'y4

.11181)3 tZ '6D

N 21p NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

GOVEI(NMEN1

Storage KANSAS STATE VAIVENSTII

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS AND RECREATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

-

UNITED STATES SENATE

Ln

NINETIETH CONGRESS

o 

FIRST SESSION

ON

-0Farl S. 814

A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

JULY 20, 1967

Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

82-618 WASHINGTON: 1967
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

LEE METCALF, Montana

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho

PA 1 " J. FANNIN. Arizona

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming

MARK 0. IIATFIELD, Oregon

JERRY T. VERKLER, Staff Director

STEWART FRENCH, Chief Counsel

E. LEWIS REID, Minority Counsel

ROY WHITACRE, Professional Staff Member

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS AND RECREATION

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

II

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming

THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon
CONTENTS

Page

S.814 1

Departmental reports:

Bureau of the Budget 2

Department of the Interior 3

STATEMENTS

De Groat, Russell E., public affairs officer of the National Recreation and

Park Association, representing Conrad L. Wirth 20

Hartzog, George B., Director, National Park Service, accompanied by

Frank Harrison, Assistant Director, and Michael Lambe, counsel, National Park Service 5, 16

Thurber, Donald, member, National Park Trust Fund Board 12, 17

NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS AND RECREATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m., in room

3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Alan Bible, chairman,

presiding.

Present: Senators Bible, Anderson, and Hatfield.

Also present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Roy Whitacre, and

Mike Griswold, professional staff members, and E. Lewis Reid,

minority counsel.

Senator BIBLE. We will now proceed to hearings on the bill before

us, S. 814, which will be made a part of the record, together with the

supporting reports.

(The material referred to follows:)

[S. 814, 90th Cong., 1st scss.]

A BILL To establish the National Park Foundation

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That in order to encourage private gifts of real and

personal property or any income therefrom or other interest therein for the benefit

of, or in connection with, the National Park Service, its activities, or its services,

and thereby to further the conservation of natural, scenic, historic, scientific,

educational, inspirational, or recreational resources for future generations of

Americans, there is hereby established a charitable and nonprofit corporation to be

known as the National Park Foundation to accept and administer such gifts.

SEC. 2. The National Park Foundation shall consist of a Board having as members the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the National Park Service, ex

officio, and no less than six private citizens of the United States appointed by the

Secretary of the Interior whose initial terms shall be staggered to assure continuity

of Administration. Thereafter, the term shall be six years, unless a successor is

chosen to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his

predecessor was chosen, in which event the successor shall be chosen only for the

remainder of that term. The Secretary of the Interior shall be the Chairman of the

Board and the Director of the National Park Service shall be the Secretary of the

Board. Membership on the Board shall not be deemed to be an office within the

meaning of the statutes of the United States. A majority of the members of the

Board serving at any one time shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of

business, and the Foundation shall have an official seal, which shall be judicially

noticed. The Board shall meet at the call of the Chairman and there shall be at

least one meeting each year.

No compensation shall be paid to the members of the Board for their services

as members, but they shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary traveling and

subsistence expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties as such

members out of National Park Foundation funds available to the Board for such

purpose. The Foundation shall succeed to all right, title, and interest of the

National Park Trust Fund Board established in any property or funds, including

the National Park Trust Fund, subject to the terms and conditions thereof. The

National Park Trust Fund is hereby abolished, and the Act of July 10, 1935 (49

Stat. 477; 16 U.S C. 19 et seq.), as amended, is hereby repealed.

1
2 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

SEC. 3. The Foundation is authorized to accept, receive, solicit, hold, administer,

and use any gifts, devises, or bequests, either absolutely or in trust, of real or

personal property or any income therefrom or other interest therein for the benefit

of, or in connection with, the National Park Service, its activities, or its services:

Provided, That the Foundation may not accept any such gift, devise, or bequest

which entails any expenditure other than from the resources of the Foundation.

An interest in real property includes, among other things, easements or other

rights for preservation, conservation, protection, or enhancement by and for the

public of natural, scenic, historic, scientific, educational, inspirational, or recreational resources. A gift, devise, or bequest may be accepted by the Foundation

even though it is encumbered, restricted, or subject to beneficial interests of private

persons if any current or future interest therein is for the benefit of the National

Park Service, its activities, or its services.

SEC. 4. Except as otherwise required by the instrument of transfer, the Foundation may sell, lease, invest, reinvest, retain, or otherwise dispose of or deal with

any property or income thereof as the Board may from time to time determine.

The Foundation shall not engage in any business, nor shall the Foundation make

any investment that may not lawfully be made by a trust company in the District

of Columbia, except that the Foundation may make any investment authorized

by the instrument of transfer, and may retain any property accepted by the

Foundation. The Foundation may utilize the services and facilities of the Department of the Interior, and such services and facilities may be made available on

request to the extent practicable.

SEC. 5. The Foundation shall have perpetual succession, with all the usual

powers and obligations of a corporation acting as a trustee, but the members of

the Board shall not be personally liable, except for malfeasance.

SEC. 6. The Foundation shall have the power to enter into contracts, to execute

instruments, and generally to do any and all lawful acts necessary or appropriate

to its purposes.

SEC. 7. In carrying out the provisions of this Act, the Board may adopt bylaws,

rules, and regulations necessary for the administration of its functions and contract for any necessary services.

SEC. 8. Income and property received or owned by the Foundation shall be

exempt from all Federal and State taxation with respect thereto. The Foundation

shall be regarded as an instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of all

tax laws, but for no other purpose, and contributions, gifts, and other transfers

made to the Foundation shall be regarded as contributions, gifts, or transfers to

or for the use of the United States.

SEC. 9. The Foundation shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal

year, transmit to Congress an annual report of its proceedings and activities,

including a full and complete statement of its receipts and expenditures.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., June 5, 1967.

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of February 6, 1967,

for the views of the Bureau of the Budget regarding S. 814, "To establish the

National Park Foundation."

The report which the Secretary of the Interior is submitting discusses the bill

and recommends a clarifying amendment.

If amended as suggested by the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of the

Budget would have no objection to the enactment of S. 814 from the standpoint

of the Administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

WILFRED H. ROMMEL,

Assistance Director for Legislative Reference.
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., June 8, 1967.

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: Your Committee has requested a report from this

Department on S. 814, a bill "To establish the National Park Foundation."

We strongly recommend that the bill be enacted, and we suggest the clarifying

amendment indicated below.

The focus of the bill is upon providing ready machinery for private philanthropy

which seeks an opportunity to contribute effectively to the conversation of the

Nation's natural, scenic, historic, scientific, educational, inspirational, and related

recreational resources.

