the real estate boom along our Atlantic coast got underway. The Congress, it seems to me, must take the responsibility, in this instance, for balancing development in desirable seashore areas between private and public interests. I believe it is useful to give the 50 million people who live within a day's drive an opportunity to enjoy Assateague Island's superlative beach. However, I personally believe that this superb island should be developed for the benefit of all of our people not just those Americans who like to get away from it all. I know that many Americans who would journey to Assateague want something more than a naturalist's holiday. They want and need controlled public accommodations. This, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons that H.R. 2071 represents such splendid committee work. Because H.R. 2071 H.R. 2071 balances Assateague Island's potential by providing nature in the raw for those Americans who prefer it that way and limited and controlled public accommodations for those Americans who are not necesarily camping enthusiasts. To me, it is important that Members of the House now have an opportunity to vote for a bill that will place a major national recreation area within easy reach of about one-fourth of our Nation's population and it seems important to me that the bill is designed to assure that both unspoiled natural areas and properly located public accommodations will meet the needs of all visiting Americans. On this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify, if I may, the wishes of my constituency in connection with the land being set aside for public accommodations on the Virginia end of the island. My constituency is not interested at this time in commercial development on the Virginia end of Assateague. It is our hope that the Interior Secretary would set an area aside in its present natural state, without development or construction of public accommodations in the foreseeable future. The world famous Chincoteague oyster is farmed in Tom's Cove and in the Chincoteague Bay areas just below the Virginia end of Assateague Island. Construction of any kind would undoubtedly decimate a product that is famous

throughout the Nation and we, of course, cannot allow this to happen. Of course, we assume in Virginia that the time will come when developments in the oyster industry and population demands for public accommodations may coincide, and we hope that the Interior Secretary would permit construction of public accommodations on our end of the island at that time, but the situation is not emergent and the 600 acres set aside in Maryland should provide adequately for public accommodations for a long time. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that H.R. 2071 adequately covers this point, but there has been some confusion on the purpose of the set-aside provisions for Virginia and I want the record to clearly indicate that we want the capability to provide public accommodations in Virginia at the appropriate time in the distant future, but we have no interest in commercial development in the immediate or near future.

The Chincoteague area is one of Virginia's richest oyster producing regions ginia's richest oyster producing regions and we must preserve the Chincoteague and we must preserve the Chincoteague oyster. I am hopeful that nothing we will do on Assateague Island will in any way diminish Chincoteague's oyster production. I hope and urge that the Induction. I hope and urge that the Interior Secretary will always keep in mind the importance of preserving the Chincoteague oyster industry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment particularly on only one other section of H.R. 2071. Section 9 of the bill provides for construction of a road from the Chincoteague-Assateague Bridge to the Chincoteague beach area and for the construction of a road to connect the construction of a road to connect the Chincoteague-Assateague Bridge with the Sandy Point-Assateague Bridge. The the Sandy Point-Assateague Bridge. The precise location of this dual road is left to the Interior Secretary's judgment and I assume the Interior Secretary will locate the roads on the basis of technical considerations and professional engineering recommendations. But, without regard to the Secretary's decision on road location, I want to thank the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee for authorizing and directing this dual roadway system. I believe section 9 may be the single most important feature of the bill, because a road connecting the two bridges-one on the Virginia end and one on the Maryland end, and a road from the bridge on the Virginia end to the Chincoteague beach area will mean that the millions of Americans who will travel to Assateague Island by automobile will be able to enjoy not only the attractions of the island itself but the attractions of a southern coastal tour. A road from bridge to bridge makes possible a circumferential visiting pattern in the area. Travelers would be able to conveniently visit almost the entirety of the area that has so appropriately been called "the land of pleasant living." A loop road would also make it possible for Americans to conveniently visit one of the great engineering feats of all time the unbelievable Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. I do not mean to regale my colleagues on the beauty of my home areabut to my mind the provision of the loop road on Assateague Island is an ingenious provision because it opens up the entire Chesapeake Bay area as well as Assateague Island itself to the central Atlantic urban area. This is clearly in the public interest and it clearly meets the first objective of the bill to open up recreation areas for the urbanized areas in our central Atlantic region.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to arise in full support of the bill. I hope my colleagues will share in my belief that it is a bill that deserves unanimous support of the House. I hope it will be passed unanimously.

