needed to round out the recreation program. I think they complement each other.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, what the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, intends to do, is to continue to ask for appropriations to carry on its Operation Outdoors just the same as it does at the present time, and then use the funds that are proposed to be collected, which might go to the Forest Service, under this legislation, for acquisition only.

Is that right?

Mr. CLIFF. The purpose of this bill as spelled out says that it is for acquisition of lands, and I believe Secretary Udall made it clear that the operation funds, the development funds, would continue to be sought through regular budgetary processes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Department of Agriculture, which includes the Forest Service, does not have any intention of asking for any of these funds for administrative purposes?

Mr. CLIFF. If the bill is passed as worded, they would not be available for administrative purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted it understood.

Let me ask you this question: You talk about user fees, and we have been talking about having some kind of a stamp or ticket of some kind. What would be your reaction, Mr. Baker, to having these regulations establishing such fees come before the congressional committees having jurisdiction, and have them before the committee for 60 days or so before they become effective?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, in any event, as I believe Secretary Udall said yesterday, any proposed plan and format for establishing of a system for collecting the fees should be discussed with members of this committee and its counterpart committee in the Senate.

I shall probably reserve an answer, sir, to the question of whether it would be a 60-day formal layover procedure.

The CHAIRMAN. We can more than likely take care of that.

Mr. BAKER. But in any event, I am quite sure that the administrators in all of the departments involved would feel the necessity and the desirability of making certain that the members of this committee knew of and felt that they understood the reasons for all of the different aspects of any procedure or regulations involved in putting the user fee system into effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cliff, do you see any conflict between the right of a prospector, operating under the law of 1872 and its amendments, to go on the forest lands and the Bureau of Land Management lands as they have in the past, and the charge of some kind of a fee to go on Forest Service lands?

Mr. CLIFF. No, sir. I do not see any conflict. The user fee would be applied to those who were out there for recreation purposes only. The CHAIRMAN. How could you tell whether the person was out there for recreation purposes, or was out there to scratch around in the dirt?

Mr. CLIFF. I guess we would have to use some judgment in determining that, Mr. Chairman. And this brings up a problem that I am sure you are aware of.

The situation in the national forests is quite different than it is in national parks, because of the presence of large areas of privately owned land. And the national forests are crossed by many State and

county roads, so we could not check the users at the gate, the entrance. I think our criteria would have to be based on the use these people are making of the land. You would have to check them on the recreation areas or in the act of enjoying recreation, and not try to check everybody that drives on the roads which cross the national forests.

In the national parks, where the ownership is generally solid and they have controlled entry, they have a more simple job of checking on this. However, I think that we could devise a system of applying a user fee system that would be reasonable and feasible to apply.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, just one question.

How about hunters using the forests?

Mr. CLIFF. This is a question that I do not know we are prepared to answer yet, Mr. Berry. As Secretary Udall testified yesterday, the details of this user charge proposal have not been worked out. They have to be worked out with the agencies involved. And we just do not have the answer to that question as yet.

Mr. BERRY. Certainly they are a user, and by the same token are operating under a license issued by the State, rather than the Federal Government.

Mr. CLIFF. That is right. And they are using Federal land for recreation purposes. There is considerable logic to having the hunters pay, too. Generally, I think over the course of a recreation season, many of these hunters also use our recreation facilities for camping and picnicking.

Mr. BERRY. Would that include fishing?

Mr. CLIFF. Our hunters and fishermen do use these facilities quite often, and they would be charged, and if you just made the checks at the developed areas, you would get very many of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your appearance before the committee.

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Joseph W. Penfold, conservation director, Izaak Walton League of America.

Joe, have you been before this committee since you had your difficulty?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, Mr. Chairman; the Park Subcommittee, a couple of days ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are glad to have you back before the full committee, but we will promise you we will be careful, so that we do not upset anything. Very nice to have you back.

Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you, sir. Judging by the treatment I have had before this committee for many years, I do not have any worries. My health will take it.

Following the chairman's suggestion, I will brief my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless there is objection, the full statement of Mr. Penfold will be placed in the record at this point, and he will be permitted to testify to it.

There being no objection, it is so ordered.

This carries with it the resolution, also, that is at the end of the statement.

(Statement of Mr. Penfold follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman, the league at its recent national convention adopted without dissenting vote a resolution endorsing and supporting the principles and objectives of the President's broad new program to finance outdoor recreation programs. H.R. 11172 clearly is based on findings and recommendations of ORRRC. We commend the administration and the Congress for moving rapidly toward their implementation.

