Mr. CRAMER. What does it show?

Mr. HULL. It shows the average for 10 years.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I have no objection to it being made part of the record. It does relate to waste treatment plant construction rather than what I was trying to get evidence on.

Mr. CANNON. I have seen similar charts to that and by using a 1952 to 1956 average it obscures the rising trend in these expenditures year after year in the 1952-56 period.

I think by obscuring that rise and expressing it in terms of an average, that you do not really get the exact picture that was taking place.

Mr. EDMONDSON. There is one other observation I feel is appropriate with respect to the contract awards chart that has been submitted.

It has been the feeling of some of us who are pretty strong for legislation of this kind that the administration of the program has been something less than enthusiastic; that the efforts that have been made both to secure funds for it and to secure participation in it across the country have fallen considerably short of what the committee, when it passed this legislation and when it originally approved this legislation, would have liked to have seen.

I have the feeling that with a more aggressive and a more inspired type of administration of this program, that we might have an entirely different chart showing here on what has been done in terms of construction in the country. I submit that simply as a personal observation to go into the record in connection with this chart. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to say that we will have our research department go into the question which you raise, sir, as to municipal expenditures for various local public works purposes, and provide that information to you.

Mr. HULL. Would you like that made a part of the present hearing? Mr. CANNON. Yes, we would appreciate that.

Mr. HULL. Without objection, it may be made a part of the record. (The information referred to is as follows:)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
New York, N.Y., March 28, 1961.

Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee, House Public Works Committee,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN BLATNIK: On March 15, I accompanied Mr. Peter J. Short, Jr., manager of real estate, Lukens Steel Co., who testified on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers before the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee in regard to proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. During questioning after Mr. Short's testimony, I was requested to submit figures relating to local expenditures in categories other than sewage treatment facilities. Furnished herewith is a tabulation showing contract awards made by State and local governments in selected type projects for the years 1952–60.

The tabulation indicates that expenditures for sewage treatment facilities rose from $137 million in 1952 to $354 million in 1956; expenditures for administrative facilities rose from $117 million in 1952 to $321 million in 1956; expenditures for educational facilities rose from $1,368 million in 1952 to $2,289 million in 1956; expenditures for collecting sewers rose from $225 million in 1952 to $305 million in 1956; and expenditures for waterworks rose from $228 million in 1952 to $441 million in 1956.

The tabulation further shows that expenditures for waterworks further rose from $441 million in 1956 to $528 million in 1960; expenditures for collecting

sewers further rose from $305 million in 1956 to $344 million in 1960; expenditures for educational facilities further rose from $2,289 million in 1956 to $2,559 million in 1960; expenditures for administrative facilities rose from $321 million in 1956 to $450 million in 1960; and that expenditures for sewage treatment facilities further rose from $354 million in 1956 to $356 million in 1960.

It is respectfully requested that this letter and the accompanying tabulation be included in the record of the hearing.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL W. CANNON,

Committee Executive, Conservation Committee.

Contract awards made by State and local governments in selected type projects [Amounts in millions]

Source: "Construction Review," U.S. Department of Commerce, table D-1, p. 36, February 1961.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to comment also it was my understanding that all of the money appropriated by the Congress for this program has been expended in the form of grants. I have a little difficulty in seeing where there was some falling down in carrying out the intent of Congress.

Mr. CRAMER. As a matter of fact, is it not true that Congress failed to appropriate the full $50 million? They appropriated, I understand, $45 million rather than $50 million.

Mr. CANNON. I understand so.

Mr. CRAMER. And if there was any lack of diligence in prosecuting the program I think the fact that Congress refused to appropriate enough money would be one fault.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Of course, the gentleman will concede that the previous administration resisted every effort made by Congress to raise the amounts needed by this program, and, in fact, recommended against it before the Appropriations Committees, and did everything they could do to undermine the financing of the program.

So I think certainly there is a prima facie case of lack of enthusiasm and lack of support for the program in the last administration. Mr. HULL. That money was allocated on the basis of needs, as I understand it, in all of the States.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to reiterate one fundamental point, that the raising of this amount of money for this purpose will merely tend to displace unsubsidized construction, and will not materially contribute to raising the overall level of expenditures for this

purpose.