Mr. RIVERS of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. SICKLES].

Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in wholehearted support of H.R. 2071.

Now is the time of the year when many Americans spend part of their summer vacationing at the seashore.

Assateague constitutes the last significant stretch of undeveloped seashore on the eastern seaboard. It is easily accessible from such large metropolitan centers as Norfolk, Richmond, Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New York. An estimated 33 million people live within 250 miles of the island, now connected to the mainland by a newly constructed bridge across the bay.

The ease of access created by the opening of the Assateague Bridge on the Maryland mainland has now increased pressures on State officials to permit development of the island by private individual or commercial concerns.

If Assateague is indeed to be preserved unspoiled for the enjoyment of those millions who lack the opportunity to have access to a private ocean beach, the Congress must act promptly.

The State of Maryland itself is strongly in favor of an Assateague National Seashore and is anxious to move ahead with its plans to develop the State-owned portion of the island. Recently, a proposed master plan of the State Department of Forests and Parks was made public. The plan earmarks $6.7 million for development of the Maryland section of Assateague over the next decade.

At the present time part of the island is owned by the State of Maryland, part is owned by the Federal Government and the remainder is in private ownership. This bill is to acquire Assateague Island as a national seashore provides adequate funds for the just compensation of the present property owners.

In the not too distant future Assateague Island is expected to attract 3 million visitors annually. It is my hope that the Congress will approve Assateague Island as a national seashore so that this valuable asset can benefit our entire Nation and be preserved for future genera

tions.

leasing by private developers of 600 acres use and the promotion of private enterinsuring adequate facilities for public prise without in any way marring the beauty of the island.

Ample provision is made to permit the

We all know that our country has been

generously endowed by nature with beauty of awesome proportions, yet we find that as our population tends to cluster in great sprawling cities. Fewer and fewer of our citizens are able to enjoy nature's handwork. Because so few spots of this sort are either accessible or publicly available, it would be a sad waste to permit this lovely island to either remain unused or to limit its use to only a few. President Johnson has pointed out that it is especially those of us who live and work in cities who stand to

benefit most from the "enrichment of mind and spirit" which naturally beautiful environments often provide. A national seashore on Assateague Island offers just such an opportunity, and I do not think we can afford to let it pass.

Mr. RIVERS of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may con

sume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support to the efforts of our colleague from Maryland, Congressman MORTON, and of our colleague from Virginia, Mr. DOWNING, and of other Members of the Maryland and Virginia delegations to have Assateague Island declared a national seashore. They did an excellent job in presenting their case before our Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, and in showing us Assateague Island when we visited it about 2 months ago. I congratulate them on the successful outcome of their efforts and I thank them for the many courtesies they showed to us.

There are three points about the Assateague Island proposal that I want to stress. The first is that, without disturbing the present functions of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, on the southerly portion of Assateague Island, we will be combining it with a new national recreation area and in this way will be making available for public enjoyment practically the whole of the 33 miles of beach on the ocean side of Assateague Island. This will be a great contribution to the pleasure of people living in the metropolitan corridor that stretches from New York to Norfolk and to that of the many other visitors who will come here from more distant parts

of the Nation.

The second point I want to stress is this: One of the jobs of the Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Park Service in their administration of the Assateague Island National Seashore will be the preservation of the herd of wild ponies that is such an attractive and interesting feature of the island. If Assateague Island were ever developed as was proposed when a large part of it was platted and subdivided, the pony herd would be much more restricted than it will be when the island is administered as a national seashore.

