charge can affect water quality for miles. The subcommittee also learned that policing of such events requires individuals who belong to the area, live in it and know the people if the policing is to be effective. Federal agents subject to transfer seldom qualify.

These accomplishments offer this committee the key to continuing effective pollution abatement. When Congress asks for a report on specific problems or on progress, it gets attention. No administrative official commands such a response. The Government Operations Committee can consider interagency effectiveness. The Public Works Committee has the control of funds for projects which affect water quality. Together, by requiring reports on specifics, your committees can gain your mutual objective.

SUBPENA POWER

With this background, let me discuss three sections of H.R. 3988 with some specific illustrations. You draw the conclusion whether these provide the desire of Congress. If there is doubt, now is the time to provide the wording to get what you want.

H.R. 3988 provides in section 5(e) (i) the power to the Secretary or his designee to administer oaths and to compel testimony and "production of any evidence that relates to any matter under investigation under the section." This includes hearings for standards, conferences, hearings, and court action. Since both hearings and court actions are already covered, the intent is to cover conferences.

In the Senate hearings last session there was in the proposed bill authority to set standards on stream quality and standards on discharges. The committee was under the impression that standards on discharges had to be provided before standards on stream quality could be established. When they learned it unnecessary-you can set standards on a stream which has no discharges to it-the committee ruled out standards on discharges.

Then HEW drafted a form to be mailed out to all industries for data on discharges-the pounds of material in the effluents from the plants. This required Bureau of the Budget approval and the Bureau held a hearing on it. There were objections considered valid by the Bureau and approval was denied.

The Secretary of HEW called a conference on the Mahoning River on the subject of pollution from Ohio into Pennsylvania. The conference was called December 16. The information which caused the Secretary to call the conference was never disclosed. The regional HEW organization was asked to prepare a report to prove pollution and its endangerment to health or welfare in Pennsylvania. HEW visited the State department of health and asked for waste load data from the companies in Ohio. Under Ohio law the State cannot release such data unless the companies agree. HEW did not ask the State to set up a meeting with the companies and discuss their needs, but HEW made a direct request to the companies. The larger companies refused. Both the companies and the State of Ohio argued that HEW, expert on water quality, could analyze the water in Pennsylvania and tell whether there was endangerment to health or welfare.

Ohio has had a monitoring program at various points along the river for the past 2 years which measures water quality, and the U.S. Geological Survey has a station at the State line with continuous monitoring. All of this data was given to HEW but it was not used. HEW wanted only waste load data as a measure of pollution.

In order to get waste load data HEW sent a letter to Ohio threatening Ohio with loss of the Federal grants for pollution control unless the data were turned over to HEW. Ohio's answer was that this threat of blackmail deserved congressional investigation. HEW then argued it was outside the scope of Ohio law and should receive it. The Ohio reply said that it was a crime to break the law and questioned HEW's asking such an action.

At the conference the HEW representative built up a record of what he and the conference chairman argued as lack of cooperation by asking the companies if they would supply such data to HEW. I understand that Mr. R. F. Doolittle, counsel for Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., the gentleman who reported to the conferees on what the steel program is accomplishing, has submitted to this committee his reasons for refusing this request. I urge you to consider his comments.

In the hearings of this committee, Mr. Quigley was asked about possible conflict between HEW decisions on water quality and those established by a State such as New York. Mr. Quigley's bland assurances to the contrary, this is a problem right now.

I participated in a meeting in Albany last year when this was the subject of discussion. New York State has held public hearings for over 15 years to determine water uses and standards of quality. As a result, agreement has been reached on water uses and standards to protect those uses.

HEW is now engaged in a comprehensive survey and, as part of it, is recommending quality standards. New York State asked whether HEW was accepting the New York State standards. The HEW reply was that whenever it could agree with New York it would, but if there was a difference then the HEW recommendation would preempt State authority.

