of them have been thought up since redeemable currencies were abandoned. Undeniably, however, the age of modern dictatorships began when this great change was made.

This is no mere coincidence, even though the connection is concealed by the well advertised social purposes to which the usurped power of the purse is put. From Moscow to Washington, traveling either east or west, it is argued in almost every capital that the great virtue of unlimited government is its alleged ability to improve the lot of the people. Undoubtedly this official claim is often sincerely made. But it is disconcerting to see both "slave" and "free" worlds in such complete agreement on the importance of irredeemable managed currencies for the creation of great societies.

Indeed there is now only one outstanding chief of state who argues without equivocation that civilization would be in better shape if the great trading nations would restore the time-tested gold standard, which perhaps shoud be done in concert if it is done at all. President de Gaulle of France is often accused of having dictatorial leanings. But the charge is blunted by his demonstrated willingness to subject the spending of his government to wholly nonpolitical controls. That is the practice of democracy, as contrasted with mere lipservice.

The manipulated currency systems of the principal trading nations have now been coordinated and fairly well stabilized by a whole network of intricate intergovernmental arrangements. One serious difficulty, however, remains essentially unsolved and, for our own country, is perceptibly moving

toward crisis proportions.

It is not difficult for a powerful government to declare anything legal tender in the territory which it controls. Instead of irredeemable paper it could decree the use of bottle caps, as was suggested in a science fiction story not long since. All that is needed is complete governmental control of what passes for money.

511) to increase the authorization of appropriations for the support of the Gorgas Memorial Laboratory, which was, on page 1, line 9, strike out "$500,000" and insert "not to exceed $500,000".

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the Senate provided an authorization of appropriation of $500,000. The amendment of the House of Representatives simply provides an authorization of appropriation not to exceed $500,000. There may

be a distinction but there is no difference.

of Outdoor Recreation; a third the Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey, and other agencies dealing with minerals and fuels.

division of responsibility. It could go far toward eliminating rivalry and confusion that have jeopardized efforts in reclamation and power development. It could eliminate much of the friction and rivalry between the Forest Service and Park Service.

On paper, this seems to be a clean, clear

On paper, all this would seem to be ac

complished without further proliferating of Federal agencies or of Federal redtape.

But most careful study is needed to be sure that in seeking these goals other great

The motion was agreed to.

ESTABLISHMENT

OF A DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, the proposal I introduced last month to bring all of our natural resource activities into one department under one head has been the subject of a great deal of comment. I am pleased that it is stimulating debate and thought, because that was my principal purpose in introducing it. It will take time to reach a meeting of minds on this important undertaking.

of my bill I have seen appeared in the One of the more interesting analyses Deseret News, a distinguished afternoon newspaper published in Salt Lake City, Utah. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial entitled "Make Our Resources Count," be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Deseret News, Aug. 25, 1965]

no contact with the outside world.

In the last analysis gold remains, as it has always been, the one enduringly acceptable

form of settlement for international balances. Appreciation of this forced the United States to continue to redeem paper dollars in gold when demanded by foreign central banks, even though identical dollars became irredeemable when held by American citizens at home.

With our continuous deficit financing now seemingly settled policy, foreign doubts as to the future worth of the dollar have naturally increased. They are reflected in the persistent drain on what has now become a

very emaciated gold reserve. It is a highly

unwelcome situation, which half measures may not suffice to meet. And those who regret the passing of the old gold standard are entitled to draw the obvious moral:

Gold still stands up, when faith in irredeemable paper currency grows as thin as the paper on which government can so easily stamp arbitrary values for domestic purposes.

MAKE OUR RESOURCES COUNT Meeting the long-range needs of America, as population pressures push ever harder against available resources, is one of America's greatest challenges. So there is much to say for Senator FRANK Moss' proposal to ral resources under the same roof.

Senator Moss would create a national Department of Natural Resources. Basically, this would absorb the present Department of Interior-but would also include a number of resource-related agencies and exclude a number of present Interior functions that don't belong in that category.

For instance, it would transfer the Bureau

of Indian Affairs to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Office of Territories to the same agency, and the Alaska Railroad to the Department of Commerce.

But it would bring under the Department of Natural Resources such agencies as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Power Commission, the civil function of the Corps of Engineers, and present functions of HEW in water pollution control.

Most significantly, it would transfer the U.S. Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Natural Resources.

TIONS FOR SUPPORT OF THE THE GORGAS MEMORIAL LABORATORY

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S.

