ing. The language has been very greatly changed in terms of coordinating, facilitating, and aiding. I am not sure that change will not create as much confusion as the difficulties we previously had. Ms. JORDAN. Well, Dr. McCORMICK, do you agree with the concept of a strong administrator? Dr. MCCORMICK. I certainly do. Mr. JORDAN. Do you agree with the advisory board as it is perceived in this legislation? Dr. MCCORMICK. Not entirely. Ms. JORDAN. What are your recommendations in that regard? Dr. MCCORMICK. I would prefer to see, still, some kind of board of directors, some kind of commission, whatever name you give it, but some body on which citizens, Members of Congress, perhaps representatives of the executive agencies would sit which would be a policy formulating body, formulating policy which would be carried out by a strong executive. In other words, I am reluctant to accept the notion of an administrator vested with the kind of authority that he would be vested with and yet not associated with some group that would have a genuine role in formulating policy. Ms. JORDAN. That is an interesting idea. This particular bill, of course, envisions an advisory board with no functions. You heard me ask the prior question, could we not just eliminate that provision from this bill altogether and keep the bill in terms of its impact as it is, and the elimnation of that board would certainly do that. I wonder, however, Doctor, how you get private citizens so interested in this kind of work, the commission itself, that they would attend meetings and enunciate policy and issue directives? I have been looking at this attendance record of the present commission and it is abominable. Members of Congress, department heads, the whole bit. What is the answer? Dr. MCCORMICK. I think the answer in part is and you have already suggested, I think, part of the answer-I think the attendance of the public members has generally been good. I certainly feel that it should be possible to find in the 200 million people of the United States, 25 citizens who would be willing to make this kind of a commitment so important an enterprise. MS. JORDAN. Should they be paid? Do you think that would help? Dr. MCCORMICK, No, I don't think it is necessary that they be paid. Ms. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you. I have no further questions. We do thank you, Dr. McCormick. As I said, everyone here has a priority and we are running short on time. I am going to take people geographically. The farthest away person is Mr. Perry Snyder, executive director of the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission of the State of Mississippi. Is Mr. Snyder here? Mr. SNYDER. If it meets the approval of the Chair, I would like Mr. A. K. Johnson, who has an earlier flight than mine, to go ahead and give his remarks. Mr. DANIELSON. Surely. That is Mr. A. K. Johnson, Jr., executive director, Georgia Commission for the National Bicentennial Celebration, Atlanta, Ga. STATEMENT OF A. K. JOHNSON, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGIA COMMISSION FOR THE NATIONAL BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATION, ATLANTA, GA. Mr. DANIELSON. Without objection, we will have your statement become a part of the record, and you, Mr. Johnson, may proceed in any manner you choose. [The statement follows:] COMMENTS BY THE GEORGIA COMMISSION SUBMITTED TO THE CHAIRMAN, STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE # 2, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY RE H.R. 3695: A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 1. The Georgia Commission urges prompt and vigorous action by the Congress for the enactment of legislation which will assure the development of a meaningful and viable program for the commemoration of this nation's 200th anniversary. 2. The Georgia Commission feels that to assure the involvement of the 50 states and the territories and that meaningful programs are developed, Congress should have more direct input. A committee on oversight, while desirable, would be after-the-fact. 3. The Georgia Commission feels very strongly that the proposed termination date of 1977 should be extended to 1989, if possible; if not, then at least until 1983. To use 1977 lends support to the popular notion of one gigantic July 4 affair. The events which occurred after '76 are equally important and give true meaning to the founding of our nation. 4. One of the major criticisms of the present ARBC has been that the states felt their voices were lost to the wind. If there is to be a total cooperative effort, there must be a mechanism which will assure that the opinions and recommendations from the states will not be passed over or ignored. 