vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 16076, the Committee on Public Works shall be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (S. 2947), and it shall then be in order in the House to move to strike out all after the enacting clause of the said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 16076 as passed by the House.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California [Mr. Sisk] is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California [Mr. SMITH] 30 minutes, and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution is self-explanatory. It provides for the Committee on Public Works to consider in the Committee of the Whole a matter which is of vast importance to our country dealing with water pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speaker, I concur in the statement just made by the gentleman from California [Mr. SISK].

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule. The purposes of the bill are First, to authorize appropriations of $2,450 million for construction grants for the 5 fiscal years 1967 through 1971 to be used to construct sewage treatment plants; second, to change the grant formulas under which Federal aid is made available to give further incentive to States and local governments; and, third to provide $228 million for research grants through June 30, 1969.

The original administration bill provided for unlimited funding through 1971; the Senate-passed bill, S. 2947, provides for authorizations of $6 billion over the same period. The revised administration bill calls for $3,450 million. The committee-reported bill is the smallest

of all.

The grant formula and provisions governing maximum amounts available for individual projects have been substantially modified. The current dollar limitation on grants to small projects is doubled from $1.2 million to $2.4 million. For projects serving two or more communities, the ceiling increase is from $4.8 million to $9.6 million.

The Federal share of such individual project grants is increased from the current 30 percent to 40 percent if the State involved makes a contribution of 30 percent. If a project is part of an approved basin plan it, too, is eligible for an additional 10-percent incentive grant above the 30-percent figure, with no dollar limitation. This may again be increased another 10 percent, to 50 percent, if the States agrees to contribute 25 percent for all projects under the approved basin plan.

To be eligible for basin plan grants, a plan must be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior and approved. If the basin is within a State, the Governor must submit it; if submitted by a group

[p. 24546]

of States, a majority of the Governors must support it.

If an interstate agency, the Upper Colorado and Columbia Basins or the Tennessee and Delaware River Basins submit a plan, provisions are outlined for the required areawide support for such plan.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to pay up to 50 percent of the administrative expenses incurred by planning agencies in preparing basin pollution control and abatement plans.

Research programs are authorized to be funded to $228 million for fiscal years

1967 through 1969, or about $76 million per year. At least 25 percent is to be used for the industrial pollution studies in each year.

A study is authorized by the bill, to be undertaken by the Secretary, in cooperation with pollution agencies, of the estimated costs of an adequate 3-year Federal antipollution program beginning July 1, 1968. Such report must be submitted to the Congress by January 10, 1968.

The bill increases the authorization for planning grants to States and interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of maintaining prevention and control measures. The increase is from $5 million through 1968 to $10 million for each of fiscal years 1968 and 1969. Reimbursement is authorized for expenditures made in advance of granted funds if the Secretary approves the project prior to the beginning of construction.

The bill has administration support. There are supplementary and additional views filed with the report.

Seven majority members support the bill but feel that it falls far short of what is needed; they favor enactment of the Senate bill-$6 billion. They say the waters of America are so polluted that no effort to reduce and eliminate the problem can be spared. They see the House bill as substantial progress, but not as much as the Senate.

Additional views are submitted by nine minority members. They point out that title II of the bill, entitled "Clean Rivers Restoration Program" is actually a new name for the expansion of the existing Federal program of grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment plants.

They also note that title I, while a great improvement over the proposal of the administration, does not provide for the construction of industrial waste treatment facilities, or for the prevention or control of agricultural pollution, or for the removal of sludge from river bottoms.

They support the concept of basin planning but note that the remainder of the bill is primarily a sewage construction-grant bill which will not produce "clean rivers" because of the many pollution problems left untouched. They support the committee position with respect to the amount of the authorization.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[p. 24547]

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 16076) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such

act.

The motion was agreed to.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 16076, with Mr. HANSEN of Iowa in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER] will be recognized for 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK].

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the full Committee of Public Works, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. FALLON] Such time as he desires.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 16076, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1966, which we reported unanimously by the Committee

on Public Works.

