Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the Senator.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen.

Mr. CLAUSEN. You have laid great stress on the need for money and, of course, we hear this once in a while before this committee.

The preceding witness outlined the fact that he felt we could expedite the development programs if there was a favorable tax treatment given.

What I am wondering about is how much do you feel in your State and other States this favorable tax treatment would provide in the way of a motivating force and would the program be expedited satisfactorily as opposed to the appropriation process we're going through? Senator WHITFIELD. Well, I do not know. We have a favorable tax in North Carolina? You say about the State contributing to this appropriation?

Mr. CLAUSEN. No, sir. I was making

Senator WHITFIELD. You do not mean tax writeoff?

Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes.

Senator WHITFIELD. Oh, yes, we do have a tax writeoff. I am ashamed to say I do not know it right offhand.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Do you feel favorable tax treatment here at the Federal level, if we could implement legislation, as the chairman just recommended a moment ago that he was interested in, do you feel that this would be a great motivating force?

Senator WHITFIELD. I certainly do, if it is a motivating force in the State, I think so.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Would you say this would be a better recommendation than some regulations, as far as ultimate objective of cleaning up some of our streams?

Senator WHITFIELD. You mean classifying the stream standards? Mr. CLAUSEN. At the Federal level.

Senator WHITFIELD. Well, I think what is going to happen is these stream standards-you are going to have trouble with that. I think you can get it done through-I think, leave it to the States.

Let me say this, I know some of the States have dragged their feet. The Federal Government feels like they must do something about it. But I think they can put them on notice do not have any particular legislation for it now, but I think that they can practically order them, if something is not done within a reasonable time, to that extent the Federal Government will have to step in. You cannot let the States just go ahead and thumb their nose at you. Some are. You have

to admit that.

Mr. CLAUSEN. You are suggesting the States themselves take more responsibility of leading the pollution cleanup program and that we at the Federal level might well

Senator WHITFIELD. Prod them along.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes, and that we might be well advised to concentrate on this favorable tax treatment to assist?

Senator WHITFIELD. That-of course, it has worked with us. I do not know-it has worked with us.

The one thing I want you to do, I think we ought to do, put it that way, I think whatever organization you set up should be all together. Let us do not split it up. Whether it is in the Public Health Service

or some other independent organization, put it all together, your research and everything. Do not divide it up. You will have a twoheaded Hydra. That is bad. Put it all under one.

Now, I think Mr. Blatnik's bill provides for putting it all under one department.

Of course, as I have said, we have always felt I always felt the Congress would pass a law, if you wanted to, and tell the Public Health Service or anybody what it had to do, to put it all under there whether it wanted to or not. But I think the Congress can put it where it pleases. Give orders and instructions, what is to be done. It has been a pleasure to be with you.

Mr. CRAMER. May I ask a question?

Senator WHITFIELD. Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. I want to congratulate the gentleman on a very fine statement.

Incidentally, your position is very consistent with that of Dave P. Lee, from the State of Florida, whom I am sure you know.

Senator WHITFIELD. Oh, yes.

Mr. CRAMER. He has worked for years on this problem and is very dedicated to it.

I received a letter from him dated February 10, 1965, in which he indicates he did not know about the hearings early enough to be able to request to testify. But he said he would like to make the following observation on Senator Muskie's bill as well as Mr. Blatnik's:

We are opposed to creating an Administrator outside the Public Health Service, No. 1. I frankly cannot see any valid reason for the creation of another office to expedite water pollution control.

With reference to standards, I do not feel that we need any standards section in the act, nor do I feel standards should be set on a national level. As I have submitted to you and the committee in December of 1963, we have all the standards we need and can adjust them according to the situation.

I gather that substantially is in agreement with your position, is it not?

Senator WHITFIELD. Practically. But I want to say this, I think we have to be realistic, too. Why has not the Public Health Service done this sooner? That is the point. Have they not had the opportunity?