Lands and Forests.

Below this level one assistant secretary would handle water, another power. One assistant secretary would handle affairs of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management; another would handle the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, and Bureau

For example, the Forest Service has done a tremendous job of conservation, watershed protection, and recreation development in these Western States. Nothing should be allowed to make its work less effective.

Care should be taken that the stimulus of competition is not replaced by bureaucracy so monolithic that it is hard to move and unresponsive to needs of the public.

But what Senator Moss and others are proposing is certainly worth careful and critical study. The task of wise management of our natural resources for the long-range future is one of the most important we face as a nation. We must be certain it is being done in the most efficient possible manner.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I was well

it had been considered and reconsidered aware that such a proposal was controversial in the extreme, and that although

many times, no one had ever had the legislative terms and introduce it. temerity before to actually reduce it to

individuals and groups have approached Since I introduced this measure, many me to tell me of extensive studies they of proposals they have drawn up. have made in this field in the past, and

One of the most comprehensive plans which has come to my attention was published in the Natural Resources Journal of the University of New Mexico School of Law in November 1961. Evidently, because of fear of stepping on bureaucratic toes, the author chose to remain anonymous, and identified himself only as "Mr. Z." There is nothing mysterious, however, about his proposal, or of the value of his recommendations in the field.

Two other position papers on the reorganization of the water resource development activities of the Federal Government have also come my way. The department or agency from which they came shall be nameless, but the papers both move in the same direction as the bill I have introduced.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these three proposals be placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as background and discussion material for the bill I have

introduced.

There being no objection, the proposals were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE CASE FOR A DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

stimulate discussion of a controversial sub(NOTE. The following article is offered to guarantee that attention will be focused on ject, and does not necessarily represent the the issues, and not on personalities, the author prefers to remain anonymous.)

views of the Journal or its councils. To

MISTER Z

Our growing population, our industrial demands for raw materials and our commitments abroad all put pressure on our natural

resource base. Our ability to maintain the productive capacity of our soils, forests, water, mineral, and energy sources is in question. Yet U.S. public policy toward natural resources is developed and administered by a complex, confusing, and conflicting array of agencies, offices, and departments. Large amounts of money, talent, ideas, and ability are directed toward protecting the national interest in developing and conserving our resources. The concrete results of all this effort have been few. An important obstacle to forward planning is the lack of unifying coordination. A symphony orchestra composed of outstanding musicians each dedicated to producing beautiful music will produce only discordant noise in the absence of a conductor. This analogy applies perfectly to current natural resource policy in the United States.

I. THE PROBLEM

Present divisions and duplications of authority restrict true comprehensive development. They pit agency against agency in jurisdictional disputes and in contention for executive and legislative approval. Consider some random examples. There is a running battle between the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) and the Park Service

(Department of the Interior) over the role of

recreation on public lands. The Forest Service advocates the multiple-use of forests with recreation just one of many commodities produced. The Park Service argues that such management destroys many of the values of recreation. The result is that much of the administrative energy needed to develop recreational facilities is dissipated in internecine strife. The classic example of the wastes of duplication is in the water resources development field. Four Departments are involved: Interior; Defense (Army Corps of Engineers); Health, Education, and Welfare; and Agriculture. Each Department uses different

methods of computing expected costs and

benefits from projects; each Department stresses different aspects of water development; each Department views the others' activities with a suspicion that borders on the paranoid.

This list of conflicts could be extended indefinitely. The Soil Conservation Service (Agriculture) is promoting the draining of wetlands in the northern midwest while the Fish and Wildlife Service (Interior) is trying to maintain wetlands for waterfowl. The Corps of Engineers is advocating the development of the Potomac River in conflict with the plans of the Park Service for a national park in the area. Undoubtedly the reader can add many more examples to this dreary

account of intramural feuds.

The good will and devotion of the agencies concerned is not to be questioned. There are no heroes or villains in this story. The major troubles with present resource policies stem from the administrative organization of Federal activities.

The form in which resource conservation and development planning takes place affects the substance of the programs. Irrevocable decisions are made on major natural resource matters within the framework of laws which restrict the developing agency to certain purposes, on the basis of agency traditions, and on the basis of artificially generated political support. Rarely, if ever, are these decisions based on informed judgment about overall national needs and goals. The result is that present public policy toward resources is indefensible if evaluated by economic, political, or social criteria.