If this Nation is to preserve its great places of beauty and history, if lands

sufficient to the needs of our citizens for outdoor recreation are to be set aside, all

segments of society—public and private—must join in the common effort. This

proposal, which would supplant the Act of July 10, 1935 (49 Stat. 477; 16 U.S.C.

19 et seq.), as amended, that established the National Park Trust Fund Board,

will help make it possible for private generosity to enhance public programs.

Enactment of the broader authority contained in the bill is particularly timely

in view of the commitment of the Administration to the preservation of natural

beauty as a precept of President Johnson's Great Society. In the years ahead an

informed public will be increasingly concerned with programs whose concern is

the preservation of rural landscapes and the urban environment. The bill offers a

vehicle for individuals and organizations to help realize a vital objective of the

Great Society. The Foundation created by this bill can assume an important role

in informing the public of the need for the conservation of these resources. By

undertaking an active program of solicitation of funds and property for purposes

of the National Park System, the Foundation will communicate the values of

park conservation so that our citizens may better appreciate their heritage and

learn to live in better harmony with their environment.

Full participation by private donors has not been realized under the Act of

July 10, 1935 (49 Stat. 477; 16 U.S.C. 19 et seq.), as amended, which created the

National Park Trust Fund Board. In the 27 years of the Trust Fund's existence,

only $117,000 has been received. In addition, pursuant to the Act of July 25, 1962

(76 Stat. 217), which provided for the establishment of the Theodore Roosevelt

Birthplace and Sagamore Hill National Historic Sites, the National Park Trust

Fund Board received a $500,000 fund from the Theodore Roosevelt Association.

The Act specified, however, that such fund could be used only for the purposes of

these two historic sites.

We support, therefore, legislation that abolishes the National Park Trust

Fund Board and replaces it with a National Park Foundation. The National

Park Foundation will be a charitable and nonprofit corporation. It will not be

regarded as an instrumentality of the United States, except for the purpose of all

tax laws. The income and property received or owned by the Foundation will be

exempt from all Federal and State taxation. The legislation supplements the

authority of the Secretary of the Interior, acting under the Act of June 5, 1920

(41 Stat. 917; 16 U.S.C. 6), to accept outright gifts of real property within the

various national parks and monuments.

We believe that the establishment of the proposed National Park Foundation,

which will have expanded authority with respect to the nature of the property

that may be accepted and the use to which it may be put, will create a climate

framework within which the support of private philanthropy can be more readily

achieved.

The purpose of the bill is to encourage private gifts of real and personal property

or any income therefrom or other interest therein for the benefit of or in connection

with the National Park Service, its activities, or its services, and thereby to

further the preservation of natural, scenic, historic, scientific, educational,

inspirational, or recreational resources for future generations of Americans,

by establishing a National Park Foundation to accept and administer such gifts.

The bill provides for the creation and establishment of the National Park

3
4 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

Foundation, which shall consist of a board having no less than eight members, at

least six of whom must be private citizens of the United States. The existing

National Park Trust Fund Board has a majority of governmental officials, and

it is believed that the board of the proposed Foundation will have a wider appeal

to prospective donors. A more flexible body will likewise be able to conduct a

vigorous program of conservation education, conveying to all segments of our

society the need for park lands in the cities, on our rivers and shores, and in the

wilderness.

The National Park Foundation will be under the chairmanship of the Secretary

of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service will be the additional

governmental member. The Secretary of the Interior will coordinate the Foundation's activities with both Federal and local policies, including land-use and

development policies. The Foundation will succeed under the terms of the proposal

to the rights and interests of the National Park Trust Fund Board, which is

abolished by the proposal.

The bill gives the Foundation broader authority than the existing National

Park Trust Fund Board to accept and administer gifts, devises, or bequests.

First, it is made clear in section 3 that the Foundation may accept such gifts

whether by the terms of the gifts they are absolute or in trust. Second, such gifts

may be not only of personal property, but also of real property or any income

therefrom or interest therein. Third, the bill establishes that an interest in real

property may include easements or other rights for the preservation, conservation,

protection, or enhancement of property which is a natural, scenic, historic,

scientific, educational, inspirational, or recreational resource. The Foundation

may therefore accept gifts of development rights in real property for the preservation of green belts and open spaces. Recent State legislation, for example in New

York and California, has similarly authorized public agencies to accept such

development rights or conservation rights, as they are sometimes called. Finally,

the bill makes it clear that the Foundation may accept private donations of

property, even though they may be encumbered, restricted, or subject to beneficial interests of private persons if any current or future interest inures to the

benefit of the National Park Service, its activities or its services. The bill provides

that a donation may not be accepted if it entails any expenditure other than

from the resources of the Foundation.

Section 4 generally gives the Foundation broader authority than the existing

National Park Trust Fund Board to deal with gifts of property or income thereof,

but the Foundation is required to follow the terms of the instrument of donation.

The Foundation is not to engage in any business, and unless authorized by the

instrument of donation the Foundation must invest in those investments lawful

for trust companies in the District of Columbia.

The Foundation is also authorized to retain property originally accepted by

the Foundation from a donor. This section also permits the Foundation to utilize

services and facilities of the Department of the Interior, when such services and

facilities are made available by the Department.

In addition, the bill provides the Foundation with the usual powers and obligations of a corporation acting as a trustee, affords the Foundation the necessary

power to contract and do other lawful acts appropriate to its purpose, and provides

the Board of the Foundation essential authority to adopt bylaws, rules, and

regulations necessary for the administration of its functions.

The bill is generally designed to strengthen the existing provisions of law with

respect to gifts to the United States for the benefit of or in connection with the

National Park Service.

We suggest the following clarifying amendment to the bill:

On page 4, line 17, delete the period and add the words "without reimbursement

theref or.

The amendment makes clear that the Foundation will not be required to reimburse the Department for any services or facilities which we may make available

to it. We believe this is appropriate since the Foundation's efforts will benefit the

National Park Service of this Department.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the

presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

STEWART L. UDALL,

Secretary of the Interior.
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION 5

Senator BIBLE. S. 814 was introduced on February 2, 1967. It is

a departmental bill. The purpose of the bill is to encourage private

gifts of real and personal property by providing ready machinery to

private philanthropy which seeks an opportunity to contribute to

the conservation and development of the Nation's natural, scenic,

historic, and recreational resources.

The bill would supplant the present National Park Trust Fund

Board and would provide broader authority and a more flexible

organization for receiving private gifts. The bill is generally designed

to strengthen the provisions of existing law with respect to the receipt

of gifts to the United States for the benefit of, or in connection with,

the National Park Service.

