January 28, 19 65
1525
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill S. 4, 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.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the amendment which I have offered is much more limited in its scope than the amendment which was offered by the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] and which was voted on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator from Kentucky yield to himself?
Mr. COOPER. I yield myself 15 minutes. At the outset I wish to make clear to Senators who are present the essential purpose of my amendment. In the event that the pending bill, S. 4, should become law, my amendment would assure that if the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare promulgates water quality standards, then all States, States joining in compacts, municipalities, and water control agencies who would be affected, would be assured the right of full administrative and judicial review.
The distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the distinguished ranking minority member from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] and the members of his Subcommittee on Water Pollution Control have worked hard to bring the Senate a bill providing for more effective water pollution control policies. I congratulate them. I am interested in their objectives. In 1947 and 1948, when I served on the Committee on Public Works, we approved, and Congress later approved, the first Water Pollution Control Act, an act introduced by Senator Taft and Senator Barkley. I was happy to support it. In the years following that, I have supported other amendments to make the act more effective in the interest of water pollution.
Last year, I stated in the debate on the floor, my reasons for opposing the bill reported by the Committee on Public Works, and earlier in this debate I have outlined my reasons for opposing S. 4.
But now I come to the purpose of my amendment. Section 10 of S. 4, which is before the Senate, provides, among other things -- and this is essentially the thrust of the bill -- that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall be authorized to promulgate water quality standards for every interstate body, or navigable water adjacent to one or more States. So at the beginning, let me say that in its geographical scope, it is not a small bill that we are considering; it is a bill which affects every State and countless miles of waters, waters upon which are located great and small cities and many industries, waters whose purity, and whose use for agriculture, industry, water supply, recreation, and the propagation of fish and wildlife, concern us as we look to the future.
The bill is broad not only in its geographical scope; it is broad in the effect that it could have upon every State, every municipality, and thousands of industries, and farms throughout the Nation. I do not believe I would have to argue to the members of the Committee on Public Works, especially the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] that I do not speak in that committee or on the floor of the Senate for any special interest, and I do not do so now. The point I wish to make is that the bill gives to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare tremendous authority and power, a power which I will say again is not matched, in my opinion, by the power of any other official of the Federal Government. I doubt whether the President of the United States has such power, except with respect to foreign affairs. It is a power that would enable the Secretary to promulgate water quality standards. It is an authority that is given him to take measures to abate any nuisance, which is defined in the bill as any discharge into the water which would reduce the water quality standards he has established.
The bill gives him the power to zone interstate waters, and navigable waters adjacent to States, reaching our lakes and the ocean itself. I do not say it will be used; nevertheless, it is a power which would enable the Secretary to determine what portion of a stream should be set aside for industry, what portion should be used for agricultural purposes, what portion for recreation, and what portion for the development of fish and wildlife and for such other uses as he may determine.
This is a new legislative concept. If there were proper precautions drawn about the proposal, which would give States, municipalities, and others concerned an adequate role in the development of the standards which affect them and, finally, the right of judicial review,
I would not oppose this concept. It does look ahead to a better, purer water supply for the Nation, a more beautiful country, and the general public interest as the Senator from Maine has said.
The Senator from Maine will argue, as he has -- and very effectively, at least to the Senate -- that all of these rights are preserved in the bill. I disagree with him. I have not been able to convince him. I was not able to convince the Committee on Public Works or the Senate last year. Nevertheless, I hold to my views, derived from my study of the bill.
Before the Secretary can promulgate standards, he must consult with the States, municipalities, and others concerned, and must hold public hearings. But that does not affect his sole and ultimate authority to promulgate and make effective water quality standards.
It is true also that after he promulgates the regulations, public hearings can be held upon the request of a Governor. The Secretary would have the authority to revise or modify original standards that had been promulgated. That is a fair procedure, but it does not affect his essential authority to promulgate the standards.
The Senator from Maine will argue against my insistence that there be written into the bill provisions guaranteeing to the parties affected the right to resort to the courts. He will say, in my judgment, as he said in committee, that this right is assured under its enforcement procedures. I make the point that the enforcement sections apply to the abatement of a nuisance and provide procedures to be followed after a nuisance occurs.
My amendment insists that after the standards are promulgated and before the nuisance occurs that States, municipalities, and individuals actually affected by the standards, and showing cause to courts, would have the right to be heard.
I shall discuss the specifics of my amendment, then I shall be finished.
The first section, section (c) (1) is essentially the same as provided by S. 4.
Subsection (2), of my amendment, prescribing the criteria under which the Secretary would act in proposing and promulgating water quality standards, is essentially the same as contained in S. 4 with one distinction.
I propose criteria in addition to the criteria of S. 4. I refer to the practicability and economic feasibility of attaining such standards. This is practical and necessary and fair.
The criteria of S. 4 includes the value of such waters for public water supplies, industrial use, propagation of fish, wildlife resources, and recreational resources.
I have added another factor: "the practical and economic feasibility of attaining such standards" which is a necessary factor, in all commonsense.
Subsection 3 of my amendment is very much like the language in S. 4, which authorizes a public hearing after the regulations are proposed by the Secretary. My amendment is somewhat more specific.
