the keynote address at the 1955 conference in Annapolis called by President Eisenhower to consider the physical fitness of young people and I served for 5 years on the President's Citizens Advisory Committee on the Fitness of American Youth which was established as a result of that conference. In the broad field of recreation as a whole, I served as the technical recreation consultant to the 1960 White House Conference on Children and Youth and was a member of the National Committee (and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Free Time Activities) of the 1961 White House Conference on Aging. I also serve on the Advisory Committee on the Arts of the National Cultural Center.

As executive director of the national service organization for recreation, it is part of my job to be in constant contact with the needs, problems, and challenges of outdoor recreation at the Federal, State, and local levels.

With this as a background, I would like to say that the association fully supports the purpose of H.R. 11165 to promote the coordination and development of effective Federal and State programs relating to outdoor recreation and to provide financial assistance to the States for outdoor recreation planning.

The association approves the general statement in the bill that: (a) The general welfare of the Nation requires that all American people of present and future generations should be assured the availability and accessibility of such quantity and quality of outdoor recreation resources as are necessary and desirable for the physical, spiritual, cultural, recreational, and scientific benefits which such outdoor recreation resources provide; and (b) that timely and coordinated action is required by all levels of government on a nationwide basis to conserve, develop, and utilize such resources for the benefit of the American people.

Such a statement of policy with reference to outdoor recreation has not previously been made by the Congress and it is sorely needed to provide the necessary guidance to all of us in this rapidly expanding and increasingly important aspect of American life.

The association notes with approval the bill's broad definition of "outdoor recreation resources" to include the land, waters, and associated resources in the United States, and interests thereon, improvements thereon, and access thereto, including areas of historic significance and such forests, rangelands, wetlands, fish and wildlife and other natural resources as may serve other beneficial purposes, which provide or may in the future provide, opportunities for the use and enjoyment of such resources.

In this connection, however, I would like to suggest the insertion of the word "recreational" before the word "use" in line 20 on page 2 of the bill. It seems to me that would make the meaning clearer. The association supports the bill because it believes it would supplement the administrative actions already taken by the President in establishing his Recreation Advisory Council (Executive Order 11017 of May 1, 1962) and by the Secretary of the Interior in establishing a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies concerned, to perform certain functions which are necessary to carry out the Nation's policy on outdoor recreation referred to above.

While the association approves, in general, all the provisions of section 101 of the bill, I would like to make the following suggestions and comments:

1. I hope the technical assistance which the Secretary is authorized (under subsec. (c) of sec. 101) to provide to the States and their political subdivisions will include the planning, acquisition, development, and use of outdoor recreation resources as well as technical assistance with respect to programs relating to outdoor recreation.

A program means a program of recreation activity, hunting, fishing, organized sports of some kind. We hope that can be cleared up by spelling out this development.

2. I hope the encouragement which the Secretary is authorized (in subsec. (d) of sec. 101) to give to interstate and regional cooperation in the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation resources will also be extended to the use of such outdoor recreation resources.

3. I note with particular approval that the nationwide out door recreation plan which the Secretary is authorized (in subsec. (f) of sec. 101) to formulate and keep current will take into consideration not only the plans of Federal agencies, but also of the States and their political subdivisions and will identify desirable actions to be taken at each level of Government and by private interests.

I think that it is of the utmost importance that the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation have the full cooperation of all public and private recreation agencies and organizations concerned with the various aspects of outdoor recreation. I am sure that all those agencies and organizations are ready and eager to cooperate fully with the Secretary of the Interior and with the Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation just as they did with the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission through its Advisory Council.

4. I would also like to suggest that the cooperation with educational institutions referred to in subsection (h) of section 101 with reference to the establishment of education and interpretation programs in order to assist and encourage public use of outdoor recreation resources should be extended and broadened to include cooperation with other public and nonprofit private agenices concerned with recreation. A great deal of knowledge and experience, particularly in the field of recreation, exists outside the formal educational institutions of the country and the contribution which the "informal education-recreation" type of institution and agency could make should not be overlooked.

With 20 Federal agencies concerned with outdoor recreation, with 50 States with a great variety of recreation agencies, with hundreds of local recreation agencies and with innumerable private organizations interested in recreation, it is clear that a focal point at the national level and for Federal activities, and for Federal relations with the States and their political subdivisions and with all private recreation agencies, is essential. Assignment of the responsibilities listed in the bill to the Secretary of the Interior-to be exercised through the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation-would provide an effective focal point for a nationwide effort.

The association also endorses the bill's authorization of an appropriation of not more than $50 million for grants to the States to assist them in the preparation of comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans, including the cost of training personnel for recreation,

planning, and administrative responsibilities. Such grants will enable the States to meet their responsibilities to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to the populations they serve and will encourage comprehensive planning by the States, in cooperation with their political subdivisions, for effective outdoor recreation resources programs.

We ran the first National Recreation School training recreation personnel for 10 years before any other college or university had any such training program. This was back in 1925 to 1935.

Since then we have worked with the various colleges and universities. There are now 65 or 70 colleges and universities providing various courses of recreation and training. You can get a B.A., M.A., and Ph. D. in recreation.

I have a doctor of laws degree in recreation, and it is a real profession.

There is a need for this type of personnel.

The formula proposed in the bill for the distribution of the funds among the States, the procedures to be followed in making the grants and the percentage of Federal participation over the 5-year period seems to me reasonable and effective.

We did a study for the State of Pennsylvania. Secretary Udall said it was the best program that he ever saw. We feel there are sufficient people available to carry on your program at a statewide and national level.

