It is my opinion that Senate Resolution 148 is constructive and should be adopted. I have one suggestion which, if followed, should, I believe, be very beneficial.

The attention of the committees is directed, again, to the closing sentence of the next to final paragraph of the report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy, which for emphasis is italicized. The entire paragraph is quoted:

The Federal Government, should to the extent necessary and appropriate, make or guarantee loans, under reasonable regulations, and with adequate security to States or local political subdivisions to construct water resources projects. However, no loans or guaranties should be made to cover costs of developing projects or portions thereof for power or municipal and industrial water, since, if these are economically sound they may be readily financed otherwise.

The recommendation that Government make or guarantee loans to States and public agencies is excellent, but ruling out such loans or guaranties for municipal and industrial water supply is unfortunate and, I think, unwarranted, for this reason: a municipal or industrial water-supply project may be "economically sound," that is, the project may have assured adequate revenue sufficient to provide operating and maintenance expense plus 100 percent of the payments of principal and interest. This would establish the feasibility or economic soundness of the project according to Government standards. But because the public market for securities demands not only 100 percent solvency of the loan but an additional 30 to 50 percent as a margin of safety, such a loan could not be "readily financed otherwise." In other words, the bonds of the State or local agency having only 100 percent feasibility cannot be sold in the public investment market. For such a project, though entirely feasible, the Government might be the only market, until later the earnings might prove that the required coverage is present. Then the Government would sell the bonds.

The responsible spokesmen for at least one of the Government agencies (Corps of Engineers of the United States Army) has indicated definite approval of the Presidential committee report. Possibly other departments and agencies of the Government may feel bound by its provisions at this time. If any department or agency of the Government which will be required under Senate Resolution 148 to file reports should feel that the quoted sentence has been approved by such department or agency and is effective, it is believed that in many cases the Senate will not elicit valuable information to which it would otherwise be entitled.

While I am not critical of the Presidential committee report in general, it is my recommendation either that the resolution itself or the report of the committees on Senate Resolution 148 should make crystal clear to the departments and agencies of the Government that the restrictive language in the italicized sentence should not be so interpreted as to render the projects which store water for municipal and industrial uses ineligible for Government loans or guaranties, unless and until Congress so declares.

I wish to thank the committees for the consideration it is giving this matter.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. COATES, EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE HOOVER REPORT, IN REFERENCE TO SENATE RESOLUTION 148, JULY 8, 1957

This statement is presented on behalf of the bipartisan Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report, a nonpartisan organization with affiliates throughout the United States. It is made in response to an invitation dated June 20, 1957, received from the chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and the chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works. The material included with the invitation shows that Senate Resolution 148 has been developed after study by the two committees and their staffs for approximately a year since the adoption in the 84th Congress of Senate Resolution 281.

Neither the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report nor any member of the Second Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government or its task forces made any presentation to the committees at the hearings in consideration of Senate Resolution 281, or at the meetings in connection with the study subsequently undertaken. Our records do not indicate that the citizens committee was invited; and so far as it is known no member of the Commission or its staff and task forces was invited as such.

The letter of transmittal of May 14, 1957, of the two committee chairmen to the members of their committees, printed in Committee Print No. 4, states that the proposed improvements set forth in Senate Resolution 148 relate to procedures of the Senate and that they do not impinge on the responsibilities of the executive branch. In connection with this stipulation, it is proper to note the legislation that established the second bipartisan Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. That legislation, enacted without dissent July 10, 1953, as Public Law 108 of the 83d Congress, states in section 9 that the investigation of the Commission was specifically to except the Congress of the United States. It would appear thus that the pending resolution and the findings of the Second Hoover Commission should be mutually exclusive.

However, as the committees that have undertaken the study in accordance with Senate Resolution 281 are aware, possibly more so than other committees of Congress, orders and directives pertaining to one branch of government alone may not be without serious impingement upon another branch. In particular, Bureau of the Budget Circular A-47 was apparently issued by the executive branch as a directive to the departments and agencies of that branch. As the committees are aware, this executive document has been considered by some to have a serious and adverse impingement upon the actions, work, and responsibilities of the legislative branch. It appears to us similarly that Senate Resolution 148, even though relating to procedures of the Senate, will have an impact upon the executive branch; and it also could have an impact upon future consideration by the Senate of the recommendations to the Congress of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government in the general matter of water resources and power.

The report of the Commission on water resources and power was submitted to Congress on June 27, 1955, together with three volumes of reports prepared by its task force on the subject. The Commission recommendations reflect approximately 2 years' study and

investigation into all the Federal activities concerned with water resource development and in the production and transmission of electric energy. The material furnished in connection with the invitation for this statement does not indicate that the recommendations of the Commission were before these committees, at least at this time. However, on page 13 of Committee Print No. 4, the report of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government on water resources and power is listed as one of the studies reviewed by the committees' staff in connection with its work leading to the pending Senate resolution.

It is our assumption that since the Commission report was made in response to a call of Congress, that it or legislation based on its recommendations will in due course be specifically considered by pertinent committees of the Congress. It is our earnest hope and petition that no commitment will be made or implied by either the Senate or the House of Representatives relative to the subject matter that would prejudice the objective consideration of those recommendations.

The first recommendation of the Commission is that the Congress adopt a national water policy on several enumerated points. It would appear that the pending Senate resolution is a step somewhat in that direction. It is an action by one body of Congress setting forth procedural, if not policy steps, for the guidance of its committees. As supporters of the Hoover Commission reports and believers in improved governmental procedure, we agree that the Congress is the proper body to establish policy.