The present situation can be summarized in 10 propositions. They are:

1. In nature, the resources of soil, water, forests, wildlife, and minerals are all a closely interrelated whole. Conservation practices designed for their protection, management, and development are similarly related; e.g., water and watershed management, forestry,

soil conservation and wildlife, recreational uses of national parks and national forests, mineral development as well as reclamation water developments, flood control, and pollution abatement.

As an illustration, consider a national forest. It will usually be the case that in addition to timber, the forest will provide protection for municipal water supplies. The forest will also be an important factor in any program of water pollution control. There may be extensive campsites, picnic areas, and perhaps wilderness trails. Wildlife management will be practiced. A program of soil conservation will likely be undertaken. This latter program will affect downstream navigation, power production, and flood control. Mineral exploration and production may take place on the forest. All of these uses of the forest are interrelated parts of the forest management. Many of these may take place simultaneously on the same land area. Each of them is related to the programs of some other agency in a different department. Despite administrative divisions, resource management cannot be separated.

would find the Corps of Engineers (Defense) concerned with river basin planning and flood control; Soil Conservation Service (Agriculture) concerned with watersheds; Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (Interior) concerned with fish habitat and recreation.

Attempts to resolve these conflicts have been made. One popular device has been the establishment of interagency coordinating committees in Washington and on local levels. Nevertheless, lacking any central authority short of the President, the member Bureau and Department representatives on these permissive committees are unable to resolve basic conflicts of interest. Line-operating authority disputes cannot be reconciled by discussion.

This proposition holds even when the coordinating committee is composed of Cabinet-level officials. Even here, integration requires Presidential directives for each and every issue which arises.

5. For many years efforts have been made to reorganize Federal resource development and conservation responsibilities. Secretary Harold Ickes in 1938 desired to change Interior into a Department of Conservation. In 1949 some of the task forces of the first Hoover Commission suggested a Department

which President Truman tried to obtain up until 1951. In his last budget message, President Eisenhower suggested that the Army Corps of Engineers' water functions be transferred to interior.2

President Kennedy's explanation of his decision to offer a special message of natural resources revealed his concern with the problem of coordination. He said: "This statement is designed to bring together in one message the widely scattered resource pollcies of the Federal Government. In the past, flicted. Funds were wasted on competing these policies have overlapped and often conefforts. Widely differing standards were ap

Health, Education, and Welfare Water supply and pollution control.

Federal Power Commission

Staff develops positions on pending applications, and also provides statistics and economics surveillance concerning both gas and electric power.

In addition, a number of independent offices or commissions have, or have had, a role in policy formation and management. Examples are: Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, President's Materials Policy Commission, the President's Water Resources Review Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

3. The scattering of program responsibility among departments has resulted in a welter of confusion and cross-purposes. This applies both to the development of consistent legislative policy and to program administration. This is especially important at the local level. This situation is spectacularly inefficient and actually dangerous to the public interest in our divided water programs. The present responsibilities of the Federal Government put great strains on the budget. Yet competition among agencies "to get business" contributes to inefficient water resource development and waste of public funds. Water resource development, instead of taking place within a framework of consideration of national objectives and resources, takes place as a result of "logrolling” and "pork-barrel" politics. This is tragic when one considers the expanding demands for water-derived products as well as for all other natural resources.

4. Many conflicts arise because of the special interests of the various agencies. A typical situation in water resource development

pressures diverted energies away from longrange planning for national economic growth. Fees and user charges wholly inconsistent with each other, with value received and with public policy have been imposed at some Federal developments." 3

The President pledged action in his special message to redefine resource responsibilities within the Executive Office, strengthen the Council of Economic Advisers for this purpose, and establish a Presidential Advisory Committee on Natural Resources under the Council of Economic Advisers.

6. Present divisions have no logical justification. With respect to the land resource agencies now in the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service and the Soil Confor the former agency is that "trees are servation Service, the supposed justification crops," and for the latter that farmlands has validity in fact.

suffer the most from erosion. Neither claim

Most Forest Service activity is centered on the management of 180 million acres of public lands, the national forests; that which is directed toward private forestry assistance is kept completely separate from all regular farm crop programs and is not even integrated with soil conservation plans on the same ownership. At least half of the private forest lands on which assistance is given are held by nonfarm landowners. Even the Forest Service research function is separate from the Agricultural Research Service.

1 Hoover Commission-Report on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, 267 (1949).

H.R. Doc. No. 255, 86th Congress, 2d session (1960).

Address on natural resources, New York Times, February 24, 1961, p. 12, col. 1.