Enactment of the broader authority contained in the proposed bill

is particularly timely in view of the growing commitment of the

present administration, of the States, of the public generally to the

preservation and enhancement of natural beauty.

Our first witness to this particular bill is Mr. Hartzog.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE B. HARTZOG, JR., DIRECTOR NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK HARRISON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND MICHAEL

LAMBE, COUNSEL

Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman.

Senator BIBLE. Glad to re-recognize you.

Mr. HARTZOG. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. It is a great pleasure for me to appear on

behalf of the Secretary of the Interior in support of this legislation.

The thrust of this bill is to encourage our citizens to participate in

a more meaningful way in the efforts of their Government to provide

park and recreation opportunities for America. The bill will not cost

the Government any money; its purpose is to encourage donations of

money and property which can be used to further the programs of

the National Park Service.

At present, there is established under the existing law a five-member

National Park Trust Fund Board, which Congress authorized in the

act of July 10, 1935 (49 Stat. 477), to accept donations of money or

securities for the benefit of the National Park Service. Chiefly because

of the makeup of the existing Board, the limitations on its power to

invest, and the limitations on the type of property it may accept, the

present National Park Trust Fund has not proved to be the type of

body that can attract significant donations of private capital and

property. In the 27 years of its existence, a total of $745,495.87 has

been received. However, of this amount, $500,000 was donated in

1964 for Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace and Sagamore Hill National

Historic Sites in New York; and in 1966, $100,000 was donated for the

St. Gaudens National Historic Site in New Hampshire. Both of these

donations were made pursuant to special acts of Congress which

authorized the acceptance of donations for establishment of these

specific areas. The current total of other receipts since 1935 is

$145,495.87.

82-618-07-2
6 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

S. 814 would therefore abolish the existing Board and establish in its

place a National Park Foundation. The Foundation's Board would

have a greater number of private members and broader authority than

the existing Board. The need for an expanded body with greater private

participation for wider appeal to prospective donors, and the need for

broader authority to deal with property were pointed out to us sometime ago by the two private members on the existing National Park

Trust Fund Board—Mr. Donald Thurber, of Grosse Point, Mich.,

and Mr. Hugh Galusha, of Helena, Mont. I am pleased that we have

Mr. Thurber here with us this morning. They put much of their own

time and research into the proposal now before the committee.

The principal changes in the existing program that the new National

Park Foundation would accomplish are in the problem areas of membership, authority to deal with property, and the type of property that

can be accepted for the benefit of the National Park Service. Briefly,

they are as follows:

MEMBERSHIP

The membership of the existing National Park Trust Fund Board is

composed of a majority of Government officials—the Secretaries of

the Treasury and Interior, and the Director of National Park Service—

plus two private members appointed by the President of the United

States.

Under S. 814 the Board governing the new National Park Foundation will have a majority of private members—the Secretary of the

Interior as Chairman, the Director of the National Park Service as

Secretary, and not less than six private citizens appointed by the

Secretary of the Interior.

AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH PROPERTY

Under the existing National Park Trust Fund Act of 1935, the Board

accepts gifts of money or securities and turns them over to the Secretary of the Treasury, who invests, reinvests, or retains investments,

in such amounts as directed by the Board, and disburses the income.

Under this procedure, the Secretary of the Treasury determines how

the funds are to be invested, and the practice has been to invest them

almost exclusively in Government securities.

Under S. 814, the Foundation may accept property and the Foundation, itself, may invest, reinvest, retain, lease, sell, or otherwise deal

with the property, or income thereof, so long as it follows the terms

and limitations, if any, of the instrument of donation. The new Board

would not, therefore, be limited to investments prescribed and made

by the Treasury Department.

PROPERTY

The existing National Park Trust Fund Board is limited to accepting

donations of personal property only. The effect of this has been to

restrict donations to money or securities. Under S. 814 the new Foundation is authorized to accept donations of both personal and real

property or any income therefrom or interest therein, including future

interests in property, easements, and other less than fee interests in
NATIONAL PARS FOUNDATION 7

land. Any property donated to the National Park Foundation would

be regarded as a gift to the United States. The activities of the Foundation therefore would not conflict with the programs of such organizations as the National Trust for Historic Preservation which assists in

the preservation of privately owned historic properties.

We believe that the National Park 1 oundation could be of significant

benefit to the United States in curbing price escalation of lands proposed for acquisition by the Government as national park system

areas. It could do so by using Foundation funds to acquire and hold

key tracts of land which the Congress is considering for authorization,

and when the authorizing legislation is approved the Foundation could

convey the property to the Federal Government. In this way the

great escalation in land prices between the time Congress considers

an area and the time funds are available to acquire it could in part be

avoided. Of course, if Congress did not authorize the area the Foundation could sell the property and reinvest the proceeds.

In this connection, as suggested in Senator Jackson's letter of May

23, 1967, we have reexamined the bill and have reassured ourselves that

the language will permit the Foundation to purchase real property

under consideration for addition to the national park system and

convey it to the Government following authorization of the area.

Section 3 authorizes the Foundation to accept gifts, and to administer

them for the benefit of the National Park Service.

Section 4 authorizes the Foundation to dispose of its property, or

invest it. If the Foundation accepts a gift of land, the land can be

conveyed to the National Park Service. If the gift is money, it may be

invested in land and the land conveyed to the National Park Service.

We believe no amendment to the bill is needed in order to authorize

such actions. It is important, however, that the legislative history

show that Congress understands the Foundation may engage in this

type of activity.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and I shall be pleased to try to answer any questions you

may have.

Senator BIBLE. I am not quite clear as to your thinking as to how

this Foundation will acquire a lot more wealth and holdings and cash

and gifts than the other one did. Now, why is this a better instrument

to do that?

Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Thurber, who is here and who

will appear as a witness, and Mr. Galusha, who is the other private

trustee and who, unfortunately, could not be here—he is president of

the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and an attorney in Helena,

Mont.—have made a study of this, and Mr. Thurber is going to testify

on the basis of his research with respect to that particular point.

Senator BIBLE. That is all right. I will be very happy to get his

reasons for it.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes.

Senator BIBLE. The additional question I would have is prompted

by your statement that—

The new Board would not, therefore, be limited to investments prescribed and

made by the Treasury Department.

Who determines what investments you make, the Board itself?

Mr. HARTZOG. The Board itself will determine; yes, sir.
8 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

Senator BIBLE. If it wants to invest in Hecla Mining Co. which

I understand is a pretty good stock right now because of the silver

market going up, it can go out and buy 300 shares of Hecla Mining

Co.?

Mr. HARTZOG. If this be the decision of the Board; yes, sir.