I have been to the Public Health Service. I think it ought to be under the Public Health Service.

Has anybody buttoned it down as to why? Those questions ought to be asked. Congress should be asked.

This I do say, I emphasize it should be under one department, wherever it is. We think it ought to be under the Public Health Service, and the Congress should order it done and tell them what to do.

Mr. CRAMER. As far as North Carolina is concerned, the Public Health Service has been doing a pretty good job, do you not think? Senator WHITFIELD. Very fine. Excellent job.

Mr. CRAMER. Yes.

Now, the proposal is to reshuffle, shake up the whole operation. We passed a law in 1961. It is just getting into effect. It is having its effects, very substantial consequences, now. They want to reshuffle the department, take it out from under Public Health and put it under a political appointee, make it subject to politics instead of on the basis

of professionals, such as in the Public Health Service, and reshuffle the program.

Now, is that not going to hurt rather than help at this time?

Senator WHITFIELD. Where are you going to get your personnel? It is going to cost you money if you take some of those commissioned people; you are going to have to put in enough money to bring up their retirements and all of that. It is going to cost money.

But the point is, why do they want to take it away from the Public Health Service? Has anybody ever asked that question?

Mr. CRAMER. It is my observation that the Public Health Service is a professional group. They approach this thing from a professional standpoint. That is all the testimony we have had, practically every State that has testified has been to the effect the Public Health Service is doing an excellent job, has cooperated with us, worked together as a team. They think they are in the process of meeting this challenge. They think it should be there and it should not be under the administration of a political appointee, as Assistant Secretary, as an alternative. That is the testimony we have had from State after State after State.

Now, I am at a loss to know why the big push is coming for setting up another bureaucratic empire under an Assistant Secretary.

Senator WHITFIELD. Well, of course, that is up to the Congress. We have expressed our views on the matter, and I will just say this, wherever it is, we would be helping whoever administers it.

Mr. CRAMER. You want to get the job done. I admire the job you are doing in North Carolina. But if they are going to start now in promulgating Federal standards, you have already promulgated them in the State of North Carolina; that is not going to help your operation, it is going to hinder it, is it not? These industries are not going to have to clear through you; they will have to clear through the Federal Government.

Senator WHITFIELD. Well, that depends-I would not go that far. I think they are going to accept our classification.

Mr. CRAMER. Assuming they do

Senator WHITFIELD. Our standards.

Mr. CRAMER. But if your standards are not equal to those that the Federal Government requests, they are not going to accept it. You are running that risk, are you not?

Senator WHITFIELD. Yes, we are running that risk. But the point is, if they do the job right, which I am sure they will, from one angle of the matter, they are bound to recognize our classifications because we have got them right.

Mr. CRAMER. You say you are going to present these standards and do the job right, you have to be on the spot. What bothers me, in other words, examining the streams and their origin, and what contributes to the pollution and what might in the future be done on a stream-by-stream basis.

Senator WHITFIELD. We took it mile by mile.

Mr. CRAMER. How in the world is the Federal Government going to do this within any reasonable period of time, doing exactly the same job the State has done, in an effort to decide in the first instance whether the State's standards per stream per area are adequate? They are going to have to go in and make a survey themselves.

Senator WHITFIELD. We do not see how they could. We think they are hunting trouble.

I think you should drop that. That is my opinion. They should drop that idea of the Federal standards.

But then, on the other hand, you must also provide, though, for those States who are dragging their feet; something has got to be done. Some of these States are dragging their feet.

Mr. CRAMER. I agree with you. Of course, last year it was suggested, as you have suggested, that the Federal Government make recommendations and let the State then consider those recommendations.

Now, this is mandatory. The Federal Government sets the standards, does not ask for recommendations or submit recommendations. It asks for standards.

Senator WHITFIELD. I am not arguing against my own position, do not misunderstand me; but suppose they recommended it, the State would not do it, so you have to have a provision somehow or other to see that the State does it. It has got to be worked out whereby the States are going to have to take action. Because water has become our most precious commodity, I repeat again. Water you cannot use is valueless.

