112 



Mr. Train. I am not personally aware of that and I am not really — 

 I do not imdei-stand why such facilities would be considered not 

 covered by the National Environment Policy Act. Major Federal 

 l)uildings, we consider, do have or can have an impact on the environ- 

 ment. For example, we have had an environmental impact statement 

 filed by the Department of the Treasury with respect to the construc- 

 tion of a new mint. 



Frankly, I am not aware that these facilities are not being included. 



Senator Spong. This would be federally assisted as opposed to fed- 

 erally constructed, but what I would like to do, in the interest of time 

 liere this morning — I would like to submit this situation to you for 

 your comment, because we become increasingly concerned about the 

 exclusions where the Federal Government is involved. 



Mr. Train. May I ask Mr. Reilly to comment on your question. 

 Senator, because I believe he is somewhat familiar with the back- 

 ground. 



Mr. Reilly. Senator, I believe the matter you raise is the one 

 VA'liere the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration made a block 

 grant to the State of Virginia, which then proposed to construct a 

 prison facility in a valley of historic farms, which I think included 

 three sites listed on the national register. 



I am informed that the Justice Department Law Enforcement As- 

 sistance Administration has met subsequent to that decision with 

 members of the Advisoiy Council on Historic Preservation, and they 

 have agreed that in the future such block grants will be subject to 

 section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and to the En- 

 vironmental Policy Act of 1969. 



Senator Spong. I am not prepared to comment on the merits of this 

 particular case, but I was somewhat surprised, having participated 

 in the enactment of this legislation, to find exclusions right within my 

 own State. Now, this would not affect what has already taken place, 

 if I understand what you have said. 



Mr. Reilly. It would not. The reason that the money was allowed 

 to be used by the State of Virginia in the way that it was is that there 

 were no advance plans required by the Justice Department. In other 

 words, the State of Virginia received the money without having said 

 what it proposed to do with it. It then later decided to construct this 

 facility, and it was at that time concluded that its use of money was not 

 a Federal undertaking in the traditional sense, but that would be cor- 

 rected by the Justice Department in future cases. That decision is also 

 under appeal right now. 



Senator Spong. I am aware of that. Thank you. 



Senator Hollings. Senator Stevens. 



Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I have got some other questions 

 I would like to submit to Mr. Train. There are some technical prob- 

 lems concerning the level of appropriations that relate to the two 

 bills. If that would meet with your approval, I would like to submit 

 them to Mr. Train. 



Senator Hollings. Mr. Train will receive those questions. 



Senator Ste\^ns. One last comment relative to my previous com- 

 inents. I hope that you will assist us in making certain that, if we 

 decide to "buy half a loaf," that it is consistent with the total national 



