62 



I am sure you will be calling me a lot of other names a little bit later 

 on. 



I see I have some of my good friends in the audience, who have run 

 me out of other places before, like the good old friend from Louisiana, 

 Dr. St. Amant, and also, I think, Dave Adams is floating around 

 someplace. I understand, however, that Dave, since he has been in 

 Washington, has started to get a little bit more to my side of the 

 thinking ; not completely, though. 



The Commission report, and let's start at someplace where I think 

 we can agree, I think we can agree that the Commission report should 

 certainly be held as one of the most comprehensive studies and a 

 fantastic job of facts and the presentation of facts, and also a fan- 

 tastic job in terms of analysis and progressive recommendations with 

 regard to legislation and management. Federal review, and the like. 



I had the pleasure of doing some consulting work, reviewing work, 

 with the Comimssion, and, for that reason, I would like to take this op- 

 portmiity to express just a slight dissent. 



I know that Crane Miller is in the audience. Crane is from the 

 Smithsonian. He is an extremely capable attorney. He did not agree 

 with me at the time that I expressed this to the Commission, and I 

 don't expect him to agree today. 



I am of the opinion that every court has one guy who dissents to 

 something. I am going to take a very small portion with regard to that 

 report and dissent. 



I think that the reoprt, the proposed legislation and the proposal 

 that you are reading here today, treats too gingerly and too optimis- 

 tically the question of voluntary State participation. I think it treats 

 too gingerly and too optimistically the question of Federal-State 

 relationships. 



I think in this one small portion of the report it goes contrary to the 

 very strong, creative and progressive recommendations that are made 

 throughout the report, 



_ I do not think to premise any program of the magnitude that we are 

 discussing, with the need that everyone readily admits is there on 

 sonie voluntary participation, on some illusory State authorities that 

 might come into existence, is at all a good premise to start off from. 



1 think that any such voluntary program is much too weak to cope 

 with the fantastic job that is set forth as being its mission. Certainly, 

 we have stripped them already, before we start, from being effective. 



I have found in my short experience that any such type of permissive 

 action is usually not that tremendously effective. 



I think we can project, and I am not talking to the gentlemen here 

 who are in their individual States doing a fantastic job, I am not 

 saying that we should start stripping away any areas of sacred States' 

 rights— I am saying that to draft p. bill and to make recommendations, 

 and to say that the core of the bill is going to be a Federal grant — I am 

 saying that that is nothing more than a teaser. It is not a solution. It 

 is the old faithful Federal teaser of a Federal grant. 



I have submitted a written statement, which I will not go into too 

 much detail on. Particularly, I fill not discuss with you the need, be- 

 cause I think you could tell me much better what the need is. I think 