Senator BIBLE. Of course, if the Hecla Mining Co. stock went down,

as stocks often do

'

then that would be the responsibility of the Board.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir; from the Foundation's assets. In other

words, the legislation is so drawn that it does not create an obligation on the general funds of the Treasury, and its costs, its gains, or

its losses must be taken care of out of its own funds.

Senator BIBLE. Today you are restricted to the investments as

they are prescribed by the Treasury Department?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Senator BIBLE. The Treasury Department, I suppose, out of an

abundance of caution and 

Mr. HARTZOG. I might say, sir, with respect to mining stock, it

would have to be considered to be an investment of the kind authorized for investment by trust funds in the District of Columbia. I believe that is the limitation on it. And this, I understand, does provide

for common stock purchases, but, you know, they just couldn't go 

Senator BIBLE. Well, it certainly should have some restrictions

built into it.

Mr. HARTZOG. The bill has that in it. Section 4 has that provision

in it which says:

The Foundation shall not engage in any business, nor shall the Foundation

make any investment that may not lawfully be made by a trust company in the

District of Columbia, except that the Foundation may make any investment

authorized by the investment of transfer, and may retain any property accepted

by the Foundation.

In other words, if you were to go out and buy this mining stock,

and then you were to donate it to the Foundation, the Foundation

would continue to hold it even if it weren't on the approved list of

securities for a trust company in the District of Columbia. Do you

see what I mean?

Senator BIBLE. And likewise, this would be the holding company

in the illustration that you use—I guess it's no different from your

present foundation—as to the $500,000 that was donated in 1964

for Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace. That would be held in trust for

that purpose, pending congressional action. Is this correct?

Mr. HARTZOG. This is correct; absolutely.

Senator BIBLE. And the same thing could apply with land of the

heirs in the Blow estate in the bill, S. 1411, that we just had before us.

If they felt they would run into some inheritance tax problems and

they would rather donate this property to the Federal Government

than pay a lot of inheritance taxes, then they could donate it to this

Foundation and the Foundation would hold it, pending congressional

action?

Mr. HARTZOG. That is correct, sir.

Senator BIBLE. I am convinced that you need some type of

additional foundation or instrument to try to purchase land when 1
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION 9

the price is right and when it is most advantageous to avoid some of

these price escalations. I have no further questions at this time.

Senator Anderson?

Senator ANDERSON. Do you know what the requirements are in

the District of Columbia on investments?

Mr. HARTZOG. We don't have a statement on that, Senator. I

will be happy to provide one.

Senator ANDERSON. It says, "Nor shall the Foundation make any

investment that may not lawfully be made by a trust company in

the District of Columbia."

We had some problems a while ago about mortgage and insurance

companies, and so forth. I just wondered what the yardstick was on

it.

Mr. HARTZOG. I will put the entire authority in the record.

Generally, it is my understanding that it must procure Government

securities and, you know, what you might call blue chip common

stocks—preferred stock. But we will put this in the record..

Senator ANDERSON. There are many things that could happen to

it one way or the other. The District of Columbia has not always

had the best record of investment policy. We have insurance companies

that are using stock policies issued by the State of New York, not by

the District of Columbia.

Senator BIBLE. I would think that is an excellent suggestion

because it is not spelled out in the bill, and I am wondering if it

wouldn't also be worthy of the committee's consideration and your

consideration, as well, to put right in the statute what investments

can be made. Of course, you lock it in and maybe in the future it

becomes more flexible insofar as investments are concerned, but I

think that is a wise suggestion of the Senator from New Mexico.

I think you should place in the record the law that tells what investments the trust companies in the District of Columbia can make.

Mr. HARTZOG. I agree with you, sir, and I will be happy to do that.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you.

The Senator from Oregon.

Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Director a few

questions regarding section 3, page 3, of the bill?

As I understand the history of theNational Park Trust Fund, you

indicated that it already had received $145,000 outside of two specific

and special project programs. When you talk about the Foundation

on page 3, section 3, 'The Foundation is authorized to accept, receive,

solicit, hold, administer, and use any gifts," and so forth, what do

you contemplate to be the staff requirements for the Foundation to

administer such properties? As I understand, you would have even

solicitation work among people who would be interested in giving to

this kind of program.

Mr. HARTZOG. Thank you very much. We have contemplated that

it would require simply the time of one person, that the private

trustees who would be appointed here would do much of this solicitation. This is one reason why this legislation carries a provision that

appointment as a trustee here does not represent a conflict of interest, because many of the people who are interested in foundation
10 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

work have, as Mr. Thurber will tell you, an indicated interest in this

approach, and they, themselves, will probably be among the trustees,

so that a great part of this work of the Foundation will be done by

the trustees themselves.

Senator HATFIELD. But, Mr. Hartzog, don't you feel that you will

have to have a much larger staff?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir; I understand.

Senator HATFIELD. I am not trying to—

Mr. HARTZOG. No; I understand that. I agree with you. I am

hopeful that it will grow in this dimension, but because of the sad

experience we have had with the National Trust Fund Board and

because I have nothing concrete to put my hand on—not that the

situation is going to improve but simply the interest for improvement

will be created by this measure—I have not tried to say what the

ultimate staff might be. I do not know. But I agree with you. If it

is as successful as we hope it will be, it will require more personnel.

Senator HATFIELD. I would think that if you are going to deal in

investments, you are going to have to have some either contractual

relationship with investment counselors, or you are going to need

administrators to collect at least rentals and other such things that are

involved in the management of properties, assuming that we are going

to gather in a number of bequests or other such property.

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, on that particular point, sir, our thinking had

been that we would enter into contracts to have this work done,

because normally we couldn't afford that quality and type of expertise

on our ongoing salary basis.

Senator HATFIELD. So you do contemplate, then, certain consulting

work on a contractual basis?

- Mr. HARTZOG. Yes.

Senator HATFIELD. On page 4, section 4, line 5, the sentence says,

"Except as otherwise required by the instrument of transfer, the

Foundation may sell, lease, invest, reinvest, retain," et cetera. Then

on down it says in the next sentence, "The Foundation shall not

engage in any business."

Now, is this contradictory to the previous sentence? Do I understand

that if someone left you a tavern, let's say, and you had received it,

you accepted it, or any kind of business, such as a grocery store, for

example, would you have to divest yourself of that because of the

sentence that says you may not engage in any business, or could you

hire a manager or lease this out and then receive the profits from this

operation? Would not you then actually be engaged in a business,

acting through an agent?

Mr. HARTZOG. Senator, I think that's an excellent question and the

way we have been talking about this is that people have indicated an

interest in leaving their property to the national park system or to

some area of the national park system, but they need to have the

income from it 

Senator HATFIELD. Yes, I understand.

