But I much preferred my longevity and arrangements for a career with the National Park Service to taking a temporary appointment even though it was a higher grade.

Mr. MERRICK. That chart in your report envisions something different? (See p. 180.)

Mr. WIRTH. Yes.

Mr. MERRICK. It envisions that the Park Service shall be in charge of the camp and run it?

Mr. WIRTH. That is right.

Mr. MERRICK. Hook, line, and sinker, everything?

Mr. WIRTH. That is right.

Mr. MERRICK. Payroll, medical, cooking and the whole business? Mr. WIRTH. Yes.

Mr. MERRICK. And presumably, under standards which the director of the program would set forth?

Mr. WIRTH. Yes. Give the repsonsibility to the operating agency. That is what I was trying to bring out-outside of the selection of the individual.

In those days the Army was our finance office and things went through there. For instance, I had a staff, which was in Washington, which was paid entirely from the CCC. We had to do a certain amount of reporting and camp equipment. The States, for instance, had a procurement office when they had a given number of camps and they were paid from CCC. I think the highest it ever got up to was toward the end-around about somewhere between $1,300, $1,400 a man-year, which included everything: equipment, materials, food, clothing, salary, medical, everything else which I thought was pretty good.

Senator GRUENING. I would like to call your attention to the fact that when I was in Sitka National Monument a few months ago I noticed that all the totem poles were sadly lacking in paint, the wood where the paint had gone was exposed to inclemency of the weather, the old Russian blockhouse that was since restored was just rotting and going to pieces. It seems to be one place that the Appropriations Committee might give you a little more sympathetic attention. I have no doubt there are similar situations in other national monuments. Mr. WIRTH. I am sure the Appropriations Committee would like to have your remarks on that.

Senator GRUENING. I will do my best. I am very sympathetic to Mission 66. I would like to see you have not only the amount of money requested, but substantially larger amounts. I think it is one of the most worthwhile programs we have. I think you are very much to be commended for working so indefatigably on behalf of it. Mr. WIRTH. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much.

Mr. WIRTH. Thank you.

Mr. MERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to have inserted in the record at this point an article which appeared in the New York Times of May 10, 1959, entitled, "Yosemite Offers New Guest Lures."

Senator GRUENING. Without objection, the article referred to by Mr. Merrick will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The article referred to follows:)

[From the New York Times, May 10, 1959]

YOSEMITE OFFERS NEW GUEST LURES-$1,500 000 ADDED FACILITIES DEDICATED BY THE CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL PARKS

(BY LAWRENCE E. DAVIES)

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIF., May 9. This spectacular 1,200-square-mile Federal reservation in California's High Sierra country dedicated new facilities today in anticipation of a record tourist year.

Unsightly, shabby buildings on the Merced Valley floor nestling among sheer sliffs and picturesque waterfalls have been demolished. The area occupied by these eyesores has been restored to its natural state. A new village store of rustic wood, with restaurant and several other serivce units for the million and a quarter visitors expected during 1959, sits unobtrusively in the midst of towering oaks and pines.

Conrad L. Wirth, director of the National Park Service, came out from Washington to dedicate the $1,500,000 worth of structures put up by the Yosemite Park & Curry Co. the park concessionaire. The project includes a $700,000 warehouse and maintenance building as well as the $800,000 merchandising center, which is longer than a football field.

PARTNERSHIP IS HAILED

Mr. Wirth described the development as an example of "wonderful spirt of partnership" developed between the National Park Service and private enterprise under the 10-year Mission 46 program initiated on July 1, 1956.

This program, having the blessing of President Eisenhower and Congress, is designed to bring all national park areas by 1966 up "to a standard where they can adequatley care for some 80 million visitors annually."

The visitors to the parks in 1956, the first year of the Mission 66 program, totaled just under 55 million. Last year the number was around 60 million with a 12 percent increase over 1957 in the number of campers.

In the first quarter of this year travel to the parks has been almost 25 percent greater than in the period a year earlier.

Yosemite drew 1,139,000 visitors in 1958 for a record.

Camping in Yosemite by trailer owners is increasing at the rate of 10 percent a year. Because of the trend, all types of campers are being limited by the Park Service this year to 10-day stays on campgrounds on the 7-square-mile valley floor. The limit in most other areas of the park is 30 days.