From our many years of experience working with State recreation agenices, we know their great number and variety. In recent years, there has been a strong trend among the States to reorganize their responsibilities for recreation along sound administrative lines. While leaving to the individual State the exact ways and means of bringing it about, the bill, in my opinion, properly requires each State to designate a specific agency to administer the planning program and provides that the required statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan take into account relevant Federal resources and programs and be coordinated with local, metropolitan, State, interstate, and regional comprehensive plans, including those prepared with the aid of planning grants under section 101 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended.

The State agency might be a recreation department, or a recreation agency. We believe there is a need to encourage States to carry out the organizations as their State function and make one specific agency responsible for recreation in their States.

As Secretary of the Interior Udall so well expressed it in his testimony before the Senate committee considering the companion bill to this House bill now before you

As our population continues to grow, and as our once rural Nation becomes increasingly urbanized, the demand for outdoor recreation will triple during the next 40 years. The enactment of this bill will be considered a landmark by present and future generations, because it will recognize outdoor recreation as an essential ingredient of life today, and provide the foundation for a nationwide effort to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the American people.

On behalf not only of the National Recreation Association and the hundreds of recreation agencies and thousands of recreation leaders it serves but also on behalf of the millions of Americans whom they in turn serve, I urge the approval of H.R. 11165.

The out-of-doors means more to Americans than to any other people in the world. It has been our closeness to the out-of-doors as ex

88502-62

plorers, frontiersmen, trappers, hunters, farmers, miners, cattlemen, and lumbermen that has made this Nation great.

As our lives become more and more urbanized and more and more synthetic, it becomes of ever growing importance that we maintain our contact with nature and with the out-of-doors during our nonworking free hours. This bill and the success of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation means more than strong and healthy American bodies and minds, it also means the strengthening of the American spirit, and the health of the American soul for generations to come.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Prendergast.

Of course, we are familiar with your first honorary president. The chairman of this subcommittee made it one of his points to visit Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace. I believe he was one President who typified the great outdoors.

I would like to ask a question regarding the funds which have been raised here. Do you feel $50 million is excessive, adequate, or

what?

Mr. PRENDERGAST. I hope it will be enough to do the job. It seems to me before you spend large sums of money you had better be sure you get the lands you want and it is part of an overall program to give you what the people of that State need.

It would be a mistake to cut down on the amount of planning money and then spend wasteful money on buying the wrong land in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I would be in favor of that fund for planning purposes.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Based on your experience you feel $50 million is not excessive?

Mr. PRENDERGAST. In my opinion it is not for the purpose of overall statewide planning.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. What was the cost of the planning you had in Pennsylvania?

Mr. PRENDERGAST. We are a nonprofit organization and therefore there is only the very bare essential costs of the actual out-of-pocket expenses rather than what is involved here.

Secondly, it was not the detailed plan involved here. It was a broad general survey in Pennsylvania and setting up an agency in Pennsylvania to carry their program forward.

We did it for a fee of $25,000. It is not a fee which did the proper job nor is it comparable to what you plan under this bill.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Basically you determined whether or not a State agency should be set up to. In Vancouver, British Columbia, where I do this? do this? That was the first step? Mr. PRENDERGAST. Yes. was a short time ago, they have a department of conservation and recreation. Throughout the States there is more emphasis on recreation now, use of natural resources rather than the idea of conservation being the prevention or the building up of natural resources. It is now the use of natural resources, and that is recreation.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Does counsel have questions?

Mr. WITMER. I have no questions.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Prendergast.

The next witness will be Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources.

STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Dr. SMITH. I want to indicate to the chairman that there are many conservation organizations which have supported this bill from its inception and supported the ORRRC report. Many of these representatives are out of the city, and I suspect they will be drifting back from Seattle, and I hope a number of them will make their appearance here tomorrow. I would not want the Chair to think that the witnesses are now disinterested.

I would like simply to file the brief statement I have and make three or four brief comments.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. We shall insert your statement, without objection. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C. Our membership includes some of the outstanding people in the field of conservation. Almost without exception, our board of directors have had a longtime interest in the area of outdoor recreation, so we feel especially honored, Mr. Chairman, to be able to express our views before this committee in behalf of a measure to which many of us have aspired for a very long time.

We need not explain to the committee the lengthy, arduous, and careful study that has gone into the consideration of our outdoor recreation resources. The committee knows better than we, the number of leaders both in and out of Congress who have labored so diligently over a long period of time to bring to fruition a means of implementing the long-range objectives of outdoor recreation for the benefit of the American people.

A new Bureau has been created in the Department of the Interior, which is an important and significant step in the direction of effecting a program for outdoor recreation for the entire country, participated in by all branches of the Government. The recognition by the President and the Secretary of the Interior of this new Bureau is indicated in the appointment of its new Chief. This is about the only appointment during the decade that I have been in Washington, wherein only enthusiastic support has been given to the selection of Dr. Edward Crafts. The Chief of the Bureau is a carefully and professionally trained conservationist, with almost 30 years of dedicated public service carried on with an ability and purpose that is rare in any area of human activity.

In introducing H.R. 11165 and related measures, the House equally represents their strong intent and purpose to carry forth the aims and objectives of this newly created Bureau, to effect the best possible program for outdoor recreation. We hasten to add that while no bill before the Congress will be agreed to in every specific or detail, we feel that any exceptions which we might take are so small in relation to the total substance, that we would happily endorse H.R. 11165 as introduced by the able chairman of the full committee, and the related bills by his distinguished colleagues.

It has been the concern of many that the excellent report by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission might go the way of so many other reports, worthy as they have been. Time has dulled the significance of many excellent natural resources reports of the past, and eventually renders many of them obsolete. One of the significant contributions of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission report has been not only the factual assimilation that has so long been necessary, but the classification of resource needs and suggested criteria for policy.

Title 1 of H.R. 11165 basically insures that the effort and study that is representated by this report will be kept alive and improved. This is one of the difficult problems in many areas dealing with our natural resources, that is,