satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior of the State's ability to carry out this planning program and to meet its share of the cost. Mr. RUTHERFORD. In this connection, have you researched similar agreements between the Federal Government and State governments? I have in mind at the present time the Surplus Property Act whereby the legislature was required to set up this State agency, or a special State agency, or to authorize an existing agency to assume this responsibility. In other words, go beyond the act of the Governor. Mr. CRAFTS. No, sir. We have not studied that particular question. Mr. RUTHERFORD. You are assuming the chief executive of the particular State can bind the State on this program? Mr. CRAFTS. That is right. Mr. RUTHERFORD. What is the situation where you have States such as Wisconsin and others that we can both name who have taken steps toward accomplishing what other States are going to be paid for? Are we going to more or less give bonuses to those reluctant States and regrets to those States who have carried out their responsibilities? What are we going to do about that? I might say the Governor said this morning, I understand, that he received half a million dollars and he did not identify whether or not this was private or some outside organization. This is always the problem, some State being aggressive and carrying out its responsibilities and preventing the vacuum and then other States saying, "Well, no use doing this because the Federal Government is going to come along sooner or later with some program." They will be the ones who are being paid to be reluctant in carrying out their responsibilities. Mr. CRAFTS. There are about five States that have done the most in this area. I do not want to omit any State but California, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, I think, have taken the lead so far in recreation plans. Now you have that precise problem and if some of those populous States under the terms of this bill would be eligible for substantial portions of this $50 million. That is, if they meet the other requirements. You do not want to penalize them for going ahead, but on the other hand, you do not want to allocate them Federal moneys to do something they have already done. So, we have consulted with these States and have been told-I did not hear the Governor's testimony this morning and, as I said, I was out there a few weeks ago but he told me then that he felt what they were doing was not in the detail he would hope they would do, but he would expect we would require them to do under the terms of this bill. I said, "Will you be in under this bill if it is passed and money appropriated?" He said, "We certainly will." He said, "We are getting a start on this." I might give you a few examples. These are very rough estimates. New Jersey we roughly estimate spent between $125,000 and $150,000, and that is one of the leaders. New York spent something under $300,000; Pennsylvania, about $50,000. California has spent the most, something over $1 million. A great deal of that was contributed money, not actual State appropriations. Some of it was contributed by Federal agencies like Forest Service or some other Federal agency who cooperated with the State. I just came back from California and I conferred with the California people and I have the California plan here. I said, "You have got this plan. Why are you interested in this program?" Over on the Senate side, Senator Engle and Governor Brown made quite a pitch for that and they said this is just a general program. They said this is not a program that lets us get ready for the acquisition and development we would like to make at the State level. other words, they have got the general framework but they do not have the specific detail they feel they need. In They just have had defeated out there in California by the electorate a bond issue for, I forget how much, further activities of this sort. They are very much concerned about that. Now, to answer your question, I would say that, insofar as I know, although this is something we would surely have to examine, I do not know of any State that has made plans in the detail and with the completeness with respect to resources and needs we would require to meet the qualifications of this latter part of this bill. Mr. RUTHERFORD. In other words, some States have advanced more than others but none to the desired level? Mr. CRAFTS. Insofar as I know, no. Mr. RUTHERFORD. As you stated, the States you referred to feel the need more acutely than the rest? Mr. CRAFTS. This is why we have gone ahead. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Bulldozers have moved in awfully fast and we will soon be living in a land of cement and asphalt if we do not provide something of this particular nature. Does counsel have any concluding questions? Mr. WITMER. No, thank you. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, gentlemen. You have been very kind and very informative. Mr. CRAFTS. Mr. Chairman, may I just say one further word? Mr. CRAFTS. I know there are a number of amendments being considered by the Senate committee and I do not know what they are going to do with them, but I would be glad, if you wish me to do so, to advise counsel on them so you have them under consideration if you care to. Mr. RUTHERFORD. I would appreciate it. I know, by informed discussions with members of the staff over there, and with you, as you well know informally and off the record, the possibility of including section 3 of the seashore bill. I understand they are contemplating a similar move over there. Mr. CRAFTS. Thank you very much. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you. 88502-62- -4 The next witness was to have been from the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, but the witness is not present; is that correct? (No response.) The next witness then is Mr. J. W. Penfold of the Izaak Walton League of America. STATEMENT OF J. W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, I am J. W. Penfold, conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America. I have a prepared statement which is not very long and I think I can brief it and save the committee's time. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Without objection, your statement will appear in the record at this point, along with the resolution. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA PRESENTED Mr. Chairman; I am J. W. Penfold, conservation director of the Isaak Walton League of America. The league is a national organization of citizens devoted to the conservation, wise use, and sound management of the Nation's soil, woods, waters, wildlife, and related outdoor recreation opportunity. The league appreciates the privilege of presenting its views on this legislation which would implement major recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. H.R. 11165 would implement three major recommendations of the Commission: (1) Declare a national policy on outdoor recreation, (2) provide additional authorities to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the functions of a new Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, recommended by ORRRC and recently established by Secretary Udall, and (3) authorize matching grants to the States to assist in the planning of comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation resource programs. The league concurs in the intent of the statement of policy which recognizes the public need for a recreation resource adequate in both quality and quantity and affirms the need for coordinated action by all levels of government. The policy statement could be strengthened, however, by language recognizing the key role of private citizens, organizations, and enterprise is meeting outdoor recreation needs. ORRRC clearly brought out in its report that such needs will not be met, in fact, unless these creative energies and private initiative are effectively stimulated and utilized. Title I of the bill enumerates functions to be carried out by the Secretary of the Interior in planning, research, and coordination, and is based largely on recommendations of the Commission for a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The league is not certain that title I is entirely adequate in a couple of respects. First, it should make clear that the Secretary is to participate