Mr. CRAMER. I agree. We should try to defer to any State to go ahead and do the job if they have not done it. But what is disturbing to me is in those instances where they have, you still have a double effort of standards. There is that risk.

Secondly, I am at a loss to know how the Federal Government is going to approach it. Each State has to do it on a stream-by-stream basis. The Federal Government, to do it effectively, is going to have to do it about the same way, on a stream-by-stream, State-regional basis, in each instance. This is going to take years, is it not? You cannot do this overnight. And it is going to duplicate what the States have already done.

Senator WHITFIELD. In 1958, when I testified before here, I recommended or suggested we have a White House conference. The time was long past to have a White House conference on this matter. And Mr. Blatnik and Mr. Dingell asked me to work on this with them and we got the White House conference.

It seems to me you Congressmen who sit down with the Presidentprotecting your water supplies is just as important as Vietnam. I think you should sit down and talk with him.

These things cannot be rushed through, you know. The Great Society is going to need water, more water, and it does not make any false move toward that end.

I think a committee from the Congress, both parties, should sit down with the President-Congressman Blatnik, Senator Muskie, and others. I think we ought to sit down with the President. I think it is worth a conference.

Mr. CRAMER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator WHITFIELD. Thank you.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. May I make one request? Unfortunately, I have to leave in about 2 minutes for a commitment.

I received a letter from the president of the Association of the State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, Mr. Paul R. Bonderson, who is from my State of California, saying their witness, Mr. Ralph G. Pickard, is unable to be here today, and that they have provided their statement to Congressman Dorn, with the request that he be authorized to insert it in the record at the proper point.

On behalf of Mr. Bonderson, who has written to me, I would like to request that

Mr. DORN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALDWIN (continuing). The chairman give Mr. Dorn permission at this time to do so.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that following the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, a statement of Mr. W. T. Linton, Head of Water Pollution Control of South Carolina, and appearing here, however, as secretary and treasurer of the Association of State and Interstate Water Polution Control Administrators, and vice president of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, I would ask unanimous consent that his statement, which I have here, follow the Senator from North Carolina, representing these two organizations. He was here but had to go, Mr. Chairman, so we are saving a little time.

Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATORS, BY W. T. LINTON

This statement generally reiterates the views of the association relative to Federal water pollution control legislation as essentially expressed in the attached resolutions passed at the annual meeting of the association held in Denver on December 9-10, 1964. This organization is comprised of administrative officers of the 50 States and the several interstate agencies involved in water pollution control. The comments that follow relate to each section of H.R. 3988, S. 4, and related bills with additional statements of our feelings for strengthening the program.

Section 1. The association is in accord with the purpose as expressed in subsection (a) of the bill. We urge Congress to continue to be guided by their policy of recognizing the rights and jurisidictions of the States with respect to the waters of such States as stipulated in redesignated subsections (b) and (c). Section 2. The association has opposed the enactment of this portion of the bill and has urged that the position of the existing program be strengthened and elevated in stature within the U.S. Public Health Service administration. The reason for this opposition is based upon the knowledge and experience of the members of the association of the administrative, professional, and technical requirements of personnel to assure an effective program and, in this respect, the USPHS is the only agency having such personnel. In the event, however, this section of the bill is enacted, the association is deeply concerned over the possibility and probability of loss of effectiveness of the water pollution control effort during the transition period to a new administration which would negate to some extent those advances which have been realized over the past years. The association, therefore, points out the essentiality that, during the transition of the program, none of the effectiveness of the water pollution efforts be impaired and we urge that every effort be made to insure the retention and recruitment of persons of the same level of competency.

Section 3. Overflow from combined sewers is definitely a problem in the overall pollution abatement picture. The cost of complete separation of all the combined sewers of the country is so great that alternative methods of solving the problem certainly deserve investigation. The association is in