My amendment would require that regulations be published in the Federal Register, copies be transmitted to the States and other agencies which would be affected, and then all parties affected would be given 90 days in which to prepare for public hearing, and then the right to present their views if they believe revision is indicated.
This is an important distinction between my amendment and S. 4. Hearings under S. 4 are limited to the request of Governors. My amendment opens hearings to all parties affected. This is elemental justice.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COOPER. I shall yield in a few moments. S. 4 would permit only the Governor of a State to ask for a public hearing, to ask for modifications and revision. My amendment would not limit this power to the State, but would extend it also to municipalities that might be affected, great cities such as Cincinnati and Cleveland.
I think of those cities because I see the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE] in the Chamber. I am not trying to persuade him to vote for this amendment on that account. But, municipalities all over the country would be concerned.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I shall yield later. I would like to finish first. I have never had the chance to present my position in whole to the Senate.
I learned a great deal from the Senator from Maine. My amendment contains the same provision as S. 4, which is that the Secretary could not put into effect his standards until the States have had an opportunity to promulgate their own water quality standards. Again, I know that the Senator will argue, "We are giving the States a chance."
I say that it is a fictitious chance because the standards that they would be required to establish must be identical with the standards that the Secretary would promulgate or consistent with them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, no matter what is said, in essence, the ultimate and complete power is given to one man to fix water quality standards for every interstate stream in the country, including zoning, if he so determined. I shall read the last provision of my amendment and I do not see how anyone could be opposed to it. It reads:
Except as otherwise specifically provided by this Act, hearings and determinations under this Act shall be made, and subject to administrative and judicial review, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Administrative Procedure Act provides for adequate administrative review. It provides also that after a final rule is made, an affected party may obtain a review in the circuit court of appeals. The review would not go into the question de novo, but would go to the abuse of discretion by the official or agency entering the order.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section 1009, title 5, of the Administrative Procedure Act, subsection 19, United States Code, 1958 edition, be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the section was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
1009. Judicial review of agency action.
Except so far as (1) statutes preclude judicial review or (2) agency action by law committed to agency discretion
(a) Right of review: Any person suffering legal wrong because of any agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.
(b) Form and venue of proceedings: The form of proceeding for judicial review shall be any special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in any court specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action (including actions for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory injunction or habeas corpus) in any court of competent jurisdiction. Agency action shall be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement except to the extent that prior, adequate, and exclusive opportunity for such review is provided by law.
(c) Acts reviewable: Every agency action made reviewable by statute and every final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in any court shall be subject to judicial review. Any preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable shall be subject to review upon the review of the final agency action. Except as otherwise expressly required by statute, agency action otherwise final shall be final for the purposes of this subsection whether or not there has been presented or determined any application for a declaratory order, for any form of reconsideration, or (unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and provides that the action meanwhile shall be inoperative) for an appeal to superior agency authority.
(d) Relief pending review: Pending judicial review any agency is authorized where it finds that justice so requires, to postpone the effective date of any action taken by it. Upon such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, every reviewing court (including every court to which a case may be taken on appeal from or upon application for certiorari or other writ to a reviewing court) is authorized to issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of any agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings.
(e) Scope of review: So far as necessary to decision and where presented the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of any agency action. It shall (A) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (B) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (4) without observance of procedure required by law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in any case subject to the requirements of sections 1006 and 1007 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (6) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations the court shall review the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. (June 11, 1946, ch. 324, § 10, 60 Stat. 243.)
EFFECTIVE DAYS
Section as effective three months after June 11, 1946, see section 1011 of this title.
CROSS REFERENCES
Section applicable to functions exercised under International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949, see section 1642 (1) of title 7, Agriculture.
Section applicable to judicial review of any agency action under the Atomic Energy Act of 1964, see section 2231 of title 42, the Public Health and Welfare.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I shall not misquote the Senator from Maine. The Senator made the statement in committee that my amendment would open the doors to everyone, whether or not they had an interest. Section 1009, subsection (a) of the Administrative Procedure Act defines those persons affected and the reasons for giving parties the right to go to the courts. So, I would say that there is no strength to that argument.
Last year, the committee held hearings for 6 days. No Governor testified before the committee. Few State water control commissioners were represented before the committee. It went to the Committee on Public Works of the House after the bill passed the Senate. The committee considered the bill. It heard the testimony of about 25 Governors and State water pollution control boards. All raised the questions that I have raised here today. The committee refused to accept S. 4, with respect to the authority to be given the Secretary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I close by saying that if the protections I seek can be included in the present bill respecting the formulation of standards and the assurance of judicial review, I would support the concept of water quality standards. But, I could not vote for the bill, in the form it has been presented to the Senate, without these proper safeguards.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an additional 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, in reading the amendment, I note that prior to the promulgation of the rule, hearings are to be conducted. The Secretary then has the right to promulgate a rule. May I ask whether the amendment would afford the affected parties a right to be heard after the rule is recommended, and before adoption?
Mr. COOPER. Yes. I must say that we are in accord on that.
