Mr. QUIGLEY. You have the international boundary line there, too. Mr. McEwEN. We have in the five Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River vast areas of water, with which Mr. Sweeney is concerned, and many of us are concerned, as far as existing pollution and the threat of even more pollution, and we are aware of this boundary waters treaty of 1909. The reference, I think, has already been made by the Governments of Canada and the United States to the International Joint Commission, and I wondered what the Secretary's authority under the present law, and under this proposed bill, would be in relation to these boundary waters.

Mr. BLATNIK. We will get the correct information for you for the record. I think I am correct in saying the boundary waters would come under the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission. Its jurisdiction extends to all aspects of waters which form boundaries between two countries.

Mr. MCEWEN. In other words, it would be your view the Secretary could not promulgate standards on those waters that are boundary waters?

Mr. BLATNIK. No. But he could call them to the attention of the Department of State and of the U.S. members of the International Joint Commission. Our members would attempt to take it up with the Canadian authorities or their counterparts.

If there are no further questions, Mr. Secretary, I, too, and the members of the committee, thank you for a very extensive and exhaustive presentation and interrogation on a subject which is becoming increasingly more and more complex, becoming of greater and graver importance. There is a growing awareness throughout the country that sooner or later this must be met with and that we will face an impossible situation, unless we start taking steps now.

I commend you on your knowledge of the subject matter, and particularly on the very technical points covered, and the legal and procedural matters. We will discuss these in further detail in executive session and in consultation with the legal staffs of your Department and the committee.

To Mr. Ellenbogen and Mr. Coston, your associates, we extend our sincere thanks for their assistance.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity.

(The following was furnished by insertion :)

Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

February 18, 1965.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 5, 1965, for a report on H.R. 3988, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to provide grants for research and development, to increase grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to authorize the establishment of standards of water quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters, and for other purposes.

The bill would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466) as follows:

1. It would state the act's purpose to be the enhancement of the quality and value of the Nation's water resources and the establishment of a national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.

2. Overall responsibility for administration of the act would continue to be vested in the Secretary, but the bill would establish within this Department a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration through which the Secretary would administer the act. The Secretary would appoint and, with the assistance of an Assistant Secretary designated by the Secretary, would supervise and direct the head of the new Administration (as well as the administration of other functions of the Department related to water pollution). An additional Assistant Secretary position for this Department would be provided by amending section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953.

3. It would authorize grants to States, municipalities, or intermunicipal or interstate agencies to assist in projects, which will demonstrate new or improved methods of controlling the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes from storm sewers or combined storm and sanitary sewer systems. For that purpose, it would authorize appropriations of $20 million for each of 4 fiscal years, beginning with the present fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, but no single grant could exceed 5 percent of the annual authorization; i.e., $1 million.

4. It would increase the limitations on grants for assisting municipalities in the construction of waste treatment facilities from $600,000 to $2 million in the case of a single project and from $2,400,000 to $6 million for a multimunicipal project in which two or more communities join. Additionally, it would authorize a 10-percent incentive increase in the amount of a grant for a project which is certified as conforming with a plan of development for the metropolitan area in which the project is located.

5. It would authorize us to prepare, in consultation with affected interests, regulations setting forth standards of water quality (taking into account all legitimate water uses) for specific interstate waters or portions thereof, and to promulgate them if the appropriate States and interstate agencies have not developed consistent standards of quality within a reasonable time. And it provides that the violation of such promulgated Federal standards, or of State or interstate standards that are consistent with Federal standards proposed but not promulgated, is subject to abatement under the existing enforcement provisions.

6. It would direct the initiation of Federal enforcement action (by calling a confidence) to abate pollution which results in substantial economic injury from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce "because of [such] pollution and action of Federal, State, or local authorities." 7. It would empower the Secretary or his designee to administer oaths and to compel by the issuance of subpenas the presence of witnesses and the production of evidence that relates to any matter under investigation in connection with the exercise of the Federal enforcement authority.

8. And it would require recipients to keep adequate cost records in regard to grant assistance provided under the act and authorize audit and examination of such records by the Comptroller General as well as this Department.

