duties in setting standards, then the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare could, under this bill, move in and set his own standards?

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the Delaware River Basin Commission serves the Department of the Interior of the Federal Government. I wonder whether the Senator would take any exception to my comment that it would be an unusual case in which the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would intervene to supersede the Secretary of the Interior, representing the Federal Government, or an interstate commission, unless the State members of that commission had gone against the strong desires of the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. MUSKIE. I think it is a fair comment. I think it would be useful also for me to say that throughout S. 4, as in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, there is a clear intention that primary responsibility for dealing with the problem shall rest at the State and local level, and that the purpose of the bill is to provide incentive, proper safeguards, and protection, and to stimulate action in this field, so that agencies, like the Chesapeake Bay Agency, are clearly vested with the primary and fixed responsibility of exercising initiative in this field.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, there is no intention to have the Federal Government, acting through the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, supersede the existing State and Federal agency, created by Congress.

Senator from Maine will be to my question. The signatories to the Ohio River sanitation compact are all of the States in the Ohio River Basin. The U.S. Government is also a signatory. That sanitation compact has done an extraordinary job in eliminating pollution in the basin.

Following the thought expressed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, my question is, Will the Ohio Valley sanitation compact be permitted to go forward with the elimination of the problem that is involved in the bill pending before the Senate without interruption from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare except when the compact signatories fail to perform their duty?

Mr. MUSKIE. That is my understanding.

Mr. LAUSCHE. And is the answer of the Senator from Maine to my question identical with the answer given to the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Mr. MUSKIE. The only reservation I make is that I do not know the charter of the Ohio River Basin compact, but if the situation is the same, the answer is the same.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I assume, considering the State involved, the purpose is the same-to create an agency dealing with waters that cross state lines. It is that individual States having no jurisdiction over the waters that are beyond the State lines may create a regional compact.

objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote against this bill, not only for the reasons expressed so well in the letter, but also because of the fact that the Cooper amendment was rejected by the Senate, which is highly essential to a meaningful and wise bill.

STATE OF NEBRASKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Lincoln, Nebr., January 20, 1965.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution, U.S. Senate, Washing-
ton, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Information has been submitted to us that you and several of your associates have introduced a water pollution bill identified as S. 4. similar to the bill S. 649 of the last Congress.

The water pollution control program in Nebraska is proceeding at a favorable rate, and is meeting current conditions to the satisfaction of both water users and those persons who are abating pollution by the construction of waste water treating plants to serve municipal and industrial wastes. At the present time there are approximately 30 sewer outlets that are discharging into Nebraska waters without treatment, and we have assurance from the municipal officials of these communities that they will attempt to meet our target date of July 1, 1966, at which time all wastes will be treated.

At the same time we have enjoyed a pleasant relationship with industry in the treatment of their wastes to such degree that no major source of industrial waste is now being discharged without treatment.

We are, therefore, fearful of any changes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that will change the program that is so well known to Nebraska citizens, and that is progressing in a satisfactory manner.

We are especially concerned over the creation of a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration which will administer comprehensive programs, interstate cooperation and uniform laws, enforcement measures, and pollution from Federal Installations. We realize that these are all important sections of the Water Pollution Control Act, but we are of the opinion that the progress that we have made in the last several years is justification for maintaining the current program, and that any changes will, of course, create new methods of administration, a loss of communication between the various municipalities, industries, and State and Federal regulatory agencies, and even set up different means of procedures, all of which

will tend to delay the ultimate goal of stream pollution abatement.

The Nebraska Water Pollution Control Council has adopted water quality standards, a copy of which is enclosed. These [p. 1543]

standards are being used continuously, are accepted, and, again, we are fearful that if Federal water quality standards are set up which might be inconsistent with our State standards, a delay during debate and explanation will ensue.

The Nebraska State Board of Health, at its January 18 meeting, considered the new water pollution bill and is of the opinion that the operations of Public Law 660, with its amendments, has been a great benefit to Nebraska citizens in the various details of administration, especially the Federal grants to municipalities.

The board is unanimously opposed to the creation of a new Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and the preparation and adoption of regulations on standards of water quality, interstate streams, or portions thereof.

Yours truly,

E. A. ROGERS, M.D., M.P.H..
Director of Health,
Secretary to the Board.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, no Member of this body is more interested in clear water, either from the standpoint of health or recreation, than is the Senator from Virginia. No one has been more active in that field. Over 40 years ago I organized an anti-water pollution commission to try to clean up the streams in the State, but I think this effort should be controlled by the States. I supported the Ohio Valley Compact, but that was under our control. I have supported research. I would gladly vote for the bill if it provided for research and for advice of Federal officials, but I would not want them to be able to put a small town out of "business" because it had a papermill located there or because they were not satisfied with what they were doing. If we had adopted the TOWER amendment, Federal officials could give research and advice, but the final action would be for the States, and I would have voted for the bill. But I am not voting to put Virginia under direct Federal control.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am de

lighted by the speed with which the Senate Public Works Committee has acted in reporting S. 4, the water pollution control bill.

The Senate passed essentially this same measure in 1963 by a vote of 69 to 11, but the bill died in the House when Congress adjourned last October.

Since water pollution is of increasing rather than diminishing national concern, I hope that we will now see prompt action by both Houses in rising to meet this problem head on.

No nation has ever risen to prominence, ever built a complex agricultural and industrial economy, or ever adequately fed its people without a plentiful supply of water. Indeed, wars have even been fought over this most precious of our natural resources.

Our country has been generously endowed with great rivers, lakes, streams, harbors, and a plentiful rainfall. Yet today we are faced with a serious crisis in regard to our water supply.

