ment No. 640, as follows:

AMENDMENT No. 640

On page 32, line 5, after "SEC. 17." insert "(a)".

On page 32, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:

"(b) The Secretary shall also make a complete investigation and study to determine (1) the need for additional trained State and local personnel to carry out programs assisted pursuant to this Act and other programs for the same purpose as this Act, and (2) means of using existing Federal training programs to train such personnel. He shall report the results of such investigation and study to the President and the Congress not later than July 1, 1967."

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to provide for a comprehensive study of the need for skilled personnel trained in the techniques of water pollution control and abatement, and to determine how best we can utilize existing Federal training programs to train such personnel.

The Secretary of the Interior would report the results of such investigation and study to the President and the Congress no later than July 1, 1967.

Mr. President, passage of this legislation will give us many of the tools and much of the financial assistance that will be needed in the years ahead to restore and preserve the quality of our water resources. The distinguished junior Senator from Maine and his colleagues on the committee are to be commended for bringing this legislation before the Senate.

I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, and am happy to support his amendment. This subject was discussed earlier, Mr. President, in response to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.

The committee was impressed by the presentation, during its hearings, made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, and devoted, indeed, several paragraphs in the report to the subject which he has raised. I ask unanimous consent that that portion of the commit

tee report be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the excerpt from the report (No. 1357) was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Senator EDWARD KENNEDY of Massachusetts provided the committee with an extensive analysis of the personnel problem prepared by Dr. N. Bruce Hanes, Director of Environmental Engineering at Tufts University. Dr. Hanes pointed out that full implementation of new and growing water pollution programs may be impeded due to a lack of available manpower equipped with the necessary skills.

Senator KENNEDY also provided the committee with correspondence between himself and the Secretary of Labor, W. Willard Wirtz, in which the Senator, among other things, suggested the desirability of convening “a national conference to determine the needs of skilled workers created by recent legislation designed to improve our natural environment. and whether our Federal programs are adequately oriented to meet the needs."

The committee believes Senator KENNEDY'S suggestion to be of the highest order of importance and urges that

(1) The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration report to the Congress on the question of skilled manpower for operation of pollution control programs;

(2) That such national conferences as recommended by the Senator be called at the earliest date consistent with orderly procedure; and

(3) That the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reexamine existing manpower development programs and other education programs to determine the extent to which those programs may be used for the training of needed skilled personnel.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am happy to support the amendment of the distinguished Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.

[p. 15602]

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think it is a splendid bill. The Senator from Maine has taken care of many of the problems concerning which so many of us have been deeply concerned. I know what a monumental labor it has been. I congratulate the Senator on his work.

I know that many of our colleagues are deeply interested in the economy and in the Federal expenditures. This is a $6 billion bill, but it is a $6 billion bill because the Senator from Maine has had the graciousness and the generosity to accept other people's ideas. Too many of us do not do that here very often. It is a very good precedent.

The pending bill has taken much of the steam out of the argument concerning the $6 billion bill. The Senator has pointed out very properly and nobly that it is a great deal of money but that the money does not have to be appropriated right away. The States will be encouraged by the passage of this bill to go ahead and spend the money on the theory that they will get it back ultimately.

In a State like New York, in which there is a $1.7 billion project, the idea of being able to get reimbursed for money being spent currently-which we can raise by credit and other meansmakes us able to proceed. We will take our chances and the risk that ultimately the Federal Government will reimburse us. However, I point out the experience that we have had and why this is such a brilliant provision in the bill.

The New York Thruway-the first of the great trunk roads through the States -was followed by others in the country, and it has literally revolutionized our land.

There was no Federal road program at the time of its construction. We are still trying after all these years to get some Federal reimbursement for what is in effect an interstate highway-the New York Thruway.

New York would not have gone ahead with the great sewer construction program which our voters have authorized, by referendum incidentally, unless we had reassurance that we would be reimbursed for our expenditures.

I think the provisions incorporated in the bill by the Senator from Maine are very sound. The other provisions are splendid.

I am especially enthusiastic over what

amounts to the advance approval of a river compact with respect to a river basin.

This is a fine example of Federal-State cooperation in a most elementary effort in our country toward the preservation of the water and its purity. I think that the Senator from Maine has every right to derive enormous satisfaction from his role in leading us into the enactment of this measure which I hope will soon be enacted.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from New York not only for his remarks this afternoon, but for the strong support and leadership he has provided in introducing legislation, some of the ideas of which are incorporated in the pending bill. I also thank him for prodding those of us on the committee to continue our efforts on this problem. I do appreciate the comments of the Senator this afternoon.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I point out that taking the ceiling off all these individual and collective projects is tremendously helpful to a big industrial State and is another major contribution in the bill. I thank the Senator.

