be less than 0.33% or more than 0.66%, and the allotment ratio for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam shall be 0.663. The allotment ratios shall be promulgated by the Commissioner as soon as possible after enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, on the basis of the average of the incomes per person of the States and of all the States for the three most recent consecutive calendar years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of Commerce.

(b) (1) A State's allotment under subsection (a) from funds appropriated pursuant to section 601 (b) shall be available in accordance with the provisions of this part for payment of the Federal share (as determined under section 604) of the cost of equipment and minor remodeling described in section 603 (2) (A).

(2) A State's allotment under subsection (a) from funds appropriated pursuant to section 601 (c) shall be available in accordance with the provisions of this part for payment of the Federal share (as determined under section 604) of the cost of television equipment and minor remodeling described in section 603 (2) (B).

(c) Sums allotted to a State for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, shall remain available for reservation as provided in section 606 until the close of the next fiscal year, in addition to the sums allotted to such State for such next fiscal year. Sums allotted to a State for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, or for any succeeding fiscal year, which are not reserved as provided in section 606 by the close of the fiscal year for which they are allotted, shall be reallotted by the Commissioner, on the basis of such factors as he determines to be equitable and reasonable, among the States which, as determined by the Commissioner, are able to use without delay any amounts so reallotted. Amounts reallotted under this subsection shall be available for reservation until the

close of the fiscal year next succeeding the fiscal year for which they were originally allotted.

State Commissions and Plans

SEC. 603. Any State desiring to participate in the program under this part shall designate for that purpose an existing State agency which is broadly representative of the public and of institutions of higher education in the State, or, if no such State agency exists, shall establish such a State agency, and submit to the Commissioner through the agency so designated or established (hereafter in this part referred to as the "State commission"), a State plan for such participation. The Commissioner shall approve any such plan which—

(1) provides that it shall be administered by the State commission;

(2) sets forth, consistently with basic criteria prescribed by regulation pursuant to section 604, objective standards and methods (A) for determining the relative priorities of eligible projects for the acquisition of laboratory and other special equipment (other than supplies consumed in use), including audiovisual materials and equipment for classrooms or audiovisual centers, and printed and published materials (other than textbooks) for classrooms or libraries, suitable for use in providing education in science, mathematics, foreign languages, history, geography, government, English, other humanities, the arts, or education at the undergraduate level in institutions of higher education, and minor remodeling of class

room or other space used for such materials or equipment; (B) for determining relative priorities of eligible projects for (i) the acquisition of television equipment for closedcircuit direct instruction in such fields in such institutions (including equipment for fixed-service instructional television, as defined by the Federal Communications Com

mission, but not including broadcast transmission equipment), (ii) the acquisition of necessary instructional materials for use in such television instruction, and (iii) minor remodeling necessary for such television equipment; and (C) for determining the Federal share of the cost of each such project;

(3) provides (A) for assigning priorities solely on the basis of such criteria, standards, and methods to eligible projects submitted to the State commission and deemed by it to be otherwise approvable under the provisoions of this part; and (B) for approving and recommending to the Commissioner, in the order of such priority, applications covering such eligible projects, and for certifying to the Commissioner the Federal share, determined by the State commission under the State plan, of the cost of the project involved;

(4) provides for affording to every applicant, which has submitted to the State commission a project, an opportunity for a fair hearing before the commission as to the priority assigned to such project or as to any other determination of the commission adversely affecting such applicant; and

(5) provides (A) for such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of and accounting for Federal funds paid to the State commission under this part, and (B) for the making of such reports, in such form and containing such information, as may be reasonably necessary to enable the Commissioner to perform his functions under this part.