Mr. HARTZOG (continuing). During the remainder of their life,

and in terms of businesses we had thought perhaps that they would

continue to operate their business themselves. I think you have a very

good point. I can see where perhaps he is elderly or infirm and is

physically unable to do it himself. Unless some clarification were
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ii

made of this, it might, as a matter of law, be interpreted that we could

not hire the manager, but perhaps the instrument of conveyance

would have to be so drawn that the grantor would hire a manager

during the interim, and that the interest would vest only subsequently.

Senator HATFIELD. I would hate to see you forced to dispose of

immediately acquired property because of that sentence. Now, maybe

there is a legal interpretation that, not being a lawyer I would not

understand, but just reading the language as I would read it, it sounds

as though you would have to immediately dispose of certain properties

if they were a continuing business operation.

Mr. HARTZOG. I have a lawyer here. May I ask him to respond?

Senator HATFIELD. I would be delighted.

Mr. LAMBE. Senator, if I may offer this, and I think it is going to

be very beneficial to have this brought out, because apparently the

question has been discussed in the Solicitor's Office, and what this

language is aimed at is to prevent the Foundation itself from entering

a business field in competition with private enterprise. It has not been

construed to mean that a grantor could not, by an instrument of conveyance, arrange for continued operation of his business pending some

period of time after which it would go to the Foundation.

Senator HATFIELD. I see.

Mr. LAMBE. So that perhaps the instrument of conveyance is really

the key; that grantor would provide in there for some management

arrangement with the residual coming to the Foundation.

Senator HATFIELD. To clarify this in my own mind I would like to

pursue it a little further. I happen to be a trustee of a university, and

unknown to the trustees—we had no contact with these people and

no knowledge of their interest in the university—but two gentlemen

happened to own a hardware store. It was a very valuable piece of

business property as well as a good business operation. They passed

away and lo and behold, here the university found they were the sole

beneficiaries. It had been left lock, stock, and barrel to the university.

Well, the university wasn't interested in trying to run a hardware store

so they immediately disposed of the business on the market.

Now, in a similar situation, by the language of this bill, you would be

required to do so, would you not?

Mr. LAMBE. I believe we would want to do that as a matter of policy.

Senator HATFIELD. As a matter of policy?

Mr. LAMBE. I think we would; yes, sir.

Mr. HARTZOG. Dr. Thurber agrees with that, too, and that is what

he intended.

Senator HATFIELD. Because you would have no previous knowledge

of donors, you would not be able to help them draw the proper instrumentality of conveyance and so, consequently, it would be just dumped

in your lap.

Mr. HARTZOG. And I think this would be the clear intent of this

language.

Senator HATFIELD. I see. But, on the other hand, if they wanted to

leave you that same hardware store and worked with your legal

counsel to develop a certain kind of instrumentality of conveyance,

they could leave it so that you would hold title to it and derive the

income from that business, and it would be a continuing operation

under a manager or under some agent.

•
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

Mr. THURBER. Leasehold or something of that kind.

Senator HATFIELD. Thank you.

Senator BIBLE. I wonder if you would identify yourself for the

record.

Mr. HARTZOG. I beg your pardon. This is Dr. Thurber, Mr. Chairman, and this is Michael Lambe in our legislative office. I am sorry.

Senator BIBLE. They are both identified for the purpose of the

record.

Further questions of the Director at this point?

This section may be in need of clarification, and, if so, we will have

our staff people work with your staff people.

Mr. HARTZOG. It will be a real pleasure.

Senator BIBLE. We should spell it out clearly and avoid some

future misunderstanding.

Our next witness is Dr. Donald Thurber of the National Park

Trust Fund Board, and we are delighted to have you with us, Doctor.

STATEMENT OF DONALD THURBER, MEMBER, NATIONAL PARK

TRUST FUND BOARD

Mr. THURBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Anderson,

Senator Hatfield.

I would like to address my very informal remarks—I have no

prepared statement—particularly to the question which you, Mr.

Chairman, asked in your opening remarks, "How would this legislation, this proposed legislation, secure a better flow, a stronger flow,

of private contributions for the benefit of the National Park Service

than the legislation under which we had been attempting to operate

for the last 30 years or so." And I hope I can provide a little clarification to your question.

First, I think that the proposed legislation would simply carry

forward the declared intent of Congress which some 30 years ago

was clearly intended to encourage and to call forth private philanthropy

for the aid of the National Park Service.

Surely that was the intention of the National Park Trust Fund,

and I would imagine remains the intent of Congress to this day.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the National Park Trust

Fund Act has not proved to be a very productive instrument to.

encouraging such contributions, and your question quite logically

follows, 'Why would the proposed legislation be an improvement.

Let me try to answer in a very tangible way by using three examples

that occur to me. I think other examples no doubt could be found, but

here are three that might serve to answer your question in part.

Senator BIBLE. How long did you personally serve on this Board,

Mr. Thurber?

Mr. THURBER. I am presently a member and I was appointed in

1964.

Senator BIBLE. I see. And you are a doctor of what and where?

Mr. THURBER. I am not a doctor, actually. Mr. Hartzog has given

me a courtesy title which I really don't deserve. I am mister.

Senator BIBLE. From?

Mr. THURBER. From Grosse Point, Mich.

Senator BIBLE. Grosse Point, Mich.?
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION 13

Mr. THURBER. Grosse Point and the Detroit area.

Senator BIBLE. Yes, sir. Very fine.

Senator ANDERSON. What do you do there?

Mr. THURBER. I am president of a public relations firm, and I have

been engaged in public relations counseling and in fundraising for

many charitable and philanthropic enterprises, counselling them for

a great many years. I am a former regent of the University of Michigan,

former member of the State Board of Education of the State of

Michigan, and have been interested in educational matters generally,

and in the National Park Service as an avocation.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you.

Mr. THURBER. One example would be, for instance, a person- who

feels that he would like to make a gift for the benefit of the National

Park Service but finds it advisable to retain a life interest, perhaps, in

a piece of property or in some other investment that he may have.

He might wish, for instance, to insure a steady income for himself or

his wife during her survivorship but would like to have the property

become beneficial to the National Park Service at the time of his death

and the time of the death of his wife.

That is an extremely difficult thing to work out under the existing

law, and the Director was quite right when he said in his remarks that

it is the usual practice of the Secretary of the Treasury to convert any

money received or any property received or securities received for the

benefit of the National Park Trust Fund Board into cash or into Government securities exclusively. That has been the usual practice. And

a combination of the investments now held by the National Park Trust

Fund Board under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury

would prove the point.

