The reason I point this out, while you are here, so you will understand my thinking, and while Senator Muskie is here, this came about from my experiences as Governor, and I am sure that Senator Muskie, who was a fellow Governor, might have had the same experience.

Our water resources commission in Connecticut, which has jurisdiction on a statewide basis, would issue an order to a factory in a small town to stop polluting the waters of a stream. As soon as that was announced and that order handed down, I, myself, as Governor, would immediately be advised by the head or the owner of the factory, the head of the union, the mayor of the town, the chamber of commerce, pointing out that here we had a multistory old factory that had for 100 years been operating in a certain way. This was an antiquated plant. If you suddenly saddle them with a $100,000 or $200,000 charge to install water-pollution devices and change their manufacturing practices, they would find it much easier to listen to the siren song of some other State that would give them a modern plant free, and they would move.

Now you had a great dilemma. You wanted clean streams and yet you had the jobs to protect in a small town where this was a basic industry. While I was Secretary I was aware of this. Then when I became a member of the Finance Committee of the Senate I saw the possibility of combining all these by giving fast tax writeoffs, where industries could be encouraged to install water pollution devices and heed the orders of the water commission of their State. would give them the means because we recognize the fact that, basically, water and air pollution devices have a negative effect on the economy of a company, while the public receives the benefit of clean water and clean air.

We

In this way we would encourage the cooperation of industry, because it becomes very obvious that the Government itself cannot clean up the air and the water. It is a matter that will take years and years and years. Unless you have the cooperation of industry, you aren't going to get this job done rapidly.

Therefore, we have to find a means and a device to win the active cooperation of industry. Without this active cooperation we are not going to do the job.

Now I find widespread interest and growing concern. I think industry today recognizes that it does have an obligation to eliminate water and air pollution. I have been visited in the past number of months by spokesmen for all the major industries that contribute to pollution and I would say that this bill would not only have the active support of Congress, but this kind of procedure would have the active support of industry, whose cooperation we must have if we are really going to do a job of cleaning up the streams and the air.

Now if you are going to have the responsibility, I would hope you would give attention to it, because it raises this point. I think the Budget Bureau is involved. The Treasury unfortunately takes a very negative attitude toward utilizing the tax system for social and economic purposes outside the mere gathering of taxes. Now, we in Congress authorize and vote large sums of money to eliminate air and water pollution, and yet the job is only partial.

If, by the expenditure through tax credits, which is an expenditure because this money will not flow into the Treasury, of much smaller

sums we are able to do this much more rapidly, in the long run the amount that the Government will have to spend on Federal or State programs will be that much less and will do the job that much faster. Now I think what has to be done by men like yourself and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, when you discuss this in the executive branch, is that you have to realize that every means that we have in our arsenal should be used. And if we can use the tax device to get the desired result much faster than if we use the appropriationof-public-funds device, and at a smaller cost, we shouldn't be bound by some theoretical opposition from the Treasury Department, which may not understand the overall proposals that the President may have.

Now if the President has an overall proposal to clean up the waters and clean up the air, and if you as Secretary of Interior, and the Budget Bureau, and HEW all have this as an objective, then this is something that you have to iron out around the table, so that the Treasury doesn't come in supposedly speaking for the President of the United States, when actually the argument has never been presented and never been discussed before the President of the United States in weighing all these factors.

This is one of the things that bothered me yesterday, that bothers me today, and represents the continuing quarrel that I have with the Budget Bureau. Because I regret to say that with the many capable men in the Budget Bureau I find that in many ways they lack imagination and the ability to understand the overall problem.

I say this publicly and I say it hoping that you will take this back to indicate that you have a bigger job than just the narrow concept of what is currently being done. I think what we are trying to do in this committee is to point this up in a friendly way, in a cooperative way, and sometimes in a stringent way to make the points that we are trying to make.