Basic Criteria for Determining Priorities,

Federal Share, and Maintenance
Effort

of

SEC. 604. (a) As soon as practicable after the enactment of this Act the Commissioner shall by regulation prescribe basic criteria to which the provisions of State plans setting forth standards and methods for deter

mining relative priorities of eligible projects, and the application of such standards and methods to such projects under such plans, shall be subject. Such basic criteria (1) shall be such as will best tend to achieve

the objectives of this part while leaving opportunity and flexibility for the develop

ment of State plan standards and methods that will best accommodate the varied needs of institutions in the several States, and (2) shall give special consideration to the financial need of the institution. Subject to the foregoing requirements, such regulations may establish additional and appropriate basic criteria, including provision for considering the degree to which applicant institutions are effectively utilizing existing facilities and equipment, provision for allowing State plans to group or provide for grouping in a reasonable manner, facilities or institutions according to functional or educational type for priority purposes, and, in view of the national objectives of this Act, provision for considering the degree to which the institution serves students from two or more States or from outside the United States; and in no event shall an institution's readiness to admit such out-of-State students be considered as a priority factor adverse to such institution.

(b) The Federal share for the purposes of this part shall be 50 per centum of the cost of the project, except that a State commission may increase such share to not to exceed 80 per centum of such cost in the case of any institution proving insufficient resources to participate in the program under

for such purposes during the previous fiscal year. The Commissioner shall establish basic criteria for making determinations under this subsection.

Applications for Grants and Conditions for Approval

SEC. 605. (a) Institutional of higher education which desire to obtain grants under this part shall submit applications therefor at

such time or times and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner, and such applications shall contain such information as may be required by or pursuant to regulation for the purpose of enabling the Commissioner to make the determinations

required to be made by him under this part.

(b) The Commissioner shall approve an application covering a project under this part and meeting the requirements prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) if—

(1) the project has been approved and recommended by the appropriate State commission;

(2) the State commission has certified to the Commissioner, in accordance with the State plan, the Federal share of the cost of the project, and sufficient funds to pay such Federal share are available from the applicable allotment of the State (including any applicable reallotment to the State);

(3) the project has, pursuant to the State plan, been assigned a priority that is higher than that of all other projects within such State (chargeable to the same allotment) which meet all the requirements of this section (other than this clause) and for which Federal funds have not yet been reserved;

(4) the Commissioner determines that the project will be undertaken in an economical manner and will not be overly elaborate or extravagant; and

(5) the Commissioner determines that the application contains or is supported by satisfactory assurances—

(A) that Federal funds received by the cost of the project covered by such appliapplicant will be used solely for defraying the

cation,

(B) that sufficient funds will be available to meet the non-Federal portion of such cost

and to provide for the effective use of the equipment upon completion, and

(C) that the institution will meet the maintenance of effort requirement in section 604(b).

(b) Amendments of applications shall, except as the Commissioner may otherwise provide by or pursuant to regulation, be subject to approval in the same manner as original applications.

Amount of Grant-Payment

SEC. 606. Upon his approval of any application for a grant under this part, the Commissioner shall reserve from the applicable allotment (including any applicable reallotment) available therefor, the amount of such grant, which (subject to the limits of such allotment or reallotment) shall be equal to the Federal share of the cost of the project covered by such application. The Commissioner shall pay such reserve amount, in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments as he may determine. The Commissioner's reservation of any amount under this section may be amended by him, either upon approval of an amendment of the application covering such project or upon revision of the estimated cost of a project with respect to which such reservation was made, and in the event of an upward revision of such estimated cost ap

sources. An institution of higher education shall be eligible for a grant for a project pursuant to this part in any fiscal year only if such institution will expend during such year for the same purposes as, but not pursuant to, this part an amount at least equal to the amount expended by such institution

share of the added cost only from the apat the time of such approval. plicable allotment (or reallotment) available

Administration of State Plans

SEC. 607. (a) The Commissioner shall not finally disapprove any State plan submitted under this part, or any modification thereof,

without first affording the State commission submitting the plan reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing.

(b) Whenever the Commissioner, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State commission administering a State plan approved under this part, finds(1) that the State plan has been so changed that it no longer complies with the provisions of section 603, or

(2) that in the administration of the plan there is a failure to comply substantially with any such provision,

the Commissioner shall notify such State commission that the State will not be regarded as eligible to participate in the program under this part until he is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply.

Judicial Review

SEC. 608. (a) If any State is dissatisfied

with the Commissioner's final action with respect to the approval of its State plan submitted under this part or with his final action under section 607, such State may

appeal to the United States court of appeals

for the circuit in which such State is lo

cated. The summons and notice of appeal may be served at any place in the United

States. The Commissioner shall forthwith certify and file in the court the transcript of the proceedings and the record on which he

based his action.