A third feature of this bill is its direction to the Secretary of the Interior to set aside as much as 600 acres in the Maryland portion of the national seashore for concession services. Many people who will visit Assateague will want to stay there overnight or longer and will not want to camp out. It is these people that we were thinking of when, in marking up the bill, we included not only the provision I just referred to but also a provision to set aside a similar area in the Virginia portion of the park for the same purpose. An additional benefit that will accrue from permitting concessioners to operate in these areas will be the tax base that will be preserved for the local political subdivisions.

In addition to these three matters, I want to discuss briefly the problem of a road on the island. This was thoroughly discussed in the committee. It was clear to all of us that a road will be badly needed. It was clear to all of us, also, that the road ought to connect the Maryland exit at the Sandy Point bridge with the Chincoteague bridge to the south and not be merely a 12-mile stub in the Maryland part of the national seashore. What was not clear, however, was where the road should be located. Some wanted it right back of the dune line as it

presently exists. Others thought it should be farther to the west. Still others wanted to bypass as much of the national wildlife refuge as possible. It was thus impossible to make a decision on the location of the main road at the time we marked up the bill. This was left to be worked out by the Secretary left to be worked out by the Secretary of the Interior. His decision will have to be made with three main considerato be made with three main considerations in mind: First, the preservation of as much of the wildlife refuge area with as much of the wildlife refuge area with its wilderness characteristics as possible; second, the convenience of the public visiting the national seashore and the role the road can play in acquainting them with the beauties of the area; and, third, the engineering and cost factors in favor of one route as against another. Mr. Speaker, there are any number of other points about H.R. 2071 that I could mention but they either have been or will be so well covered by other speakers that I will not use up your time with my comments. I close, therefore, by asking your support for H.R. 2071. It deserves your support, for Assateague will be a very worthy addition to our national park system and will, in the years to come, serve the American people in an outstanding way.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. tempore. The question is on suspending the rules and passing the bill.

thirds having voted in favor thereof) The question was taken; and (twothe rules were suspended and the bill

was passed.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND REMARKS

Mr. RIVERS of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alaska?

There was no objection.

Mr. RIVERS of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 20) to provide for the establishment of the Assateague Island National Seashore in the States of Maryland and Virginia, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alaska?

There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

S. 20

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of protecting and developing Assateague Island in the States of Maryland and Virginia and certain adjacent waters and small marsh islands for public outdoor recreation and use and enjoyment, the Assateague Island National Seashore (hereinafter referred to as the "seashore") shall be established and administered in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The seashore shall comprise the area within Assateague Island and the small marsh islands adjacent thereto, together with the adjacent water areas not more than one-half mile beyond the mean high waterline of the land portions as generally depicted on a map identified as "Proposed Assateague Island National Seashore, Boundary Map, NS-AI

7100A, November 1964", which map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the Department of the Interior.

SEC. 2. (a) Within the boundaries of the seashore, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") is authorized to acquire lands, waters, and other property, or any interest therein, by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, exchange, or by such other method as he may find to be in the public acquire, by any of the above methods, not The Secretary is authorized to

interest.

to exceed ten acres of land or interests therein on the mainland for an administrative site. In the case of acquisition by negotiated purchase, the property owners shall be paid the fair market value by the Secretary. Any property or interests therein owned by the States of Maryland or Virginia shall be acquired only with the concurrence of such owner. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, any Federal property located within the boundaries of the seashore and not more than ten acres of Federal property on the mainland may, with the concurrence of the agency having custody thereof, be transferred without consideration to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary for purposes of the seashore.

(b) When acquiring lands by exchange, the Secretary may accept title to any non-Federal property within the boundaries of the

seashore and to not more than ten acres of non-Federal property on the mainland, and convey to the grantor of such property and federally owned property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary which he classifies as suitable for exchange or other disposal. The properties so exchanged shall be approx

imately equal in fair market value, but the

Secretary may accept cash from or pay cash to the grantor in order to equalize the values of the properties exchanged..