I think that Senator Muskie and I bring varied experience to these problems, not only experiences as legislators but experiences we wrestled with when we were Governors, and so we can understand the problems that exist back in the States, with the Governor, with the State agency, with the mayors, industry, and labor who wrestle with these problems. So we are trying to take the realities and mesh the theories with these realities to accomplish the objectives that we all say we are for, but we must be pragmatic, we must be practical, and we think the executive branch should use the knowledge that some Senators may have from their varied experiences.

Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman, may I carry on this dialog? I am sure Senator Muskie and I at his hearings later in the month are going to be discussing it in a very similar tenor. We found, for example, in the Republic of Germany that they use the tax-credit device with regard to pollution abatement. This is a matter of deep-seated policy. The value that a society gets from having clean rivers and clean air, and so on, in terms of health and outdoor recreation and everything else, is a very vital value. But, nevertheless, some States already have recognized that a pollution abatement facility built by a large industry is not productive in the normal sense, and that, therefore, it should not be on the real estate tax rolls, and should be exempt. Senator RIBICOFF. I think 11 or 12 States do have this now.

62-106-66- -6

Secretary UDALL. I personally share some of the views that you have expressed here. Senator Muskie has expressed others to me, and I don't know that I am going to win any argument with any admission, but I have already had discussions with some of the officials you mentioned since my return a month ago from West Germany with regard to the fact that it seems to me we do need to give this serious consideration in light of the new objectives that the President has set forth.

I know there are persuasive arguments on the other side, but I think that this case ought to be argued out, and I want you to know that as far as I personally am concerned, I have very strong views on this, and I am going to argue the one case. Whether I win the argument is another matter, but to me when we look at what some of the States are doing, what other countries, industrial countries are doing, I think we have to ask ourselves some very serious questions.

I would like to think that this is an open issue within the administration at the moment.

Mr. SEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I assume it will be satisfactory to the committee if we provide a joint answer to these questions.

Senator RIBICOFF. I think there should be a joint answer. I think we would like to have the administration's point of view. I know the deep interest and concern of Senator Muskie, who really is the leader of this whole field and who has the responsibility on the Committee on Public Works.

I think if this plan is not to have any objection and if it is to be approved, it is going to have to have the support of Senator Muskie and myself and Senator Gruening. I think we would like the answers to these questions which would be more or less a commitment from the administration, and I think a guideline that Senator Muskie will be able to use in the committee that is dealing with this.

I think we would like a joint reply to this, by the way, provided the Budget Bureau doesn't delay it beyond April 29.

Mr. SEIDMAN. The new dates are April 22 for plan 1 and May 10 for plan 2.

However, before this hearing closes this morning. I would like to comment briefly on your first point, which is the lack of any real effort to tackle the real organizational problem of water resources; namely, the bringing together of a number of water programs now located throughout the Government.

I know of few areas of Government organization which have been subjected to more intensive analysis and study in the last 10 years than the problem in the field of not only water but land resources, and they are difficult and complex. This goes back to the recommendation of the first Hoover Commission, which split as to whether you can separate land resources from water, or whether they should be in the same department.

Now there has been more than just study, because I think we would be properly subject to criticism if all that we did was study it for 10 years and no action was taken. The Congress last year enacted the Water Resources Planning Act, which is a landmark piece of legislation in the whole area of the Federal role in water resources, and which recognizes that this is not only a problem of how we organize within the executive branch of Government, but also, if we are going

to carry on effective programs in this critical area, this is an area which, as Senator Muskie has pointed out many times, involves a partnership of the Federal Government, the States, and the communities. The Water Resources Planning Act sets up not only the Water Resources Council under the chairmanship of the Secretary of the Interior, but sets up commissions which are Federal-State on a river basin basis, to get cooperative planning and administration of our water resources programs.

We have made substantial progress in the role of the Department of the Interior in moving forward in establishing its role as in effect the natural resources agency of the Government, at least with the leadership role.

