Senator BENTSEN. The next witness this afternoon is the Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT SANSOM, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS; JOHN QUARLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, AND HUGH MILLER, OFFICE OF LEGISLATION

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity of appearing today before this subcommittee to express the views of the Environmental Protection Agency on S. 502, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973.

Of particular interest to the Environmental Protection Agency are the provisions of S. 502 that would offer assistance to communities with motor vehicle pollution problems. Specifically, such assistance would take the form of authorizing the construction of bus lanes from the Interstate system, and the purchase of buses from the Federal-aid urban system. The Environmental Protection Agency applauds these provisions as a step towards a balanced national transportation system. However, we believe this approach alone offers too little too late. Events simply have necessitated a more comprehensive approach in solving the major problems accompanying transportation programs. In response to the Nation's air pollution problems, the Congress enacted far-reaching amendments to the Clean Air Act 2 years ago. These amendments mandated the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards designed to protect public health by mid-1977, at the latest.

In reviewing State air quality implementation plans, we found a number of regions in need of transportation controls if air quality standards are to be met as the law requires. Because of the complexity of such controls, we granted the States additional time to develop this portion of their plans. I believe, at this point, it would be helpful to point out that transportation controls go beyond traditional air pollution control measures. They provide a mechanism for achieving emission reductions over and above those achieved by stringent stationary source regulations and the application of Federal motor vehicle emission standards. Some of the measures being considered by the States to achieve such reductions are: improvements in mass transit, auto free zones, parking surcharges, staggered work hours, and conversion of fleet vehicles to gaseous fuels.

Currently, we estimate 20 metropolitan areas, including eight of the Nation's 10 largest cities, will need some form of transportation controls if air quality standards are to be met by 1977. Mr. Chairman, I would like to supply a list of these areas for the record. They include most of the major metropolitan areas in the country.

None of the regions needing transportation controls approach the severity of the problems faced in the south coast air basin of California. In this multi-county region, encompassing Los Angeles, and

other communities, we have proposed, under court order, regulations which would require expensive retrofitting of pre-1975 motor vehicles, conversion of fleet vehicles to gaseous fuels, greater control of stationary sources, and extensive gasoline rationing during the 6 worst months of the year.

In most of the 20 regions, however, motor vehicle travel must be curtailed. This comes at a time when intracommunity motor vehicle usage is increasing and continued urban growth is occurring, particularly in those areas already experiencing the greatest problems. Curtailment of motor vehicle travel will only be possible if adequate alternative modes of transportation are made available. Mass transit programs moving people where they want to go fast, and in an inexpensive fashion, can provide the incentive to reduce private motor vehicle travel.

We recognize that not every urban area is suited for a rail system, but local elected officials should have the option of choosing between buses, rail, and highways. For that reason, we strongly endorse the Department of Transportation's proposal that would allow local communities greater flexibility in planning and delivering comprehensive transportation systems through the use of Highway Trust Fund moneys. Local officials are in the best position to determine the transportation systems that will solve their communities' transportation, environmental and social needs.

We are under no illusion that simply by providing the option of increased funding for mass transit, community motor vehicle pollution problems will be solved. If air quality standards are to be met and maintained, appropriate measures must also be adopted to discourage the use of private automobiles. Clearly, an integrated approach of providing better mass transit service coupled with a regulatory and/or economic disincentive mechanism will be needed in many communities.

Air pollution control, of course, is only one aspect of the challenge of a balanced transportation system. Even if we could eliminate all vehicle emissions, we would still be faced with a host of transportation related problems-noise, waste of fuel resources, congestion, deteriorating cities, unemployment and underemployment, and physical alienation.

Motor vehicles are consuming ever-increasing amounts of petroleum products. This comes at a time when the Texas fields have been producing at capacity for almost a year and yet their capacity to meet the demand continues to decline. Naturally, fuel imports are increasing. With those increased imports comes the dual problems of balance of trade deficits and national security considerations. This increasing dependence on foreign fuel places the United States in an increasingly difficult position.

With sufficient incentives and flexible funding, we could provide buses and commuter trains that are fast, safe, reliable, and convenient. Mass transit as a part of a sensible long-term solution to communities' modern transportation needs must be included as a major element in the design of more efficient cities.

This is not to say highways are no longer needed. We need them as part of an integrated transportation system and not as an end in

themselves. A balanced transportation system will only evolve if decisionmakers at the local level have a choice between various modes of transportation to serve their citizens' needs.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Senator BENTSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ruckelshaus.

If the funds suggested by Secretary Brinegar were all spent on mass transportation, do you believe there would be reasonable reduction in the air pollution problems of our major cities?

I ask that because our Secretary has asked for a billlion of which not all would go to mass transit, and about a billion a year out of the mass transportation act.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is meaningful in the sense that we would have more than doubling of the amount of money the Federal Government is now committing to mass transit.

If your question is directed to whether in a situation like Los Angeles, that kind of expenditure, or in fact any expenditure would solve the problem by 1977, my answer is "No," it would not. We could have additional buses, obviously on the line by that time to attempt to alleviate the problem, but what we are talking about in an area like Los Angeles and some other areas in the country that are impacted by air pollution, are solutions that must be projected into the future in terms of decades, and not in terms of years. In addition, if you continue to build only highways in cities that are already adversely affected by air pollution, we are going to assure that decades in the future, air pollution problems will be with us, hence we are not really addressing the problem as comprehensively or intelligently as we should.

Senator BENTSEN. As you know, a great many of the transit companies are having a difficult time surviving. A lot of them are going broke. The administration has come out against Federal subsidies to these transit systems.

