STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman. as Representative of the Ninth Congressional District of North Carolina, I appreciate this opportunity to come before your committee and express my views on H.R. 3846. Mr. Chairman, I am very much opposed to section 2(a) of this bill, which gives the President wide authority to levy user fees and charges upon our national parks. I have always been proud of the parks and forests in North Carolina and the Nation, but I have been even prouder of the fact that they are available to our citizens free of charge. It is my opinion that a Federal fee for use of these lands would be a further burden upon the people, and a burden that is wholly unjustified at a time when attempts are being made to lower the Federal tax requirements from other sources.

As the members of the committee probably remember, the question of charges on the Blue Ridge Parkway was considered in last year's hearings on H.R. 11172 and, at that time, it was pointed out that special factors exist which render the imposition of fees upon the parkway both unjust and unwise. I feel that the problems arising with respect to the parkway and the Smoky Mountain National Park may be similar to those affecting other States where the Federal Government is a large landholder, so a discussion of the situation in North Carolina may be illustrative.

The land for the Great Smoky National Park was deeded in 1938 to the Federal Government by the States of North Carolina and Tennessee. At the time the land was conveyed, the Federal Government's assurance that fees would never be imposed upon the land provided a basic starting point for all the transactions involved. Tennessee's assurance took the form of an express covenant in the land deed that no Federal fee would ever be charged for entrance to the park over Highways No. 71 and 73, the roads constituting the park's major access routes. North Carolina did not demand, nor did it receive, such an express covenant in its deed of the road from Cherokee to Newfound Gap, but the resolution by the North Carolina Highway Commission authorizing the conveyance stipulated as a fact that the National Park Service had promised that fees would never be levied upon vehicles passing over that road. The right-of-way for the Blue Ridge Parkway itself was obtained from private individuals and the State of North Carolina only upon the understanding that no Federal charge would ever be made for its use. Over half the land was acquired through direct gifts from private individuals who had been convinced by publicity and newspaper editorials that the land would be freely available to all.

In addition to the circumstances under which the land was acquired, there are other reasons why the Blue Ridge Parkway should not be subject to user fees. Since its completion, the parkway has become the major artery of north-south transportation in the western part of North Carolina. It is intersected by 25 U.S. highways, by 600 entrances, and, in many areas, provides the sole means of passage through extremely mountainous terrain. Without the parkway and its complex of intersecting highways, transportation in western North CaroÎina would be seriously impaired.

99-738-63

The major extent of the parkway lies within the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. Virtually all of the roads in these forests have been constructed and are maintained by the State of North Carolina. They are available without charge to the citizens whose taxes created them. North Carolina has long pursued a policy of providing toll-free highways and it was with this policy in mind that North Carolina citizens consented to construction of these highways. To impose a fee now, whether by certificate or toll, would amount to charging the people of North Carolina for driving over their own roads.

There have been assurances by the Department of the Interior that special consideration will be given to areas such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, but the bill before us contains no corresponding safeguards. The legislation grants the President power to levy charges upon "any land or water area administered by or under the control of [certain] Federal agencies." The Secretary of the Interior already has the power to levy fees. In 1955, and again in 1958, the Secretary issued the announcement that vehicle tolls would be imposed upon the Blue Ridge Parkway. These plans were later canceled. However, there has been a long controversy here between the Federal Government and the people of North Carolina. Actually, it is time that the Congress spell out exactly what the powers of the Secretary are in matters such as this. Certainly, when we consider other provisions of this bill, the need for clear thinking and clear legislative language becomes apparent.

You must agree that this is very broad and far-reaching power in this regard.

Secretary Udall, himself, realizes that there would have to be exceptions made in making overall rules and regulations. I would call your attention to the hearings on S. 859, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 3846. On page 55 of the printed hearings, the Secretary lists a number of "special situations." In this section of the Secretary's communication to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, he states:

There might be other situations where recreation lands have been donated or sold to the Federal Government under conditions or covenants which preclude recreation user fees from being charged for their use.

In my study of the Senate hearings, I get the very definite feeling that Secretary Udall is concerned over the actual day-to-day details or administration of a program which calls for tolls or fees for the use of roads and highways. He expressed concern which was obviously shared by the members of the Senate committee, and this com

mittee.

So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that this committee require a more definite enumeration in the bill of just what the nature and extent of these "charges" will be. Certainly, I would have no objection to a modest assessment for use of camping or trailer facilities in improved recreation areas where special park personnel and equipment are required. It is an entirely different matter, however, where a motorist stopping at a roadside table or a scenic overlook is approached by a policeman and encouraged to exercise his patriotism in the purchase of an auto sticker. Indeed, as the bill is now written, a traveler in these circumstances could find himself faced with a $500 fine and 6 months in jail if he were to fail to pay. This

punitive provision seems very stringent, particularly when we do not know what the rules and regulations will be. We have no way of knowing what we are threatening the people with or how much power we are delegating to a Federal agency.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that application of the broad powers of section 2(a) to Great Smoky Mountains National Park and to the Blue Ridge Parkway, would be an inequitable disregard of a moral obligation of the Federal Government and an unjust charge on the people of North Carolina. I, therefore, urge the committee to amend this section so that the people using public facilities will have a crystal clear understanding of where they stand.

Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from Alaska?

Mr. RIVERS. I have no questions.

Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from Pennsylvania?

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Broyhill, first let me say I appreciate your appearing before the committee and reminding us of a situation which exists with regard to the great parkway and the national park which goes through your State and the State of Tennessee.

I appreciate the fact there is a moral obligation to observe the contract which was entered into in 1938.