[p. 15603]

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 2947] to amend Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such act.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise to support S. 2947, the Clean Rivers Restoration Act. This bill is the result of extensive research and hearings by the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee, under the chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE]. Senator MUSKIE and the other members of the subcommittee are to be

commended for once again bringing to the floor of the Senate comprehensive and forward-looking legislation through which our energies and resources can be mobilized for the battle against water pollution.

The Clean Rivers Restoration Act extends and expands the Federal water pollution control program in several important respects. It is a significant and logical addition to the series of pol

[p. 15605]

lution control laws beginning with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the important amendments to that law, such as the Water Quality Act passed by the Congress last year.

One of the most important features of this bill is a provision which would organize water pollution control planning according to river basin. Water pollution does not, of course, respect State, municipal or agency boundary lines. The pollution of our major rivers does not mean that they are polluted only in the vicinity of major cities, but that they are polluted along their entire courses, from their sources to their mouths. In these circumstances, pollution control programs designed for particular cities or vicinities without regard to the situation throughout the drainage basin cannot be expected to do an effective job of cleaning up our rivers. Under the clean rivers restoration program proposed by this bill, comprehensive plans for the control and abatement of pollution throughout river basins would be prepared, and economic incentives would be provided to insure that waste treatment was adequate to meet water quality standards established by the plan. Only through the adoption of such a comprehensive plan in every river basin will we be able to eventually meet our national water pollution problem.

Another important feature of this bill is the provision for expanded research and development. Our methods of collecting and treating domestic wastes have not changed for half a century.

Many industrial wastes are not amenable to conventional treatment, and new methods must be developed. We need extensive work on the problem of combined storm-sanitary sewers, on joint municipal-industrial systems, and on advanced waste handling and waste treatment methods. I feel that the expanded research programs and fund authorizations provided by this bill will go a long way toward bringing about the technological breakthroughs upon which much of the future progress in water pollution abatement and prevention will depend.

Although I will not discuss them in detail, there are many other outstanding features of this bill. The provisions for an estuary research program, the mandatory pollution report requirement, the regulation of oil pollution from vessels and terminals, to mention but a few of these provisions, will fill important needs in our overall national pollution control program.

Mr. President, I feel that the gravest immediate problem confronting us in the pollution battle is the vast requirements of our cities-large and smallfor waste collection and treatment facilities. The Federal program for assisting municipalities to construct waste treatment works has resulted in a tremendous acceleration of construction work. S. 2947 makes a significant contribution to expanding this program. Under the clean rivers restoration program, the Federal Government may make grants up to 50 percent of the cost of treatment works provided that the State pays at least 30 percent of the cost. The Federal contribution under this program may be further increased by grants under the Appalachian Regional Development Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act.

Amendments to the existing Federal cost-sharing program remove the dollar ceilings on grants and substantially increase the Federal proportion of construction costs if a treatment works is part of a comprehensive plan. Other

amendments provide for retroactive reimbursement of money expended for qualified treatment works construction projects, and establish a loan program to help municipalities meet the costs of treatment works construction. These changes in and additions to the Federal program to encourage the construction of municipal treatment works are badly needed and will greatly strengthen that program.

Under this bill, it would be possible for a municipality to get a Federal grant of up to 40 percent of the cost of treatment plant construction under the amendments to the existing Federal grant program, and up to 50 percent under the clean rivers restoration program. The bill would authorize a total of $6 billion for the next 6 fiscal years to finance grants under both these provisions. I feel very strongly that both the proposed Federal grant levels and the authorization for funds to finance these grants are inadequate for the needs to be met.

I believe that meeting these rapidly mounting needs of our cities for adequate waste collection and treatment systems should be a national responsibility with a No. 1 priority. The pollution crisis around our cities is deepening so rapidly that the Federal Government cannot any longer sit back and insist that other units of government solve the problem. The fact is that the job is not being done and never will be done unless we make it an urgent responsibility of the Federal Government. If the building of interstate highways is a task so urgent as to require 90-percent Federal financing, certainly the saving of our lakes and rivers is equally urgent and equally national in its significance.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON] is as follows:

On page 13, line 18, strike out "not exceed" and insert in lieu thereof "be".

