I presented the suggestion to the vice chancellor, David Saxon. A representative of the Beaumont Foundation was present. He was told, properly, that the university would have to solve internal matters before negotiations could begin.

The vice chancellor then called a meeting of some 20 campus leaders. In the meeting summary, it is stated that

Problems involved in organizing and coordinating interdisciplinary programs between departments or major discipline areas are so great that a coordinated effort would be almost impossible. Enterpreneurship by groups with common interests was suggested as the most practicable means of organization.

In my opinion, the last sentence is meant to describe the following: departmental and program jealousies preclude anything but a dogeat-dog reality wherein empire building is the prime energy sink. Needless to say, I was astonished to hear one leader turn to another and say, "How are you? It's been 4 years, hasn't it?"

It was suggested then and then again at a second meeting, that paper bag lunch discussions would provide a means for better communication between social scientists and physical and life scientists. It appears that these luncheons are as far as the university is willing to

venture.

Even faculty members have difficult times when they propose such programs. One professor, Dr. Howard Mitchell, a former World Health Organization consultant to India on population program, was asked to come to UCLA to design a population and family planning institute. He did so, but because his program has not been acted upon for some time, he is leaving Los Angeles to meet this most crucial problem elsewhere. Other faculty members, because of their intense desire to use their knowledge in teaching and community effort, have missed scheduled promotions because they lacked the proper number of written papers. The Environmental Quality Education Act should include provisions to facilitate the efforts of such professors, through substantial funding.

Now, let me remark about a few things I have learned. The first is that interdisciplinary efforts can be successful. I coordinated a student ecology study area where, for instance, an art student, female, and a history student, male, authored an 80-page survey of estuaries in California. They did so by traveling, conducting interviews and reviewing current literature. According to the Office of Science and Technology's report, there is a national interest among students for work in environmental areas.

The second piece of information I can offer is that it seems that a program for interdisciplinary work really needs a home, a physical place that can be visibly identified as an information and conference center. Presently, formal department structures prevent students interested in the new found science of ecology from getting the best education available. At present, the only solution is for those students. to elect associated courses in all the relevant departments.

A third thing is that "action research" is highly valuable in the strictly educational sense. Most of my education has been outside the classroom.

Lastly, I would remind you that education faces an exponential challenge with respect to the numbers of students seeking services

in the near future. According to Rene Maheu, Director General, United Nations Educational Division, Scientific and Cultural Affairs Organization:

* * * changes may be expected in organization with comprehensive schools more general than they are now and a better blend of academic, cultural and practical elements in the curriculum. (Nigel Calder, ed., "The World in 1984", 1964.)

Comprehensive, practical, the words seem to underscore the phrase "environmental action research and study."

I am dwelling on action, research, and study, though not necessarily in that order. Why? Because "education is one of the core institutions charged with the transmission of values, meaning and the understanding of change in human society. Its largest deficiencies have been in this area." (McHale, "The Future of the Future".)

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Brestoff, I wonder if you would not mind if we interrupted you at that point and let the rest of your statement appear. I am very fearful that unless the witnesses summarize there are seven other witnesses to be heard from-we are not going to have a chance to put any questions to you.

Is that all right? I think

Mr. BRESTOFF. I have a page and a half and I would like to finish it, because it goes into more depth.

Mr. BRADEMAS. All right, go ahead, but I am going to have to call on your colleagues to summarize because they will not have time, I fear, to read their entire statements, so we are not going to have a chance to hear from other people.

Mr. BRESTOFF. I shall close with a description of the doctor of environment program I mentioned previously. I do so because I believe it to be a good model for others and worthy of heavy funding. The program, involving 3 years of study and 2 years of internship with industry, Government or a conservation organization, would bestow a professional degree, analogous to the M.D., to the successful student. The student, hopefully entering with a bachelor of science, would study a core program of environmental earth science, chemistry, engineering, medicine, biology and public policy. He would choose an area of specialization with an adviser and also a breadth program to cover related, touching fields. When the student enters the field training period, adjunct professors selected from qualified supervisory staff at the internship institution become the student's guides on the job. The degree is awarded on completion of the internship program, including a final oral examination by the committee of university advisers, and a written or seminar report by the student on his field experience.

A final word on funding. The director of the above program, Dr. Libby, has remarked, as I mentioned, that there is a good deal that remains total mystery. He estimates that $2 billion is a proper national figure for the research and development work that needs to be done to support any educational program of national scope. It has even been suggested that the various Federal departments concerned with environment be combined into a commission with the funding power of the Atomic Energy Commission.

I hope that happens, and that this bill facilitates such unity to the fullest.

