and by 1980 we will be using 600 billion gallons each day. By the year 2000, a trillion gallons. It is clear that we are going to have to reuse our water time and time again.

Water pollution is not an insurmountable problem, but it must be worked on immediately. We must invest more money in city and industrial water treatment plants and provide more research facilities for the development of efficient techniques of waste treatment.

The bill now under consideration is a step toward the achievement of the cleaner water supply needed to promote good health and to serve vital functions in the areas of industry, agriculture and recreation.

President Johnson has said that:

A prime national goal must be an environment that is pleasing to the senses and healthy to live in.

Passage of S. 4 is certainly crucial to achievement of this objective, and I urge its prompt and unanimous approval.

[p. 8663]

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. STALBAUM] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

There was no objection.

Mr. STALBAUM. Mr. Chairman, the poisoning of America's waterways is a growing scandal. This pollution of our great natural resources is reaching the point where it is getting late.

An overwhelming mail response to a recent newsletter describing the urgent need for the preservation and restoration of this Nation's resources seems timely proof that our citizens are finally becoming alarmed over these shocking developments. My esteeemed Wisconsin colleague, Senator GAYLORD NELSON, joined me in pointing out the steadily worsening problem of pollution of our waterways.

The bill before us today to strengthen the Federal water pollution control program is most necessary in the current battle for conservation; the grim picture of the destruction of this great natural resource is all the more reason to do something now.

We must take action immediately or the green velvet countryside and glittering blue lakes will become so devastated as to deprive our children and succeeding generations of a land of beauty. Continuation of this critical poisoning of our waters will do untold damage, too, to the utilitarian aspects of this resource.

The lakes and streams of our country not only serve people as a source of water supply but provides everyone with ideal recreation and sport, and remain as a big part of this Nation's economy. I feel a great urgency in requesting our consideration and action in moving to stop pollution and provide protection for our country's waters.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. KEE].

Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to pay tribute to the bipartisan leadership of the House Committee on Public Works for their dedicated work, which is based on experience, in drafting and bringing to the floor of the House this afternoon the Water Quality Act of 1965.

Water, clean water, is the most important domestic problem facing the American people today. This bill which we are now considering, as written, is one of the finest and most important pieces of legislation ever presented before the House of Representatives. Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I strongly recommend and urge Members of the House to see to it that this bill may unanimously pass without amendment. America needs this legislation. America needs clean water.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. MIZE].

Mr. MIZE. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent program. I live on the Missouri River. We call it the Big Muddy. I am happy to support this excellent program.

I want to remind Members of the House that we are being asked to spend $150 million in connection with cleaning up our rivers, and yet, before long, we are going to be asked to sustain a cut of $120 million in the agricultural conservation practices program. I hope we will all be consistent and restore that cut because permanent agricultural conservation practices contribute to the cleanliness of our streams and rivers.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. BALDWIN].

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill S. 4. It was my privilege to support the original Water Pollution Control Act when it was passed through our committee and by the House in 1956. It was also my privilege to support the extension of the act in 1961. This is a further step toward the basic objective of cleaning up undue pollution in the streams of America. This is one field that the people of the United States fully understand. I do not think there is a person in this country who has any doubt whatsoever that there is a need to do something to control stream pollution, because every person can see with his own eyes the adverse results of pollution in streams throughout the Nation.

We have tremendous public support for legislation along these lines. I am very pleased to have been a member of the committee in their deliberations on this bill. It has my full support and I hope it will have the unanimous support of the House of Representatives today.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentle

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from California [Mr. DoN H. CLAUSEN].

Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I am pleased to follow the very able and distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. BALDWIN] who has certainly provided the committee with great leadership. I join the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER], in their expressions of pleasure at having him back with our committee. We need his wise counsel and advice on many of these matters. He is certainly one of the finest Members of the House, and I have been pleased to be able to serve with him on this committee.

