future to properly adjust the conference substitute figures.

I urge the adoption of this conference report.

This is a most significant conference report and bill that we have before us. I wholeheartedly support it as does the gentleman from Minnesota and I congratulate the conferees for a difficult, long 3-week conference and finally coming to a successful conclusion which I think is in the best interest of the country.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a member of the committee.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time simply to inquire with reference to and to make clear that the 10-percent incentive which we wrote into the bill in the Committee on Public Works is still in the bill.

This is a matter of particular interest to me and we discussed this when the bill was being considered on the floor of the House. I just want to be sure that this 10-percent incentive feature is still in the bill as it comes to us from the conference.

Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman is referring to the 10 percent for State participation in the cost of the project; is that what the gentleman is referring to?

Mr. CLEVELAND. I am referring to the 10-percent incentive provision that goes to those States that are contributing at least 30 percent as New Hampshire does, in fact, New Hampshire contributes 40 percent.

Mr. BLATNIK. That is what I meant that is to the States that are participating. Yes; it is still in the bill. [p. 27139]

Mr. CLEVELAND. That is still in the bill?

Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Hampshire?

There was no objection.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the leadership of the House Public Works Committee and their entire staff for their excellent work in writing the Water Pollution Control Act of 1966. Needless to say, I am pleased that I was able to make a contribution to the drafting of this legislationparticularly in connection with the 10percent incentive bonus for States. In the future, we will have to devise incentives for industry to more fully join the battle. Probably the best way would be through the tax-credit route, which, unfortunately, is not under the jurisdiction of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, as has been frequently stated, this is a matter of broad national interest. Just today I received from my district office a letter from Edward S. LeBlanc, city clerk of Nashua, N.H., enclosing a resolution passed by the board of aldermen and approved by my friend, Mayor Dennis J. Sullivan. This resolution is so timely that I enclosed it at this point in the RECORD, as it points up the widespread public interest and support for our continuing battle against water pollution.

RESOLUTION ENDORSING PROJECT PURE
WATER, CITY OF NASHUA

In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-six.

Resolved, By the Board of Aldermen of the City of Nashua, That the City of Nashua endorse Project Purewater and its drive to abate pollution of the Nashua and Merrimack Rivers, and to clear out the pollution and impurities which now are allowed to be discharged into them.

And that whereas the Federal Government has seen fit to enact a public law designed to enhance the purity of waters and to abate the pollution of our waters, it is urged that the proper authorities of our State Government take immediate action to put into execution the said law so that the State may avail itself of any and all funds provided by the Federal Government under said law for the purpose of abating pollution in our interstate waterways.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. JONES] who has played a major role in this legislation from its inception 10 years ago.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support to the conference report on S. 2947, the water pollution control bill of 1966. The distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] who has presided over the deliberations in the committee and in conference, and who has managed the bill on the floor is to be commended for the energy and dedication which he has given to this legislation.

As I am sure the Members know, Mr. BLATNIK has been considered the father of the water pollution program in the House of Representatives from the day that the first authorization for appropriations was made in 1956. Since that time he has been at hand whenever he was needed to introduce and to secure the passage of necessary amendatory legislation. Last year the Water Quality Control Act of 1965, with which he is credited, represents the most substantial monetary step ever made in this field. Today I am proud to see that this bill takes a major step in the provision of construction grants for this problem which has grown so tremendously in magnitude. It will provide approximately $32 billion for construction grants for sewage treatment works, which is many times in excess of the grants previously authorized. It will also remove the dollar limitations on the smaller projects, thereby permitting the larger towns and cities to receive grants which will be of some significance in their financing of sewage treatment works. It will broaden and at the same time focus activities devoted to research and development which are badly needed to solve the many problems in this field.

I think that Mr. BLATNIK deserves a great deal of credit, since he more than anyone else has been the architect of this very worthwhile and much needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to call attention at this point to one of the strongest members of our committee in the field of water pollution, Congressman JIM WRIGHT, of Texas. He has been actively interested in pollution control since he has been in Congress and has been of great assistance to the committee in solving the many complex problems that have come before us in this exceedingly complex field. As a member of the Committee on Government Operations on which I also serve he has had the advantage of becoming familiar with the problems of water pollution control and abatement on both that committee and the Public Works Committee. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to commend him for his dedication to this most important activity.

I also want to pay tribute at this time, Mr. Speaker, to Congressman ROBERT MCCLORY, of Illinois, who as a former member of the House Committee on Government Operations has been so helpful in supplying information to the committee that has been of great value in its deliberations on the subject of water pollution.

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle

man.

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my support to the conference report on the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966 (S. 2947).

The diligent work of the House and Senate conferees reflects the many contributions of time and effort which have been made by National, State, local, and civic leaders-all of whom are concerned about the pollution of our Nation's

waters.

I am proud to note a number of provisions consistent with various recommendations made by the Subcommittee on Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations. I had the privilege of serving for 2 years on this subcommittee under the chairmanship of the distinguished gentleman

The conference committee report reenacts the Oil Pollution Control Act with certain amendments along lines recommended by the Jones committee.

The conferees have also given support to a bill which several of my colleagues and I introduced earlier in the session to encourage industry to solve its pollution problems. My bill (H.R. 17253) would provide tax incentives to industries which provide water pollution facilities. As the conference committee report recites the Secretary of the Interior shall "make a full and complete study of methods for providing incentives to assist in constructing facilities and works by industry to reduce or abate water pollution, including possible use of tax incentives."