(b) The findings of fact by the Commissioner, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the Commissioner to take further evidence, and the Commissioner may thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may modify his previous action, and shall certify to the court the transcript and record of the further proceedings. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.

(c) The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Commissioner or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in title 28, United States Code, section 1254.

Limitation on Payments

SEC. 609. Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to authorize the making of any payment under this part for any equipment or materials for religious worship or instruction.

Part B-Faculty development programs Institutes Authorized

SEC. 621. There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the four succeeding fiscal years, to enable the Commissioner to arrange, through grants or contracts, with institutions of higher education for the operation by them of short-term workshops or short-term or regular-session institutes for individuals (1) who are engaged in, or preparing to engage in, the use of educational media equipment in teaching in institutions of higher education, or (2) who are, or are preparing to be, in institutions of higher education, specialists in educational media or librarians or other specialists using such media.

Stipends

SEC. 622. Each individual who attends an institute operated under the provisions of this part shall be eligible (after application therefor) to receive a stipend at the rate of $75 per week for the period of his attendance at such institute and each such individual with one or more dependents shall receive an additional stipend at the rate of $15 per week for each dependent. No stipends shall be paid for attendance at workshops.

TITLE VII-AMENDMENTS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963

Expansion of Grant Purposes

SEC. 701. (a) Section 106 of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is amended to read as follows:

"Eligibility for Grants

"SEC. 106. An institution of higher education shall be eligible for a grant for construction of an academic facility under this title only if such construction will, either alone or together with other construction to be undertaken within a reasonable time, (1) result in an urgently needed substantial expansion of the institution's student enrollment capacity or capacity to carry out extension and continuing education programs, or (2) in the case of a new institution of higher education, result in creating urgently needed enrollment capacity or capacity to carry out extension and continuing education programs."

(b) The first sentence of section 101(b) of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is amended by striking out "and each

of the two succeeding fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "and for the succeeding fiscal year, and the sum of $330,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966".

(c) The second sentence of section 201 of such Act is amended by striking out "and the sum of $60,000,000 each for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and the succeeding fiscal year" and inserting in lieu thereof "the sum of $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and the sum of $120,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966".

Technical amendments

Making Section 103 Allotments Available for Section 104 Institutions Under Certain Circumstances

SEC. 702. (a) (1) Section 103 (b) of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is amended by inserting "(1)" immediately after "(b)" in such section and by adding at the end thereof:

"(2) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title to the contrary, a State's allotment for any fiscal year pursuant to this section shall, at the request of the Governor of such State, be available, in accordance with the provisions of this title, for payment of the Federal share (as determined under sections 108(b)(3) and 401(d)) of the development cost of approved projects for the construction of academic facilities within such State for public institutions of higher education other than public community colleges and public technical institutes."

amended by striking out "for providing aca(2) The first sentence of section 103 (c) is demic facilities for public community colleges or public technical institutes” and inserting in lieu thereof "for the purposes set forth in subsection (b) of this section".

(3) Clause (3) of section 105 (a) is amended by inserting "(except as provided in section 103(b) (2))" after "section 103 will be available".

Making Section 104 Allotments Available for Section 103 Institutions Under Certain Circumstances

(b) (1) Section 104 (b) of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is amended by inserting "(1)" immediately after "(b)" in such section and by adding at the end thereof:

"(2) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title to the contrary, a State's allotment for any fiscal year pursuant to this section shall, at the request of the Governor of such State, be available, in accordance with the provisions of this title, for payment of the Federal share (as determined under sections 108(b) (3) and 401(d)) of the development cost of approved projects for the construction of academic facilities within such State for

public community colleges and public technical institutes."

(2) The first sentence of section 104 (c) is amended by striking out "for providing academic facilities for institutions of higher education other than public community colleges and public technical institutes" and inserting in lieu thereof "for the purposes set forth in subsection (b) of this section".

(3) Clause (3) of section 105(a) is amended by inserting "(except as provided in section 104(b) (2))" after "section 104 will be available".

Revising Federal Share for Public Community Colleges and Public Technical Institutes

(c) (1) Section 105 (a) (2) of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is amended by striking out "other than a project for a public community college or public technical institute".