Since dams, reservoirs, canals, harbors all cause a change in water quality by changing the natural characteristics of the area, this committee should realize that by giving the Secretary of HEW authority to arbitrarily establish water quality standards, the committee is in effect giving the Secretary virtual veto power over all private and public works projects. This does not differ in any way from giving the Secretary the authority to decide water quality standards which would prevent a new industry or a city from locating on a river if there would be any change in the standards he promulgates.

Mr. Quigley wants you to pass a law that would give him this vast power and permit him to exercise it without even a hearing. He claims the objective is speed to promote protection of clean waters. However, it could be that he recognizes that a public hearing will provide emphasis on the local area needs and desires and this may not necessarily agree with his often stated policy that all waters shall be as clean as possible. Only opinion is needed for that decision.. HEW has slowed up pollution control by insisting on formal conferences with a record of all testimony despite Mr. Quigley's calling the session informal. It ties up the staffs in State agencies for weeks in preparation. Now he is interested in expediting a program and would make the heart of it-deciding the future of our national growth-on an informal desk opinion.

I urge you to ask your cohort, Mr. Jones, if his detailed hearings suggested either the need for possible benefits from establishing Federal standards. Mr. Chairman, if an administrator can have the power to subpena records and whatever other information he deems necessary, let me suggest what can happen:

(1) Publications of HEW on industrial operations have provided general flow diagrams of processing operations. These offer a guide to possible sources of waste. Each company has its own variations for production. As administrator could request specific plant diagrams and operation practices as well as material balances under the wording of this bill. Does the Congress intend this authority?

(2) If HEW is going to continue to measure pollution by a discharge and ignore actual stream quality, and then subpena the data, companies will stop measuring discharges. However, with no regular checks on discharges, inplant controls will go to pot and pollution control gets another setback. Does this express Congress intent?

STANDARDS

This story on waste loads ties in to standards. And as an example let me switch to another area. In the Minnesota taconite area mining and processing are the mainstays of the economy. Two approaches are used. In one the iron is removed from the ore inland and the tailings are filling large area ponds. In the other the ore is brought to the lake for separation of the iron. The iron content is low so that 1 ton of iron is recovered from 3 tons of ore. The other 2 tons are in the waste discharge to the lake.

If pollution is any discharge, this exemplifies gross pollution. If pollution is the resulting water quality, the story is entirely different. The solids are inert, not toxic and are developing as a peninsula out into the lake. But some can float away.

Mr. Chairman, if I were the Secretary under this proposed bill, I could set a standard of quality in the waters in Lake Superior which would shut down that taconite operation. The bill would give me totally discretionary authority. It does not require me to consider either the social or economic needs of an area. And any violation of that standard would cause enforcement action.

Through the efforts of this committee we have terrific electric power capacity in this country. It uses over 1,000 billion gallons of water a day-which makes a lie out of the prophets of doom who say our total supply is limited to 515 billion gallons a day.

However, many of these dams take water from the bottom of the reservoir and this may be very low or completely devoid of dissolved oxygen. As Secretary I could set a dissolved oxygen limit immediately below the dam which would limit its production.

Nuclear powerplants present the problem of cooling the reactors. This means heat to the stream. Thermal pollution. Is it? If the discharge is the control, it is. If the stream is the control, it may not be. But as Secretary I could set limits which would cause trouble even if the stream was not seriously affected. Lest this committee think this imaginary concern, let me go back to the Mahoning conference.

I have here a copy of the HEW report on the Mahoning. It is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, a sad example of a water quality evaluation. A copy of it went to Congressman Clark before the conference. I don't blame him for having real concern over the health of the people at Beaver Falls after reading the report. The report is full of innuendoes but totally lacking in any data to prove the points.

It contains, however, some "standards" of water quality proposed by HEW to "prove" pollution. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission's report at the conference questioned the validity of these standards and showed that the setting of standards takes more time and competency than HEW has demonsrated it deems worthy of expending.

However, even after this documented reporting by OrSANCO, the HEW conferee announced his decision.

To set his decisions in perspective I should note that the Mahoning conference showed a fantastic recovery of this river in the last decade.

