We have no special information as to the need for such legislation, and, inasmuch as we feel that the program proposed is a matter of policy primarily for the determination of the Congress, we have no comments to make with regard to the merits of any of these measures. There is however one aspect of these measures about which we would like to offer comment.

Subsection 203(a) (5) of each of these measures would require the Secretary to consider whether the program submitted by the States requesting grants provides for such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the program. Additionally, he is required to consider whether the program would assure that accounting and other fiscal records pertaining to the administration of the program will be made available for inspection upon the request of his authorized representatives.

The General Accounting Office has consistently recommended that measures establishing Federal grant programs include, in addition to the provisions detailed in the preceding paragraph, a provision which would authorize the Comptroller General and his representatives to have access to grant recipient's records for purposes of audit and examination. We repeat that recommendation in the present consideration.

It is suggested that language along the following lines will carry out our recommedation.

Revise subsection 203 (a) (5) so as to read:

“(5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the program, including the maintenance of such records as will fully disclose the amount and disposition of the proceeds of the grant, the total cost of the project or program, the amount of that portion of the cost of the project or program supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit." Add the following paragraph to subsection 203 (a):

"(6) provides that the Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, document, papers, and records of the State agency that are pertinent to the grant received under this Act." The word "Virginia" in line 11, page 2, should be "Virgin".

Aside from the foregoing, we have no comments to make concerning these

measures.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. We have an impressive list of witnesses today to appear on this issue.

The first witness will be Mr. Edward C. Crafts, Chief of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the Department of the Interior.

We have your prepared statement, Mr. Crafts. Do you desire to read it or place it in the record and just comment in general?

Mr. CRAFTS. I think I might read parts of it, Mr. Rutherford, if it is all right, but I would like to have the whole statement inserted in the record as if read.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Without objection it is so ordered.

Mr. CRAFTS. I have with me today Mr. John F. Shanklin, Assistant Director of the new Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Mr. RUTHERFORD. You may proceeed.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. CRAFTS, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN F. SHANKLIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. CRAFTS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased today to testify for the Department of the Interior in support of H.R. 11165 and companion bills.

This bill was submitted as an administration measure on April 4, and has since been introduced by Mr. Aspinall, and by six other Members of the House, all but one of whom are members of this subcommittee.

Hearings were held on the companion Senate measure on May 10 and 11. That bill was sponsored by Senator Anderson and 20 other Senators. Practically all of the testimony before the Senate committee was favorable and letters were received from about 30 States. The genesis of the bill goes back to the 1958 statute that created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Several members of this committee were members of the subcommittee which considered the 1958 bill.

Especially since World War II, there has been a rush to the outdoors. This is explained mainly by urbanization, mobility, more leisure time, and, of course, a great increase in population. These are the factors in American life that led to the creation of the ORRR Commission and which in turn led to the bill before you and to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Department of the Interior. All four of the House members of ORRRC are members of this subcommittee.

As they, and others of you know, the Commission's report has been favorably received and includes some 50-odd recommendations falling into 5 general categories.

Two of these five categories either would be given impetus or would be initiated by this bill; namely, further activation of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and a Federal grant-in-aid program to the States for recreation planning.

Passage of H.R. 11165 would authorize a Federal appropriation of $50 million to make recreation plans by the States. It is hoped that the plans that will be produced for that $50 million may be the means by which public expenditures can be reduced by many more millions and the quality and quantity of recreation facilities improved. The plans resulting should also enable public agencies to better meet public needs and requirements and this is an added and invaluable asset. Most thoughtful persons want to move ahead with a recreation program for America just as rapidly as we can do so on a sound basis. Haste can be waste; but unnecessary delay can be wasteful. too. We have learned that lesson from the skyrocketing costs of shoreline recreation areas.

Senator Anderson recently said:

If in the next few months, we can get the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funded, staffed, and functioning, and the States moving ahead with their planning and program development, we will have made good use of our time.

The administration has moved with unusual rapidity to implement the recommendations of the Rockefeller Commission. These were

received by the Congress on January 31. On March 1, a month later, President Kennedy in his message to the Congress on conservation announced that a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation would be created within the Department of the Interior. He also announced at the same time that Cabinet-level Outdoor Recreation Advisory Council would be created.

Both these things have been done. On April 2, Secretary Udall established a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and on April 27, President Kennedy by Executive order created a Recreation Advisory Council. The Council has its first meeting this week.

The executive branch has, I believe, done about all it can do unilaterally. What is needed now is action by the Congress. First, with respect to substantive legislation and later by implementation of such new authorities or directives as the Congress may enact.

The bill before you does several things:

1. It would establish a policy of the United States with respect to outdoor recreation. Such a statement of policy has not previously been made by the Congress and is needed to provide necessary guidance in this expanding field of activity. The policy expressed in the bill is based on the recommendations of ORRRC. It is sound policy. It recognizes the benefits of outdoor recreation and calls for a concerted effort by all levels of government on a nationwide basis to make these benefits available to all Americans. Recognition of the important role of individual initiative and private enterprise should be recognized in the bill as it was by ORRRC.

2. The bill would give the Department of the Interior needed legislative authority to perform certain functions which are necessary to carry out the policy, and which are closely tailored to the findings and recommendations of ORRRC. These functions, to be exercised. by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, would include:

Prepare and maintain a continuing inventory and evaluation of the outdoor recreation needs and resources of the Nation. Prepare a classification system for outdoor recreation resources. Provide technical assistance to the States and their political subdivisions.