And that this bill and bills like it, be followed quickly with financial companions amounting to no less than $2 billion.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Marienthal.

Mr. MARIENTHAL. Could I wait until we get some copies of the statement?

Mr. BRADEMAS. Miss Citron, could we hear from you? I wonder if you could try to summarize your statement. Otherwise, we will never have an opportunity to hear other witnesses. Then, we would like to put questions to all of you.

STATEMENT OF ORA CITRON, DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION

Miss CITRON. I will try my best, Mr. Brademas.

Mr. BRADEMAS. All right. We will put your entire statement into

the record.

(Miss Citron's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ORA CITRON, ECOLOGY ACTION, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA

The imperative and urgency now recognized by an increasing segment of our citizenry, for implementation of sound, progressive and mature ecological-environmental education can be evidenced by the presence of the Environmental Quality Education Act, in both houses of Congress. It is yet to be seen what the national commitment will be for this act.

It must be clear to many that the American system of democracy has been, as has most western political philosophy, a plague on the species Homo sapiens. The tenant of western culture is based in the authority and validity of individual desires designed to appease the individual. This has been decisively true for the American citizen. If I want a car, another child, a new refrigerator, a new housing site these are all within my rights of ownership and self aggrandizement, should I have the money to purchase them. This is a politico-cultural ethic-a product of man's brain and not of his biological heritage. The biological heritage, of which I speak, has been part of a biological evolutionary process two hundred million years long.

Our psycho- social or cultural evolution has been superimposed upon this process in just the last two tenths of a million years. It presently appears that the two may not be complimentary or compatible. The well-being of Homo sapiens, that is the collective, biological species, simply has not been the concern of cultural society. The emphasis of environmental education must focus upon this issue a comprehensive understanding of man's biological evolution and his ecological stance within nature, as a part of the natural world. A course in basic ecology and evolution should be made mandatory in grades K-12, throughout the United States, underscored as heavily as is the teaching of mathematics, English and American government courses.

The need for this education is currently here. It is not a concept we anticipate for an uncertain, problematic future; nor is it an unsubstantiated supposition. We are currently losing a battle we can ill afford to lose. This battle threatens the existence of Homo sapiens, as well as the Bermuda petrel, the California condor and the California brown pelican. The latter are signposts from which we dare not turn our eyes. I choose to believe that all hope is not forlorn, respite the evidence to the contrary. Immediate action is requisite in a magnitude hitherto only achieved by Madison Avenue public relations and advertising. We are faced with an epidemic of acute ignorance. The remedy must come in strong doses, long supply and administered by our most able physicians. The Federal government must exercise strong support, a commitment measured by flexible programs and generous funding. Such programs should be available not only to major educational institutions, but to private, grass-roots organizations diligently working to further the goals outlined by this act.

Homo sapiens has been forced into high noon by the cultural society. His success is dependent upon cumbrous changes in cultural attitudes and mores. This is the challenge and the survival test. It is our obligation to develop an environmental morality in the public, a sense of personal and collective responsibility for the state of the nation. This vast undertaking can and must be achieved with great dispatch. We do not have fifty years to devise a plan of action. The achievement of our goals must begin to show itself quickly, and can only be adequately realized through mass education.

The importance of environmental education does not rest solely with the adult community. We must reach the youth of the nation in order to build for an ecologically sound future. We must foster primary and secondary education programs which will result in an awareness of, and appreciation for, the environment and man's interdependence with it. In the final analysis it is a commitment to change in life styles. This requires inclusion of ecological-environmental instruction appropriate to all grade levels and subject areas throughout the entire school system and its curriculum. Such a model program was devised in California as the result of 1968 legislation. Unfortunately the state has not yet realized its commitment and has failed to provide funding for this legislation. Repeat of a similar performance by the federal government would indeed be a sad commentary on our learning processes.

The state of California has begun the task of educating its inhabitants by the development of the aforementioned program, though its has yet to provide the necessary funds for implementing it. Many states have not yet assumed their responsibilities in this field. It should be incumbant upon the Federal government to establish some coordination and implementation of national programs directed by every state. It is insufficient to have any less than 100 percent of our citizenry educated to the problems inherent in being a part of our ecosystem. A national approach and emphasis is urgently needed. Each state should be strongly encouraged to provide a Conservation Education Service in the State Department of Education. Functions of this service would be.

(a) to compile and disseminate bibliographies of available resource materials,

(b) to act as a consultant service to the school districts in conservation and outdoor education as requested,

(c) to prepare an annual Conservation Week mailing to all schools (as done in California, for example), and

(d) to perform other related services and responsibilities as deemed appropriate.

