Bureaucracy is able sometimes to put formidable roadblocks across your pathway which not only are insurmountable, but you can't circumvent them, and they are pretty effective.

We ran into that sort of thing on occasions.

The CHAIRMAN. We want to avoid it, of course.

We are very glad to have you point out to us any way by which the danger might develop.

Mr. BENNETT. It has that way of slipping up on you before you have any warning. It is a matter of keeping a watchful eye on it at all times.

I am very enthusiastic about this bill, and I think it can go a little bit further than any other bill we have ever had to keep a watchful eye on bureaucracy and all things associated with bureaucracy.

When bureaucracy gets too far in the direction of interpreting its own rights and prerogatives to the extent of bringing about considerable deterioration with respect to a public responsibility, that is a dangerous thing for any bureau or agency to go too far with.

So I think this bill is going to offer about the first piece of machinery that we have had to keep this watchful eye on this thing that may give us more trouble than people ordinarily think about.

The general run of people are not going to bother themselves to watch these things. They know they are not experts in some phases of the matters being considered in this legislation and they will probably just keep their mouths shut.

So I do not think it is out of order to think about a few of them now and then, especially with those agencies that show any inclination. whatsoever of assuming that they have vested rights in certain phases of conservation in their own bailiwick.

Those are the things that need watching.

Now, the other thing that I referred to in this memorandum, and which needs a little emphasis, is the matter of coordination of public agencies. I have had a lot of experience with that and I can tell you about a few of them.

I do not think it would be harmful to discuss them. They are something of the past, but they could come up again in one form or another.

For one reason or another, the Soil Conservation Service was asked to develop flood control in small watersheds, upstream watersheds. Well, we undertook to do that job.

As a matter of fact, we started out in the very beginning over in the Interior Department to operate on a watershed basis. We have the results of the work in some of these watersheds and they were very good, indicating in various instances that it was possible to control floods or to prevent floods to some extent on certain types of watersheds.

Feeling that way, we had to realize that we had to be pretty careful in cooperating with what we called the downstream activities in flood control, after the floods arrived pretty largely, on the major water

ways.

Those in charge of another agency were imbued with the idea of flood control pretty much by engineering methods.

We in the Soil Conservation Service believed from the very beginning to the day I retired from that Service-it started out as the

Soil Erosion Service in the Department of the Interior and it was transferred to another agency, I did not do the transferring, somebody else did we knew the value of upstream watershed protection. So we had to watch our relationships with the agencies in charge of the downstream flood control activities with a very careful eye.

On one occasion an order came to me from the Land Use Coordinator's Office in the Department of Agriculture that we would have to stop building upstream dams, and we could not in the future build a dam higher than 20 feet.

If it was 20 feet and a quarter inches high, that work would belong to another agency, the engineering agency that I have referred to, without calling its name-I don't mind calling its name if it is necessary, but I think people understand, they understand what I am talking about is aimed at better relations not only with the engineering programs, but with all programs as between agencies.

Our operation in the Soil Conservation Service was based on cooperation with farmers. We never told a farmer that you must do this or if you do not do this we will not do that.

We operated with him by asking if he was willing to cooperate with us in applying our best ideas with respect to the application of soil conservation measures to their land after a full study of their land and its capability.

Well, they agreed with us and we got along remarkably well.

As a matter of fact, I think eventually we got along better than any agency in the history of the world.

I am old enough to engage in a little bragging like that, if you do not mind.

When I left the Soil Conservation Service we had completed the work on 200 million acres of land. It was not all farmland, but a great deal of it was. But it was land and had use for some purpose, some of it for recreation, some of it for forest, or grass, and so on.

I do not think that has been equaled by any other agency, any other national or any other combination of agencies or nations anywhere on earth and I do not except Russia from any of these.

I know somewhat what they are doing in Russia, I may be going over their pretty soon, I have been invited, but I am too old to travel that far, I suspect.

Well, this order not to build dams over 20 feet high came down from us, and we had to obey it, but I knew that it was an impractical sort of thing; that on certain streams we would have to stop, we would have to give up right then and there.

I believe if we had had something like this proposed Resources and Conservation Act, if I have interpreted the intentions of this act properly, I don't believe we would have had that difficulty, or that we would have to give up work on certain types of streams.

Somebody managed somehow to get the law fixed so that we could not impound water to the extent of being more than enough to supply a small size fishpond and that limited us tremendously.

We were only able to get around that by going around it and taking the consequences. We had to do a little of that without the advantage of advice such as this bill proposes through very careful analysis and appraisals, and carried out on a scientific basis.

Remembering these things, I became more and more enthusiastic about the possibilities of improving our programs through the action of this legislation that we are talking about.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your suggestions as to any language that would be appropriate to carry out the purpose you have in mind.

Mr. BENNETT. I have inserted them in this statement here very briefly, but I think what I am driving at can be carried on through to finality. I am going to read a little bit more.

The CHAIRMAN. We don't want to spend too much time anticipating things that may never occur. When the bill is finally worked out and all the provisions are before us then you will be of great help to us in telling us what you think the effect will be.

Mr. BENNETT. I am trying to tell you some of those things now. I think I have about finished along that line.

There are many other things. I have written out a few of them here that I may add to the statement a little bit later. I am not going to read them to you because it is a little bit long.

I think at this point I will go back now to this statement and continue reading it by beginning under the heading of suggested additions.

The suggested additions for evaluating progress in resource programs might be made to read somewhat as follows-I am not adept in writing these things according to congressional methods, but it reads this way:

To present in the Council's annual report to the President the progress made during the fiscal year immediately preceding in the direction of establishing safeguards for the permanent use of those natural resources occurring within the respectively authorized areas of agency activity.

