by the polluters, with the only price they have to pay being a little institutional advertising on the Today Show.

So I would like to ask you what you think you can do and what you think we can do to make sure the terrific mobilization of concern of 48 hours ago doesn't just dribble away into an exercise in futility to the point where it actually turns off young leaders like yourselves. How do we build on it? How do we involve more people in significant action programs that have an impact locally, that actually dent polluters, reward the ones who change their way of doing business and punish and get out of business those that aren't willing to shape up?

In other words, how do we use the momentum we build up to get the major polluters in our society to shape up or shipout?

Mr. REID. If my colleagues will yield, I would just like to thank Kevin McGrath and Roy Callahan for your testimony. I have an appointment up town, unfortunately, but I do want to thank you for your leadership in coming here this morning.

Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCGRATH. Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHEUER. What do you think we ought to do on this side of the table and what do you think is the role for citizen leaders like yourself?

Mr. McGRATH. I would like to go to a specific example like SST. There was an advertisement I believe by F.O.E., Friends of Earth. Mr. SCHEUER. I have worked very closely with them.

Mr. McGRATH. F.O.E. had an advertisement in the New York Times with some clippings in the top, in which one was sent to the President. I received a response, a nice printed letter; but it was an effort on my part.

And from everyone we have spoken to-we have had several speakers at Fordham-they say the only way you can work through the system is through the agency and by writing to your Congressman and here I am speaking to Congressmen.

I am saying I have written. Now what are you going to do to prevent the SST? As I have already stated, there's a possibility that the effects from it alone will destroy the world.

Now I am passing the buck back to you again.

Mr. SCHEUER. Well, let me suggest the kind of things I think you could do.

It is true that you can effect through your actions, national legislation and national decisionmaking.

If you make things hot enough for your local Congressman, the four Congressmen in the Bronx, and you hold their feet to the fire, you can get them to vote your way on environmental issues, because they know you are going to reward them if they work with you and they know you are going to help destroy them if they work against you, and, believe me, this is something that Members of Congress understand, "If you help us we are going to help you. If you ignore us we are going to help destroy you."

So, a high degree of political activism is an indispensable concomitant of what you are trying to do; No. 1, you have to help your friends in politics if you want to be successful.

No. 2, on the kind of issue we are talking about, General Motors, I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that Fordham University through its endowment is an investor in some of the major environmental polluters in the country.

If you haven't started this, you can write your board of trustees, give them a list of the dozen major environmental polluters, Con Edison, General Motors, major industrial polluters, ask them if they own stock in these corporations and ask them what they are doing as shartholders to bring some kind of public responsibility in the private corporate decisionmaking.

The students at Harvard are doing that. They are working with President Pusey, and I think you can write to the students at Harvard and find out how they are doing it.

Mr. McGRATH. I assure you the Fordham students will be doing it. Mr. SCHEUER. Next, maybe the Fordham students and the New York University members in the Bronx could get together to provide a snoopers' council to identify pollutants in the Bronx: the supermarket that leaves its trash on the street, the industrial plant or apartment that is pouring smog into the area.

This can be done visually. Once you have identified them, you can write them, you can go down and see the environmental services administrator at city hall. You can picket them, go and see the borough president you can make things uncomfortable if they don't shape up.

I think you can have a major influence right here in the Bronx by doing the leg work and identifying the polluters and then using the students at your campus to meet with the authorities, with the managers.

If a responsible group of students asks to meet with a president of a store or an owner of an apartment house and they will meet with you-if they don't the first time, they will meet with you the secondif you do that I hope you will do that.

Let me get back to the very first thing you discussed, the JudeoChristian ethic.

We have had several churchmen, spiritual leaders, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish appear before us and they all went on to explain that the word "dominion" in the Bible, "Man to have dominion of the planet and all living things," as it has been treated over the centuries, implies trusteeship, the concept of trusteeship, concept of responsibility, of love, and that it doesn't give a license for ruthless exploitation and wanton despoilation, but implicit in the Judeo-Christian ethic and the word “dominion," which does appear in the Bible are the qualities of heart and soul and concern for one's fellowman and concern for living things that give us the kind of environmental ethic flowing out of the Bible that you perhaps would draw up yourself.