In 1954 the river was analyzed for moisture. It was undoubtedly one of the worst polluted streams in the country.

Since then 13 cities have built sewage treatment plants. The last and largest— Youngstown-will be in full operation this year. The industries have a program which will be virtually completed by the end of 1966.

Both programs have been designed to provide an industrial water quality in the Warren-Youngstown area, and provide at the State line a quality which will not affect drinking water standards downstream.

But the HEW conferee did not agree that this was adequate. Without offering any data to support his view for the need or what the benefit-cost ratio would be, he announced that these new plants going into operation are inadequate and a greater degree of treatment must be provided within 3 years. He even gave a time schedule. This is intended to make the Mahoning, where steel mills line both banks, a fishing stream. The standards he suggested ignore all consideration of feasibility, reasonableness, and local area needs.

Congressman Michael Kirwan presented a statement to the conference on what his people wanted. In his decision the HEW conferee in effect paid no attention to the needs and desires of the citizens of the area.

The chairman of the conference gave an example of the power now assumed by HEW, even without this bill (S. 4) being passed. He told the mayor of Youngstown that under law the Corps of Engineers submits plans for public works to HEW for approval on adequacy of water quality. Where Federal funds are involved, there has been an administrative decision that complete treatment is considered minimum. He referred to the Mahoning canal being considered by the House Public Works Committee and said HEW approval is needed. The mayor learned for the first time that a canal to carry barges would require water of drinking quality.

There is a related problem deserving attention. When Congress said low flow augmentation could not be used as a substitute for adequate treatment of waste, did it mean the present interpretation by HEW that a combination of intermediate treatment and flow control to give maximum benefit at least cost is not to be permitted?

Mr. Chairman, you have some of the greatest water resources in the world in your proud State. Other States have them in varying degree. You and your committee have done a fantastic job of setting guidelines for selling pollution abatement and the fruits of your labors are now coming in.

Mr. Jones has earned undying gratitude for going into the problems of water management as well as pollution. His hearings in Washington and around the

country have done more good than he will ever know. His approach set the pattern-the only one which will sell pollution abatement. He asked individuals what their responsibility was and what they were doing about it. He did not threaten a law; he sold a conviction.

And this is the essence of President Johnson's creative federalism to accomplish his Great Society by closer Federal-State-local cooperation. We have too much at stake to destroy local initiative by providing dictatorship over what our streams shall be used for. The President wants clean streams. So do you. So do I.

I am certain that the President's dream of clean streams in his administration-I presume we have 8 years for this-will be a reality if there is FederalState-local cooperation.

But I am just as sure that if this bill as now written is passed, there will be a number of States requesting hearings to set standards before they move a program. Why should they do as Ohio did on the Mahoning and then be told they are wrong?

And then after the Secretary sets the standards, the States can call another hearing to revise the standards. This could go on and on and on. If it does. this Great Society will be in a cesspool, not blue water. President Johnson gave the Congress and the people an objective. He did not dictate the means. Don't embarrass him by substituting hasty legislation for positive accomplishment.

The CHAIRMAN. This concludes the public hearings on this legislation, proposing amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act. (Whereupon, at 6:03 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

(The following was furnished for insertion :)

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER W. RODINO, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, members of the Public Works Committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to testify in behalf of the proposed legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

For a long time I have advocated new legislation to control and correct the pollution of our water supplies. As a member of the NATO Parliamentarian's Conference Scientific and Technical Committee, I have been active in promoting studies of environmental health problems, such as air and water pollution. It is for these reasons that I introduced on January 4, 1965, my own bill, H.R. 151, and that I am here today to express strong support for the administration's bill, S. 4.

We can sum up what is happening to the streams in many parts of our country in just two words: America's shame. Water pollution in the United States has become a menace to our health, and an economic problem which robs us of the water we need. It destroys fish and wildlife, threatens outdoor recreation areas, and is often an esthetic horror.

