is what you are here for, to impress the Members of Congress in a matter of priorities. And I have been impressed by your responses. I would like to speak just a second on this matter of looking to the military, which we just alluded to in passing. It seems that every time we come up with a problem in America, we immediately say we can take some more money away from the military. I have great sympathy with Mel Laird's statement that he thought the military budget had been reduced to the bone and that further reductions could endanger our national and international security. I am very cautious about that matter. I believe that concludes my questions and my statement. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first of all pay a special tribute to Mrs. Clusen and to welcome her back before the committee. It is a delight to have you here. She has been on of those who has done an excellent job in the league, and I am well aware of what the league has done for a long time in the whole area of water resources. I have read all of the statements, and I must say I come away somewhat confused on at least one point. And that is what we do about an advisory committee. Dr. Smith, you have said that you have grown old on advisory committees and therefore we ought to limit their roles. Dr. Stahr, you say that you think the advisory committee ought not to be as cumbersome as it is proposed in the bill. And, Mr. Clapper, you say we ought to strengthen the advisory committee. I suppose I am asking for some guidance from you about which way you think we ought to go. Do we strengthen it, weaken it, get away from it, or put younger people on it? I suppose that is what I am asking. Mr. BRADEMAS. If my colleague would yield for just a moment, I don't think he was able to be here yesterday when Margaret Mead testified. But it was her suggestion, which may be relevant to this question, that not only did she want an advisory committee, but thought that there ought to be a junior counterpart for each advisory committee member, so that if there were 21, and normally six, she suggested, would show up, that the rest of them could have their views represented. That might be a halfway house. Dr. STAHR. I might comment first, Congressman, that those at this table did not get together ahead of time. Mr. STEIGER. Obviously. Dr. STAHR. To try to present you a coordinated view. I think we could do that in a matter of a few days on this particular point of the advisory committee. In listening to the comments of the others, I don't think I heard any that I would strongly disagree with, and I heard a few I would strongly agree with. I think it ought to be a strong committee. I don't think it ought to be encumbered with a lot of the administrative work, which was the only comment I made on it originally. I liked Mr. Clapper's suggestion, I believe it was, that the committee have some authority-not final authority, but that the committee's advice become effective unless actively vetoed, so to speak, by the Secretary. That it not merely be filed and put on a shelf and ignored, which does happen sometimes, to reports of advisory committees. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you. Dr. SMITH. Congressman Steiger, the point I was trying to make is that if we do make it a strong advisory committee and a meaningful thing, all right. But if we are not going to do that, then let's not do it at all. This is what I meant when I said I had grown old in the usual pattern of advisory committees. Frankly, I don't think they ever amounted to much on the whole. Once in awhile you can come up with one that has made real and significant contributions. But most of the ones I have been on are not challenging, and we never made many contributions. And we used to have a Secretary come in and tell us he had 215 advisory committees reporting to him. And you got the message that he would prefer 214. I have the feeling that if we just put in another advisory committee, with all due respect to the bill before you, which we do support, this reads like a kind of patented, normal advisory committee approach. I don't mean administrative responsibility, but some real policy-oriented some real thrust and some muscle and some real responsibility—and I don't mean administrative responsibility, but some real policy-oriented responsibility, where they can make a meaningful contribution-I am for it. I think that this section on the advisory committee, however, in order to do that in the present legislation would have to be rewritten. That is my judgment. Mr. STEIGER. Do any of you disagree with that? OK, I think that is a pretty good statement, as a matter of fact. I appreciate your clarification. I will not say "ambivalence," because I don't think that is appropriate or fair. Would any of you object to the suggestion made last week, as I recall, to include students on the advisory committee? Dr. STAHR. Indeed, I think it would be useful. The only problem you would have is the age-old problem of turnover. They just don't stay students forever. Mr. STEIGER. That might be superior to those that don't turn over at all. [Laughter.] Dr. STAHR. I am inclined to agree. I think there ought to be a pretty tight time limit on the service of any of them at whatever age, including those who do try to be students forever. Mrs. CLUSEN. Could I respond to that question? Mr. STEIGER. I would be delighted to have you respond. Mrs. CLUSEN. In my testimony for the league, I did not make reference to this particular part of the