specifically to joint cooperation among the thirteen. Subsequent meetings in Raleigh, North Carolina and Williamsburg, Virginia led to the formal and legal organization of the "Bicentennial Council of the Thirteen Original States."

Like all, or most, of the fifty States, each of the original thirteen States has its own State Bicentennial Commission, with responsibilities for planning and conducting that State's Bicentennial program. Each of these State Commissions in the original thirteen States elects or designates two of its members and/or staff to officially represent that State as delegates to the Bicentennial Council. Each State has one vote and all substantive decisions require a two-thirds vote, by roll call of the States.

The Bicentennial Council meets quarterly. We operate through the use of standing committees and, at the most recent meeting in January, authorized the employment of paid, professional staff. The Council receives no public funds, and, to date, has been funded from the private sector.

Your Sub-committee will receive written comments from most, if not all, of the individual and original thirteen States, expressing their views on H. R. 3695. Collectively, as the Bicentennial Council of the Thirteen Original States, we wish to make the following comments:

(1) We commend the Congress and the appropriate Committee and Subcommittee for initiating and expediting the passage of H.R. 3694, to make possible the funding and continuation of the present ARBC, through June 30th, until our national bicentennial effort can be restructured and reordered.

(2) We stress, as strongly as we can, the sense of urgency which cloaks the entire bicentennial effort, particularly at the national level. Without yielding to a strong desire to belabor some of the problems of the past, we recognize that this point in time requires that attention be given to deciding the future course of our national bicentennial effort, rather than expressing disappointment or criticism of the past. Time requires that Congress act now if our national bicentennial effort is to be productive, and we accordingly also commend you for moving so forthrightly and expeditiously now, to assure that effective legislation is enacted.

(3) As for H.R. 3695, there are two major areas of concern which we share. The first are the dates which appear on page 6, Section 4(a), lines 14 and 15, and on page 10, Section 7(b), line 4. These dates would bracket significant bicentennial events as those occurring between July of 1975 and September of 1976, and would terminate the proposed ARBA no later than June 30, 1977.

The bicentennial celebration marks and commemorates the birth of our Nation. As such, it should recognize and embrace the two great anniversaries of our Nation-the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the founding of the Republic in 1789, including the attendant and important events which led to the birth of our Nation. To conclude the national bicentennial emphasis on September of 1976 and abolish the ARBA by June of 1977 is to make no provision for recognizing nationally Breed's Hill, Bunker Hill, Concord, King's Mountain, the Seige of Savannah, Valley Forge, Yorktown, the Treaty of Paris, the Continental Congresses and the United States Constitution-to name a few of the post-1776 events deserving of being included as part of our national bicentennial celebration. Our Bicentennial Council urges that the dates be made inclusive from now, right now, through 1989. If for some reason, these dates cannot become the timeframe of our national bicentennial effort, then at a minimum, the dates should be inclusive from now, right now, through 1983.

(4) Our Bicentennial Council's other major concern appears on pages 10 and 11, Section 9, paragraphs (a) and (b), lines 20-24 on page 10 and lines 1-14 on page 11. In our view, this language restricts the Congress and the proposed Administrator in the use of non-appropriated funds, as grants-in-aid, and on a matching fund basis. We believe that specifying these limitations in the proposed law is highly undesirable and unnecessarily restrictive. Congress should not bind itself in these

areas.

Although there are other aspects of H.R. 3695 to which certain of the individual States among the original thirteen hold reservation or objection, the Bicentennial Council of the Thirteen Original States limits its comments to this Sub-committee to (1) emphasizing the sense of urgency, (2) requesting that you expand the timeframe to include from now through 1989, and (3) hoping that you will delete the language restricting non-appropriated funds, grants-in-aid, and matching funds. As for other suggestions and comments, individual States will speak for themselves. For the Bicentennial Council of the Thirteen Original States, I express our approΙ ciation for your time, interest and courtesy.

94-290-73- -9

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jordan, and gentlemen, first with reference to the question about communications from the States to the ARBC, I don't think that our State would like to issue a blanket indictment of the ARBC. There have been some bright spots, there have been competent people, and there have been effective committees.

At the request of the Bicentennial Council of the 13 Original States to the ARBC, a liaison man, Mr. Goodspeed, was designated to act as the middleman, if you will, between the ARBC and the organized 13 original States, so as to better improve two-way communications. I would point out it's not only a matter of getting our word to ARBC but to some extent, it goes in the other direction.

I would like to call the committee's attention to the fact when we started this morning, we had 9 of the 13 original States represented; but like Mr. Mahoney's membership, some of them have faded away to catch planes.

I would like to recognize in addition to Mr. Johnson from Georgia, I believe Ms. Gore, the chairman of the Maryland commission, is on the list to testify, so I won't ask her to stand.

