you will not delay the program improvements of this legislation while administrative problems are being resolved.

It may be your proposal is the best proposal, but since the administration of the program will be our responsibility, I hope you will grant us time to examine the entire situation before taking legislative action.

While I have concentrated my comments on the few changes that we believe would make this excellent bill an even better bill, I want to emphasize that its good features far outweigh the few that may call for further consideration.

This is an excellent bill in its emphasis on research, on flexibility, on partnership among the different levels of government-in fact, its whole tone of aggressive action against the Nation's No. 1 pollution problem. All these things make it a truly historic piece of legislation. We strongly support the objectives of this bill and my staff is available to work out details and refinements with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes the formal remarks. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Fallon.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Secretary, I agree that this water pollution problem is probably one of the most serious problems facing this country's future. I certainly do want to congratulate you on such a fine statement, and I feel that in all the areas of service to this country, your contributions stand as a record of fine accomplishments. I have not had an opportunity to see you or talk to you, or congratulate you on the very fine and effective job you did in Connecticut on highway safety. As a result of that, the State of Connecticut probably stands first in highway safety in the country today.

Secretary RIBICOFF. Thank you, Mr. Fallon.

Mr. FALLON. And I want to congratulate you on that.
Secretary RIBICOFF. Thank you.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Auchincloss.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have no special comment except to say that I am not at all surprised that the Secretary made such an outstanding statement. I have listened to a lot of statements from members of the Cabinet, from various administrations, but you hit the nail on the head here. I go along with probably all that you have to say, and I think we are very much indebted to you for the clear, concise, and first-class presentation which you made.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith, I may say, Mr. Secretary, has an outstanding record on water resource use. He was chairman of the Kennedy-Johnson Natural Resources Advisory Committee in the recent political hassle we had and, he has given bipartisan leadership in the broader concept of water use, which is sometimes inclined to be very specialized and rigid in its interpretation with regard to a commodity which is limited in quantity. For many years the use of water has been taken for granted, like the air around us. People see it and use it without thinking of its importance and value to us, probably because it is something we use every day. If you cut it off for 3 minutes it can be a matter of life and death, yet it is somethng we take for granted because it is so commonplace.

In this field of water use and development we find several areas where Mr. Smith has helped to bring about an attitude on the part of the people and the Congress to develop a broader and more comprehensive interest in it. We must face the water problem in breadth and depth as well as from the standpoint of long-term consequences and implications.

So, Mr. Smith, we are very glad to have you here this morning. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your state

ment.

Mr. Secretary, your statement is in very refreshing contrast to reports on this proposed legislation we have been receiving from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in the past. I am glad to have your comments in regard to the changes that have been made and proposed in the legislation. I take it from the references made that your Department concurs in the strengthening of the enforcement provisions proposed in the bill?

Secretary RIBICOFF. I do, sir. I would say since the comment was made concerning your interest, Congressman Smith, I would like to add from my own experience as a Governor for 6 years on the basic understanding of the need for water. All of us in every State are using water so rapidly that there are many people with knowledge of the problem who are deeply concerned that we are using up our water much faster than we will ever be able to replace it. That is why such great care and understanding has to be exerted in this field. If there is one problem in my mind that is a nonpartisan problem, it is the problem of water, because it affects all of the people. I would say too from my observation and study of American history and the American economic and social life, that one of the great shames of this country is the abuse of one of our greatest assets, namely, our streams, our rivers, our lakes, and all of our water. It is understandable when you know the history of the development of our Nation. As our Nation developed it was only natural that everyone would settle near a stream, river, or lake. It was a means of communication, a means of obtaining water for all of the daily uses of life, and a means of furnishing water for industry. As our Nation became more and more industrialized we treated contemptuously and were indifferent to one of our greatest assets-water.

Therefore, today instead of lakes, streams, and rivers being the finest and choices parts of our communities, they are the most rundown and the worst parts of our communities. I think one of the problems in rehabilitating, refurbishing, and refreshing America is cleaning up our streams not only for the purpose of using water commercially and privately in our daily needs, but also because where water is is usually the area where you can have your best residential locations, your best recreational opportunities, and your best chances to refresh and rejuvenate America.

It would seem to me that this committee in its tasks and duties, which involve the establishment of a good overall water policy for America, would be making one of the greatest contributions not only to the American scene today, but to the future great growth of this country. That is why I feel so enthusiastic about this program. You may rest assured as a committee that whatever program this Congress adopts and passes it will have my personal and enthusiastic support to

make the program that this committee passes an effective program in its administration.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That is all.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Secretary, I myself supported the initial bill resulting in Public Law 660. I too have been concerned with water pollution and its problems, and I appreciate your presentation and the continuing interest shown by your Department. The previous administration, of course, made recommendations, as I am sure you are familiar with, particularly in the field of strengthening the enforcement provisions. The concept of many of those provisions are contained in the bill before us. I am glad to see the continuing interest of the Department and what might be called on the other side the accelerated interest in this program.

I think the problem and differences of opinion have been one of money largely, and I assume that the additional $75 million annually plus $25 million for enforcement projects which is being recommended in the bill was not included in President Kennedy's budget message the other day, indicating increases in expenditures for the coming fiscal year. Is that not correct? This would be in addition to that, in other words?

Secretary RIBICOFF. I am under the impresison that this was definitely included, because it was part of the President's program.

Mr. CRAMER. The additional $75 million plus $25 million contained in the Blatnik bill, or $150 million in fiscal 1962?

Mr. CRAMER. The additional $50 million?