The Soil Conservation Service program is also unrelated to other Agriculture Department efforts. It is concerned with practices for the protection of the basic soil resource, regardless of ownership. It is not integrated It is not integrated with other farm programs concerned primarily with production, marketing, price, and supply regulation. Some of the most serious erosion problems are connected with new highways and suburban developments and have no relationship to farmland.

The Soil Conservation Service program conflicts at many points with programs of the Interior Department, particularly those concerned with fish and wildlife and with reclamation. The conflict over draining of the northern Midwest wetlands has already been mentioned. Conciliation of competing soil and water programs is far away.

The division of water agencies among four Departments (Agriculture with SCS and small watershed programs; Interior with Reclamation, Saline Water, Geological Survey, etc.; Defense with Army Corps of Engineers; and HEW with pollution control and water supply programs) has reached the proportions of a national crisis. No real justifi

cation has ever been offered for a continua

tion of the present situation except that it is "politically impossible" to remedy. The rapidly developing water problem is forcing the issue to the point where continued inaction will result in embarrassment to the administration.

7. Lacking any central responsibility at the Cabinet level for resources policy and management, the Bureau of the Budget is forced into the role of coordinator and arbiter between the various agencies. Probably in no other area of Federal responsibility does the Budget Bureau exercise so strong an influence and leverage over programing.

The present role of the Budget Bureau exceeds its normal responsibilities. Given the present structure of Federal natural resource activities, it has been the only agency which has any interest in, or capability for, developing a truly national resource program. This is particularly important for the development of new programs. New needs require new activities. The evaluation of goals and means to meet these goals require specialized attention and expertise that cannot be provided by fiscal specialists in the Bureau of the Budget.

8. Natural resource agency appropriations are developed as a group by the Bureau of the Budget and (since 1954) the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees, regardless of the fact that functional agencies are scattered among many Departments. The legislative committees in the Congress continue to divide responsibilities along older but less consistent lines.

9. Federal organization of resource activi

The most popular alternative suggestion is to create coordinating and advisory committees. The Congress recognizes the need for developing policy and programs related to national needs rather than to the traditions and prejudices of competing agencies. A distinguished group of Democratic Senators in both the 86th and 87th Congresses have sponsored legislation to establish a Council of Resource and Conservation Advisers in the Executive Office of the President in order to coordinate resource conservation on the basis of national goals.*

This change would go only part of the way toward providing the necessary coordination. The past history of trying to obtain unity through committees and advisory groups illustrates the futility of expecting much from these proposals. At present, only if the President himself operates as his own Secretary of Natural Resources (to the near exclusion of many other important matters) can the problem of divided authority be resolved. Adding more councils and advisory agencies will merely provide more organizations to coordinate-regardless of the value

of the specific contributions the new organizations could make. Present problems cannot be solved by grafting still more decisionmaking or policy-advising units onto

the present structure. We need fewer and more responsible centers of authority. Measures such as interagency committees, Cabinet-level coordinating committees, and other forms of direction through consensus have resulted, and will continue to result, in divided responsibility and failure to face up to the need to center authority. The basic problem will remain unremedied and more time, effort, and money will be wasted on efforts to coordinate programs rather than being devoted to the development and execution of programs.

At this juncture of American history it is imperative that our resource management programs be accelerated to provide for the increased productivity needed by an expanding population. A broad resource program involving the application of specialized techniques and investments of billions of dollars can be carried out only by a well-designed and coordinated Federal organization. It is clear that the present clumsy operation of the Government in the natural resources field will not only result in wasteful duplication, but fail to meet the goals set forth. Public disillusion will be inevitable. Nor are the alternatives thus far discussed adequate. A Department of Natural Resources is vital if the Federal Government is to meet its responsibilities for the conservation and development of natural resources.

Because of the present concentration of resource activities in the Department of the

nizations such as the wildlife, park, forestry, and similar groups, the League of Women Voters, organized labor, and the several farm organizations are strong backers of an integrated resource program and would probably support unification through reorganization. Business groups sincerely interested in government efficiency would find resistance difficult. Efforts of these groups could be organized to offset the pressures resisting change. The support of these citizens' organizations I will be essential.

The time to take this action is during the first year or so of the President's new term before resistances and pressure group policies harden. The President can evoke great public support for this move if he will go directly to the people for support. The present crisis in foreign affairs provides a further reason for taking civil water programs from the Department of Defense.