Mr. MUSKIE. S. 4 does that also.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, after the regulation has been published -- and my amendment would require publication and notice -- then a public hearing could be requested.
The distinction between the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine and my amendment is that the amendment of the Senator from Maine would allow only the Governor of a State to request a public hearing, unless the Secretary wanted to do it on his own motion.
My amendment would permit any affected public party to ask for a public hearing. This is in accord with principles of justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, touching the last point first
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MONDALE in the chair). How much time does the Senator yield himself ?
Mr. MUSKIE. Fifteen minutes.
Touching the last point first, so that my reply may be close to the statement made by the Senator from Kentucky, let me say that the procedures set up in the rulemaking and policymaking authority given in S. 4 are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Senator has said that S. 4 gives only the Governor the right to appeal from any water quality standard established by the Secretary. That is not so. S. 4 provides, following the promulgation of the standard, that the Governor may then petition, in accordance with the procedure followed in establishing the standard in the first instance, for a revision of the standard; but in addition to the provision in S. 4 is this provision of the Administrative Procedure Act. We have gone over this in the committee, and the matter is plain and clear:
Every agency shall accord any interested person -- any interested person – the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
So the provision of S. 4 must be read in connection with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
If there is any doubt in the Senator's mind or that of any other Senator that the Administrative Procedure Act is applicable, I shall be happy to accept an amendment to this effect: All action taken under this section for the adoption of standards and the promulgation of rules and regulations shall be taken in conformance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
There is no question in my mind, or that of any other lawyer who has addressed himself to this question, that the Administrative Procedure Act will be applicable to this bill if it is passed. But if there is any doubt, I shall be happy to accept the amendment.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. I was about to ask the Senator from Maine, if that safeguard is already provided for in the Administrative Procedure Act, what his objection was to accepting the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. It seems to me it would be better to have a duplication of this authority than to take a chance on some definition which might be placed on the various sections of the law later. I wondered what his objection was. I am sorry I have not been on the floor long enough to have heard all the argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, the provision of S. 4 with which we are dealing is the product of 2 years' work, careful refining and polishing, so that members of the committee on both sides know what it means and what its implications are. There is no doubt in our minds about it.
The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky has been presented to me in its present form for the first time in the past 30 minutes. From such examination as I have been able to give it in that time it does not seem to me that it changes sufficiently to make different, in my judgment, the provisions or objectives of S. 4. It says the same thing, in language that has not had the kind of testing and refining that the language in the bill has.
For example, the Senator's amendment provides that the regulations shall be published in the Federal Register. That is a requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Mr. AIKEN. My question is: Does the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky do violence to S. 4, the bill itself ?
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot be sure. The Senator from Kentucky obviously feels it does, or he would not have offered it. He is not in the habit of offering frivolous amendments. And because of that conviction, I must be careful when I say that in my judgment it does not differ from S. 4.
Mr. AIKEN. The reason I ask the question is that I know the Senator from Kentucky is not in the habit of offering amendments that do violence to a worthy bill. I wondered what the objection was. Perhaps the Senator from Kentucky can explain what his amendment would do which the Senator from Maine has not been able to discern up to now.
I have a great deal of respect for both the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Kentucky. I dislike to vote against either of them. Therefore, I must get down to the merits in making up my mind.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree.
In the first place, the Senator's amendment is presented in the context of the argument which he has made; and the argument which he has made includes what he considers to be a list of dangers in S. 4. He leaves the implication that his amendment will deal with this matter. Otherwise, the argument has no relevance.
For example, he has said that this amendment is designed to protect the right to judicial review which, somehow, S. 4 has presumably jeopardized.
S. 4 does not jeopardize the right to judicial review. But if it does, the Senator's amendment does nothing different from S. 4 to correct that weakness.
Secondly, the Senator from Kentucky expresses concern about the vast geographical scope that S. 4 would give to the Secretary's control over the waters of the Nation.
Here, again, if that is a danger in S. 4, the Senator's amendment does nothing to correct it.
Moreover, the bill does not enlarge by a cubic inch of water the jurisdiction of the Secretary under present law. So the jurisdictional territory does not change under S. 4. But if it did, the Senator's amendment does not correct that point.
Third, the Senator complains that S. 4 is too broad in its effect over States, municipalities, and industries. If, indeed, S. 4 does go beyond reasonable bounds in this respect, again the Senator's amendment does not touch the point in any different way than does S. 4.
The Senator from Kentucky speaks of the vast authority and power S. 4 gives to the Secretary.
I have indicated that S. 4 provides ample protections. But if it does not, the Senator's amendment does not change the bill, if it is adopted, in its effect in that respect.
The fifth point the Senator makes is that S. 4 gives the Secretary power to zone all our waters. I do not believe that is true. But if it is true, it is true as a result of the powers the Secretary now has.
For example, under section 2 of the present law is this language, and the title of the section: "Comprehensive Programs for Water Pollution Control":
The Secretary shall, after careful investigation, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters.