I am convinced that there is a potential far greater than has been

realized during the 30 years of the National Park Trust Fund Board

to secure moneys with the National Park Service in mind as the beneficiary if the instruments and the vehicle can be made more flexible

and can be brought into tune with the times and can offer some of the

advantages which other organizations, other agencies have long offered in order to entice public funds.

Such an organization, for example, as the Salvation Army has offered

this kind of trust agreement that I have just mentioned for many,

many years in order to induce gifts to the Salvation Army nationally.

That is example 1.

Example No. 2 that occurs to me would be this one. An individual

might, for instance, wish to make a gift to the national park system and

might be very strongly advised to do so by his financial counselors,

or his attorney or trust officer, for instance, if he has one. But there

might be some reluctance, and this would be understandable in the

business sense, on the part of those trust officers to persuade their

client to go all the way if these particular individuals thought that their

client's property would be lost to them as a deposit, as a trust account,

as commercial business for the bank, or for the trust company by virtue

of.the withdrawal of the property or the securities, whatever they

might be, to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury in

Washington.

If the foundation could instead enter into a negotiation with the

trust officer or with the attorney and could say, if this benefit comes
14 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

to the National Park Foundation there is no reason why it could not

be handled under a contractual arrangement and continue to be

handled by the bank, by the trust company, with the National Park

Foundation receiving the income and able to consult with them about

the type of investment and satisfying itself that the investments are

being prudently handled right here at the local level. This, in addition.

would be a very powerful inducement to encourage gifts for the benefit

of the National Park Foundation. Under present law, such an arrangement is not possible.

Senator ANDERSON. Is not possible?

Mr. THURBER. No, sir; because the moneys have to be transferred

to the Secretary of the Treasury, and we have had no example in

which the Secretary of the Treasury has entered into a contract, let

us say, with the trust department of a national bank of this or that

city in an effort to let the funds be managed beneficially by a local

bank.

Senator ANDERSON. Well, you are familiar with the Christiana

Corp., aren't you?

Mr. THURBER. Sir?

Senator ANDERSON. Christiana Corp.?

Mr. THURBER. I am familiar with the name; yes, sir.

Senator Anderson. Can't they give money directly to people?

Mr. THURBER. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. HOW does this help it?

Mr. THURBER. Well, for example, let us say that I were the president of the local bank in a city, and I had a good friend and client

who was interested in the National Park Service, and suppose this

client were to come to me and say, "I would like you to advise me

about the disposition of my estate in my will. I am disposed to leave

some money to the National Park Trust Fund Board for the benefit

of the National Park Service, but I would like to leave it as a trust

account right here with you people because I know you, I like you, I

trust you, I have done business with you for years, and I would like

to leave it right here and have it beneficially managed, with the money

being sent to the National Park Trust Fund Board, but for tax

purposes I would like to leave it to the National Park Trust Fund

Board."

Now, we have not found that the Secretary of the Treasury could

receive this principal amount, this capital, and then in turn retain

under contract as an agent a local bank or trust company to manage

that property in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury

and then have the National Park Trust Fund benefit from it. The

Secretary of the Treasury takes control of these moneys that are left

to the National Park Trust Fund Board.

Senator ANDERSON. Because they are useful for deductions, aren't

they? You can give away a certain amount of money year after year.

Mr. THURBER. Oh, yes; you could do that. But if the purpose of the

man who was leaving the money was to leave a trust for the National

Park Trust Fund Board and he left the money to the National Park

Trust Fund Board, this would have to be turned over to the Secretary

of the Treasury, who has the power to invest and reinvest. And, in

our experience, this has customarily meant the liquidation of investments and securities in favor of investment in Government securities
NATIONAL PARS FOUNDATION 15

exclusively. And our thought is that, with greater flexibility, Senator

Anderson, were the Foundation to be left a trust fund, it would be

possible, for management purposes, to enter into an agreement with

local banks, local trust companies, so that the corpus of the trust

would not have to be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury

but could be left with the local bank and trust company under contractual arrangement for administration.

And this, we feel, would have a very invigorating effect upon the

desire of local bank officers, trust officers, and counselors to encourage

those clients who might be well disposed to make a gift, a corpus, a

principal gift, or capital gift to the new National Park Foundation

with the thought that it would not then be drained out or siphoned

out of the local community, the local bank, the local trust company,

and all taken to Washington for administration by the Secretary of

the Treasury. We feel that this would be an inducement, sir, to many

persons to make contributions which they are not now making.

Senator ANDERSON. Well, you have interested me because I am a

member of the Finance Committee, and because I am a Regent of

the Smithsonian Institution, and so forth. All you are trying to say,

then, in giving away the money, you want to hang on to it through

the local bank.

Mr. THURBER. This is an example, I think, of one thing that could

be cited. When you consider how influential banks and trust officers

are, and how people decide to leave their money and where they

decide to leave it, I think that this is an inducement which we ought

not to overlook. In other words, if you are going to have the local

bankers and the local trust officers working with you and not feeling

that the minute they advise that a gift be made to the National Park

Foundation that that simply removes it completely from local control

and takes it down to Washington and puts it under the jurisdiction

of the Secretary of the Treasury, you may get a more cooperative

attitude in encouraging gifts at the local level.

Senator BIBLE. Couldn't you also say, for example, that a man has

to pay taxes, and he writes the Treasury and he says, "I owe $100,000

in taxes. I will keep it in my local bank." Would you approve of that?

Mr. THURBER. Well, I am not a fiscal officer in that sense, but I do

know that, of course, the Treasury uses various banks as depositories

and this would really be an extension of that idea. Instead of having

this money all go to Washington for centralized handling here, it would

be possible, under certain conditions, to say to a local bank: "We

recognize that this man was your client for a long time. You are

thoroughly experienced in the management of his property. Even

though he has transferred the corpus to the National Park Foundation,

it would make sense to leave it under a contractual relationship with

local management instead of forcing it to come to Washington and be

handled exclusively by the Secretary- of the Treasury, as is now the

case." That is my point. I think it would induce cooperation at the local

level in encouraging contributions and donations and bequests to the

National Park Foundation that does not now exist, such encouragement does not now exist.

Senator ANDERSON. Have you checked this with the Treasury

Department at all?

Mr. THURBER. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. They don't like it, do they?
16 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

Mr. THURBER. I think that those who are in Washington all the

time with the National Park Service should perhaps give the attitude

of Treasury to this proposed bill. My belief is that it has been cleared

thoroughly with Treasury and that Treasury is favorable to it. But

I would like someone else to comment in direct answer to your

question.

Senator ANDERSON. Well, the reason I ask is that this bill has to

go back to the Finance Committee somewhere, at some stage along

the line.