legislation. I think probably because in general the idea of judging an overall committee of some typethe general idea of this is certainly one that is palatable to us. I would agree with the comments made by Dr. Smith that I think it should be refined, better defined, and perhaps we would even want to go so far as to indicate size and proportions of numbers and representation on it in order to achieve a balance. Generally, the League of Women Voters tends to think that this kind of an outside group, which takes a look at governmental programs, is a good thing. And I think we would be glad to lend support to this idea. But I think that I would agree with these gentlemen on the panel that this section needs tightening up, and needs greater definition. Mr. STEIGER. Let me go into a couple of other points, if I may, Mr. Chairman. One relates to the very obvious problem that exists today. We now have in Federal programs fairly wide latitude which enables title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to fund 110 environmentally oriented projects, and the Defense Education Act to fund some projects in this area, and so on. Thus, we are spending at the Federal level some thousands, or millions of dollars in environmental education. What is our problem? Why is what we are now doing not effective, if it is not effective? And what would you recommend besides an Assistant Commissioner of Education for this concept, which would help us do a job better than what we are now doing? Dr. STAHR. Could I have Mr. Morton respond to that? Mr. MORTON. Congressman, I think that certainly the programs that have been established that you referred to are being well received. I think from our own experience in working with teachers, the problem is information of the teacher in the classroom-this is brought about primarily because they don't know enough about the out-of-doors. They are beginning to get ecological understanding, but they need to be taken out through their own environment so that they are at least one step ahead of their students. And many of the students today, as you well know, are very, very alert to these problems. And I think that if workshops can be established, workshop programs as part of a bill-and I know in this case it is-it would seem to me that a great deal of emphasis should be put on making the teachers at east to enable them to get out and work with students outside the classroom itself. Mr. STEIGER. Well, we do this now, don't we? Mr. MORTON. We do it, but it is amazing how long it takes for a person to go from the four walls of the classrooms to the outdoors. There is an awful lot of redtape involved in the school system to get out even around the block, or in a very short distance from the school for just a normal field trip, not necessarily dealing with the environment. Somehow we have to give the teachers the strength so that they can actually go out and do this. Mr. STEIGER. The workshop envisioned in this legislation gives the teacher the strength he needs to do this? Mr. MORTON. It certainly does, based on our Audubon Society workshops. Dr. STAHR. Let me add, Congressman, that, yes, we are doing this, but what we are doing is so little relative to need that it is not having much impact on the public. But what we have learned in doing it can have a use in the national program. Mr. CLAPPER. In preparing for this hearing, I consulted a man I respect on the educational level to get his advice. And he thinks the greatest need right now is to teach the teachers. They simply are just not coming out of school equipped to teach environmental education or conservation or their interrelationship. They may have some type of natural history, but they don't make any effort to relate it to the outdoors or why a bird may die, or something of this sort. The State of Tennessee, for example, is spending a lot of money and a lot of time just on teacher workshops to teach the teachers and to tell them how they can teach conservation on their own school grounds, to show soil erosion on hillsides on their own school properties, or to show that moles have a part in the ecology right on their school grounds. And this is something we hope title III of this bill, will help stimulate. Mr. DUSTIN. I have a letter here that I read a portion of a little bit ago from the Outdoor Education Consultant. I would like to read a couple of paragraphs. He says: If Indiana schools are to develop adequate environmental education programs, it is imperative that House Bill H.R. 14753 be passed. At present teaching materials, in-service training programs, pre-service training programs and adult education programs for environmental education are inadequate and will continue in such a state of affairs unless funds are allocated for improving curriculums in this vital area. If environmental education is to be taught effectively, teachers must be provided attractive film strips, films, teaching guides, experimental testing equip ment, other teaching materials and equipment, and appropriate training for making the best use of such resources. Present financial limitations of Indiana school budgets severely restrict the likelihood of local or state monies being applied to these needs. H.R. 14753 would also remove the ambiguity in regard to the place of environmental education as an integral part of the school curriculum. My position in the Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction is an illustration of this ambiguity. My position was established by the initiative and financial