Fourth. Only 2.4 million of the family heads of these families worked full time. There were 6 million people in families with income below $3,000 who were dependent on family heads unemployed for 5 weeks or more.

These are some dimensions of the poverty crisis. Many members of these families are either too ill or too old to work. But many are not; unemployment or underemployment is a most unnecessary and unacceptable facet of American poverty. There is work to do in this country. Nevertheless, we find men without jobs throughout the Nation.

Unemployment is particularly severe in some regions of the country. In Appalachia, for example, there were 380,000 unemployed workers in 1960-7.1 percent of the total work force. What is worse, there are apparently a number of men who simply have withdrawn from the work force out of despair at ever finding a job-for the number of Appalachians either employed or seeking work is 700,000 less than we would expect if Appalachia followed the normal jobseeking patterns of the Nation.

Unemployment is particularly severe among certain groups; the average migrant farmworkers, for example, worked at farm labor for only 161 days in 1962. His average earning from farmwork was $874; his average earning for all work was $1,123 per year.

The House Education and Labor Committee estimates that unemployment or underemployment is the major cause of poverty in about half of the 35 million families with incomes of less than $3,000.

The crisis of conservation and the crisis of poverty are completely complementary: to save our natural resources, much work must be done; to save the impoverished of the Nation, jobs are needed. It seems to me we must put men

to work to conserve our natural and human resources.

The obvious and simple logic of such a program is recognized in certain parts of the President's antipoverty legislation. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1964 would use a number of youths and unemployed fathers in experimental programs involving conservation work. But this is only a start. I believe that we should embark upon a massive program which would put large numbers of unemployed men to work on the vast backlog of constructive conservation projects.

Today, I am introducing a bill to establish a National Conservation Council with broad authority to utilize unemployed men on much-needed conservation projects. In its first year, the Council would have authority to spend approximately $1 billion to employ men throughout the Nation. I estimate that between 100,000 and 125,000 men could be put to work with this amount of money.

This legislation would direct the Chairman of the National Conservation Council to work through existing Federal, State, municipal, and county agencies. It would not involve a new administrative structure. Rather the Council would only supervise a program to be run on the spot by existing agencies at the national and local level.

The most important features of this program are: It can put unemployed, unskilled men to work without further training; it can put the men to work immediately without new administrative structure or new planning; and it will help stem the wasting tide of resource destruction.

What kind of work could be done by unskilled labor?

We could reforest 28 million acres of timberland; embark upon timber stand improvement of another 140 million acres; expand fire protection in another 200 million acres.

We could establish soil and watershed conservation programs on 300 million acres of farmland; embark upon revegetation of the strip mine areas of the Nation.

On western rangelands we could clear brush, spread water and vegetation over 200 million acres of Federal grazing districts and Forest Service lands.

We could establish and refurbish recreational acres on National and State parks, national forests, and other public lands.

We could establish wildlife habitat and structural improvements on wildlife refuges and expand wildlife cover development on private lands.

The work can be done at all levels of Government activity. The Forest Service, in the Department of Agriculture, estimates that currently there are 70 million acres of unproductive land in need of reforestation by planting and seeding. Another Federal agency, the Department of the Interior, estimates that there are more than 57,000 annual man-years of labor needed in its programs through the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Sport Fisheries, and Wildlife.

Another Federal agency, the Army Engineers, tells me that a subsantial number of workers could be utilized in its programs on public lands. The kinds of work which could be done include: construction of recreational facilities, such as boat launching ramps and docks, buildings, structures, water supply and sanitary sysems, safety devices, signs, markers, and so forth; beach improvements, safety devices; landscaping and public use site improvement; roads and parking areas; walks, trails, footbridges, overlooks, and so forth; shoreline maintenance and improvement.