We concur in the chairman's appraisal that this legislation "proposes a fiscally responsible means of financing the acquisition of land and water areas essential for an adequate recreational land base."

Beyond this we believe that the imaginative, comprehensive approach which the bill proposes for acquisition of needed Federal park, recreation, forest and wildlife refuge lands may prove to be a major breakthrough in fulfilling the Federal responsibility in the outdoor recreation field.

It would set a goal of known dimensions for the administration, the Congress, and the public, and give priority to the program in its entirety-something it has never had before. Also, for the first time there would be established a mechanism whereby priorities of Federal acquisition can logically be determined on the basis of national public recreation needs rather than singly by the individual public land programs. Unquestionably, this will result in securing the maximum in public values from each dollar spent in the most timely fashion. We believe this mechanism will also contribute greatly to the coordination of Federal activities which ORRRC considers wholly essential and which is a basic function of the new Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

The availability of a continuing fund from which the program can be financed will provide stability and permit planning and scheduling of individual projects in precise sequence and with optimum utilization of personnel. Again, this means greater values to the public from the moneys spent.

The aforementioned gains in administrative and fiscal efficiency would be achieved from the start if the $500 million advance of funds is approved. Moreover, as has been brought out by everyone who has given any real thought to the problem, the sooner we move ahead on acquisition of key recreation lands, the less will be our total costs.

The bill proposes three different methods of raising continued revenue for the conservation fund:

1. Diverting the 2 cents tax on gasoline and special fuels used in motorboats and now spent on highway programs. This is a logical source from a clearly recreation-related activity, placing no additional burden financial or otherwise on the individual motorboat user;

2. Diverting to the fund proceeds from disposal of Federal real properties, except Defense properties. There is no direct relationship between outdoor recreation and such property disposal (generally speaking); hence, this is tantamount to direct appropriation from the General Treasury; and

3. Instituting an expanded system of entrance, admission, and other recreation user fees.

As an organization of ordinary citizens, rubbing shoulders regularly with millions of other ordinary citizens, the Izaak Walton League recognizes the controversial aspects of the last.

ORRRC recommended a broadened and more uniform system of user fees for public recreation areas. There is a considerable history of such at Federal, State, and local levels but in no way uniform as to type, manner of connection or charge. There seems to be general agreement that there are broad public values in outdoor recreation which accrue to the Nation as a whole, justifying expenditures from the General Treasury to which all citizens contribute. Also, that the recreation user should contribute something more to the financing of public recreation resources than other citizens who do not use them.

We doubt that anyone would seriously propose that fees be placed at such a high figure as to constitute a deterrent to broadest public use of the areas. In the other direction, ORRRC considered that user fees could seldom be

expected to offset administration, operation and maintenance costs, let alone capital investment.

But opinion in some quarters would seem to be opposed to any fees at all. In the expanse of the West, where most Federal public lands have been available to all without charge, an otherwise reasonable outdoorsman can get appoplectic at the thought of being charged a fee to look at a national forest tree, stream, snowbank, mountain, or sunset, to take off cross country in a pack string, or to tote his rifle into the back country for a deer or elk-and tradition is with him. But most Americans do not reside in the West and have the public lands as their own backyard, yet the taxes we pay wherever we live go to the support of their management. In the East and Midwest there are relatively few public lands available for recreation use. Free access even to the beautiful Potomac and the productive Chesapeake is strictly limited, and sportsmen of the area gladly pay a special fee to hunt on the nearest national forest lands. ORRRC points out graphically, the public lands mostly are where the people are not, and unless the public resource base is expanded by such means as this bill proposes, the situation will worsen, fast.

As

The league agrees with ORRRC that the simple outdoor pleasures on the public lands should be available to everyone without charge-but that there should be reasonable and uniform fees for the use of special facilities. Reducing this to simple terms-every citizen should be able to hike through Federal public lands without charge. On the other hand, if he makes use of developed picnic and camp sites, and other specialized facilities, he should expect to pay a reasonable charge. Similarly, he should be able to enjoy the public land scenery from his car window without charge, yet expect to pay a moderate fee for use of a highway built in a national park, forest, or refuge primarily for the purpose of providing access for him to the scenic attractions located there.