(c) The Secretary is authorized to acquire all of the right, title, or interest of the Chincoteague-Asateague Bridge and Beach Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Virginia, in the bridge constructed by such authority across the Asateague Channel, together with all lands or interests therein, roads, parking lots, buildings, or other real or personal property of such authority and to compensate the authority in such amount as will permit it to meet its valid outstanding obligations at the time of such acquisition. Payments by the Secretary shall be on such terms and conditions as he shall consider to be in the public interest. Any of the aforesaid property outside the boun

daries of the national seashore, upon acquisition by the Secretary, shall be subject to his administration for purposes of the seashore.

(d) Owners of improved property acquired by the Secretary may reserve for themselves and their successors or assigns a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial residential purposes for a term that is not more than twenty-five years. In such cases, the Secretary shall pay to the owner of the property the fair market value thereof less the fair market value of the right retained by such owner. The term improved property as used in this Act shall mean (1) any single-family residence the construction of which was begun before January 1, 1963, and such amount of land, not in excess of three acres, on which the build

ing is situated as the Secretary considers rea

sonably necessary to the noncommercial residential use of the building, and (2) any property fronting on the Chincoteague Bay or Sinepuxtent Bay including the offshore bay islands adjacent thereto, that are used chiefly for hunting and continues in such use and in the same ownership: Provided, That the Secretary may exclude from im

proved properties any marsh, beach, or waters, together with so much of the land adjoining such marsh, beach, or waters as

he deems necessary for public use or public access thereto.

SEC. 3. (a) If the bridge from Sandy Point to Assateague Island is operated by the State of Maryland as a toll-free facility, the Secretary is authorized and directed to compensate said State in the amount of two-thirds of the cost of constructing the bridge, including the cost of bridge approaches, engineering, and all other related costs, but the total amount of such compensation shall be not more than $1,000,000; and he is authorized to enter into agreements with the State of Maryland relating to the use and management of the bridge.

(b) The State of Maryland shall have the right to acquire or lease from the United States such land or interest therein on the island north of the area now used as a State park as the State may from time to time determine to be needed for State park purposes; and the Secretary is authorized and directed to convey or lease such land or interest therein to the State for such purposes upon terms and conditions which he deems will assure its public use in harmony with the purposes of this Act. In the event any of such terms and conditions are not complied with, all the property, or any portion thereof, shall, at the option of the Secretary, revert to the United States in its then existing condition. Any lease hereunder shall be for such consideration as the Secretary deems equitable; and any conveyance of title to land hereunder may be made only upon payment by the State of such amounts of money as were expended by the United States to acquire such land, or interest therein, and upon payment of such amounts as will reimburse the United States for the cost of any improvements placed thereon by the United States, including the cost to it of beach protection: Provided, That reimbursement for beach protection shall not exceed 30 per

shore and the administrative site the Secretary may utilize such statutory authorities relating to areas administered and supervised by the Secretary through the National Park Service and such statutory authority

otherwise available to him for the conservation and management of natural resources as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, land and waters in the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, which are a part of the seashore, shall be administered for refuge purposes under laws and regulations applicable to national wildlife refuges, including administration for public recreation uses in accordance with the provisions of the Act of September 28, 1962 (76 Stat. 653).

SEC. 7. (a) In order that suitable overnight and other public accommodations on Assateague Island will be provided for visitors to the seashore, the Secretary is authorized to select and set aside not to exceed six hundred acres having a suitable elevation in the area south of the island terminus of the bridge constructed by the State of Maryland, and to provide such land fill within the area selected as he deems necessary to permit and protect permanent construction work thereon.

(b) Within the area designated under subsection (a) the Secretary shall permit the construction by private persons of suitable overnight and other public accommodations for visitors to the seashore, under such terms and conditions as he deems necessary in the public interest. Such terms and conditions

shall include, but not be limited to, the right of the Secretary to approve all plans for the facility and to impose restrictions on the use thereof.

(c) The site of any facility constructed under authority of this section shall remain

the total cost to the United States of such protection work.