But Mr. Morris of the Connecticut ARBC is in the audience; Mr. Jacoby of the Rhode Island ARBC; and Mr. John Hills of the South Carolina ARBC are still with us and I appreciate very much their moral support as I call to your attentiou this very brief statement. My name is Clifford M. Clarke. I earn my living as a certified association executive and have been the paid president of the Georgia Business & Industry Association in Atlanta, Ga., for the past 20 years.

I am the acting chairman at the present time of the Georgia Commission for the National Bicentennial Celebration. This, by virtue of the fact that our chairman has been a member of the House; and he decided not to opt for reelection and until the speaker appoints a new member of the house, we don't have a chairman.

I am acting in that capacity.

I am before you today for this very brief statement as the Chairman of the Bicentennial Council of the Thirteen Original States.

In summary the Council came into being in June of 1970. The Rhode Island Commission took the initiative to invite representatives from the 13 States. Actually there were representatives of the State Commissions of those 13 States; and growing out of the Newport, R.I., meeting in 1970 came the decision that the 13 States did indeed need a bicentennial mechanism to coordinate their activities, to exchange information, and to participate in those programs addressing themselves specifically to joint cooperation among the 13 States.

The organization was formalized and legalized subsequently at meetings in Raleigh and Williamsburgh.

Like most or all of the 50 States, each of the original 13 States has its own State Bicentennial Commission with responsibilities for planning and conducting that State's Bicentennial program.

Each of these State commissions in the original 13 States selects, by whatever means it wants, 2 delegates to represent that State Commission to the 13 State Bicentennial Council. Each State has one vote; and on all substantive decisions, we have a rollcall vote of the States; and it requires a two-thirds vote for favorable action.

We meet quarterly. We operate through the use of standing committees and we have just recently in January reached the decision to employ and have now employed paid professional staff.

The Council receives no public funds and to date it's been funded from the private sector.

I am expressly wearing the hat of the Chairman of the 13 State Council today, and I am not here to talk about the activities of the Georgia Commission.

I am not here either to comment on the failure and some of the successes of the ARBC; but rather, we asked each of the 13 States to react to the bill before this subcommittee.

So among those things that the 13 States do coincide on, their thinking on, I make 4 points.

The first one is that we commend the Congress, the Judiciary Committee, and this subcommittee for expediting the passage of H.R. 3994 which made possible the funding of the present ARBC through June 30, until this national Bicentennial effort can be restructured and reordered.

Secondly, we stress as strongly as we can the sense of urgency which cloaks the entire Bicentennial effort, but more particularly at the national level. Without yielding this afternoon to a strong desire to belabor some of the problems of the past, we recognize that this point in time requires that attention be given to deciding the future course of the national Bicentennial effort rather than expressing disappointment or criticism of the past.

Time requires that Congress act now if the national effort is to be productive. We accordingly commend you for moving forthrightly and expeditiously to assure that effective legislation is enacted.

The 13 States believe that the bill before you is workable. We asked the 13 States to react solely to the proposed bill; and as for this bill, there are only 2 major areas of concern shared by all 13 States.

The first has to do with the time frame; and I have cited here in my testimony where these are located; but they have to do with the matter of bracketing significant Bicentennial events as those between July 1975, and September of 1976, and then terminating the administration by the end of June 1977.

The 13 States believe that the Bicentennial celebration marks and commemorates the birth of the Nation. As such, we believe it should recognize and embrace the two great anniversaries of our Nation, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Founding of the Republic in 1789, including the attendant and important events which led to the birth of the Nation.

To conclude the national bicentennial emphasis on September of 1976, and abolish the ARBA by June of 1977, is to make no provision for recognizing nationally of Breed's Hill, Bunker Hill, Concord, King's Mountain, the Siege of Savannah, Valley Forge, Yorktown, the Treaty of Paris, the Continental Congresses' and the signing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, to name a few of the major events that don't fall in the period of time bracketed by this bill.

The Bicentennial Council urges that the dates be made inclusive from today through 1989. If for some reason these dates can't become the time frame for the national recognition, then at a minimum, we believe the dates should be inclusive from to date through 1983.

If the Congress persists in inclining to the dates suggested in this bill, then it's my personal opinion we should change the name of the entity and call it a Declaration of Independence Bicentennial Commission because that really is what those time frames relate to rather than the American Revolution itself.

Out other major point of concern has to do with the funding mechanisms that appear on pages 10 and 11. This has to do with the matter of nonappropriated funds being used as grants-in-aid and on a matching fund basis.

We believe that specifying these limitations in the proposed law is undesirable, and we think it's unnecessarily restrictive. We believe that Congress should not bind itself or the administration in these

areas.

To my knowledge, every one of the Thirteen Original States has filed or will file a written statement and in some cases will provide testimony to the subcommittee.