HIGH RATIO OF CAMPERS

"Yosemite," said John F. Preston, its superintendent since 1952, "has almost 30 percent of all camping for all national parks."

The Yosemite Park & Curry Co. has completed $5,588,000 worth of construction since the start of its 20-year contract with the Interior Department in 1952. At Yosemite Lodge it spent $1,500,000 in 1956 and 1959 on three central structures.

The Park Service itself has not been idle. Since institution of the Mission 66 program it has added several campgrounds in a continuing process.

The concessionaire can take care of about 4,500 persons in its hotels and lodges on the valley floor. The Park Service has 2,500 campsites in the same area. Thus about 10,000 persons can normally be accommodated overnight in the valley, but 25,000 poured in last Memorial Day and somehow were taken care of, thanks to emergency campsites.

Mr. Preston and his chief assistant, Keith Nielsen, cite "inadequate staffing" as the chief weakness of the Mission 66 program.

SHORTAGE OF RANGERS

Elmer N. Fladmark, the park's chief ranger, has 22 rangers on his permanent staff. This compares with 23 in 1941, when Yosemite drew only 594,004 visitors. He will have only 60 seasonal rangers this summer, compared with 69 last year. It is all a matter of available funds.

Mr. Preston looks to the day when more valley eyesores, Army buildings of old Camp Yosemite, will be torn down and when Park Service "housekeeping activities" will be transferred to a new site at the El Portal entrance under a bill passed by Congress last year.

When auto repair, plumbing, and similar shops are moved to that point, there will go with them the park incinerator, which often smokes up the valley.

Senator GRUENING. Mr. Daniel Goldy.

Will you come forward?

You are highly commended as a man expert on conservation and labor.

Senators Morse, Magnuson, Neuberger, Jackson, and Church have spoken highly to me of your service in the Pacific Northwest.

We are glad to have your testimony here on this bill and any related matters that you think would be appropriate.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL GOLDY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. GOLDY. Thank you very much, Senator Gruening. As you indicated, I have had some experience in the conservation field as well as in the labor field. I am currently working in the State of New Jersey. I am the assistant commissioner of labor and industry in charge of employment and manpower matters.

I speak here today in behalf of Senate bill 812, to set up a Youth Conservation Commission and a Youth Conservation Corps. I also speak on behalf of Gov. Robert B. Meyner of New Jersey, who supports these proposals.

I would like to suggest some specific amendments to Senate bill 812, but before I do I would like to make a general statement about the problem.

Senator GRUENING. Proceed just in your own way and we will be very happy to have not only your statement but your suggestions for amendments.

Mr. GOLDY. Thank you very much, Senator.

I see in S. 812 a unique opportunity. It is rare, indeed, that by supporting one program, one can deal effectively with such diverse but urgent and vital problems.

The country will be confronted with certain future problems; and this evaluation of the outlook is based not on anybody's estimate, but on facts that have already occurred. The fact that during the depression thirties birthrates went down, and that, subsequently, during the defense buildup and particularly in the postwar period birthrates went way up and have continued high, affects the economy in a special and peculiar way. These facts have a direct bearing on the problems with which S. 812 seeks to deal.

There are three kinds of problems which can be dealt with within this one proposed program. None will be solved completely, but substantial assistance in the solution of them can be obtained from this proposed program.

The first problem is the conservation of our natural resources. It is axiomatic that a nation's wealth consists essentially of two things: Its physical resources and its human resources. We are beginning to

fall very badly behind in the conservation and development of our physical resources.

As you mentioned, Senator, I had the privilege of working for a period of time in the Interior Department, and for a while I was the regional administrator for the Bureau of Land Management in the Pacific Northwest. We had directly under our management some 30 million acres of publicly owned lands. When I became acquainted with the problems of management on those lands, I found that there were very serious lags, indeed.

One of the problems, when you seek to obtain additional appropriations for conservation programs that urgently need doing is that you are in competition with all kinds of other programs that are competing for the same source of funds. But I was confronted with a lag in programs that produced revenue. With a reasonable investment of public funds, the public could get back income in the ratio of from 1 to 6 to 1 to 12 for every dollar put in. And in some cases the net return was much greater than that.

