Since 1970, the cost of single-family homes has increased 80.5 percent. The average price of the American home sold in 1976 was $48,000, up from $42,000 in 1975, and up from $26,600 just 6 years ago. The cost of housing is now beyond the reach of most American families. Environmental laws and regulations, obviously, are not totally responsible, but they share the responsibility.

It has become more difficult for the small developer to cope. This is not unique to the small developer, however. A recent action by Dow Chemical brings this issue into focus.

Senator HART. Are you able to quantify the increased cost of housing as contributed to this?

Mr. ROBERTS. Only in quoting the immediate past president of the National Association of Homebuilders. He has made the statement in Dallas, at their meeting in Dallas, just a couple weeks ago that Government regulations probably contribute as much as 15 percent to the increased cost. That includes all Government regulations. There wasn't any differentiation between one and the other.

Senator HART. I think it is important for the American people if they are being told their homes cost more because they are trying to protect the environment to figure out how much more they are paying for their homes to clean up the air and water.

Mr. ROBERTS. I don't have the percentage accurately. There are two elements in the home situation; one is the house itself and the land. Of course, the environmental regulations pertain mostly to the land. That has to be determined.

Senator HART. I think as long as we hear testimony of the increased cost to the consumers of cars and automobiles, the consumers have a right to know how much. The burden shouldn't be on us. It should be on those making the allegations.

Mr. ROBERTS. I agree.

Senator HART. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Could I ask a question? What do bathrooms add to the cost of a house? That is a sanitary facility, a health measure, an environmental measure, if you will. It was added long ago so it is now an accepted cost. But wouldn't houses be cheaper by several thousands of dollars if we didn't have bathrooms?

Mr. ROBERTS. Obviously.

Senator MUSKIE. You are not proposing to eliminate them. So that if it is permissible to add those thousands of dollars in cost to achieve that environmental result, are we prepared to add something to deal with the concern for health as it relates to air, or is it only dirty water we are concerned about? If we didn't have bathrooms, we could have the backyard one-holers or two-holers and go back to the do-it-yourself age. Is that what we ought to do?

Mr. ROBERTS. Senator, I am not addressing the question of whether or not it is desirable to have all of these things. I am saying the bathroom, the environmental regulations do make their contribution to the increased cost of housing today.

Senator MUSKIE. The implication in all of this testimony is an accumulated implication-we get it from the automobile manufacturers, we get it from the realtors, we get it from the homebuilders, we get it from every economic interest-that the cost of environmental regulation is somehow an unacceptable cost.

Of course it is going to cost something. Our whole standard of living costs something. Central heating is probably one of the major contributors to energy consumption in this country. When I was a boy, we didn't have central heating in this country, except for the very rich. In the wintertime in my home we had one warm room in a six-room house. So central heating is a luxury that perhaps most human beings on this planet have never heard of, let alone experienced. But it is a contribution to our standard of living. I doubt very much you could pass a law to eliminate central heating as a conservation method. But we are willing to pay for it. Most Americans are willing to pay for it and regard it as a hardship if they don't have it. The same thing is true with respect to bathrooms. I know, because I am in the process of trying to find the funding to put another bathroom in my house. I know what it costs. One additional bathroom is going to cost $6,000. This is not a luxurious one. [Laughter.] It is in my summer home. We are going to do as little as we can. I doubt very much that air pollution requirements add $6,000 to the cost of a home. They add something. If it does add $6,000, then we ought to know it. But I just think when we get this accumulation of evidence as to the economic costs of cleaning up the air so we can breathe it, there is one way of reducing the housing cost of this country, and that is kill off more people so we don't have to have as many homes.

But I just think we have to put these costs in perspective. What kind of quality of life do Americans want? As a matter of fact, I think the shopping center, which we all enjoy as consumers because of the range of options that it presents to us, is an attractive addition. But it may well be that it is an addition to our standard of living that we can't afford. If we should reach that conclusion, I acknowledge the difficulty of persuading the American people we can't afford it.