And I will send you the testimony that these men have given us and I think you will very much enjoy reading it and you will find that the Judeo-Christian ethic, as interpreted by scholarly church officials gives us no license whatsoever for the kind of wanton destruction of the environment that is taking place, and in fact our deepest and most dearly held religious figures give every religious foundation to the kind of thoughtful and sensitive environmental ethic you are propos ing yourself.

Mr. MCGRATH. Can I ask you one question? You asked me what I plan to do about General Motors and whether Fordham owns stock and things like that.

Now I have mentioned the SST. I have mentioned-let's see-I mentioned oil wells in the Everglades after some organizations have just gotten through fighting a tremendous legal battle to remove, to try to prevent the jet port coming in.

There's the oil wells, the Alaskan pipeline stopped right now.
Mr. SCHEUER. This is just in today's paper.

I think you have to give these groups a chance to mobilize and get cracking.

We are not going to win them all, but we are not going to lose them all. Whether we win more than we lose I think is up to people like you. Just yesterday I flew back to Washington to have a chance to vote against the space program.

I am in favor of learning more about the stars and the universe. I have three university degrees; I consider myself something of an egghead.

I believe in the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge but I also believe that we have earth problems and environmental problems are topmost among these, and I believe with limited resources we have to weigh what are the costs and what are the benefits of expenditures that divert us from the problems here at home.

And I have made a statement to the House yesterday that, while we are so underspending to preserve a livable environment and our public services education, health, housing, job training and employment, while we are spending so little to make them effective and meaningful, we can't afford the billions of dollars we are spending on space right

now.

I concluded by saying the stars will have to wait.

Two years ago I was one of six Members of Congress voting against the military authorization bill on the grounds it was wasteful, immorally, of the resources of America.

Today, with a far more popular program, the space program that doesn't have any moral guilt of the war, I wasn't one of six who voted against it yesterday; I was one of 102 members who voted against it, and you will find that you can chart the rapid increase in dissent right in the House of Representatives and the Senate by those Members who were concerned about the ecological fallout of programs like the space program, the SST, like the road program, like the housing program, much of which destroys communities and creates scale that demeans the individual, scale that's so overwhelming and grotesque, it demeans the individual; there are more and more Congressmen voting against

this.

If you will support them, you will give them heart.

I think the future largely rests with you and people like you. There is an increasing number of Members of Congress who are responsive to your point of view.

Nobody would have guessed there would be 102 Members of Congress voting against that space program.

Don't think the Members of Congress aren't listening to you. The ones that want to survive are.

There will be an 18-year-old vote. This current generation of college students is so far better informed and more concerned than the generation that I was a part of that its glorious.

So I think you have a terrific challenge, a marvelous opportunity and you bring great talents, great intellect and great spirits, a sense of deep concern to bear on the role that you have set for yourselves.

I want to thank you both very much for your really marvelous testimony.

We wish you well in the months and year ahead and to assure you, if there is any way in which I can help you in your work, I want you to call on me.

Mr. McGRATH. Thank you very much for coming to Fordham. Mr. SCHEUER. I appreciate the invitation.

(Recess.)

Mr. SCHEUER. The meeting of the select subcommittee on education will again come to order.

We are very happy to welcome this morning Dr. James Hester, the president of New York University, then Basil Paterson, a very distinguished member of the New York State Senate and finally a very wonderful group of young people with whom I had the pleasure of meeting a thousand strong in the Bronx yesterday.

So we have an hour or two of very stimulating testimony ahead of us.

I suppose the university and the green halls of academe used to be considered a quiet oasis, sort of quiet waters upstream away from the clash of public events and the tensions of our time.

But today I guess of all groups in our society the university, and particularly the university presidents, are in the thick of the struggle of the discourse, the conflicts, the strident calls for change.

And so I call upon you as an expert in the role of a university leader, the university campus as a change agent in our society, to tell us what you think we can do, what you think we as Congressmen can do to preserve and enhance the ecology that we seem to be sorely abusing, and to point the way for a more beautiful, a healthier and a safer and a more attractive America.