Some 20 or 25 years ago the Department of the Interior was, for the most part, necessarily fully western oriented. It was a department of miscellaneous activities. The Office of Education, for example, was in the Department of the Interior in the 1930's. Our public works programs were in the Department of the Interior. A large number of miscellaneous activities. Today, clearly the Department of the Interior has the leadership role in outdoor recreation. The land and water conservation fund and the President's instruction is not to just serve rural areas. As I remember, the message said that these facilities should get priority to serve the needs of people in urban communities. So we have been clarifying the role of Interior.

Certainly I would be the last one here to say we have solved all of the problems in this area. We have not. But where you identify steps which are not inconsistent with some overall objective which we have, and I think there is general agreement here, and which are needed now, I think it is a mistake to postpone that to do the much more difficult overall job.

The answer isn't always just to transfer everything into a single department. I don't think the nature of our programs today are such that you can always get within a single agency everything related to a particular area of activity.

Senator RIBICOFF. I would appreciate if you could get your answers to these questions in in about 10 days, and that, without objection, the statement will be made part of the record. (See p. 58.)

Thank you gentlemen, very much.

Mr. Kimball, please.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. KIMBALL. Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation.

The National Wildlife Federation, with headquarters here in Washington, D.C., is a private, nonprofit organization which employs educational means to attain conservation objectives. From an organizational point of view, the federation has affiliates in 49 States which, in turn, are composed of local clubs and individuals. When combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, these number an estimated 2 million persons.

We appreciate the invitation and opportunity to appear here today to comment briefly upon Reorganization Plan No. 2. May I pause

here and pay tribute to Senator Muskie particularly for his intense interest in this whole field of water pollution abatement and for the leadership that he has given through the Public Works Committee in the Senate, which has, in a large measure, provided the stimulus in this entire field. We pay tribute to you, Senator Muskie, for those

efforts.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Kimball.

Mr. KIMBALL. For the benefit of committee members who may not be familiar with our organization, the control of water pollution has been a major objective of the National Wildlife Federation throughout its existence. In our opinion, the contamination of our environmentpollution of the waters and the air and the land-probably constitutes the greatest natural resource problem of our time. We have fought unceasingly for vigorous programs encouraging water pollution abatement; programs accompanied by strong law-enforcement authority when all other means fail.

Viewed from the long-range aspect, conservationists have made much progress over which they are encouraged even though the population increased is causing new pollution problems daily.

Probably the most important single piece of legislation in the water pollution control field was enacted only a decade ago, in 1956. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 84-660), substantially strengthened in 1961 and in 1965, is the basic landmark legislation. It sets out a comprehensive program of research, provides grants to municipalities for the construction of waste treatment plants, allows funds to help the States finance their own programs, and gives added authority to the Federal Government for enforcing laws to clean up dirty water. Conservationists have supported all of these strengthening measures.

Mr. Chairman, we were pleased when the Federal program was elevated from status of a branch to that of a division, even though it still remained an underemphasized program within one bureau of the Public Health Service. We have been gratified that the Congress has been generous in appropriations for the program. We endorsed concepts in the Water Quality Act of 1965, enacted by the Congress and signed into law last year. Of course, this act establishes a new Administration and sets up a process whereby standards of water quality can be established. This, too, is progress.

Most of all, however, we have been encouraged so tremendously in these last few months by the demonstrated interest on the parts of the President and administrators of executive branch agencies, by leaders in the Congress, and by the public. Overwhelming bond issue approvals prove that water pollution control is good politics, and that the general public demands and is willing to pay for clean water. The National Wildlife Federation through the Chilton Research Service of Philadelphia, Pa., recently surveyed by telephone a random sample of our 2 million membership. To the statement, "Water pollution problems must be solved even if it means raising taxes," 96 percent of those surveyed by telephone said that they were in agreement. So here you have the people of America, at least from our survey, saying that 96 percent are in favor of cleaning up this Nation's water supply, even if it means raising their own taxes, and I think this is a significant trend.