This is a power the Secretary now has. S. 4 does not enlarge it in any way. But under S. 4 it is required that the Secretary, in advance of any attempt on his part to use enforcement powers which the law gives him, to establish standards so that industrial and other users and interstate agencies may understand in advance what is expected of them. He cannot exercise even this much authority without the safeguards which have been outlined in that section, which I shall be happy to discuss in detail.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. If the Senator's only objection to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky is one of doubt in that the meaning may not be clear, would he not be willing to take the amendment to conference? I am sure all of us believe the question will be cleared up there. I expect to vote for the measure, as I did previously.
It seems to me it is better to state a certain position of authority twice than it is to run the risk of leaving it out, if it is a desirable matter.
Mr. MUSKIE. If there were a way to bring the Senator's language into the bill, in addition to the committee's language, I would have no particular objection to the surplusage, but he offers it as a substitute. Therefore, the Senator from Vermont puts us in the position of saying that, as between two versions which say essentially the same thing, we are to take something developed in the past 6 hours rather than something which has been developed over the last 2 years.
Mr. AIKEN. I am not saying, I am asking. I am not saying.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Is there any specific language in S. 4 giving the right to an aggrieved party to avail himself of the Administrative Procedure Act and to appeal to the courts, in the event he believes that his rights have ben violated by the finding made? Is there any specific language in S. 4 to that effect?
Mr. MUSKIE. In the first place, S. 4 does not deal with the enforcement authority of the Secretary, that is, with the procedure for using that enforcement authority. It deals only with the question of establishing standards of water quality in advance of any enforcement situation.
If the enforcement powers are invoked, they are spelled out in present law and are not changed by S. 4, except to insert the test of practicability on standards. Otherwise, the enforcement powers are not changed. If they are invoked, there is ample protection for the individual.
First of all, the Secretary must call a conference. At that conference, all interested States, interstate agencies, industries, and municipalities are parties. A case is made for the factual basis, for the consideration of the Secretary. The conference then reports to the Secretary with recommendations, if it chooses.
In a report to State and interstate agencies, the Secretary then provides for a minimum of 6 months to act in accordance with the conference report. If they fail to act, the Secretary can then convene a hearing board.
Each of the States involved can appoint a member of the hearing board. The Federal Government is also represented. The hearing board then hears all the interested parties. At the conclusion of its deliberations, it files a report with the Secretary indicating what, if anything, the hearing board concludes as to the state of pollution; what, if anything, it concludes about steps to be taken to alleviate the situation; and also what, if anything, it recommends for additional action.
The Secretary then sends those recommendations to the States and the interstate agencies and gives them no less than 6 months to do something about it. If they fail to act, he then asks the Attorney General to invoke the judicial process.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator from Kentucky suggests that we write into the bill the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act and the right to appeal. Is there any specific language in S. 4 stating that the Administrative Procedure Act applies, and that a party who believes himself to be wronged may go to court?
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous Consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 additional minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. If it is not, what is wrong with putting it into the bill and resolving the question positively, so that it does apply and the right to go to court exists?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be happy to accept the language of the suggestion and insert the following language:
All action taken under this action for the adoption of standards in the promulgation of rules and regulations shall be taken in conformity with provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
I have no objection to such a provision. I believe it is unnecessary, but I would be happy to accept that language.
Mr. President, I offer that amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that before doing so it will be necessary to obtain unanimous consent.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am sorry -- I withdraw my suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's request is withdrawn.
Mr. LAUSCHE. One further question. The Senator from Kentucky has stated that in his amendment there is certain following language which is not in S. 4 -- namely, that in determining the quality standards and what shall be done to procure them, there shall be considered the practicability and economic feasibility of obtaining such standards.
Will the Senator discuss what his proposal provides on that item, and what his position is on it? On page 10 there is some language relating to the practicability of complying with such standards as may be applicable. Is that in here?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
The language about which the Senator from Ohio inquires is found in two places; first, in the provision which has to do with the standard that the court shall use in evaluating not only the standard, but also the practicability of the abatement orders which it is considering. Thus, the court is given that authority under S. 4.
Second, in addition to the language which the Senator has just brought to my attention at the top of page 10, it gives the hearing board -- to which I referred earlier in my colloquy with the Senator -- the same mandate to consider the practicability of applying such standards as may be applicable.
Obviously the mandate to the court and the mandate to the hearing board which establishes the size of the opening at one end of the pipe would control what goes on at the other end of the pipe.
The Secretary must consider, as he frames these standards, that they will be subject to the test of practicability, first by the hearing board and second by the court, so the test is clearly set out. There is no question about it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. If the Senator from Maine will allow me to proceed, I wish to answer the arguments the Senator has made respecting my statement supporting my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought the Senator rose to answer a question.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator from Maine stated a few minutes ago that he was about to respond to the propositions I had made in my statement. I desire to answer his argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky on his own time.
Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. COOPER. The statement was made that my amendment is a new one, and had not been made until a few minutes ago. It is correct that I reduced in form the amendment I offered in the committee, which spelled out in detail the right of affected parties for review in the circuit court of appeals of any regulation the Secretary might promulgate.
