Fortunately there are signs that young and old alike are growing to appreciate the delicacy of the balance between man and nature and the care which must be taken to maintain it. But students must be taught in school to appreciate the environment and to become aware of our problems in preserving it. Students are required to take English and history, and at least become aware of biology, physics, chemistry and perhaps zoology. But that awareness has not been put together into a real and systematic understanding of our life support system. Education has a responsibility to give its students the tools to read the signs of pollution as well as poetry, and our students today simply do not get the basic knowledge of their environment which they need to deal with ecological problems. Study of the environment should become part of the social science, not for reasons of esthetic or political considerations, but for reasons of survival. Our neglect in this area now is a serious gap on the body of knowledge which we are transferring to the younger generation. I believe it is a gap which can be closed in at least some small measure if the legislation before this committee is passed by the Congress.

STATEMENT OF SAM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am glad of this opportunity to reiterate my support of H.R. 14753, the Environmental Quality Education Act. In addition to being in agreement with the general purpose of the bill, to make our citizens more aware of their place in the natural environment, and their responsibility toward managing it and its products sensibly, I am especially interested in Section 3 (3) which deals with Federal grants for educational institutions, agencies and organizations-to provide preservice and inservice training programs on environmental quality and ecology for teachers, other educational personnel, public service personnel, and community, business and industrial leaders and employees, and government employees at State, Federal, and local levels.

The provisions of this section emphasize the need for more personnel trained in environmental understanding and know-how; people who will become active in the educational field, imparting their new knowledge to their students and to adults in the community; public service employees who will learn to deal with environmental problems in their jobs; industrial and business leaders who will apply accurate environmental data to the planning and operation of their factories and businesses; government employees who will be taught to establish, administer, and enforce effective and adequate regulations to safeguard a healthy environment, control and abate pollution, and restore damaged, depleted areas.

I feel that this provision could very well be extended to include the training of technicians who would specialize in operating and maintaining pollution control equipment.

Mr. Chairman, the persons you refer to in section 3 of your bill will have increasing need of properly trained manpower capable of operating, repairing, and maintaining control technology to abate air, water and solid waste pollution. We know that, despite our efforts, pollution is still increasing. This is due to our continuing industrial expansion, meeting the needs of increasing numbers of our citizens most of whom live in crowded urban areas. The problems of municipal waste disposal alone are staggering, and faulty, inadequate equipment is not the only culprit. For quite some time, there has been a chronic shortage of skilled manpower to operate disposal plants, incinerators, land fill projects and the like for municipalities and counties. Add to this the technicians needed for continuous monitoring, for routine inspection of plants to ensure compliance to city and county regulations and ordinances, and the technical personnel needed by industry to operate and maintain industrial control equipment. New technology is becoming available constantly to recycle and reuse many materials and substances used in manufacturing and processing operations, yet, once this equipment is off the drawing board, has been manufactured and installed, we are faced with a lack of technicians who will keep it going.

I believe that a very good source of potential trained workers capable of operat ing and maintaining pollution control equipment and instrumentation are high school graduates who have received specialized training in a vocational training institution or a junior college. Such specialized training, for a year or two following high school graduation, would include basic courses in environmental sciences as well as on-the-job training which will pave the way for independent work.

I feel that instruction and technical training at the post-high school, junior college level is not being sufficiently emphasized in environmental quality education. We generally talk about elementary curricula and teacher training at the elementary and secondary school level, in colleges and universities, and for adult education programs. Yet, when we seek out and try to motivate potential technical and maintenance personnel for pollution control installations we need not look for college graduates: our institutions of higher education are already turning out professionals who can design, install and manage such plants for both government and industry. We do need people with sufficient education to understand the sophisticated instrumentation and machinery which control pollution in order to ensure continued efficient performance. For this purpose, the community junior college or vocational training school is ideal.