The only three points the 13 State Council, as an entity, wanted to emphasize to the subcommittee has to do with the sense of urgency. We believe this bill is workable. There are a lot of plans that we think are workable; but in the interests of time, we are willing to travel with this one, particularly if the other two aspects, the matter of extending the time frame or perhaps renaming it, and the matter of eliminating the restrictive nonappropriated fund language can be eliminated from the bill.

As for the other aspects, you have heard from Georgia. Georgia is typical. You will hear several aspects from each of the 13 States; but collectively, these are the three or four things that were of major

concern to us.

Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Clarke.

Are all of these, the Thirteen Original States, affiliated with ARBC in addition to that fact? Are they not?

Mr. CLARKE. I am not sure. I think they all cooperate. I am not sure what the word affiliate would mean.

Mr. DANIELSON. We have a problem here to try to solve on ARBC. I wondered if we were conducting an excursion into something entirely different here with the Thirteen Original States? You intend to work together?

Mr. CLARKE. Absolutely. We feel that there are certain opportunities that if the 13 States don't jointly move to do, Georgia can't do, ior example, and nationally with a 50-State program, you couldn't do. There are some things common to the 13 States we should do.

Mr. DANIELSON. You have a very special interest. I think that should be brought out.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Jordan?

Ms. JORDAN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you very much for your contribution here. Now, Mr. Perry Snyder, executive director, American Revolution Bicentennial Commission of the State of Mississippi.

STATEMENT OF PERRY SNYDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. DANIELSON. If there is no objection, the statement will be made a part of the record, and you could just proceed with any further comments you may have.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF PERRY A. SNYDER, DIRECTOR OF THE MISSISSIPPI AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION AND MEMBER OF THE SOUTHEASTERN REGION (FEDERAL REGION No. 4) STATE BICENTENNIAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS Mr. Chairman and Members of House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 2: I am Perry A. Snyder, Director of the Mississippi American Revolution Bicentennial Commission and member of the Southeastern Region State Bicentennial Executive Directors. At the outset, may I state that I appear before you today pursuant to the request of the latter group that "a designated representative of the Southeastern states be present to make known the views of this region" on legislation pertaining to the Bicentennial Celebration of the American Revolution. On behalf of my colleagues in the six other states which comprise Federal Region No. 4, I thank you for the opportunity to make my views-and to a degree, their viewsknown on House Resolution 3695.

On February 23, 1973, the Executive Directors from the seven Southeastern states met in Atlanta, Georgia, to discuss areas of mutual interest and concern. An outgrowth of this meeting was a telegram to the Honorable Peter Rodino. I ask your consent to place the text of that telegram in the record. It is attached to this tatement.

To a man, the Executive Directors urged that "The present confusion as to finances and general thrusts of the Bicentennial Commemoration . . . be removed if the states are to plan and organize successful programs.'

My brief remarks will attempt to explain why I, and my colleagues, believe Congress should "act rapidly in reorganizing the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission" by the passage of House Resolution 3695.

If one were forced to choose a single term that best captures our shared outlook as we continue to move into the Bicentennial Era, it would be "urgency." Ours is the dire need for a strong National Bicentennial agency with which we can cooperate and from which we can obtain both guidance and financial assistance. This is not intended as a denunciation of the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission or its personnel, most of whom I have found to be both conscientious and energetic. Rather, it is a plea for what President Nixon in his Statement of February 1, 1973, referred to as an "action-oriented structure." We consider absolutely essential that there be established a strong agency which, among other things, can assist the State Bicentennial Commissions in the preparation of and execution of a Bicentennial program which truly can both "Honor Our Past and Mold Our Futures."

In Mississippi, the foundation has been laid for what I believe will be a most meaningful Bicentennial Commemoration. I ask your consent to place in the records the attached, "Mississippi Plans for the Bicentennial," which summarizes the Bicentennial effort in Mississippi. The strong beginning we have made can be attributed to an energetic Commission made up of public-spirited citizens and enlightened Commission leadership. If, however, we are to bring our Bicentennial program to fruition—if we are to succeed in reaching the “grassroot" strength of our state and Nation and involve all of our people, we need a national body which can provide leadership and direction. In a word, we need action and answers, and we need them quite shortly if Mississippi and the other states in the Southeast are to realize their Bicentennial objectives.

While supporting the passage of House Resolution 3695, I ask your consideration of the following which, I believe, would strengthen this measure.

First, If we are to be historically accurate in our claim that we are celebrating the Bicentennial of the American Revolution, we must not disband the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration on June 30, 1977. As an article entitled "An Overhaul for '76 Bicentennial" which appeared in the February 12, 1973, U.S. News & World Report attests, we are fast losing sight of the Bicentennial