In place of such specific detail I have put this language in my pending amendment:
Except as otherwise specifically provided by this act, hearings and determinations under this act shall be made, and subject to administrative and judicial review, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
This in substance, is exactly what I have been arguing for in committee for 2 years. I have offered the substance of this language -- the right of judicial review in hearings and the last time, only yesterday. The distinguished Senator f rom Maine would not accept it. He would not agree to it.
The committee would not agree to it and voted it down.
The second response I make is this: The Senator has referred to the additional criteria which my amendment proposes "the practicability and economic feasibility of attaining such standards".
The Senator has stated that this language is contained in S. 4 with respect to abatement proceedings. That is an entirely different matter. It is correct that when proposals for abatement are considered and recommendations are made by the hearing board, the question of the practicability and economic feasibility of abatement plans may be considered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. COOPER. I shall yield in a moment. But the criteria I offer goes to the development of the water quality standards. That is entirely separate from their application in our statement proceedings.
Third. My amendment relating to public hearings is not limited to a Governor making a request, but gives the right to any affected party, anyone affected within the terms of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Senator from Maine argues that the Administrative Procedure Act applies, even without its specific mention in the bill. Even if it is correct that it does apply, without a specific provision in the act saying it is applicable, yet if there is language in the act which contradicts the language of the Administrative Procedure Act, as S. 4 does, of course the language of the bill would supersede the Administrative Procedure Act.
I shall not detain the Senate longer. I have stated my position. I was rather interested to hear the distinguished Senator from Maine say, after 2 years of work on this subject, that the bill does not give any additional authority to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. I ask, then, what is the purpose of the bill?
I have great respect for the Senator. He is an able debater. That is the great problem I have with him in committee, and on the floor. When we reach a specific point for debate and answer, he raises some other point. This makes matters difficult.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Is not the Senator from Kentucky trying to make sure that in this vast new power which is being given to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Governor of a State and the States themselves will be assured of an opportunity of a public hearing in court, if necessary?
Mr. COOPER. The right would be given to any affected party
Mr. President, my amendment does not meet all the objections in the bill. I am offering it as a minimum assurance that the parties will have their day in court.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I believe I should make this point so that the RECORD will be very clear. I shall not go beyond it, unless I am asked some questions. The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky would change S. 4 in one further important respect, and that is in the procedure which is established in S. 4 for a revision of standards once they have been promulgated.
The Senator from Kentucky would rely wholly upon the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act for that purpose. The committee felt it important 2 years ago that there be clearly spelled out in the bill an opportunity to test the standards that had been promulgated by. the Secretary, and that that test be applied by all the agencies which the Senator is interested in protecting, and the interests that he is interested in protecting.
The provisions set out in S. 4 do this very thing. The day after the Secretary promulgates his standards, the Governor of any State can question them, not only under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is open to any interested party, but also in his own right under the provisions of S. 4, and test them in any way he wishes to test them, and to suggest modifications or outright repeal
There is one other point that should be made. What we are talking about is the establishment of standards, not as a preliminary action, but as an enforced action. There is a very important distinction. When we are talking about enforcement action, we are talking about something that impinges on someone or has a direct impact.
When we are talking about standards, I have in mind, for example, the possibility of the standards of a pure stream not being defiled by any industrial user.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. MUSKIE. From what basis of fact could a determination be made as to whether the standard required in that kind of situation is practicable or economic or feasible as to some future use, which has not been identified or defined?
When we are talking about established standards, where there is no indicated need for enforcement, we are talking about a situation which would call for the wisdom of Solomon to apply the practicability standard at that point.
Therefore, understandably, the practicability standard is established and clearly established in the law by S. 4 in the enforcement section of the law, where it ought to be, in the place where the people's rights are being affected by the proposed abatement order of the Secretary.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a few questions?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. HOLLAND. Is it correct to say that the fact that a stream is navigable brings it under the proposed act, even though it is an intrastate stream and not an interstate stream?
Mr. MUSKIE. In my judgment, the stream must cross a State boundary to be covered by the provisions of the bill, that is, by the standards section. Under current law, the Secretary is given authority to move into intrastate streams when requested to do so by the Governor of a State.
However, the bill (S. 4) provides no authority for the Secretary to establish standards on any intrastate stream when he is invited in by the Governor. The standards section is clearly limited to interstate streams.
Mr. HOLLAND. Then, on the request of the Governor of a State, having a large intrastate stream which passes various industries and various cities, the Secretary would have no authority whatever under the proposed act to set standards of purity? Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. None whatever under these provisions. He has general authority under the present law to suggest. programs. He could use that authority in making recommendations to the Governor of the State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has again expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
But the Secretary cannot go in in advance on an intrastate stream.
Mr. HOLLAND. In my State, the St. Johns River runs north for approximately 200 miles, to the city of Jacksonville, and then turns east and flows into the Atlantic Ocean. It is a large stream, and navigable for at least 150 miles of its length. The stream passes various cities, such as Sanford, Palatka, Green Cove Springs, and Jacksonville, to name only a few. The stream is now receiving, and probably will in the future continue to receive, the effluence from a mill at a certain point lying between certain of these cities. Assuming that the Governor of the State should ask the Secretary to come in and set standards as to this stream, would the Secretary have the authority to set standards for that stream?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not under this section.