Fencing recreation areas for exclusion of livestock, construction of cattle guards, and cutting and treating of posts; inspection of fencing; establishing and developing natural areas; timber stand improvement, weeding, thinning, release; roadside cleanup and demonstration areas; establishing fire lanes and protection measures; weed control, cutting and spraying; disease, rodent, and pest control, removal, spraying, trapping, cleanup, burning, and so forth; fish and wildlife conservation improvements, small subimpoundments, habitat improvements, food and cover plantings; soil erosion control, drainage improvement, ditching, diking, seeding, sodding, fertilizing, cover planting; establishing nursery stock for landscape plantings; navigation markers and channel improvement for recreational boating; general construction; boundary surveying, monumentation, marking, posting, clearing, maintenance, and collection of basic data on resources and public use.

The kinds of work outlined here for Federal lands can be done on State and local and private lands as well. Indeed, a number of existing Federal programs authorize the use of Federal funds on private lands when there is a substantial public interest. The most obvious example, of course, is the development of watersheds. This necessarily involves the interrelation of both private and public lands. However, much more can be done. The Department of Agriculture informs me that there is a great quantity of work which could be done immediately by unskilled workers in soil and water conservation measures. I have written to more than 2,000 State, county, and city officials asking them what kinds of projects are urgently needed. The response has been tremendous. To date we have received approximately 500 replies. I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing these replies be inserted in the record of the hearing at this point.

Note that out of the 50 States, conservation and recreation leaders were almost unanimously in support of this program. Forty-nine out of the fifty States responded favorably. The only qualified response from a State official came from Ralph D. Ford, Mississippi State Park Director. But even Mr. Ford wrote: "There's a definite need for this type of legislation if the proper controls are applied to its operation."

From the replies we have received to date I estimate that we could begin constructive conservation work on projects involving approximately 425,000 man-years of labor almost immediately. This is work that can be done both in the cities and the country. Most important it is work that for the most part will be administered locally.

In some areas it can be of extreme importance in offsetting racial tension. For instance, Mayor Wagner of New York tells me that he has more than 10,000 years of man-work which could be started almost immediately. I'm sure that a program putting 10,000 unemployed, unskilled men to work, could do much to help us make progress in solving the economic and social problems which underlie tense conflicts such as the one in Harlem.

From all over the Nation I have received other letters such as this one from Mr. Horace Caldwell, director of State parks in Georgia :

"The legislation which you are drafting to provide funds to Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies to utilize unemployed workers on conservation projects such as park development, etc., would be of considerable help in improving and expanding the facilities of the Georgia State parks.

"The program that you are suggesting seems to be the type of program that State parks departments might certainly use to good advantage in the elimination of unemployment in so many of our distressed areas. The work that we could give these people is of a nature that could be performed without any additional training on their part.

"We think that by expanding the facilities of our State parks, tourism can be increased considerably in those areas and many new jobs can be created: Jobs in building campsites, picnic areas, parking lots, trails, fishing lakes, and restrooms. Construction alone in these areas could provide many years' work for many of the skilled, semiskilled, and even unskilled workmen.

"As the jobs are completed, operations and maintenance would then begin. In the visitors' season people are needed to provide basic services such as garbage collection, cleaning, check-in and checkout, fire prevention, concession operation, water safety, etc. Considerable maintenance would also be needed in the off season."

Pennsylvania State Forester R. C. Wible, has written me:

"We are convinced that legislation which would put the unemployed to work would go far in providing constructive conservation projects for our State." The State forester of North Carolina, Mr. F. H. Claridge, has written:

"It is my belief that there exists a real need for the work which can be accomplished by an adequate labor force and we would be most happy to have such projects underway."

The regional park manager of the Allegany State Park Commission of New York, Mr. Leigh J. Batterson, writes:

"I can say that we can utilize many workers for an unlimited time on such projects as park development, roadside improvement, timber stand improvement, et cetera, without very extensive preparation provided funds, supervision, and transportation for the workers are made available."

Mr. Norman S. Johnson, director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, writes:

"Our preliminary investigation reveals that we can productively use an extensive labor force on minimum and primary improvements to major regional park facilities throughout our jurisdiction."