5. The matter of funding is extremely important. a. The need for continuing limited grant funds for at least an additional year is essential. Forty-five thousand dollars for each state on the same basis as in the past two years does not seem to be an unreasonable figure. b. Those funds from "non-appropriated" sources to be made available to the states should be with no strings attached. We do not object to guidelines and standards, but we do object to having to submit projects for prior review. This can only complicate and delay, as well as cause the states internal problems in working at the local level. c. We are aware that various federal agencies will be the source of funds for varied and specific kinds of Bicentennial projects. However, we do feel that state Bicentennial commissions should be the clearing houses for such funds coming into the states in the name of the Bicentennial effort. d. We do not feel that Congress should tie the hands of the new American Revolution Bicentennial Administration so as to preclude their development of programs using appropriated funds when appropriate and the best interests of the Bicentennial efforts will be furthered by such programs. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity of being with the committee today and having the opportunity to present the views of the Georgia Commission for the National Bicentennial celebration. We have tried to keep our comments fairly brief to the points that concern us in trying to develop a meaningful program in Georgia. I will read the points that we have. The Georgia commission urges prompt and vigorous action by the Congress for the enactment of legislation which will assure the development of a meaningful and viable program for the commemoration of this Nation's 200th anniversary. The thing that concerns us is many of the points discussed today. These points frustrate us in knowing what we can count on and do. The Georgia commission feels that to assure the involvement of the 50 States and the territories and that meaningful programs are developed, Congress should have more direct input. A committee on oversight, while desirable, would be after-the-fact. This grapples with some of the frustrations mentioned here today, how do you get more meaningful input to the affairs of this organization, whether it be through direct congressional involvement or a paid board of directors or what-have-you here. This does concern us. The Georgia commission feels very strongly that the proposed termination date of 1977 should be extended to 1989, if possible; if not, then at least until 1983. To use 1977 lends support to the popular notion of one gigantic July 4 affair. The events which occurred after 1776 are equally important and give true meaning to the founding of our Nation. To limit this to 1776 would cause considerable confusion. It would in our State and a number of States in trying to arrive at what we are trying to celebrate here. One of the major criticisms of the present ARBC has been that the States felt their voices were lost to the wind. If there is to be a total cooperative effort, there must be a mechanism which will assure that the opinions and recommendations from the States will not be passed over or ignored. Mr. Danielson earlier, in commenting on the executive director's comments from Texas, alluded to or made reference to the possible involvement of the executive directors of these States because we are the staff people, we are faced with the day-to-day operations of this, and perhaps here is some way that the States could be assured. of some way of having a more direct input and impact to the program. The matter of funding to us is extremely important. The need for continuing limited grant funds for at least an additional year is essential; $45,000 for each State on the same basis as in the past 2 years does not seem to be an unreasonable figure. Those funds from "non-appropriated" sources to be made available to the States should be with no strings attached. We do not object to guidelines and standards, but we do object to having to submit projects for prior review. This can only complicate and delay, as well as cause the States internal problems in working at the local level. I am speaking here of the grants. We are told we would receive initially $45,000. And, to try to work with the States and accomplish the most out of this limited amount of money, we see as complicating our relationship with the smaller cities, the local communities, if in effect we have to go up ahead of time, even though it may be somewhat of a cursory review. We are aware that various Federal agencies will be the source of funds for varied and specific kinds of bicentennial projects. However, we do feel that State bicentennial commissions should be the clearinghouses for such funds coming into the States in the name of the Bicentennial effort. It concerns us that such activities as NIH, perhaps the Park Service, Interior, HUD, the others will have money available, but yet these could come in to communities or to efforts in the name of the Bicentennial, but might be questionable as to whether it would be the kind of a project the State commission would endorse in the name of Bicentennial for that State. We do not feel that Congress should tie the hands of the new American Revolution Bicentennial administration so as to preclude their development of programs using appropriated funds when appropriate and the best interests of the Bicentennial efforts will be furthered by such programs. This too, has been alluded to several times today in testimony. Mr. DANIELSON. You, sir, are the executive director of the Georgia Commission? Mr. JOHNSON. That's correct. Mr. DANIELSON. Is that a full-time occupation? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DANIELSON. You are salaried? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DANIELSON. There is a Mr. Clarke with you, a chairman? Mr. JOHNSON. He is our vice chairman and is speaking for the Council of the Thirteen Original States. Mr. DANIELSON. Is he full time at this work, likewise? Mr. JOHNSON. No; he is a volunteer, but he spends a great deal of time on it. Mr. DANIELSON. Do you have any other executive full-time employee on your commission except yourself? Mr. JOHNSON. I have two people besides myself. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Ms. Jordan? Ms. JORDAN. Mr. Johnson, did the State of Georgia appropriate any money for your commission? Mr. JOHNSON. They have appropriated, Ms. Jordan, a limited amount. The State legislature in Georgia is now in session, as you may know, and this is the last week. We are keeping our fingers crossed as to what we are asking for to come out of it. Ms. JORDAN. You speak to a problem which concerns me and that is the voice of the States being ignored by ARBC. If you wanted to have input into decisions in the past of ARBC, to whom did you address your remarks? To whom did you comment? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in a way I might have to defer to Mr. Clarke. I have only been with the commission since December 1. But my understanding, previously, I don't want to leave any impression that my day-to-day contacts with the staff, the operating staff on questions and answers has been any way but most productive and helpful; but it has been my impression and understanding that from the standpoint of the total commission involvement and commission meetings, representatives from the various States, that questions were asked, decisions were not received; suggestions were made and they were either ignored or they disappeared. Nobody really knows what happened. Ms. JORDAN. I see. Do you think H.R. 3695, the bill we are considering, cures this? Mr. JOHNSON. I think it has the potential of curing many of the ills that of which people have talked about today. There are things that I think all of us could disagree with, with some of the language in the bill as to things that we would like to see. I think that the question of whether they should be-there should be a single administrator versus some sort of a board of directors or control factor here. I don't have the answer to it. I think it is a question of genuine concern. Ms. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, sir. I would ask this: How long have you served as the-regardless of your title, as the headman of the Georgia commission? Mr. JOHNSON. I have been the executive director since December 1. That was when the staff was established. The commission operated in Georgia since-created in 1969. Mr. DANIELSON. On a volunteer basis? Mr. JOHNSON. On a volunteer basis. The commission did not have a paid staff until December 1 of this past year. Mr. DANIELSON. You are what, a gubernatorial appointee? Mr. DANIELSON. By the what commission? Mr. JOHNSON. The Georgia Commission. Mr. DANIELSON. It is, in turn, appointed by the Governor? Mr. JOHNSON. That's correct; so many members from the house and so many members from the senate. Mr. DANIELSON. I am not delving into the politics. I am just trying to understand your structure. Is it contemplated you would continue through this operation? Mr. JOHNSON. I would hope so, if I can prove my worth. Mr. DANIELSON. That's the plan, anyway? Mr. JOHNSON. That's right. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Your statement also will be a part of the record. We are struggling between Mississippi and Georgia here. Mr. JOHNSON. We are on the same plane. Mr. DANIELSON. How about Mr. Clarke? STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD M. CLARKE, CHAIRMAN, BICENTENNIAL COUNCIL OF THE 13 ORIGINAL STATES Mr. DANIELSON. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. DANIELSON. Without objection, Mr. Clarke's statement will become a part of the record, and you may proceed at will. [The complete statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT BY CLIFFORD M. CLARKE, CHAIRMAN, BICENTENNIAL COUNCIL OF THE 13 ORIGINAL STATES My name is Clifford M. Clarke. By profession, I am a Certified Association Executive and have been the paid President of the Georgia Business & Industry Association in Atlanta, Georgia, for the past twenty years. By interest and motivation, I am also acting Chairman of the State of Georgia's Commission for the National Bicentennial Celebration. In that capacity, I serve as one of our Georgia Commission's two delegates to the Bicentennial Council of the Thirteen Original States. It is my pleasure to be serving as the elected Chairman of the Bicentennial Council at this time, and it is now in the Council's behalf that I face this Sub-committee. At the invitation of the Rhode Island ARBC, representatives from the original thirteen States met in Newport in June of 1970. The conclusion was reached that there was a need, and a responsibility, for the original thirteen States to form a bicentennial mechanism for these States to coordinate their bicentennial activities, to exchange information, and to participate in programs addressing themselves |