Mr. HULL. Are there any questions on my left?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to observe that the previous administration did not lack enthusiasm for the problem. They wanted to see it resolved very much, but they did not have enthusiasm for certain proposals. that were advanced for the solution of those problems. I think the record should show that.

In addition to that, I should like to say before I start questioning Mr. Short, that I am glad to have this information in the statement you have offered for the record. I will refer to it and study it with interest, I assure you. I am aware also that our friends in industry have seen it with regard to water pollution control abatement programs, and they have kept abreast of the need.

I would like to advance this question to you now: Do you or your organization that you represent now believe you have an obligation to return the water in as good a shape as you received it for use?

Mr. SHORT. I am sure that industry feels just this way. I think, as we have pointed out here, attempts are being made to accomplish just this.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Do you personally feel you have done as much as you should, or there is as much being done as there should be done in this area of research in the past, and do not think we ought to do more now?

peo

Mr. SHORT. I think there are many research programs being_carried out that many of us are unaware of, except we in industry. I am sure if the committee is interested in hearing the details of many of these research programs, that if the committee would call on such ple as represent various trade associations that have sponsored these research programs, they could get a very clear understanding as to what progress has been made in the past, and what they are attempting to do in the future cleaning up of the streams.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Do you have any real objection to the expansion of the portion of the bill which deals with research?

Mr. SHORT. NO. I believe it is the thinking that this is the area where the Federal Government should really expand its operationsin the field of research.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Are you aware of the law that brought about the AASHO tests? Do you know what I am talking about? The highway tests out in Illinois? Are you aware of the law that brought into being the tests by the American Association of State Highway Officials?

Mr. SHORT. No, sir, I am not.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. The Federal Government cooperated with industry in various States, and I think in some instances with communities or municipalities, on a vast research and experimental program dealing with highway needs and highway building and scientific studies of various kinds. It was a cooperative effort between the Federal Government and municipalities and States, principally the Federal Government and the State highway commissions and private industry.

Would you think that there would be some virtue in expanding the research section or making provision in this section of this bill to encourage industry to cooperate with the Federal Government, and to encourage municipalities and States in a vastly improved and ex

panded research program to get at the basic problems and some of the new problems which present themselves, and also to furnish us with an opportunity to learn all that there has been done in this whole field of research? In other words, a program to coordinate the research program.

Mr. SHORT. I am sure that industry is ready, willing, and able to cooperate, and I believe that this is a program that has already been carried on through the National Technical Task Force Committee on Industrial Wastes. It is already in operation with joint research.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Are you saying then that we do not need any further emphasis on research?

Mr. SHORT. No, I am sure there is much need for additional emphasis on research, but I am saying that there is also a program now in operation, or there is an exchange of research material.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Wouldn't we benefit if we brought this together into a vast research program wherein the Federal Government became an important partner, if not the most important partner, in it? The bill, I believe, sets up a plan to have five different area research laboratories. If we could bring the studies that you know about and the research that has been done in the various areas you referred to, into these central points in these various regions of the United States, would not the public interest be served?

Mr. SHORT. I am sure it would, and if I may turn it over to Mr. Cannon, he can make specific reference to what is being accomplished at the present time.

Mr. CANNON. At the present time the National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes, which represents 36 major waterusing industries, each year submits topics for research projects which they evaluate on the basis of what are the most vexing problems facing industry in this field of pollution abatement and waste treatment. They submit these research project suggestions and write them up and tell just what they thing they should involve in very scientific terms, and what facilities might be best to handle them, and they submit them each year to the Surgeon General. They are listed in the order of priority which the industry places upon them. The Surgeon General takes these recommendations into consideration in his research grant program, which is authorized under the Water Pollution Control Act.

In addition, the National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes holds meetings at the Sanitary Engineering Center at Cincinnati, which is under the control of the U.S. Public Health Service.

I believe there will be another such research meeting just next month. These have been highly informative on a mutual basis in a way as to let the industry people learn what the latest developments are at the Sanitary Engineering Center through the research efforts being carried on there by the Public Health Service; and, in turn, the Public Health Service learns from industry what new developments are coming, or what new problems have arisen, or what new solutions have been found.

In general, the secretary of the National Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes is an employee of the Public Health Service-Mr. Lewis F. Warrick. He handles the secretarial work of