attention. The time has come to declare that Gross National Product is not alone an adequate measure of "progress."

Further, with a Presidential Council, the President will be able to tap the resources of all the federal departments and initiate the necessary research and environmental considerations throughout the executive branch that will formulate and carry out a national policy on the environment.

Finally, only with an independent Council that holds the respect of the political and scientific community of this nation will the President achive the overview and foresight to deal adequately with this critically important issue. In retrospect, such a council would have anticipated the need to protect the nation against the environmental impact of nuclear power generating plants, an issue that has been understood and debated for several years without results because no one body in the government had been given the responsibility to focus attention and take action.

A Presidential Council could have foreseen the dangers of oil exploitation on the Continental Shelf and made recommendations whose adoption would have prevented the Santa Barbara oil blowout.

Such a Council would have recognized long ago that federal regulations and research with regard to dangers from toxic, persistent pesticides were inadequate and urgently in need of updating, something scientists have been saying for years.

Secondly, proposals before the committee would give the President the responsibility of making regular reports to the Congress on the condition of our environment, on its effects on the social, economic, and other requirements of the nation, and with the President's recommendations on the implementation of a national policy on the environment.

The annual report would be an important measuring stick, and would also provide a focus for our future needs.

Next, there are proposals to create an environmental overview mechanism in Congress as well. My bill, S. 1752, proposes the method of creating a Joint Congressional Committee on Environmental Quality, which would provide Congress with a new tool to conduct a broad-ranging and continuing program of assessment and recommendation on environmental concerns.

The committee would, for instance, make a comprehensive study of the President's annual report on the environment and report its finding to the appropriate committees of Congress. The committee would not have authority to receive or report legislative measures.

I believe such a committee would be an important aid to Congress in translating into effective action the increasing nationwide concern on the part of millions of citizens over our degraded environment.

Finally, S. 1752 and S. 1085 give the Secretary of the Interior new responsibilities and authorities to carry on urgently needed scientific research to increase our understanding on the delicate balance of ecological systems in nature, and of man's impact on this balance.

The Secretary would be authorized as well to establish a clearinghouse for information on ecological problems and studies, to disseminate information about progress in the field and to establish a program in which representative natural environments on federal lands can be set aside for scientific study and for preservation.

In spite of the great and increasing body of knowledge and the sophisticated technology which man has developed, we are still woefully short of an understanding of our relationship to this planet.

In conclusion, let me say that I am heartened by the increasing interest and commitment on the part of Congress in protecting and restoring the quality of the environment. With passage of legislation to establish a Presidential Council on Environmental Quality, and a Joint Congressional Committee on Environmental Quality, and to get underway a large scale scientific investigation of our relation to our environment, we will be striking out in the direction that is necessary to truly establish a national policy on the environment.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any comments from other committee members?

Senator ALLOTT. May I make just a comment?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Allott.

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON ALLOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator ALLOTT. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the concern about the environmental situation, and I think I am as aware of it as any of my colleagues, and I am not wedded, I want to say this frankly, to any particular method of getting at the problem.

I note the Senator from Wisconsin's remarks about the best way to do it. I express my concern and have expressed my concern in this committee many times during the past few years about the creation of agencies composed of people who had many, many responsibilities and I think whether you have a council or whether you have such an agency, the real problem is to get people to devote time to it. During the past years this point of view has not received very much consideration, but I do want to say that I approach this thing with an entirely open mind. We need the best minds we can get on it and we need people who can devote some time to the subject. I hope that we can make progress in this committee, and after we have heard the statements of the Under Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Interior and others, why we hopefully can arrive at a conclusion.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Allott.

Congressman Daddario was unable to attend today's hearing but he has sent a statement over to be placed in the record. Congressman Daddario was instrumental in convening the joint House-Senate colloquium to discuss a nationl policy for the environment last July. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

I am pleased to submit my views on the important subject of environmental policy and its continuing development as evidenced by these hearings. Valuable contributions were made by Senator Jackson and other leaders of both Houses to the Joint-House Senate Colloquium on a National Policy for the Environment last July. Those proceedings clearly show that the Congress is determined to reconcile the conflicts of use for environmental values-the crux of the policy problem.

Environmental quality is beginning to receive the proper emphasis and weight in decision making. Means of measurement are still inadequate, but industries, municipalities, regional agencies, and individual citizens are recognizing responsibilities for going beyond obvious economics in balancing costs and benefits. It is useful to consider this issue in three dimensions: policy, organization, and action programs.

The development of a national policy as a guide for actions at all levels is paramount. The precise words are not important but the elements of policy which are identified in the report based on the Colloquium seem to me to be worth repeating.

It is the policy of the United Sates that:

Environmental quality and productivity shall be considered in a worldwide context, extending in time from the present to the long-term future.

Purposeful, intelligent management to recognize and accommodate the conflicting uses of the environment shall be a national responsibility.

