Recreation. We have 345 recreation facilities which include playground, parks, swimming pools, recreation centers, athletic fields, game courts, ice rinks, John F. Kennedy Stadium, and so forth.

"The kind of projects that could be accomplish without extensive preparation would be the bringing to a current state of completion many improvements in the facilities and maintenance work that is impossible to do with the present limited staff of this department and the boards and commissions that are connected with it. The specific projects could be removal of dead trees, shrubbery trimming, painting of playground equipment, equipment repaired, painted, and cleaned, reconditioning of athletic fields, painting of parks, painting of game courts, and other assistance to present park and recreation staff.

"The number of man-years of work which could be utilized in the immediate future I would estimate to be 500 man-years. I hope these suggestions and comments are helpful to you in drafting your legislation to provide funds for this purpose."

I have a letter also from the city of Pittsburgh, from Mr. Templeton, director of the department of parks and recreation, and he states: “If funds were available we could use 400 or 500 workers on a program in the city of Pittsburgh," and he lists an outline of the kind of work. I have a letter from Mayor Wagner of the city of New York and he states that:

We in New York are deeply appreciative of your efforts in our behalf. With respect to the specific points in your letter we can, of course, use unemployed workers on conservation and recreation projects here in New York City. We are prepared if funds are made available to utilize such personnel not only in our park system but to help refurbish our streets, sidewalks, tenements, and other projects involving capital expenditures which our present budget does not allow us to execute.

In this connection we will be prepared to provide training where necessary and to structure the experience so that those employed in this manner can become eligible for employment in private industry.

We can very easily use 10,000 man-years of employment on recreation and conservation projects within New York City. We are at this time engaged in compiling a list of specific projects and programs which will benefit the city.

This is typical, Mr. Chairman, of the 485 letters that we have received. I think that one of the significant merits of this proposal is that it is flexible. You can expand it or contract it without having any effect on creating a Federal administrative agency of any kind. It can be tailored to meet the special problems that occur in areas of serious unemployment around the country. If there is a decrease in unemployment the program can decrease. If there is an increase in unemployment the program can expand.

With the administrative machinery, know-how, and experience at the local level they are prepared to handle and utilize the efforts of the people who are available to do work in a constructive program which is not a make-work program.

I do not need tell the chairman, who has been concerned about this kind of problem for a long time, that there is an endless amount of work to be done in the field of conservation in your city parks, timber stand improvement in your forests, and streambank stabilization.

I think that this kind of proposal presents an opportunity to Congress to start on a modest basis to test out its feasibility. I think it is pretty clear from the response that we have received that the local agencies are ready, available, and prepared to utilize whatever amount

of money Congress will be willing to furnish to them in these kinds of projects.

Senator CLARK. Senator, one of the members of our staff has suggested that we get your comments on the authority in the bill to authorize landscaping, planting, maintenance of ground or median strips along Federal and State highways as well as landscaping and maintaining grounds of public buildings and institutions. What can you say about that?

Senator NELSON. I considered that. I am satisfied that the bill is broad enough to cover that sort of thing. If it isn't, it should be. Senator CLARK. Perhaps you could refer me to that section of the bill.

Senator NELSON. I will have Mr. Alperovits check the language there. I certainly agree with the chairman that there is a lot of work to be done, particularly on the whole National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

Senator CLARK. We might even tear down a few billboards.

Senator NELSON. That is another bill. On page 4 we think this covers it, starting on line 10.

For this purpose, the chairman is authorized to enter into agreements providing for payment out of funds appropriated for the purpose of this act of such part of the costs as he determines in accordance with section 5, of State, local, and Federal programs submitted hereunder if he determines, in accordance with such regulations as he may prescribe that

(1) the program will contribute to the conservation, development, or management of natural resources.

I think that is broad enough to cover any work on any Federal highway program but I will take another look at it.

Senator CLARK. I think lines 17 to 21 probably cover it.

Senator NELSON. I think it adequately covers it; in any event that is my intent and I think it makes good sense since there is a substantial amount of work to be done in that area.

I think I have presented all that is necessary. I request that my statement be put in the record, and that a summary of our responses from the cities and State agencies be included.

