CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE

October 17, 1966

Page 27244

CLEAN WATERS RESTORATION ACT OF 1966 -- CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 2947) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such act. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk read the report.

(For conference report, see House proceedings of today.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate has before it today the Conference Report on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1966, including the Clean Rivers Restoration Act.

The Senate version of this legislation, passed on July 13 by a vote of 90 -- 0, included, among other things, a 5-year, $6 billion authorization for the Federal share of the cost of construction of sewage treatment works. I am disappointed to announce that we were unable to hold that figure in conference. In order to reach an agreement, the Senate accepted a 4-year, $3.4 billion total.

This is a decrease of approximately $2.5 billion from the Senate bill, however, $1.5 billion of that difference was absorbed by cutting back the authorization for 1 year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD a chart which shows the differences between the Senate and the House passed bills and the compromise reached:

[CHART OMITTED]

It is important to note that neither the House nor the Senate increased the existing authorization for 1967 and, thus, no damage was done to the President's budget.

The House and Senate split the difference in the first 2 years of the new authorization but the conference amount for the final 2 years indicates an increase by the House of $350 million and $300 million, respectively, while the Senate decreased only $250 million for each year.

Mr. President, there was general recognition throughout the conference that the $1.5 billion level authorized by the Senate for 1971 and 1972 was realistic. It, therefore, must be our next task to increase the authorization to this more realistic level. The $6 billion authorized by the Senate was passed on the assumption that, first, the Federal share should be at least 30 percent of the total cost of treatment facilities with no dollar limitation and, second, that in order to provide secondary treatment for 80 percent of the population and advanced waste treatment to approximately 20 percent of the population, $20 billion would be required. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a memorandum which shows how the Senate arrived at that estimate.

There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

October 5, 1966.

MEMORANDUM

To: Senator MUSKIE.

From: Leon G. Billings.

Subject: Justification of $20 billion cost estimate.

CONFERENCE OF SANITARY ENGINEERS SURVEY

The survey of State pollution control agencies conducted by the Committee, 48 responses to which were received, indicates that less than 10 States confirmed the data made available by the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers. Two of those States, Oregon and Rhode Island, indicated costs less than estimated by the Sanitary Engineers. The remaining 38 States provided estimates ranging from a slight difference to a difference of as much as 80 times the Conference estimate. The following list is indicative:

(In thousands of dollars)

It is therefore obvious that either the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers does not use the information made available to them or determines its projected cost on a different basis than the Committee considered in its Steps Toward Clean Water when it arrived at a $20 billion cost estimate. The Steps Toward Clean Water estimate is based on certain assumptions, the first being that 80% of the 1975 population will require secondary treatment, the remaining 20% will require tertiary treatment.

Because the statistical life of a secondary treatment facility is 20 years, it must be assumed further that projects constructed between now and 1972 must be designed to provide for at least a 1980 population. The census estimates that the population in the United States in 1980 will be approximately 250 million. If we provide secondary treatment for 80% of that population, this will equal 200 million. It is assumed now that 61 million people have secondary treatment and that by 1972 50% of this secondary treatment will have to be replaced. Therefore, between now and 1972, secondary treatment must be provided for 170 million people.

The per capita construction cost of sewage treatment facilities, associated interceptors and other appurtenances, is approximately $100 per person. This will increase as construction costs increase over the six year period; but without assuming any change in construction cost past August of 1966, the cost for secondary treatment for 170 million people will be about $16½ billion. Assuming that 20% of the population must be served by advance waste treatment by 1972, such facilities must be provided for 50 million people. The best available estimate of per capita cost is $75.00. This would increase the cost $3.75 billion, bringing total to $20.25 billion. In order that these facilities be available for the 1980 population, and that the associated economies of scale be taken advantage of, this investment must be made now, water quality notwithstanding.