These provisions in the Clean Air Act of 1970 were watered down in last year's bill not because we became convinced there is no connection between urban sprawl and shopping centers and dirty air, but because there wasn't the political support to do anything about it. So we wrote into the bill, in effect, a study. We returned to State and local control in the hopes that if we put the monkey on the back of State and local government they might then begin to build the political support necessary to deal with it, if they share the conclusion that there is a connection.

I hope that you gentlemen haven't convinced yourselves that there is no connection between urban sprawl and the contribution that urban sprawl makes to automobile travel and the air pollution problem. If that is the thrust of your testimony, it disturbs me a great deal.

I didn't really intend to get involved, Mr. Chairman, in a monolog, but I understand the difficulty of changing the way in which we live and move about and shop and work. All of us have contributed to the present momentum which is behind the design of our cities and our urban areas and suburbs. We have all contributed to it. You are not the only guilty parties. We are all the guilty parties.

But what the Clean Air Act tried to do was to make the point that you are not really going to clean up air pollution by putting the whole burden on the backs of the automobile or a single polluter, because we have all contributed to it with the way in which we live. We constantly hear statistics, Mr. Chairman, about how West Germany, with a stand

ard of living equal to ours, consumes energy on a per capita basis about half our level. So they are able to live as well as we do and enjoy the good things of life as we do and consume half as much energy per capita as we do.

What is the difference? Germany, of course, is a small country. Land has to be used more efficiently. Automobiles can be smaller because there aren't the distances to travel. They haven't been acclimated to the wasteful use of energy that we have. But having accepted that conclusion as the difference between the two economies or the societies, you can't change the United States overnight to a German society in the ways in which we live and move about.

Don't we have to find ways to move in that direction? Don't we have to find ways to be less wasteful of energy? Don't we have to find ways to be less wasteful of air? Don't we have to find ways to be less wasteful of water? If we can't have the cooperation and full understanding of the people like yourselves who are using these resources, the land resources and the air resources and the water resources, we will never get the job done.

President Carter was precisely right in his fireside chat the other night. There is no way for us to write into law the standard of public behavior-for consumers, developers, shopping center owners, and so forth-there is no way for us to write it all into law. If we were to try, we really would have enacted a regulation which makes life uncomfortable and costly for everybody.

What we are trying to do with this clean air legislation, although I must say we haven't had much luck with it, is to prod the American people into such an awareness of the connection between their activities and the unfortunate consequences that the whole country will begin to move in a more air-conservative way.

Senator HART. If the Senator will yield, I don't think we need to prod the American people. I think they understand the problem completely.

Senator MUSKIE. Including these people. I include these people.

Senator HART. But it is when the automobile companies come in and the steel companies come in and utility companies come in and the real estate industry comes in and says, "All right, if you are going to do this, it is going to cost you more for your home." This all reminds me of what we went through with so-called tax reform. Everybody said, "We have to reform the tax laws and reform the loopholes, except mine." We heard testimony for 3 days and 3 years and maybe a decade about the automobile companies saying, "We don't want to tighten up our restrictions until the steel companies do something." The steel companies say, "We are not going to move until the utilities are forced to do something." They say, "It shouldn't be our responsibility until the real estate people do something."

Finally, Russell Long said on tax reform, "It all boils down to this: Don't tax you and don't tax me but tax that fellow behind the tree." That is the same thing we are facing with clean air in this country.

In response to Senator Muskie's question, Mr. Roberts, you said you weren't drawing any value judgments: you were merely pointing out a fact. Your statement says, "The cost of housing is now beyond the reach of most American families. Environmental laws and regulations share the responsibility." Responsibility is a value judgment. You have

drawn a conclusion that the environmental laws and regulations of this country are responsible for a bad problem facing the American people. Well, I think Senator Muskie has adequately pointed out you could have delivered the same testimony when sanitary laws were introduced in this country. If you are going to do this, it is going to drive up the cost of a home.

Senator MUSKIE. Then we may have to find another Hercules to deal with that problem. We did it once.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, if I may, the only point in our bringing this matter to your attention is that we wanted to call to the attention of the American people that like the new bathroom and all, like other good things that happen in American housing, there is a price, that clean air is not going to come free. That is the only reason why we called attention to that.