(2) Section 107(b) of such Act is amended (1) by striking out "other than a project for a public community college or public technical institute", and (2) by striking out "shall be 40 per centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "shall in no event exceed 40 per centum".

(3) Section 401(d) of such Act is amended by inserting immediately before "40 per centum" the following: "a percentage (as determined under the applicable State plan) not in excess of".

Indefinite Availability of Sums Appropriated Under Section 201

(d) The last sentence of section 201 of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is amended to read as follows: "Sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended for grants under this title." Two-Year Availability of Title III Funds

(e) Section 303 (c) of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: "Sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection for any fiscal year shall remain available for loans under this title until the end of the next succeeding fiscal year." Coordination With Part A (Grants for Expansion and Improvement of Nurse Training) of Title VIII of the Public Health Service Act

(f) Effective with respect to applications for grants and loans submitted after the date of enactment of this Act, clause (E) of section 401(a) (2) of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is amended to read as follows: "(E) any facility used or to be used by a school of medicine, school of dentistry, school of osteopathy, school of pharmacy, school of optometry, school of podiatry, or school of public health as these terms are defined in section 724 of the Public Health Service Act, or a school of nursing as defined in section 843 of that Act."

TITLE VIII-GENERAL PROVISIONS

Definitions

SEC. 801. As used in this Act

(a) The term "institution of higher education" means an educational institution in any State which (1) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate, (2) is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education, (3) provides an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a two-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, (4) is a public or other nonprofit institution, and (5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association or, if not so accredited, is an institution whose credits are accepted, on transfer, by not less than three institutions which are so accredited, for credit on the same basis as if transferred from an institution so accredited.

Such term also includes any business school or technical institution which meets the provisions of clauses (1), (2), (4), and (5). For purposes of this subsection, the Commissioner shall publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or associations which he determines to be reliable authority as to the quality of training offered.

(b) The term "State" includes, in addition to the several States of the Union, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.

the national interest, without regard to the provisions of section 87 of the Act of January 12, 1895 (28 Stat. 622), and section 11 of the Act of March 1, 1919 (40 Stat. 1270; 44 U.S.C. 111).

Federal Control of Education Prohibited

SEC. 804. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise and direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, or over the selection of library resources by any educational institution.

(c) The term "nonprofit" as applied to a school, agency, organization, or institution means a school, agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by one or Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if more nonprofit corporations or associations the Senator from Utah will yield further,

no part of the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

(d) The term "secondary school" means a school which provides secondary education as determined under State law except that it does not include any education provided beyond grade 12.

(e) The term "Secretary" means the Secre

tary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

(f) The term "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Education.

(g) The term "local educational agency" means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary, secondary, or postsecondary vocational schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or such com

bination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary, secondary, or postsecondary vocational schools. Such terms also includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary, secondary, or postsecondary vocational

school.

(h) The term “State educational agency" means the State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary and secondary schools, or, if there is no such officer or agency, an officer or agency designated by the Governor or by State law.

(i) The term "elementary school" means

a school which provides elementary education including education below grade 1, as

determined under State law.

Method of Payment

there will be no further legislation, to my knowledge, considered in the Senate in the Senate this afternoon. Therefore, there will be

no votes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate concludes its business today, it stand in recess until 12 o'clock tomorrow.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. And that at the conclusion of the prayer, rather than having a morning hour, the Senate resume consideration of the higher education bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. That re

quest is not necessary. Since the Senate will recess when it concludes its business today, there will be no morning hour tomorrow.

NORTH AMERICAN WATER AND POWER ALLIANCE-RESOLUTION

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, 1965 might be called the year of the great water paradox. Almost the entire Nation has had unusual weather.

In the Northeast, where people serenely assumed water would always be bountiful, there is a record-shattering drought from New Hampshire to West Virginia. Some of our densest areas of population and heaviest concentrations of industry face the fearful possibility that they will be out of water by midwinter.

Near-record snows and heavy spring SEC. 802. Payments under this Act to any rains in the upper Mississippi Valley

individual or to any State or Federal agency, institution of higher education, or any other organization, pursuant to a grant, loan, or contract, may be made in installments, and in advance or by way of reimbursement, and, in the case of grants or loans, with necessary adjustments on account of overpayments or underpayments.