backing of several conservation organizations in the State of Indiana and has the wholehearted support of State Superintendent Richard D. Wells. The state has not made my position permanent. Hopefully a bill will be introduced in the 1971 General Assembly which will establish this position. In 1969, however, a similar bill was introduced but died in the House Education Committee. How can I effectively implement new programs in the state when my position is in jeopardy? H.R. 14753 would make it mandatory for this position to be permanently established in the Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction before schools could make application for environmental education financial assistance. The position of Environmental Education Supervisor is essential to the coordination and direction of teacher training and curriculum development projects in this increasingly important area of public concern and this bill would firmly establish it. H. R. 14753 would also assist our office in securing participation of teachers for in-service training activities. As you know, intensive environmental education workshops are sponsored by this office. Teachers are provided methods and materials for improving classroom instruction. Teacher evaluations indicate the workshops are very worthwhile; however, the evaluations suggest that teachers should not have to pay for in-service training. Funds are needed to subsidize teachers for expenses incurred in attending in-service training programs. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you all. You have been helpful. In conclusion, let me ask one question. Do you agree, given the statement that you made in support of community, nongovernmental, citizen group involvement that the greatest need is training of teachers, that this is the first priority? Mrs. CLUSEN. I don't really have any way of measuring that. But our interest in this legislation is based primarily on the strong feeling we have that more money is needed for community counseling by civic organizations and nongovernmental groups. And it would be hard for me to say that I think this is more needed than teaching the teacher. I know that the chancellor and vice chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay appeared before this committee a couple of weeks ago, pressing for funds for teaching the teacher, in essence. And I would be tempted to believe that what I hear from educators about this is true. But I can't make a value judgment about which is the most necessary. I think I would like to make one brief point about community education in this, and I think this was at the root of the fact that Chairman Brademas and I were not communicating at the beginning of this dialog. It was because I have a strong belief that citizens don't have to become scientists or technicians or ecologists in order to make rational decisions about the environment, that they need to know enough to help them understand what is going on, what the choices are for them. But I would hate to see us think that we need such expert. highly technical scientific teachers as far as community conferences are concerned that it would inundate the public and make it feel even more helpless than it does now about decisions to be made on the environmental front. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming. You are a good group of witnesses. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have just a couple of other quick questions. I might say, Mr. Clapper, that following your observation that you believe 1.2 percent of the Federal budget is dedicated to environmental resources, I checked with my office, because I recalled having taken a poll of my constituents a couple of weeks ago and asking them to list those several areas where they thought the Federal Government should spend more, spend less, or the same. But one area, the area with respect to which they said we should spend more was pollution control. And 80 percent of them said we should spend more there. And I believe the area where they thought we should reduce the most was military. I think about 69 percent of them said, "Cut back there." In respect to the advisory committee, about which Mr. Steiger was questioning you-and I think in a most helpful way—I would just observe that there are good advisory committees and bad advisory committees, depending on the people on them. Also, it seems to depend on whether or not they are really to some extent independent of control by the particular agency to which they are counselors. So I think members of our committee have been most impressed by the value of the report of the advisory committee to title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. They have been valuable reports, largely because they are not owned by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but because they are independentminded types who say exactly what they think. Therefore, you give their views more credibility than you otherwise would. So I just wanted to reassure Dr. Smith that it is my own hope that we do have an advisory committee but that it be one that really thinks for itself, in order, I also think, to have some genuine public-policy impact on shaping the kind of programs that would be funded under the bill. I would also express the hope that you and your colleagues, Dr. Stahr, could make available to our subcommittee, if you are in a position to do so, any judgment you have on the effectiveness of your teacher ecology workshops, because, again, I took you to be saying in re |