It is of central importance that a distinction be made between Federal programs for protection, management, and development of basic land, water, and mineral resources, including primary extraction (except agricultural crops) and those which deal with product processing, economics, etc. It is the first phase with which a Department of Natural Resources would be primarily concerned.

On the other hand, resource programs which affect privately owned resources and those which affect publicly owned resources should be combined in one department. For example, direct investment and management, as in the national forests, should be combined with programs designed to aid private owners, such as technical assistance, cost sharing, etc., for private forest owners. While there are distinct differences between programs for publicly owned resources and those applied to privately owned resources, the techniques and practices followed are so similar in application as to more easily lend themselves to central direction than to split authority. Further, the goals and objectives of the public and private programs are so intertwined that the programs should not be separated administratively.

III. HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE How should reorganization of the Federal natural resource agencies take place? Three possible choices present themselves for centralizing natural resources responsibilities:

1. Minimum: Minimum transfer of principal resource agencies and programs now in other departments to the Department of the Interior with the exception of the construction functions of the Army Corps of Engineers. (The planning and water research functions would, however, be transferred to a water development bureau in the Interior.) This approach would be simply a recognition of the political power of the Corps of

of those States with the most successful conservation programs. These States, e.g., Michigan, New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota, have single departments which embrace all phases of resource management under central direction.

10. Federal organization of resource activities is also in sharp contrast to the organization of other major Federal programs. Every other sector of Federal responsibility, e.g., labor, agriculture, health, foreign affairs, is assigned to a single governmental department, which is publicly understood to have central responsibility. Unified centers of authority give citizens a sense of involvement in public activity and a concern for the results.

II. WHAT IS NEEDED

Some order must be made out of the present chaos of resource policy. A centralized responsibility under a Department of Natural Resources is a necessity. This is not the only possible change in present organization,

ment of Natural Resources would be to transfer other resource agencies to Interior. The major obstacle in the past to such a transfer has been the organized special interest clientele of the agencies involved. These groups fear that their relationships to the Government would be affected.

The most adamant group blocking the way to reorganization of Federal water functions is the Rivers and Harbors Conference, backed by water development contractors who strongly support certain congressional relations of the Army Corps of Engineers. This, however, is only one example of a general condition. Many other agencies have special interest clientele groups which do not want their interests disturbed. Few agencies or clientele groups have a direct interest in the improved efficiency which could result from a reorganization.

*S. 2549, 86th Cong., 1st sess. (1959); S. 239, 87th Cong., 1st sess. (1960); S. 1415, 87th Cong., 1st sess. (1961).

bare-knuckled pressures. It would leave unresolved the problem of coordination of water management and development programs. Although the planning function would be transferred, the corps would soon find a way to revive this power. In any case the division of responsibilities between the two departments would continue to result in waste and friction, and inhibit realistic programing in this vital field.

2. Coordinating committees: Another possibility is to have a Council of Resource Advisers and a River Basin Coordinating Council. These are attempts to obtain unification through compromise by establishing another "coordinating" layer between the President and his executive action agencies. Presumably, planning, research, and reconciliation of conflicts would be assigned to river basin groups. The resource advisers would be similar to the Council of Economic Advisers in makeup and duty and therefore largely advisory and without live authority.

Efforts to coordinate through committees have failed in the past because there has been no central Cabinet responsibility for program development and execution. The greatest good will is no substitute for authority and responsibility in one Cabinet

officer. This is particularly important in the

formulation of new programs.

3. Complete: A complete reorganization would require transfer by Executive order of all resource agencies from other departments to Interior, including the Army Corps of Engineers, and a request to the Congress to create a Department of Natural Resources.5

The cleanest and most effective procedure would be to transfer all resource functions to Interior and then to concentrate all efforts to gain congressional acceptance. Offsetting the pressure groups opposed to this transfer will be several hundreds of conservation and other organizations which will support complete reorganization. This will take generalship, strategy, and an effective information effort during the 60-day period of grace during which Congress may deny the President's action."

The attached organization chart sets forth the "model" of organization of the new Department of Natural Resources."

The Reorganization Act of 1949 gives the President power to transfer outside agencies to Interior by Executive order. Legislative authority would be needed to change the name of Interior to Department of Natural Resources.

The organization of resource activities resulting from these proposed changes would centralize all responsibility for development and management of natural resource programs (except for the TVA) in a Secretary of Natural Resources. The Secretary would have an Under Secretary and staff assistants for program coordination, public affairs, and so forth. There would also be an advisory board on natural resource policy with the Secretary as chairman. Regional or river basin planning committees in the field would report directly to the advisory board.

