63 



you have already expressed from the floor today what the urgency is, 

 and the classic chant of balanced planning. 



This need, as I see it, and this demand, as I see it, knows no bound- 

 aries. It doesn't respect those lines that we have drawn on the map 

 and called the United States and the boundaries that designate the 

 various States. 



If we approach it on that same archaic approach, I am afraid that we 

 will be here again and again talking about the same subject matter. 



I am also not going to try to impress you with the public interest, nor 

 am I going to define for you the public interest, because that usuall3r 

 ends up being a tidy mess. But I think that it has been stated f rom^. 

 the floor, and I would like to emphasize, there is truly a national in- 

 terest here. Yes, there is a strong local interest, and yes, there is 3l 

 strong State interest. 



But I submit to you today for your consideration that there is also"^ 

 an overriding national interest. 



What public are we talking about? What interests are we talking 

 about ? I will ask them rhetorically, because to try to get in and try to 

 define it would perhaps only bore you and go over old treatise material 

 that you have read time and time again. There is truly, however, a 

 national fabric here. 



There are many in my profession that will dispute that the Federal 

 Government can go to perhaps the extent that I am going to propose to 

 you shortly, and there are many who will say this just doesn't sound 

 like it fits into the old categories of what we have learned in law 

 school. 



But I ssij to you that this national interest that we are talking about 

 provides the jugular vein for national and Federal jurisdiction. The 

 very nature of this subject matter — I repeat — knows no State bound- 

 aries. We are talking here of a problem, at least from what I see, which 

 can only in the ultimate end be treated in totality, and we must then 

 treat it as a totality, and we m.ust then treat it out of necessity with a 

 strong Federal interface. 



You have heard and you know, and most of you have lived with, 

 the present maze, the present Federal maze and the j)resent State 

 maze that exists. I don't talk it down. I think we can be very, very 

 proud as to what has been accomplished. 



I think we are here because we are all proud of our individual roles 

 in trying to help accomplish more and look for a further direction. But 

 to a great extent we have sort of a disjointed parade with many agen- 

 cies or bands playing varying tunes, and many of them duplicafing 

 lyrics. 



On the State level, it isn't fair at all to criticize, when we have some 

 very, very productive legislation that has come out of many of the 

 States. 



I usually get in trouble by naming some of them, but I will. I have 

 a lot of respect for some of the things that I have seen come out of 

 California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 



But in each instance it has been a piecemeal type of approach. 

 Every time we turn around and pat ourselves on the back in the in- 

 dividual States with regard to the particular work that you individuals 