[p. 24592]

I have stated before and I reiterate that statement on this floor that today one of the greatest domestic problems facing the Nation is the cleaning up as rapidly as possible of our Nation's polluted rivers, lakes, and streams.

President Kennedy stated it succinctly:

The pollution of our water has reached the proportions of a national disgrace. It endangers our health. It limits our business opportunities. It destroys recreation.

Water use is increasing tremendously. Since 1900, while our population has tripled and continues to increase, fresh water use has jumped eightfold. Agricultural, industrial, and recreational water use has increased tremendously. By 1980, water needs will be 600 billion gallons a day--almost twice the present usage and about equal to the total supply on which the continued growth and continued prosperity of this Nation depends.

While water use on a large scale is already a necessity, greater reuse is inevitable. More than 100 million Americans get their drinking water from rivers carrying sewage, industrial wastes, and anything else that can be flushed down a sewer or thrown from a bridge. At the same time that municipalities and industries need more clean water, they are fouling their own water supplies with their own wastes.

Water is industry's most valuable raw material and by 1980 it will require twice as much as today. Water recreation has grown enormously during recent years as the leisure time and income of the American people has increased. They need this recreation outlet, yet each year more bathing beaches and water sports areas are closed because of pollution. The story is the same with sports fishing. Each year the number of pollution-caused fish kills grows higher.

There is only one conclusion: This Nation is faced with a very critical problem of water pollution. The Committee on

Public Works has been aware of this problem for a number of years. In 1956 from the committee came the first real strong Federal Water Pollution Act. That act subsequently has been implemented by legislation reported by the committee in 1961 and in 1965. All this legislation is now on the statute books of our Nation. It has proved to be an effective tool in the fight against the blight of our Nation's waters.

H.R. 16076 is one further step in the effort that must be made to clean up our waters. It envisions a full-scale Federal, State, and local partnership to bring about the completion of the task that is before us. It contains increased authorizations for funds to provide proper sewage-treatment facilities. There is additional funding for research in all the forms that are needed to help solve the many problems created by the pollution of our streams, lakes, and rivers. It would make an effort to bring about a cleanup of our waters on a basinwide approach. It is good legislation. It is needed legislation.

We have hardly been able to hold our own against the rising tide of pollution. Our efforts to control pollution must be geared to more speed than the force which produces it-a swiftly growing population, and an expanding urban, industrial society.

H.R. 16076 meshes in with this approach and it is a bill every Member of this House can be proud to support.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress and the Nation took a great step forward when we enacted the Water Quality Act of 1965 which authorized the establishment of water quality standards on all the country's interstate rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. This act represents the first effort in the history of this Nation to attack the problem of water pollution on an entire river basis. It recognized the State's primary role in this field, by requiring the States to establish adequate water quality criteria applicable to

interstate waters by June 30, 1967. The States water quality criteria plus the plan for enforcement will, when approved by the Secretary of the Interior, be the water quality standards for each waterway. All 50 States have filed with the Secretary of the Interior letters of intent to establish such vital standards of water quality.

Public opinion has clearly helped stem the tide against pollution. The Nation has been shocked into an awareness of the problem. Dedicated men and women in every State are determined that our great rivers and lakes will be cleansed and no longer used as cheap conveyors of municipal and industrial wastes. America now understands that waterways no longer have the capacity to absorb the unwanted pollutants.

our

This contagious awareness of people everywhere has meant action and the President this year submitted new proposals designed to commit on a larger scale the resources of the Federal Government to the development of an adequate program designed "to clean and preserve entire river basins from their sources to their mouths." The administration sent to the Congress early this year a proposal which would attack the problems of pollution control on a river basin basis, but it did not extend and improve the present provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In the other body, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] introduced S. 2947 which was cosponsored by 49 other Senators. Under the Senator's able leadership, S. 2947 passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 0.

The bill (H.R. 16076) before you today combines the best features of the administration bill and the Senate passed bill.

It was reported by your committee unanimously. The great interest of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. FALLON], the hard work and untiring efforts of members of the committee of both parties, and particularly that of Congressman

ROBERT JONES, of Alabama, have been of immeasurable assistance in the development of this important and vital bill which we have reported. A little later in these remarks I will review the provisions of the bill and briefly discuss the principal provisions.