The problem itself is essentially a simple one: while our water supply remains basically constant, our needs and demands are increasing very rapidly year by year. It is estimated that in the near future our daily industrial, domestic, and other needs will exceed the greatest amount of water we can ever hope to make available through modern engineering and technology. This necessarily means that we must be able to use each gallon of water more than once. The present efforts to develop an effective and efficient means of desalinating sea water also point to the fact that in the future we must be able to turn to an additional source of supply.

While this constructive work is underway, the supply of water on which we now rely has become subject to many varied and serious forms of pollution. Municipal and industrial organic wastes, pesticides and toxic chemicals, infectious agents, sediments, and radioactive pollution are being discharged into our waterways. These contaminants reduce the quality of our water, making it often

unsuitable for reuse, and create a nuisance and a menace to health.

We now recognize water pollution as a serious national problem and have instituted programs of prevention and control. The 1956 Water Pollution Control Act and the 1961 amendments have given important impetus to action by all levels of government, and to cooperation between communities, States, and the Federal Government to combat pollution.

Nonetheless, in looking at our waterways across the country, it is evident that our efforts have not kept pace with the growing pollution problem.

One does not have to venture far here in Washington to find visible evidence of this. The beautiful Potomac River, winding through some of the most scenic countryside in the Nation, presents one of our most shameful and serious examples of this problem.

My own State of Connecticut has scenic lakes and rivers which are an integral and necessary part of our industrial complex. But here too we are plagued by pollution problems, even though programs of prevention and control have been established and in operation for some time.

Many people write to me about this, and I often see similar pleas in letters to the editors of our many newspapers— "Please do something to help clean up our rivers and streams and stop this shameful waste."

Pollution affects industry, urban and rural residential areas, sports and recreation areas, and the health and beauty of the Nation. It is imperative that greater steps be taken to expand the existing pollution control program and to prevent further contamination.

There are these three main aspects of pollution control which must be given serious nationwide attention. We need, first, more funds for the construction of new waste treatment facilities and the modernization of old systems; second, more intensive research into the effective treatment of new contaminants, those undesirable byproducts of our con

tinuing technical progress; and, third, more effective administration and application of enforcement programs to control pollution.

This bill now before us would create a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, thus providing a broader base and a national scope to the pollution control problem.

It would increase the Federal grants for research and development of new sewage treatment facilities, and increase the construction grants to individuals and municipal areas. These additional funds would provide the necessary stimulus for more intensive efforts by businesses, individuals, and State and local governments in coping with the problem.

The bill would also provide procedures for establishing quality standards for interstate waters, and would authorize certain abatement action when the shellfish industry suffers economic injury due to water pollution.

The water pollution problem, in the last analysis, must be dealt with locally. But it is evident that the seriousness of the situation and the size and expense of the project ahead demand national attention. The Federal Government must expand its efforts, must bear a greater

portion of the costs than before, and must be in a position to coordinate all of the work and research in this area. This bill before us today is one of the most important and far reaching water pollution proposals ever considered by Congress.

I hope and expect that it will receive overwhelming approval by the Senate, and that through greater authority for the Federal Government to set and enforce standards, through increased grants and assistance, and through continued and improved local, State, and Federal cooperation we will be able to combat more successfully water pollution and assure this country an ample supply of clean water for the future.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965 Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. RES. 339

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 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 (S. 4) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to

provide grants for research and development, to increase grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to authorize the establishment of standards of water quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters, and for other purposes. After general debate,

which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Works, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on Public Works now in the bill and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the

five-minute rule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee substitute. The previous 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.

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 339 provides for consideration of S. 4, a bill to amend and expand the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It would establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to provide grants for research and development, to increase grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to authorize the establishment of standards of water quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters, and for other purposes. The resolution provides an open rule, waiving points of order, with 2 hours of debate, making it in order to consider the substitute now in the bill.

No more important single problem faces this country today than the problem of good water. Water is our greatest single natural resource. The issue of pure water must be settled now for the benefit not only of this generation but for untold generations to come. The need for good quality water for all of our Nation's uses-public and privateis a paramount one.

The Calumet industrial region of Indiana comprises the First Congressional District which I represent in Congress. It is the No. 1 congressional district in the United States in relation to industrial concentration in the Gary, Ham

mond, East Chicago, Whiting area. Three major steel mills; Carnegie Illinois, Inland, Youngstown, and a number of smaller steel and smelter plants along with refineries of all major oil companies, and several hundred other large and small industries are located in this area. During the last quarter of a century these industries have expanded many times in production capacity. The major pollution to lakes and streams and especially beautiful Lake Michigan comes from the industrial waste from these plants.

[p. 8652]

Adjoining the Calumet region on the north is the large industrial complex of the city of Chicago and the same statement can be made regarding the pollution and waste expulsion into the waters of Lake Michigan as exists across the State line in Indiana.

The Hammond, Ind., Times reported recently a speech made by Richard Woodley of the Indiana State Board of Health. Mr. Woodley declared:

The people are fed up with pollution and they want scmething done about it right away regardless if the action is local, State, or Federal.

Mr. Woodley is chief of the industrial waste section of the Indiana Board of Health.

As examples of the heavy concentration of pollution in the area waterways, Woodley reported outfalls were detected on a daily basis in these amounts: Oil, 106,000 pounds per day of which steel industries were responsible for 90 percent and the oil refineries the remaining 10 percent; ammonia, 500,000 pounds; phenols, 5,000 pounds; cyanides, 3,000 pounds.

These examples show why there is a large-scale effort underway to halt pollution.

The drinking water supply for approximately 600,000 people in the Calumet region and millions in the Chicago area is taken out of the waters of Lake Michigan adjacent to the shores from which