SEC. 4. When the Secretary determines that land, water areas, or interests therein within the area generally depicted on the map referred to in section 1 are owned or have been acquired by the United States in sufficient quantities to provide an administrable unit, he shall declare the establishment of the Assateague Island National Sea

shore by publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. Such notice shall contain a refined description or map of the boundaries of the seashore as the Secretary may find desirable, and the exterior boundaries shall encompass an area as nearly as practicable identical to the area described in section 1 of this Act.

SEC. 5. The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on land and waters under his control within the seashore in accordance with the appropriate State laws, to the extent applicable, except that the Secretary may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall limit or interfere with the authority of the States to permit or to regulate shellfishing in any waters included in the national seashore. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State agency responsible for hunting and fishing activities. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.

SEC. 6. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall administer the Assateague Island National Seashore for general purposes of public outdoor recreation, including conservation of natural features contributing to public enjoyment. In the administration of the sea

each such privately owned overnight or other accommodation facility shall be subject to taxation by the State and the political subdivisions thereof in which such facility is

located.

(d) The Secretary shall make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be

deemed to restrict or limit any other authority of the Secretary relating to the adthority of the Secretary relating to the administration of the seashore.

SEC. 8. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army shall cooperate in the study and formulation of plans for beach erosion control and hurricane protection of the seashore; and any such protective works that are undertaken by the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, shall be carried out in accordance with a plan that is acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and is consistent with the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 9. The Secretary of the Interior shall construct a suitable road on Assateague Island from the Chincoteague-Assateague Bridge in the State of Virginia to the existing public beach and through the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge to connect with the Sandy Point-Assateague Bridge in the State of Maryland.

SEC. 10. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated the sums of not more than $16,250,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands and not more than $7,765,000 for the development of the area authorized under this Act.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RIVERS OF ALASKA

Mr. RIVERS of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause of S. 20 and insert the provisions of H.R. 2071 as just passed.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RIVERS of Alaska: Strike out all after the enacting H.R. 2071 as just passed. clause of S. 20 and insert the provisions of

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time and passed. A similar House bill (H.R. 2071) was laid on the table.

AMENDING THE SMALL RECLAMA-
TION PROJECTS ACT

I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
bill (H.R. 4851) to amend the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of 1956.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 4851

A bill to amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1044), as amended (43 U.S.C. 422a et seq.) is hereby further amended as follows:

(1) In section 1, by striking out "in the seventeen western reclamation States" and inserting in lieu thereof "throughout the United States";

(2) In section 2, by striking out the second sentence of subsection (d) and the first two provisos thereto and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "The term 'project' shall not include any such undertaking, unit, or program the cost of which exceeds $10,000,000 and no loan, grant, or combination thereof for any project shall be in excess of $5,000,000 plus or minus, in any case, such amount as reflects whatever change in costs of construction of the types involved in the project may have occurred between January 1, 1957, and January 1 of the year in which the loan, grant, or combination thereof is made, as shown by general engineering indices:" and by striking out "And providing further," and inserting in lieu thereof "Provided,";

(3) In section 4, by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: "The costs of means and measures to prevent loss of and damage to fish and wildlife resources shall be considered as project costs and allocated as may be appropriate among project functions.";

(4) In section 4, by changing the colon (:) in subsection (b) to a period (.) and striking out the remainder of said subsection;

(5) In section 5, by striking out the present text of item (b) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(b) the maximum amount of any grant to be accorded the organization. Said grant shall not exceed the sum of the following: (1) the costs of investigations, surveys, and engineering and other services necessary to the preparation of proposals and plans for the project allocable to fish and wildlife enhancement or public recreation; (2) one-half the costs of acquiring lands or interests therein for a reservoir or other area to be operated for fish and wildlife enhancement or public recreation purposes; (3) one-half the costs of basic public outdoor recreation facilities or facilities serving fish and wildlife enhancement purposes exclusively; (4) one-half the costs of construction of joint use facilities properly allocable to fish and wildlife enhancement or public recreation; and (5) that portion of the estimated cost of constructing the project which, if it were constructed as a Federal reclamation project, would be properly allocable to functions, other than recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, which are nonreimbursable

under general provisions of law applicable to such projects.";

(6) In section 8, by striking out "Act of August 14, 1946 (60 Stat. 1080)" and inserting in lieu thereof "Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401), as amended (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)";

(7) In section 10, by striking out "$100,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$200,000,000".

