lems. No matter what the increased pace and staffing of the Federal pollution control program, there will be no time for enforcement action on all of these in the near future. Lacking any other course, must the Department wait for their turn to come up 20 years hence, by which time mild pollution problems will have become severe and severe ones irremediable?

Water pollution is too big a problem to be solved by taking only one case at a time and relying on only one method. With the authority to set water quality standards I believe that the Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare could begin now a much more flexible, inclusive, and rapid program of pollution control. It would be a program more helpful to the States than the present reliance entirely on enforcement action, and it would be a program designed to deal specifically with the particular problems of each region, basin, and river as effectively as possible. For these reasons it is my hope that the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 will include a strong provision for water quality standards.

[p. 8737]

WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965

CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to 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. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RusSELL of South Carolina in the chair). The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk read the report. (For conference report, see House proceedings of today.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the Senator proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the con

ference report on S. 4 represents a reasonable and sound compromise on the Water Quality Act of 1965. As my colleagues know, it was not easy to obtain agreement on this legislation. On the primary issue of water quality standards there were strong opinions on both sides of the table. In the end, however, the agreement we reached represents both a middle ground and, in many respects, an improvement over the original version as it passed the Senate.

I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Senate conferees, Senators RANDOLPH, MOSS, BOGGS, and PEARSON. The unanimity we reached on the basic issues in S. 4 strengthened our hand immeasurably and added to the quality of the discussions in conference. Through the months since the House enacted its version of S. 4 the Senate Members of the conference and their staffs reviewed the two proposals. Many of their suggestions were incorporated in the final version and contributed to the successful agreement between the representatives of the two bodies. Partisan differences were forgotten in the common effort to develop a meaningful act for the enhancement of the quality of our nation's water supplies.

The discussions in the conference were vigorous, but amicable. The delayed agreement is a measure of the strong feelings related to matters of principle rather than to any unwillingness to reach a consensus. I could not report to my colleagues on the conference without paying tribute to the House conferees and the contribution they made to this legislation on behalf of the House of Representatives and particularly to Congressman JOHN BLATNIK and ROBERT JONES for their leadership on S. 4 and

[p. 24560]

in the general effort toward water pollution control and abatement.

I shall not take the time of my colleagues to review in detail the entire conference report on S. 4. That report, and the report of the managers on the part of the House, can be found on pages 24583-24587 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for September 17, 1965.

In brief, the conferees agreed on the establishment of a water pollution control administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, headed by an Administrator and supervised by an assistant secretary. The Senate conferees accepted the House version, which transfers all of the activities of the present division of water supply and pollution control to the new Administration and spells out in detail the procedures to be used in transferring personnel. We believe an orderly transition can be made from the present arrangement under the Public Health Service to the new Administration.

The managers for both the Senate and the House agreed that the selection of the Administrator is crucial to the success of the program and that his grade level and status should reflect the importance the Congress attaches to this program in establishing it as a separate Administration.

The Senate conferees accepted the House proposals on increased authorizations for sewage treatment grants. These include an increase to $150 mil

lion a year for the next 2 years in the total authorization and an increase to $1,200,000 in individual project authorizations and $4,800,000 for multi-community projects. Funds appropriated in excess of $100 million in each of the next 2 fiscal years will be allotted to the several States on the basis of population and individual project authorization limitations will not apply on the use of such funds where States match the Federal contribution.

The Senate conferees agree to these provisions as a temporary measure because of the demonstrated crisis in such States as New York. I know that Senators JAVITS and KENNEDY are very much concerned about this problem. At the same time, the Senate conferees made it very clear that the increases in authorizations and the modifications in the allocation formula do not represent a judgment as to the realistic levels of Federal grants or formula in the years ahead. The Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution is examining this problem and will make recommendations in the next session of the Congress.