A BASIC REORGANIZATION FOR BOTH EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVED RESOURCES CONSERVATION: CONSOLIDATION OF AGRICULTURAL, NATURAL RESOURCE AND RURAL PROGRAM AGENCIES

NEED

ficiency of two defense agencies-War and Navy, and was followed by a practical consolidation into a Department of Defense. Today our mounting population with rapidly day our mounting population with rapidly increasing requirements for natural resources-timber, water, power, minerals, open space and recreation-forces reconsideration of the very scattered and inefficient Federal organization of natural resource agencies. The initial thrust for greater inefficiency in Government under the Johnson administration provides the first opportunity for long overdue reorganization in this generation to accomplish in natural resources what has already been accomplished in Defense.

World War II showed up the great inef

BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

The first Hoover Commission 14 years ago called for a Department of Natural Resources (Acheson-Pollock-Rowe Task Force) which would combine into Interior (and reestablish it as a Department of Natural Resources) the fragmented resource agencies in other Departments-water, forests, soil conservation, etc. Lacking a single Cabinet Secretary responsible for conservation programs has resulted in fragmentation of effort, lack of central policy direction, bureaucratic competition when coordination is needed, and an inability to obtain clear public understanding and support for programs where the public interest is paramount. Much costly duplication exists which cannot be

eliminated under existing organizations.

Under present conditions we have four separate Departments (Interior, Agriculture, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Army, plus Housing and Home Finance Agency) — one with central, and the rest with peripheral resource responsibilities. The public interest in resource decisions is often submerged to that of private interest commodity groups which tend to dominate individual bureaus scattered in a number of agencies.

The proposed consolidation never took place because the combined pressures of the Corps of Army Engineers and the Forest Service of USDA were too strong for President Truman. Neither Eisenhower nor Ken

An organization such as this one would not automatically solve all natural resource policy problems. It would, nevertheless, simplify authority and focus responsibility. It would provide the possibility-now lacking to develop consistent and coherent resource policies and programs. In the absence of such a change, we can expect nothing better than the present inconsistency, confusion, and deadlock. Change is never easy, but considering the challenge to public policy presented by our future needs for natural resources it is essential. The time is past due for acceptance by the Federal Government of its responsibility to provide clear and decisive leadership in the conservation and development of natural resources. The first and most vital step is to organize a Department of Natural Resources.

Reorganization Act of 1949, 1 U.S.C., sec. 133z (1949).

• Note 5 supra, sec. 133z-4.

7 See chart appended.

8 Note 5 supra.

TWO RURAL DEPARTMENTS BUT NO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS

The need for consolidation of natural resource conservation agencies is greater than ever, but a new approach is required. Realinement of existing agencies along Hoover task force lines may be as difficult as ever, but combining of Interior and Agriculture into a Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources is well within political reality. Substantial efficiencies can be accomplished and much greater coordination attained.

The political climate is as favorable to this move now as the consolidation of War and Navy into Defense was in 1946. Support from the conservation movement and the economy bloc would be anticipated. Resistance from the corps would not be expected since it will not be included. The Forest Service would be strengthened, and hence not resist. By consolidating the two rural affairs departments, room could be made for a new Urban Affairs Department. Substantial support should be derived from labor, urban, and other groups seeking a Department of Urban Affairs.

A DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

There are so many overlapping, intermingled, and conflicting relationships between the USDA and Interior that several years of

persistent effort at untangling and reformulation will be required once the overall consolidation is accomplished. However, the initial procedure is basically simple. A Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources would have an overall Secretary and Secretaries for each of the two major categories. These would be as shown on the following chart:

Organization chart-Department of Agricul

ture and Natural Resources Secretary.

Secretary for Natural Resources: Department of Interior agencies plus Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, Rural Electrical, HEW-water and air pollution, HHFAopen space program

Secretary for Agriculture: Department of Agriculture agencies; marketing, credit, economics, crop reporting, extension, regulations, etc.

SUGGESTED ACTION

In his forthcoming message on natural resources the President could indicate that he is appointing a special Conservation Task Force to study organization of Federal resource agencies. Qualified members might be James Rowe, Abe Fortas, former Interior Under Secretary, Dean Acheson, Samuel T. Dana and Horace Albright, most of whom served on the original Hoover Commission Task Force on Natural Resources. Report of such a commission could be set for January 1965.