We did manage to obtain some funds during that period to undertake some expanded programs for regrassing the range, reforesting the denuded areas in the hills, improving watersheds, building access roads, combating insects and forest pests, making forest inventories and so forth. But our efforts were nothing compared to the needs. If somebody prepared a balance sheet today, as they should, of the needs versus the lags, and gaps in the development of our resources, they would come up with a startling story of the things we are not doing that we should be doing, if we are not to adversely and seriously affect the coming generations.

In this connection I was interested in the figures that Senator Humphrey persented in the Harper's article on this subject. (See p. 501.) He obtained the estimates from a group called the National Resources Council.

This group surveyed the projects on file in State and Federal conservation agencies around the country; projects that they had on the books but weren't carrying out. They produced these estimates: that over a 10-year intensive program we would need to invest $3 billion to put our forests into adequate productive shape; $4.5 billion to halt the loss of topsoil and protect vital watersheds; $1 billion to stabilize the soils and increase forage yields on western rangelands; $2 billion for upgrading and expanding areas of outdoor recreation facilities; and an additional $1 billion to improve refuges for wildlife. And that, I would say, is probably a conservative estimate.

But there are other reasons why we must get on with the job. We must not only conserve what basic resources we have, but we must also utilize them effectively and efficiently.

I am referring to the fact that the pattern of birthrates which I have described will produce in the years immediately ahead a very rapid upsurge in the size of the labor force, in the net new entrants into the labor force, and by 1965, a very rapid increase in annual rates of family formation.

This will mean a tremendously increased demand for housing in America. Where is the lumber going to come from for this volume of housing? It will have to come from our available resources. But how can it come from our resources unless we can put up for sale the full allowable cut of our forests? Today, we are not investing the

man-hours in sales, the money in access roads, or the research time in inventories to develop the full allowable cuts of our forests.

The country may pay enormously in inflated prices for lumber and housing, as the anticipated demand builds up, unless we do something to make our forests fully productive on a planned basis.

Or take recreation as an example. It is not only a value which is extremely important to modern day living and will become more so, but it is also important as an industry. Out in the Pacific Northwest, Senator, which you know so well, recreation is a billion dollar industry. It ranks as the third most important industry in the Pacific Northwest. What is that recreation industry built on? It is built on visitations to the national parks, the national monuments, the national forests, the wildlife refuges and so forth.

The Forest Service has come up with some very interesting estimates as to how this visitation is going to increase in the immediate future. They point out that recreation visits in the national forests alone rose from 35.4 million in 1953 to 68.5 million in 1958. They estimate that in the next 11 years, from 1950 to 1961, annual visitations will rise to 130 million, and by the year 2000 to 600 millionprovided, of course, facilities are built to care for the visitors. From my own experience out there-and I am a camper who has used the Forest Service facilities extensively-I know that the Forest Service camp facilities were installed initially by the CCC and that by and large they have deteriorated since that time. Virtually no new facilities have been added. Not until we got a YCC program is it likely that we will get the accelerated development, maintenance and improvement of these camping facilities that the public demands and

needs.

With the new high speed superhighways that will soon span the United States, in just a matter of the next 8 to 10 years, you can imagine what the pressure is going to be on those recreation resources of the Western States. We ought to be getting ready now for that kind of a problem.

I know that in the public lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management there were many areas where we could have put roadside picnic facilities, where we could have created excellent campsites, and where we could have developed streams for recreatiao and fishing. But we didn't have the money; we didn't have the resources to do it.

This story of the lag in resources development could be expanded no end. One of the most interesting and pertinent documents to this committee's deliberations is the new program for the national forests put out by the U.S. Forest Service last month. In this document is an inventory of the unmet needs and long range and immediate goals of the Forest Service. Here is an inventory of work which urgently needs to be done for the future welfare of the United States.

I want to turn now, however, to another facet of the problem with which S. 812 deals, namely our manpower resources. As urgent and important as it is to enact this bill so as to conserve and develop the natural resources of the United States, it is even more urgent to do it to conserve and develop the manpower resources of the United States. Our youth constitutes the group in the labor force with some of the greatest problems. In 1958 about 1.5 million students graduated