from New Hampshire is not colored in any way by the fact that the administration does not favor this step at the present time. During the administration of President Eisenhower, the Senator from New Hampshire was prepared, and on the floor of the Senate stated that he was prepared, to vote to override the President's veto of a water pollution control bill at that time. However, the House sustained the veto first, and the Senate never had an opportunity to vote. But most certainly the Senator from New Hampshire joins the distinguished Senator from Connecticut in supporting his tax incentive plan in some reasonable form.

Mr. RIBICOFF. I believe that together we can determine the reasonableness, because it is easy to calculate the relative costs of a tax deduction program or incentive program, depending on what the program will be.

Since the bill was introduced, I have found a lively, active interest on the part of various industries in America, industries that are the basic cause of pollution. There is a recognition by industry today, unlike their attitude a a decade ago, that they do have a responsibility. They now have an active desire to eliminate pollution. Certain States have done it, and have done it well.

The distinguished junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], who is standing in the aisle, as Governor of his State led the fight for tax incentives and tax credits, and for State taxing programs for the placing of pollution devices in Wisconsin.

Other States have followed the lead of Wisconsin. My own State of Connecticut recently followed this lead.

But State taxes are relatively small. The basic expenditures and the basic tax bite are by the Federal Government. So I firmly believe that once a tax incentive program were placed in effect, we would find an amazing acceleration on the part of all American industry-the coal industry, the oil industry, the steel industry, the mining industry-all of whom

recognize their obligations, but find themselves in a fantastic bind with respect to expensive expenditures, and having to write them off over a period of 20 years.

It is economically unsound. But in this way they would be given the fast tax writeoffs. While the Treasury might suffer the loss in the first year or the first 3 years, it would pick it up later on. The deductions take 20 years, anyway, and the Federal Government would be able to recoup its immediate loss of tax revenues, because the continued deduction would not take place in the next 17 years.

It is a question of being practical; and since we are passing this landmark bill today for $6 billion, I believe it is very shortsighted not to implement it with a program that might cost anywhere from $50 million to $150 million.

Mr. COOPER. I am pleased with the statement that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has made.

For 3 years now, the Senator from Connecticut has been leading in the fight for legislation to secure these incentives to to obtain the full cooperation of industry in this great task. I agree with the Senator from Connecticut that the Senate will pass such legislation. I hope that he will use his influence with the administration to support such legislation.

Mr. President, on April 6 I spoke on the Senate floor concerning the public hearings scheduled by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on the bill before us today and pointed out that I hoped that industry representatives in discussing various methods for controlling and abating pollution would also include a discussion of their views on [p. 15616]

the use of tax incentives as a method of accomplishing this purpose. I am happy to note that their testimony has been helpful to the committee in its strong recommendation for congressional consideration of proposals offering industry some form of tax relief.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my statement of April 6 be included in the RECORD at this point.

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

FEDERAL TAX PROPOSALS FOR CONTROL OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I cannot predict which method the Congress may prefer in providing industry with some assistance in establishing pollution controls: that is, investment credit, accelerated depreciation, a combination of these two methods, or some other method. But I do believe that some form of incentive should be provided private industry and I urge the Finance Committee to give this matter their close consideration and I am hopeful that hearings may be held on these proposals in the near future.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the Senate that the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works has announced a 10-day hearing schedule on water pollution commencing April 19 and continuing through to May 5. I note that among the industry representatives scheduled to appear are the following:

National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturing Chemists, the soap. and detergent industry. the iron. and steel industry, and the paper industry. I would hope that these industry representatives in discussing various methods for controlling and abating pollution would also include a discussion of their views on the use of tax incentives as a method of accomplishing this purpose.

In this connection, Mr. C. H. Gebhardt, manager of the tax department of the Mead Corp., has prepared a useful chart analyzing current tax proposals relative to water and air pollution controls so as to determine the measure of financial assistance that would actually be given to business if a particular proposal should be adopted. For each $100 outlay for pollution control facilities. Mr. Gebhardt concludes that the bill I introduced with Senator RANDOLPH would provide an incentive equal to 6.7 percent of the cost of pollution control facilities. Other methods provide for incentives of 1.1 percent. 6.1 percent, 7.8 percent, and 14.5 percent of the cost of these facilities. I ask unanimous consent that this table be included in the RECORD.