CAUTION

Immediate opposition will come from key personnel in the Bureau of the Budget whose power derives from division of agencies, timid "realists" afraid of old ghosts and some self-appointed political experts who don't feel it on important issues.

AREAS OF OVERLAP AND CONFLICT IN NEED OF COORDINATION

Reclamation versus agricultural policy. USDA watershed projects: BLM, reclamation and Indians.

Forest Service versus Interior-BLM on land administration; fire protection; insect control; land exchange.

Soil Conservation Service/BLM: Intermingled private and public lands.

Forest Service: Park Service. Forest Service Research: Fish and Wildlife Service.

Soil Conservation Service versus Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

POSITION PAPER-SUBJECT: REORGANIZATION OF FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES Background: The President's several directives to attain greater efficiency in the use of manpower is running into major roadblocks in the numerous, scattered, uncoordinated natural resource agencies. Duplication, conflicts in policy and procedure, and lack of central cabinet responsibility make further improvement impossible until structural changes are made. Past and current efforts to obtain coordination through recreation, water, pesticide, and other committees ad infinitum has and will continue to be ineffective in reconciling differences among agencies. Because of the scatteration, these agencies are more dominated by pressure groups and congressional committees than they are managed and controlled by the White House. If Presidential and Cabinet Office direction is to be effective, the public interest served, and public support obtained, a structural revision in organization of national resource agencies is essential to meet the mounting demands to be placed upon them in the decades ahead.

Previous proposals: The first Hoover Commission 14 years ago called for a Department of Natural Resources (Acheson-PollockRows task force) which would combine into Interior (and reestablish it as a Department of Natural Resources) the scattered resource

agencies in other Departments-open space, power, water development, forests, soil conservation, etc. Lacking a single Cabinet Secretary responsible for conservation programs has resulted in fragmentation of effort, lack

of central policy direction, bureaucratic competition when coordination is needed, and an inability to obtain clear public understanding and support for programs where the public interest is paramount.

Under present conditions we have four separate Departments (Interior, Agriculture. Health, Education, and Welfare, and Army, plus Housing and Home Finance Agency) one with central, and the rest with peripheral resource responsibilities. The public interest in resource decisions is often submerged to that of private interest commodity groups which tend to dominate individual bureaus

lacking regular White House or single Cabi

net direction.

The proposed consolidation never took place because the combined pressures of two agencies-Corps of Army Engineers and the Forest Service of USDA-were too strong for President Truman. Neither Presidents Eisenhower nor Kennedy attempted reorganization in this area. Today we still have two

nation

rural Departments-Agriculture and Interior-but no Department of Urban Affairs. Suggested proposal: The need for coordiof natural resource conservation agencies is greater than ever, but a new approach is required. Realinement of existing agencies along Hoover task force lines may terior and Agriculture into a Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources is well within political reality. Substantial efficiencies can be accomplished and much greater

be as difficult as ever, but combining of In

coordination attained.

port from the conservation movement and

The

The political climate would be more favorable to this move now than the consolidation of War and Navy into Defense in 1946. Supthe economy bloc would be anticipated. Resistance from the corps would not be expected, since it will not be included. Forest Service would be strengthened, and hence resist less. By consolidating two rural affairs departments, room could be made for the Urban Affairs Department. Substantial support should be derived from labor, urban, and other groups seeking a Department of Urban Affairs.

Specific moves and strategy: There are so many overlapping, intermingled and conflicting relationships between the USDA and Interior that several years of persistent effort at untangling and reformulation will be required once the overall consolidation is accomplished. However, the initial procedure is basically simple. A Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources would have an overall Secretary and two Under Secretaries for each of the two major categories. These would be as shown on the following chart:

ORGANIZATION CHART: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Secretary.

Under Secretary (Natural Resources): Department of Interior agencies plus Forest Service Soil Conservation Service, rural electrical.

Under Secretary (Agriculture): Department of Agriculture agencies, marketing, credit, economics, crop reporting, extension, regulations, etc.

Mr. MOSS. The proposals differ in some degree with the recommendations in my bill, but that is all to the good. In introducing S. 2435, I made it clear that I did not consider it to be the last word in the field. It is intended only as a vehicle for study of the question-as a starting point for an undertaking on which I feel we must embark if we are

to assure comprehensive and efficient development of our water resources. The three proposals are:

"The Case for a Department of Natural Resources," University of New Mexico School of Law, November 1961; position paper, "Reorganization of Federal Natural Resource Agencies"; and "A Basic Reorganization for Both Efficiency and Improved Resource Conservation: Consolidation of Agricultural, Natural Resource and Rural Program Agencies."