I was especially pleased with the deliberations on this bill, on this very important matter of improving the quality of water in the streams throughout America, the discussion was fully bipartisan. All of the comments relating to

732

the exceptional cooperation of this committee that have been made here today are true and are certainly to the credit of the committee.

As was previously mentioned, during the committee hearings, there was never an ounce of doubt in the minds of the participating members that we were purely objective. There was no partisanship. I think the fact that the bill has come out of the committee with unanimous support is evidence of that point.

We must certainly move to improve the quality of water in all of the States. And, of course, as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] said, we have used the carrot as well as a prod to the States and local government primarily responsible for water pollution control programs.

I would like to refer to this frankly as the motivated voluntary effort. However, I would want to admonish the States themselves that if they do not want Federal controls or Federal standards that certainly they are going to have to take the lead themselves, working in unison with all local units of government, to resolve some of these problems.

Mr. Chairman, this has been the great problem of America, the lack of leadership, the lack of ability sometimes to move forward and resolve problems in the environment where they exist.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is designed to provide the additional authorization and in 1967 we will again review this important subject. I would hope that we can see progress that follows the intent and objectives of the committee itself, as we have worked diligently and with dispatch to further the improvement of water quality throughout America.

I urgently request all Members to support this legislation and make this a historic day in the orderly development of adequate conservation measures.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HARSHA].

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, water is one of the most important of our natural resources, and the entire fabric of our society is dependent on it. The wise and proper use of this great asset is essential to the growth and welfare of this Nation's fish and wildlife, our com

mu

[p. 8664]

nities, our industries, our agriculture, and the very well-being of man himself. Because the social and economic development of this country is so entwined around an adequate supply of clean water, the pollution of this Nation's streams, lakes, and waterways is one of the gravest domestic problems confronting us today.

Admittedly, significant progress has been made in combating pollution in the last few years, but a great deal remains to be done. We are far from having conquered the problem. Actually we have only begun-the war on pollution. The struggle to preserve and restore the waters of the Nation is a struggle which will not be won within the next few years or even within the next few decades. It is a struggle which will require the combined effort of Federal, State, and local governments. S. 4 as reported by the House Public Works Committee provides us with some of the tools to wage this war on pollution. For the first time in the history of Federal water pollution control legislation in this Nation, the bill before us today, S. 4, as reported, takes a step toward a cooperative effort among the three levels of government to share in the costs of construction of sewage treatment works. It has become obvious that a solution to the water pollution problem can be found only through the concerted action of all levels of govern

ment.

Despite the conviction of the minority on the Committee on Public Works that action to solve our water pollution problems was and still is urgently needed, it was our belief that many of the bills before our committee this session on the

subject of water pollution control, contained unwise, undesirable, and unacceptable provisions.

After public hearings were held on these bills, lengthy deliberations of the committee were conducted in a bipartisan atmosphere. As a result of these deliberations, the committee has reported an amended bill which we do support. Even though it still contains sections about which we have reservations, such as the establishment of an additional Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the establishment of a separate Federal Water Pollution Control Administration within the Department, we feel the bill makes a great contribution to the struggle to combat pollution.

S. 4, as reported, is an acceptable and workable bill, and it is my hope that there will not be any attempt to amend the bill on the floor today to reincorporate those unwise, undesirable, and unacceptable provisions which the committee struck out.

I refer specifically to that section in S. 4, as passed by the other body, which would have given the Secretary of HEW the authority to promulgate regulations setting forth standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof. These standards would have been promulgated and would have been mandatory if, within a reasonable time after being requested by the Secretary to do so, the appropriate States and interstate agencies had not developed standards found by the Secretary to be consistent with the stated purpose of the bill.

We, and evidently a considerable number of the majority on the committee, are strongly opposed to such a provision. Standards of water quality may be badly needed, but they should be established by the State and local agencies which are most familiar with the matter in a given locality, such as the economic impact of establishing and enforcing stringent standards of water quality.