The Committee Survey of Cities produced a number of interesting results. In several instances where the Committee Survey of States data confirmed estimates of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, the city responses debunked both these figures. The two most surprising examples are Illinois and Wisconsin. The State confirmed the Sanitary Engineers estimate but failed to note, in the instance of Illinois, that Chicago costs were not included. While the State of Illinois’ confirmed estimate is $54 million, Chicago has an estimate of $702 million.

Wisconsin confirmed the Sanitary Engineers estimate of $40 million but noted that Milwaukee was not included in this estimate. The city of Milwaukee estimates its cost at $246 million.

Other city reports manifested similar disagreements with the States. In Florida for example, the State estimate is $54 million. The city of Miami alone estimates its costs at $130 million. The city of Jacksonville estimates its cost at $59 million or $5 million in excess of the total State figure.

The State of New Mexico confirmed an estimate of $5½ million while the city of Albuquerque cited its cost at over $18½ million.

The State of Missouri confirmed an estimate of slightly over $28 million while the city of St. Louis cited needs in excess of $116 million and Kansas City of nearly $48.5 million.

Finally, the State of Washington confirmed a figure of $28 million but noted that the estimate submitted to the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers did not include $78 million for interceptor sewers. The city of Seattle reported that its needs alone would exceed $98 million.

The data accumulated by the committee in its two surveys tends to confirm the estimate of per capita cost referred to in the above analysis of the $20 billion figure. The following table is for that purpose:

[TABLE OMITTED]

While there were no cities in Maine polled, the estimate per capita cost for the State as a whole is $129.35. The average per capita cost in Ohio is $103.02 and in New York, $101.78. These figures from three States which have inventoried their water pollution control needs indicate that, if anything, the estimate by the Committee that $20 billion will be required is extremely conservative. If and when we get to the question of authorization for storm and sanitary sewer separation, these costs can be expected to skyrocket and, when increased funds become available, other States are going to begin adequately inventorying their needs.

The final point, and I think it is an important point, is that of the existing allocation formula, the States are limited in the amount they can receive from whatever amount we authorize. Some States are ready to go ahead. Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New York and Maine have authorized 30% matching programs. Connecticut and Ohio will soon follow. The costs these States are confronted with are tremendous and they will need the full allocation available from a $6 billion authorization if they are to receive even 30% Federal matching funds.

LEON G. BILLINGS.

Mr. MUSKIE. This estimate of $20 billion, confirmed by a recently completed committee survey of States and major cities, shall continue to guide the efforts of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.

There are several other disappointing aspects the conference agreement which I would like to discuss before outlining the positive accomplishments of the legislation.

The Senate-passed measure had a loan provision which provided funds for those communities unable to obtain their share of construction costs from other sources; this provision was deleted.

The Senate bill provided that, in connection with any enforcement conference, the Secretary could require reports from alleged polluters in order that the conference could have more adequate information on which to base pollution control recommendations. This provision was modified to the extent that the information can now only be required if a majority of the conferees request it. In essence, this means that the information will not be available before a conference but must await a positive action by the conferees.

The Senate provided an automatic incentive of 10 percent of the total cost of any treatment facilities constructed in metropolitan areas which practice regional planning. This provision was deleted.

Finally, the Senate provided strengthening amendments to the Oil Pollution Act. The Senate amendments would have extended the scope of that act to shore installations and terminal facilities and provided that boats, vessels, shore installations, and terminal facilities depositing oil on coastal, navigable and interstate waters and adjoining shorelines would be responsible for the removal of that oil. The legislation reported from conference limits this removal feature to boats and vessels by eliminating application of the Oil Pollution Act to shore installations and terminal facilities. However, the Senate conferees were assured that both shore installations and terminal facilities were subject to the enforcement provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The net effect of the amendments to the Oil Pollution Act, strictly enforced, will be first, the extension of its enforcement provision to all navigable waters of the United States; second, a method of requiring removal or payment of the cost of removal of oil deposited on navigable waters; and third, a protection for the adjoining shorelines against the grossly negligent spillage of oil which has deleteriously affected both the recreational values of these shorelines and has seriously damaged coastal fisheries.