Mr. THURBER. I think these bases have been touched, but I think

the Director perhaps ought to comment.

Senator BIBLE. George, why don't you come forward to the witness

table and be seated. Do you understand Senator Anderson's question?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE HARTZOG—Resumed

Mr. HARTZOG. I do, sir, and the bill has been cleared by Treasury

and the amendments suggested by Treasury have been incorporated

in this draft. We have, likewise, cleared this legislation with the

Department of Justice. Some of their suggested amendments were

resolved by leaving them out. In other words, there is agreement.

The bill has also been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget, and with

Housing and Urban Development.

Senator ANDERSON. Why would Housing have anything to do with

this?

Mr. HARTZOG. Because it involved possible donations of open space

and this kind of things.

It has been cleared by the Treasury Department. It has been coordinated and cleared by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in our

own Department. This is, of course, with the Solicitor. It has been

cleared by the Department of Justice, and Housing and Home Finance,

sir. I am sorry. It was prior to the establishment of HUD. On October

19, 1965, it was cleared by Housing and Home Finance.

Senator ANDERSON. It has been cleared by Treasury?

Mr. HARTZOG. It has been cleared by Treasury.

Senator ANDERSON. Will you submit the letter approving it?

Senator BIBLE. The question was, would you submit the letter from

Treasury saying, "We approve this," or "We approve it with amendments," and are the amendments incorporated. Senator Anderson's

questions are very proper. He simply wants to know what Treasury

thinks.

Senator ANDERSON. We will have to take this up in the Finance

Committee.

Senator BIBLE. I understand.

Senator ANDERSON. There is no real sense in worrying about it, but

I just wondered if it had approval of the Treasury.

Mr. HARTZOG. The Bureau of the Budget had a meeting of all of

the agencies that were involved in it after all of them had made written

comments on it, and at that meeting agreement was reached on the

provisions in this bill. And I will check with the Bureau of the Budget

to see if there was a supplemental letter from Treasury or any of the

others. If not, I will be pleased to submit, you know, whatever they

may have in the Treasury Department on it. But it has been cleared
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION 17

by Treasury. It has been cleared by Justice. It has been cleared by the

Housing and Home Finance Agency, and it has been cleared by the

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

Senator ANDERSON. All right.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Hon. ALAN BIBLE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR BIBLE: At the July 20 hearing before your Committee on S. 814,

the National Park Foundation bill, we were asked whether the Department of the

Treasury had commented on the bill.

S. 814 is identical to S. 3676, 89th Congress, which was introduced pursuant

to the request of the Department of the Interior in a letter to the President of

the Senate dated July 25, 1966. The draft bill which accompanied that letter was

reviewed by the Bureau of the Budget in accordance with the prescribed clearance

procedures of the executive branch. During the course of the Bureau's review, the

Department of the Treasury's views as well as those of other interested agencies

were considered. Changes were made in the bill in order to accommodate suggestions of the Treasury Department. The revised bill was reviewed by Treasury

and no further comments were offered. Budget Bureau clearance of our bill was

clearance on behalf of the executive branch.

We hope this additional information is responsive and satisfactory.

Sincerely yours,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., August 2, 1967.

STEWART L. UDALL,

Secretary of the Interior.

STATEMENT OF DONALD THURBER—Resumed

Mr. THURBER. May I resume my statement of a moment or two

ago and cite the third example which I think would be illustrative of

the additional strength which would be put behind private gifts and

donations by the use of the new legislation?

It is very significant, I think, gentlemen, that in the 30 years of the

existence of the National Park Trust Fund no substantial corporate

or financial contributions have gone through the National Park

Trust Fund with the two exceptions which the Director mentioned

in his testimony, the one for the Saint Gaudens Memorial and the

one for the Sagamore Hill preservation in the Theodore Roosevelt

property.

I think that the reason is not hard to find. There has been alternative

means which has empowered the Secretary of the Interior to receive

moneys for the benefit of the National Park Service, and that is

contained in a very simple 1920 law which authorizes the Secretary

of the Interior, in his administration of the National Park Service,

to receive land, buildings, and other property within the various

parks. And then it simply says, "And moneys which may be donated

for the purposes of the National Park and Monument System."

And it seems to us that the new Foundation would be distinctly

superior, both in its attractiveness and in various safeguards that are

set up in the specific language that is spelled out for the receipt of

Foundation money without the unattractive feature which I know,
18 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

from talking with a number of foundations, has certainly proved

unattractive, the unattractive feature of having the Secretary of the

Treasury then intervene and in effect take charge of the gift which is

what actually happens under the existing law. It would be more attractive than simply passing the gift through the Secretary of the

Interior alone.

A Foundation such as we have provided for here has safeguards.

It has flexibility. It has public representation. It has the advantage of

citizen participation, all of the things which the present law lacks,

and it still introduces certain formality and some safeguards which

perhaps are not present in the legislation of 1920, which simply

authorizes, in the language that I have read here, moneys to be

received by the Secretary of the Interior, period, for the benefit of the

National Park Service.

Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, may I supplement my response to

Senator Anderson by saying that in addition to these normal Government clearances, I personally checked this bill out with Mr. Gordon

Gray, the Chairman of the National frust for Historic Preservation,

and I talked with him again this morning before I came over to this

hearing, and he too is satisfied.

Senator ANDERSON. That function is quite different from the Department of the Treasury.

Mr. HARTZOG. Oh, yes, but I wanted you to know that because of

the fact that we were just before you last year, he and I, on the

historic preservation program in which he was talking about the

donation program that the historic trust has for private property,

that he was satisfied because, as you recall, there was some misunderstanding on this point last year, and he told me this morning that he

too is satisfied with this bill.

Senator BIBLE. My only suggestion would be, and as indicated by

Senator Anderson, to get some indication of approval from Treasury.

I think it would be helpful. So if you will take the burden of supplying

that for the record.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Senator BIBLE. I have no particular questions of Mr. Thurber. I

commend you for your work in this field. I always commend private

citizens who take an interest in areas of this kind. I am still a little

hazy, however, as to how creating this new Foundation is going to

attract greater amounts of money that can be donated for conservation and park purposes. The objective is excellent. I hope that you

are not too overconfident as to what it is going to do. I assume possibly

you think that, because you call it a Foundation, you are going to

get a lot of money because of other Foundations that have been

successful in the field. I hope you are right. I don't know whether

you are or not. I am curious, because I have a statement here that

I am going to read into the record. I don't know whether the witness

is here or not. This is the statement of Conrad Wirth—he is here.