Encourage interstate and regional cooperation.

Sponsor and engage in research.

Formulate and keep current a nationwide plan.

Assemble and publish appropriate information concerning outdoor recreation.

Establish education and interpretation programs.

Request information, data, reports, advice, and assistance from other Federal agencies.

With 20 Federal agencies and numerous States carrying out a broad variety of programs affecting outdoor recreation, it is essential that there be a focal point for Federal activities, and for Federal relations with the States. This focal point would be the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

Presently, the functions of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation stem for the most part from the 1936 Parks, Parkway, and Recreation Areas Act. Section 101 of the bill would provide additional basic organic authority under which the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation would carry on its duties. The provisions enumerated above are

both broader and more specific than the generalized language of the 1936 act.

3. The bill would authorize matching grants to States to assist and encourage comprehensive planning for effective outdoor recreation programs by the States, in cooperation with their political subdivisions. A formula for distribution of the funds among States, the procedures to be followed in making the grants, and the percentage of Federal participation over a 5-year period are set forth in the bill. A total of $50 million would be authorized for these planning grants. I have known most of the members of this subcommittee and the full committee quite a few years in my former work with the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. Since coming to the new Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, I have given a great deal of thought to the philosophy and policy which the Bureau ought to follow in the next few years. You should know of some of these in connection with your consideration of this bill because the bill will be such a vital instrument in the developmental stages of the Bureau.

It is my feeling that, with this bill, the States, the private sector, and Federal Government may move forward effectively and together in meeting national needs for recreation. Without it, the new Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the recommendations of the Rockefeller Commission may fizzle on the launching pad. What is more important, certain vital needs of the American people won't be met. First of all, there needs to be public understanding that outdoor recreation is not only a renewing experience, but also serious business. It is serious national business both because of its economic impact and its beneficial effect on the physical, cultural, social and moral wellbeing of the American people. It is a partial solution to the social problems created by urbanization and leisure time. It is a solution, at least in part, to the fact that man is not wholly suited physiologically to meet the technological demands placed upon him. Most of the hospitalizations in the country today are emotionally based. In this vein I like to think of the new organization as the "Bureau of Outdoor Re-Creation."

Secondly, we need to recognize that the recreation business offers great hope for economic improvement of certain depressed rural portions of this country.

Further, the manufacture and marketing of recreation equipment and provision of recreation facilities have a major impact on our economy. Think for a moment of what is involved in the manufacture, use, and operation of sporting arms, fishing tackle, camping equipment, pleasure boats, winter sports equipment, pleasure trailers, recreation roads, resort hotels, motels, lodges and dude ranches, and the recreation press.

Third, I want to say, and I feel quite strongly on this, there will be no bureaucratic empire building with the authority that would be provided by this bill. The intention is to stimulate initiative of other Federal bureaus, the States, and the private sector. The primary emphasis will be assistance to the States, to local instrumentalities of government, and to private enterprise. We wish to facilitate and be a catalytic agent. Let us remember that the Federal Government tends to move in where State and local governments leave a vacuum. Our purpose is to try to fill this vacuum by cooperative action with the States rather than primarily through Federal intervention.

Fourth, the emphasis of this Bureau needs to be on the needs of people, whereas too often in the past the emphasis in outdoor recreation has been on the utilization of a resource.

Fifth, I should say I have little patience with plans that do not lead to action. I have no desire that this Bureau engage only in academic or stratospheric planning. Planning and programing to me are primarily significant in direct relation to the results stemming from

them.

I suspect you may have questions about the details of the bill and these I shall try to answer. I do want to say before closing that I know how crowded the committee's calendar is and I appreciate very much the scheduling of the bill today and the willingness of the committee to consider it at this late date in the session.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, sir. I do have some questions. First, you state a certain amount of opposition. What opposition has been expressed to your knowledge and what is the chief objection to legislation of this type?

Mr. CRAFTS. The only opposition that I know of is this: I attended the Senate hearings, or most of them. I have read the record. Many people have talked to me about this bill. The only opposition that I can put my finger on at the moment is opposition from the State of Virginia which filed a letter with the Senate committee opposed to the idea of Federal grant-in-aid program for recreational planning. This was counterbalanced by recommendations in support of the bill from about 29 other States.

There have been a number of questions raised about the bill, suggested changes in the bill, suggested amendments to the bill, conditions, provisions, and so on, but I know of no outright opposition to the bill.

I will say frankly to you that I think that is one reason there are not more people here today, because there has been such unanimous support for this bill that it is not a controversial measure at the present time.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Would you say Virginia's position was more or less political philosophy rather than the conservation aspect?

Mr. CRAFTS. That is what I heard in comments before the Senate committee.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. I understand the bill proposes some $50 million and all of these funds are to be allotted for planning purposes. There will be no acquisition in this at all. Is that correct?

Mr. CRAFTS. This is correct, planning purposes including the training of recreation personnel by the States.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. This would include setting up a program in those States which do not have a park or recreational program, and for others to expand their present status. Is this correct?

Mr. CRAFTS. I think basically that is right. The money is for statewide planning in recreation. Some States have done nothing in that. Some States have done quite a bit.

I have talked recently to representatives of some of the States that have done the most, and I think no State is satisfied that it has done what it would like to do in the way of long-range recreational planning and the identification of areas which they think should be developed for recreational purposes by the States, by local governments, or by private sectors.