The Senate also receded from its amendments to the Refuse Act of 1899 which provided for the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether deposits of refuse in navigable waters should be consistent with the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It is the position of the Senate conferees that mere amendment of this legislation would not be satisfactory, that review of the existing law is essential.

Mr. President, the bill before the Senate today establishes a landmark in the Federal water pollution control effort. Beginning next year there will be no discrimination against major cities in the construction grants program. The House receded from its position that there should be dollar limitations applied to the construction grant program. When this year's amendments become effective and funds are made available, every municipality will be able to receive a maximum 30-percent Federal grant regardless of the total cost. This means that the big cities which have the worst problems will have an equitable share of the Federal water pollution control dollar.

The conferees also agreed that there should be an incentive for those States willing to provide 30 percent of the project's cost and, therefore, the conferees agreed to increase the Federal share in that instance to 40 percent. Further, if the States agree to provide 25 percent of the project's cost. and have established enforceable water quality standards for the waters into which the project discharges, the Federal Government will provide 50 percent of the cost of a project.

This 30-40-50 Federal share approach, without dollar limitations, commits the Federal Government to increasing the Federal investment in water pollution control. It means that if the Federal Government is to meet its responsibility to the States and their local governments, the $6 billion figure initially authorized by the Senate will have to be substantially increased.

Parenthetically, Mr. President, there was no change in the provision in existing law which provides an incentive of 10 percent of the Federal grant in those metropolitan areas practicing regional planning. In essence, this means that metropolitan areas may receive up to 33 percent, 44 percent, and 55 percent if they comprehensively plan together.

Mr. President, there are a number of other provisions to which the conference agreed which I would like to summarize:

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to carry out a study of the Nation's estuarine areas and $3 million is provided for this purpose. This provision was initially authored by Senator TYDINGS of Maryland.

The conferees agreed to include both the COOPER and the KENNEDY of Massachusetts amendments relating to pollution control personnel requirements.

The conferees agreed to provide a method to deal with the problems of pollution across international boundaries.

The conferees agreed to the necessity of a comprehensive study of the cost of pollution control.

The conferees also agreed that there was a necessity to study the problems of pollution created by the recreational watercraft and of the need for a study of incentives to assist industrial pollution control.

The conferees reached agreement on an expanded program for research and development. A total of $305 million was authorized for a 3-year period for demonstration of industrial waste treatment methods, advanced waste treatment, joint municipal and industrial treatment, and other pollution control technicalities. Included in that $305 million is a limitation of $125 million on the general research activities of the Federal Pollution Control Administration.

Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act presently gives the Secretary a very broad authority in conducting research for various purposes, including but not limited to, research on separate and combined sewers, on advanced waste treatment, and on industrial wastes. He is authorized to conduct this research, directly and by grant, contract, agreement, or otherwise, with public and private authorities, agencies, and institutions as well as individuals. This authority, particularly as to conducting research by contract, encompasses authority to conduct research for which grants are specifically authorized in section 6, and the $20 million per fiscal year which is authorized in section 6(e) (1) is by the phrase "including contracts" in that subsection made specifically available for the purpose of conducting this research by contract.

Finally, Mr. President, the conferees agreed to expand the enforcement provisions of the existing law. Previously I referred to the compromise reached on reports from alleged polluters at the conference stage. The Senate accepted House language which allows the Secretary to require such reports from alleged polluters in the hearing stage of an enforcement proceeding. The most significant change in the enforcement procedure will be, especially to the conservationists, the provision that persons affected by pollution can make a statement to both the enforcement conference and the hearing. The legislation before you also provides that alleged polluters may have an opportunity to make a full statement of views at these two levels of the enforcement procedure. It is not the intent of the conferees that this become a means whereby the enforcement procedure may be delayed. In fact, it is the intent of the conferees that the chairman of the conference or the hearing board may require any statements to be filed rather than given orally.

Mr. President, there is only one remaining provision in the conference bill that I would like to discuss.