Senator MUSKIE. But the point that Senator Hart makes is that we ought to be careful when we say things like that, that we are not suggesting that the price is disproportionate to the value. I would be interested in having somebody's judgment on what that contribution to housing cost is, relative to others.

Senator HART. Gentlemen, I apologize for the long colloquy.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you very much. Our staff has made a note of your request. We do have a very fine research department at the National Association of Realtors. This request will be passed on to them and we will try to give you some specifics rather than generalities.

I believe I stopped before the comment about 23 days ago, it was announced by Dow Chemical that it had given up with plans to build a $500 million chemical complex in California. The reason givenenvironmental red tape. Sixty-five separate permits were required from local, State and Federal agencies. Dow quit after spending $4 million on engineering and environmental studies. It cost the California economy a $15 million annual payroll. Dow announced part of the $500 million has already been reallocated for projects in Canada. To be sure, Mr. Chairman, this cannot be blamed on the Clean Air Act. It has to do with the "permit explosion" that has evolved under environmental laws at all levels of government.

With this as a backup, I would like to proceed with our recommendations. We believe our recommendations, if followed, would be an important first step in the right direction to address the problems I have outlined. I would like now to address the three specific bills being considered at these hearings.

The National Association of Realtors supports-and I repeat-supports S. 253, last year's conference report bill, with certain modifications. The major reason for our support stems from the inclusion of the provision in the bill dealing with "indirect source controls." Indirect sources are facilities which do not themselves pollute, but which attract automobiles that do. These include shopping centers, parking lots, apartment complexes, as you well know. Moreover, we feel S. 253 represents a balanced approach for meeting our natural clean air goals. Our modifications with regard to S. 253 pertain to the provisions dealing with the significant deterioration policy. Basically, our concern is over (1) the size of areas required as mandatory class I designations, and (2) the possibility that the ceiling and pollution incre

ments allowed in the classification scheme may be too stringent. We are encouraged that S. 253 contains provisions that return authority to State and local governments to implement this program, for this is where we think the authority ought to be exercised.

The National Association of Realtors is opposed to splitting off an "autos only" bill. We, therefore, cannot support S. 251, which deals only with another extension for the automobile to comply with the prescribed emission standards. We feel strongly that any amendments to the Clean Air Act must deal simultaneously with both the direct and indirect sources of air pollution. Only through this approach can there be a timely and equitable resolution to these clean air issues. If, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee decides to report an auto extension bill only, we would request that the indirect source provisions be a part of that bill. We emphasize that indirect source controls are necessary only because of auto emissions.

The National Association of Realtors withheld its support from S. 252, last year's Senate-passed bill, because: One, the bill does not include the conference report provisions on indirect source controls, and two, we feel modifications are necessary in the significant deterioration policy.

We believe S. 252 does not contain the flexibility necessary under the significant deterioration policy. Rather than elaborate on it at this time, I would like to refer the subcommittee to our submitted written statement.

In closing, I would also refer the subcommittee to our written statement on the indirect source issue. In our statement, we have documented studies, including the National Academy of Sciences report to this committee, which support our recommendations on indirect source controls. S. 253 addresses our concerns on this issue.

In summary, we believe indirect source controls: may worsen, rather than improve, air quality. This is documented by the National Academy of Sciences, incidentally. Two, could distort the original intent of the Clean Air Act, because we believe it was aimed primarily at smoke stacks. Three, will contribute to recession and inflationary problemsas well as add to the "permit explosion," like the 65 permits. And, four, will dictate poor land use decisions.

Our written statement goes into detail on these four points. I hope you will have the opportunity to read our statement.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the subcommittee to report a bill similar to S. 253, with the modifications I have referred to. We look forward to the opportunity of supporting the Senate action on this important legislation. This subcommittee and the full Public Works Committee holds the balance between environmental protection and the economic viability of this Nation.

Thank you.

[Mr. Roberts' complete statement together with responses to additional questions appear at p. 176.]

Senator HART. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. We will hear from Mr. Walsh, although I will make one observation about the Dow situation. It is my understanding that it was not merely a situation of environmental redtape but a determination, factual determination, that the Dow facility could not be constructed without further substantial deterioration of an already inadequate air quality situation. So I think