Mr. SCHLESINGER. Nothing in particular. I would just agree with Mr. Knowland. We need people to lead this, and I think we can look to the results as leaders of the future.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I might comment that a program such as the Youth Conservation Corps might be a very valuable method for acquainting a large number of, well, especially inner-city-type youths with outdoor experiences which they might not otherwise get. Something which struck me pretty deeply since I first read it, and I have forgotten who said it, but that an American, if he is anything new and different at all, is simply a civilized man who has renewed himself in the wilderness. And this could be the sense of what was the American character and something which seems to be fading out of whatever the American character is today, and it is something I don't think we need to lose, I don't think we can afford to lose, rather.

Mr. MEEDS. Are you people aware that there are approximately 5 million acres of national forest lands which need to be reforested, not forested immediately, but could be reforested immediately?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I think there would be far more land which could be reforested or otherwise as well.

Miss BUXBAUM. Mr. Meeds, I would like to add one thing. Our discussion seems to have been centered on the wilderness area and outdoors type of things that are beautiful and pleasant to do, but there is also a problem with the cities. I am not sure whether I am interested in this totally rural ecology problem or whether I would be more interested in going into the urban problem of sound ecological development: city planning and wise architecture and its relationship to the area that is being developed, which also needs ecologists on the teams. When cities are built, they have road construction people, architects, sociologists, and everybody else that fits into it. But they must have ecologists also to build a city that is going to be able to sustain whatever natural vegetation or animal life is left. You can build up a city and leave a park, but if you do it wrong the whole park is going to die because of the way it is built. So this is part of it and this kind of thing could also be incorporated in what you just brought up. Perhaps the inner-city people that Mr. Knowland brought up should not necessarily be deported out in the country to understand the country. Since they are the ones that are going to have the best understanding of the city, they should be the ones that are getting themselves involved this

way.

There is no sense in taking a city person just to let him see the trees and let him taste that before he goes back to the city, just as there is no sense in taking someone who spent his life out in the Midwest on a farm and putting him into Chicago and letting him try to develop a city, develop a new housing project. Forces can be utilized where they have the best background. If it is in the history of an individual to have lived in the city and he knows how to cope with it in a certain way, he is going to be more prepared to propose remedies and solutions to new problems.

Mr. MEEDS. Your point is very good. This is an extremely diverse field and it needs to cover a very broad spectrum, and I would agree with you.

Thank you all.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much.

And may I thank Mr. Knowland and Miss Buxbaum and Mr. Schlesinger for your most helpful testimony. We appreciate it very much indeed.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We will now hear from Garrett de Bell, who is editor of the "Environmental Handbook."

Mr. De Bell.

STATEMENT OF GARRETT de BELL, EDITOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HANDBOOK, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, ZERO POPULATION GROWTH

Mr. DE BELL. I would like to respond to some of the questions that have already been asked by some of the Congressmen, but I will do that later and integrate it with my remarks.

I am Garrett de Bell, the Washington representative of Zero Population Growth, whom I have recently started working for, as a registered lobbyist. ZPG is actively working for stabilization of the population of the United States and is seeking constructive solutions to the environmental problems that result in part from excessive population size. We lobby for legislation that makes ecological sense, support public officials whose policies make ecological sense, and work for the defeat of those who do not.

I am sure that there is general agreement that education and public awareness of ecology is critical to the resolution of the ecological problems that threaten the quality of life and even the future existence of the human species. This hearing is evidence of this committee's commitment to do something in this area. ZPG applauds the purposes and intent of H.R. 14753. We will make the bulk of our testimony in the area of changes that we feel will increase the effectiveness of the bill.