Earlier this year the President asked for a method whereby entire river basins could be cleaned up. In order to carry out this purpose, he transmitted to the Congress the Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966. Both the House and Senate bills contained specific titles to carry out the purposes expressed by the President's legislation. However, the approach in each bill was entirely different.

The conferees agreed that the basic purpose and intent of the President's proposal could be carried out by amending the existing comprehensive planning section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. A compromise was reached whereby States in a basin may join together for the purpose of planning for pollution control and should they desire to do so, the Federal Government will pay 50 percent of the expenses of the designated planning agency. This provision for comprehensive planning, combined with the 50-percent Federal grant for construction of treatment works if the States set intrastate as well as interstate water quality standards, more than accomplishes the objectives of the administration.

Mr. RANDOLPH. If the Senator will yield, I would like to pose a question.

Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee who has provided tireless leadership in achieving passage of this landmark legislation which we are considering today.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is my understanding that the compromise Clean Waters section of S. 2947 provides the means for more effectively implementing the Water Quality Act of 1965. Am I correct in this and, that the Senate's position is that the comprehensive planning -- river basin approach is fundamental to any water quality standards program? Further, is it not true that the Secretary of the Interior has sufficient authority under sections 3 and 10 of the act as amended by this bill to develop or assist the development of realistic comprehensive basin plans for any hydrologic unit in the United States?

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is quite correct in his understanding of the legislation before us. I have said time and again that the Water Quality Act of 1965 required a river basin type approach if adequate water quality standards are to be effectuated. With the tools provided by these amendments to the comprehensive planning section, which provides for development of comprehensive programs, the intrastate standards requirement for a 50-percent grant, and the extensive authority granted under last year's act, the administration, if it is vigorous and dedicated to pollution control, can achieve all that it intended in the President's proposed Clean Rivers Restoration program.

POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIRES BOLD STEPS

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, the Senate has taken another step forward toward the control of pollution of our Nation's water supplies with passage today of the conference report on S. 2947.

Although the bill's provisions are not as extensive as I should like to see enacted, significant improvements are included in the legislation with the Clean Rivers Restoration program and the incentives offered for the States to join in a comprehensive river basin pollution control and abatement plan.

Current Federal grants to States for help in financing their own programs, from $5 million annually to $10 million, are provided. This doubling of assistance for research should encourage strong action by the States in moving to clean up the contamination of our water before we strangle in our own filth.

Even bolder action will be needed if we are to win this battle. The problem of correcting and preventing pollution is staggering, but we cannot continue to foul our waters and destroy our land.

The substantial increase in grant programs for pollution control is commendable, but it still falls short of the goals passed unanimously earlier by the Senate. We must do more in the future if the music of our streams is to be a pure melody, and not a funeral dirge.

Mr. KUCHEL. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a statement prepared by my colleague, Senator COOPER.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT BY SENATOR COOPER

I support the Conference report on S. 2947 and urge its adoption by the Senate.

The bill authorizes Federal water pollution control programs totalling approximately $3.5 billion over the next 5 years. This new authorization represents a substantial increase from the $160 million now authorized for fiscal 1967 to $450 million in fiscal 1968 and increasing to $1.25 billion in 1971, although substantially below the $6.4 billion authorized by the Senate. Besides lifting the dollar limitations on individual sewage treatment projects, the bill recommended by the conferees provides incentives for state-matching grants and accelerated application of water quality standards. It authorizes reimbursement for local communities that have taken the incentive on qualified projects and encourages joint industrial municipal waste-treatment systems.

As a member of the Public Works Committee, I would like to pay my respects to the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], Chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, and to the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the able Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], for the leadership they have given this bill and to the entire committee who have worked hard and conscientiously on it.

It has been my view that we must do more to increase the participation of private industry in assisting to combat and control water pollution. Conservative estimates of the total cost for controlling industrial pollution have been placed at $75 billion over the next 15 years, or the large sum of $5 billion per year. At the base of this estimate rests the progressively increased use of water by industry. In 1900, the average daily use of water for industrial purposes was 15 billion gallons, but by 1960 industry was employing some 160 billion gallons per day. The amount of money required for installations to control pollution in just two industries alone -- the paper and chemical industries -- is indeed staggering.