The next major provision in the act is the water quality standards section. As it passed the Senate, S. 4 authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish water quality standards on interstate waters or portions thereof in the absence of effective State standards, following a conference of affected Federal, State, interstate, municipal, and industrial representatives. Violation of established standards would be subject to enforcement in accordance with the present enforcement procedures in the Water Pollution Control Act.

The House version of S. 4 contained a provision for States to file letters of intent on the establishment of water quality criteria, with a pollution control grant penalty for failure to file such a letter of intent. There was no provision for the establishment of water quality standards.

The conferees agreed to amend the

Senate version to give the States until June 30, 1967, to establish water quality standards on interstate waters which the Secretary determines are consistent with the purposes of the act. In those cases where the States fail to establish such standards the Secretary is authorized to call a conference of affected, Federal, State, interstate, municipal, and industrial representatives to discuss proposed standards, after which the Secretary is authorized to publish recommended standards.

If a State fails to establish standards consistent with the purposes of the act within 6 months after promulgation of the Standards-unless the Governor of an affected State requests a public hearing within that period-the Secretary is authorized to promulgate his proposed standards. The Governor of an affected State would be permitted to petition for a public hearing within the 6-month period after publication of the proposed standards and up to 30 days following promulgation of the Secretary's standards. The Secretary is required to call such a hearing and to appoint five or more members to the board. The Secretary of Commerce and the heads of other affected Federal departments and agencies are to be given an opportunity to select one member of the board. The same right is accorded the Governor of each affected State. It is the intent of the conferees that the hearing board represent a balance of Federal and State interests.

The hearing board may recommend either: First, establishment of the Secretary's standards; or second, modification of those standards. The Secretary must adopt the board's recommendations. If the board recommends adoption of the Secretary's standards they become effective immediately on the Secretary's receipt of the board's recommendations. If the board recommends modifications in the standards the Secretary must modify them in accordance with the board's recommendations and promulgate them. The revised standards

become effective on promulgation. Revisions in established standards can be considered and proposed by the Secretary on his own motion or on request by the Governor of an affected State in accordance with the foregoing procedures.

Violations of standards under the provisions of this act are subject to Federal abatement action. If the Secretary finds such violation he must notify the violators and interested parties, giving the violators 6 months within which to comply with the standards. If, at the end of that period, the violator has not complied, the Secretary is authorized to bring suit, with the consent of the Governor of the affected State in the case of intrastate pollution, through the Attorney General of the United States under section 10 (g) (1) or (2) of the amended Water Pollution Control Act.

This enforcement procedure differs from the procedure followed under the present act by omitting the conference and hearing board stages. Because there is a conference and hearing board under the standard-setting procedure the managers for the House and Senate did not consider a repetition of these proceedings necessary in cases of violations of standards. The conference and hearing board stages remain in enforcement proceedings arising out of endangerment of health or welfare where water quality standards have not been established, as under existing law.

In court proceedings resulting from a suit for violation of water quality standards established under this act, the court is directed to accept in evidence the transcripts of proceedings before the conference and hearing board and to accept other evidence relevant to the alleged violations and the standards. The court is to give due consideration to the "practicability and physical and economic feasibility" of complying with the standards in making judgments in such cases.

There was one final set of compromises in the conference. The House managers agreed to recede on the House "subpena

section" and insisted that the Senate recede on the Senate "patents section." Measures contained in both versions were: a 10-percent bonus in sewage treatment plant grants for those projects carried out in accordance with an areawide plan; a 4-year, $20 million per year research and development program for new and improved methods of controlling the discharge of inadequately treated combined storm and sanitary sewage; authorization for the Secretary to initiate enforcement proceedings in cases where he finds substantial economic injury results from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products as a result of water pollution, recordkeeping and audit provisions; authority for the Secretary of Labor to set labor standards on projects financed through this act under Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950; and an additional Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. President, I believe this act, as amended, will give strong impetus to our efforts to control and abate water pollution and to improve the quality of our water supplies.