Mr. HOLLAND. Under any section?
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to read to the Senator the language in the present law bearing upon the Secretary's authority.
Under section 2 of the present law, under the title "Comprehensive Programs for Water Pollution Control," the present act provides:
SEC. 2. (a) The Secretary shall, after careful investigation, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters.
That would give him the authority, as I understand, to recommend programs which might include standards of use. But that is not the kind of authority which would permit him to go on from there and actually promulgate standards that would have the force of law on anyone in that State.
Mr. HOLLAND . There is no provision in the bill that would give the Secretary the right in such a case to prescribe compulsory standards of purity of water in such a stream?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would think not. I have one caveat on that point. Is there any tributary of the stream to which the Senator has referred which crosses the State border?
Mr. HOLLAND. No. The border between the State of Florida and the State of Georgia is itself another river, the St. Marys River, so that streams that would come from the north would begin inside the State of Florida.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then it is my impression that in that situation the only authority the Secretary would have with respect to standards would be the recommending authority in the language of the present law, which I have just read. S. 4 would not expand the authority.
Mr. HOLLAND. If the Governor made a request of the Secretary of the Interior in such a matter, how far could that request go and how far could the Secretary go in fulfilling it?
Mr. MUSKIE. That would be under present law. Under present law the Secretary has instituted enforcement actions of a type which can be brought only when there is an endangerment to health and welfare in, I believe, roughly 30 to 35 instances. I believe that a few of those may have involved intrastate waters and have been brought at the request of the Governor. I think there has been only a handful of those. Other than those, I believe most of the actions taken by the Secretary have involved interstate streams.
With respect to comprehensive programs -- the language to which I referred earlier -- the Secretary is undertaking river basin studies of the major river basins of the country with a view to development, with the assistance of interstate and intrastate agencies, of programs for the cleanup of the waters. But they are subject, of course, to the cooperative efforts of the States.
Mr. HOLLAND. With reference to the substitute amendment which the Senator has offered, if standards could be imposed by the Secretary in such a case as I have recited, would it clearly give the right to the mayors of the various cities, to the industries that were involved, and to property owners who were involved, to take the contrary positions, and would it give them the right in court to take those positions?
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand, the Administrative Procedure Act provides only for administrative review of the regulations. Judicial review is provided when enforcement action is undertaken but in the establishment of rules and regulations only administrative review is provided. I am not an authority on the Administrative Procedure Act -- except insofar as the sections are relevant.
Mr. HOLLAND. In any event, under the Administrative Procedure Act, if the Secretary should attempt to set standards in such a case as I have recited, could the mayors of the various cities having contradictory rights, and property owners and industries having contrasting rights, take an opposite position and be heard under the Administrative Procedure Act?
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand that section, they could.
Is the Senator from Kentucky prepared to yield back the remainder of his time?
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER]. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced -- yeas 29, nays 54, as follows:
[LISTING OF ROLL CALL VOTE OMITTED]
So Mr. COOPER'S amendment was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the motion by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on passage of the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered on passage of the bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I indicated in the discussion on the Cooper amendment, I offer an amendment. All this amendment would do would be to make all of the authority exercised by the Secretary under S. 4 subject to the Administration Procedures Act. I personally think that it would be subject to it anyway, but to clarify the matter, I offer the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Between lines 17 and 18 on page 9 it is proposed to insert:
(7) All action taken under this section for the adoption of standards and the promulgation of rules and regulations shall be taken in conformity with provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced -- yeas 75, nays 0, as follows:
[LISTING OF ROLL CALL VOTE OMITTED]
[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill S. 4, 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 establishing of standards of water quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters, and for other purposes.
The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no further amendment to be offered, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read a third time.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, may I say that the proceedings of the past 20 minutes make it abundantly clear that we need a more rigorous rule of germaneness in this Chamber than at present. Many Senators are sitting around, waiting to go home. I have already missed two airplanes, and I am about to miss a third plane. The entire matter that has been under discussion has had nothing to do with the bill.
I would like to ask the Senator from Maine a question which is pertinent to the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should be glad to answer it.
Mr. CLARK. The Senator knows that one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee was Mr. James Wright, executive director of the Delaware River Basin Commission. Mr. Wright requested the committee to insert a provision in the bill to make it clear that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare was not authorized to promulgate standards applicable within a river basin which is under the jurisdiction of a Federal-interstate agency created by a compact to which the United States is a signatory party and vested with the authority to set and enforce water quality standards for such basin.
The proposed amendment appears on page 90 of the hearings. Mr. Wright gave four rather cogent reasons as to why that amendment should be adopted. The committee, in its wisdom, declined to adopt that amendment. However, in the report -- and it appears on page 10 -- the statement is made:
Where the Congress has established multi-State compacts such as the Delaware River Basin compact with authority to establish standards of water quality it is not the intent of the committee that the Secretary's authority supplant that of the compact commission. Rather the authority in this measure to set standards should be held in reserve, for use only if the commission fails in its responsibilities.
