REGIONAL CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL RESOURCES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1937 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10.30 a. m., in the commitee room, House Office Building, Hon. Joseph J. Mansfield (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Mr. Smith. STATEMENT OF J. SPENCER SMITH, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND TREASURER OF THE INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION (NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY) Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here representing Governor Hoffman of New Jersey. The last time I was here, as you recall, I represented our State Board of Commerce and Navigation and the Interstate Sanitation Commission. My statement is in opposition to Mr. Mansfield's proposed Regional Conservation Act of 1937-H. R. 7365. This bill and similar proposed legislation is opposed on three broad principles. Specific objections to various other features of the act have been well made by others. We insist that any one of the grounds here set forth is sufficient to and makes mandatory the defeat of the bill, if we are to preserve our country on the basis of its present form of government. The bill would: 1. Centralize control of natural resources in federally appointed bureaucrats. 2. The doctrine of States' rights would be violated. 3. Taxes levied upon and paid by residents of one community would be used to assist in developing a competing locality to the prejudice and detriment of the other. Point 1. Centralization of authority in Federal appointees to develop, integrate, and coordinate plans, activities, and projects having to do with stream flow, siltation, development, and coordination of navigation facilities, surplus waters, soil conservation, cultivation, prevention of pollution, sewage disposal, and reclamation of lands is inimical to the best interests of the country at large. When the Constitution of the United States was under discussion prior to its adoption, the minority party was fighting for the emasculation of the doctrine of States' rights, but the people of the United States were emphatic in saying "No.", Notwithstanding the fact that the courts have time and again stated that the Government of the United States was one of delegated powers and that those powers which were not specifically transferred to the United States Government were retained, undiminished, by the several States, there has been a constant and, lately, an ever-increasing attempt, on the part of those who would have a strong centralized Federal Government at the expense of weakening the structure of the States, to read into the fundamental law various interpretations, both through acts of Congress and by decisions of the Federal courts, whereby the jurisdiction of the United States would blanket all State authority. In many avenues of endeavor this has already been accomplished. Notable examples are the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the attempt under the late National Recovery Administration. The lethargy of the people of the United States in permitting these inroads upon their rights is accounted for by the fact that they are for the most part entirely ignorant of what is going on and of the contents of many of the laws jammed through the lawmaking bodies. Any student of our rapidly changing economic, social, and cultural life recognizes the need for the greatest possible cooperation between the several States in safeguarding the life, health, and happiness of our people, and for insuring the general welfare of the country, but such need does not justify, nor require, the destruction of our form of government by overzealous believers in the infallibility of Congress and its agencies. The desired aims should, can, and are being accomplished by and through action by the several States in cooperation with the Federal Government, but without the surrender of any of the rights and powers of the States. The Mansfield bill, H. R. 7365, and the Rankin bill, H. R. 7863, while harmless in appearance to the careless or unintiated reader and while purporting to provide for the common good, are in fact the most destructive, dangerous, and far-reaching pieces of legislation that have ever threatened the stability of our form of government. It will be conceded that legislation must be judged by the various constructions and reasonable inferences that may flow there from and not by the beneficent intent of the framers of the bill. Once enacted, it is too late to cry out against the import of an act, hidden though it may be. Amendments may clarify, but they usually broaden the original act and ofttimes are more dangerous than the basic measure. The purpose and policy of the acts as declared therein are complete masks of the actual ends which may be accomplished thereunder. The primary aims are to subdivide the United States into seven regions or districts and to place the same within the control of Federal bureaus, each administered by one individual, and this as a means of putting the Federal Government in direct competition with private enterprise especially in the matter of utilities having to do with electric power. To carry out the purpose of the act, seven regional planning agencies are created. They mask the entire country and the word "planning" is a direct misnomer. Every project of any size requires some planning and coordination with existing facilities, but this act does not stop there inasmuch as it definitely provides for carrying out the plans and for further legislation if deemed necessary. The act appropriates such sums as may be necessary to carry out its provisions. It should be borne in mind in considering this type of legislation that the great part, by far, of all the land in this country is owned by the citizens of the country and is within the boundaries of the several States, that the public lands of the United States Government are not comparable in area; it is the