servations you have made, Mr. Whitfield, about the agencies' lack of experience in setting up standards.

As you point out, you have been setting standards on streams for 10 or 11 years in North Carolina. You can't set a standard for a river; you have to set it for all stages of that river.

Mr. WHITFIELD. That is right.

Senator JORDAN. Incidentally, this is a good example. I live on the river and have plants on the river. Six miles above me there is another plant, a processing plant. Six miles above there is another one, a big one. Six miles above that, another one. Every stage of that river has a water characteristic, and each stage has to be handled individually. Isn't that true?

Mr. WHITFIELD. That is true.

Senator JORDAN. You can't say, "We will take a whole river, which is the river I live on, and we classify it A, B, C."

Mr. WHITFIELD. All types of waste are going down every segment of every river.

We in North Carolina have a slogan: The longest way to clean up the streams of any Nation is through a courthouse door. We have never had a case in court. We go the first mile and the second mile, and sometimes the third mile.

Senator BAYH. My compliments to you. We all agree that you are doing a fine job.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we operate on a hypothesis, you can't get men of fair minds around the conference table and treat them unfairly but what they will go along with you. This is no crash program. If the Federal Government has the idea it is a crash program, they are sadly mistaken and they will ball it up. If you think you can hang a map on the wall and give quality standards that way, you will fail. Before we classified any river basin, we spent at least 2 years finding out what was in it, the bacteria, and all, in each mile of the river and their creeks and their big branches.

Senator JORDAN. No question it takes a tremendous amount of study.

Mr. WHITFIELD. This is no crash program.

Senator JORDAN. I have one other observation to make, and this will be true in every State in the Union. We have towns that have practically no taxable property, they can't sell bonds. If they vote them, nobody would buy them. If they did, they would be crazy; and banks are not that crazy. You can't tell them you do this or that. They can't do it. I know close to Cherry Point there are soldiers and marines living all around there, and there are a good many of them, but they don't any of them own any property. There are no taxes to be collected. We have been worrying over that problem for several years. They want to do something, but they can't afford it. That is a problem that takes some time and effort. They will do all they can, but they are going to have to have some outside help. It may have to be some from the Federal Government and some from the State, too.

But your problem is, when you go back and everybody sits down in the communities and says, "Let the State do it," and they don't get out and do what they can on their own.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I think every State should be required to put up some money. I want to get back to that point. You are going to have to sit down and talk with them. This is a cooperative matter. I think we know, I think industry will follow the State organization-the State pollution board or whatever you call it, the State sanitation committee if they treat them fairly people will cooperate with them and do the very best they can.

Senator BAYH. Senator Boggs.

Senator BOGGS. How are the Federal installations doing in your State? Senator Jordan just mentioned Cherry Point. Camp Lejeune is down there. I know you testified here before, Mr. Whitfield, on that subject. Are they making any progress?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Some of them are, and some of them aren't.
Senator BOGGS. Are you pushing?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. But the point is, how is the Potomac River coming along?

Senator BOGGS. I want to compliment you and express appreciation for the constructive suggestions and testimony you have given the committee this morning. We appreciate your taking the time and trouble to come here. We value your experience. I want to also compliment you on your early interest in this matter and your activity to get the water commission established in your State and the progress North Carolina is making.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. We will be happy to have the Federal Government send anybody down there at any time.

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to add another thing. Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Hubbard have been instrumental in getting the Federal money raised year after year through the Blatnik bill. You know, we worked on Congressman Blatnik and I think the Congressman got almost like he ran out of the back door when he saw Mr. Whitfield coming in the front. Through his persistence, we have gone a long way in doing what has been done over the Nation, not just North Carolina, but over the Nation.

Mr. WHITFIELD. We realized we were stymied in 1956, Mr. Hubbard and I. North Carolina was stymied. We could not do the job, the municipalities, not in industry. So we came up and we fought for a hundred million dollars in 1956 with Mr. Blatnik, backing him up. Congress gave us $50 million, but Mr. Eisenhower vetoed it. He thought the States ought to do the whole job. We rolled up our sleeves and got Congress to pass it over the veto. He vetoed one in 1957, he vetoed $50 million în 1958. He vetoed $50 million in 1959. But at that 1959 hearing in the House, North Carolina took the position it was time to call a White House conference of the Executive and the Congress, and air this whole thing before the people of the Nation.

We worked hard and got that accomplished. In fact, it is quite amusing. Mr. Schwengel from Iowa and Mr. Blatnik asked us to take the lead in getting a White House conference. We thought it was rather unusual to ask a southern Democrat to ask a Republican President for a White House conference on anything. But we did work together with them, and Mr. Flemming. Mr. Flemming was the key to that. Since then we have been getting more money.

Let me emphasize this in closing $150 million is not enough. A minimum of $250 million is what should be in this next appropriation.

If we can give foreign countries billions and billions of dollars, my gracious, can't this great Nation of ours clean up its own streams? We are opposed to $6 billion in 5 years, as Mr. Rockefeller proposes, because we don't think we can spend it intelligently in that time. Let us feel our way with this new organization. The Federal Government and States can work together in harmony. Nobody is trying to swing their weight around. Let us get out of our heads this is a crash program. If you are going to try to half way do this job, it is throwing money down the drain. It has to be slow, it has to be sure. But now we are meeting the issue. Let us meet it intelligently. Senator BAYH. What was the amount appropriated in 1956? Mr. WHITFIELD. I stated in 1956 Congress gave us $50 million. We asked for a hundred. In 1957, 1958, and 1959.

Senator BAYH. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I had the figures right.