That concludes my presentation in behalf of this bill except to say, Mr. Chairman, that I recognize and I appreciate, first, that the chairman is willing to take time to permit us to make a presentation this late in the session.

I recognize that there can be no action one way or another on this proposal at this session but I think it is one that ought to have the consideration of Congress at some stage. That is why I was anxious to have a hearing so that some presentation could be made at this time, and if at some later date next year we can make the appropriate arrangement I would like to complete the hearings.

We have a number of people from around the country who would like to come and make an appearance in behalf of this proposal who could not be here today. So, if sometime next year the chairman could set aside part of a day we would appreciate completing the hearings at that time.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator. It occurs to me that you have come up with an extremely valuable idea in terms of this bill. It merits very careful consideration not only by the Congress but by the administration. One of the real problems is how do

we consolidate and coordinate the various programs intended to minimize, hopefully eliminate in the long run, unemployment and at the same time not getting into mere make-work projects and in turn the WPA of the great depression.

I do not have my own thinking clarified but this program does to some extent overlap the poverty program. The Conservation Corps and the accelerated public works program. I would be hopeful that by January the administration, with your help and perhaps the help of some committees of the Department of Labor and other Federal agencies would be able to come up with a general program to incorporate all of these suggestions for alleviating unemployment among the workers while at the sam etime assuring that the employment that is given results in the creation of wealth and the carrying on of useful work which, as indicated in your bill, would be to the benefit of State and local governments.

I would be happy to have you, if you would like to stay, come up here and sit with the subcommittee during the balance of the hearings this morning.

Senator NELSON. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. On the point you made, Mr. Chairman, on the overlapping and duplication, I think one of the greater merits of this proposal is that it will be administered by the appropriate agency. Now any Federal funds administered in the forestry service or agricultural department, any agency of the Federal Government, would be administered, and operated by the present personnel.

Of course any funds that were used at the local level would be administered by them. I do not think you would have a serious problem. It is one that we must be concerned about but I don't think we have a serious problem on so-called WPA or make-work projects. because every agency at local level, and every State agency has needs and important work to be done that they just don't have funds to do. So the work is there. It is not necessary to create any work. We have had a very fine experience in Wisconsin, incidentally, with the youth conservation camps. I appeared before your committee sometime back on that but we have three now in Wisconsin and we are creating another one.

At the time these youth conservation camps were created, the conservation department itself was somewhat skeptical of the contribution that could be made by these young men who have to be in the age grouping of 16 to 19. Mr. Schumacher, who is on the conservation commission can say a word or two about that. The director of the conservation department, Mr. Voigt, told me 3 weeks ago when I discussed it with him that they are just astonished at the great contribution in the field of conservation that these young folks are doing.

They are under the supervision of the conservation department. They would be happy to have several more camps because they have as of right now 170,000 man-months of work to be done that are already programed and are unable to do.

So I think we have no problem in terms of constructive work to be done.

Senator CLARK. Let me ask you one more question, Senator. You say that the bill would provide for administering these projects through existing Federal, State, and local agencies but I notice from

glancing hastily at it that the chairman of the National Human and Resource Conservation Council has, does he not, under the bill the obligation and duty of determining which projects to authorize, in which localities or States? Would this not be a pretty substantial administrative task requiring a rather substantial staff?

Senator NELSON. We simply provide in the bill that you have one full-time man who would be in charge of this. He could fit anyplace, including under the new antipoverty program. The Council that would be created-National Human and Resources Conservation Council-would be composed of representatives from Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare to be appointed by the head of the Department and a representative of the Office of Economic Opportunity to be appointed by the Director of

such Office.

I am not sure that we know exactly what personnel he would need but it certainly would be a modest number under this director. He would have to make a determination of allocation and no State under this bill could receive more than 121/2 percent.

But in any event once the State justified its program of what they intended to do with money and a determination of some allocation to that State or city was made, the administrative problem would be almost ended. I am perfectly satisfied. I am not worried about the question of States or cities administering a good program. They can do it as well as the Federal Government, as you know as a former mayor of a big city and I think that is the good part of this proposal, that you allow local administrators to do their kind of job to see that they get performance for the allocation made.