effectively in outdoor recreation planning on Federal land and water areas. The bill does provide that the Secretary, through the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, is to prepare a nationwide recreation plan. Unless this general directive, however, is clearly understood to mean that the Secretary is to be in a position where necessary to conduct independent surveys and planning activities on Federal land and water areas, it is possible that programs for development and use of such areas may lag unnecessarily or continue to be inadequately coordinated. A related and more basic authority recommended by ORRRC for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is the coordination of all Federal programs affecting outdoor recreation. Such coordination is to include, in addition to public land management, open space, matching grants, water development, fish and wildlife, and other programs directed in part at outdoor recreation, water pollution control, highway construction, agricultural land-use adjustment, and other programs which have substantial side effects on outdoor recreation. It is the league's conviction that outdoor recreation values must receive full consideration in the conduct of these and other Federal programs, if unnecessary destruction of recreation values is to be prevented, and opportunities for recreation enhancement realized. It is our understanding that the President's Executive order establishing a Recreation Advisory Council-substantially in accord with an ORRRC recommendation for a Cabinet-level advisory council to provide broad policy guidance for the conduct of the affairs of the Bureau-contains language vesting limited coordination authorities in the Secretary of the Interior. The league is of the opinion that consideration of H.R. 11165 provides an excellent opportunity to make certain that the responsibility for coordination of Federal programs is clearly assigned. Effective coordination will require the review, within the policy guidelines provided by the Council, of program plans and budget requests of affec...d Federal agencies prior to their submission to the Congress. We emphasize that no veto power can or should be placed in the Bureau; the Congress has delegated certain authorities to the affected agencies and these must be respected. With the guidance of the Recreation Advisory Council, a substantial degree of coordination can probably be effected through consultation. But the Bureau should also be in a position to regularly prepare written comments on proposals affecting outdoor recreation; and these should accompany such proposals as they are transmitted to the Congress. Title II authorizes grants to States for recreation planning, directly responsive to an ORRRC recommendaiton. The league supports it; and notes that the Commission also recommended Federal matching grants to States for recreation land acqusition and development, as well as loans. The Commission emphasized that the States bear a primary responsibility for meeting outdoor recreation needs. Grants to encourage sound State planning should prove an effective means of launching expanded and more effective State outdoor recreation programs. It is our hope that the Congress will give early consideration to implementing the Commission recommendations for additional Federal assistance to the States. The league wishes to express its appreciation to the administration for its prompt response to the ORRRC recommendations, to the sponsors of the legislation and to this committee. We believe H.R. 11165 is a sound basis for the development of a coordinated and continuing national effort to meet outdoor recreation needs of the American people. We respectfully urge its enactment. RESOLUTION CONCERNING AN OUTDOOR RECREATION AGENCY FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND EACH STATE Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, in its report of January 31, 1962, recommended the creation of a new Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Department of the Interior, and the establishment of a Recreation Advisory Council; and Whereas the Secretary of the Interior, on April 2, 1962, created a new Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the President of the United States, by Executive order on April 2, 1962, established a National Advisory Council; and Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission also urged that there be designated, in the governmental structure of each State, an entity to work with the new Federal Bureau, coordinate State recreation planning and activities, and be responsible for a comprehensive State outdoor recreation plan; and Whereas legislation has been introduced in the present Congress which would increase the effectiveness of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and provide grants-in-aid to States for recreation planning: 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 commends President John Kennedy and Secretary Stewart Udall for their prompt action in carrying out two of the important recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission; be it further Resolved, That it encourages and supports the enactment of legislation which would increase the effectiveness of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in research, coordination, and planning of outdoor recreation programs, and would provide funds for grants-in-aid to States for recreation planning; be it further Resolved, That it urges the appropriate executive and legislative branches of the government of each State to create State bureaus of outdoor recreation, or comparable organizations, to coordinate and plan all outdoor recreation activities in each State in coordination with the Federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity of presenting our views on this legislation, which would implement major recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. As you mentioned, I have attached to my statement a copy of a resolution adopted at our recent national convention which supports the program, as presented by the administration and the Department of the Interior. It endorses, specifically, the principles, objectives, and purposes of the legislation you are considering. There are three major recommendations, or four, which this bill would help implement: (1) To declare a national policy in outdoor recreation; (2) to provide additional authority to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the functions of a new Bureau of Outdoor Recreation; (3) to authorize matching grants to the States to assist in the planning of comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation resource programs. We agree, and we concur with the intent of the statement of policy which recognizes the public need for recreation resources adequate, both in quality and quantity, and affirm the need for coordinated action by all levels of government. We would like to see this policy, however, strengthened by specific reference to the importance of the private sector in the total outdoor recreation development program. I think it is implied in the bill, but I think this is a statement of congressional policy that would be worthwhile for specific mention to be made of. I do not have any particular suggestions as to language, but perhaps at the top of page 2, the second line, to add a phrase following the word "Government"; "and by the private sector." I think perhaps this is important, Mr. Chairman, because this program relates so directly to the States and the planning programs by the States we hope they will carry out. We would certainly hope that all of the States will take fully into consideration their part in this program and the part which private enterprise and private initiative and private organizations and so forth can play. I think a statement by Congress in this regard would make the record clear. Now, in connection with title I of the bill, we think perhaps the language is not entirely adequate in a couple of respects. First, we think it important that it make clear the Secretary, Mr. Chairman, is to participate effectively in outdoor recreation planning on Federal land and water areas. The bill does provide that the Secretary, through the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, is to prepare a nationwide recreation plan but unless this general directive is clearly understood |