Information required for systematic management shall be provided in a complete and timely manner.

Education shall develop a basis of individual citizen understanding and appreciation of environmental relationships and participation in decisionmaking on these issues.

Science and technology shall provide management with increased options and capabilities for enhanced productivity and constructive use of the

environment.

As leaders of all branches of government and the private sector refine and express these key ideas, a national ethic for maintaining environmental quality along with productivity will evolve. This ethic-a sense of the right thing to do— is essential because the short term, localized, dollar gain will always be more tempting than the long term, subtle values.

Organization is important in both the Legislative and Executive branches because environmental matters cross the traditional lines of authority of departments, agencies, and committees. The evidence and testimony of these hearings regarding the coordination, planning, and priorities functions in the Executive branch will be most helpful. I will confine my remarks to the point that, regardless of what is accomplished downtown, Capitol Hill must improve its organizational approach.

One important capability for the Congress is to gather information for decision which is timely, and interpreted for the legislative process. We must assure ourselves that the hard questions are asked of those who promote technological change and progress as well as those who warn of unwanted consequences. Adequate assessment of man-produced changes in the environment will aid all Congressional Committees when these issues come under their jurisdictions.

I have previously proposed a Technology Assessment Board, reporting to the Congress, as a means for assisting and improving the legislative decisions of all Committees. Environmental effects would be a principal concern of such a Technology Assessment Board. Since 1967, our Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development has studied the TAB concept, to receive advice on its scope and functions, and to perfect a plan for its implementation in legislation.

There is strong support for placing this capability under the Congress. Some of the important reasons are:

1. Questions of concern to the Congress must be assessed to meet the legislative schedule, i.e., before decisions are made.

2. The Congress must be in a position to continuously challenge the Executive branch as to the consequences of its programs.

3. It is important that assessment proceed in an open forum stimluating wide public discussion. The Congress can provide such an environment. 4. The widest possible base of information and opinion must be accessible to assessment projects and the Congress could command this knowledge. 5. The Congress would be more attentive to assessment results if they were presented via a Congressionally chartered organization.

6. The Congress must be convinced that the experts have asked one another the right questions.

7. The political decisions affecting the future of technology rest with the Congress.

8. The Congress is sensitive and rapidly responsive to the people and is immediately accountable to the electorate.

9. The feeling that applied science is under control (through Congressionally monitored assessments) will restore public confidence necessary to a risk-taking progressive society.

10. The needs of the Congress for assessment results would assure that the necessary funds for these activities would be provided. It seems to me that with the information and analytical resources of a Technology Assessment Board for the Congress, environmental management by the Executive branch would be continually challenged to a high level of performance. Programs and reports generated by coordinating and planning agencies would have a logical point of reception and digestion in the Legislative branch. Without extensive reorganization (which will never come easily or rapidly in the Congress) each Committee could use the services of the TAB and draw upon a common bank of high quality information. A strong emphasis on the advantage of and necessity for early warning is implied in my concept of the TAB.

Finally, action programs will begin to conform to policy and organizational changes. The complexities of ecological relationships mean that few, if any, manipulations of the environment can be taken independently. Federal programs intersect private and local government plans. A systems approach is indicated but the day-to-day activities of a technology-based economy cannot be disrupted or abruptly redirected. Again, in my view, the solution is an increased knowledge of ecology and increased technological options for managing the environment.

The International Biological Program must be strongly supported. The data from its constituent projects are directly applicable to our most pressing en

vironmental problems-pollution, food production and population. The trained manpower resulting from the IBP studies are needed by industry and government. A resolution of Congressional support has been introduced this session in both Houses. The IBP is actually just the start of a sustained and intensive scientific study to improve our basis for political and administrative judgments in environmental affairs. It will enable action programs to be carreid out in harmony with ecological principles.

Thus, I believe these hearings mark another milestone in the development of a Federal position to assure environmental quality. The participation of Representatives and Senators from specialized committees in these overview proceedings demonstrates that the Congress is continuing its leadership role in policy, organization, and action programs.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee has received statements from Congressman Reuss of Wisconsin and Congressman Bennett of Florida, for inclusion in the hearing record. Without objection they will be included at this point.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

The Council on Environmental Quality which S. 1075 would set up could do much to alleviate the serious lack of policy review, oversight, and effective coordination which now impedes our conservation effort.

Our right hand literally does not know what our left hand is doing. Experts there are aplenty. But there is no one to bring together the thinking of the forest experts, the wildlife experts, the soil experts, the water and wetland experts, the air pollution experts, the population experts.

The executive branch alone includes a seemingly infinite number of departments, bureaus, offices, councils, and administrations which lay claim to some aspect of our conservation program.

Federal agencies work at cross purposes. While the Department of Agriculture pays farmers to drain their wetlands, the Department of Interior pays farmers to reflood their wetlands.