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a second demanded?

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may require to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. ASPINALL].

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide for continuing a very successful small water projects program which was initiated 9 years ago, and extending this program, which has been applicable only to the western reclamation States and to Hawaii, to the entire United States.

This program came into being on August 6, 1956, by the enactment of the Small Reclamation Projects Act. Its purpose is to encourage State and local participation in the development and rehabilitation of small water projects primarily for irrigation. The Federal Government assists such undertakings by providing loans and grants to the States or to local public agencies. The local agencies retain full responsibility for the planning, construction, and operation of these small projects. They receive substantially the same benefits and financial assistance from the Federal Government that they would receive if the projects were constructed as Federal reclamation projects. This program successfully complements the regular reclamation program which is primarily geared to larger, more complex, and more costly water resources developments. Since the program was initiated in 1956, 29 projects have either been completed or are presently under construction. Many additional projects are in the planning stage.

The success of this small water projects program in stimulating and encouraging local action in water resources development warrants not only an extension of its life but also its extension to the entire Nation to help meet the evergrowing water needs throughout the United States. In addition to extending the coverage of the program to the whole Nation, H.R. 4851 provides authority for appropriating an additional $100 million for small project loans and grants. It also amends the basic act to recognize changes in costs of construction and bring it more closely into line with recently adopted policies relative to recreation and fish and wildlife.

Many of the proposed amendments to the basic act embodied in H.R. 4851, as introduced, were rejected by the com

mittee. It seemed to us that the success of this program in its present form indicates little need for change except to provide additional funds and to update the act with respect to new policies. The evergrowing water problems and needs throughout our Nation-the East as well as the West-prompted the extension of the program to the entire United States. We recognized the need for an increase in the $5 million ceiling on the amount of any loan, grant, or combination thereof to reflect changes in costs of construction, but not an increase to $72 million as provided in H.R. 4851, as introduced. The language adopted by the committee provides an increase or decrease in the $5 million to reflect crease in the $5 million to reflect changes in cost of construction of the types involved in the project which may have occurred after passage of the basic act of 1956. This language provides a ceiling of about $6 million at the present time. It can go either up or down in the future.

Although the committee recognized that the interest rate formula in the that the interest rate formula in the basic act is different from the formula basic act is different from the formula generally used for Federal water projects generally used for Federal water projects at the present time, we did not feel that there was justification for changing the there was justification for changing the rate. It seemed to the committee that there is little relationship between the interest date to be made applicable to loans for locally constructed private projects and the rate to be used in establishing the repayment requirements for federally constructed and and federally owned projects.

The committee also rejected the provisions in H.R. 4851, as introduced, which would have provided for an advance to an organization of one-half the cost of project investigations, and which would have exempted from the congressional review procedure loan applications involving Federal participation of less than $250,000. These proposed changes in the basic act seemed unnecessary and unwarranted.

Mr. Speaker, this small water projects program has served most satisfactorily during the past 9 years a very real need in water resources development in the 17 reclamation States and Hawaii. We believe that it will continue to be a successful program in stimulating and encouraging local action water resources development. With water resources development and use becoming a more important factor in the economy of the entire Nation, we also believe that this program will benefit the eastern part of our Nation as well as the West.

I urge the approval of H.R. 4851, as amended by the committee.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

because of this reason, that we think perhaps the benefits of this program should be available to all of the States of the Nation.

Mr. GROSS. Unless I am unable to read the English language, I would say California was very well taken care of as well as some of the other western States-but particularly California.