The conference report is signed by all the conferees on the part of the Senate and by all of the conferees on the part of the House.

Congressional staff members have an important role in any legislation. In the development of S. 4 and in the achievement of the conference report the Senate and House staffs made an invaluable contribution to our success. I am particularly indebted to Ron M. Linton, chief clerk and staff director of the Senate

[p. 24561]

Committee on Public Works, William Hildenbrand, legislative assistant to Senator BOGGS, and my administrative assistant, Donald E. Nicoll, for their imagination, patience, and skill in making suggestions and drafting successive versions of the bill. A similar contribution was made by the able and coopera

tive House staff members: Richard J. Sullivan, chief counsel of the House Committee on Public Works; Maurice Tobin, assistant to Congressman BLATNIK; Clifford W. Enfield, minority counsel of the House Committee on Public Works; and Robert L. Mowson, assistant legislative counsel for the House. Without their assistance we could not have this report.

Mr. President, I move the adoption of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The report was agreed to.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am most pleased that the conferees on S. 4 have reached an agreement. The bill was passed by the Senate last January, and by the House in April, and I know that great differences had to be resolved before a final measure could be presented to the Congress.

The measure is of particular importance to the drought-stricken Northeast which must begin extensive water poltion control programs immediately, and and is particularly vital to the State of New York, which will begin a $1.7 billion program with the aid of these funds.

I would also like to call attention to two changes in the final version of the bill which I sought to have adopted here in the Senate. The first raises the dollar limitation on any single project from $600,000 to $1,200,000. The second provides $50 million a year to the grants program, such additional money to be distributed on the basis of population alone.

The conferees and the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] are to be commended for their fine work on this measure. On behalf of the people of the Empire State, I express my most sincere thanks for their efforts in securing final passage during this session.

[p. 24562]

WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill-S. 4to 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,

[p. 24583]

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we discuss today the very important, conclusive, and the final step on a very important piece of legislation which deals with the control and reduction and, if possible, prevention or at least minimizing the ever-increasing degree of pollution of our water resources of this great country of ours.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had good law which this House initially asked for and received back in 1956. This law was subsequently amended in 1961 and this year amended by the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I can report to the Members of the House I am pleased to state that practically all of the version of the House bill was agreed to by the conferees of the other body.

But, Mr. Speaker, we did have a major issue in dispute on the extremely important but likewise complex and complicated and involved matter of establishing standards. That was the major point of dispute. It took us almost 4 months to resolve that dispute.

Mr. Speaker, I am willing to state before my colleagues and for the public record, that the compromise which we have worked out on this very difficult matter of standards involving the great difference between the House version

and the version in the other body as we worked it out, is not only sound, it is not only fair, but it is workable and practical and in my own judgment it makes a better bill than either of the original two bills.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come here and report our agreement.

This legislation, as you are all well aware, has been the subject of considerable discussion over the past several months. We have been meeting with the other body formally and informally over the past several months in an effort to iron out the differences between the two versions of the legislation. I believe this has been most successfully accomplished and the conference report we present you today is one which will not only provide authorizations to further continue our fight against the elimination of the pollution in our streams and lakes in all sections of the country, but will, at the same time, provide fair treatment to all those who are affected by this legislation. I believe it is a stronger bill, a more equitable bill, than either of the original two versions. By this I mean the States, cities, towns, the private industries, and individuals themselves, all of whom, as you know, are

constant

users of our most precious natural resource-water.

Before I continue with my comments on S. 4, might I pay particular tribute to my colleagues on the conference, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the Honorable GEORGE H. FALLON, chairman of the Committee on Public Works, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. JONES], and the two minority members of the conference who contributed so much to the successful completion of what has been a most difficult and trying time, the gentleman from Florida, the ranking minority member of the committee [Mr. CRAMER], and the gentleman from California [Mr. BALDWIN].

This conference report I present to you today is one that has been worked out most carefully.

It embodies, I believe, the best features