to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315 provides for consideration of the bill H.R. 5446, which, as reported by unanimous voice vote from our Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, would extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act for 1 year and authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1974 at the fiscal year 1973 level. The current law, which expires on June 30, 1973, authorizes appropriations in three categories:

First, the sum of $76 million to the Environmental Protection Agency for the development of new recycling and waste disposal techniques and for grants to State and local agencies for the development of areawide disposal plans;

Second, the sum of $140 million for grants to States and municipalities for the demonstration of resource recovery systems and for the construction of solid waste disposal facilities; and

Third, the sum of $22.5 million to the Department of the Interior for research and demonstration projects on the disposal of mining wastes.

Because the committee plans extensive oversight and legislative hearings on the Solid Waste Disposal Act to examine in depth the many policy issues which have arisen since the act was last amended in 1970, the 1-year extension is necessary to allow the committee's careful and responsible consideration of these issues. Adequate

time is not available to the committee before June 30, 1973.

The committee also believes that in order to give uninterrupted life to the solid waste disposal programs, the funding authorization for fiscal year 1974 should be established as early in the 93d Congress as possible.

Passage of H.R. 5446 is imperative

[p. H2000]

for the continued improvement of our environment. If we should allow funding of these programs to lapse until committee hearings can be held, we would be making a grave mistake. And if the President refuses to adequately fund solid waste disposal programs after Congress authorizes and appropriates for such expenditures, he will be negligent in providing for the Nation's needs. In this regard, it is to be noted that the administration, while favoring the continuation of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, budgeted only $6.2 million to carry out the various programs under that act in fiscal year 1974.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315 provides an open rule with 1 hour of general debate, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, after which the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee of the Whole House shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and 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.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 315 in order that H.R. 5446 may be considered.

(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was

given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315 provides an open rule with 1 hour of general debate for the consideration of H.R. 5446.

The purpose of H.R. 5446 is to provide a 1-year extension of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The present authorization expires on June 30, 1973.

The bill provides fiscal year 1974 authorizations at the same level as fiscal year 1973. The cost of this bill for fiscal year 1974 is $238,500,000.

The 1-year extension will allow the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce sufficient time to hold extensive hearings before altering present programs.

The administration supports this 1year extension of the present program. Mr. Speaker I urge adoption of this

Mr. STAGGERS. 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. 5446) to extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, for 1 year.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS). 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. 5446, with Mr. FOLEY 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 West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. NELSEN) will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like briefly to explain the bill. It came out of the subcommittee unanimously, out of the full committee unanimously, and when this act was passed in 1970 there was a rollcall taken and the vote was 337 to 0, so we can see that it has universal support.

We are not here to discuss the bill because all we are asking for is an extension. I will briefly discuss what the bill has, although I do not think it is necessary at this time, because all we are asking for is a simple extension of the act as it was passed in 1970 since it expires July 1 of this year. We would not have time to go into it comprehensively and make the changes that are probably needed, hear the witnesses, and then bring the bill up in time to get it passed.

I might say that the Senate has passed an identical bill, and sent it over to us. All we are asking is for this extension, as I say, until July 1 of

1974.

When we passed the bill in 1970, we had a Commission appointed, the National Commission on Materials Policy, to make a complete study of this subject throughout the United States and report back to the Congress by July 1 of this year. We do not have the advantage of having that report yet and will not until July 1. That is another reason why we are not attempting to pass a new bill now but simply an extension to give us time until we get the report back.

Mr. Ruckelshaus appeared before the committee and was in complete

I will just briefly explain what the bill does. It gives a certain amount of money to the States to set up their own systems of disposal of solid waste material. Several States have their plans now in working order and several have their plans in the planning stage yet. Part of the bill also goes to help, through technical assistance, cities and communities which are planning their own solutions to their own problems, and part of the bill goes toward setting up demonstration plants across the country; research and demonstration plants.

An example of one of these cities is Cleveland which is working very well. The Federal Government through its representatives helped Cleveland to go over its whole system for collection of garbage and waste material day by day and devise ways to dispose of it more efficiently and at less cost. This is working well as one of the demonstrations.

We also have a demonstration working in St. Louis. There, one of the public utilities, I believe the St. Louis Electric Power Co., is demonstrating the use of waste material to generate electrical energy. They are converting waste material into something useful through this project.

We are trying to do these things all over the country in fact. In other projects glass is being recycled and is being used in the building of roads. We are also trying to utilize the old cars in America in useful ways. Tin and aluminum cans are being brought in to be recycled. Some of the paper I have on my desk here is recycled paper. These are concrete examples we see as to how effective the program has been. It is useful. That is the reason we are ask

Just by simple arithmetic we can comprehend how the amount of solid waste produced in America by the year 2000 would not leave us any place to go or any useful way of living if we did not convert it in some way. It would run into the billions of pounds per year. The problem had gotten to such a point in 1965, when we passed the original bill, that we recognized something must be done to cope with the increasing wastes in America. We have already developed additional ways of using the disposable bottles and cans and the old automobiles that are left in this country, as well as the garbage produced in our homes.

As I say, this has been a very useful program, one that has already proven it is useful and needed, and for that reason the committee recommends passage of this bill.

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

Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, I know that the distinguished chairman of this committee is very conscientious about making sure that the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee offers bills authorizing only those that are realistically close to needed appropriated dollars. I know the Appropriations Committee is very concerned about this matter. It is my understanding that the administration is planning $5 and $6 million to be actually spent or thinking of asking roughly between in this particular program. Why is the committee asking for an authorization of $238 million? Is that not the kind of "overpromise" and "overcommitment" that we are trying to avoid?

Mr. STAGGERS. I suggest the gentleman look at the realities of the situation.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I am trying to.

Mr. STAGGERS. If the gentleman will bear with me, the Senate has

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I do not think any of us disagree on that subject, but we are talking about the dollars actually needed.

Mr. STAGGERS. I will get to that. If we start changing this now from what it was, regardless of what the Committee on Appropriations comes up with, and I hope they will come up with more money than they did last year since the need for it is there and it has been shown by some of the examples which I stated heretofore that it is a useful thing; that it is doing good for the land; we certainly would want to, during the next year when we are going to study the problem and come back with new legistation after we have had the recommendations of the Commission which has studied this problem for 3 years then we want to be sure it is funded enough to take care of that.

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

Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do not disagree with the idea of extending this act for 1 year. I do not disagree with the wisdom of the committee in waiting for the additional studies to be completed and wanting to have additional hearings to see what is really needed. But what I do not understand and where I

Mr. STAGGERS. Just a minute. I do not like that word.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, all right. That is my word. As to the position it places this body, when nobody seems to actually believe that amount of $238 million is needed.

Mr. STAGGERS. We are being realistic. We do not know what they are going to ask for later and what they are going to need. We are not changing the law. All we are asking for is to extend this for 1 year.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I said that I

agree with the chairman, that the act should be extended for 1 year.

Mr. STAGGERS. Why should we start changing it?

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Why should we ask, though, for $238 million?

Mr. STAGGERS. Who is the gentleman from California to say what we are going to ask for? Does the gentleman mean to say that if we had to have it

Mr. ROUSSELOT. We can refer to the actual dollars spent this year under this act. It is no where near $238 million.

Mr. STAGGERS. I have heard that story too many times; too late and too little.

Let us have it. If they do not need it they will not use it and it will not cost the Government anything; it will not cost the gentleman's taxpayers 1 cent more, or any place in the country.

The gentleman might call it stupid if he wants to.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I believe that is stupid to ask for $238 million in an authorization bill when we know in ad