Mr. ASPINALL. I think my colleague is right. I think the reason for this is that California was able from the start to take advantage of the provisions of the law. Not only that, but California uses a great deal of its funds for its distribution systems which served their reclamation programs. We do not believe that California has unjustifiably taken advantage of the law; I think she was just in a position to be able to apply for its benefits.

Mr. GROSS. It can be used by other States; is that correct?

Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman is correct. That is, if they qualify. My State, for instance, has only one project that is qualified, but that is not the fault of the legislation. It is just the fault of the State of Colorado not being in a position to qualify for new projects possible under this program.

Mr. GROSS. Does a State have to be a so-called reclamation State to qualify? Mr. ASPINALL. At the present time they do.

Mr. GROSS. And this bill changes that?

Mr. ASPINALL. This bill changes it so that every State may have the advantage of the Small Projects Act.

Mr. GROSS. So if it happens to turn dry in Iowa, we can get some financing for irrigation?

Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman is correct. I would think there might be a few places in Iowa that could prosper under this legislation.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4851, a bill to amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, lamation Projects amended.

as

It is encouraging to come before my colleagues and support this bill. It is encouraging because the program begun by the enactment of the Small Reclamation Projects Act on August 6, 1956, has been a satisfactory and successful program. It is a partnership which provides for cooperation between the Federal Government and State and local agencies in the construction, development, and rehabilitation of small water projects.

H.R. 4851, is both an extension and expansion of the present program. It does so by amending the act of 1956, as

The first amendment of H.R. 4851 extending the Small Reclamation Projects Act to the 50 States needs a little discussion in view of the increasing water problems of our Nation-a problem which now afflicts equally both the arid West and the drought-stricken Northeastern United States.

With an expansion of the Small Reclamation Projects Act to the 50 States, it became apparent to the committee

that additional funds should be authorized to carry out the purposes of the act. Thus, amendment No. 7 of H.R. 4851 authorizes the appropriation of an additional $100 million to carry out the purposes of this act as amended.

The second amendment to the act of 1956 contained in H.R. 4851 limits the loan or grant to $5 million plus or minus the average increase or decrease in construction costs occurring between January 1, 1957, and January 1 of the year in which the loan or grant is made. This amendment to the basic act is intended to expand the small projects program by increasing the ceiling on the amount of the loan or grant in line with the increase or decrease of construction costs since 1957. This permits projects of the same scope as in 1956 to come under the act notwithstanding inflationary pressures during the last 10 years. But no projects of larger scope are provided.

Amendment No. 3 of H.R. 4851 is in keeping with the Federal policy regarding fish and wildlife resources as project costs and allocated among the project functions.

Amendment No. 4 of H.R. 4851 is to delete a portion of section 4(b) of the basic act no longer applicable by the adoption of the committee amendments to H.R. 4851.

The fifth amendment provides for the amendment of section 5(b) of the basic act and requires the contract entered into by the Secretary to set out the maximum amount of the loan or grant and further, that the loan or grant shall not exceed the sum of recently adopted cost sharing policies. This amendment rejects the language of section 8 of H.R. 4851 as introduced which permitted the advance of funds up to one-half of the cost of project investigation and preparation of loan applications.

Amendment No. 6 of H.R. 4851 incor

porates the procedural requirements and other provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the other provisions of this act.

Mr. Speaker, the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 as originally enacted was to encourage State and local participation in the development of small reclamation projects. The amount of interest shown in this program since its enactment 9 years ago merits its extension and expansion.

H.R. 4851 amending the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 continues and strengthens this program. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and urge its enactment.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from California [Mr. JOHNSON].

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise, as the author of H.R. 4851, in support of this legislation before us today.

The Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 was enacted originally to encourage State and local participation in the development and improvement of reclamation projects in many areas of the West where there has been a great

need for the development of the water resources.