In addition to ordinary sewage, outfalls are discharging slaughterhouse byproducts, lethal chemicals, and radioactive matter in our waterways. Polio, infectious hepatitis, and more than 30 other live viruses carried by sewage effluent have been isolated by Public Health Service officials. These germs have even been found in sewage that has already been treated. Because of the necessity of reusing water, there is an almost 50-50 chance that the water we drink has passed through someone else's plumbing or an industrial plant sewer.

The adverse effects of water pollution are much broader than health. Some industrial plants reject water as unfit for their uses. Swimming is forbidden on many beaches. Radioactive wastes are found in drainage basins. Floating garbage and other filth clog water supply intakes of some cities that take their water from open streams. Detergent foam runs from the faucets in several States. Mine acids pollute streams and kill wildlife. Oil spills kill birds and spoil beaches.

The first Federal Water Pollution Control Act, passed in 1948, authorized cooperative studies of the problem. The 1956 amendments authorized Federal grants for a small portion of the costs of sewage treatment plants. This program was strengthened and enlarged in 1961, but it is still not enough. We need to take a more positive approach to the whole problem along the lines contem

plated in H.R. 151 and in S. 4, and we need to do this immediately. The longer we wait, the greater the dangers and the larger the problem.

Our greatest need is for a new national policy for the prevention of water pollution as well as abatement of pollution already created. Passage of H.R. 151 or S. 4 will enable us to establish such a policy through the efforts of a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration directly responsible to the Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. It will also provide more money for research, development, and construction of municipal sewage treatment works.

The pollution of our waters is the worst in our history, most experts agree. And our future water needs are staggering. We are already using more than 300 billion gallons of water a day, and by 1980 we will be using 600 billion gallons each day. By the year 2000, a trillion gallons. It is clear that we are going to have to reuse our water time and time again.

Water pollution is not an insurmountable problem, but it must be worked on immediately. We must invest more money in city and industrial water treatment plants and provide more research facilities for the development of efficient techniques of waste treatment.

The bill now under consideration, S. 4, is a step toward the achievement of the cleaner water supply needed to promote good health and to serve vital functions in the areas of industry, agriculture, and recreation.

I deeply appreciate the opportunity you have given me to testify before your distinguished committee. And I urgently recommend its prompt and favorable consideration.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL S. STRATTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee on behalf of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1965.

I have supported the Water Pollution Control Act in the past and I support this legislation. It recognizes not only the vital need to clean up our rivers and waterways, but also the perfectly patent fact that without concrete and continuing help from the Federal Government this job simply cannot be done.. In fact the history of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act has shown not only that Federal assistance can be effective in meeting local pollution problems, but also that even the relatively modest amount of Federal assistance made possible by this program can and in fact already has called forth a far greater measure of local participation and initiative in meeting the problem of water pollution than was ever forthcoming before the program began.

The need to abate pollution is particularly important to the 35th Congressional District of New York with its rich endowment of natural water resources. If the people of my district are to take full advantage of the magnificent recreational possibilities and water supplies which the rivers and the lakes of our area provide, the sewage problems that confront our rural and suburban areas today must be solved. In fact the State of New York has mandated that our communities must begin to clean up this pollution.

Yet the State of New York has thus far provided no money to help these communities meet this need, and the inadequate taxing resources which local governments in my area now possess make it almost impossible for them to do the job themselves.

That is why we need this program and why we must continue and expand it as this legislation would do.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I am also constrained to invite the attention of the committee to several features of this current legislation which I believe should be altered if the program is to be of maximum effectiveness to the district which I have the honor to represent.

First of all, I strongly believe that the funds made available to local communities under this bill should be extended to cover not only sewage treatment plants and main interceptor lines but also other sewerlines as well, including laterals. The fact is that oftentimes the costs of such sewerlines are as great if not greater than the costs of the treatment plant or the major interceptor lines themselves. In my experience it often turns out that without help of this kind many communities simply cannot effectively solve their pollution problems and cannot even fully utilize the help provided by this program as it stands at the moment.