I am pleased that this study will be made, and I feel confident that it will support tax incentives as an appropriate part of a nationwide attack on water pollution.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report represents a great forward step in combating water pollution. I am proud to give this landmark legislation my full support.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KLUCZYNSKI] may extend his remarks at his point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

There was no objection.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Waters Restoration Act which is before us in the conference report is an outstanding example of what the House and the Senate, working together to create legislation that will be of lasting and substantial benefit to all the people, can accomplish.

This legislation, based on the more than 10 years' experience since the Federal Government actively assumed its responsibility to provide both leadership and funds in the effort to bring an end to pollution of our water resources and to restore the already polluted waters, probably marks the first time that anything approaching a sufficient amount of money has been authorized for either treatment facilities or much-needed research.

This legislation is a benchmark, not only because it at last recognizes the tremendous financial commitment that pollution control and abatement require,

[p. 27140]

but because it recognizes that our cities and States must be given every possible encouragement and assistance in meeting their part of the obligation in this program. This legislation can substantially alleviate the difficulties the larger cities have had in financing the construction of their treatment facilities at the same time providing for the small municipalities on small streams that also face serious pollution problems.

It was a privilege to have had the opportunity to serve on the conference from which this legislation developed. It would not be possible to exaggerate my respect for all the participants and particularly my admiration for Representative BOB JONES, of Alabama, and JOHN BLATNIK, of Minnesota, for the patience, wisdom, and vision with which they worked with this most critical of our resource problems.

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as embodied in the conference report on H.R. 16076.

If this is a compromise, Mr. Speaker, then it is a good one.

The conference report does not purport to do the whole job, but the clean rivers restoration program passed as a new title to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is another step along the right road.

Requiring the combined efforts of all levels of government and assuring an expanded role for industry in solving the problem, the report authorizes $3.6 billion over the next 5 years to help States and localities build sewage treatment plants for the Nation's water resources that have for so long been neglected.

Further, the conference report eliminates the ceiling of $1.2 million per project which will permit larger cities and their suburbs, where the need is great, to become eligible for grants up to 30 percent of project cost.

The water pollution abatement program is now on its way. The stake which America has in its river basins, every one of which is so badly polluted, warrants this effort, Mr. Speaker, and

more.

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The question was taken.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken; and there were yeas 247, nays 0, not voting 185, as follows:

House to the bill (S. 2947) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such act. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk read the report. (For conference report, see House proceedings of today.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate has before it today the Conference Report on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1966, including the Clean Rivers Restoration Act.

The Senate version of this legislation, passed on July 13 by a vote of 90-0, included, among other things, a 5-year, $6 billion authorization for the Federal share of the cost of construction of sewage treatment works. I am disappointed to announce that we were unable to hold that figure in conference. In order to reach an agreement, the Senate accepted a 4-year, $3.4 billion total. This is a decrease of approximately $2.5 billion from the Senate bill, however, $1.5 billion of that difference was absorbed by cutting back the authorization for 1 year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD a chart which shows the differences between the Senate and the House passed bills and the compromise reached:

existing authorization for 1967 and, thus, no damage was done to the President's budget.

The House and Senate split the difference in the first 2 years of the new authorization but the conference amount for the final 2 years indicates an increase by the House of $350 million and $300 million, respectively, while the Senate decreased only $250 million for each year.

Mr. President, there was general recognition throughout the conference that the $1.5 billion level authorized by the Senate for 1971 and 1972 was realistic. It, therefore, must be our next task to increase the authorization to this more realistic level. The $6 billion authorized by the Senate was passed on the assumption that, first, the Federal share should be at least 30 percent of the total cost of treatment facilities with no dollar limitation and, second, that in order to provide secondary treatment for 80 percent of the population and advanced waste treatment to approximately 20 percent of the population, $20 billion would be required. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a memorandum which shows how the Senate arrived at that estimate.

There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, October 5, 1966.

MEMORANDUM

To: Senator MUSKIE.

From: Leon G. Billings.

Subject: Justification of $20 billion cost

estimate.

CONFERENCE OF SANITARY ENGINEERS SURVEY

The survey of State pollution control agencies conducted by the Committee. 48 responses to which were received, indicates that less than 10 States confirmed the data made available by the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers. Two of those States, Oregon and Rhode Island, indicated costs less than estimated by the Sanitary Engineers. The remaining 38 States provided estimates ranging from a slight difference to a differ

The

Because the statistical life of a secondary treatment facility is 20 years, it must be assumed further that projects constructed between now and 1972 must be designed to provide for at least a 1980 population. census estimates that the population in the United States in 1980 will be approximately 250 million. If we provide secondary treatment for 80% of that population, this will equal 200 million. It is assumed now that 61 million people have secondary treatment and that by 1972 50% of this secondary treatment will have to be replaced. Therefore, between now and 1972, secondary treatment must be provided for 170 million people.

The per capita construction cost of sewage treatment facilities, associated interceptors and other appurtenances, is approximately $100 per person. This will increase as construction costs increase over the six year period; but without assuming any change in construction cost past August of 1966, the cost for secondary treatment for 170 million people will be about $162 billion. Assuming that 20% of the population must be served by advance waste treatment by 1972, such facilities must be provided for 50 million people. The best available estimate of per capita cost is $75.00. This would increase the cost $3.75 billion, bringing total to $20.25 billion. In order that these facilities be available for the 1980 population, and that the associated economies of scale be taken