Undoubtedly, the most critical domestic problem facing this country today with its wondrous resources is the problem of adequate supplies of water that is capable of use for all our domestic needs. It is a gigantic problem, because, until only recently, we have neglected, and even refused, to meet head on the problem of preventing the pollution of our waterways. Now we are confronted with the need to accelerate our efforts and shift into high gear, but not on a crash basis. We no longer can afford the luxury of allowing our wastes to flow untreated into our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. We must begin now with imagination and vigor to take great strides not in words, but in deeds.

While water resources vary in different parts of the country, the United States as a whole is richly endowed with fresh water. But in this day and age, quantity cannot be considered apart from quality. We not only need large amounts of water to maintain our industrialurban-agricultural economy, we need large quantities of usable water.

Fortunately, a grave shortage of water in this country is not inevitable, if we take appropriate steps to forestall it. There are three known means of increasing the amount of usable water.

One is the desalting of sea water, a development already in the large-scale pilot stage and destined for volume application in the not too distant future.

Another is artificial precipitation. Here again we are making great strides, but more research is needed before we can claim victory.

The third and most promising means of increasing our supply is through the reuse and recycling of existing water supplies.

Through effective pollution control,

water can be used over and over again on its way to the sea. This we know. It is, to an extent, happening today. It is the course that we must pursue in the future with increasing intensity-building on past experience, taking full advantage of new knowledge as it develops. There is virtually no limit to the amount of usable water that can be created through the removal of wastes.

At the same time, it must be recognized that taking advantage of the water-creating potentials of pollution control is by no means easy. No longer are we dealing primarily with the simpler forms of organic wastes. We are dealing with an almost endless variety of wastes produced by a burgeoning technology. And we are dealing with wastes produced in volumes hardly envisioned a few years ago.

One of the most difficult and increasingly critical problems which must be met in water pollution control is the increased concentration of population and industry in and around urban centers. As these great urban-industrial complexes grow and merge, water pollution problems also grow and merge. By 1980 it is estimated that about 70 percent of our people will be concentrated in the cities and their suburbs. Joining in this rush into the urban area, or being encompassed by its growth, will be a large segment of industry. Thus, we can look

[p. 24593]

forward to the development of larger metropolitan complexes than we have today. Some demographers foresee vast supercities that will stretch hundreds of miles along our coasts and the Great Lakes, and to linear cities that will line all the great rivers and major highways. The water pollution problems such metropolitan complexes will cause staggers the imagination.

The tasks of collecting and treating the wastes from today's larger cities is already taxing our engineering and scientific knowledge. The concentrations of population and industry within

our large cities produce vast quantities of complex wastes which often must be discharged into a single, and usually limited watercourse. Even when the best of today's waste treatment is applied, the sheer amount of the treated effluent causes serious pollution problems in the receiving streams.

The municipal waste treatment processes in use today were designed for the wastes and problems of 40 and more years ago. No essentially new or more effective processes have been developed. These conventional methods of sewage treatment will continue to be useful for many smaller cities for some time, but for the larger cities they are proving to be entirely inadequate. The volume, potency, and complexity of future municipal wastes can only result in the discharge of even larger and larger amounts of impurities into badly needed water resources if we continue to limit ourselves to apply presently known treatment processes.

From 1900 to 1960, industrial production as a whole increased by 800 percent but, in this same period, organic industrial pollution-of animal or vegetable origin such as meatpacking, food processing, paper, textiles-increased by 1,000 percent. The 1960 industrial waste production is expected to be doubled by 1980.

In addition to organic wastes, industry discharges large amounts of inorganic wastes-principally of mineral and chemical origin-resulting from the mining, processing, and manufacture of a wide variety of mineral, metal, and chemical products. In recent years, radioactive wastes have been of special

concern.

A major new pollution problem has emerged with the growth of the synthetic chemical industry. This industry has grown so rapidly, and the number of new products it introduces annually, that relatively little is known of the pollutional characteristics of its products and wastes, including their toxicity to aquatic life, animals, and man. We do