Too often reports are written calling our attention to an unobserved crisis, and then gather dust on the shelves because no one follows through-as with the alarming report on the Nation's forests 7 years ago.

Too often a myriad of officials work on the same conservation problem-with no one doing the coordinating.

Too often our regions wither and die because we pay insufficient attention to their ecology and their economy-as with the gutted coal mines of Appalachia, the cutover forests of the northern Great Lakes area, the overcultivated Dust Bowl of the Great Plains.

Congress, not to be outdone, has distributed its share of the environmental effort among its Committees on Interior, Agriculture, Science and Astronautics, Commerce, Government Operations, Defense, and Public Works.

The problem of fragmentation is not confined to conservation and environmental studies. There used to be similar diffusion and lack of planning in the fields of economics and atomic energy.

Then, a generation ago, Congress set up the three-man Council of Economic Advisers and the five-man Atomic Energy Commission. Like their congressional counterparts-the Joint Committees on Economies and Atomic Energy-the groups serve the essential function of pulling together total effort in their fields. The problems we face in organizing our environmental quality effort today are very similar to those we confronted 20 years ago in determining the responsibilities for the development and control of the economy and of atomic energy. If we are going to make progress in improving the quality of our environment, we must unify our total effort. We must set up a permanent mechanism to study and plan and guide us in our approach to our resources of soil, water, air, wildlife. forests, and open space.

The Council on Environmental Quality could serve as such a mechanism. However, I would make two suggestions.

The first is that it might be wise to make the Council somewhat more independent of the President. In S. 1075, the Council members serve at the pleasure of the President. It is my feeling, however, that there might be times in which

the members of the Council should be insulated from Presidential pressure so they can speak up if they feel they must-if, for example, they believe the President is not following through on the fight against water pollution. I would suggest, therefore, that the Council members be given a fixed term. I have introduced H.R. 3114, a bill similar to S. 1075, which establishes a Council of Conservation Advisers whose members are appointed for staggered 6-year terms.

My second suggestion is that there should be some effort to pull together the presently fragmented conservation effort in the Congress. As I indicated earlier, there are some six or seven committees in both the Senate and the House that deal with different aspects of conservation and the environment.

The coordinating mechanism could be a Joint Senate-House Conservation Committee, modeled after the Joint Economic Committee. It would be composed of leading conservationists in the Congress, eight from each body. It would review the annual environmental quality report submitted to Congress under S. 1075, and recommend to the appropriate legislative committees of the House and Senate necessary action to achieve environmental goals. As you might suspect, my bill also contains a provision for a Joint Conservation Committee.

I thank the Committee for this opportunity to present my views, which parallel in many respects those of the Committee's distinguished Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present a statement to your Committee, considering legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a survey of our natural environment which will lead to a more beautiful and enjoyable place in which to live.

I have a bill, H.R. 952, pending in the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, which is similar to that legislation before your Committee. I endorse in principle the thrust of the legislation and I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Committee who are supporting this type of legislation.

Today our Nation faces a great problem which occupies much headline and radio and television time-the population explosion. The challenge confronting us is an expanding population in a static area. People are taking up all the space and what is left of our open areas, particularly the naturally attractive areas. What we need today is planning for this dilemma of too many people in not enough space. I like what Don Marquis wrote: "If the world were not so full of people, and most of them did not have to work so hard, there would be more time for them to get out and lie on the grass, and there would be more grass for them to lie on."

What we are considering today is where the grass is, and can we save some for our future generations to lie on. In order to do this we need planning. The legislation before the Committee today would give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to make an extensive survey to see what is left of our natural environment and if there is some way of keeping plants and animals around for our children to enjoy.

I have lived in Florida for over 50 years and in my state we have a prime example of what can happen if wide areas of outdoors are not protected by public spirited people or the local, State, or Federal Governments. In Florida, ninth largest State in the Nation and the fastest growing large state in the country percentage-wise, all lands not protected by conservation-minded people are destined to become fifty-foot lots. In the last decade Florida has grown in population by 55 percent, and, of course, our land area has remained the same. There are not many wide open, interesting outdoor spots left in my State, and that is the important reason why I have been a prime sponsor of the Wilderness Preservation Act and the Land and Water Conservation Act, the landmark conservation bills passed in the 88th Congress, and earlier legislation like the Key Deer Refuge. In the 90th Congress the Scenic Rivers and National Trails System legislation were enacted into law. Two important projects in our home state of Florida were included in these measures.

The Suwannee River was put in a study category in the Scenic Rivers Bill and the San Mateo-St. Augustine Road, the first road in America, was put in a study category in the National Trails Systems Bill. I was very pleased to support and sponsor the Suwannee River and the San Mateo-St. Augustine provisions in the House of Representatives. In recent years the Congress has done an outstanding job in the field of conservation. Since 1963, 278 conservation measures with