this does not pertain to him, he has been most cooperative, I would like the record to show Mr. Quigley was scheduled to appear yesterday. When the session started at 11, there were several hours of general debate on the bill with which you are quite familiar. It was perfectly agreeable to continue with the Secretary yesterday. The members having been notified in advance they would hear Mr. Quigley yesterday, were here.

In the opinion of the Chair, for no good reason whatsoever, all members of the committee, because of one member of the minority raising objection, were denied an opportunity to hear and to question the Secretary yesterday morning when we were all here.

Mr. Secretary, will you please proceed?

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that that is a matter of opinion, whether or not there was good reason or not we objected to hearing yesterday. That is your opinion; I have a different opinion.

Mr. BLATNIK. I made it clear, and the gentleman understands, just in my opinion. I mentioned no names.

Mr. HARSHA. Contrary to the rules of the House

Mr. BLATNIK. Will the Secretary please continue?

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. QUIGLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY; ACCOMPANIED BY DEAN COSTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Resumed

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am indeed happy to appear here this morning and to have this opportunity to express my views and to express the support of the administration for H.R. 3988, a bill introduced by the distinguished chairman.

This committee, Mr. Chairman, since 1956, has been in the forefront of constructive legislative activity in the field of water pollution control, and the leadership given by the Chairman has been largely responsible for keeping all of us very much aware of the magnitude of the problems and the urgent necessity to take effective Federal action to bring water pollution under control.

President Johnson, in his message on natural beauty, set forth clearly and forcefully the philosophy and policy which this administration will support and encourage. I am quoting the President when I say:

The increasing tempo of urbanization and growth is already depriving many Americans of the right to live in decent surroundings ***. The modern technology, which has added much to our lives can also have a darker side. Its uncontrolled waste products are menacing the world we live in, our enjoyment, and our health ***. The same society which receives the rewards of technology, must, as a cooperating whole, take responsibility for control.

The President's program for clean water both supports and complements. H.R. 3988. We expect to have new proposals to further strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, in line with the President's recommendations, at a later time, but we do not recommend any delay in the enactment of H.R. 3988. The bill is constructive and practicable and, with the few amendments we are suggesting, will represent a positive advance in the development of a national program. The provisions of H.R. 3988, or provisions very similar to it, have been the subject of extensive hearings and

consideration by this committee, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go over them again in any great detail. I would like, however, Mr. Chairman, to discuss certain differences between your bill sponsored by the chairman, and S. 4, the bill passed in the Senate.

Section 2 of H.R. 3988 would require that the entire Federal Water Pollution Control Act be administered by the Secretary through a new Water Pollution Control Administration; section 2 of S. 4 would leave discretion with the Secretary with respect to placement of certain parts of the program. If legislation is enacted to establish a Water Pollution Control Administration, the Secretary plans to transfer all functions encompassed under the Water Pollution Control Act, except for such limited functions as may be retained by the Secretary. He proposes to transfer all of the functions under the act to the new Administration. It is the definite intent, therefore, to operate, as envisaged by section 2 of H.R. 3988. However, despite this, Mr. Chairman, it would be administratively preferable to authorize the Secretary to have a reasonable degree of flexibility to make adjustments in this assignment of functions if experience should so dictate.

The need for such flexibility is emphasized by the recent statement of the President in his message on natural beauty in which he said:

I have instructed the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology to explore the adequacy of the present organization of pollution control and research activities.

In the event that it should become the conclusion of that study that certain of the research activities relating to water pollution, for example, should more effectively be performed, in whole or in part, by an organization other than the Water Pollution Control Administration, the Secretary should be able to make such a reassignment of function without asking for a change in law. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, we would prefer the minimum degree of specificity as to which functions the Secretary is required by law to vest in the Water Pollution Control Administration beyond the minimum functions which justify its establishment. We say this, Mr. Chairman, despite the fact, as I have already indicated, it is Secretary Celebrezze's clear intent that if this legislation passes, that he would generally follow the administration pattern called for in the House bill, the bill before this committee.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, we are submitting with our report on the bill a few perfecting amendments to this part of the bill designed to carry out its intent. In addition, we are considering, and we hope to submit within the next few days suggested language for adjustments in existing law to overcome a transitional problem that we have encountered in examining and anticipating the staffing and the administrative needs of the projected Water Pollution Control Administration. It is important that the new Administrator of the Water Pollution Control Administration have full control over his own personnel, including the ability to use the skilled personnel who are presently commissioned officers of the Public Health Service. The Administrator should be able to retain and assign to appropriate positions those commissioned officers mostly engineering officers who have developed expertise in the field of water pollution control, just as existing law would permit the new Administrator to retain the

skilled civilian employees of the Public Health Service. It will apparently be necessary to work out legislative language which will permit the transfer of commissioned officers to civil service status without adversely affecting their retirement rights. We are currently in the process of exploring this problem with the Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commission. If agreed-upon language can be worked out within the next few days, and we are confident it can, we should like very much to work with your committee staff to see whether it can be worked out and included in this bill.

Section 4 of H.R. 3988 increases the grant ceilings for individual and combined waste treatment projects more than is called for in the Senate-passed bill. I am sure that the committee is aware that these increases, coupled with no increase in the overall appropriation ceiling of $100 million, will result inevitably in a reduction in the number of projects to be supported, although more adequate Federal matching will be available for larger projects. We would point out the waste treatment facilities construction program embodied in the Federal Water Pollution Act, is scheduled to expire in fiscal year 1967, and consideration should be given to the need to raise the overall ceiling and make other modifications when extension of the program is considered. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we would recommend now the enactment of the smaller increases contained in the Senate bill.