The water pollution control program

has traditionally been one of FederalState cooperation, and while there can be no question of wishing to have the highest possible standards, I believe that the authority authorized by the other body would be contrary to the Federal-State cooperative relationship which has heretofore existed, and in fact do violence to that relationship and cooperation. Maximum progress in this field will only be achieved through cooperation between State and Federal agencies and to endanger this cooperation would be to hinder the objective of maximum progress. Authorizing the Secretary of HEW to promulgate and enforce such standards to the exclusion of the States would obviously discourage the States and local agencies from developing their own plans and standards for water quality and purity. It would give a single Federal official the power to control the economic, recreational, industrial, agricultural, and municipal uses of all interstate waters and subsequently lands adjacent to those waters in all parts of the Nation. A Federal bureaucracy would actually have the control of economic life or death over any given area within this Nation. It does not take a very vivid imagination to realize the ramifications of vesting such authority in the Federal Government. Such power over local affairs has never been vested in a Federal official, and we are opposed to doing it now.

After exhaustive consideration of this proposal, the committee approved a substitute provision which requires a letter of intent from the State that it will "establish water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters" by June 30, 1967. This is an acceptable provision and a vast improvement over the Senate version. The existing law declares that it is the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, and this new provision is consistent with that policy.

Mr. Chairman, public health is one of the primary objectives in any pollution

abatement effort and the committee has provided that the Surgeon General must be consulted on the health aspects of water pollution by the new administration. As all of the Members know, the State authorities desire to keep public health in the pollution abatement picture and this should be done-since the necessity for insuring an adequate supply of pure water is based on human needs.

A compromise was made in the amounts of Federal grants for construction of sewage treatment works, as well as in the increased annual appropriation authority. The Republican position for years has been that the States should be encouraged to join in the construction of sewage treatment works, and this is accomplished under section 4, which permits Federal grants above dollar ceiling limitations only when the States match the Federal grants for such projects.

One other important revision in the law that is authorized by this bill before us today is the subpena power. At the outset it was suggested that this authority be applied to all phases of the enforcement sections, but realizing that this might lead to unnecessary harassment, the committee wisely limited this power to the public hearing stage with the provision that no trade secrets or secret processes need be divulged.

Mr. Chairman, those are the major revisions. S. 4, as reported, is supported by the minority of the committee, and we hope that this body will have the good judgment to pass this bill in the form it has been submitted by the committee.

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA].

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of S. 4, the Water Quality Act of 1965.

It is often said that pure water is man's greatest asset. The truth of the statement is self-evident. The important corollary to that statement, one that we too often do not fully appreciate, is that

pure water is water that is free of harmful impurities, in other words, water that is not polluted. And the problem of preventing pollution of water is intricately interwoven with the problem of controlling the discharge into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste.

These are problems which experience shows that our States, cities, and towns are not able to resolve without Federal assistance. This bill will not only continue to provide that assistance, but it will increase the volume and widen the scope of that assistance.

Noteworthy, for example, are the provisions in the bill which would increase the amount for a single municipal grant from $600,000 to $1.2 million and raise the ceiling for multimunicipal sewage treatment works from the present amount of $2.4 million to $4.8 million. As our Committee on Public Works has pointed out, this increase is expected to induce communities with larger populations and, therefore, larger costs to undertake construction of needed sewage treatment works.

While providing for the needs of larger communities, the bill also takes into consideration the pressing needs of the smaller communities. This it does by the allotment of the first $100 million on the basis of the existing formula that takes into account population and per capita income. The smaller communities are also protected by the provision that at least 50 percent of such $100 million is to be used for grants to projects servicing municipalities of 125,000 population or under.

[p. 8665]

In my own State of Hawaii, these provisions which assure aid to smaller communities will provide much needed asistance to our smaller cities and towns in the construction of sewage treatment works.

Mr. Chairman, the need for upgrading our pure water program is imperative, and I urge a vote in favor of this bill.