We don't think there is time to wait for a whole generation of schoolchildren to be apprised of the facts of life. We think it is very important that we reach out into the community now and make available to people some good crash program on the ecological crisis.

We understand that necessarily the drafting of this kind of bill is often purposely a little vague so that it will allow for various interpretations, but we do think that there should be a more specific outline of proposed curriculums. This has already been touched on by previous witnesses.

There is no question but that the whole environmental concept, the whole idea of understanding the environment, is part and parcel of every subject in our schools. It should be so presented.

Incidentally, along these lines I think it is important to understand that our schoolchildren are not as dumb as we somehow think or like to think they are.

They are aware that when we teach our American history, we gloss over what we have done with our natural resources, and it doesn't fool the kids. I think it is high time that our American history presented the straight facts of what we have done, not only to our soil but to our timber and to our various other resources. This should be part of the environmental educational curriculums.

We urge that this curriculum begin with kindergarten, and continue all the way through higher education. In California, we have been studying what is being done in various schools because we do have, incidentally, a lot of teachers who are doing a tremendous job in putting over this whole idea. These teachers start in kindergarten, and in first grade, and very successfully get through to the kids what ecology is all about.

So we feel this is an area in the curriculum that's got to have a little more definition in your bill. There have to be guidelines to help some of the States that are not aware of what can be done.

Incidentally, our committee here in California surveyed the status of conservation education across the country and we were able to get some idea of what is taking place in many of the other States.

We endorse the idea of a commission as outlined in your bill. I would have to take issue with what Don Aitken said about giving powers to the commission. I think that your commission is necessarily going to have to have certain powers in order to get this thing off the ground. Somebody has got to do it.

There is not going to be spontaneous combustion all over the country. There are too many States where people are not aware really of what is taking place.

So I think that, while I subscribe to the idea of leaving off the famous names, you've got to have a good working commission of people who know what the score is and who can get this thing going.

I know this is a difficult thing to do, but we would hope that somehow wording can go into the bill to the effect that these have to be working environmentalists, if you will, and that the presence or absence of the degrees with all due respect to the degrees-is not going to be an essential qualification for the people who serve on the commission. It's got to be people primarily who understand what the problem is. We believe that funding is one of the most crucial parts of the

proposed act. Of course, from our own experience here in California we have a very strong feeling about this. We know that money can be found for this kind of thing when people want to really find the

money.

As an example, in California we have $16 million in our driver's education fund which seems like a tidy little amount. This has been gotten from fines from people who have broken the speed limit on our highways. We have diverted the fines from our motor vehicle department into driver education.

By the same token we would like to propose that the funding for your bill could well come from the fines levied against polluters by the Federal Government. We think there should be strict enforcement of the regulations which we now have and we have a possibility here to pick up some of the funding which is so essential.

We would also suggest that there could be exploration in the field of taxing the users of natural resources from the U.S. public lands in order to get funding for an environmental education program.

We believe that funding will be critical in many of the States. I don't think that strings should be tied on the initial funding of this act because there are too many States that are poor and too many States that don't understand.

I think that there should be available an initial funding which can get this thing off the ground and thereafter there can be matching funds or some kind of thing worked out to keep the programs going: but there are too many areas where nothing will happen without Federal funding.

I would like to just note in passing that the conservation education work here in California has been done through ESEA Federal funding. The work of the committee and the consultant of the committee were paid for out of the funds. So, as far as we have gone here in California we have gone on Federal funding. Although we have something like the fifth largest gross national product in the world, we still turn to the Federal Government.

When you have a poor State, I don't think we can expect it to come up with a going conservation education program. Furthermore, I think there is a very good chance here to hold out a carrot to people to get them going. Everybody wants money, and here is a chance to reach people who are not aware of the magnitude of the problem, to get them interested and to get them involved.

We would like to see more advantage taken of the great amount of work that has already gone into the whole field of developing environmental education. We touched on this briefly before, but there has been a great deal of excellent research.

It is specifically worth mentioning Prof. Mario Menecini's work at Davis.

We would hope that the commission would turn to completed research to help get this whole program off the ground. We would hope that the commission might be able to evaluate this research and coordinate it for use in the various States.

I will be happy to answer any questions, and would like again to reiterate the Sierra Club's commendation of your effort to launch an environmental education program on the Federal level. It is tremendous.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wayburn, for a most helpful statement. I don't really have any questions to put to you, just a couple of observations of what you have said when you alluded to the sputnik and the role that it played in helping persuade Congress and the President to get behind the National Defense Education Act in

1958.

I thought we might emulate that precedent in that, maybe, we should have called this the National Defense and Environmental Education Act and thereby generate a little more support in this. I hope nobody takes that seriously.

The other point that I would like to make, because it seems to me fundamental to the idea behind the legislation in the minds of those of us who put it together, is that we deliberately did not call it a Conservation Education Act, we deliberately did not call it a Wilderness Education Act or a Nature Education Act, but chose the word "environmental" as we might as well have used "ecological"—as an adjective to describe the purpose of the legislation because we wanted to indicate that we were concerned with far more than the out of doors, but that we were concerned with man and his relationship to all living things, man, as it were, as part of nature.

I take it from what you have said that you would not quarrel with that kind of an approach?

Mrs. WAYBURN. Well, as I said, I subscribe to this totally. I think that this has great advantage because it lifts this legislation out of what can be a dyed-in-the-wool traditional field. That just can't do the job.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We are in agreement then. Mr. Reid.