Federal Administration

SEC. 803. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to delegate any of his functions under this Act, except the making of regulations, to any officer or employee of the Office of Education.

(b) In administering the titles of this Act for which he is responsible, the Commissioner is authorized to utilize the services and facilities of any agency of the Federal Government and of any other public or nonprofit agency or institution, in accordance with agreements between the Secretary and the head thereof.

(c) In carrying out his functions under this or any other Act, the Commissioner is authorized to contract for the publication of educational and related information so as to further the full dissemination of information of eduactional value consistent with

spread devastating floods all the way from Minnesota to Missouri. Midwestern plains which are often tinder dry were inundated, and city streets awash. It seemed for a time there in April that the rains would never stop.

In the Rocky Mountain area, and other parts of the arid and semiarid West, we have had one of the best water seasons in years. There has been persistent, above-normal rainfall on a broad front extending from Arizona and southern California northeastward to the northern Rockies. Cool, clear water for our farms and our homes has filled our reservoirs to their highest levels in years. Even the Great Salt Lake, which has been steadily receding for a number of years, has done an about-face, and its salty waters are lapping at lands which have not been submerged for more than a decade.

The Pacific Northwest, an area normally blessed with heavy rainfall, had an unusually dry and sunny spring season,

and rain was on the low side on the gulf coast and in Florida, where precipitation is usually plentiful.

How can a Nation deal with such paradoxes-with such audacious whims of nature? There is only one way-by careful, long-range planning which takes into consideration total resources and total needs.

This year's water paradoxes have moved America swiftly toward its day of water reckoning. When the Senate Subcommittee on National Water Resources warned in 1961 that some sec

tions of the United States would be out of water in 20 years if heroic measures were not taken, people in water bountiful areas had a tendency to shrug and say, "never here, thank goodness," and go on about their business. Now they are aroused. With taps running dry in big metropolitan areas where water has not even been metered, with little or no water for suburban lawns and swimming pools, with air conditioning endangered and with industrial plants hard put to keep their wheels turning, even the most take indifferent citizen is ready to another look at our water needs and uses. Our "unusual" weather has been good for more than conversation to pass the time of day.

It would be frustrating enough in this summer of 1965 if America's water problems were all due to the vagaries of nature alone, but the truth is that they have been vastly complicated by the vagaries of man. Perhaps now it will be possible to make more of our citizens in more of our communities along our rivers and lakes rise up in their wrath about the human vagary which has filled our rivers and streams with pollution. Not enough people in America are angry about pollution. More people must put on battle array if we are to conquer this massive problem.

Cities and industries, all too often centered on their own problems, have in too many instances been lethargic about the long-range interest of their own or adjacent areas. For years it mattered little to city councilmen or plant managers that by filling our lakes and streams with human and industrial waste they were turning them into open

sewers.

As a result, many of our greatest rivers and lakes now suffer chronic pollution. The water of the Great Lakes one-quarter of the world's fresh liquid waterare badly polluted.

Lake Erie is critically ill, its once-white beaches covered with smelly greenish slime, and its priceless walleyes, blue pike, and yellow perch, all but lost, along with its prosperous fishing industry.

Here in Washington, the Capital City of the most powerful and progressive nation in the world, we view not the model Potomac, but the polluted Potomac. The waters of the Ohio are no longer beautiful, but are turgid with waste, and even in the mighty Mississippi there is not enough water to flush out the waste and sewage poured into it.

We have used, and misused, our water for years as though there were no tomorrow. Now tomorrow is here and we must face it.

Let it be written that this summer of 1965 was the summer when the people of America finally fully understood the magnitude of the Nation's water problems, and took the bold and courageous steps necessary to meet them. Let us profit by the discussion and concern about water; by the newspaper headlines snatched away from crime and murder and war to announce drought and more drought, pollution and more pollution, floods and more floods. Let us take the momentum which these disasters have given us and profit by it. Let us take our leadtime and make the most of it. We must begin now to put our imagination and skills together and do what has to be done to assure that the entire Nation-the usually water bountiful Northeast, South and Northwest, the uncertain Midwest, the arid and semiarid West and Southwest, will always have enough water, no matter what pranks nature pulls, to allow each State and each section to achieve its share of our national growth now and in the years to come.