I am very honored to have you, President Hester, and we look forward to having your views.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES HESTER, PRESIDENT OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

(Dr. Hester's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. HESTER, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

My name is James M. Hester, and I am President of New York University. I am pleased to be here today to give my support to the bill (H.R. 14753) introduced by you, Congressman Scheuer, and over twenty of your colleagues to "authorize the United States Commissioner of Education to establish educational programs to encourage understanding of policies and support of activities designed to enhance environmental quality and maintain ecological balance." In supporting the bill I would like, first, to speak as a concerned citizen, and, then, as President of a University with a longstanding commitment to environmental studies and research.

We have had Earth Day, with its appropriate slogans, demonstrations and clean-up projects. And now the work begins.

The marking of Earth Day culminated constructive efforts to bring the problem of a threatened environment to public attention and contributed to the creation of a popular desire to do something. This desire must now be translated into continuity of interest and a program of sustained and effective action.

Two threshold threats to the maintenance of continuity and development of a program concern me. First, as several scholars and commentators-Professor Edward Banfield of Harvard University and Alan J. Otten of The Wall Street Journal, to mention but two-have recently noted, we seem to be increasingly afflicted by a short-term enthusiasm for public and social issues. We seem to be following fashions in public issues-fashions more transitory than style changes in women's clothes. And, all too frequently, the current fashion in public issues has less effect on the underlying problem than changes in style have on female appearance. When we speak of environment and ecology, we can't afford fashion and fad: we are talking about life and death.

Second, we must be wary, I think, of succumbing to what Benjamin DeMott, the perceptive social critic, calls "the dream of Instant Transformation"-the dream that avoids confrontation with the hard fact that the reform of most institutions and long-time practices requires what Professor DeMott describes as ". . . excruciating effort, wearing struggle against dailiness, habit, the bondage of ready-to-wear ideas.” Awakening from "the dream of Instant Transformation" often leads to despair and defeatism, rather than to the renewed energy required to find answers to such questions as:

How do we cut into the system to reform it without destroying it?
What are the costs and consequences of a changed policy?

Who will bear the costs and consequences?

What shifts in responsibilities will be required under a changed policy?
Who will assume such responsibilities?

What effect will a new policy have on other national goals and priorities? HR 14753, which would assist in the development and evaluation of curricula, the dissemination of curricula material, the training of teachers and the preparation of public information materials in the fields of environmental studies and ecology, sets out a modest program which could be of major assistance in maintaining a continuity of interest, developing action and, ultimately, in finding the answers to specific questions.

If HR 14753 became law and were adequately funded, it could be of significant assistance to New York University in expanding and extending the utility of its efforts in environmental studies and ecology. Our most recent survey shows that we are offering approximately 50 undergraduate, graduate and professional courses directly concerned with the environment and ecology. The first volume of the Urban Research Inventory: New York City and its supplement published by the Office of University Relations in Mayor Lindsay's office lists twelve major environmental research projects presently underway at New York University. The Institute of Environmental Medicine at the University's School of Medicine and the Environmental Science and Engineering group at the School of Engineering and Science are pioneering enterprises. Our commitment and our experience give us an unusual opportunity to expand our efforts, to educate more students, to conduct more research and to make a greater contribution in providing information and curricula to other institutions prepared to increase their work in environmental studies. HR 14753 could significantly help New York University increase the influence of its work in environmental sciences. In sum, passage of HR 14753 would be of great helf to colleges and universities committed to environmental studies. I hope that the Congress will give the bill sympathetic consideration.

Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you very much for your testimony here. It is most interesting testimony, President Hester.

I am very, very glad that you have pinpointed the matter that politicians like Senator Paterson and I have been concerned with; namely, that when you get through with a binge of rhetoric and emotion that we all enjoyed so much, this whole bath of euphoria and catharsis that we submerged ourselves in 48 hours ago, where is the followup, where is the specific action program that is going to lead to better legislation, more enforcement, better decisionmaking both in the public sector and the private sector, and I think you have helped show us the way.