On page 13, line 20, before the semicolon insert a comma and "except that such per centum shall be increased by the per centum (not in excess of 20) which is equal to the per centum of such costs which the State in which the project is located agrees to "provide".

On page 14, line 21, after the semicolon, insert "and".

On page 14, beginning with line 22, strike out all through line 25.

On page 15, line 1, strike out "(6)" and insert in lieu thereof “(5)".

On page 24, line 16, beginning with "no grant" strike out all through "exceeding 30" in line 17, and insert in lieu thereof "the grant for any project shall amount to 50".

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my brief statement there be printed in the RECORD materials taken from the report "Disposal of Municipal Sewage-Water Pollution Control and Abatement," 12th report by the House Committee on Government Operations, prepared by the Natural Resources and Power Subcommittee, March 24, 1965. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving on the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, under the chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], for a period of 2 years. That committee, under the leadership of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has been conducting hearings on air and water pollution for almost 4 years.

The pending bill is one of the fruitful results of these extensive and probing hearings into the question of water pollution in this country.

I believe that the Senator is to be commended for having brought to the floor of the Senate the most comprehen

sive, most forward-looking, and finest water pollution control bill that has ever been brought to the floor of the Senate to my knowledge, for active consideration by the Congress.

The bill would make an authorization of $6 billion, which is a substantial step in the right direction. The amendment I sent to the desk aims to change the formula in the bill. In the bill, there is a grant of up to 30 percent to the local municipalities, and up to 50 percent if the States are willing to match with 30 percent. The amendment I sent to the desk would make the grant 50 percent to local municipalities, and would match the State up to 20 percent, making a total amount of 90 percent. In other words, the Federal Government would make a grant of 50 percent to the local municipalities and another 20 percent if the State will match the 20 percent, making the Federal grant a total of 70 percent. The total grant to the municipalities, under those circumstances, would be 90 percent.

I think that ultimately-although this is the best grant feature that has been contained in any bill ever taken up in Congress for consideration-we will have to go into the position of "upping" the matching funds of the Federal Government to local municipalities far beyond what we have done in the past, and far beyond what it is contemplated to do in the pending legislation.

[p. 15606]

If we were to sit down, consider the most serious domestic problems confronting this country today, I believe that the problem of the status of the quality of our environment would rank as the most urgent one.

To one degree or another, we have polluted every river basin in America. We have polluted the shorelines of nearly every major city in America. We have almost destroyed the water in Lake Erie, we are well underway in the pollution of Lake Michigan, and are beginning the pollution of Lake Superior. We

are well on our way to polluting that magnificent lake, high in the mountains, Lake Tahoe, and are beginning the pollution of the ocean. In fact, we now find that in the Antarctic, DDT has been found in the fatty tissues of the Adelie penguins and yet no DDT has been used within 1,000 miles of the Antarctic.

We are well on our way to a serious pollution of the air over this country. The whole issue of the quality and the status of our environment is, I think, the most significant and important domestic issue confronting this country today. When, finally, we get around to tackling the full force of the whole question of water pollution in this country, I think we will be facing a problem with a price tag on it so newhere in the neighborhood of $75 billion to $100 billion. Everyone says that is a lot of money, and of course it is a lot of money to spend in the next 15 or 20 years to clean up the water in America. However, it is only about the equivalent of 13 years' defense budget. I think the question of maintaining and raising the quality of the environment in which we live in the next 15 to 20 years is worthy of the investment of money equivalent to a defense budget expenditure of a year and one-third.

EXHIBIT 1

OUR COUNTRY'S STREAMS CAN No LONGER ASSIMILATE THE EVER-INCREASING WASTES DISCHARGED INTO THEM

(Materials taken from the report "Disposal of Municipal Sewage (Water Pollution Control and Abatement)," 12th report by the House Committee on Government Operations, prepared by the National Resources and Power Subcommittee, Mar. 24, 1965)

Satisfactory development of urban society depends on adequate disposal of the complex wastes resulting from community living. Water pollution, therefore, is both a symbol and affliction of the growth of modern civilization. It adversely affects the continued growth, health, and development of the United States.

The water-carriage system for the disposal of household and industrial wastes from cur cities and towns developed because of its simplicity and apparent economy. The city sewer offered a relatively inexpensive means for removing offensive and potentially dangerous wastes from our immediate sur