On the Federal side, once a certain amount is allocated by the Federal Government, then again you are simply relying on the forestry service, the Agriculture Department, Interior, and what have you, to see to it that they use the personnel allocated to them in a constructive fashion.

I think that is the best you can do. You can create all kinds of machinery to attempt to go out and do a secondary job of supervision without much success.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate you being with us.

Senator NELSON. I thank you. I don't know in what order to continue since we interrupted the mayor. I would be happy to stand aside for him and then I would like to have Mr. Schumacher, who came from Wisconsin, make his presentation.

Senator CLARK. I think we can dispose of your witness right now if he has a statement.

STATEMENT OF JACK J. SCHUMACHER, CONSERVATION COMMISSIONER, STATE OF WISCONSIN, FOR L. P. VOIGT, DIRECTOR, WISCONSIN CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT

Mr. SCHUMACHER. My name is Jack J. Schumacher. I am on the Wisconsin conservation commission. I would like the record to show that when Senator Gaylord Nelson introduced the bill 2958 on June 26 of this year he ably summarized the need for this human and resource conservation with many facts as well as calculated future needs of our country and its people.

There is no reason to repeat this information with which I essentially agree but there may be some merit in relating this to Wisconsin problems and what we are doing and hope to do about them. In the spring of 1961 Senator Nelson used his office as Governor of Wiscon

sin

Senator CLARK. Mr. Schumacher, may I interrupt you to say that I have a copy of your prepared statement here. I would prefer, if it is agreeable to you, just to have it printed in full in the record and then if you would merely summarize the highlights of any part you wish to stress.

Mr. SCHUMACHER. Mr. Chairman, in view of that fact we find that Senator Gaylord Nelson's progressive pioneering effort over the years has worked out very well. The youth camps are a tremendous success. They have waiting lists, the boys are most happy and are very well trained.

The camps eliminate this hoodlum element and the boys take great pride in their work which consists of such conservation projects as planting trees and developing fish habitats along the streams. All in all the program is tremendously successful.

There are other phases that could be considered also. The general overall picture of conservation is that we have been acquiring land for future use and it needs some development. The bill, itself, I think has very great merit and should be seriously considered.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Schumacher. We appreciate your coming here and presenting your testimony. (The prepared statement of Mr. Voigt follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DIRECTOR L. P. VOIGT, WISCONSIN CONSERVATION

DEPARTMENT

When Senator Gaylord A. Nelson introduced S. 2958 on June 26 of this year, he ably summarized the need for this Human and Resource Conservation Act with many facts as well as calculated future needs of our country and its people. These is no reason to repeat this information with which I essentially agree, but there may be some merit in relating this to Wisconsin problems and what we are doing and hope to do about them.

In the spring of 1961 Senator Nelson used his office as Governor of Wisconsin to recommend and promote an Outdoor Recreation Act which was adopted promptly with bipartisan support. Based on an additional 1 cent per pack cigarette tax, this program was calculated to supply $50 million over a 10-year period. In spite of somewhat reduced sales of cigarettes in recent months, the results have been significant for resource conservation and vital to the future of our valuable tourist and outdoor recreation industry.

Wisconsin's Outdoor Act started in September of 1961-less than 3 years ago and in that short time well over 1,000 parcels of land have been secured for conservation purposes either by easement or in fee simple. This included over 86,000 acres of land at a cost of approximately $8 million. But most important is the fact that over 325 miles of frontage on lakes and streams has been preserved for all future time for outdoor recreation use by the public. This includes extensive wetlands for wildlife habitat, fish spawning areas, access to public waters, park and forest areas for picnicking and camping-as well as the value of these lands properly managed for the growth of timber, grasses, and watershed stabilization.

It should be pointed out that all of this was accomplished through Senator Nelson's Outdoor Recreation Act in addition to the Wisconsin Conservation Department's regular land acquisition budget program which would increase these totals by about 42,000 acres and $12 million. Further, the 1961 act included many other significant provisions with funds for development and maintenance of recreation areas, establishment of three Youth Conservation Camps, building of recreational lakes in connection with flood control structures, preservation of open space in urban areas, construction of tourist in