The Federal government can assist state education programs by providing support monies for in-residence sites and outdoor education camps.

Large sums of money will need to be requisitioned. One primary purpose for such money should be an environmental data center using computer information networks, storing information on resource people, organizations, projects, local problems and ecological data. Such systems have been in use for twenty years, i.e. the Air Defense Command SAGE system. We should do not less for our living environment than we have for the pentagon's efforts.

Critical to any education process is the knowledge and capabilities of the instructor. Well intentioned, well designed, creative programs are functionless without the educator. Give a child a creative, inspired and knowledgeable instructor and the learning process will be implemented in spite of material deficiencies. But the teacher is essential. Thus I would enjoin you to look quite seriously at programs for pre-service and in-service training of teachers at all levels. I have personally witnessed an instance where a progressive instructional program was implemented for second and third grade pupils, and the teachers were incapable of enhancing the learning abilities of their students due to the instructors lacks. To remedy the situation students from the University of Southern California were engaged to aid the teachers. There are two salient points to be gleened:

1. Teacher education programs are critical to the education process, and 2. Non-credentialed, well-informed individuals can be employed in a time when there exists a lag between the idea and the proper implementation of the program.

I would like to urge you to include in your program directions to the schools of education to make conservation education training and education in population problems mandatory for teaching credentials.

Furthermore, encouragement should be proferred to students and other involved individuals to participate in environmental education. I have personally witnessed instances where high school students were far better versed on environmental topics than either their teachers or the governmental personnel to whom they were addressing their thoughts.

Students are capable of offering assistance to the educational system. These efforts can be directed toward state, local and outdoor education programs. Their advice in program design should be sought in an age where relevance is often lacking between youth and established systems. Assistance is forseeable to administrators, school boards and individual teachers in providing resource materials and manpower to aid these programs and especially in the area of outdoor community and on-sight outdoor projects.

It is self-evident that pertinent teaching aids are indispensable to classroom education. Two essentials are necessary to meet these needs, research on specific teaching methods and development of worthwhile teaching materials.

At the university level funding should be provided for environmental study centers, for teacher training aid, fellowships, research grants on specific problems and more Junior White House Fellow positions, not just in the White House, but at state and local levels.

There are two points in the present bill to which I would like to address attention. Lines 24 and 25 on page 4, through line 5 on page 5 seem to provide the states a power which one would choose to deny them, if the federal government is earnest in its commitment to effecting major solutions to our environmental problems. The political concept of states rights must not become an issue in this discussion. Under this description should the state choose to deny funding to a worthy project, the Federal government would have stipulated its disinterest in aiding such a program. The Federal government must be ready to aid pertinent environmental pursuits regardless of state commitment. Under present wording the state is empowered to stymie any project by removing financial support. We are all too familiar with the products of interest conflicts and self-interest motives. In our own collective best interest we must offer as many viable alternatives to environmental problem solving as is creatively possible. Secondly, it behooves Congress to define clearly and without reservation its interest in obtaining and encouraging effective educational programs. It should be prepared to reward programs demonstrating ability in achieving change with continued support. Evaluations, as designated in lines 6-13 on page 3 must be made with further attention toward the goal. All too often program evaluations are made and laid to rest in some forgotten file. Evaluations must be made with goals of defining improvements and continuations of laudable projects. We must recognize that most of us are fledglings and ingenues in this area of prime importance.

My suggestion is that in both of the above mentioned areas the wording of the bill is weak. Clearly the bill is a strong step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. National attitudes reflect the attitudes of the national leaders. They must be bold enough to confront the issue with force and clarity. The quest for environmental responsibility in attitude and action is beyond the scope of political faction and self-aggrandizement. Should we choose to negate these ideas we will have chosen to negate our continuance on this planet.

This is a unique moment in time, in both its occurrence and in that it is not being ignored. For centuries we have denuded our life support system. Today we occupy the threshold of our mutual and often neglected responsibility for Mother Earth. If there is anything which we can still proclaim of the Christian ethic it is not to give up a worthy fight until it is won in our favor. To our legislators is entrusted the responsibility to act wisely in our behalf. It is evident that no one has all the facts or even, perhaps, half of them. Thus it is mandatory that we act in such a way as to offer as many rational choices as is possible by supporting programs at all levels of personal involvement.

Miss CITRON. From what Mr. Shafer said. I would like to address myself to two points from my statement and that is the opening points about what I feel is a more ethical imperative that we must now instill as a national effort, a national, cultural, attitudinal change which is, I feel, imperative; and to the two points in the bill, which, at the end, I discussed.