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

as

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, in the January issue of the monthly letter published by the Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.. of New York, there is an interesting article on this subject entitled "Progress and Pollution-Can the Link Be Broken." In the body of that article the question of private industry purchasing equipment to control air and water pollution receives the following comment:

"If businesses and communities are to be expected to install control equipment on a massive scale to abate air and water pollution, more thought will have to be given to methods of inducing them to make the necessary investment. It needs to be frankly recognized that there is little motive in most cases for the individual business unit to assume unusual costs in order to reduce or prevent pollution, particularly if competitors aren't doing so. Control equipment is nonproductive so far as yielding any marketable product is concerned. In a competitive industry, it may represent the marginal item of cost that prices a company out of some market. Recognizing this. a community eager to attract new plants may be tempted to relax in enforcing pollution regulations."

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

"[From the Morgan Guaranty Survey,

January 1966]

"PROGRESS AND POLLUTION-CAN THE LINK BE BROKEN?

"The problem of pollution is currently being elevated to prominent national attention in much the same way as was the problem of poverty 2 years ago. Almost everyone. or so it seems, is suddenly talking about it. and scarcely a week goes by without an official at some level of government announcing a new initiative to curtail the flow of wastes into the country's atmosphere and waterways.

"Pollution, of course, is not a new thing in the United States, any more than is poverty; nor indeed are efforts at control. American municipalities have made heavy expenditures over the decades to eradicate or prevent water pollution, and some also have invested considerable sums in recent years to cleanse their skies. Similarly, many business firms have made significant outlays to abate the waste flow that is the inevitable accompaniment of industrial activity.

"Realization has emerged, however, that sizable though these efforts have been in total, they simply have not been adequate to keep up with the ever larger waste loads that growing cities, suburbs, and industries are discharging. Sight and smell alone have

been sufficient to drive home this fact. Hundreds of bodies of water in the country are patently unfit for drinking, wildlife, or use in manufacturing processes, and the air in many communities often is laden with floating grime and offensive smells.

"Aroused by such conditions. the public appears primed to support vastly enlarged abatement endeavors. Concrete evidence of this came in New York State in last November's election, when voters gave approval to a $1 billion bond proposal for financing a clean-up of polluted waterways. The dramatic 4-to-1 vote far exceeded expectations and was rendered especially significant because the borrowing was the largest ever approved in the State's history.

"Since the public mood seems similar elsewhere, what happened in New York may well herald the beginning of a major new turn all across the country in the allocation and use of public funds. The ultimate cost of stepped-up pollution control programs defies meaningful estimate. but it is certain that many billions of dollars will be involved. Economic costs rivaling those for space exploration, for instance, are easy to visualize. [p. 15617]

Underscoring this possibility is the fact that Federal participation in abatement endeavors is rapidly accelerating. Congress last year passed legislation that will require many States to quicken and enlarge antipollution efforts relating to interstate waters. It also provided for national standards limiting emission of automobile exhausts. Acting in accord with this law, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has just set machinery in motion which will make such standards applicable to 1968 model automobiles and which will add an estimated $400 million to consumer spending on new automobiles that year assuming sales of 9 million

cars.

"Basic to rational regulation of pollution is the question: How clean should water and air be? The answer isn't necessarily the one that most people presumably would give instinctively; namely, that both water and air should be as clean as possible. With regard to water, certainly, an attempt to achieve pristine purity in all instances regardless of intended end use would entail unnecessarily burdensome social costs. Water which is to be used for soil irrigation, for instance. obviously does not have to be purified to drinkable standards. This applies as well to much of the water that is used industrially. Significantly, agricultural and industrial uses account for roughly 90 percent of the country's total water consumption, and feeder systems for these uses often are separate from those running to the country's homes.

