program of urban renewal and rejuvenation of the whole area. This is just another evidence of the determination of the people of western New York that a bountiful supply of clean water at the doorstep of a great metropolitan area will be assured to them and to future generations. To conclude, I should just like to, along the lines of Mr. Dingell and Mr. Ottinger, strongly recommend that we on the Public Works Committee give serious consideration to raising the limitation of Federal grants on single projects and joint projects now specified in the bill. As has been pointed out, in New York State alone at least $85 million would be needed as the Federal Government's share on projects which have the highest priority and are needed immediately. However, in view of the budget limitations, I believe that this whole matter should be reviewed at a later date this year to see how the entire program is operating. It is my hope that with the evidence provided at this time Congress will see fit to provide more funds to alleviate the serious problems of water pollution facing areas of large urban populations. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Thank you for a fine statement. Are there any questions? A point of order has been made that the House is in session. Of course, the chairman must sustain the point of order. As I understand, we had several witnesses. There has been a unanimous consent request propounded in the House by Mr. Thompson, requesting permission for the committee to sit this afternoon during the general debate on the bill that is now pending. Objections were made, and so therefore the only thing the chairman can do is to adjourn the committee until 10 o'clock in the morning. (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the committee recessed until 10 a.m., Friday, February 19, 1965.) WATER POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS ON WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:10 a.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The House Public Works Committee will please come into session. We will continue in public hearing testimony on Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments, specifically in bills H.R. 3988, S. 4, as passed by the Senate, H.R. 4627, Mr. Fallon, and other similar and related bills. We will begin with the witness we were unable to reach yesterday, Mr. James M. Quigley, Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your standing by yesterday to be available at any time should we have continued and for rearranging your schedule to get here as the first witness this morning at the convenience of the committee. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. This is probably the most important witness on this bill and I notice the obvious absence of a quorum. I realize, of course, you do not have to have a full quorum to continue the hearings, but I would suggest that with eight members present-we run into this problem quite often, Mr. Chairman, when we get into the full executive session, those that were not here when important testimony was given, it is rather difficult to go over all of it again. We are making calls on our side. Mr. SULLIVAN. We have, too, Mr. Cramer, and will continue to do so. Mr. BLATNIK. What is the gentleman's point of order? Mr. CRAMER. Point of order, the hearings having started, I was suggesting, hoping, to get more members in. We are trying to on our side. Mr. BLATNIK. I want the record to show I, too, hoped there would be more members. There was excellent attendance yesterday. We were put in a somewhat difficult position when, without our knowledge, neither available to the majority nor minority of the committee, the House committee was advanced to 11 o'clock instead of 12. Since the gentleman, the minority leader, raises this issue, and 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 |