We must use every tool at our command. We must expand water storage facilities, purify brackish and salt water, increase streamflow by eradication of worthless vegetation, control snowmelt, and expand all phases of water research.

We must achieve optimum development of what water we have underground and above ground. We must imWe must improve coordination between Federal, State, and local activities. We must work hard-and work together.

parleys all through the West.

beginning to feel our way on it. A close examination of all the signs and portents indicate that some of the objections to water importation are dissolving.

For example, western governors meeting in Portland, Oreg., earlier this year unanimously adopted a resolution establishing a Western States water council to effect cooperation in water resource development. This resolution recognized the fact that water problems in one water basin of the West are water problems of all Western States and basins, and that all Western States and basins, and that full integration may require the removal of water from areas of water surplus to of water from areas of water surplus to areas of water deficiency.

At recent resource development discussion meetings held in Lake Tahoe, Calif., and Corvallis, Oreg., it was the apparent and Corvallis, Oreg., it was the apparent consensus of the broad representation of experts and citizens there that Western States must reach agreement among themselves on on large-scale interstate transbasin water development programs.

In keynoting the Oregon conference, Gov. Mark Hatfield, much of whose State Gov. Mark Hatfield, much of whose State lies in an abundant rainfall belt, stressed the growing seriousness of the water the growing seriousness of the water problems of the cities. He stated:

It is one of the ironies of our age, there are cities where we cannot water the

lawns, wash the automobiles, or fill the swimming pools our productive economy have permitted. Even the enjoyment of our new leisure is threatened by the pollution of our lakes and rivers.

I was most interested to read an interview with my good friend and colleague, view with my good friend and colleague, Senator JORDAN of Idaho, in the Salt Lake Tribune, in which the Senator recognized the rights of people in waterognized the rights of people in waterparched areas to water which was wasting away in water surplus areas. Senator ing away in water surplus areas. Senator JORDAN dealt specifically with

situation in southern California, and the concluded that when all potential Caliconcluded that when all potential Cali

Congress took a giant step this session in improving cooperation between areas and States in water development when we passed a measure to provide for water resource development and planning in the United States on river basin bases. It is manifest that State and regional lines must be disregarded if water resource planning is to be fully efficient. Water flows downward by gravity, sweep-fornia water supplies had been fully deing over man-designated boundaries at will. The fact that we have drawn arbitrary lines to set one State apart from another, or one county apart from another, is of no concern to a river or stream rushing to the sea, or a lake which spreads out in nature's valley. Nor is it of any concern to our great continental waterways that more than a hundred years ago the United States and Canada established the 49th parallel, and the middle of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, as the boundary between our two nations. These are manset confines which nature ignores.

With water resource development now launched on a basinwide basis in the United States, the next logical step is importation of water from water surplus areas to water short areas. This is a bold concept, and one which will require more imagination and will and cooperation than has been displayed so far.

There has been stiff resistance to exporting water in water surplus areas. This is natural and understandable. No one wants to give up something which he holds valuable. On the other hand it is hard to justify wasting away a valuable resource which belongs to all the people when others desperately need it.

Therefore, water importation is now becoming a topic of discussion at water

veloped, and other possibilities such as desalinization exhausted, the people of desalinization exhausted, the people of that area had the right to look to the large surplus supplies which exist in the Lower Columbia Basin.

"We in the Northwest cannot defend

our right to waste water in the Columbia into the ocean," the Senator stated. How could anyone disagree?

The concept of "waste not, want not" on water was carried a step farther in a meeting of representatives of the lower and upper Colorado River Basin held this month here in Washington. At this meeting representatives from my own State of Utah expressed a willingness to share temporarily a portion of our precious share of Colorado River waters with lower basin States until completion of our own water development projects with lower basin States until completion allows us to make full use of our share. We asked, of course, for strong guarantees that the water will be returned to us

when we are ready to use it, but there was general recognition of the fact that if the lower basin does not find more water for its rapidly expanding population soon, the problem will become insoluble. So you can see, dividing up water is not always an activity where all of the giving is all on one side.

