The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Robertson, is it not your view that industry and mining interests are willing to cooperate?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I have not found any industry, if properly approached, that is not in a friendly attitude. I have not found any that did not show an interest and, when the problem was explained, a concern and willingness to cooperate, if you could show them how they could do it within reasonable limits. They cannot close down their factories, they cannot throw thousands of men out of work.

The CHAIRMAN. And they cannot close the mines?

Mr. ROBERTSON. They cannot close down their coal mines; no. But this bill aims to bring the problem into the light, to find out the scientific facts which has thus far not been adequately done, and then sets up a reasonable fund; it is not a large fund, and there are many safeguards thrown around it.

You have a board that will pass upon it. If it is a State proposition, it is passed on in the State first, then it comes to this board of expert engineers and they pass on it. Then it goes from there to the Surgeon General and he passes on it. It goes from him to the Secretary of the Treasury, and he passes upon it. Then he sends it up to a committee of Congress and they pass upon it with public hearings. In that way we think it has been sufficiently safeguarded so as to embrace only worthy projects and avoid these log-rolling processes whereby someone may try to dump a lot of money here or there just to say that they got so much out of the Federal Treasury for their community.

There are several amendments, Mr. Chairman, that were proposed when the Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation had a hearing on this bill. They were proposed to us at the time and I shall leave a copy of this with the chairman of the committee.

The chairman may ask the various witnesses their opinion about these proposed amendments. There is indicated on them who offered them. Some of them perhaps the committee would like to include. Unless there is something further, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to present.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you furnished a copy to Mr. Vinson? Mr. ROBERTSON. I furnished a copy to Mr. Vinson and every member of our select committee.

I shall hand this to you, sir, and, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for this opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Robertson.

Mr. Vinson, would you like to proceed at this time?

STATEMENT OF HON. FRED M VINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to make a brief statement for the purpose of the record and then it occurs to me that we should present for your consideration the gentlemen who have given this subject matter years of thought and consideration, who are part and parcel of the Government; then present witnesses representing the public health viewpoint and following them representatives of industry, to support H. R. 2711.

I should say at the outset that H. R. 2711, introduced by me on January 12, 1937, was introduced in the Senate by my friend, Senator

Barkley, as S. 702. Basically these bills follow H. R. 12764, introduced by me in the last Congress, considered very carefully by this committee, received a favorable report and after considerable discussion passed the House by almost a unanimous vote. My recollection is that some six gentlemen voted against it.

Mr. COLDEN. May I ask the gentleman a question, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Colden.

Mr. COLDEN. Does your present bill contain the amendments that were made in the committee in the last session?

Mr. VINSON. We took as our base H. R. 12764 as it passed. I do not recall a single amendment that the committee adopted that has not been carried over into H. R. 2711.

Mr. COLDEN. It includes harbors and beaches, and so forth?

Mr. VINSON. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, as was thoroughly demonstrated at the very inception of the hearings last session, this problem is Nation-wide. Not only are the inland or the domestic waters involved but all of the coastal waters are involved.

Mention was made of a precarious condition that existed in the Ohio River Valley. My information is that just as serious problems as this exist in the New England States and other sections of the country.

Mr. MOSIER. May I ask a question for my own information? What is the present status of the law on this subject; that is, whether or not there is any existing law of any type giving the Federal Government authority to do anything in this field?

Mr. VINSON. So far as I know, this is pioneer legislation.

Mr. DONDERO. May I suggest, in connection with the problems that you have, that this goes so far as to involve an international question between Canada and the United States. This very subject is covered somewhat by treaty between this country and Canada.

Mr. VINSON. Of course, that would be limited in scope.

Mr. DONDERO. It would all come under this bill, would it not? Mr. VINSON. But basically H. R. 2711 is the bill that was reported from the Rivers and Harbors Committee last year; passed the House by almost a unanimous vote. If you will remember, upon the floor of the House there was quite a bit of controversy at the beginning of the consideration of H. R. 12764. Certain gentlemen got the bill mixed up with other bills that had been introduced relating to this character of legislation and they started to crack down on it. But when they became familiar with the contents of this bill the opposition dwindled to six votes.