Mr. REID. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wayburn. I want to thank you for your testimony, which has been excellent and for your pioneering work and the work of national importance of the Sierra Club and to tell you how valuable we have found it and how important it has been to helping change the national direction.

I couldn't agree with you more that we need a program and recognition that the environment needs basic help now.

I happen to be one of those who believes that we should not only end the war but we should not widen it.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to express our deep appreciation for your help this morning. It is evident that you have not only read the bill very carefully, but that you have made a detailed analysis of it and have given us some extremely helpful suggestions that will be of assistance when we prepare the final draft. I would only like to ask your comment on one aspect of the bill. I would be interested in having your comment on the relative role or roles that the educational institutions, the traditional educational institutions and the noneducational institutions, private organizations, may play in implementing the objectives of this bill?

Mrs. WAYBURN. Well, I would strongly commend the idea of going beyond the traditional educational institutions-with all respect for these institutions. I have found from my own personal experience, in working on the Conservation Education Advisory Committee, that there tends to be a kind of ingrown development where certain ideas

are subscribed to and it is just too hard to get off the dime and change the direction. I think we need fresh ideas, fresh approaches, and I think that there is a tremendous resource in organizations and individuals outside the educational field. They can fill a very great need. I should mention that I think our biggest hurdle in all of this is to reach the teacher and to make the teacher understand the magnitude of the crisis that faces us. Once the teacher understands and this has happened over and over again-he or she will cooperate and even go beyond what is presented to them. They will get their classes excited and involved and participating and that, of course, is our ultimate goal.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Mrs. Wayburn. We much appreciate you being with us today.

Mrs. WAYBURN. Oh, by the way, I would like to give you a copy of the report of our California Advisory Committee recommendations for the record, too. I hope it may be helpful to you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I want to observe that we have two more witnesses this morning. Our next witness is Mr. Jerry Mander, president of Freeman, Mander & Gossage Advertising.

We are pleased to have you with us. Go right ahead, sir. I wonder, Mr. Mander, because Mr. Reid must leave in 30 minutes and we have two more witnesses, if you could give us a summary. Go right ahead, sir.

STATEMENT OF JERRY MANDER, DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

Mr. MANDER. I will try to skip things, but it may take me longer to summarize than just to skip.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Go right ahead.

Mr. MANDER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed bill.

I assume I've been asked here today because I am a director of Friends of the Earth, but also because I am an advertising man with some observations to make about the media.

In any event, the bulk of my observations are going to be about the media and will take up an area of educational significance which is not in the bill, and perhaps should be. Dr. Aitken made some similar references in his testimony.

But first let me say that as written, I support the ideas and direction you have taken. However, I do worry mightily that it may all come to nil, even if it should pass Congress, and be turned over to Mr. Nixon for implementation. I worry particularly that in the end. millions will have been spent and nothing will have changed: that we will have educated people to want and perhaps achieve some clean rivers, sav, but life styles won't have changed, and we will continue to live in a state of war between technology and the natural system: turning off gas jets while the whole house is burning down.

The goal of any ecological education program should obviously concern fundamental solutions, but I am concerned that educational programs which, for their funds, are required to get through a Federal

bureaucratic maze will not be likely to be ones which present fundamental, that is, radical solutions. For example, as a practical matter, even if this bill passed gloriously, could an applicant ever really get Federal funds for a program to, say, study, design, and teach an economic and political system based on simple subsistence?

We all know that the only societies which are living in harmony with nature are those which are subsistence societies but can we really believe that Federal money would go to promoting such societies as possible alternatives to our own? Or, in another vein, would an applicant be able to obtain funds for programs which advocated reducing gross national product?

Most conservationists agree, at least many, many do, on the need for a no-growth economy, or one that is microdynamic, while being macrostatic, which is a euphemism, but I wonder what would happen to a Federal administrator who funded a project to educate people to that idea. After all, implied in the no-growth idea is a drastic reallocation of already available resources among classes of people currently on the outs-which is not what you'd call classical capitalism-and any administrator who funded such a project might be the next subject of the impeachment fad.

While I am aware that members of this subcommittee might like to see that sort of diversity represented in the handling of the funds from this bill, I don't see anything in the bill which assures it. And I am not optimistic that the present administration-or any likely ones in the near future-have the knowledge or would find it politically feasible to finance and administer educational projects which have a chance to teach people about solutions which promise to alter the economic and political structure which gave them power.

What I fear will happen instead is the sort of thing that happened to me when I was discussing an idea with the Ford Foundation for an educational program of my own device.

While dismissing my own project-an environmental advertising foundation-as hopelessly naive, this Ford man began to describe the foundation's primary efforts, which were in the education of young children toward a basic understanding of how to "better manage the environment."

I asked him what we were going to do until those children grew up and saved us, which slowed him down a little bit, and then I commented that I thought that that sort of education-managing the environment-would do far more harm than good.

The point is: We are already managing the environment and that is why we are in the mess we are; it is a further example, borrowing a page from the Women's Liberation Movement, of what let's call human chauvinism. It is true enough that we could manage the environment better than we have been, and I suppose in fairness that is what he meant, but who says we should be in charge of the thing at all?

Nobody knows the details of how life on earth happened, or can fully appreciate the immensity of the design and the variety of life forms, but still we are accustomed to think of ourselves as the end result of it all; the final flowering of the process. It hardly matters. whether one believes that we were given dominion over other living