When the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee announced that it would bold hearings in April and May of this year to consider amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I wrote representatives of private industry who were scheduled to testify and pointed out that, although the Public Works Committee is without jurisdiction in fiscal matters, I thought it would be helpful to the Committee to have comments and viewpoints of industry on needed tax incentives. As a result of their testimony and the substantial interest created among the committee members, the Public Works Committee, in reporting out its bill, included a strong recommendation to the Committee on Finance to consider tax legislation applicable to the acquisition and installation of pollution control facilities. The pertinent section of the report of the Senate Public Works Committee reads as follows:

INCENTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR INDUSTRIES

"A number of witnesses testified on the need for tax incentives as a means of reducing the cost of noneconomic pollution control facilities. This is not a matter over which the Senate Public Works Committee has jurisdiction but it affects the overall effort to meet water pollution control and abatement needs. This committee strongly recommends that the appropriate congressional committee give consideration to tax relief proposals for industrial pollution control activities.

"For the most part, pollution control does not provide a return on an investment to an industry. Installation of pollution control devices is costly and, in many Cases, nonremunerative. The billion dollars of Capital investment which will have to be made by the industrial sector for the benefit of the entire society will place a substantial burden on corporate resources, and ultimately on the general public. The committee suggests that there are several alternative methods of aiding industry in meeting its pollution control obligations.

"Investment tax credits as proposed by Senator JOHN SHERMAN COOPER of Kentucky, in legislation cosponsored by the chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH of West Virginia, is one method whereby industry could recoup the cost of control and abatement of pollution. Senator ABRAHAM RIBICOFF of Connecticut, in legislation cosponsored by, among others, the chairman of the subcommittee Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE of Maine, provides for accelerated amortization of the cost of pollution control facilities. This may also provide a means of offsetting industry's cost of pollution control. However, both of these methods do not consider the problem confronting those industries with plants having great pollution problems and marginal economic efficiency.

"The committee has recommended greater emphasis on joint municipal-industrial treatment systems operated by public agencies. Such systems are eligible for assistance under the sewage treatment grant program.

"The proposal by the American Paper Institute for specific Federal grants to municipalities to construct industrial waste treatment facilities would provide an effective means of meeting the needs of both the marginal industries as well as the profitable industries. Such a Federal grant approach would not be inconsistent with public policy because the grant would, in effect, be made to a unit of government. This approach differs from that proposed by Senators COOPER and RIBICOFF and is a matter which can and will be considered by this committee. However, realizing that there is no final answer to the problem of financing industrial pollution control, the committee reiterates its strong recommendation that the appropriate committees consider tax relief legislation."

 I would particularly like to draw attention to two amendments contained in the House

bill which were agreed to by the Senate conferees and which I strongly support. Section 201 of the bill authorizes for the first time the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to industry for research in the prevention and treatment of water pollution. The need for expanded industrial research is discussed in detail in the House report at pages 25-26:

"INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

"The reason for the addition of industrial grants is recognition of the fact that industry, which was at one time less of a polluter than municipalities and communities, has now become a major polluter. The complexity of some industrial waste problems requires the active involvement of industry itself which has intimate knowledge of manufacturing and other industrial processing operations. The stipulation that 70 percent of the cost of such investigations be borne by the Federal government should be an inducement to have industrial support and participation in the studies.

"The committee is not inclined to belabor industry for its growing contribution to this problem. Nothing will be gained by attempting to fix blame. The problem is here and it must be solved or some future generation will be worrying about clean oceans. The committee does feel, however, that more should be done by industry, and it is very pleased to note that during the hearings evidence was presented to show that industry is attempting to do its part.