But dividing up available water-importing it from where it is to where it is not is much wider than just a western problem, or even a nationwide problem. It is a continentwide problem. The most imaginative approach to the water shortages in the United States, and our greatest hope of solving our water problems from the Great Lakes to the Pacific Ocean, and from Canada to Mexico, lies, in a bold new concept which has been called the North American Water and Power Alliance. This concept is being actively advanced by the Ralph M. Parsons Co., of Los Angeles, one of the outstanding engineering and construction firms in the Nation.

I was so deeply impressed with the Parsons concept that I asked the distinguished chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee [Mr. MCNAMARA] to establish a special subcommittee to study it and decide how it could be implemented. This he did-the Special Subcommittee on Western Water Development-and I was honored with the appointment as chairman.

Since that time the subcommittee has compiled and published an inventory of all water resource projects authorized or contemplated by the Federal Government and compared them with the projects in the Parsons concept.

NAWAPA, as the program has become known, would trap the wasted water of Alaska, the Yukon Territory, and British Columbia, and channel it to the Canadian Plains, the Great Lakes, and Western United States and Mexico.

It would be history's biggest public works program. It would cost $100 billion and it would take 30 years to build. It would provide a vast complex of canals, trenches, reservoirs, aqueducts, lift-pump stations, and other water works. There would be a 500-mile-long Rocky Mountain trench in the upper reaches of Columbia, Fraser and Kootenay Rivers which would bring water to Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico and several places in old Mexico. A Rocky Mountain eastern slope project would put more water into New Mexico, and into Texas, ColoWater would be transported to the Great rado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Lakes, now at drastically low levels because of water diversion, channel improvement and low precipitation through a giant Canadian-Great Lakes canal system.

In all, 33 States in the United States would directly benefit from NAWAPA, with the entire country sharing in the economic impact. In Canada, direct benefits would accrue to seven Provinces

enter into such a study. The Premier of British Columbia, a key Province in the program, was outspoken in his opposition

to it.

Since that time, however, there have been some signs of a softening of attitude on the general question of transporting water from water-surplus areas in Canada to the United States.

As an example, the Governments of Canada and Ontario have now agreed to a northern river water survey to find out whether waters now flowing wastefully into the Hudson Bay might be diverted southward.

Both Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and Premier John Robards have stressed that water should not be exported to relieve acute U.S. shortages until after Canada's needs are met a most reasonable attitude, of course. The implication is that it should be exported when Canada's present and future needs have been guaranteed, in order to sustain life in water-short areas.

This is one more step in the recognition of the mutuality of interest in water between the United States and Canada, which began in 1909 when the boundary water treaty between the two countries was signed to establish a procedure for settling questions on our boundary waters. This was followed in 1912 by the establishment of the International Joint Commission. Since that time there have been a series of agreements dealing tolls in with matters ranging from tolls in boundary waters, to Great Lakes pilotage, to Lake of the Woods boundary levels to the Niagara diversion.

Some time ago we concluded the basic agreements which make possible the development of the mighty St. Lawrence Seaway. More recently we have seen our common interest served in the CanadianUnited States Columbia River Treaty, signed last year by President Johnson and Prime Minister Pearson at the Peace Arch on the border between Washington State and British Columbia. Even though there are still some problems to be ironed out, the signing of the treaty assures us that the water and energy resources of western Canada and western United States will be utilized for all time to come for the common good of both countries.

Now the drastic decline in the water level of the Great Lakes has brought our two countries together again in negotiations to consider our rights, obligations, and interests. The lake level problem has been referred to the International Joint Commission to find a solution-if one is within man's reach.

It was my privilege recently to speak at the third International Conference on Water Conservation in Montreal, Canada, in June of this year. It is significant, I believe, that representatives of the Parsons Co. were also invited to the conference and given time to explain in detail the Nawapa plan, with special emphasis on the facets of it which would bring more water into the Great Lakes.

Most of the conference was devoted to the deterioration of water levels in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system, and to the steps it will be necessary to take to head off disaster.

By resolution, the conference recommended the establishment of a single continuing national authority to achieve a real and efficient coordination of all competent Government and private agencies to work out a comprehensive water management policy.