Secretary RIBICOFF. The $100 million this year. I am almost sure it was included because this $100 million came in the President's recommendations in his natural resources message. I do not have the budget in front of me, but I would be very much surprised if it were not included, because I think as we sent up our budget it was definitely in the budget we sent up, and I am under the very strong impression that it was adopted, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. The $50 million or $75 million?

Secretary RIBICOFF. The $100 million.

Mr. CRAMER. The $50 million additional you are recommending rather than the $75 million additional contained in the bill?

Secretary RIBICOFF. That is right. The bill was $125 million and it was our recommendation that it be $100 million.

Mr. CRAMER. Was any recommendation given to the Department on the proposals made last session with regard to providing some type of incentive to the States, in order to try to get more of them than presently to participate financially in a matching fund program?

Secretary RIBICOFF. Basically from a matching fund standpoint this is where the Federal Government gives a certain amount, and the cities, of course, make the rest of the contribution. There are a number of States that on their own have contributed toward the cost obligation undertaken by the cities, but while I think it would be advisable for the States to make a contribution to help, because of the fact that many of these problems go beyond one community and do affect the entire State as a stream goes through the State, yet this is a problem, and what we want to do is basically a Federal Government problem. I think it is a problem where the cities could effec

tively go to the States and ask the States to make a contribution, but I would guess that like the Federal Government, the States have heavy financial problems and commitments.

Mr. CRAMER. You should know, having been in office as the Governor of a State yourself.

Secretary RIBICOFF. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. The State of Connecticut, I gather, does not make a contribution.

Secretary RIBICOFF. Not on this. I think that the problem has not been widespread enough. I think as a general proposition our pollution in the State of Connecticut is not too extreme. Practically every town in the State of Connecticut, with very few exceptions, has sewage treatment plants.

The Connecticut River is polluted and there are some polluted streams. We are putting out orders and are proceeding or have proceeded against various cities to clean up the streams.

In certain fields of endeavor, for example, urban renewal, the State has a program in which it contributes one-half of the share of the city toward urban renewal. In other words, with the Federal Government contributing two-thirds and the cities contributing one-third, we have sought to encourage the cities to undertake this responsibility, and wherever they would undertake a project we would contribute a sixth. I think it is a good policy, but I would be against writing it into the bill because then, if a State refused to do so, you would be defeating your objective. However, I do think this is something that the cities in any given State might very well agitate for in their own State legislatures.

Mr. CRAMER. Then your position is, as I understand it, that it would be nice to have the States in this and, of course, we could meet the problem that much more quickly if we could get them in

Secretary RIBICOFF. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. And hopefully the States might come in, but when it comes to the Federal Government offering an incentive to the States as we are offering to the local communities, you do not think that is justified?

Secretary RIBICOFF. I do not know what you mean by "incentive.” This is a program which I think is a reasonable program from the Federal standpoint. The cities contribute about $5 for every $1 that the Federal Government puts in. I think the Federal Government gets a pretty good value, if you call it a value, for the grants it makes. Usually the Federal Government, in almost every grant program, gives a much larger percentage toward the total cost.

As an example, the Federal Government gives 90 percent to the State's 10 percent on the highway program. In urban renewal the percentage is two-thirds Federal to one-third. And in many programs such as the airport program we are much more generous in our contributions on a Federal level than we are in reference to this problem.

But here I do not think we shuold tie it up in the bill, Congressman Cramer. I do think, though, in making speeches in our communities. it is something I would not hesitate to say publicly, that I think since this is a problem which cuts across municipal lines and affects the entire community or area, that it could very well be a problem or a

program where every State for its own benefit should take into consideration means to help the local communities, because the problem involved is bigger than any local community.

Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate your comment. It has been my concern because if it is an interstate Federal problem then it is obviously an intrastate problem going beyond municipal boundaries, and the States should take an interest and should participate in it, and some States have. I was hoping that we could, in some way on the Federal level, give the States an incentive like we do on the highway billboard proposals. We put it up to them and say, "If you do control billboards you get the money and if you do not do it you do not get the 'bonus' money.'

Of course, there is nothing unusual about the concept of State matching money. On to another point, you have had the opportunity, of course, of considering the Kerr bill in comparison to the Blatnik bill. Is that correct? Have you made a report on the Kerr bill?

Secretary RIBICOFF. We have not reported to the Senate on the Kerr bill yet.

Mr. CRAMER. The Kerr bill, of course, does not have any additional commission or board set up, and it does not go into intrastate waters. Secretary RIBICOFF. I would prefer, may I respectfully say we go along with the Kerr bill but we would prefer at the present time to have no separate board or commission. However, I think we prefer the Blatnik bill concerning the waters even though they are intrastate, if they are navigable. So to this respect we go along with the Blatnik bill.

On the question of administration, I would be inclined to the Kerr bill.

Mr. CRAMER. In other words, you approve of the navigable waters definition including intrastate in the enforcement section?

Secretary RIBICOFF. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. I gather your approach on the construction grants section is that that is bottomed on and rests on, as I understand the concept now, the public health and welfare clause of the Constitution, rather than the commerce clause?

Secretary RIBICOFF. No. I believe you can justify this program on two bases. I think it comes within the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and also in the general welfare clause of the Constitution. You can justify almost everything that is done here on the basis of both of those clauses.

Mr. CRAMER. Even though some of the grants made under the grants section have no relationship directly to navigable streams as presently administered. Therefore it would have to be bottomed on the public health and welfare clause.

Secretary RIBICOFF. That is right. Those grants that are made. that have nothing to do with navigable waters would definitely come in the orbit of the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. So we have on the one hand the grants section, which was actually given birth to by the interstate commerce concept jurisdictionally, and the enforcement section. As I recall it, that was what was really the justification for putting the grants section. into the bill. So now we have the public health and welfare as the basis for the grants section.