Now, this kind of evidence also speaks to the problem of how large an area should be covered under this kind of legislation. I am talking about the kind of evidence that comes in an area that can be encompassed by joining the hands and holding them in front of you. These are pottery vessels which contain large quantities of partially processed shell from the Gulf of California or copper bells or other materials traded from the south. This is a very small area geographically and yet in terms of significance, these are very important to the reconstruction of the cultural heritage of this part of our Nation. And so I think that I would want to support very strongly Mr. Utley's comments yesterday, that it is not the size of the archeological site which is involved. It is the quality of that site and the significance of that site to the Nation's patrimony. Now, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like at this time to present a comment on Congressman Bergland's version of this particular bill, which is H.R. 10093. The primary provision of Congressman Bergland's bill, as you mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, is the section which would provide any Indian tribe, band or group with the opportunity to be consulted and to provide assent to any project in which it has an interest from a cultural or religious point of view. I should like to comment on this, not so much as the representative from the Society of American Archeology but as a public official in the State of Arizona, which has the largest number of organized Indian groups in the Nation. We look upon the provision of Congressman Bergland's bill as a threat to the existing authority established by treaty and by congressional decision that organized Indian groups currently have with respect to the lands under their control. The courts have consistently ruled in the interpretation of both treaty and congressional law that organized-that an Indian group is an organized group which has a tribal authority extending into the past and land over which it has control. We believe that it would be a threat to the authority of these Indians in self-determination and control over their own territories to provide any organized Indian group anywhere in the Nation with the authority to be in our view quite obstructionist with respect to many projects. In fact, if there is concern, and it has been expressed here in these hearings, that there might be delay to various projects which have been established by the public good on the part of archeologists holding up projects for salvage purposes, I think that we could anticipate that there might be considerable delay on the part of politically motivated and militant groups who would be able to have an absolute control over the progress of a particular project because the wording of Congressman Bergland's bill specifies that the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the provisions of the bill "shall consult with and obtain the approval of the ruling body of any tribe," et cetera. Now, in addition to this threat to the organized Indian groups in our Nation, and this is of concern to me as a public official in Arizona because the largest number of organized groups are in our State, these are groups who already have full authority to control what goes on in their land. There is the problem that this particular provision is in fact unconstitutional and discriminatory and unworkable. It is unconstitutional because it gives to a small group of people a complete authority to thwart the will of the majority even when it has been determined by the Congress that such a project is in the public good. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Doctor. You stated that problems do not arise or that provisions have been made to solve the problems. What problems are you referring to? Dr. THOMPSON. A number of statements have been made in the hearings so far, sir; which indicate a concern on the part of both members of the committee and of witnesses that the pressure to salvage archeological remains would in fact cause delays in large construction projects or that these would cause hardships to individual citizens, particularly in areas under the control of-and programs under the control of organizations like the Department of Agriculture where there are a great many programs which provide assistance to individual farmers, for example. We believe that-we are public officials also. We must work daily with the public, and what we are able to accomplish in terms of salvage archeology is very directly a product of the kind of public support that we can have. It is not our desire or intention nor in fact do we have the ability to impose upon citizens thngs that they will not put up with. Mr. TAYLOR. Let us look at the problem of delay. Let us assume a highway project has been planned and a contract has been let when interested citizens notify the Secretary of the Interior that valuable archeological materials will be disturbed. What action should the Secretary take and how can he determine if there are values there. without delaying the project? Dr. THOMPSON. Well, in the case of highway construction, sir, the mechanisms are already well established through a series of highway salvage programs sponsored by the Department of Transportation, such that in many States the archeological profession is already well into the planning mechanism with the local highway department. Two and 3 years ahead of construction. For example, in Arizona Mr. TAYLOR. Of course, this could be an airport or could be public housing. Dr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. If it were in another area there would have to be some kind of survey and reconnaissance made of the affected area to determine what kinds of archeological or historical remains might be there and the decision be made. Mr. TAYLOR. Under the circumstances how could that be done without delaying the project? Dr. THOMPSON. Well, we believe that this would be possible because of previous experience in that most of these construction projects are projects that take place in stages and can take place in various parts of the geographic territory covered. For example, there have been some cases in highway construction where something shows up at the last minute but it is on a segment of highway to several miles extent and it has been possible to carry out the salvage of that material while the contractor works on a different segment of the road without causing him any substantial delay. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, you state that the present legislation is working well. Why not just pass legislation extending the present program under the Secretary of the Interior to include not only reservoirs but highways and airports, military bases, and so forth? Dr. THOMPSON. Well, that would be an adequate way of solving the problem. We believe that the various agencies that are responsible for the disturbance of the land and the potential destruction of our Nation's heritage should also be responsible for sharing in the identification of the problem and the financing of that problem. It seems to us that only with that kind of responsibility do we get the kind of involvement that is necessary to carry the job out. Mr. TAYLOR. Yesterday questions were raised concerning the funding of the program. Now, would you support this legislation if it were revised so that the Secretary of the Interior would secure program moneys rather than imposing this burden on the various construction programs? Dr. THOMPSON. Well, I am anxious to have this kind of legislation and if it were the will of the committee that this would be more important, I would then support it. However, I think that the archeological profession in the country would prefer to have the kind of program that is in the present wording of the bill, whereby the various agencies share in the responsibility not only for identifying the problem but also for solving it through the expenditure of their own funds. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to welcome one of my constituents. Dr. Thompson is a distinguished Arizonan and a distinguished national leader in his field and I tell him and tell you that I strongly support this legislation and appreciate the subcommittee finding time to take it up. I certainly hope we can get action on it this year. And I think the best contribution I can make is to move these hearings along. I am satisfied with what I have heard. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas. Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Thompson, I look with favor upon legislation of this nature but a few points disturb me. Reports that have been submitted by some of the Federal agencies speak of the expansion of this program into all sorts of projects, that is, highway construction, dams, soil conservation projects. What bothers me is would not such a program, expanding into all these areas, actually result in a long delay of needed projects? Would it not be possible for certain groups that are quite interested in stopping the construction of a project to demand that more archeological study take place before construction is permitted? Dr. THOMPSON. Well, of course, it would be possible for groups to be obstructionist, sir, but I believe that the experience of the archeological community over the past several decades in salvage archeology around the country would demonstrate that the professional archeologists on whose shoulders this task rests have not acted in this manner, and in fact have been very cooperative not only with Federal and State agencies but with private citizens in solving this problem. May I cite another example from our experience in Arizona. In our work with the State highway department we carry out the recon naissance and salvage of archeological and historic remains so far in advance of construction that in fact the work is done before the right-of-way people have ever acquired the land, and we are, therefore, not only working with Federal and State funds and under the mandate of these agencies but also in direct cooperation with citizens who still own the land. We are doing it on the basis of this kind of cooperative work and to date we do not feel that we have ever interferred with the desires of the owners of those properties and we believe that the response from them is such that they have not been threatened by these activities. Mr. SKUBITZ. Can you tell me how much money was authorized and appropriated for this kind of work by the Congress last year? Dr. THOMPSON. I believe about $1.2 million. Mr. SKUBITZ. But now we are proposing that not more than 1 percent of the cost of a project be allocated to these things. If we begin to take 1 percent of all of the dams that are constructed, the highways that are constructed, the soil conservation programs, we are talking about a lot of money and a greatly expanded program. Dr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. I believe that we are probably talking about somewhere between five and seven, perhaps $6.5 million over a period of development of the program. Mr. SKUBITZ. Suppose a dam costs $69 million. One percent of that would be what? Dr. THOMPSON. Well, sir, that legislation is permissive legislation and it simply states that up to that amount may be spent on such a project. Our experience is such that in a great many cases nowhere near that amount of money is often required to do the job. Mr. SKUBITZ. In a number of cases, I assume, that the archeologist can make a determination very quickly that it is not necessary to do such studies in a specific area. Is this correct? Dr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. I believe that Mr. Lister, representing the National Park Service, commented yesterday that perhaps in as many as 30 or 40 percent of the cases, little or no salvage activity is required after such a judgment. Mr. SKUBITZ. But it would be possible for other groups that are opposed to construction projects to go into court and disagree, and, therefore, studies should be carried on. Dr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir; although that opportunity is open to them at the present time whether or not we have such legislation. We believe that this legislation would make it possible for us to open up lines of communication with many Federal agencies that would perhaps obviate this situation and dampen the enthusiasm for some groups to, let us say, be obstructionist. Mr. SKUBITZ. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Montana. Mr. MELCHER. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Just to thank Dr. Thompson for his excellent presentation and testimony. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. KYL. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to spend about 6 months with the good doctor in his favorite areas. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas. Mr. TAYLOR. Doctor, let me ask you one more question. I am concerned about the aspects of this legislation applying to federally assisted programs, hospitals, maybe vocational education facilities, technical training schools, and so forth, which are locally owned and locally controlled and in the main locally financed with some Federal help. Would you object to taking that aspect out of the bill? I see a great amount of difficulty when Uncle Sam starts stopping the construction of a school in some particular county which the home folks in the main have planned to build. Dr. THOMPSON. Well, I would prefer, sir, that we maintain the broad mandate that is expressed in the current legislation, although I recognize the problem that you indicate. In many of those cases it is true that the primary support is local. Yet, by having the legislation as it currently reads, we would have the opportunity which we currently do not have to work with the people involved at an advanced stage of their planning to achieve a local compromise. Many of us in our institutions have cooperative programs with various Federal agencies and in fact the States do contribute, and cities and counties also, a great deal to the salvage archeological programs. Private citizens contribute a great deal. And by having the mandate as broad as it is, we would have a moral pressure, let us say, that would make it possible for us to open up the channels of communication. A climate of discussion would be made possible with the many different kinds of agencies right down to the lowest possible level, State and local. Mr. TAYLOR. And if you get a federally guaranteed loan to build a house it would apply to my individual property. Dr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir; but remember that we also are working with the citizen on a day-to-day basis and we cannot afford to destroy the kind of rapport that we have with local citizens by trying to insist that we are going to try to get the 1 percent of this guy's-of your loan, for example. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you know of any losses that have occurred in recent years because we did not have such a program applying to federally assisted projects? Dr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. Some of the greatest losses that have taken place in the Nation have occurred in federally assisted projects rather than federally funded, and this particularly applies to land leveling activities in various parts of the country, particularly, I think, in the Middle South and in the Mississippi Valley, but also in Arizona where land is leveled for irrigation purposes. Huge tracts of land are completely modified by programs where there is Federal assistance to the extent of guaranteeing a loan or some such program as that. For example, in the Lower Colorado River Valley in the last year. over 50,000 acres of land were leveled under a federally assisted program for agricultural development without any archeological salvage whatsoever. This program is planned to continue over the next 5 years such that almost all of the unmodified land still existent in the Lower |