Zero Population Growth is concerned with the environmental problems that are a direct and unavoidable consequence of a population that already exceeds a reasonable size and continues to grow at an explosive rate. If the U.S. population is not stabilized, we will have to contend with a population of over 300 million by the end of the century. There is very little chance of solving any of our social and environmental problems if this growth continues. The relationship of population growth to environmental problems is not stressed in H.R. 14753. We suggest that the wording be modified to specifically include population and the balance between population size and environmental quality. We propose that section 2. (a) line 8 be changed to *** of its ecological balance and the balance between population size and environmental quality is in*** Throughout the bill the term ecological balance should be followed by the phrase "and optimum population size."

The need for environmental education, I think, is very clear. For instance, Congressman Scheuer just made the remark we need to go to a three-child family in the population increase.

Mr. SCHEUER. May I remove any concern of yours that we are not keenly concerned about population. I was the author of a bill that would execute a comprehensive reorganization of the Family Plan

ning Services and that would give us a Manhattan project approach to the development of family planning needs, and techniques that are appropriate for under-developed population. Senator Tydings introduced this bill on the Senate side. And I think most of the members of the subcommittee joined in sponsoring the bill. So rest assured we are quite aware that the implications of population growth are relevant to the question of the environment. We share your con

cern.

Mr. DE BELL. We are quite aware of the bill and support it. The point I wanted to make is, that a three-child family would be a long way from population stability. In fact, if from now on every family in the country were a two-child family, we would still have such a rapid population increase that it would go up to about 300 million.

Mr. SCHEUER. I understand from the demographers that a zero rate of population growth would be something like 2.2 children per family. Mr. DE BELL. That is true in a steady State population. Right now, we have a growing population and have been growing in the past.

Mr. SCHEUER. And that a two-family rate of reproduction would give us a rather rapidly declining population.

Mr. DE BELL. That is true in a population which has remained stable for a while. Our population has been growing for the last few generations, in fact since 1492. This means, each year we have a bigger age class of women at childbearing ages. To level the thing off, you have to sort of shrink it back down in all age classes, and this requires a negative rate for a while. There are two different situations in population. The population has been growing in the recent historical past versus one that has been stable. They have different age structures or percentages of people at each age. We can get into details later. Throughout the bill, the term ecological balance should be followed by the phrase "and optimum population size." We think this is critical to any area of ecological education.

Now I want to get into the specifications of the administration of this act. There is one other aspect of this bill which concerns us. Section 4, approval of applications, sets forth requirements for bookkeeping, auditing, and reporting which applicants for assistance under this act must fulfill. It is an old story with Federal programs that when Federal assistance finally becomes available for a problem like this it is so wrapped up in redtape that those very groups which created public awarenes of the problem cannot qualify for grants or aid. The purposes of such supervision and monitoring are valid, but the result of the procedures actually adopted often eliminates many of the organizations which could best use the funds: small, volunteer groups of local citizens which are already devoting their own time and resources to solve the problem but which may be badly prepared to negotiate with the Federal bureaucracy.

The Congress has a choice. It can write into this bill the routine language, and can require the usual paper work. It will end up providing grants to exactly those large, established institutions which have displayed total indifference in their educational efforts to environmental considerations. Or Congress can modify the usual procedures and minimize the administrative burden on applicants for aid. This will help the small, unestablished group, the group which has no auditor because it has no regular sources of funds, the group that has

no fixed overhead charges because its members absorb the overhead, the group, in fact, which laid the groundwork of public concern for this hearing. Zero Population Growth fails to see the connection between intimate knowledge of the corridors and layers of the Federal bureaucracy and concern and dedication to the preservation of our world. In fact, if anything there is a connection between this type of established, bureaucratic outlook and the very educational practices and attitude which have led us to despoil the environment.

A specific example: Section 3 (a) (4) provides for grants "to local educational, municipal, and State agencies and other public and private nonprofit organizations for community education on environmental ecology, especially for adults." The current contribution of school systems and other government agencies to this awareness is virtually nil. The purpose of this bill, of course, is to provide those agencies with funds to do their part of the job. But in many cases it is not funds that are lacking, but will and interest. Even as these agencies develop that will, much will remain to be done by the citizens group. In virtually every community in the Nation such groups have begun the fight to save the environment and educate their fellow citizens. Congress ought not to deny them an important role in developing programs of environmental education.