In order to be motivated to embark on a career as a pollution control technicians, many high school graduates would no doubt have to be paid while training, and their specialized instructions would have to be subsidized. In addition to the proposed provisions for this purpose incorporated in the Environmental Quality Education Act, I feel that the Manpower Development and Training Act would also be a useful vehicle to accomplish our purposes. This legislation provides education and training to all types of workers who need not have college degrees or special educational backgrounds to quality for assistance under the Act. I believe that it can provide the needed impetus for the increasing supply of technicians we will need, especially at the local municipal and industrial level.

Another useful feature of both the Manpower Training Act and the Environmental Quality Education Act is that neither limits education and training to too narrow a scope. Many training programs operated by either the National Air Pollution Control Administration or the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration are designed for either air or water pollution control installations only. I believe we do the young trainee an injustice by narrowing his future pollution control expertise in this manner. He should be qualified to work within the whole range of pollution control field, employable by either government or industry. And since without proper planning, abatement of one type of pollution frequently leads to increased pollution of another kind, training along broader lines can be especially valuable.

On March 11, I introduced a bill, H.R. 16422, which would amend the Manpower Development and Training Act to develop and carry out training programs for the maintenance and operation of sewage treatment works and air pollution control facilities. As a former member of the House Education and Labor Committee, I helped in developing this legislation and believe it has proven its worth in training many persons for vital job classifications. I believe it can do the same for environmental programs. Certainly, enactment and implementation of the Environmental Quality Education Act will provide better environmental education in the high schools and lay a solid basis for the training program I have in mind.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE H. HAMILTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

As a co-sponsor of the Environmental Quality Education Act, I welcome this opportunity to express myself on this critical issue. The subcommittee and its chairman are to be commended for holding these hearings, and I urge that prompt and favorable action be taken on this legislation.

It has become increasingly apparent that environmental quality cannot be exclusively concerned with pollution abatement. The simple taboo of "thou shalt not pollute" must be complemented by an essential concern with the quality of life we desire and the means of achieving it. Educating ourselves about our environment is one of the most important of these means, and can perform the necessary function of changing public mores to meet the needs of our future survival.

Environmental education, defined by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation Studies as "a recognition by man of his interdependence with his environment, and his responsibility for developing a culture which maintains that relationship through policies and practices necessary to secure the future of an environment fit for life and fit for living.", can become one of the most important tools to insure the rational use of our surroundings. It simportance is already apparent to educators like Stanley Campbell, Indiana Superintendent of Schools, who has informed me that many school officials and concerned citizens are aware of the tremendous need for including environmental education as an integral part of school curricula.

47-238 0-70- -50

An initial step in the direction of environmental education has been taken with the passage by Congress March 25 of the Water Quality Improvement Act (HR 4148). The bill authorizes grants by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to higher education institutions to plan, develop, improve and carry out programs to train undergraduate students to operate water treatment works. Training grants could cover planning, curriculum preparation, and the development of experimental projects.

Passage of this bill is an encouraging sign, but it is but a small step in the right direction. What we need are giant steps like the bill we are discussing today. Its comprehensive approach to problem-focused education is just the approach recently recommended by an Executive Office of Science and Technology report on the the very issue of environmental quality. Giant steps are needed when one considers that because of America's high rate of consumption, production and waste disposal, 205 million Americans are depleting the world's resources and polluting the natural environment more than the 2.5 billion inhabitants of the less developed countries. The average child born in the United States will but at least 25 times as much stress on the environment as the average child born in India.

It is because of facts such as these that I co-sponsored and support this bill. If we are truly concerned about the quality of the environment and the quality of life this concern must be illustrated and participated in by our educational system. Through the Environmental Quality Education Act, we can work to achieve the worthwhile aim of a national philosophy which inhibits against damaging our physical environment and which desires to leave it in better shape than that in which it was found.

STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity of presenting my views with respect to H.R. 15511, the "Environmental Quality Education Act" which is identical to the original measure, H.R. 14753,

under consideration at this time.