There are a number of differences in section 5 of the two bills, which provides for the promulgation of water quality standards. We have prepared and enclosed with our report on the bill some technical amendments to clarify and perfect this section. These amendments are attached to our report on the bill. I think that it is fair to point out that the provisions setting water quality standards, while giving us an important new tool, neither substitute for nor modify our present authority under the enforcement provisions of the present law. I do not want to leave the impression with this committee that actions we may take to set water quality standards on streams will in any way constitute a license to pollute. To the extent that standards are useful to achieve further progress toward our national goal of clean water, they will be used to the maximum extent. But let no one be deceived that standard setting will reduce our determination to pursue a vigorous enforcement policy.

Nor do I want to leave the impression that, even with the perfecting amendments which we have submitted with our report, we would have achieved the "swift and effective enforcement procedure" to prevent pollution at its source that the President's message on the state of the Union and on natural beauty envisioned. We expect to come up with proposals to accomplish this before too long, but it would be a disservice to delay this bill for that purpose. It need not substantially delay this bill, however, for the committee to consider whether it is sound. to require, in addition to the very full and extensive abatement procedure in the present law, public hearings for the establishment of water quality standards, the practicability of which would, in the final analysis, be subject to court review in any event.

We endorse the provision of H.R. 3988 which would provide authority to subpena witnesses and records. Practically every regulatory agency in the Federal Government has such authority now. We have found in a few instances in the past we have been unable to obtain in

formation needed to evaluate pollution situations and make proper recommendations for correction. The power to subpena in such instances is a necessity.

Mr. Chairman, President Johnson said in his message, and I quote:

It is true that we have often been careless with our natural bounty. At times we have paid a heavy price for this neglect. But once our people were aroused to the danger, we have acted to preserve our resources for the enrichment of our country and the enjoyment of future generations.

This statement is particularly appropriate for this committee, for you have been, over the years, pretty much the conscience of the country in your efforts to achieve clean water.

We applaud and we support your efforts and we recommend speedy enactment of your bill with the amendments we have suggested. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Are there any questions on my right?

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Wright?

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratuate the Secretary, our former colleague, with whom all of us here have had many discussions and associations in the past.

I think you have made a very fine statement and I want to express my pleasure in welcoming you here to the committee, and having you back on the Hill.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Wright. I am always glad to be back.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clark.

Mr. CLARK. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who was our colleague for a number of years, and I want to commend him for his statement. I think it is very good and very worthwhile to this committee.

I should say that I have had my doubts on section 2 of this bill, but if your Secretary, Mr. Celebrezze, would say that you would be the director, I would be very happy to support it 100 percent.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think I had better say, "No comment" on that. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Edmondson.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the Secretary, too, on his splendid statement.

I am particularly pleased by his recognition of the fact, as indicated on page 4, that if we do increase the ceilings that are in effect on these individual project grants, that we are going to be able to handle fewer projects in the future and that some increase in the authorization is definitely going to be needed.

I just wonder if the Secretary would comment on the propriety of putting that increase into effect now, since we are talking about ceiling increase now, in order to maintain the volume of projects in the future that are needed for sewage treatment.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, Mr. Edmondson, as I indicated in my statement, I think we recognize that we cannot have it both ways. You cannot increase the individual project ceiling and keep the overall ceiling firm and not reduce the number of projects.

Up to now we have moved in one direction. But on the basis of experience under this program, there is increasing evidence that the construction grant program has been most effective. There is no question that the amount of construction that has gone on in the sewage treatment area in this country in the last 6 to 8 years has increased threefold or fourfold. But I think if you examine the record, the construction program, as it has functioned to date, has been largely a godsend and a blessing for the large towns and the small cities.

I think the really small towns, the small town with maybe only 2,500 people, that have a very small tax base, have not generally been able to take advantage of the program, as they have not been in a position to come up with the 70 percent in order to qualify for the Federal Government's 30 percent.

On the other hand, our larger cities and I think this has been dramatized by Governor Rockefeller's recent announcement on the water pollution situation in the State of New York-our larger cities have not found the $600,000 ceiling particularly attractive. It does not give them enough help to move them closer to their goal.

One other generalization I would make, I would say that the accelerated public works program demonstrated that the cities, large or small, in our economically depressed areas of this country, did not find the regular construction program as attractive as we would have hoped they would. It was not until, under the accelerated public works program where we were able to make as much as 50, or in some instances, 60 percent of the Federal dollars available, that many areas that are economically depressed were able to move, simply because talking to them about 30 percent meant nothing, because they just could not, in their economically depressed condition, do much about raising the 70 percent.

So we have a problem here. I think there is a general recognition of it in the Senate action, in the chairman's bill. I think there is a general recognition of it on the part of the administration. But what we are suggesting is that we would go ahead with the more modest increase under the present ceiling as provided for in the Senate bill and then next year, as we face up to the overall problem of extending the program beyond fiscal 1967, that we really think through what the new ceiling ought to be and that maybe we give some hard study to whether the formula ought not to be revised in ways that would make it more effective or more attractive to those cities and towns that up to now have not been able to take advantage of it.

Mr. JONES. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Yes.

Mr. JONES. How many projects have been dropped due to the expiration of the accelerated public works program?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Jones I cannot answer that. Clearly there were projects that could not go forward as we used up the accelerated public works fund and no more

Mr. JONES. And had been approved?

Mr. QUIGLEY. They were in the pipeline and would, had the funds continued, the program continued, undoubtedly be reached and by now in many instances would be under construction. In some instances, some of those projects were able to qualify under the regular program. In other instances, they are just kind of hanging fire be