yet, I wonder if perhaps some safeguards should be added in the way of a dollar limitation to prevent exploitation and waste. It might be that this section could read up to 80 percent of the cost of developing and carrying out the State plan, but not to exceed $75,000.

(2) Enforcement by Secretary: citations, section 8. I have some reservations about the Federal Government moving into a State where there is some reluctance to develop and initiate a plan. Such action, I feel, would meet with extremely unfavorable reactions in certain parts of the country and would also be much more costly than utilizing the machinery of the existing State departments. I am sympathetic with the desire of providing the coverage required in each and every State, and I wonder if some other incentives might be used to get the States to assume the responsibility.

Mr. DANIELS. At that point, sir, what would you recommend as an alternative?

Dr. KIRK. I don't know. If, for example, there is a program or activity deemed to be in the public interest, is it not possible to require the implementation of a program in order to safeguard the health and welfare of individuals. I don't know.

I am raising a question. Or could the suggested subsidy be tacked on to other functions for Health, Education, and Welfare?

Mr. DANIELS. I don't know how you would initiate a program along the line you have just indicated. It may be that we don't want to force or compel State agencies into camp activities if they don't want to be involved. That would be strongly resisted and there is a question in my mind as to constitutionality.

Dr. KIRK. To encourage as much as possible and if all other means are not possible, I would favor a universal plan.

Mr. DANIELS. You made a recommendation that we give up not to exceed $75,000.

Dr. KIRK. Yes. It could be less or more, depending on what could be determined reasonable. I was using pretty much as a guideline my affiliation with Michigan programs some years ago and, of course, costs have gone up.

Mr. DANIELS. The reason for the legislation, was the inducement for States to get active in this area provided their standards are equal to the Federal standards which would be stabbed by this legislation.

MP. KIRK. What I was concerned about in that one, Congressman Daniels, is States going into programs much more elaborate than they need as long as the Federal Government is going to pick up 80 percent of the cost.

Such things as putting on more inspection forces than necessary— I am trying to prevent a political exploitation. So I am just amazed at that 75 percent figure in there. Maybe $50,000 would be more reasonable, but something where they won't go in too far; 80 percent is an open-ended figure; 80 percent of what? For example, in Michigan we provided free consultation. We published a directory; we had a very elaborate program.

Mr. DANIELS. In view of your experience with the Michigan program, what do you think would be a fair figure for the development of a program?

37-569-74. -15

Dr. KIRK. Somewhere between $50,000 and $55,000.

Again, Michigan has more camping programs than any other State. But I think somewhere in and around there, as I say, would be a safeguard, I would be very supportive of the concept.

Mr. DANIELS. Fine.

Dr. KIRK. (3) Penalties, section 10. I especially like the provisions stated in this section and feel that the penalties are reasonable and necessary. I know that some segments of the camping field may argue that the purpose of such legislation is to educate and not to be punitive. I would have to disagree. The regulations promulgated are to be educational, but deliberate violations should be punishable under the law; these provisions appear to be very reasonable and fair, and I would hope that despite any possible criticism this section would be retained intact.

(4) Procedures to Counteract Imminent Dangers, section 11. It would appear that an intermediate step should be provided prior to court proceedings in th U.S. District Courts. In my judgment a commission or appeals board established by the commissioner or State in question, might be able to handle the vast majority of the director of the enforcing department, or by the governor of the problems that might result from the enforcement of the State plans. This would be much more expedient from the director's point of view; far less costly, since it might not be necessary to engage counsel; and it would not add to the court calendar, which in many cases is already overcrowded. It would appear that the U.S. District Courts could be utilized as the step following the hearing conducted by a State board of appeals or State commission if such action is deemed necessary.

(5) Variations, section 12. If the regulations that are to be implemented represent minimum safety standards, then I question the wisdom of providing the opportunity of granting a variance or exception. If any camp cannot meet the minimum regulations, it would probably be a greater service to children if the camp ceased to exist. I would have to raise serious questions about the feasibility of compromising and granting an exemption from any minimum safety standards which might be promulgated.

(6) Travel Camps, section 13. It would appear that once again an added administrative burden is being placed upon some existing Federal agency, or else this section is necessitating the establishment of a new Federal bureau. Travel camps could be handled adequately within the framework of a State plan. This could be done by having the itinerary, equipment and staff qualifications checked on the day prior to departure in the State of origin. This procedure worked quite well in the State of Michigan, and I believe it could be far more advantageous than having travel camps supervised by a Federal agency.

(7) Federal Recreation Camps, section 14. It seems somewhat redundant and unnecessary to have a separate set of safety standards developed for camps operated by Federal agencies. I believe this section could be strengthened by stating that on federally administered lands the Secretary cooperate with the enforcing State agency in the implementation and enforcement of the regultions

promulgated and applied in that State. I believe my arguments in reference to section 12 would also apply here. If minimum regulations have been developed and are being enforced, then they should apply to all youth camps in a given area regardless of sponsorship. (8) Advisory Council on Youth Camp Safety, section 15. This section could be strengthened, and I believe the anxiety and tensions of the camping professionals would be considerably lessened if the names of nationally recognized organizations were cited for membership on the National Advisory Council. You have already set the precedent by indicating that one representative would come from the Department of the Interior.

Might it not be possible to also state in this section that representatives would include someone from the National Office of the Boy Scouts of America; the Girl Scouts of the United States; the Campfire Girls, Inc.; the YM-YWCA and the American Camping Association. This would guarantee representation of competent professionals in the camping field and protect such appointments from falling into the category of political patronage or any other such abuses.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you and Mr. Peyser for the time and effort you have spent on behalf of the camping profession in the development of H.R. 1486. With these minor adjustments I would urge its immediate passage. In my judgment, such legislation is long overdue and will contribute significantly to the health, welfare, and safety of children participating in organized camping experiences. I also wish to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chariman, and the members of the committee for permitting me to share by views of H.R. 1486.

Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Dr. Kirk, I want to compliment you on an outstanding analysis of this bill. I appreciate the comments you have made and the recommendations that you have made. I know you have been quite a leader in this field and your work is well known. I appreciate your enforcement of this legislation.

I have just a couple of questions. I know you are quite familiar with the ACA accreditation program. I wonder if you could point out to this committee, any deficiency that you have observed.

Dr. KIRK. One thing that has concerned me as to that program is that we visit the camps once every 5 years. It is not that we wouldn't like to do it every year, it is that we utilize volunteers, trained in an ever intensive program. We require there be a visiting team of two people, usually camp directors in their own right. They have to go out in the summer, so it is quite a chore to organize the visiting programs in all the 38 sections of ACA, throughout the 50 States.

I know there is some movement afoot to move it down to 3 years and gradually get the 1 day to an annual inspection. How far in the future, I don't know.

Any legislative program would require an annual inspection and I think that would be a much better approach and is one of the weaknesses, as I see it, in our own program.

Mr. DANIELS. Has there been any change in the fee charge by the association?

Dr. KIRK. There is a new fee schedule going into effect. Right now, a camp director, in order to be a member of the association, has to be an accredited camp member; you are not to hold an individual membership, some may, but it is in violation.

Under the new fee schedule it is possible to be a member of the association, then an additional fee is charged for the accreditation of the camp. I personally oppose this whole approach to the fee structure and there is nothing as obsolete as a past president who does not hold too much weight.

Mr. DANIELS. Does a director of a camp who enrolls in ACAmust he necessarily be associated or affiliated with a camp?

Dr. KIRK. There are different categories of membership. There is individual membership and a camp membership and executive membership.

There will be a student membership, and an executive membership. A separate fee schedule will be in effect for the accreditation of the camp.

My concern is that some may hold a membership but not have this camp accreditation. A person could ask an individual if that individual is a member of the association; there is no guarantee the camp has met the requirements.

Mr. DANIELS. Do you think because of his membership in the association, it might imply the camp he is associated with is also a member of the association?

Dr. KIRK. It is possible.

Mr. DANIELS. Then, I think that is an area the American Camping Association ought to police themselves.

Dr. KIRK. We are.

Mr. DANIELS. You have had a great deal of experience over the past years in camping experiences. You have been affiliated with a number of organizations. Have you had an opportunity to examine the camping legislation recently enacted in Texas?

Dr. KIRK. Yes, I have. I think the Texas law is an excellent law as it is written. I also think the regulations promulgated will go a long way. I know there was some concern expressed as to the implementation or concept of a Federal bill. In my judgment, they have nothing to fear. They have an excellent law and I would assume based on my experience that the Texas program would meet all criteria.

Mr. DANIELS. How does that law compare with the Michigan law, which you helped promulgate?

Dr. KIRK. It does not provide the consultation service. You have to look back over the years and note how long the State of Michigan has been involved in this. The basic regulatory program is similar to Michigan's.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you very much.

I recognize my colleague, Mr. Peyser.

Mr. PEYSER. I have no questions but I think your analysis of the program and your testimony was excellent.

Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Sarasin.

Mr. SARASIN. You talked about the State of Michigan, which has probably the best laws in the country. In our hearings with the

director of the State of Michigan, there was the absence of the statistical information on safety. Is this something that was left out when the law was enacted?

Dr. KIRK. The regulatory functions come under the department of social service's response for the supervision of children from birth to age 19, whenever they are away from their parents or legal guardians. It is the broadest law of this kind ever conceived in the world. This means there are separate divisions for listing of day care, boarding homes, summer camps, and a very elaborate network of field service.

When I was connected with the department, they had 92 social workers to implement this child welfare law and, as I say, camps were part of it. There was not at that time, funds alloted to camp research. We had to collect data.

Mr. SARASIN. If I might interrupt, the information we received here was that they just toss the statistics out after 3 years.

Dr. KIRK. That is right. If there is something that looks questioanble, there is an immediate followup. It goes into a file; it is held for a part of time and then it goes. It would be necessary if funds were available or turned over to a university. I could see a group of graduate students using this material to compile the data. Mr. SARASIN. I would think you would have an ongoing interest in statistics to see if your program is successful.

Dr. KIRK. During my tenure, I took just the one area to check out myself. This was the area of drownings in camps. From the time regulations were promulgated until they were revised, there was anywhere from one to six drownings.

In 1960, with 200.000 contact hours a day, there were no drownings in Michigan State, which according to other camp directors, is one of the finest records ever achieved. Restrictions were not stringent.

I took that one area because it stood out.

In 1959, there were six drownings and this is what brought me to go to my supervisors and state that something had to be done. Mr. SARASIN. Do you feel the regulations promulgated by the Secretary can be provided for day camps as well as resident camps? Dr. KIRK. Verv definitely-every type of camping.

Obviously, if there is a regulation for buildings and there are no buildings, the regulation does not apply. So, I think in the development of regulations, those which did not apply would be so obvious that they would not create any problems.

A troop camp is a resident camp, sir, therefore the water has to be safe. There has to be adequate water facilities, sleeping accommodations. It is a temporary resident camp. It is not permanent. The same is true in day camping.

One of my concerns has been the lunch bus. Some of the lunches that youngsters bring contain different kinds of salads and sauces and it is put out in the hot sun.

If you have swimming in a day camp. it is no different than swimming in a resident camp. I often said, the only difference is you have substituted the buildings with buses and that is the only difference between a summer camp and a resident camp, in my judgment.