In the nearly a decade since this first program was initiated, local districts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Utah have taken advantage of this program and I understand that a district in the State of Nebraska also will soon present a project for consideration. You can see that the application has been broad in geographic scope.

Economically this has been a fine program. gram. One of its most noteworthy features is the fact that basically this is a loan program under which loans are advanced to local districts and then repaid to the Federal Government from the proceeds received from the benefits of the project. Ninety-eight percent of the money used over the years has been in the form of loans. There has been not one single default or delinquent account in this program. In view of this fine record of achievement, we should look briefly at what we are talking about in dollars and cents. Eleven projects have been completed during the past 9 years, representing an investment of nearly $20 million. There are now another 18 projects under construction amounting to nearly $46 million. Congress has approved four others aggregating $14 million and two are pending before this Congress totaling $600,000. In varying stages of consideration at local or departmental level are 22 more projor departmental level are 22 more projects amounting to more than $50 million.

It is apparent that this is a program which has proven to be a valuable supplement to the Federal reclamation laws. Its main purpose is to permit local agencies to undertake, with Federal loans, the smaller reclamation projects which the regular reclamation organization and statutes are not geared to handle expeditiously.

The enthusiastic endorsement of this program by local interests, as is demonstrated clearly by the ever-increasing activity in the program, points up the tremendous need for continuation of the program. In extending the life of this program, I feel that the need also is clearly present to expand it somewhat. The proposals which we have now before us would accomplish this and make an excellent program even more vital and able to serve the needs of our people even better.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to endorse wholeheartedly the legislation we have before us and urge its favorable consideration here today. Thank you.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4851, as

amended?

The question was taken; and (twothirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.

ects Act of 1956, a similar bill to the bill just passed.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill as follows:
S. 602

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1044, as amended by 71 Stat. 48 and 49) is further amended as follows:

(a) Amend subsection (d) of section 2 to read as follows:

"(d) The term 'project' shall mean (i) any complete irrigation undertaking, including incidental features thereof, or distinct unit of such an undertaking or a rehabilitation and betterment program for an existing irrigation project, authorized to be constructed pursuant to the Federal reclamation laws and (ii) any similar undertaking proposed to be constructed by an organization. organization. The term 'project' shall not include any such undertaking, unit, or program the cost of which exceeds $10,000,000: Provided, That no loan or grant or combination thereof in excess of $7,500,000 will be made: Provided further, That nothing contained in this definition shall preclude the making of a grant not in excess of $7,500,000 in accordance with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of this Act, to organizations whose proposed projects qualify for the same but which are not applicants for a loan under this Act: And provided further, That nothing contained in this Act shall preclude the making of more than one loan or grant, or combined loan and grant, to an organization so long as no two such loans or grants, or combinations thereof, are for the same project, as herein defined."

(b) Amend subsection (a) of section 4 to read as follows:

"(a) Any proposal with respect to the construction of a project which has not theretofore been authorized for construction under the Federal reclamation laws shall set forth, among other things, a plan and estimated understanding of the project, to demoncost in detail adequate to provide a clear strate that it is financially feasible, and to define the maximum amount of the loan; shall have been submitted for review by the States of the drainage basin in which the project is located in like manner as provided in subsection (c), section 1 of the Act of the review may be limited to the State or States in which the project is located if the proposal is one solely for rehabilitation and betterment of an existing project; and shall include a proposed allocation of capital

costs to functions such that costs for facilities used for a single purpose shall be allocated to that purpose and costs for facilities so allocated among the purposes served that used for more than one purpose shall be each purpose will share equitably in the costs of such joint facilities: Provided, That costs of means and measures to prevent loss of shall be considered as project costs and alloand damage to fish and wildlife resources cated as may be appropriate among project

functions."

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 602) to amend the Small Reclamation Proj

"the project," and by inserting at the end of the parenthetical phrase "except as provided in subsection 5(b) (2) hereof".

(d) Amend subsection (d), section 4, by adding at the end of the first sentence the following: “Provided, That an appropriation