In proposing in his state of the Union message (H. Doc. 1, 89th Cong.) delivered to the Congress on January 4, 1965, "that we end the poisoning of our rivers," President Johnson committed this administration to a more vigorous and intensified effort in resolving the serious national water pollution problem. The President defined three major approaches for meeting the challenge, in recommending legal power to prevent pollution before it happens; in calling for a stepped-up effort to control harmful wastes, giving first priority to the cleanup of our most contaminated rivers; and in pledging that we will increase research to learn much more about the control of pollution.

In his message on natural beauty, delivered to the Congress on February 8, the President further described the administration's recommendations for strengthening the water pollution control program. H.R. 3988, as above outlined, would take welcome steps in that direction. While we expect to present additional legislative proposals on this subject with a view toward further accomplishment of the President's recommendations, we believe that they will be in harmony with the objectives of H.R. 3988.

The bill before you differs in several respects from S. 4, passed by the Senate on January 28; but its objectives are identical.

1. Section 2 of H.R. 3988 would require that the entire Federal Water Pollution Control Act be administered by the Secretary through the 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, to the new Administration. It is the definite intent, therefore, to operate as envisaged by section 2 of H.R. 3988. However, 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 dictates.

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, for example, certain of the research activities relating to water pollution could more effectively be performed, in whole or in part, by another organization 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 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 should be glad to work with the committee in carrying out this recommendation. We are, however, enclosing at this time perfecting language for this section and the related first section of the bill designed to carry out more clearly the bill's intent in this connection in its technical aspects, including power to the head of the Water Pollution Control Administration to delegate authoriy. We are also attempting to work out with the Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commission as quickly as possible with a view to suggested incorporation in the bill-such provisions as may be desirable to meet a transitional personnel problem (which we shall explain in our testimony) arising out of the necessary transfer, to the new Water Pollution Control Administration, of Public Health Service commissioned officers (mostly sanitary engineers) whom the new Commissioner will need because of their expertise in this field and over whom he should have the full control that he would have if their status is converted to civil service status and they are therefore not accountable to the Surgeon General.

2. Section 4 of H.R. 3988 would increase the grant ceilings on waste treatment construction projects from $600,000 to $2 million for single projects, and from $2.4 to $6 million for combined projects. Section 4 of S. 4 would increase these ceilings to $1 million and $4 million, respectively. Increases in these ceilings without a corresponding increase in the overall authorization of $100 million would, of course, reduce the total number of projects which can receive Federal financial assistance. We believe that some increases in project grant ceilings are necessary at this time if the needs for waste treatment facilities in larger communities are to be met. The overall authorization for this grant program expires in 1967. and further attention should be given to this matter when the question of renewing the program is considered. We would at this time recommend enactment of the smaller increases provided in S. 4, without prejudice to reconsideration of the matter in connection with any legislation proposing extension of the program. 3. H.R. 3988 would provide subpena power to the Secretary with regard to enforcement cases. This provision is not in S. 4. We recommend enactment of this provision as necessary to efficient administration of the enforcement provisions.

4. Certain differences in the provisions establishing authority for promulgating water quality standards appear in the two bills. While the language of S. 4 appears to be slightly more restrictive in its establishment of procedures, the differences are not substantial enough to give preference to one version over another.

However, two things should be noted. We are advised by counsel that, while the bills declare that the discharge of matter into interstate waters so as to reduce their quality below such standards is subject to abatement, additional amendments to other parts of the enforcement section are needed to give effect to that declaration. Suggested language for that purpose is enclosed herewith. Secondly, even with these minimum amendments, the law would still fall short of carrying out the President's recommendation that standards be "combined with a swift and effective enforcement procedure" so as to provide "a national program to prevent water pollution at its source rather than attemping to cure

pollution after it occurs." As above stated, we hope to develop and submit, as soon as possible, proposals to accomplish this objective in a way consistent with the present bills. We believe it important that action on the present bills not be delayed to await those proposals. The committee may, however, wish to consider whether, in view of the extended and plenary conference, hearing, and court procedures that the act requires for pollution abatement, the additional full-blown hearings that the bills would require instead of the rulemaking procedures of section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act amendments..