Again I say that basically this bill is the bill that was reported out last year. Now, we have injected one though that I think improves that bill tremendously. It was developed that there was no ceiling to the authorization under H. R. 12764; that is, to the amount of authorized expenditures under the bill. To meet that, to bring it within limits, we took a page out of this committee's book. We picked up bodily the procedure followed in rivers and harbors projects, and applied it, as nearly as we could, to the projects that would be undertaken by virtue of this bill.

Fundamentally I think that is the major change. There are some other changes in regard to details that we can take up later. If the chairman and the committee would permit, I would be glad to take up the bill in detail at this time. But Members of Congress are here every day, and I see that many of them are present, very much

interested in this legislation; and there are many who are not present who are very much interested. I see my friend Tom Jenkins, from Ohio; Brent Spence, Judge Otis Bland, of Virginia; Mr. Emmett O'Neal, from Louisville; Mr. Norman Hamilton, from Virginia; Andy Edmiston, of West Virginia; and Eugene Crowe, of Indiana; and many others.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Pfeifer, of New York.

Mr. VINSON. And Dr. Pfeifer, of New York, of course.

I would just like to make this statement, that this bill H. R. 2711 comes into existence as a result of the annual conferences of publichealth officers called, under the law, to meet in Washington once a year. The meeting that preceded the introduction of the bill last year considered this problem and as a result of that conference and their studies and their experiences, H. R. 12764 came into being. Of course, without that, this present bill would not have been introduced. At that annual meeting it was the unanimous vote of the State publichealth officers that this problem must be met; that there was actually a menace to health and that the problem should be undertaken.

I have for the purpose of the record 28 letters and briefs from State health officers and departments endorsing the Barkley-Vinson bill.

In addition to that, there were other health officers who did not write me in regard to it but who told me that they would be present to testify in its behalf.

Mr. ČULKIN. What became of the legislation that we passed, Mr. Vinson?

Mr. VINSON. We passed it, I believe it was, next to the last day of the session. It went to the Senate, and of course you know what happens in the Senate along in the last few days of the session. It did not pass.

Mr. CULKIN. Have there been any hearings in the Senate on this legislation?

Mr. VINSON. Not this session; no, sir.

Mr. CULKIN. Previously?

Mr. VINSON. Yes, sir; there were hearings last year.

Mr. CULKIN. This bill was not over there?

Mr. VINSON. It was the Barkley bill over there.

The CHAIRMAN. They had extensive hearings on the Lonegran bill? Mr. VINSON. Yes, but the Barkley bill was reported.

Mr. CARTER. Was it reported, Mr. Vinson?

Mr. VINSON. Yes; it was reported and, as a matter of fact, it passed the Senate, but because of one gentleman desiring reconsideration of it, it was sent back for reconsideration and got lost in the shuffle. Mr. CULKIN. Before which committee did that come?

Mr. VINSON. The Committee on Commerce, I believe, in the Senate. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, I know it would be pleasing to me, to hear from Dr. Parran, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, General Pillsbury of the Army Engineers, and Mr. Wolman, of the Natural Resources Board. They probably would pretty well take up the morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Elliot present?

Mr. VINSON. And Mr. Elliot.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vinson, we also have before us a bill introduced by Dr. Pfeifer of New York. I do not know whether you are familiar with it or not. We want to consider the entire subject while we are

at it. Dr. Pfeifer, would you like to make a statement at this time? Mr. VINSON. May I say this in regard to Mr. Pfeifer's bill and any other bill that may be before you?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. VINSON. I am not by nature a critic. I do not like to be against something. I prefer to be for something, and it was for that reason that I preferred to speak on my own bill rather than to say aught against any other bill that might be presented for the committee's consideration.

Mr. CULKIN. Did you say that you were not by nature combative? Mr. VINSON. How is that?

Mr. VINSON. Oh, I said I did not want to be critical of other bills. The CHAIRMAN. I will state to Judge Culkin that Mr. Vinson is from Kentucky. [Laughter.]