function of the States to protect this land and its use, as a purely intrastate obligation of sovereignty. The States are so doing-notable examples thereof are flood control and soil-erosion activities, as well as the elimination of stream pollution and abatement of stream contamination through manufacturing waste. Insofar as the navigable streams are concerned, and the fact that jurisdiction thereof is now in the Federal Government, it is sufficient to say that any one familiar with the history of their development and control under the supervision of the Engineer Corps of the United States Army will admit that the corps has performed an efficient and noteworthy service meriting a continuance on its part of this branch of work. Therefore, the promotion of navigation, the safeguarding of navigable waters, the control and prevention of floods insofar as this is a Federal function, now resides in a wellfunctioning department free of political control and not fettered by professions of faith in a program that is a departure from our fundamental form of government. The statement of policy set forth in the act fails to justify its enactment. The numerous statements in the acts concerning cooperation with the States and State agencies are just so much verbiage to attract the unwary. Any financial or other help given by the Federal Government must be paid for by tax levies upon all the people. The States are capable of carrying on this work through their own agencies supported by their own tax levies, and being closer to taxpayer observation, the chances are that there would be less wasteful extravagance and less useless projects undertaken. Practically every State has its own planning board and its several agencies charged with doing the very things that these bills seek to take over. Many States have compacts with each other, approved by Congress, enabling them to cooperate and coordinate in the solution of their mutual problems affecting every activity mentioned in these bills. An example may serve to clarify these facts. The development of commerce in the port of New York, the most important port and terminus in the country, involving waterfronts in three States, has for years been under the influence of a port authority. The same States of New York and New Jersey are presently acting under a compact, approved by Congress, to eliminate the pollution now abundant in these waters, and in so doing has the fine cooperation of the United States Public Health Service as well as that of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The fact that the problems of stream pollution are being effectively solved without assistance of the acts under discussion, is manifest by the remarks of the author of the bill at a hearing thereon held before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors on July 20, 1937, when he said: Yes; pollution. I know that Pittsburgh would not favor the provisions of my bill as to pollution; I do not favor it either. I think that the question of pollution will have to be worked out gradually. If we put a drastic provision in there, there is no telling what effect it wil have. It will close those industries, and it might throw milions of people out of employment, at least temporarily, which would be an awfully serious thing. And well he may have made these observations, for the bill would permit the planning agencies to close industries without notice inasmuch as the act does not provide for a staying period after an industry has been found polluting in order to give such industry an opportunity to correct its method of disposal of waste. That every purpose of the act can be accomplished under existing law is clearly demonstrated by section 7 thereof. This section purports to consent to compacts between the States for the very purposes which the act seeks to accomplish. Existing law already provides for compacts between States and where the problems mentioned in this bill exist, affected States may now, without the aid of any new legislation, enter into agreements providing for the elimination thereof. The interests of the Federal Government are protected inasmuch as these compacts must have congressional approval. Section 7, like the entire act, is needless. Then we submit that it is preferable to act under State compacts rather than under such additional laws as are now proposed. These new laws would create thousands of new jobs, saddle unlimited expense on the taxpayers to maintain them, and you can rest assured that those seven directors with their various boards, would be very, very busy, each seeking to place his region out in front of all the others; the taxpayer would foot the bill; sectional strife may well be expected both from the standpoint of jealousies from the advancement of one region over another and due to the fact that taxes from one section will go to develop projects which otherwise would be paid for by the State or States directly benefited. The National Government now has a National Resources Committee. Let it function; let it recommend to the States that which it believes might be done to advantage within that particular State or to two or more States what they might profitably do; then the States, if the taxpayers desired the project, may under existing law enter into a compact to conclude the same, and if advantages therefrom accrue to the country at large, Congress may appropriate financial assistance in order to help these States bear the burden. We do not need the proposed act. Existing law meets fully our requirements. Point 2. The act violates the doctrine of States' rights. State control of its own natural resources would be completely blanketed. The rivers, with their tributaries, and the industries located thereon, would be taken from State control and placed under the jurisdiction of a great Federal bureaucracy with seven directors, one dominating each region. The continental United States instead of having 48 separate States would be subdivided into seven great regions. Control of all |