Manpower development and training programs' report as of July 20, 1964

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL M. TILDEN, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION, AND EDITOR, NATIONAL PARKS MAGAZINE

My name is Paul M. Tilden. I am assistant to the president of the National Parks Association and editor of National Parks magazine. I appreciate the invitation which has been extended by the subcommittee to present for the record the views of the association in regard to S. 2958, the Human and Resources Conservation Act of 1964.

The National Parks Association is an independent, private, nonprofit, public service organization, educational and scientific in character, founded in 1919 by Stephen T. Mather, first Director of the National Park Service; it has a membership of some 29,000 persons throughout the United States and abroad. It publishes the monthly National Parks magazine, received by all members. Its responsibilities primarily include the protection of the great national parks and monuments of America; but the association is also deeply interested in the protection and restoration of the natural environment generally.

Surely there is no doubt that the real wealth of America lies in its lands and waters, and in the application of the human hand to at least a part of these. Neither is there doubt that in the past this same human hand has been applied to our basic natural resources with more vigor than wisdom. The history of land and water use in America has not always made-and it still does not always make for pleasant reading; serious injuries have been inflicted on resources which support a population of 192 million people today; a figure which, incidentally, will have increased by some 9.000 persons 24 hours hence. The import of these figures is quite clear; America's land and water resources will one day in the none-too-distant future be taxed to capacity to support our population at any other than a mere subsistence level. Further, they will be called upon to provide adequate outdoor recreational facilities for the projected population of tomorrow and beyond.

We are painfully aware, and S. 2958 points out, that the Nation has had for some time an undesirably large pool of persons, running into the several millions, unemployed because of lack of skill, lack of education, or perhaps in some cases the simple lack of opportunity. There is, at the same time, a very large backlog of conservation work that ought to be accomplished on the various Federal lands

37-181-64--22

in particular and to a lesser extent, perhaps, on State, county, and municipal lands. Part of this work stems, as we realize, from past ecological malpractices; part from the ever-increasing stream of new Americans. Much of the work is far beyond the yearly financial capabilities of the various Federal, State, and other agencies. In its simplest terms S. 2958 would, it seems to us, bring together the need and the presently unutilized manpower, provide training for the latter where necessary, and address itself to past land- and water-use mistakes as well as the future best use of natural resources. In so doing it would go far toward alleviating the problem of chronic unemployment.

There is a provision in the bill which would seem to be an especially good one; namely, the establishment of a council composed of departmental representatives who will consult with a presidentially appointed chairman in the administration of the act's provisions; obviously the affected Federal departments should have a very substantial voice in the nature and planning of conservation work to be undertaken, as being most familiar with urgent needs.

The bill touches on park development, though not specifically on national park development. We would like to point out, though it is probably not necessary in view of the sponsorship of the bill, that there are places in both the national parks and the national forests where the terrain, with its native plants and animals, should be left completely undeveloped and untouched; where there are natural phenomena to be protected, supervision and discipline should be the watchword; scenic and natural history resources are, of course, as properly a part of the natural resource conservation picture as any other facet, even though they present a situation where the best and highest use depends upon nondevelopment.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LOIS V. EDINGER, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Human and Resource Conservation Act of 1964 (S. 2958) is a commendable proposal, realistically designed to accomplish a twofold purpose. The National Education Association in principle has supported this type of legislation previously aimed at the problem of out-of-school youth. The recently enacted Economic Opportunity Act (Public Law 88-452) embodies the Job Corps primarily designed to rehabilitate youth. It does not have the additional desirable objective of developing and conserving our natural resources, except as incidental to the rehabilitation of out-of-school youth. While the National Education Association supports the Job Corps provision of Public Law 88-452 we also believe that the conservation of natural resources as well as human resources is deserving of increased national support.

S. 2958, in providing job opportunity for the unemployed of all ages, does have important implications for education. Children from families in which the family head is chronically unemployed are often difficult to teach. They often have little incentive or inspiration from home at best-and at worst are emotionally disturbed because of the embittered home environment in which they are reared. Thus, providing useful work for the family head can have a most positive effect on the children in strengthening the stability of the family, thus creating a better learning environment.

As our population expands, and the workweek is shortened, the necessity of providing new outdoor recreation facilities is obvious. Of even more significance to all citizens is the necessity for conserving and improving the Nation's watershed through reforestation and similar projects.

The National Education Association, in keeping with its longstanding interest in conservation of human and natural resources urges the enactment of S. 2958.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this subcommittee in behalf of S. 2958 introduced by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Nelson, to conserve the human and natural resources of the Nation.

I am the secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C. The chair

man of our committee, Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson is out of the city but he wishes the subcommittee to know of his support and general association with the remarks that follow.

Mr. Chairman, we support S. 2958 because of the declared purposes which state, (1) the continuing and serious need to refurbish and rehabilitate our natural resources, and (2) to accomplish this purpose by using men who have been unemployed over an extended period of time. Often the simple logic seems to become tortured in the complex structure of our Government and economy. In the instant case men are out of work, many for a long period of time. By the same token, the rehabilitation that needs to be done in behalf of our country's natural resources has such a backlog, as to stagger the imagination. It would seem obvious that if men are out of work but much work needs to be done that the solution would be simple. Unfortunately, the problems of achieving this are so complex as to frustrate the many efforts that have been made heretofore to resolve them.

May I say at the outset that S. 2958 is not the perfect solution. This will not solve the unemployment problem. This will not complete the task of all the necessary activities needed to conserve our resources. We suggest this awareness on our part in order that we may not have to defend the measure because we implied that this bill is a final solution to the many problems that we face.