In my own State of Wisconsin, the conservation department has 170,000 manmonths of vital, constructive work that could be initiated immediately on the State lands. We have no idea of the amount of work which could be done on the city and county parks in Wisconsin. Nevertheless my correspondence shows at least one index of the tremendous backlog which exists.

Not only do we know that there is much work to do, but we know that practical programs can be started immediately. This is no question of mere theory. Under the Accelerated Public Works Act, a number of similar programs were undertaken. We have a record of amazing success. The hard evidence shows that the jobs can be done, that they can be started immediately, that they can produce great results in conserving both human and natural resources.

In fiscal year 1963, for example, 650 men were at work on the Superior National Forest in Minnesota under the APW program. The total work during the first 8 months of the program amounted to 2,860 man-months of labor. Without the program, it is estimated that possibly two-thirds of the men hired would have been on relief rolls. This new source of employment began within 24 hours of receipt of APW allocations. Men were ready and willing to work and began immediately on needed conservation projects.

Accelerated public works funds were made available to the national forests in West Virginia on October 29, 1962. Laborers were recruited the following day and by the end of the second week, 156 men were employed. During the period November 1962 through June 30, 1963, a total of 786 man-months of employment were provided. All of the laborers were from rural areas.

In New Mexico, the third day after the receipt of APW funds, 117 men were at work on the Rio Grande Gorge recreation area.

Such examples prove the practical feasibility of the program. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has tried similar experiments with similar success. In December 1963, Kentucky received a grant to put unemployed fathers to work. By February of 1964, the Kentucky Legislature had authorized the expansion of the limited program to include 39 hard-hit east Kentucky counties.

At the State level, Mr. J. M. Wedemeyer, the director of the California State Social Welfare Department, recently told the House Labor and Education Committee that a similar California program has had amazing success:

"No effort launched in the welfare field for achieving constructive results has had as favorable an impression publicly as the adoption of the work experience and training program. The recipients as well have responded favorably."

Not only is there work to be done, workers to do it, and a backlog of experience showing the practicality of such programs, but there is evidence that the program is money saving-not money using. Any investment in conservation has a great payback value. To save our water, to invest in our timber, and to develop our recreational areas, is not to waste money but to conserve it. Though the point is obvious, the Department of Agriculture submitted valuable information

on this subject which was printed in the Congressional Record last year. Estimating that there are over 300,000 man-years of development work on the national forests alone that could be done, the Department went on to state:

"The direct financial revenues to the Treasury from the national forests, if all of this work was accomplished, would rise to over $200 million annually by 1972. Payments from national forest revenues for county schools and roads would increase correspondingly. The capital value of the timber, forage, and lands of the national forests would increase by about $2 million.

"The timber stand improvement and reforestation work would contribute materially to a long-term investment resulting in timber production of 21 billion board feet of saw-timber annually by the year 2000, worth $350 million annually in timber sales.

"In addition to direct financial income to the United States as a result of national forest development, there will be both substantial secondary benefits and very real intangible benefits. Secondary benefits include such things as numbers of people employed directly on the program work and the harvesting of national forest timber and other products and the value added to those products by manufacturer, distribution, and marketing.

"In timber alone, it is estimated that for every dollar of national forest stumpage sold, the end products will be worth about $20 by the time they reach the ultimate consumer. The estimated employment directly associated with the utilization of timber harvested from the national forests will amount to about 800,000 man-years annually by 1972. This will be more than twice the current level.

"Development of the recreation facilities on national forests would serve the recreationists who will be putting into trade channels by 1972, $1.5 billion for sporting equipment, transportation, licenses, lodging, and other items.

"Development and improvement of the small- and big-game habitat and fishing waters by a Youth Conservation Corps would increase the use of many national forest areas by hunters and fishermen. It is estimated that fishermen and hunters spend about $10 for each man-day visit to national forests. Increase of this use through improvement of the wildlife habitat would put a large share of this man-day expenditure into the local economy.

"Of the reservoir of national forest work available to a Youth Conservation Corps program and the resultant total benefits, the following examples indicate possible benefits attributable to the program.