The letter of transmittal of Committee Print No. 4 includes a sentence stating that in order to give effect to the findings in an attached report, the two committee chairmen were introducing a resolution that will approve the findings. The resolution is that currently under consideration. It is our concern that the adoption of the resolution as full approval of the findings, some of which are at variance with conclusions of the Commission which were developed on the basis of evidence uncovered, might be considered to constitute complete. Senate action on these matters studied by the Commission without an actual consideration of the Commission report, its findings, its evidence, and its recommendations.

Mindful that the resolution has been developed after a year's study by the committee and its staff without need for consultation with any representatives of the Citizens Committee or of the Commission and of the fact that the resolution is intended solely to provide changes relative to procedures of the Senate, I do not think it is necessary or desirable at this time to repeat the evidence included with the Commission's Report on Water Resources and Power that might bear on various statements in the report that is made a part of Committee Print No. 4. Let me, however, just give one example of a subject we would have serious misgivings to see excluded from future consideration of the Senate on the assumption that adoption of Senate Resolution 148 would satisfactorily dispose of the issue. I refer to the question of coordination within the executive branch.

On page 8 of Committee Print No. 4 under the head "V. Collaboration in Planning," a statement is made that there is no justification for additional layers of clearance by creation of more coordinating and reviewing officials in the Executive Office of the President. Adoption of Senate Resolution 184 to approve this report would, it

appears, reject without specific consideration the examination, findings, and recommendation made by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government on this specific subject. The Commission report pointed out that Federal development of water resources is carried on today under a complex of conflicting policies which have been evolving to meet changing conditions, needs, and pressures for well over a century of direct Federal activity and which cause competition, duplication, and waste. Irrigation policy, flood-control policy, and navigation policy have been separately conceived and separately administered.

The Commission studies found that there were 25 principal Federal agencies having functions relating to water and its control. Twelve were concerned with flood-damage abatement; 9 with irrigation; 8 with drainage; 7 with improvements in navigation; 9 with pollution control; 10 with watershed treatment; 10 with recreation and fish and wildlife conservation; 9 were concerned with power transmission; 15 with power generation; and 13 with water supply. The laws pertaining to each of these activities are not necessarily consistent, yet the President has the responsibility of carrying out all the laws regardless of consistency. In the interests of good government and economy, he has a responsibility to eliminate conflicts in project proposals developed by the executive branch before he submits them to Congress for authorization. He would be doing less than his full duty if he merely handed various proposals to Congress for its resolution of conflicts. As a matter of fact, Congress is not organized to coordinate these proposals submitted by the executive branch. There are some 16 committees in the 2 Houses that are concerned in one degree or another with water and power activities of the Federal Government. The joint action of the two committees that developed the pending resolution is a commendable procedural step, but it does not seem practicable to expect all the committees concerned with water resources and power to establish a kind of joint consideration that would coordinate effectively conflicting and incoordinate reports coming to it from the executive branch. As a matter of fact, Committee Print No. 4 itself refers to lack of adequate coordination of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers in the Missouri River Basin development.

The Members of Congress are busy men, and their time can be better utilized in the determining of policy rather than in the resolution and coordination of executive agency conflicts and competitions in public works projects. The Commission recommended the establishment of a water resources board in the Executive Office of the President to coordinate the proposals developed by the executive branch so that, when presented to Congress for its consideration, they would be as soundly organized as feasible. The Commission also recommended strengthening within the Bureau of the Budget to permit it to carry out adequately its functions related to waterdevelopment projects.

The members of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, the members of its task forces, and the members of the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report are concerned with the sound development and conservation of our water resources, just as are the members of these two committees. We believe that the Federal policy for such conservation and develop

ment should be established by Congress, and its control should remain in the hands of Congress. Our concern at this time is that the adoption of Senate Resolution 148 as phrased and presented might be construed as precluding further consideration of the recommendations made to Congress by the Commission in its report on water resources and power.

We recommend that, if the resolution is adopted, its sponsors point out at the time of its presentation to the Senate that its adoption does not constitute action on the recommendations of the Commission of Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government as presented to Congress and printed in House Document 208, 84th Congress, and its supporting papers, and that adoption of Senate Resolution 148 is without prejudice to the Commission's recommendations.

IMPACT OF SENATE RESOLUTION 148, 85TH CONGRESS, ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HOOVER COMMISSION RELEVANT TO WATER RESOURCES AND POWER, BY CHARLES D. CURRAN

On June 13, 1957, Senator Murray, for himself and 11 others, introduced Senate Resolution 148. The Senator said that the resolution prescribed procedures for and contents of reports to the Senate by the executive agencies with respect to proposed projects for conservation and development of land and water resources. He further stated that it was his intention, and the intention of the chairman of the Committee on Public Works, to secure the comments of the executive agencies and then to hold a public hearing on the resolution. He hoped to have endorsement of the Senate in establishing improvements in authorization procedures during the current session.

Invitations have now been issued to interested parties to submit views to the committees no later than July 8, 1957.

BACKGROUND

On July 6 and 9, 1956, at joint hearings before the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and on Public Works of the United States Senate, consideration was given to Senate Resolution 281 relative to the conservation and development of land and water resources. Reports of seven executive branch agencies were placed in the record, together with statements, letters, and other material from other interested parties. On July 26, 1956, the resolution, with amendments, was adopted by the Senate.

Section 1 of the resolution pointed out that its purpose was to establish national policy pertaining to the development and utilization of the land and water resources of the Nation. The second section endorsed comprehensive planning. Section 3 stated that the number of Federal agencies having to do with planning and review should be reduced rather than increased. This section constitutes a rejection. of proposed coordinators, coordinating committees, interagency committees, review boards, and similar devices. Section 4 proposed that Congress establish criteria for evaluation of projects. Section 5 proposed that Congress retain its rights and functions. Section 6 directed the two Senate committees concerned (Interior and Insular Affairs and Public Works) to study and to design and formalize a set