Mr. VINSON. I am very much afraid if I would make a negative answer to the question of my friend from New York my testimony might not be given the weight that I think it is entitled to.

Mr. CULKIN. I was only interested in getting the gentleman's own self-appraisal, that was all.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Pfeifer, do you wish to make a statement? Mr. PFEIFER. If it is convenient to the Chair and the members of the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH L. PFEIFER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to hear from Dr. Pfeifer at this time. Dr. Pfeifer has introduced H. R. 3419. I do not know whether the gentlemen here are familiar with the terms of that bill or not. Doctor, if you will, give us a statement, as briefly as possible, explaining the terms of your bill.

Mr. PFEIFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: We all realize the importance of the problem of pollution, not only in respect to health, but also in regard to industries and aquatic life of all sorts.

I have the greatest respect for my colleague from Kentucky, and I value his remarks. Undoubtedly he has already covered many of the points. I only got here a few minutes ago. I am sure he has touched on the importance of any bill concerning the clearance of our contaminated streams.

The matter of health is vital to all of us. We are likewise concerned in the pollution of the waters because of that which lives in the water, and because of the vessels that sail on these streams.

This bill is almost identical with the Lonergan bill in the Senate. Mr. CULKIN. You mean the Vinson bill or your bill?

Mr. PFEIFER. My bill. I go a little further than he does in that I create an avenue for jurisdiction, which his bill seems to lack.

I have not gone far enough as far as punishment is concerned of those who seem to wish to continue the contamination of those streams.

Gentlemen, time does not permit me to go into the details of the various sections of this bill, except, as I say, to me, this is an avenue along which we may find a clearance out of the mess that we are in.

139603-37-2

The records all over the country reveal and have revealed for some years a dreadful state of affairs on our inland waterways. One only has to go near one of those streams to realize the contamination that exists, merely by inhaling the contaminated air. There are hospitals and other buildings closely situated to those streams, and when one realizes what it means to the welfare of the individuals not only who are lying on their backs, but those who live close to the streams, it strikes home. One then realizes the seriousness of the situation that we face today.

Stream contamination, as we all know, comes from various sources. I am not going into detail as to the source of contamination of any stream. But we need legislation to control it. It has gotten beyond the hands of State authority. There are laws in certain States governing the control of this matter of contamination, but they get to first base, as they say, and they stay there. They get no farther. Since they are unable to take care of themselves, it is the duty of the Government to step in and to give their citizens that which they are rightfully entitled to.

If there is any section of the bill that the members present wish to question me about, I shall attempt to answer their questions.

Mr. CULKIN. What do you say about the Vinson bill, from your standpoint?

Mr. PFEIFER. I do not think the Vinson bill goes far enough. It is a good beginning. When it came up on the floor last year I voted for it, because we needed a start.

Mr. CULKIN. How do you distinguish between your bill and the Vinson bill? What additional safeguards are provided?

Mr. PFEIFER. My bill creates means by which the purpose of the bill may be carried out. My bill is legislation that confers jurisdiction on somebody. That is a difficult proposition to handle, but I think it can be done.

Mr. CULKIN. What section is that?

Mr. PFEIFER. Sections 12, 13, 14, and 15.

Mr. SMITH. Your bill also provides for a more important place, so far as the War Department is concerned, in the administration of the law. Is that because the War Department and the Army engineers are so familiar with the streams of this country?

Mr. PFEIFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITH. And the conditions of the streams everywhere in the United States?

Mr. PFEIFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CULKIN. What is the genesis of your bill? Has it the backing of any public-health groups?

Mr. PFEIFER. No; I do not know about that. I have not received any information from that source. Realizing the contamination that exists and stimulated by my colleague on the other side of the Congress, I realized that action was absolutely necessary.

Mr. CULKIN. It does not have the imprimatur or the O. K. of any particular group concerned about the public health or about this particular menace?

Mr. PFEIFER. Not that I know of.

Mr. DONDERO. With regard to section 2, the word "person" is used, where it makes it unlawful for a person to deposit any waste matter in public waters, and so forth. Is it your intention to omit cities,