"Even if a particular stream serves as a source of drinking water, it doesn't necessarily follow that all pollutants must be prevented from entering it. Water taken from a stream, no matter how clean it may seem to be, often must undergo some purification treatment immediately before being routed to household taps. While flowing in the stream, moreover, water has a natural capacity to decompose and dilute many contaminants, thereby cleansing itself. Where there is assurance that this process will be adequate, it would be economic folly to undertake the expense of intercepting and filtering out all waste matter.

"But while water doesn't have to be maintained in all instances at a standard of absolute purity, it is clear that the country's expanding water needs demand that water quality in many rivers, streams, and lakes be raised above the levels that presently prevail. With the advance of technology and the wide application of fertilizers and pesticides, waters have been receiving heavy loads of inorganic and synthetic organic chemicals that do not respond to the normal process of decomposition and cleansing by bacteria and oxygen. In numerous other cases water bodies that could assimilate substantial quantities of organic wastes have been so overloaded with pollutants as to arrest the normal breaking-down process. This has occurred principally because the volume of organic wastes has been expanding rapidly with economic and population growth, while the quantity of rainfall and its subsequent flow through waterways remain relatively unchanged from year to year.

"The constancy of nature's precipitation bounty is the chief hurdle confronting offcials who must plan for the country's future water needs. Projections of water demand point to the very real possibility that the supply that can be captured from rainfall runoff could prove seriously deficient within the next decade and a half. It is inescapable, therefore, that some way must eventually be found either to supplement or short-circuit nature's evaporation and precipitation cycle. The desalting of sea water is one possibility. although as a practical matter this as of now seems to have serious limitations both economically and geographically. A more promising possibility is that ways will be perfected to use fresh water more than once during the flow from watershed to estuary, as is already being done to some extent.

"UPGRADING WATER QUALITY

"To permit reuse, of course, water must be of suitable quality and this is why accelerated pollution control efforts are so important. The setting of quality standards thus becomes the first task in any coherent abatement program.

"More than half the States have taken at

least some action along these lines. New York State, for example, has classified all of its 70.000 miles of streams and 32 million acres of lakes as to proposed use. The classifications, which reflect to some degree the concept of stream specialization, are: A for drinking, B for bathing, C for fishing. D for drainage. Besides this classification program, sanitary engineers in the State have evaluated the sewage facilities that would be required in every community in order to raise water quality to the prescribed classification levels.

"While the State has only limited authority to force municipalities to construct such facilities, it has devised a program of financial aid that seems sufficiently generous to assure a good response. Whereas local governments have previously had to carry pretty much the full burden of construction costs for sewers and sewage treatment plants, their share would be only 40 percent under the new approach. New York State will finance the other 60 percent, using the proceeds of the $1-billion bond issue approved last

November.

"Eventually Albany hopes to get Washington to go halves on the 60 percent, but that will have to await congressional action. The Federal Government now gives some assistance to municipalities, but a formula limiting the size of individual grants works to the disadvantage of communities undertaking large-scale projects. The most that can be granted under present Federal law for a single project is $1.2 million, a relatively small sum in comparison with the typical undertaking in major cities.

"Governor Rockefeller has campaigned actively for liberalization of Washington's financial aid to permit Federal payment of a full 30 percent of the cost of municipal sewage facilities. He also has proposed that the Federal Government should follow New York State's lead in providing industry with treatment incentives in the form of 1-year write-off against income taxes on investment in pollution control equipment.

"Hopefully the bold initiatives taken in New York will be emulated in other States. If they are not, the alternative is virtually certain to be a national cleanup directed from Washington. The Water Quality Act of 1965 specifically empowered the Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare to enunciate standards of quality on interstate waters unless the States themselves do so to Washington's satisfaction by June 30, 1967. Should the Secretary do this. the results could be unfortunate. 'And attempt to "standardize" water quality on a nationwide basis.' as Governor Bellmon of Oklahoma recently cautioned, 'would likely disregard regional differences in water quantity, flow, location, natural characteristics, and usage.'