"On a national average, recreationists spend about $5.50 per person-trip day. It is estimated that national forest recreation visitors spend about half of this average, or about $2.50 per man-day. Every family recreation unit constructed by a Youth Corps on the national forests, at an approximate cost of $1,000 per unit, would return approximately $1,060 annual expenditures by recreationists into the local economy in a year or two. It is estimated that a Youth Corps of 15,000 enrollees could construct at least 12,000 family recreation units annually, which would return approximately $12 billion into the local economy in a year or two.

"Millions of acres of young growth timber stands on the national forests or of timber stands partially or completely denuded by fire, insects, diseases, or other causes will, when culturally treated, return $5,000 or more in 10 years on a $3,000 investment. There are nearly 30 million acres of national forest lands in need of such treatment. A 15,000 Youth Corps could accomplish about 2,000 manyears of $7 million worth of work annually. This would return about $11.7 million annually in 10 years.

"Similar benefits can be indicated in wildlife habitat improvement to increase use of many national forest areas by sportsmen; watershed restoration to stabilize soil, improve streamflows, and enhance water quality; insect and disease control to prevent annual losses in timber of about $94 million annually; and forest road and trail maintenance and construction to increase public use and access to resources."

This kind of information-and much more which is readily available shows that an investment to put men to work on conservation projects is a sound one. But I believe this is only one justification for such a program.

Today America is faced by twin crises: we are losing natural resources which cannot be replaced and we are losing millions of man-years of labor which disappear each day that men lie idle. The crisis of conservation and of poverty should not and cannot be ignored. We have work to do and men to do the work. I propose we face our responsibilities boldly and embark upon a creative new program.

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, did I understand you to say that the bill will be made a part of the record?

Senator CLARK. It already has been.

Senator NELSON. In essence this bill proposes that the Congress appropriate about $1 billion a year which is flexible, for the purpose of alleviating unemployment and for the purpose of performing needed conservation work at the Federal, State, and municipal levels.

This bill aims at employing unskilled workers. I think that this is the one area, that is the field of conservation, in which unskilled labor is in greatest demand and in which the cities, the counties, the towns, villages, the State, and the Federal Government can use an unlimited supply.

I think that we have neglected the whole field of conservation of resources for the men are available to perform the work and the administrative machinery is there. This bill is very carefully drafted to avoid the creation of a separate independent bureaucracy. In other words, the fund 75, 90 percent matching, would be administered by the local agencies except for Federal projects and they would be administered by the Federal agencies.

The chairman may be interested to know that I wrote 2,000 letters to mayors of cities, executive administrators of counties, and conservation departments of every State in the Nation, briefly outlining what my proposal was and inquiring as to the possibility of using personnel in their city parks or in their conservation departments in various efforts of conservation.

To date we have received 467 replies representing every State in the Nation. Representatives of conservation or park departments, in 49 out of 50 States said they could make good use of employees for this purpose.

Of the 467 replies, 455 were favorable to the proposal and 12 were negative responses. I have a list here of all the States that replied and a tabulation of the counties and cities that replied and I would ask the chairman whether this tabulation could be included in the record and whether a summary of the letters that I have received could, at the appropriate time, be furnished to the subcommittee and be included in the record.

Senator CLARK. That will be done and the material referred to by the witness will be printed in the record at this point.

(The documents referred to will be found in the appendix, p. 77.) Senator NELSON. Senator Clark, from your own State of Pennsylvania, we received 21 replies from the cities and municipalities and have an estimate of 4,911 man-years of work to be done in the various State agencies in your State.

Senator CLARK. Does that include local or just State agencies? Senator NELSON. This includes both local and State. We received 21 letters from Pennsylvania and 9 of them were from various State agencies.

Senator CLARK. Were any of them negative?

Senator NELSON. There were no negative responses from Pennsylvania. All 21 were favorable. We received a letter from the recreation commissioner of the city of Philadelphia in which he says "I have given considerable thought to your request for suggestions for utilization of unemployed workers in the Philadelphia Department of