5. S. 4 contains a floor amendment requiring that all information, copyrights, uses, processes, patents, and other developments resulting from federally financed research or development under the act be made freely available to the general public. While in most instances the basic policy of this provision in regard to inventions and discoveries appears to be generally in line with the plicy of the administration as it applies to our Department, it is possible that some instances of conflict could occur. Accordingly, we would prefer to operate under the existing policy directive rather than by statutory directive.

To summarize, the additional proposed authorities embodied in H.R. 3988, with the modifications above suggested would, in our opinion, strengthen and improve the coordinated Federal-State-local program for water pollution control, prevention, and abatement. We favor, therefore, with these changes, the enactment of this legislation as necessary and desirable for the effective protection and conservation of the quality of the Nation's water resources.

We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the President's program and that the enactment of legislation along these lines would be in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely,

WILBUR J. COHEN,
Assistant Secretary.

Mr. BLATNIK. The hearing will be recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

We will begin at that time with our colleague, Mr. Emilio Daddario. Our apologies for keeping you waiting so long, and our thanks for agreeing to appear later.

(Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. BLATNIK. The House Public Works Committee will please come to order for the continuing public hearings on H.R. 3988, S. 4 and related bills, proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

This afternoon, the next witness is our able colleague and good friend, the Honorable Emilio Q. Daddario, from the State of Connecticut.

Congressman, I believe you wish to testify in particular to the section in S. 4 that relates to property rights of inventions. Is that correct?

STATEMENT OF HON. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. DADDARIO. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman, please, will you summarize your testimony?

I see you have a prepared statement. The time is yours. Now will you proceed with your testimony?

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, the measures before you are very important and I cannot imagine them to be in better hands than they are.

You and this committee have shown outstanding leadership in the past in this particular area.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to read your opening statement on the subject, and I think that one of the reasons why it is a time of widening interest, as you have put it in your statement, is because of the activity which you and the committee have shown in the past in this subject, which is of outstanding importance to the country as a whole.

It is, however, my hope that this committee will eliminate from any bill that portion of the Senate version which deals with patents, and that is the language in S. 4 which begins on page 5, line 11, and goes through page 6, line 20.

In my judgment this provision is both unnecessary and unwise. The language I have referred to, which would have the effect of turning over to the Government all property rights to any inventions which may evolve-in whole or in part-through this legislation, is an amendment added on the Senate floor by Senator Long of Louisiana.

It is a provision which was never considered in committee, which the Senate never saw until it was time to pass the bill, and which received virtually no debate considering the complexities of the subject. I would like to add, the debate did not, in fact, go so much into the substance of the amendment as into the procedure which brought it to the floor. Of course, there has been some precedent through similar provisions in prior legislation. But the method is always the same. No legislative committee ever holds hearings on the provision. The Senator from Louisiana offers the amendment on the floor. There is no debate, and the amendment is normally adopted on voice vote.

I talked about a whole series of amendments of this kind because this is not the only bill to which this amendment has been added. There has been a series of this over the course of years.

Twice the House acted in the last Congress, for example, to strip such amendments of their effect, and I participated in that action. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this provision because my goals are different from those of Senator Long. Indeed, they are undoubtedly similar-in essence, the protection of the American public and the improvement of our national economy. But I know from the comprehensive inquiry on space age patents which our committee has been forced to undertake over a period of more than 5 years that this provision which I am discussing here will neither protect the public nor improve the economy. Quite the contrary, it is damaging to both.

It is not my intent to take your time today with a long recitation of the pros and cons of Government versus private ownership of inventions. That argument is highly complicated and is set out in great detail in lengthy hearings and reports of our Subcommittee on Patents and Scientific Inventions, as well as the many studies made by the Patent and Trademark Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But I would like to describe the status and procedures of the matter so that the Members of the House will understand how much progress has been and is being made and how detrimental such provisions as this one is to the objectives of the legislation before you.

Prior to the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, no Federal department or agency was required by its organic act to handle rights to inventions