The following information is provided to the cultural resources community  by
the American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA) and was developed by CEHP
Incorporated.  CEHP is under contract with ACRA to provide governmental
relations consulting.  This costs money, please consider joining ACRA.
 
There is still time to call your Senator.
 
Tom Wheaton
ACRA
Executive Director.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Subj:  Re: Congressional Phone Calls
Date:  Wed, May 24, 1995 7:32 PM EST
From:  [log in to unmask]
X-From: [log in to unmask] (Loretta Neumann)
Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
CC: [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask]
 
I tried this afternoon too and couldn't get an answer. Called several
times--the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.  Then I called the phone
company, got connected with the "special" service that handles the Pentagon,
Congress, etc.  They were mystified; no one else had called about the
problem, but they agreed that there seemed to be one. Later a technical
person called back and said the line was "open" which is their jargon for
having a problem I guess that they can't deal with unless they are asked. I
tried an hour or so later, however, and got an answer on the second ring. I
asked the operator if they had been having problems with people getting
through, and she said no!
 
As a reward for y our persistence, I'm adding to this message a new one I did
today on the Interior Dept Budget and Farm Bill briefings.
 
 
May 24, 1995
 
Following are two items that may be of interest to ACRA and to others in the
archaeology and historic preservation community, since there are cultural
resource ramifications in them. Both describe briefings held today, one on
the Interior Department budget, and the other on the Farm Bill. Normally they
are different enough that I would separate them out (and will do so in
loading them into our computer communications system, Preserve Plus). But for
now, this will have to do to get the word out reasonably quickly today.
 
None of what we learned is radically different from what we've known or come
to expect recently.  But certainly the budget stuff is dreadful and we need
to continue saying that to the Congress--which, by the way, will be out of DC
the end of this week for Memorial Day recess, and won't return until Monday,
June 5.  It's a good time to try to see Members of Congress back home; often
they schedule special meetings to meet with constituents.
 
For further info you can e-mail me or Kathleen at [log in to unmask] or simply
reply to this message.
 
 [log in to unmask]
 
 
(1) BUDGET IMPACTS ON INTERIOR DEPARTMENT:
 
I attended an Interior Department briefing this morning (May 24) for
representatives of various conservation organizations concerning the impact
of the House and Senate Budget resolutions on the Department. Assistant
Secretary Bonnie Cohen made the presentation. The heads or acting heads of
all the bureaus also attended.  According to Ms. Cohen and the materials that
were distributed, the budget resolutions proposed by both the House and
Senate "assume massive and devastating reductions in the programs of the
Department of the Interior."
 
Although the Senate resolution calls for overall discretionary spending cuts
in 1996 of less than 6% below 1995, it assumes a reduction of natural
resource programs of 13% in 1996.  By the year 2002 the resource reduction is
proposed to be 29% below 1995 levels.
 
For 1996 the House resolution calls for even broader and deeper cuts in
budget authority totaling 16.6% or $1.2 billion below 1995 and 19% or $1.5
billion below the President's budget.  Through the year 2002, the cuts could
total $9.1 billion from 1995 levels.
 
Indeed, the cuts get worse as time goes by. For 1997 through 2002, spending
for most Interior programs would be frozen at these reduced levels. The
devastating effect of the reductions will be compounded by increases in the
Department's cost of doing business. Furthermore..
 
 --The cuts are from the base of 1995 appropriations, and do not take into
account pay increases and other uncontrollable costs that would double the
House's 16.6% reduction to a cut of one third of the Department's current
purchasing power.
 --A high percentage of the Department's costs are for people (about 80% in
the land management and science agencies), which means far fewer personnel to
perform this work. At Yellowstone National Park, for example, the real cost
of the proposed reduction in park operations is the equivalent of cutting 138
full time equivalent positions from a staff of 511 FTE's.
 
The question and answer session focused mainly on fish and wildlife programs,
BLM and park issues. (The only other preservation/cultural resource  person I
saw in attendance was Nancy Miller, deputy director of the National
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.)
 