By resolution, the conference also urged the International Joint Commission to proceed with all dispatch into the already authorized studies on the Great Lakes.

And finally, by resolution, the conference urged that studies be undertaken on the feasibility of utilizing additional northern Canadian waters to augment the receding waters of the Great Lakes. Mr. President, I am greatly heartened by the fact that both here in the United States, and in Canada, we are beginning to consider the feasibility of importing water from areas where it is wasting away, to areas which are water short. Discussion is the father of action.

I am encouraged, also, by the fact that this willingness to discuss mass transportation of water from one area to another comes in the country of our neighbor to the north with whom we have a well established mutuality of interest, and a long history of the fair and just recognition of the valid rights of each.

I am likewise pleased that these developments have matured in a year when the United States as a whole has suffered from a reversal of its weather cycle, and citizens throughout the country are aware, as never before, of the importance of managing our water resources on a continent wide and long-range basis.

I feel, therefore, that this is an auspicious time to submit a concurrent resolution which provides it to be the sense of Congress that the Government of the United States refer to the International Joint Commission the subject of the North American Water and Power Alliance with instructions that it be fully studied and that a detailed engineering survey be conducted on it. I am submitting such a concurrent resolution today. It is my hope that the Parliament of Canada pass a like resolution directed toward the Government of the Dominion of Canada. I shall call this hope to the attention of my friends in the Canadian Parliament.

I also hope that some of my Senate colleagues will join with me in sponsoring this NAWAPA resolution and I ask unanimous consent that it lie on the desk for 1 week for cosponsors. I feel that this is the first step on what may be a long quest to provide the most realistic and complete solution yet offered to the water crisis on the North Amerto the water crisis on the North American Continent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TyDINGS in the chair). The concurrent resolution will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the concurrent resolution will lie on the desk, as requested.

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 55) was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, as follows:

S. CON. RES. 55

Whereas there is a drought which has created a water shortage of unprecedented proportions for the City of New York, and

has created serious water problems for the States of New York and Pennsylvania and the entire northeastern regions of the United States;

Whereas most of the Nation's rivers are contaminated with human sewage and industrial wastes;

Whereas the water supply for large areas of western Canada and Western United States is inadequate to provide for present and future needs;

Water Resources Planning Act, under which

Whereas the Congress has enacted the

river basin planning authorities will be established, and through which maximum development of existing resources within basins will be achieved;

Whereas more water is necessary to solve the Nation's problems of water supply and pollution abatement;

Whereas large quantities of Arctic water

flow unused into the sea;

Whereas it has been proposed that the nations of Canada and the United States consider diversion of the surplus portions of this water to meet the needs of watershort areas in Canada and the United States;

Whereas water problems of mutual interest to Canada and the United States have previously been referred to the International Joint Commission;

Whereas the International Joint Commis

sion is now considering the crisis arising from lowered water levels of the Great Lakes; and

Whereas the diversion of surplus Arctic water could make a major contribution to the solution of the water problems of the Great Lakes as well as those of other areas of Canada and the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that

(1) the President of the United States should refer the matter of the diversion of

surplus Arctic water to the International Joint Commission with the request that an economic and engineering feasibility study be made and that the respective governments be informed of the results of such study by December 31, 1966; and

(2) the President of the United States

should invite the government of Canada to join in such referral.

REDUCTION OF DUTY-FREE ALLOWANCE ON FOREIGN GOODS

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, on June 29 the Senate took what I have called a "shotgun approach" to our balance-of-payments problem by voting to reduce the duty-free allowance on foreign goods which may be brought home by American tourists.

As I said in the Senate debate, that portion of the bill which reduced 1 gallon to 1 quart the amount of alcoholic beverages allowed to a returning tourist would prove unduly damaging to some of our stanchest allies in the Caribbean and areas immediately adjacent to the United States.

In particular, the Bahamas-which rely entirely on a tourist economy-reported that the reduced quota on liquor purchases would reduce their gross national product by 12 percent. All this would take place in a country with which the United States has long had a favorable trade position.

Mr. President, I could not understand then and I certainly cannot understand now why, in our efforts to achieve a better balance-of-payments position, we would take a line of action which actu