RESPECT FOR THE LAW

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this morning the Washington Post carried an editorial entitled "Respect for the Law," which I believe is the clearest, most concise, and best objective analysis of the omnibus crime bill which the Senate passed yesterday that I have read, in any editorial, on the subject.

I highly commend the editors of the Washington Post for this penetrating and, I believe, unanswerable editorial in opposition to the omnibus crime bill that the Senate unfortunately passed yesterday.

Out of consideration for those of us who formed the minority in opposition to the omnibus crime bill, I wish to say that there is not a single major argument set forth in the editorial that was not made over and over again during the course of the hearings, on the bill and in our minority report in opposition to the bill. In my major speeches against the bill which I gave the day before yesterday and yesterday in the Senate I covered the same objections as are set out in the editorial.

Mr. President, I am highly pleased that the editors of the Washington Post share the views of those of us in the Senate who voted against the bill. The omnibus crime bill yesterday jeopardizes basic civil rights, liberties, and freedoms of the American people. The Senate yesterday trampled on what I consider to be basic constitutional guarantees, the protection of which the American people are entitled to be assured of at all times. I also take note of the fact that the Washington Post recognizes the sensitivity that exists in the District on the racial issue. I wish to say again on the floor of the Senate, as I said in my major speech against the omnibus crime bill, that in my judgment the Senate and the House will have to assume their fair share of responsibility for any racial problems that grow out of this bill. I fear that its administration will prove it to be a law that permits the Washington, D.C. Police Force to discriminate against Americans on the basis of the color of their skins. I fear that the administrative procedures available to the police as written into the law can be used to browbeat arrested persons who can be held for 3 hours or longer under the pretext of questioning them when in fact the arrest is for police investigation without having probable cause justifying the arrest. the arrest. Many Negroes fear and I think with justification that it will be used against them all out of proportion to its use against white people.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

RESPECT FOR THE LAW

In the name of combating crime, the Senate yesterday passed a bill that undermines the administration of justice. It is by no means so reckless and irrational as the omnibus crime bill for the District of Columbia passed by the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, it has its fair share of irrationality. It would strengthen the police by weakening those procedural safeguards that are the bulwarks of American freedom. In the name of law enforcement, it would authorize disregard of the Constitution that is the foundation for all law in the United States.

District of Columbia to detain suspects in a police station and question them for as long as 3 hours (exclusive of interruption) without judicial approval and without assuring them the assistance of counsel. This shortcut would enable the police to get around the fourth amendment's ban on arbitrary arrests; it would enable the police to circumvent the fifth amendment's privilege

This bill would authorize the police in the

against self-incrimination; it would enable the police to deprive defendants at the most crucial time of the sixth amendment's assurance of a lawyer's advice.

What is the essence of the argument for ment is that it will help the police to investigiving the police such power? The argugate crime. The same argument can be made in behalf of the rubber hose, the thumbscrew and the rack. They are all valuable aids to investigation. Yet it is one of the great glories of life in the United States that such techniques and instruments of investigation are forbidden here.

There are those who regard the renunciation of such investigative methods as sentimentality. mentality. They go about saying that restrictions on police and prosecutors imply more concern for the rights of criminals than for the rights of their innocent victims. Yet the whole of history teaches the grim lesson that restraints on the police are an indis

pensable condition of freedom. Even the best of policemen-and those in Washington are among them-need to be restrained in their zeal, despite the admittedly great dangers and difficulties of their job.

The men who wrote the restraints of the

fourth, fifth and sixth amendments into the Bill of Rights were not sentimentalists. They were practical men who understood that the rights of the best of men can be secure only so long as the rights of the worst of men are respected.

It is beguiling to seek law enforcement by sacrificing freedom. It is easy-especially if one is educated and knows his rights and push the poor and ignorant and the helphas ready access to a lawyer-to let the police less around as they please. It is easy, and it has the additional virtue of being inexpensive far less costly than providing extra policemen or giving the police better equipment and training or correcting the conditions of squalor and inadequate education and joblessness that breed crime.

There are just two things wrong with this cheap and easy approach to the crime problem. One is that it will not work; it will not only leave the causes of crime to fester but it will breed disrespect for the law because of the inequality of its application to the rich and to the poor and because of the disrespect for law it countenances on the part of law enforcement officers. The other thing

wrong with it is that it will diminish the

freedom which is the real source of American safety.