I didn't ask a question as much as made a statement, that nothing in their
presentation seemed to be responding to the budget assumptions that are
behind the numbers and are spelled out in the House and Senate Committee
Reports that accompanied the resolutions. I pointed to page 172 of the House
Budget Committee Report on the resolution, the absurd but dangerous language
about historical and archaeological "impact statements" being done by the
states and thus the requirement could be "waived."  I suggested that they
look carefully at all these items, that language like this has a way of
getting picked up and used. The Interior Department needs to come up with
rebuttals now, before it gets thrown back at them at hearings or finds its
way into real legislation.  We could end up with it being a reality if we
aren't careful. Interior needs to do what it can to help us stop it before it
continues much farther.  Bonnie Cohen agreed with me, and said they would do
so.
 
(2) BRIEFING WITH AGRICULTURE CHAIRMAN ROBERTS ON FARM BILL
 
Also this morning, Kathleen Schamel, CEHP senior vice president, met along
with over a dozen CEOs and Conservation Policy Directors and Rep. Pat Roberts
(R-KS), Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, to discuss the 1995 Farm
Bill.  Accompanying him were Gary Mitchell, Agriculture Committee staff
director, and Bill O'Connor, committee policy director.
Following is Kathleen's report on the meeting.
 
Since time was limited, immediately after introductions, Chairman Roberts
opted to open the discussion to questions rather than talking at us.  Discuss
focused on three main topics-wetlands, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and
water quality.
 
Wetlands
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation's policy director opened the session asking how
the Wetlands Reserve Program would fair in the new Farm Bill. Roberts
responded that the Committee was just wrapping up a series of 17 DC and field
hearings on the Farm Bill and wetlands was a topic of concern at every one.
He said that committee member Wayne Gilcrest (R-MD) was a leader of the
Wetlands Reserve Program and he is also supportive.
 
The Agriculture Committee is facing funding cuts due to budget marks from the
House and Senate Budget Committees.  Wetland Reserves fall into the Mandatory
section of the budget as opposed to the Discretionary section. Wetland
Reserves will be cut to $15-16 million (House number) or $8-9 million (Senate
number).  The Agriculture Committee must reconcile its budget allocations by
July 13; thus, they are not going to have time to make the policy decisions
that Roberts would like before they have to deal with funding levels.  He did
say wetlands is a top priority in the Farm Bill. He views Wetland Reserves as
an investment not a cost but many other Members do not agree.  The
Agriculture Committee will also be dealing with recommendations to lump all
reserve programs and provide one source of funds with the programs competing
for limited amounts.
 
Conservation Reserve Program
 The group was unanimous in its concern for a continued, strong, well-funded
CRP program.  Roberts agreed stating it will be the second top priorities for
the Farm bill after deficiency payments.  He, personally, is supportive of
CRP since last year he introduced a bill to extend its authorization.  He
said that one big problem the committee is facing is that the Department of
Agriculture provided numbers to the Congressional Budget Office that based
all the Fiscal 1996 budgets on 15 million acres in the CRP cost $59/acre.
Currently, CRP pays for 36 million acres.  Roberts said if they could reduce
the per acre cost then they can include more acres in the program.
Otherwise, to maintain the 36 million acres, the committee will have to pull
the dollars for another part of the Agriculture budget.  "We will do the best
we can."
 
Water Quality
 According to Roberts, water quality is becoming a battle between East and
West.  Suggestions have been offered to pull the majority of CRP back to the
East to address water quality issues. Of course, Western Members of Congress,
including Roberts, oppose this.  Roberts did offer to look at the possibility
of including water quality as a criteria for CRP although he doubts that the
Senate would support this.
 
Conclusion
 
 Andrea Yank, Executive Director of NRCA asked which Members of the committee
we might "soften up" on the issues of concern to us in the Farm Bill.
Roberts responded that there are so many new committee Members, only 10 of
the Members have been through a Farm bill before, that we should work on all
of them. We should emphasize partnerships and the successes accomplished
under the various programs.
 
 At this point, the Chairman had to leave.  He did suggest contacting either
O'Connor or Mitchell with ideas or suggestions on the Farm Bill.