This report would relate to such natural resources as soil, water, forest, wildlife, recreation, scenery, and wilderness areas.

Some of the most troublesome obstacles to conservation progress should be included in this report, I believe this report to the President-together with recommendations for remedial action.

The principal hindrances generally would be soil erosion, floods, siltation of reservoirs, streams and low productive land, accumulation of water-soluble salts toxic to crops, fires, other land and forest deterioration, and lack of coordination."

Suggested addition 7 might read somewhat as follows:

To present in the Council's annual report to the President recommendations for the improvement of working relations between those Federal agencies whose programs converge so closely in certain respects as to develop risk of overlapping and delay and misunderstanding.

Arrangements should be made for keeping a continuing watchful eye on relationships between those Federal agencies and their programs wherever there is a danger of conflict through misinterpretation of functions.

In this connection I have had, for example, while directing the activities of the Soil Conservation Service, the difficult experience of such lack of coordination with the programs having to do with flood control, as between the small downstream watersheds on the one hand and the main downstream watersheds on the other.

Recent improvement has apparently resulted from legislative action. This takes time, however, and for that reason is unnecessarily costly. It is my belief that the council could find ways to bring about improvement through speedier action and clarification of responsibility.

Admittedly the use and control of water involves agency complications by reason of the nature of the problem, diversity of needs and uses, as well as methods of control and distribution.

My conviction nevertheless is that the council through some conciliatory arrangement could lessen or cause the removal of such misunderstandings and upsetting tensions.

Finally, I want to report that while S. 2549 has my approval, the suggestions offered herewith would, I believe, increase the usefulness of the legislation in the interest of national welfare.

There are a few other additions there that relate to unimportant matters which need not be read.

Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions you care to ask me I will try to answer them.

The CHAIRMAN. There will be a myriad of questions eventually, but in the beginning when you introduce a bill very few have given it careful study and they have not arrived at the point where they offer questions. But as these hearings continue questions will develop. I believe the hearings are being received very well throughout the country. They regard it as one of the most important steps the Government has taken.

Mr. BENNETT. I feel it is a very important step. I hope you have that experience with it.

The CHAIRMAN. We may be in touch with you. I am sure, because of your very long experience, you will be of valuable assistance to us. Mr. BENNETT. I will always have a few criticisms or suggestions, something of that nature, to present with respect to anything I have a chance to look over and think about and study.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Bennett. Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Another of America's distinguished authorities on natural resources is Dr. Firman E. Bear, editor in chief of the technical journal, Soil Science, and professor emeritus at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Dr. Bear has a worldwide reputation in the field of soils and soil fertility. In addition to his technical attainments, Dr. Bear has an important place in setting the objectives of many of the Nation's natural resource activities.

(Dr. Bear's communication will appear in the record at this point:)

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

SOIL SCIENCE,

New Brunswick, N,J., January 26, 1960.

DEAR SIR: This refers to your telegram of January 21 and supplemental letter of same date with enclosures dealing with S. 2549, Resources and Conservation Act of 1960.

Previous engagements make it very difficult to comply with your invitations to appear at the hearings on either of the days mentioned (January 28 or 29), so I ask to be excused. I hope this letter will serve your needs equally well.

The proposed act should have great value in focusing attention, on the part of both the public and the Congress, on the great need for conserving our natural

resources for greatly improved use in perpetuity. My particular concern is with the renewable natural resources soil, water, grasslands, forests, croplands, livestock, fish, wildlife, and recreational areas.

The proposed act should make it possible to study the activities of all the agencies of the Federal Government that in one way or another, play parts in our total conservation effort, to the end that improvements are effected, more is accomplished, and unnecessary duplication of effort is avoided.

The people of this country, by and large, are just beginning to suspect that many very troublesome problems may arise if our population grows at the predicted rate. But they think of these problems mostly in terms of their own inconvenience. They fail to realize the many very serious consequences of the improvident use of natural resources.

In examining the proposed act, it appears to me that we need an immediate study of the total of our conservation efforts, including those of both the Federal and State Governments and those of private and industrial agencies. And out of this should grow some fairly definite ideas as to how these could be made more effective. But I think, from that point on, periods of 5 years should elapse before the successive reports on this subject were made. By the end of 5-year periods it should be possible to more effectively evaluate our progress. And during these 5-year periods new concepts on conservation would have adequate time to mature.

I believe also that the several agencies of the Federal Government that now have to do with conservation of natural resources should be specifically required to assist in the compilation of these 5-year reports, and that they should be held responsible for evaluation of what is being done in conservation not only by themselves but by related agencies in the several States and by industrial and private agencies. And these Federal agencies should be made responsible for putting the recommendations of the three-man Council into effect, subject to the necessary Federal appropriations.

If at some later date you still feel that I could be of some additional assistance in relation to the improvement or passage of this act, I shall be glad to appear before your committee.

Sincerely yours,

FIRMAN E. BEAR.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is James B. Carey, president of the International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers.

Mr. Carey, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. CAREY, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Long, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee on this important subject as not only the president of the IUE, with 426,000 members in the United States and Canada, but also as the secretary-treasurer of the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO.

The industrial union department numbers among its membership 67 unions with approximately 7 million members. It is the largest department of the AFL-CIO.

I here represent the sentiment of the membership of that department, as well as the views of organized labor members in general. We warmly endorse and urge enactment of Senate bill 2549 as a major step forward in the conservation and development of our resources for the benefit of all Americans and their posterity.

This bill goes a long way toward giving conscious recognition to Gifford Pinchot's key concept in conservation, that nature is a whole. We cannot wisely, effectively conserve or develop our resources unless we view forests, grasslands, and water each as a part of a uni