I ask the Senator from Maine whether it is not clear, and can we not make it clear as a matter of legislative history, that the Interstate-Federal Delaware River Basin Commission, created pursuant to an interstate compact, in which the four States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware joined, is free under this act, as it was before, to move ahead with all the authority given it by the interstate compact, to set its own standards?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CLARK. May I ask also whether the only way in which the bill would affect that authority would be if, in the opinion of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Delaware River Basin Commission was derelict in its duties in setting standards, then the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare could, under this bill, move in and set his own standards?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the Delaware River Basin Commission serves the Department of the Interior of the Federal Government. I wonder whether the Senator would take any exception to my comment that it would be an unusual case in which the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would intervene to supersede the Secretary of the Interior, representing the Federal Government, or an interstate commission, unless the State members of that commission had gone against the strong desires of the Secretary of the Interior?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it is a fair comment. I think it would be useful also for me to say that throughout S. 4, as in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, there is a clear intention that primary responsibility for dealing with the problem shall rest at the State and local level, and that the purpose of the bill is to provide incentive, proper safeguards, and protection, and to stimulate action in this field, so that agencies, like the Chesapeake Bay Agency, are clearly vested with the primary and fixed responsibility of exercising initiative in this field.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, there is no intention to have the Federal Government, acting through the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, supersede the existing State and Federal agency, created by Congress.
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill S. 4, 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 f or construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to authorize the establishing of standards of water quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters, and for other purposes.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, in view of the fact that I know practically every Member of the Senate desires to vote and go home, I yield the floor.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I want to pose a question of the Senator from Maine, concerning the thoughts expressed by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
I am sure the Senators from West Virginia and Virginia and all the States in the Ohio River sanitation compact are interested in what the answer of the Senator from Maine will be to my question. The signatories to the Ohio River sanitation compact are all of the States in the Ohio River Basin. The U.S. Government is also a signatory. That sanitation compact has done an extraordinary job in eliminating pollution in the basin.
Following the thought expressed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, my question is, Will the Ohio Valley sanitation compact be permitted to go forward with the elimination of the problem that is involved in the bill pending before the Senate without interruption from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare except when the compact signatories fail to perform their duty?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is my understanding.
Mr. LAUSCHE. And is the answer of the Senator from Maine to my question identical with the answer given to the Senator from Pennsylvania?
Mr. MUSKIE. The only reservation I make is that I do not know the charter of the Ohio River Basin compact, but if the situation is the same, the answer is the same.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I assume, considering the States involved, the purpose is the same -- to create an agency dealing with waters that cross State lines. It is that individual States having no jurisdiction over the waters that are beyond the State lines may create a regional compact.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, the Department of Health of the State of Nebraska sent me a copy of a letter dated January 20, 1965, addressed to the Honorable EDMUND S. MUSKIE, chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, and signed by Dr. E. A. Rogers, director of health, in which it is stated that the board is unanimously opposed to S. 4.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be inserted at the conclusion of my remarks.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote against this bill, not only for the reasons expressed so well in the letter, but also because of the fact that the Cooper amendment was rejected by the Senate, which is highly essential to a meaningful and wise bill.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Lincoln, Nebr., January 20,1965.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee an Air and Water Pollution,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Information has been submitted to us that you and several of your associates have introduced a water pollution bill identified as S. 4, similar to the bill S. 649 of the last Congress.
The water pollution control program in Nebraska is proceeding at a favorable rate, and is meeting current conditions to the satisfaction of both water users and those persons who are abating pollution by the construction of waste water treating plants to serve municipal and industrial wastes. At the present time there are approximately 30 sewer outlets that are discharging into Nebraska waters without treatment, and we have assurance from the municipal officials of these communities that they will attempt to meet our target date of July 1, 1966, at which time all wastes will be treated.
At the same time we have enjoyed a pleasant relationship with industry in the treatment of their wastes to such degree that no major source of industrial waste is now being discharged without treatment.
We are, therefore, fearful of any changes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that will change the program that is so well known to Nebraska citizens, and that is progressing in a satisfactory manner.
We are especially concerned over the creation of a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration which will administer comprehensive programs, interstate cooperation and uniform laws, enforcement measures, and pollution from Federal installations. We realize that these are all important sections of the Water Pollution Control Act, but we are of the opinion that the progress that we have made in the last several years is justification for maintaining the current program, and that any changes will, of course, create new methods of administration, a loss of communication between the various municipalities, industries, and State and Federal regulatory agencies, and even set up different means of procedures, all of which will tend to delay the ultimate goal of stream pollution abatement.
The Nebraska Water Pollution Control Council has adopted water quality standards, a copy of which is enclosed. These standards are being used continuously, are accepted, and, again, we are fearful that if Federal water quality standards are set up which might be inconsistent with our State standards, a delay during debate and explanation will ensue.
The Nebraska State Board of Health, at its January 18 meeting, considered the new water pollution bill and is of the opinion that the operations of Public Law 660, with its amendments, has been a great benefit to Nebraska citizens in the various details of administration, especially the Federal grants to municipalities.
The board is unanimously opposed to the creation of a new Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and the preparation and adoption of regulations on standards of water quality, interstate streams, or portions thereof.