How do you think these transit companies will be able to get the funds to operate, to continue to operate, and cut down on pollution without some kind of operating subsidy?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, I think what the administration has been saying, Mr. Chairman, is that they do not believe the operating subsidies should come from highway trust funds, or from the Federal Government itself. In fact, if any subsidies were to occur, or if any subsidies were to be necessary, they should come from the local communities, most advantageously impacted by that subsidization. We have seen in some cities in the country, such as Atlanta, and many others, where subsidization of mass transit systems of one kind or another have been imposed on the citizens living in that community. I think we ought to distinguish between the large capital expenditures needed to get a mass transit system underway, and the need for the continued operation of those systems in competition with any other mode of transportation at the local level.

Senator BENTSEN. I am going to ask you the same question as I asked of Secretary Brinegar.

We are concerned about the administration coming in and asking

for an authorization that is substantially higher than what their budget calls for in committed funds.

We are talking about $5.35 billion for highways and mass transit, but the budget shows the administration only intends to spend about $4.4 billion on the programs in this bill.

Now, that is a little difficult for the committee to understand. We, too, are concerned with inflation, and we know that some things have to give, and we have to balance our priorities, but why on the one hand the request for $5.35, and on the other hand a substantially smaller amount in the budget?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think that the nature of your question goes to the question of how much in fact can be effectively spent, given the difference between the request for authorization, and what is included in the administration's budget.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot really address myself to the question of how much in terms of the projections by the Department of Transportation, they can effectively spend this year or next year, for the construction of highways or mass transit systems of one kind or another. I do believe, as a matter of principle, what we are arguing for here is that whatever moneys are made available, we would like to have the mayors have the option of choosing between the various modes of transportation for their communities.

Senator BENTSEN. Well, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Ruckelshaus, we just do not want to be in a position of being charged with being a spendthrift Congress on one hand, being asked to authorize a very substantial amount, and on the other hand a substantially smaller amount being shown in the budget.

Let me ask you, Mr. Ruckelshaus, you came out in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 6. That was introduced by Senator Baker. That would call for the immediate apportionment of Interstate funds, while we are debating the merits of a comprehensive highway bill. Now, we have a lot of witnesses before this committee that have stated that many major interstate segments, that remain to be built go through the major cities, and have substantial environmental problems associated with them.

In view of that, would you support Secretary Brinegar in his statement, endorsing the concurrent resolution for in effect immediate funding for the rest of the interstate system?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand Secretary Brinegar's position, because of the complexity of this issue, and because of the lack of a chance in getting legislation out in the immediate future, which would address the totality of these problems, he does not want to see the apportioning of these funds held up, while the debate goes on as to the nature of the kind of flexibility provided local officials. We believe that through the operation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and other mechanisms for review of the impact of highway projects we would have a sufficient handle on such projects while we are debating the larger issue of whether the fund itself, should be broadened so as to make its moneys available in a more flexible way.

Senator BENTSEN. We have a 5-minute limitation, gentlemen, on the questions.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruckelshaus, one of the missions of EPA involves solid waste, which in a highway context, I suppose means roadside litter.

What would be your reaction to a provision in highway legislation that might require the States to develop and implement an effective antihighway litter program?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, I am certainly not opposed to something being done about litter, and it is clear to me that one of the facets of litter that is seldom addressed in this country is controlling it through effective enforcement of antilitter laws. To the best of our knowledge, the cleanest city in the world is Singapore. The reason it is clean is because they have a very stiff antilitter law that is very strictly enforced. I am not suggesting we adopt a form of near-dictatorship that exists there in order to enforce the antilitter laws, but again, if we do have any mechanism for insuring that the antilitter laws that now exist at both the local and State levels are effectively enforced, then I am for it. I have not examined this particular provision, but I certainly would encourage any effort the committee would make to make sure that these laws are effectively enforced.

Senator STAFFORD. Let us assume the Muskie-Baker amendment giving flexibility to funding becomes law later this year. Do you have any thoughts as to what that provision would give to areas like Los Angeles meeting air quality standards?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, I am not so naive to believe there is any panacea for the problem in Los Angeles. Simply by the Congress waving a wand, will not alleviate all that air pollution. I do believe to the extent that the local officials and State officials in Los Angeles and California have incentives from the Federal Government that give them choices, as to how they can expend their share of Trust Fund moneys, they would be much more inclined to adopt a long-range plan to provide some alternative mode of transportation for the people in the Los Angeles basin which might greatly reduce air pollution. Maybe you cannot achieve the needed reductions in air pollution by 1977, but if you say we are planning for mass transit systems, we are planning for alternative modes of transportation that will reduce vehicle travel, and the money to finance these plans will be available. We are going to do this over a period of 10, 15, 20 years, however long it takes, you would be much more inclined to go along with that kind of approach; rather than simply to say we cannot achieve it, we are not going to do anything about it, which is pretty much where we are right now in Los Angeles.

Senator BENTSEN. Could you tell us about progress in controlling emissions from buses, and the anticipated effect of such controls on meeting air quality standards, assuming a reasonable number of motorists can be attracted out of cars and into buses?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The diesel, I have a very gross assessment, with out having any technical people here to discuss it. We could provide for the record a more detailed discussion. There are two problems associated with diesel engines, which are not generally associated with internal combustion engines. One is odor, and the other is the particulant matter or smoke. The companies that are producing diesel engines are making great strides in controlling both odor and smoke. I have

91-324 O 7337