINALL. Now, the area that is involved in here is somewhat lower, as far as the invasion of water is concerned, than it was 400 years ago. Is that correct?

Mr. BENNETT. Lower

Mr. ASPINALL. There's more water in there than there was 400 years ago!

Mr. BENNETT. I would think not.

Mr. ASPINALL. Isn't it true that the eastern coast is sinking to a certain degree?

Mr. BENNETT. Sir, your knowledge on this exceeds mine, but I have 16th century maps of this and I have many maps going down to date, and actually there's no great change in terrain.

Mr. ASPINALL. So it's approximately the same then as it is at the present time?

Mr. BENNETT. That's correct.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions, but I would like to join with my colleagues in commending the gentleman for his very enthusiastic presentation, and the very detailed knowledge that he has of this area.

I might just mention that the gentleman referred to a similar concept, a park development that does exist in my district in Idaho. I might caution you that although the concept exists, we haven't gotten very far in implementing it because we haven't had the development funds.

I notice Mr. Hartzog is listening very carefully. I'm delighted to know that, in hopes that we can get some funds for the development in our park. I hope you won't have to wait as long.

Mr. BENNETT. On that point I would like to observe that I believe there would be ways of minimizing the cost of this, if that would be the thrust of the committee, I think things could be done.

For instance, there is a State welcoming service building to be built about 5 miles north of St. Thomas Creek on I-95, and conceivably you could have a joint structure there, which would at least temporarily. for our decade or so, save the necessity of having a more expensive structure somewhere else; and there are a number of other things which I could suggest, which I think would minimize the expense, if this is a fact in the consideration of the committee.

Mr. McCLURE. Well, there are plenty of reasons why our money has been channeled into acquisitions rather than into development, and that has held up the entire national park system development

program.

But it has led us to overstimulate the expectations of some people in some areas as to how rapidly the things will be developed. Mr. ASPINALL. Would my colleague yield?

Mr. MCCLURE. I'd be very happy to yield.

Mr. ASPINALL. My colleague has noted, of course, we have a deferral report from the Department. My colleague understands what that means as far as committee action at this time is concerned.

Mr. BENNETT. I didn't know about it until yesterday.

But since I figure it to be a budget matter rather than a Park Service matter, maybe it would be well to have some sort of joint conferences, to see if the financial thing could be taken care of, because I really think it could be done with a minimum of expense.

Mr. ASPINALL. My question went to the extent of the timelag which may be necessary.

Does my colleague feel that perhaps we could have a favorable report from the Department with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget in this Congress, or will this more than likely have to be delayed until the next Congress. This is what is bothering me more than anything else. You don't need to ask Mr. Hartzog, because I don't think he had anything to do with the OMB reaction.

Mr. BENNETT. I would hope that it could be done in this Congress. I believe that if the National Park Service wants me to assist them we could go to the Bureau of the Budget, and try to work out ways which would allay the fears of the Bureau of the Budget. Maybe we could redraft phrases of the bill that would minimize the expense very considerably.

Mr. ASPINALL. I think I can understand my colleague's position, and if he's successful with the Bureau of the Budget in this matter, I wish he would let me know.

Mr. MCCLURE. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

I am interested, I want to look with some care at the presentation of the Park Service on specific boundaries. I had in mind the comments my colleagues made with respect to the prison farm in the city of Jacksonville.

Thank you.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you very much.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Arizona?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, the enthusiasm from my colleague from Florida is very contagious. I think you know he's one of my favorite people in the House, and any project he's for is about 90 percent home with me before he even starts. I do find a great deal of merit in what you say, and I hope we can work this out, and get this new addition to the National Park Service.

You certainly have my support. It has been a great day here for semantics, and I have watched with considerable interest as you gave us parameters and parameters, and put them right there together. That was a very impressive performance that will long be remembered in the annals of semanticism before this committee.

I was going to say I'm sorry I missed this trip. You apparently were talking to Mr. Taylor in the back of the bus; I trust this was not a school bus.

Mr. BENNETT. He's opposed to school busing; so am I.

Mr. UDALL. I thought so. I would have been surprised if

Mr. TAYLOR. I might say that his enthusiam is even more manifest when you spend a day riding with him in the bus and he has the microphone.

Mr. UDALL. This must have been hectic for my colleagues on that occasion. I did get a chance to see that area several years ago, going back to the St. John's and the other rivers there.

It's a magnificent area, and I think you should be commended for taking leadership in trying to preserve it.

A couple of quick questions. Is this area in red on the map in front of us? Is that basically the area it's going to take in?

Mr. BENNETT. Correct. That's all marshland.

Mr. UDALL. Is it all contiguous, or will you have disconnected points of interest that you would want to put into this area?

Mr. BENNETT. It's all contiguous with the one exception of the landing place of Ponce de Leon, which I do think some effort should be made to acquire.

Mr. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. How many units of property are presently operated by the National Park Service that would be presently joined under this legislation?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, under the act it would be three: The Castillo de San Marcos, which to me is one of the most wonderful things in the National Park Service, and Fort Caroline, which is my own personal love because that is in the area where I live, and Fort Matanzas, which is the Spanish fort south of Castillo de San Marcos.

Those are three national park facilities, and they are all very fine facilities.

85-680-72- 3

Mr. UDALL. I forgot-is Fort Clinch State or Federal?

Mr. BENNETT. That's State. It was built by Robert E. Lee. I believe he was the engineer for it. Children delight in this fort. It's a very well built fort, a Civil War fort, built out of red brick and stone. Mr. UDALL. Yes; my children were there several years ago.

Mr. BENNETT. And there's a nice surrounding area; there's a lot of acreage around it. It really has fine facilities but the facilitiesthere will be no desire on the part of the National Government to take these over. The State is doing a magnificent job. There's no reason to take it over and although it would be under the umbrella so that when somebody went to the visitors' center they would be told this and the facilities available there wouldn't be anything that the Federal Government would spend any money on other than just making it available intellectually to people.

Mr. UDALL. I have one other question. Now, ordinarily our committee has made a policy in proposals of this kind where there are prospective donations of private land to be included in the park that we get some kind of a statement from the owners to the effect that if the legislation is passed there might be other areas included that they would be interested in donating. Do you have anything like this yet?

Mr. BENNETT. I haven't except orally. These firms have said that if the National Park Service thinks that it is significant and you pass the law to do it, we will give the land. But I don't know whether I could get a written or legal statement in advance from them because they are, of course, not proposing the park and for their stockholders, it means a loss. Therefore, they are in an awkward position to carry the burden for this. It would be much more graceful for them if they were told by the National Government that it wants the land.

Mr. UDALL. We have a kind of chicken and egg situation in which we can't move until we know they're willing to donate and they won't donate until we know that we're about to move on it but we can work this out, I think.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, you could put in a law that they would be required to do it by donation because you know Fort Caroline when it was created that was put in the law. I had to raise $40,000 to acquire the land for Fort Caroline.

Mr. UDALL. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. That gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SEBELIUS. I have no questions. Except I might comment when I was in Florida I certainly enjoyed the expertise of a colleague from Florida telling us about it. I think it's a very good project.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Wyoming?

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Bennett, you are a student in knowing the way of amassing great amounts of money and having a capacity to survive today-it certainly means that you have to know the tax laws and I think that the corporations would know the importance of making contributions.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, this is particularly true of the marshlands. They pay taxes on it yet they can't use it. But the hard land is valuable land and they probably would have a substantial loss from that. Only about 100 acres or so of hard land is in the thinking about