not? We know the problem today. We have a lot of people who know the problem and are qualified to meet this problem. Now, is this an educational program or is this a program to bring about a better water supply? I am a little confused at this point.

Mr. CALHOUN. I interpret the intent of this act based on the testimony with which I am familiar and the hearings which I have read on, as being directed at the water resources needs of the Nation through the medium of bringing to bear on this problem the best talents that we could find in the educational institutions and, in the process of so doing, inspiring talented young people to devote their lives to working in that important resource area.

Senator ELLENDER. In other words, you are just trying to get somebody to do it in the future as the Senator states here.

EDUCATIONAL INTENT OF ACT

Senator PASTORE. Do you mean to tell me that in this country we don't have enough trained minds at the moment that we could bring together through some kind of an institute to investigate the inadequacy of the water supply and begin to give us some ideas now without training a whole new army of young people to become interested in this field who can give us some answers as to what we should do about the shortage of water and its relation to the explosion of the population in this country?

Mr. CALHOUN. Yes, sir. That is exactly what these institutes are intended to do.

Senator PASTORE. You did not say that. You said training young people.

Mr. CALHOUN. I was trying to be responsive to the question of why do we come in with an appropriation request at this particular moment. I was trying to point out the intent of this act and the strong emphasis upon the education that will accompany the research, and that if we start now, we gain a whole year on this educational process. Senator PASTORE. Training young people?

Mr. CALHOUN. That is right. We gain a whole year on this process. Senator PASTORE. But that does not foreclose what I suggested, of bringing in the people who are already knowledgeable in this area to do something about this immediate problem.

Mr. CALHOUN. Oh, no. That, as a matter of fact, is exactly what institutes would do.

IMPORTANCE OF WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM

Senator PASTORE. Everybody thinks that the water supply shortage is a problem for California and Arizona and the Midwestern States. We have a lot of problems in our own State. We don't have enough good water for all the people who want it. We have a lot of waterless days even in Rhode Island.

The big question is, how do you give it to all the communities? This problem is just as important in the East where you have as large a part of the population as there may be in the West. When you talk about where these institutes are going to be it strikes me that the institutes go west of the Rockies and in the Midwest and nothing happens in New England.

Mr. CALHOUN. This, sir, I believe, is why the act calls for the establishment of a center in each State so that the competent talents within that particular State will be brought together in this institute to direct its attention to the immediate problems of that State and region. I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

Senator PASTORE. When you get around to the program, too, don't forget the East. We are a part of the country, too.

Senator ALLOTT. I had the pleasure of sitting in on the original hearings on this matter. The very point that the Senator from Rhode Island makes is the only point that would have passed this bill and that was that the whole question of water supply and water availability and its use throughout the entire United States had to be a matter of immediate concern to the entire Nation.

I don't think we were considering the training of people per se. What we were really trying to do when we passed this bill was to try to set up research institutes in each of the States which wished to have one made available to them so that the people there who were knowledgeable on the water resources could make that knowledge applicable to the individual State, recognizing that this was getting to be a problem in the East, the South, as well as it is in the West.

Senator PASTORE. That is all I am saying.

Senator ALLOTT. But I would still like to know the names of the 15 States.

Senator PASTORE. I bet you Rhode Island is not in it. Not that that is the whole question but I don't think this ought to be a question of where it goes.

STARTING PROGRAM UNDER PRESENT FUNDS

Senator HOLLAND. The thing I don't like about this is the approach to apparently set up 15 the first year. When you look at the legislation it allows for the setting up of these institutes in all of the States. It would allow $75,000 the first year and larger sums the second and the third year for these institutes.

The effect of this partial beginning at one time would be to give preference to those States that start this year because they not only get started this year with the $75,000 but they will get more the second year than those who go into the program the next year. What I think this agency should do is to work up its program this year and report it back in the regular budget for next year so that we can give every State a fair chance to participate from the beginning and on an equal basis.

I agree with that idea suggested by the Senator from Rhode Island that there should be equality between the various States. Now how much would it take you to work up your program in this first year?

You see by your budget what you propose to do is to work it up in part. You have put in here $1,125,000 which is $75,000 each for 15 States the first year. The program does call for an enlarged appropriation each year thereafter, going up to a larger amount the second year and still larger amount the third year.

Mr. CALHOUN. The proposed administrative amount here would not be directed to simply setting up institutes in these 15 States for which money would be allocated but would also be directed to setting up the entire program.

It was not our intent to infer that this whole amount of funds for administration in this request would be focused around 15 States. The intent is to lay out the entire program. I think we can do it with the amount requested.

AMOUNT FOR INSTITUTES

Senator HOLLAND. But you show here in your breakdown of your requested amount that by far the largest part of it, $1,125,000, would go for item 1, which is assistance to States for institutes.

Mr. CALHOUN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. That means $75,000 for each of 15 States. My point is that all the rest that you have in here, which is a very small amount, I think less than $300,000, is for the development of the whole program.

What I think you should be asking for is funds to develop a rounded program to submit back here at one time.

Mr. CALHOUN. Let me comment, sir, in this way. It would take approximately $350,000 to staff up this year to develop and administer a full program, including all of the program planning that would be incurred in launching 51 institutes.

READINESS TO RECEIVE REQUESTS

May I go back and simply say that we fully recognize that all 50 of these States are going to come in and we think when we put out rules and regulations and say that we are ready to receive requests we are going to have applications from approximately 50 States by the first of the year and they will be able to demonstrate that they are qualified.