Yours truly,
E. A. ROGERS, M.D., M.P.H.
Director of Health,
Secretary to the Board.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, no Member of this body is more interested in clear water, either from the standpoint of health or recreation, than is the Senator from Virginia. No one has been more active in that field. Over 40 years ago I organized an anti-water-pollution commission to try to clean up the streams in the State, but I think this effort should be controlled by the States. I supported the Ohio Valley Compact, but that was under our control. I have supported research. I would gladly vote for the bill if it provided for research and for advice of Federal officials, but I would not want them to be able to put a small town out of "business" because it had a paper mill located there or because they were not satisfied with what they were doing. If we had adopted the Tower amendment, Federal officials could give research and advice, but the final action would be for the States, and I would have voted for the bill. But I am not voting to put Virginia under direct Federal control.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am delighted by the speed with which the Senate Public Works Committee has acted in reporting S. 4, the water pollution control bill.
The Senate passed essentially this same measure in 1963 by a vote of 69 to 11, but the bill died in the House when Congress adjourned last October.
Since water pollution is of increasing rather than diminishing national concern, I hope that we will now see prompt action by both Houses in rising to meet this problem head on.
No nation has ever risen to prominence, ever built a complex agricultural and industrial economy, or ever adequately fed its people without a plentiful supply of water. Indeed, wars have even been fought over this most precious of our natural resources.
Our country has been generously endowed with great rivers, lakes, streams, harbors, and a plentiful rainfall. Yet today we are faced with a serious crisis in regard to our water supply.
The problem itself is essentially a simple one: while our water supply remains basically constant, our needs and demands are increasing very rapidly year by year. It is estimated that in the near future our daily industrial, domestic, and other needs will exceed the greatest amount of water we can ever hope to make available through modern engineering and technology. This necessarily means that we must be able to use each gallon of water more than once. The present efforts to develop an effective and efficient means of desalinating sea water also point to the fact that in the future we must be able to turn to an additional source of supply.
While this constructive work is underway, the supply of water on which we now rely has become subject to many varied and serious forms of pollution. Municipal and industrial organic wastes, pesticides and toxic chemicals, infectious agents, sediments, and radioactive pollution are being discharged into our waterways. These contaminants reduce the quality of our water, making it often unsuitable for reuse, and create a nuisance and a menace to health.
We now recognize water pollution as a serious national problem and have instituted programs of prevention and control. The 1956 Water Pollution Control Act and the 1961 amendments have given important impetus to action by all levels of government, and to cooperation between communities, States, and the Federal Government to combat pollution.
Nonetheless, in looking at our waterways across the country, it is evident that our efforts have not kept pace with the growing pollution problem.
One does not have to venture far here in Washington to find visible evidence of this. The beautiful Potomac River, winding through some of the most scenic countryside in the Nation, presents one of our most shameful and serious examples of this problem.
My own State of Connecticut has scenic lakes and rivers which are an integral and necessary part of our industrial complex. But here too we are plagued by pollution problems, even though programs of prevention and control have been established and in operation, for some time.
Many people write to me about this, and I often see similar pleas in letters to the editors of our many newspapers"Please do something to help clean up our rivers and streams and stop this shameful waste."
Pollution affects industry, urban and rural residential areas, sports and recreation areas, and the health and beauty of the Nation. It is imperative that greater steps be taken to expand the existing pollution control program and to prevent further contamination.
There are these three main aspects of pollution control which must be given serious nationwide attention. We need, first, more funds for the construction of new waste treatment facilities and the modernization of old systems; second, more intensive research into the effective treatment of new contaminants, those undesirable byproducts of our continuing technical progress; and, third, more effective administration and application of enforcement programs to control pollution.
This bill now before us would create a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, thus providing a broader base and a national scope to the pollution control program.
It would increase the Federal grants for research and development of new sewage treatment facilities, and increase the construction grants to individuals and municipal areas. These additional funds would provide the necessary stimulus for more intensive efforts by businesses, individuals, and State and local governments in coping with the problem.
The bill would also provide procedures for establishing quality standards for interstate waters, and would authorize certain abatement action when the shellfish industry suffers economic injury due to water pollution.
The water pollution problem, in the last analysis, must be dealt with locally. But it is evident that the seriousness of the situation and the size and expense of the project ahead demand national attention. The Federal Government must expand its efforts, must bear a greater portion of the costs than before, and must be in a position to coordinate all of the work and research in this area.
This bill before us today is one of the most important and far reaching water pollution proposals ever considered by Congress.
I hope and expect that it will receive overwhelming approval by the Senate, and that through greater authority for the Federal Government to set and enforce standards, through increased grants and assistance, and through continued and improved local, State, and Federal cooperation we will be able to combat more successfully water pollution and assure this country an ample supply of clean water for the future.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced -- yeas 68, nays 8, as follows:
[LISTING OF ROLL CALL VOTE OMITTED]
So the bill (S. 4) was passed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 4 as passed by the Senate be printed.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR MUSKIE
Mr. MORSE subsequently said: Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] for the very able leadership he provided in the handling and the passage of the Water Quality Act of 1965.