This bill authorizes an appropriation of $1 billion a year. We are sure that serious objections will be raised because of the amount of expenditures authorized. We are equally sure that it is not adequate to complete the task of the necessary resource management or the satisfactory solution of unemployment. It does, however, move in that direction. It will be a significant help in the necessary efforts we must make in the very near future in behalf of our natural resources. It will indeed offer jobs to those who do not now have them. It is on this simple basis that we plead our case.

For some inexplicable reason expenditures for conservation have often been postponable. Since the depression there have been a series of postponementsall for very excellent reasons. For example, World War II saw us draw heavily upon our natural resources without undue concern about their shape and posture for the future. Postponement was made again during the movement from a wartime to a peacetime footing. The Korean conflict caused further postponement. The extended debate of the 1950's of fiscal responsibility found expenditures for natural resources to be one of the sacrifices necessary in achieving that goal. Concomitantly, the ascendency of large military budgets, the race for space, and atomic energy were all more attractive in the immediate sense than was the problem of appropriate natural resources management. During that time resources were being used. Their use is obvious when one stops to consider that with the exception of the human bodies in this room, every item that clothes us, every stick of furniture, every part of the building may have been fashioned from the hand of man but the natural resources had to be available for him to accomplish any of these results. The day of reckoning is probably not a given point of time and does not occur with the finality that some generally consider, but the concept of the inevitable appears quite clear.

We recognize the importance of maintaining capital in the private sector of our economy with a care and passion that is admirable. No businessman

would fritter away his company's resources on an individual whim or caprice. No company official would refuse to spend money that was necessary to maintain his plant and equipment. No responsible private executive would act in this fashion for he would be removed for gross inefficiency. Where companies as a whole have failed to maintain their overall efficiency, and especially their capital investment, they have reaped the whirlwind of this folly.

Where the public is concerned, however, there has been only a growing awareness in the most recent years of the consequences of our failures to take prudent action in restoring, where possible, the renewable resources that we have at our disposal. Unfortunately, it was not until imminent disaster was apparent in many areas before we finally got cracking and did something about it. Our recreational needs skyrocketed beyond any statistical prediction or beyond any demographer's projection. Local, State, and Federal governments were not in a position to meet this need effectively. An awareness is beginning and we are now seeing the erosion of our natural resources and

the importance in reversing the trend. Also, we are finally approaching the point of understanding that if recreational needs are to be met we are going to have to spend money.

Appropriations have increased to some extent. States and localities, struggling with needs over a previous decade of postponement, did their best but the actions of all have admittedly fallen tragically short. Recently, serious efforts have been made to save a part of the seashores for recreation, to establish some additions to the national park system, to make it possible for private recreation to take place on former croplands, and the Senate will shortly entertain a new measure, based in part on a pay as you go method of financing, to further land acquisitions for recreation at the local, State, and Federal level.

Yes, we are now starting to move and already some say we are moving too fast. This attitude, in our judgment, if it prevails will be a sadly augury indeed for the future. We are faced with almost 30 years of postponement and lack of concern for the overall natural resource base in this country. You cannot fall behind almost every year for 30 years and except to catch up in a year or perhaps in a decade, nor can you expect to catch up without incurring the necessary expense.

Another part of the thinking that concerns many of us is the failure to distinguish in public expenditures between money spent on capital improvements or investment, and money spent on immediately consumable items. In the case of private business, the Treasury Department refuse to allow any business to consider a significant capital expenditure as a cost for any one year. Private accounting would not write off a significant capital expense except on a prorated basis for the period that the capital good was expected to last. Alas, no such important distinctions exist in our present Federal structure. Moneys that are expended for a park which may exist for time immemorial or any other public investment are considered no different from the Secretary's pencil budget to the gasoline in a Government automobile.

Perhaps it is this serious omission in our Federal budgetary and accounting procedure that places us in such near disaster from time to time in making prudent public investments that are so necessary to our total and continued health. Perhaps this is why the waters of our country became contaminated with pollution from our cities and our industries before effective programs were undertaken to provide for clean water. Perhaps this is why we have arrived at an attitude that a dollar spent privately for any purpose is always superior to and desired over any moneys spent publicly. Unless we conclude that there can be good and bad public expenditures, as well as good and bad private expenditures, then we shall make very little inroad in placing our natural resources in the posture to serve an expanding and demanding population.

We cited at the outset that S. 2958 which seeks to assault the problem of our natural resources at the local, State, and Federal level shall not be the total answer to the total problem. We doubt if there is a single answer or a single program that can be contained in one bill that will provide the ready answer and solution to all of these complex problems.

I have taken the liberty of appending, at the conclusion of my statement, a brief analysis made by the Technical Review Staff of the Secretary of the Interior in 1963 that gives some dimension to the type of activities that are so desperately required in just the several areas of the Interior Department, which is not inclusive of the total Federal responsibility. It has been roughly estimated that the States have a considerably larger backlog than is indicated here. I include this information not as a definitive list but rather as an indication of the effort that must take place.

Backlog of work to be done on Interior lands-Continued

233

Building maintenance_.

__number of buildings-_

2,893

Man-years annually--

6, 380 53

Wildlife construction and protection_-_-_-man-years-

(2) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife:

Camps needed______

Capital improvements:

Water improvements:

Structures_.

Dikes____

Roads, trails, fences, etc.:

Bridges.

Fencing

Roads

Recreation facilities:

Campsites--.