"The Federal Government should do its part, too, in helping in the solution of this problem, certainly, in developing means for controlling it. The inclusion of specific grants to industry for research is based upon the same concept as in existing law for grants to public and private agencies and institutions for research in this field. It would be of little value if we solved the technical means of preventing or alleviating the sewage from municipalities and failed to lend necessary assistance to research for the disposal of waste emanating from the various types of industrial and manufacturing processes.

"Industrial research should not be limited to the technology of waste treatment. It should also include an investigation of possible financial methods of providing for this treatment, including methods of providing treatment works to the smaller industries on an installment basis. If a small company is faced with the necessity of putting in extensive treatment works as a result of Federal and State laws or public pressure, such financing could be helpful."

Another provision of the House bill adopted by the conferees requires the Secretary of the Interior to make a full and complete investigation and study of methods for providing incentives to assist in constructing facilities and works by industry to reduce or abate water pollution, including possible use of tax incentives and to report to the Congress by January 30,1968.

I believe that these two provisions of the bill will enlist a greater participation of industry in Federal programs designed to abate or control industrial pollution.

When the Senate Finance Committee held hearings on H.R. 17607, a bill that would temporarily suspend investment credit and accelerated depreciation, I submitted a statement and urged the Committee to continue the availability of the present 7% investment credit for the acquisition of air and water pollution control facilities. This provision had been included in the House bill as a floor amendment.

In my testimony I said, "I am hopeful that when the present inflationary pressures in our economy have subsided this Committee will consider increasing the present investment credit or provide additional tax incentives to industry to assist in the acquisition and installation of pollution controls. But for the present, however, I believe it would be a backward step for the Congress not to continue at least the present investment credit as provided in the House bill".

I am pleased to note that this provision was included in the bill recommended by the Finance Committee and passed by the Senate, and was commented on in the committee report in the following language:

5. Exemption of water and air pollution control facilities

"An amendment adopted on the floor of the House specifies that water and air pollution control facilities are, under certain conditions, not to be considered suspension period property even though constructed or ordered during the suspension period. Thus, facilities of this nature will continue to remain eligible, for the investment credit.

"The exception is provided in recognition of the importance of stimulating private industry to undertake expenditures for facilities which will help to abate water and air pollution. There is a clear need to step up efforts to purify the air we breathe and the water in our streams and lakes.

"Suspension of the credit, even for a short time, would discourage private efforts to abate water and air pollution and would simply impose a larger direct burden on the government.

"This provision of the bill specifies that water and air pollution control facilities will not be treated as suspension period property if they are used primarily to control either water pollution or atmospheric pollution by removing, altering, or disposing of pollutants. The facilities must conform to the State program or to State requirements in regard to the control of water or air pollution and they must be in compliance with the applicable regulations of Federal agencies and with the general policies of the United States, in cooperation with the States, for the prevention and abatement of water and air pollution. Certification to this effect must be made by the State water or air pollution control agency, as defined in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Clean Air Act. In addition, such a facility must be constructed or acquired in furtherance of Federal, State, or local standards for the control of water or air pollution."

A number of Members of the Senate have introduced bills which would amend the Internal Revenue Code so as to give a tax incentive to industry to construct air and water pollution control facilities. While many of these bills differ as to method, each has the purpose of providing industry with a financial incentive for acquiring and installing necessary equipment.

On February 1 of this year, I introduced a bill, S. 2857, for myself and on behalf of Senator RANDOLPH, which would increase the investment credit allowable from the present 7 percent to 14 percent for those industries purchasing and installing air and water pollution facilities. The bill is cosponsored by Senators ALLOTT, KUCHEL, LAUSCHE, LONG of Missouri, PEARSON, SALTONSTALL, SCOTT and JAVITS, and is pending before the Finance Committee.

I have gone to this great length to indicate the many steps that are being taken now by the Committees of the Congress to combat air and water pollution. I believe that this bill is another demonstration of the determined effort of the Congress to advance solutions to the most challenging problem facing our country today -- pollution in the air and in the water.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the conference report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Maine.

The motion was agreed to.