It was in the interest of getting this program on the road that we said, well, we can be sure of at least 15 of these, so let us get it on the road this way. I support wholeheartedly the thought that we need to get into all 50 States as fast as we can.

Senator HOLLAND. Yet the program you outline will give $75,000 in Federal grants in the first year to only 15 States. It would set them on the road earlier than the other States.

Mr. CALHOUN. That is right, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. And they would have larger amounts the second year than those who come in next year for the first time.

Mr. CALHOUN. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. I don't think that is equal treatment.
Chairman HAYDEN. Are there any further questions?

Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Chairman, I note that the primary object is to provide for development of procedures and rules for planning with universities and colleges for the implementation of this act. Mr. CALHOUN. Yes, sir.

PERSONNEL SITUATION

Senator ELLENDER. Now, you said that you had provided for eight employees?

Mr. CALHOUN. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. And that as the program develops it will require 22.

Mr. CALHOUN. Approximately 22 we estimate.

Senator ELLENDER. Will this be by way of grants to each college or subsidy?

Mr. CALHOUN. You mean the program, itself?

Senator ELLENDER. Well, you have $1,375,000 for "Grants, subsidies, and contributions." What do you mean by "Grants, subsidies, and contributions"?

Mr. CALHOUN. $1,125,000 of that would be allocations to 15 States at $75,000 per State under section 100 (a), for setting up the institutes.

ALLOTMENT TO STATES

Senator ELLENDER. Under what basis, matching?

Mr. CALHOUN. No, this is an out-and-out allotment to the State under title I, section 100 (a), of the act.

Senator ELLENDER. For what will the $75,000 be used?

Mr. CALHOUN. That will be used for a program which is laid out by the universities which sets up the institute in accordance with a program plan which they present, which will show in what way they desire to use this money. We will have to review this program plan, we will have to make a determination as to whether or not it overlaps or would duplicate anything that is now in existence.

We would have to make a determination as to the competency of the people involved and to the reasonableness of the expenditures and the expectancy of results.

Senator ELLENDER. Will that be used to pay students to study? Mr. CALHOUN. We think it would be used primarily to pay salaries of experts, faculty persons, who can be identified to come together, as Senator Pastore suggested, to focus their attention on the water resource needs.

Senator ELLENDER. Who, I presume, are already members of the faculty of the applying college.

Mr. CALHOUN. I would presume so; yes.

QUESTION OF SUBSIDY

Senator ELLENDER. So that is in the nature of a subsidy to the college.

Mr. CALHOUN. Yes; one can look at it this way.

Senator ELLENDER. How do you differentiate it from a subsidy? Mr. CALHOUN. These funds will be for work in addition to what had been done previously. Then in addition, sir, to this basic allottment to set up and continue the institute, these institutes would come back in with specific research project proposals under section 101 of the act. These would be on a competitive basis and these would be for matching grants.

These would be for identifiable specific pieces of work which could not be done otherwise and which were judged on the basis of merit.

DETERMINATION OF PROJECTS

Senator ELLENDER. Who would be the judge of that?

Mr. CALHOUN. This would be a determination made in my office by the staff plus outside advisers and representatives of Government agencies who are knowledgeable in water resources and who could speak to the importance of problem and the merit of the proposed work.

Senator ELLENDER. Now, before any moneys are requested for fiscal year 1966, is it your intention to present to us the amount of money that will be spent by way of subsidies and grants and contributions? Mr. CALHOUN. The Secretary of the Interior is required to make an annual report.

Senator ELLENDER. I am talking about your appropriations. You are asking for grants, subsidies and contributions of $1,375,000. Now, how have you divided that up as to grants, subsidies and contributions?

Mr. CALHOUN. $1,125,000 to set up the basic institutes on what you referred to as a subsidy.

Senator ELLENDER. You referred to it, I didn't. You have it here in your justification.

Mr. CALHOUN. That is correct. Our justification shows the $1,125,000 as subsidies, and also $250,000 for grants, matching grants.

Senator ELLENDER.. That is the way you propose to do it this year? Mr. CALHOUN. Yes, sir. The total grants and allocations is the $1,375,000.

MEANING OF "CONTRIBUTIONS"

Senator ELLENDER. What do you mean by contributions? I suppose you prepared this justification? On item 41 here, the third page

Mr. CALHOUN. I am advised by the budget officer that this is a general title that is used to cover this in standard budgetary forms. Actually this money would be allocated under a memorandum of agreement, contract, or other piece of paper which would set forth the conditions under which the money was allocated or granted, and the requirements that would be placed upon the institutions to respond.

So in this sense the use of the word contribution does not mean the usual sense of giving anything.

CRITERIA FOR GRANTS

Senator ELLENDER. Now have you a particular formula to give out, the $75,000 that you have suggested to each college?

Mr. CALHOUN. Yes, sir. The act states that the institutes shall be competent and qualified. The act describes the duty of the institute which shall be to plan and conduct or arrange for components of their institution to carry on research work.

So, we will set up in our regulations a list of the things which we will expect the applicant for institute funding to lay out. This will include, according to our present planning, this will include a full program of work, it will include a delineation of how they expect to spend the money on salaries of staff members or on equipment or on other services in order to get the job done that they say they are going to get done. It will require a complete delineation of this amount. Senator ELLENDER. And the purpose of that is to establish these institutes so that from here out this insitute, if selected, will train people

Mr. CALHOUN. Will carry on research and educate people.

Senator ELLENDER. And educate people for the future. That is the purpose of it?

Mr. CALHOUN. Yes, sir.