After many years of neglect, the rapidly deteriorating quality of our environment has finally become front-page news. We have finally come to realize that our physical surroundings are becoming increasingly polluted, less usable and less attractive. We have sadly discovered that utilization of our natural resources means, in many instances, exploitation rather than management, exhaustion rather than preservation. The man-made environment of our cities frequently excludes nature completely as we live in air-conditioned, push-button comfort in concrete structures surrounded by acres of asphalt.

Man has finally awakened to the realization that his natural resources are not limitless, that in order to survive, he must achieve a balance of use and restoration of his physical environment, that he must carefully preserve and manage his environment if it is to serve his children and future generations to come.

In order to enjoy continued quality and productivity, new attitudes toward, and new understanding of the forces that shape our living environment must be nurtured in our citizens. It is evident that mere concern is not enough, and while widespread public support of a more positive national policy on the environment is necessary for success, if the public lacks proper basic information and understanding of the consequences which poor environmental management produces. of trade-offs that must be considered, of short-term as well as long-term plans and projects to be developed and undertaken, public interest in environmental issues will be short-lived. As a consequence there will be no positive results-merely a string of temporary improvisations.

A good example of what happens when public anxiety is coupled with insufficient understanding and information can be seen in the present attitude toward land use planning. People all over the country are objecting to new sites selected for power plants, airports, transmission lines, highways and dams. Construction of nuclear power plants has been resisted in Minnesota, Illinois and Maryland. while Southern Californians have objected to fossil fuel plants. Opponents to the proposed jetport at the edge of the Everglades were successful in stopping construction, while pickets were active in Washington, D.C. concerning a proposed bridge across the Potomac.

Despite all the objections people still want the services derived from these proposed plants and facilities. They do not take kindly to "doing without"they just don't want the plant in their own backyards, affecting their own property values or disrupting the surrounding landscape which they enjoy. They have not yet learned that truly effective land use planning involves careful and knowledgeable consideration of the broad environmental impact which goes beyond the destruction of the natural environment in any single area.

A general lack of knowledge of environmental issues was found in two public opinion polls conducted by the Gallup organization in January and July of last year. The pollsters found that while over 50% of the people polled were concerned with the present state of the environment, 16% did not know what to do about it; 10% could not identify the most pressing problem; 21% were "not sure" whether programs for the improvement of the natural environment received the right amount of attention and financial support from the government. And, on another tack, when asked whether they would agree to a $200 annual increase in living costs to finance environmental cleanup, 65% rejected the proposition; although, as the amount decreased, willingness to pay increased in proportion.

It can readily be seen that the proposed Environmental Quality Education Act will provide a timely and urgently needed program for alerting citizens of all ages to the whole subject matter of environmental management. Environmental education from the kindergarten through elementary and secondary schools, and continued at the adult education level via community programs, as well as more formally structured curricula, will be needed to narrow the tremendous gaps in public information which must be bridged soon if we are to embark on a meaningful national effort in environmental reconstruction. Matthew J. Brennan, of the Pinchot Institute of Conservation Studies, stated it well when he said:

"Present curriculums do not provide our people with any understanding of how man controls, transforms, uses wisely, preserves, or destroys his world, or how he is dependent upon it."

The proposed legislation would engage the full range of education resources at all levels to provide better instruction and more constructive teaching aids. I believe that, in addition to the lack of a meaningful curriculum, out greatest deficiency is in teacher training. Teachers have long complained that they lack the knowledge, as well as the tools, to provide adequate environment education programs for their students. At a meeting last December at the American Institute of Architects in Washington some 25 teachers' organizations and professional societies urged quick action in environmental curriculum development and training and expressed their concern over the widespread reluctance at the administrative levels to include meaningful environmental material in existing courses on conservation, especially at the elementary school level.