Furthermore these groups, by the very voluntary nature which makes it harder for them to qualify for grants under conventional procedures, can make better use of limited funds than well established organizations. A dollar of Federal money matched with the energy and interest of the members of such groups will go a lot farther than a dollar of Federal money which has to be spent hiring that energy and interest.

Therefore, Zero Population Growth would like to suggest to this committee that it be a clear part of the legislative history of this bill that the Congress does not wish to exclude any otherwise qualified organization from receiving assistance simply because of that organizations inexperience with Federal grant and aid procedures, its lack of regular auditing staff, or its informal administrative structure. We would like to suggest that technical assistance should be made available by the Commissioner to such groups to enable them to provide the Federal Government with necessary monitoring data on the expenditure of public funds, but that such requirements should be kept to a minimum. We would like to suggest that one of the criteria to be considered by the Commissioner in providing assistance should be the past record of the organization in the problems of environmental education and public awareness, its past efforts to solve these problems, and its history of independent and voluntary efforts to advance that goal with its own resources.

In a more general vein, I think it is very important that this committee consider the overall role of the universities in the environmental crisis. The problem has not been simply lack of effort in one phase or another of environmental problems. Rather the basic purpose of the universities in teaching and research has been to encourage everincreasing specialization and professionalism at the expense of the broad education necessary to a democracy that depends on an enlightened electorate.

A large majority of the faculty of our large universities is dedicated by training and habit to the overspecialized type of study that has been a major contributing cause of our present state of ecological crisis. They are fond of blaming all problems on "the administration," or a conservative board of trustees, or lack of funds, but the problem has been the reluctance of the faculty to continue their own education and growth as times changed and their failure to develop, and even to allow others to develop, truly interdisciplinary teaching and research. The situation here should be very familiar to you gentlemen as a very similar one prevails in the U.S. Congress, that is the committee and seniority systems which reward longevity and specializationnot ability an dedication to human purposes. The seniority system prevails in both the Congress and the universities. In both, it has prevented those institutions from effectively dealing with the problems of our times. You are familiar with the situation in Congress. I will touch on the problems the seniority system causes on the university campus. The older faculty control the committees that set course content, faculty hiring, fellowship support allocations, and degree requirements. They decide on faculty advancement primarily on the basis of professional standing as determined by output of publication of suitable specialized papers. Creative teaching interdisciplinary research or teaching, or working to develop action programs based on sound knowledge are not regarded as valuable ways for faculty time to be spent. The rewards for both faculty and students go to those who will become highly expert in some narrow area of specialization.

Some of this specialized research is socially valuable and, as I can attest, some of it is of great academic interest. But in a world that is rapidly approaching disaster, we must question our priorities. After seeing how well the faculty at our universities have enforced specialization at the cost of breadth and have resisted interdisciplinary teaching and research, I would not like to see legislation which lets the fox guard the chicken coop. We should use the environmental issue to force the reform of the universities that is necessary in other areas as well as in the area of the environmental crisis.

This bill should include specific provisions implementing the proposals in the publication "The Universities and Environmental Quality: Commitment to Problem Focused Education" (a report to the President's Environmental Quality Council), prepared by John Steinhart and Stacie Cherniak. This report stresses that effective multidisciplinary problem focused programs were only successful when the faculty in the program had complete control of the faculty reward structure, course content, and requirements for degrees. This is necessary to prevent the majority of specialists from undermining the creative few who are moving into the vacuum and working between disciplines.

The implementation would be as revolutionary as genuine congressional reform. Funding under this act should be restricted to groups which have the degree of independence suggested in the above report.

I would like to enter into the record of these hearings two further items. One is an article, "Education and Ecology." which I included earlier in my statement and which I wrote for "The Environmental Handbook," edited by myself and published by Ballantine/Friends of