USER FEES The lumber industry is encouraged by the proposed authority for establishing various user fees for federally supplied recreation. This is directly in line with the recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Establishment of realistic user fees will put Federal recreation on an economic basis and will be a major stimulant to the formation and extension of State and private recreational enterprises which must now compete with free federally administered areas. Improved recreation facilities will be the obvious result. PURPOSE OF BILL We are confused and surprised that the provisions of this bill do not attempt to improve or increase recreational opportunities available to the public. The bill simply authorizes a Federal land acquisition program in areas where the Federal Government already owns most of the land. The lumber industry can see no justification for the land acquisition features of the bill since such acquisitions tend to compound imbalances already existing between Federal land areas and population centers. RECREATION NOT AT ISSUE Recreational use of forests is not at issue our industry, recognizing the importance and compatibility of recreation in Federal forests, has supported their development for this use. Forest land owners have individually expended large sums to provide recreational facilities for public use on their own lands. Merely taking land from private ownership and placing it in Federal ownership fails to increase recreational opportunities-nor does it bring about conservation. LACK OF RECREATIONAL LANDS? The theme of this bill is that the Federal Government needs more lands in order to provide recreation and conservation. There is no shortage of lands for these purposes, nor is there a shortage of such lands already in Federal ownership. Correlation of recreational lands with population masses is a problem, and that problem will be compounded if the concept of present bills is accepted. The Forest Service and the National Park Service control an area more than 7 times the size of Pennsylvania-an area about equivalent in size to the 14 States from Maine to South Carolina. Eighty-five percent of these holdings, however, are in States containing less than 16 percent of total U.S. population. According to Park Service Director Conrad L. Wirth, 95 percent of the use of the national parks is confined to 5 percent of the land-those areas adjacent to roads. This use pattern is typical of all recreation areas-Federal, State, or private. The opportunity for increased use on these areas presently in national forests and national parks for recreation is practically limitless. When less than 5 percent of the federally owned lands are used for recreation now, why acquire more in areas far removed from potential users? Priority should be given to the development of recreation facilities on lands now owned by the Federal Government and, perhaps, sale of present holdings to finance acquisition of recreational lands closer to population centers. ORRRC AND FEDERAL ACQUISITION We are fortunate to have the findings of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission-on which four members of this committee served-to serve as a guide. The ORRRC report clearly recognizes that the greatest needs are for nearby, accessible recreation and that the State and local governments are the key factors in meeting this need. While vigorous action is asked of the Federal Government in cooperative leadership, the Commission does not recommend any Federal crash program for expansion of Federal ownership or control. The lands to be acquired under this bill do not meet the criteria established by the ORRRC-accessible lands with 1 day's travel time from population centers. This bill authorizes acquisition within areas already largely owned by the Federal Government. One significant conclusion of the Commission is that there are alternatives to Federal assumption of costs and responsibility for outdoor recreation that should be considered. INSTABILITY Intermingled with national forest land are millions of acres of private forest lands on which tremendous long-term investments in forestry have been made. Trees planted today must be nurtured and protected for many years before there is a return on the investment. Continued encouragement of such sound land use practices requires stability in Government policies and practices on land acquisition. Widespread Federal acquisition of lands under the guise of conservation and recreation as authorized by these bills would cause permanent instability and seriously undermine private forestry-a business that requires the greatest degree of faith in government-not the constant threat that the property will be taken away, wiping out investments in plants and facilities. Industry, community, and job stability are threatened by this bill. ALTERNATIVES Rather than suggest specific language amendments to this bill, I would like to make several general statements and urge they be considered in redrafting the measure. Full development of existing Federal lands would meet the recreation demands for the areas they serve. Additions to present federally administered areas would only permit more Federal neglect of full development. The ORRRC cites the needs for more recreation areas within a day's travel of major population centers. These are primarily a State and local government matter, requiring only limited Federal assistance or participation. Sale or lease of Federal lands to private or State recreational developers could result in more facilities to meet the recreation demand. Full use should be made of outdoor recreation enterprises. This is the procedure employed in major cities including Washington, D.C.-to effect desired changes in land use. We recommend no major land acquisition program until there is a review of landownership in each State by an agency-perhaps patterned after the ORRRC-representing Federal, State, and private interests to recommend a stable economic landownership pattern. Congress should establish standards and policies for Federal recreation land acquisition based on use, lack of alternative areas, and the proximity to centers of population. Federal acquisitions should be held to the minimum acreage necessary to the purposes for which the lands were acquired. The Government should, at the option of the private owner, provide for the replacement in kind, of the lands acquired, through the exchange of similar and suitable federally owned land of equivalent value. Approval by the States of Federal land acquisition should be required, and lands to be acquired should be subject to existing safeguards in law as in the Weeks Act. The committee may also wish to investigate alternative programs to encourage State, local, and private recreational developments. It is our recommendation that H.R. 11172 not be reported, but that consideration be given to our general suggestions. I also ask that this letter be made part of the hearing record on H.R. 11172. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely, MORTIMER B. DOYLE. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION SUBMITTED BY JOHN I. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR The American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates the opportunity to present our views on this proposed legislation. Our membership of over 1,600,000 farm families in 49 State farm bureaus and Puerto Rico has a vital interest in such legislation because it deals with taxation and the purchase of land. Our policy, as adopted by the voting delegates at our latest annual meeting held in Chicago last December, is as follows: "Economic growth and private control of the economy cannot be maintained if a continually increasing proportion of the national income is withdrawn from the economy through taxes. "As a longtime tax policy, we favor the following and urge action in these areas as rapidly as conditions permit : "(5) In order that State and local governments may provide services requested by their citizens, it is imperative that certain areas of taxation now preempted by the Federal Government be systematically restored to State and local governments. "(6) Federal excise taxation should be limited to taxes on nonessential and luxury goods. *** The sales tax field should be reserved to the States." Our policy further says: "We prefer that assistance be made available to the States, on a matching basis, for the purchase of any additional recreational areas. We oppose the purchase of additional land for this purpose without the approval of the legislatures of the States involved. "We further recommend that, insofar as possible, only such land as is not adaptable to agricultural production be used for recreation." This bill, H.R. 11172, purports to establish a fund for the purchase of land (1) within national parks, recreation areas, etc., (2) within national forests. and (3) for national refuges authorized. Although the bill says, "to provide for the timely and orderly acquisition of land resources for public outdoor recreation and other conservation uses," the uses or the areas are not spelled out and it becomes, therefore, a general land buying proposal without specific authorization. There seems to be no authorization for the purchase of land in the section of the bill establishing the fund, but it is clearly evident that this money will be used to finance the purchase of tracts which have already been authorized or will be authorized in the future. Section of the bill is a clear authorization for the Secretary of Agriculture to buy land. It says in part, "The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire lands-for recreational purposes or any other purpose" (within the national forest system). This would indicate that it is not all for recreation and it is confined to areas where additional land is not needed for recreation. We do not believe it to be in the best interest of recreation or the public to grant blanket land buying authority to any agency. This is the sole prerogative of the Congress and should remain so. Land buying authority should be granted only by specific authorization by the Congress. The authority and responsibility of the Congress concerning public lands is estabilshed by article IV, section 3, of the Constitution which says, "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States ***." We do not believe this authority should be delegated as provided in this bill. We feel that additional land is not needed for recreation within national parks and national forests. We would suggest that private lands within the categories set forth be exchanged for lands of like value outside of the enclosed areas. Any proposals for public recreation areas in other parts of the country should have the careful study of the Congress and the concurrence of the legislature of the State in which such purchases are to be made. National refuges may now be established without an act of Congress-and any money from this fund would be supplemental to duck stamp funds and the $105 million loan for this purpose. This bill is not a recreation bill-it is a land buying bill and proposes to create a fund for this purpose. The title says "and for other purposes." Nor does it apply to the entire United States but it limited to specific areas. To buy or establish recreation areas in other parts of the country-especially in the highly populated eastern areas-will take a specific authorization by Congress (except in national forests). It does not follow the recommendation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission report in acquisition and development of recreation areas. Recommendation 9-3 (p. 139) of that report says, "States should undertake a program of land acquisition and development as scheduled in the State outdoor recreation plan." The bill, H.R. 11172, makes no reference to State procurement but gives blanket authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to buy land. Our policy states and we would recommend "that we prefer that assistance be made available to the States, on a matching basis, for the purchase of any additional recreation areas." The Honorable Edward C. Crafts, Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, in an address in Portland, Oreg., on June 21, 1962, made a statement of the "declaration of policy" of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. It is a good state ment and should serve as a sound basis of principles for the Bureau. However, we can find a little resemblance between the Director's statement and the terms of this bill. Section 5(a) of the bill says, "The President is authorized to establish entrance, admission, and other recreation user fees *** at any land or water area within a project constructed under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act ***." This would mean that Federal fees could be charged on private property. This is of vital interest to farmers and should be stricken from the bill. In regard to the fees and taxes purported to be added to retire the fundwe have no specific position except as stated in our policy. However, if the land conservation fund for the purpose of buying land is not established, there will be no need for fees and taxes to support it. In view of the foregoing, we believe H.R. 11172 and kindred bills should be disapproved by the committee. While we fully realize the urgency and need of additional recreation areas-we feel this is not the proper method to obtain them; that the conservation fund should not be established; that blanket buying authority should not be given to any agency. We are sure that the proper approach is by assistance to the States as recommended by our policy and the ORRRC report. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPIN ALL, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ASPINALL: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States endorses the proposals in H.R. 11172 to establish reasonable fees in recreational areas under the jurisdiction of the various Federal agencies. We oppose, however, the establishment of a land conservation fund, also contemplated in the bill. Under existing law, it is possible only in some of the recreational areas to establish fair and equitable entrance, admission, and other recreation user fees as provided in section 5. All such areas or resources conveying special benefits to identifiable recipients above those accruing to the general public should institute reasonable charges and be self-supporting to the fullest extent possible. We believe such revenue should go into the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury, and be available for whatever use is considered most advantageous to the Nation as a whole, rather than being earmarked for such limited purposes as recreation. For the same reason, we believe that recepits from the disposal of nondefense real property and the unclaimed refundable tax on motorboat fuels should not be diverted for the sole purpose of purchasing recreational lands. The land conservation fund would be used for the acquisition of lands for recreational purposes located within the national park system and similar areas, within the national forest system, and for national refuges for fish and wildlife. As contemplated, money going into the fund would be derived from: (1) entrance, admission, and other recreation user fees; (2) proceeds from disposal of nondefense real property, and (3) unclaimed refundable taxes on motorboat fuels. Another proposed source of revenue-a tax on motorboats—is being abandoned and a substitute source has not yet been announced. As an acceleration measure, the bill provides authority to make advance appropriations to the fund in amounts up to $500 million over an 8-year period. Thereafter, it is intended that the fund repay the Treasury from the revenue sources mentioned. The bill also provides that the fund shall be available for land acquisition only in such amounts as are specified in appropriation acts. Creation of a half-billion-dollar fund would be construed as an implied congressional mandate for the Federal Government to spend that sum on the Federal purchase of land for recreational purposes. It would serve as an advance allocation of Federal revenues for recreational purposes before congressional approval of proposed acquisitions. This would result in individual land purchase proposals competing for funds only with each other, rather than undergoing priority tests with all Federal spending proposals. In this connection, it is significant that the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, after a 3-year review of recreation resources, did not recommend an extensive Federal land acquisition program such as that contemplated in H.R. 11172. Creation of the fund would not eliminate delays in any necessary acquisition programs. The bill provides that advances by the Treasury to the fund shall be by regular appropriation. And expenditures from the fund shall be only in such amounts as may be determined in appropriation acts. Thus, acquisition proposals would undergo the same screening process that regular budget requests do. It really makes no difference timewise whether the money is first appropriated to a fund rather than to an agency. We urge your earnest consideration of our views on H.R. 11172. THERON J. RICE, STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS This statement is submitted on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, a voluntary association of about 17,000 members, over 80 percent of which are small business enterprises. We are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on H.R. 11172 and identical bills which would establish a land conservation fund. This proposal would involve large sums of money and large areas of land; therefore, as manufacturers and taxpayers, our membership has a natural and extensive interest in the issues involved. In addition, our conservation and management of natural resources committee gives continuing attention to problems involving outdoor recreation, including that achievement of multiple use of privately owned land so as to attain both economic and recreational benefits. We believe that recreational use of Federal lands has become increasingly important, and that Federal land management agencies should make long-range plans for recreational use of their lands. However, we believe that a land conservation fund such as proposed would be both a costly proposition and also an improper method of dealing with the subject matter. Section 4(a) of H.R. 11172 would provide that "In order to accelerate the conservation of the Nation's outdoor recreation resources, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the 8-year period beginning with the fiscal year 1963 not to exceed $500 million." Section 4(c) would provide that, beginning with the fiscal year 1971, the fund would begin repaying the appropriated money to the Treasury out of moneys received by the fund from certain taxes and fees. The repayment would be without interest. We believe that a great issue of fiscal responsibility is raised by these provisions. As the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives pointed out very recently, the Federal Government has lived beyond its income for 26 of the last 32 years; the value of the dollar is only half that of 1939; the cost-ofliving index is at an alltime high; our gold holdings have dropped by $6.3 billion; and, in the face of the highest tax rates in history, due largely to nondefense spending, deficits persists. We might also point out that the national debt limit was recently raised to a record high of $308 billion; the Federal Government has spent more than $1 trillion in the past 30 years; and the debt of the Federal Government exceeds the combined debts of all 50 States and all nations of the world. Under such circumstances, we submit that a proposal to have the Federal Government devote $500 million or more for recreational purposes cannot be justified. The lack of justification is emphasized by the fact that this country already possesses a tremendous physical plant for recreation purposes and spend billions of dollars each year in its use. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has stated that “public areas designated for outdoor recreation include one-eighth of the total land of the country" and that "millions of other acres, private as well as public, are also used for recreation." Surely, in the light of these facts and in the light of the fiscal condition of the Federal Government, a vast program of land acquisition for recreational purposes should not be carried out at the Federal level. The relationship between certain sections of H.R. 11172 is obscure. Although section 3 (c) provides that "the fund shall be available only in such amounts as may be determined in appropriation acts, and shall then be available until expended," section 2(c) provides that "the President shall allocate for each fiscal year revenues transferred into the fund among the purposes specified in section 3(b)." The purposes specified in section 3(b) include all Federal reser |