Then I will defer on that. How many various associations or foundations or boards do we have working in the field of recreation and

conservation and parks in the United States? Can you give me a

responsive answer to that?

Mr. HARTZOG. Senator, as I understand it, there is an organization

here in the District of Columbia that has a list of all functions, and
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION 19

I will make an effort this afternoon to see if any information is available as to how they are broken down, and so forth, and if they do

I will try to supply it.

Senator BIBLE. For example, the next witness is going to testify

on behalf of Conrad Wirth, of the National Recreation and Park Association, a service organization sponsored by voluntary contributions.

I am just wondering how many park associations, recreation associations, conservation associations we have nationwide, including foundations. It looks to me like you have a vast group of people.

Mr. HARTZOG. I happen to be a member of this association you

are talking about, the National Recreation and Park Association.

This is a new organization that resulted from the efforts of Conrad

Wirth and Laurance Rockefeller, and a number of other people, to

bring together all of the professional and lay people who were concerned with park and recreation work, and that is what this is. It

includes the American Institute of Park Executives, the National

Park Society, the National Recreation Association, the National

Conference on State Parks, and these organizations. These are not

foundations in the sense that we are talking about here.

Senator BIBLE. No; I know. I understand that.

Mr. HARTZOG. Or as I understood the context of your original

question.

Senator BIBLE. I would like to have both.

Mr. HARTZOG. All right.

Senator BIBLE. I want to broaden the question and say I would

like to have a list of the foundations that are engaged in the work

of conservation and recreation and advancing the park causes, either

Federal or State, plus the great number of associations that we have

in this field.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Senator BIBLE. There must be a multitude of them nationwide.

I don't know. Every time I turn around I hear of a new association

working in deserved areas. My question is, How many are there?

Mr. HARTzoG. I will do my utmost to get it for you.

(The information requested is as follows:)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., August 11, 1967.

HOB. ALAN BIBLE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR BIBLE: At the July 20 hearing on S. 814, a bill to establish

the National Park Foundation, your Committee requested that we supply a reference to the District of Columbia law governing investments by trust companies,

a list of existing foundations active in conservation work, and a list of national

organizations associated with park and recreation matters.

The list of foundations is enclosed. Also enclosed is a publication entitled

"Conservation Directory, 1967" which lists national and regional associations

active in park and recreation fields. A third enclosure is a list compiled by the

Office of the Registrar of Wills of the District of Columbia which sets forth securities and investments approved for fiduciaries in the District under Local Civil

Rule 23. Sections 26-301 through 26-336 of the D.C. Code (1961) apply generally to the activities of trust companies in the District of Columbia. They are

not specifically limited as to the kinds of investments they can make in the ordi-
20 NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

nary course of business. Under section 26-309 of the D.C. Code, however, trust

companies are empowered to act as trustee or administrator of an estate, and

it is for this reason that we enclose the list of approved investments for persons

acting in such capacity.

We appreciate the opportunity to supplement our testimony. Please let us

know if we can supply any additional information.

Sincerely yours,

HARTHON L. BILL,

Acting Director.

(The book enclosed is in the files of the committee.)

LIST OF FOUNDATIONS ACTIVE IN CONSERVATION WORK

1. Accokeek Foundation.

2. Alice Ferguson Foundation.

3. American Conservation Associates. (Financed by Rockefeller Brothers

Fund.)

4. Avalon Foundation.

5. Jackson Hole Preserve, Inc.

6. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States.*

7. Old Dominion Foundation.

Senator BIBLE. I have no questions of you or Mr. Thurber.

Senator Anderson.

Senator ANDERSON. We need to know how many foundations there

are. The Ford Foundation is very busy in a great many directions. A

man came down and talked about a medical college. He said, I know

where to find that money. That turned out to be the Macey Foundation. I never heard of the Macey Foundation before. I just would like

to make sure that this money, once given, is under the jurisdiction of

the Treasury. I don't fancy it some other way.

Can I just go off the record for a second?

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BIBLE. Further questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Thurber. We have one witness remaining.

Mr. THURBEF . Thank you.

Senator BIBLE. And it is Mr. Russell E. DeGroat. Mr. DeGroat,

we will be happy to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL E. DeGROAT PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER

OF THE NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING CONRAD L. WIRTH

Mr. DEGROAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Anderson. It

is a real privilege to appear before you this morning. I am Russell E.

DeGroat, public affairs officer of the National Recreation & Park

Association.

Mr. Conrad L. Wirth, whom you gentlemen know quite well, is the

chairman of our administrative board and a former Director of the

National Park Service. He has asked me to read to you the following

statement, in his behalf.

I appreciate the invitation for me to appear as a witness and

submit a statement in reference to the National Park Foundation bill

S. 814. I am sorry that I cannot be present in person. I am in Albany,

*A corporation established by Public Law 408, dated Oct. 26, 1949; owns and administers historic properties.
NATIONAL PARS FOUNDATION 21

N.Y.—this was as of yesterday—on matters pertaining to the New

York State Historic Trust of which I am chairman. Unfortunately,

the invitation did not reach me until yesterday, which was too late

for me to change the plans for this meeting. I strongly support this

legislation and the National Park Service and urge that the legislation

be enacted into law.

While with the National Park Service, we worked long and hard

to try and raise funds with the current administration but with very

little success. We contacted people by the hundreds, businessmen,

bankers, and many others. We also put out a booklet, "The Fifth

Essence," in an effort to obtain donations for the National Park

Service. The present authority of the Park Service does not provide

a satisfactory vehicle to attract donated funds.

Before I left the Park Service we called for help from people well

versed in foundation matters to help us draw up new legislation that

would give us a better approach to attract funds to the Service.

These funds are to be used for the protection and interpretation of

•our historic and natural resources and historic artifacts. A heritage

that belongs to all the people. Director George Hartzog has carried

this work forward and has defined it in such a way that I believe

very strongly that the Service can now go forward and find considerable assistance to protect these sources. The Foundation is a very

good thing for all of us.

I know any constructive ideas you may have to improve the legislation will be greatly appreciated by the Director and friends of the

Service. But, please give consideration to this legislation and enact

it into law.

I have dictated this by long-distance telephone to my secretary in

Washington. I realize it is a plea rather than a factual report and not

as involved as I would like it to be but I did not have the basic material

here with me. You must believe me when I say I'm most sincere

in this matter and that my request that you enact this legislation is

based on hard, cold experience.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you very much, Mr. DeGroat. I have no

questions, and I am certainly delighted to have the former Director's

evidence of interest in this bill.

Senator Anderson?

Senator ANDERSON. No questions.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you very much. This hearing will stand in

recess, subject to call of the Chair.

(Thereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to

call of the Chair.)