The picture is not altogether bleak, for effective experimental environmental education courses are being taught in public schools in several areas. Findings derived from these experimental courses can hopefully be augmented by new teaching materials developed by colleges and universities with grants proposed under the Environmental Quality Education Act. Many institutions of higher education including teachers' colleges, already have interdisciplinary programs in environmental quality and could be of considerable help. A recent survey of the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development entitled, "Environmental Science Centers at Institutions of Higher Education," found more than 100 such centers in operation, allied with existing programs in schools of public health, law, engineering and city planning, biology, chemistry, the social sciences, and others. In them, varied and imaginative environmental programs are being tried, and many more are being planned. I believe that such programs could be adapted for use in high schools and adult education courses and that curricula for elementary schools could well be based on them, especially field study courses.

I am confident that the provisions of the measure before us today will greatly contribute to a nationwide understanding of the forces which shape our environment, and to the widespread dissemination of vital information on environmental rehabilitation, so necessary to a reversal of the present trend. I therefore urge your favorable action on H.R. 14753 and look forward to its early enactment and implementation.

Thank you very much.

ASSEMBLY, California LegiSLATURE,
Sacramento, Calif., April 28, 1970.

Hon. JOHN BRADEMAS,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR JOHN: I want you to know how much I regret not being able to respond to your invitation to appear at the field hearings in San Francisco before the Select Subcommittee on Education on behalf of your Environmental Quality Education Act. I should at least like to take the opportunity to present my thoughts on this subject, since it is of much concern to me.

I am concerned with what is happening not only to our State, but to our entire physical and social environment. But in searching for actions which can best help us respond, I am beginning to see relationships between disruptions to the biological ecosystem and disruptions to what I might call "the ecology of social relations", the "ecology of political responsiveness", and the "ecology of institutional structure". In every case, these disruptions take the form in which the separate functions of the parts no longer contribute to the well-being of the whole In nature, this spells biological disaster; in government, this spells institutional inadequacy.

I see much more in the Environmental Quality Act than just a stimulus toward environmental education. I see it as a first step in helping to redefine both educational and governmental institutions in ways that can make both more responsive to the needs of today. And I see our ultimate survival hinging upon both types of response.

The remarkable feature of the modern conservation movement is that we in government are being educated and counseled by those students and people who care. And as I see it, your bill would provide assistance for programs that would originate within the colleges and high schools and grammar schools, as well as those programs that would originate within the communities. The thrust of your bill is to have these same programs reach out to those who are already out of school, who are either themselves teaching school, or who are making the policies which affect the destiny of our State, while also permeating all levels of education. In my opinion, this provides an essential balance.

Perhaps, at long last, this will help us to get away from the "wise use of natural resources" as our only way of environmental thought, and bring us closer to "the wise understanding of the natural world".

In the Environmental Quality Education Act, I see a unique opportunity to assist people to reeducate themselves, and to stimulate states and communities to play a much more constructive role in determining the quality of their own future. Passage of your bill, and the appropriation of sufficient funds in support of your program, would have immediate benefit in California on two fronts: first, it would help us define a better structure for our State and local educational institutions, to meet the needs of today's society; and second, it would provide financial assistance to enable us to move ahead without further delay with our own environmental education programs. We are in the shameful position in California of having passed laws requiring conservation education and counseling in grades one through 12, without having appropriated any state funds to support this.

It is clear from the intent of the Environmental Quality Education Act that the states could not rely solely on federal support, but rather that federal funds would be used to supplement State funds. I applaud this feature, for it means that California will have to recognize its own responsibility to the national effort: California will have to act, rather than just talk about environmental education. I sincerely hope that not only will the Environmental Quality Education Act be written into law by Congress and by the President, but that it will receive the benefit of a major appropriation of funds, so that it won't suffer the fate of our conservation education programs in California.

I might even venture to add that, at a time in which "the reordering of priorities" appears to be the order of the day, we might weigh the environmental impact of the federal government's $290 million in funds, presently slated to support a technological boondoggle which I do not wish to see over the State of Californiathe SST-with the impact that the same amount of funds would have in supporting the programs spelled out in the Environmental Quality Education Act. If there were ever a need for new priorities, and an immediate redirection of institu tional response, this is certainly one.

Let me know if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

JESS UNRUH, Assemblyman.