However, this question has bothered me ever since this original bill was proposed. I am wondering whether or not the people of Tennessee and North Carolina, through their duly elected representatives, would take another look at this situation and realize that there was not indeed a national policy when the parkway and park were created; therefore, and in light of this national policy set forth in this bill, whether or not they would be willing to come forward with a plan to change the present agreement between the Federal Government and the two States that are involved.

Do you think there is any possibility of having that happen?

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Saylor, I certainly would be glad to sit down with my colleagues who are involved in this question and who are interested in this question and to come up with any suggestions or proposals which could be considered by this committee.

However, I certainly, speaking personally, would have to oppose anything which would appear to be a toll or a charge for the use of the roads in that particular area of western North Carolina.

Mr. SAYLOR. The reason I ask whether or not there is a possibility was because of the fact that if there is to be a national policy it might be a little difficult for people who live here in the East and who make the greatest use of this great national park to understand why, when they go to another area, they have to pay a fee.

Mr. BROYHILL. As has already been pointed out to a degree in this committee, and in the Senate as well, this same problem exists in other States as well. I know that not only the Senators, but certainly the Representatives in the House, are also quite concerned with this particular feature of the bill. I do not feel I stand alone in objecting to this particular provision.

Mr. SAYLOR. I can assure you there is a united front which has been presented not only by Members of the House but also Members of the Senate in maintaining their positions. Thank you.

Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from North Carolina?

(No response.)

Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Chenoweth? Mr. CHENOWETH. I wish to commend you on your statement and the zeal you display in protecting the people of North Carolina.

How would you feel generally about this legislation? Would residents of the State of North Carolina be willing to differentiate between the treatment in one area of the country and the treatment they receive in North Carolina?

I am talking about the overall policy. Let us assume there never was any agreement in North Carolina.

Mr. BROYHILL. As pointed out, I certainly would not object to charges being made in the areas which have been built for special purposes, and where special services are provided for the traveling public or for the public which is looking for recreation. I refer to facilities such as camping grounds where water, toilet and bath facilities, and garbage collection are available.

I know that camping today is a very large form of recreation, not only for individuals but for families.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I think everyone would agree that they should pay for camping privileges.

Mr. BROYHILL. Where special services are provided, I have no objection.

Mr. CHENOWETH. How about the use of the highways, driving along and observing the scenic beauties without requesting special services? Mr. BROYHILL. I would be opposed to that, sir.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Regardless of whether or not there is any special agreement such as you have in North Carolina? You are opposed to that general principle, as I understand it?

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHENOWETH. That is all. Thank you.

Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Marsh?

Mr. MARSH. I have no questions.

Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from Iowa?

Mr. KYL. I appreciate the activities of the State of North Carolina and I appreciate the association with such fine gentlemen as Mr. Taylor, Mr. Whitener, Mr. Broyhill, and so on.

Having said that I want to say I don't think you have a thing to worry about. Page 3 of the bill states:

Any fees established shall be fair and equitable, taking into consideration direct and indirect costs to the Government, benefits to the recipient, public policy, or interests served and other pertinent factors.

There is no disposition expressed by the Secretary of the Interior or by this committee to collect any fees in a situation such as the long highway where you have 25 intersecting roads because it would not be feasible to collect fees in this instance.

I do not think that you actually have anything to worry about as to what finally evolves in North Carolina or anywhere else.

Mr. BROYHILL. As I read the bill, there is no provision, for example, for public hearings for consideration of any fees which might be imposed on a particular area. Could this be put into the bill?

Mr. KYL. If you did you might as well put in basic legislation some provisions for public hearings on a repeated basis in every national park area and national forest area in the country. I think it presumes too much of a problem to suggest this.

If the gentleman would like to reduce the amount of the fine or the imprisonment to be involved in this case, I have no objection to that. It would just create a nominal form of a fine which would incline people to pay the fee. This is not a punitive kind of thing.

The proposal is to get money to develop additional park lands in North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, California, all over the United States.

The philosophy here in this bill is 100 percent conservationist. The whole philosophy of this bill is to make more of the good things of life that the people enjoy..

Knowing that that is the basic philosophy I cannot get all worked up about problems such as the gentleman expresses here.

Mr. BROYHILL. I certainly would like to state here that if the gentleman were to look into my background you would find I am an ardent conservationist, also, and have worked in this field for many years. I am certainly not opposed to the spirit of this bill and the need that it attempts to reach, but I certainly feel that we have here language in a bill which goes quite far.

You state we have nothing to fear. We also hear the Secretary of the Interior state we have nothing to fear, that the tolls or charges will not be made upon our roads.

However, the bill does not say this. Three years from now you or the Secretary may not be here to protect our interests.

Mr. KYL. Knowing the diligent representatives we get from the State of North Carolina, as witnessed by the present gentleman on the stand, I do not think you would have anything to worry about even 3 years hence.

I want to commend the gentleman for his vital interest and for trying to protect the interests of his people back home.

Perhaps the reason we look at this thing differently is that I did have an opportunity, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others of this committee, to have worked on this proposition from the beginning in the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. The people on this Commission were your kind of people, I believe. They were interested in conservation, certainly, but also interested in giving fair treatment to the people.

When I know the whole background, going clear back to the original report, and sessions spent by this group, the emphasis is entirely in the opposite direction from that suggested by the gentleman from North Carolina.

I want to say that I certainly would work to the limit of my ability in this committee to be sure these things he suggests would not take place, but also in the interest of having a national program I am afraid we would fragment it and destroy its use if we write in too many exceptions for individuals or individual groups or for States. I think the answer in North Carolina perhaps lies primarily in the fact that it just would not be feasible to collect the tolls on major parks with which the gentleman is concerned.

That is all.

Mr. BROYHILL. That is certainly true. I would like to point out again for the record that it would appear that this is a problem not only of North Carolina but other States as well.

Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from Utah?