His fishing license should permit him to sit on the bank of a Federal reservoir to fish, but he shouldn't object to paying a minimal fee for using a boat launching ramp or bathhouse facilities.

If approached in this manner and with procedures occasioning minimum nuisance and inconvenience to the user, I believe the user fee system will be found acceptable to the great mass of the public. Just as hunters and fishermen now take pride in the fact that through their license fees paid they help support the management and protection of the resources they enjoy, so can the recreationists. Moreover, they will then be able to stand up and be counted, cash on the barrelhead, so to speak.

We believe this program must be instituted forthrightly but with deliberate care. The public should have full opportunity to understand the whys, the wherefores, and the benefits. We want no unnecessary delays in full implementation of the program. Nevertheless, we can afford the time necessary to work out all the complexities to assure a smooth functioning system which the public knows to be fair and equitable.

Before instituting the user fee system, the administration might even wish to bring it before this committee and its Senate counterpart for final check to be sure that the public has had full opportunity to study, understand, and express itself on the system.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure this committee recognizes fully that the expansion of Federal recreation lands and waters is only one part of the job ahead of us. Important as this is, the expansion of State and local recreation resources and opportunities looms as even more of a challenge to the Nation. ORRRC strongly recommended a program of Federal assistance to the States in the acquisition of recreational lands. We are disappointed that such a program is not contained in H.R. 11172, or in another bill.

We appreciate the thought that such a program logically follows the assistance program for State planning, included in H.R. 11165. At the same time it must be recognized that this is a whole program-a package consisting of a fully operative Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, comprehensive State planning, expansion of Federal resources and expansion of State resources. All parts of this package are interrelated and interdependent. We believe the public will recognize this and be able to see the problem in all its dimensions, if so presented, and will gear itself to provide the strength and support necessary to achieve the full goal.

The major elements involved in such a further program are now being considered and worked out by this committee in H.R. 11165 and H.R. 11172. We earnestly hope that at least initial steps toward implementing this part of the whole package can be taken along with H.R. 11165 and H.R. 11172.

The Izaak Walton League supports the whole program and each of its major parts. We appreciate the privilege of expressing our views. J. W. PENFOLD, Conservation Director.

RESOLUTION No. 2. ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

(Izaak Walton League of America, 40th Annual Convention and Conservation Conference, June 20-23, 1962, Portland, Oreg.)

Whereas the various agencies of the State and Federal Governments have for many years been struggling with wholly inadequate financial resources in their endeavors to manage, improve, and perpetuate the valuable fish, game, and outdoor recreation resources assets of the United States; and

Whereas the time has come when other sources of revenue must be found if fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation resources are to be maintained on a scale necessary to meet expanding recreational needs of the public; and

Whereas President Kennedy has recently announced a broad new recreational program based upon the findings of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and has requested the Congress to advance funds to initiate this program; and

Whereas additional funds to carry on a continuing program would be collected from various sources related to but now financially assisting fish, game, and recreation activities: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Izaak Walton League of America, in convention assembled this 23d day of June 1962, at Portland, Oreg., That it endorse and support in principle the President's broad program which would for the first time require all users of our public waters and lands, to assist in financing outdoor recreational resources and programs; and be it further

Resolved, That implementing legislation include suitable provision for full participation by and financial assistance to the State agencies under the well established principles of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts.

Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can make this very brief.

First of all, we want to commend the administration and the Congress and certainly this committee for moving ahead so rapidly toward the implementation of major recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Commission. We concur in the chairman's appraisal that this legislation, and quoting him

proposes a fiscally responsible means of financing the acquisition of land and water areas essential for an added recreational land base.

Beyond this, we believe that the imaginative, comprehensive approach which the bill proposes for acquisition of needed Federal park, recreation, forest, and wildlife refuge lands may prove to be a major breakthrough in fulfilling the Federal responsibility in the outdoor recreation field.

Summing it up, Mr. Chairman, we support this legislation.

One aspect of it, of which we have had some question in our minds, and I must say we have been very much encouraged by the testimony offered by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and also the attitude of this committee, is in connection with instituting the system of uniform user fees.

gram.

Our concern has been that we might move into this area too quickly and stub our toes on public opinion, and thereby slow down the proBut we believe, from the discussion before the committee in these past 2 days, that the Federal departments have the full intent of developing such a system carefully, cautiously, judiciously, taking into account all of the complexities that are bound to occur in varying parts of the country, and are of a mind to bring this proposed system