Mr. WHITFIELD. We were happy to get that. Just imagine giving $3 and $4 and $5 billion to foreign nations when we are not even cleaning up our streams.

Senator BAYH. Nobody is arguing about this. We are extremely grateful to you and Mr. Hubbard for your testimony. We hope we can call on your expertise again at a later date.

Thank you, Senator Jordan. We appreciate your coming here. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Hubbard is our executive director. He is the key to all of this.

Senator BAYH. We are grateful to you for sharing your thoughts with us.

Our next witness is Mr. F. E. Tucker, manager of pollution control and services, National Steel Corp. He is accompanied by Mr. K. G. Jackson of National Steel Corp.

I understand Mr. Tucker is speaking for the Iron & Steel Institute.

STATEMENT OF F. E. TUCKER, MANAGER OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND SERVICES, NATIONAL STEEL CORP.; ACCOMPANIED BY K. G. JACKSON, CORPORATE COUNSEL

Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, my name is Fred E. Tucker. I am manager of pollution control and services, National Steel Corp. I serve as chairman of the American Iron & Steel Institute's Committee on Air and Water Pollution Abatement, and am a member of the institute. I am also a member of the Steel Industry Action Committee of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. I appear before you today on behalf of National Steel Corp. which operates steel producing and finishing plants in West Virginia, Michigan, Indiana, Texas, New York, and Ohio. We also operate coal mines in Pennsylvania. Mr. K. G. Jackson, corporate counsel for National Steel, will present a statement on the provisions of S. 2987 following my statement.

Mr. Jackson and I have been authorized by many companies of the Iron & Steel Institute to make these statements on their behalf. These

companies represent approximately 90 percent of the 1965 domestic steel production. I am submitting as appendix to this statement a list of these companies.

Mr. TUCKER. Over the past several years, Mr. Jackson and I, along with other steel company representatives, have taken an active interest in Federal legislation dealing with the very important subject of stream pollution control. We have been most impressed by this subcommittee's intense and knowledgeable investigation of this subject. Although we have, on several occasions, disagreed with legislation proposals made by this subcommittee, we have more often been in agreement with actions taken by you, and we believe that legislation originating with this subcommittee has resulted in outstanding improvements in stream pollution control throughout the United States. The steel industry supported stream pollution control legislation sponsored by Senator Muskie for this subcommittee to the Senate in 1964. Once again, we welcome this opportunity to appear before you today and present our views on legislation currently being considered.

THE EFFECT OF EXISTING LEGISLATION

The first comprehensive Federal Water Pollution Control Act became law in July 1956. It was amended in 1961 and again in 1965. The Water Quality Act of 1965 was signed by President Johnson exactly 7 months ago, on October 2, 1965. This act, as amended, provides for abatement enforcement on interstate waters. It recognizes, preserves, and protects the rights of the States to control intrastate pollution. Also it provides opportunity for the Federal Government to control interstate pollution where neighboring States cannot agree to equitable controls. It also provides Federal abatement enforcement on intrastate waters in cases where the Governor of that State invites Federal participation. Although abatement enforcement power is only one of many facets of the original act and its amendments, application of the abatement provisions of the act by the Public Health Service has always produced the major differences between States, municipalities, industry, and the Federal Government.

Such differences in the application of enforcement powers are inevitable. To resolve them has required much time and effort. This

time, however, has not been wasted, because as a result of this effort we have all gained a great deal of respect for the rights, the problems, and the professional abilities of each other. Today, this mutual respect has led to a cooperative effort between the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the States, the municipalities and industry. It has done much to control pollution of our water resources. As Senator Muskie said on the floor of the Senate on February 18, 1966, in introducing S. 2947:

I believe that a fundamental change has occurred in the national attitude toward the water-pollution problem. The discussion has shifted from the issue of whether or not we should improve the quality of our water to the issue of how best to accomplish our objectives.

We concur with the Senator's judgment of the national attitude, and we believe much of the credit for this change in attitude is due to the legislative approach fostered by this subcommittee.

Two striking examples of this change, and of progress toward stream-pollution control, which are so from existing legislation can be found in the results of the Detroit and Chicago Federal water conferences. We participated in each, having plants in each location. So I would like to spend the next few minutes discussing these two conferences.

The Detroit Intrastate Conference on Pollution of the Detroit River, Michigan Waters of Lake Erie, and Their Tributaries was reconvened on June 15, 1965, following a 2-year study of pollution of these waters. The conferees gave the Michigan Water Resources Commission 12 months to establish water-quality goals, and a program with municipalities and industries to meet these goals. The Michigan commission acted with dispatch. In October 1965, it established a complete set of water-quality goals for all of these waters. In January 1966, it spelled out specific requirements for 25 industrial plants and 11 municipalities. On March 31, 1966, the commission met and received voluntary stipulations, or agreements, to meet these goals from 13 plants and 8 municipalities. The commission issued notices of determination and hearing to the remaining industries and municipalities. I am pleased to report that, on April 29, 1966, the commission received voluntary stipulations or compliance timetables from 24 industries and all 11 municipalities.

Compliance timetables extend from April 1968, for some industrial wastes, to November 1970, for municipal phosphates- and nitrate-removal systems. Thus, in a relatively short period of time, pollution in the Detroit River, which supplies approximately 90 percent of the flow into Lake Erie, will be under strict control. All of this cooperative progress is occurring under existing provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Perhaps an even more striking example of progress and certainly one which affects a large steel-producing center-is taking place in Chicago.

Testimony at the March 1965 Conference on Lake Michigan and Related Waters is particularly relevant to industry's performanceand its problems-in its water conservation responsibilities under existing legislation.