Action in this area is needed to improve air pollution control, without doubt, but water and soil pollution must also be given consideration. Thus, the salient need now is for the development of a program specifically designed to consider the problem in light of the impact of solid wastes on the total urban environment.

A draft bill embodying the President's recommendations will be transmitted to the Congress in the next few days.

The third major problem covered by provisions of S. 306 is that of air pollution from the burning of sulfur-bearing fuels. Over the last few years, considerable progress has been made toward the development of techniques for coping with this serious and steadily worsening environmental health hazard.

Through such means as cooperative studies, consultations, and contractual agreements with other Federal agencies and industry, the Division of Air Pollution is helping to stimulate needed evaluation of new and promising techniques for reducing sulfurous emissions into the atmosphere as well as further research and development in this important field.

S. 306 would require formation of a technical committee composed of officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Bureau of Mines of the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Power Commission and representatives of the coal, petroleum, and electric power industries to encourage the development of improved low-cost techniques for reducing sulfur oxide emissions.

Mr. Chairman, we do not favor the formation of a special committee for this purpose. We believe that our current efforts to coordinate and stimulate governmental and industrial activities in this area accomplish the same end more efficiently.

In regard to the problem of sulfurous air pollution, S 306 would also require periodic reporting to the Congress on progress toward the development of control technology. A similar reporting requirement now exists with respect to motor vehicle pollution and pollution arising from Federal installations.

We recommend consolidation of these separate reports into a single annual report, which would provide the requisite information in a more useful form and which could also better serve to focus attention on unmet needs in all areas of air pollution control.

Our final comment on provisions of S. 306 concerns the directive for the establishment of a Federal Air Pollution Control Laboratory. As Mr. MacKenzie testified in hearings before the subcommittee last June, our existing facilities are not adequate for the continuing air pollution research and development efforts required by existing law and national needs. None of our present facilities was designed specifically for the highly specialized types of work which we must carry on. We would simply suggest that means of correcting this situation could best be provided by a revision of S. 306 to authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish such new facilities as may be needed and, in addition, to undertake construction of the buildings necessary to house these facilities.

This concludes our comments on the proposed provisions of S. 306, Mr. Chairman, but we have additional recommendations for your consideration in regard to two important aspects of the national air pollution problem which are not specifically covered either in the Clean Air Act or in the pending amendments to the act.

The first of these supplementary recommendations relates to another of the problems highlighted by President Johnson in his message on natural beauty. This problem arises from the present lack of authority for the Federal Government to take steps that could prevent the addition of new and potentially significant sources of air pollution in areas where they could materially endanger public health and welfare.

To deal with such situations, the President recommended that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare be given authority "to investigate potential air pollution problems before pollution happens, rather than having to wait until the damage occurs, as is now the case, and to make recommendations leading to the prevention of such pollution."

In our opinion, Mr. Chairman, it would be desirable to expand S. 306 to incorporate the authority needed to carry out the President's recommendation.

Our second supplementary recommendation is for amendment of the Clean Air Act to extend the present Federal abatement authority to cases in which air pollution originating in the United States is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a neighboring country. Our national policy regarding the maintenance of friendly relations with the nations bordering us and our obligations as members of the international community make it desirable that, in cases such as these, legal remedies be available which can be applied by the Federal Gov

ernment.

Suggested legislative language embodying these two recommendations has been submitted, Mr. Chairman, with our Department's report on S. 306.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your invitation to present our views regarding the legislation pending before the subcommittee. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the subcommittee on their many outstanding legislative achievements, in both air and water pollution.

On behalf of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, I assure you that we share your deep interest in taking all necessary steps to combat the worsening air pollution problem which confronts the Nation.

We feel that S. 306 embodies a number of potential useful approaches to dealing with this problem, and it is in the context of this view that our recommendations have been formulated and presented here today. Senator MUSKIE. May I ask whether or not the statement you have just read incorporates all of the points made in the formal report of your Department?

Mr. QUIGLEY. It does, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. I was encouraged by the opening portions of your statement and discouraged by the closing portions. You have clearly recognized in language fully as eloquent as any that I could devise that we have a problem and that it is a national problem. Moreover, you go as far as to say in connection with the motor vehicle exhaust problem "a technological potential now exists for meeting the need through control of those motor vehicle exhaust emissions which reach the ambient air from the tailpipe."

Then you proceed to say we shouldn't pass S. 306.

Mr. QUIGLEY. At this time.
Senator MUSKIE. What time?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I am not sure I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. The answer may very well be "At no time." I would cite in support of that point of view or that argument the experience that our Department and this committee has rather intimately shared in connection with the problem of water pollution from hard detergents. I think this committee and this particular Assistant Secretary went round and round on this problem.

I think we were both agreed that it was a problem and that it needed to be solved. There was disagreement as to whether the best approach was the enactment of Federal legislation. I think in this instance that with regard to the point of view that the Department expressed, the passage of the last 2 years time has demonstrated that it was not ill founded and that the pressure that was embodied by the threat of Federal legislation caused an action that might otherwise not have been forthcoming from the detergent industry.

The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that we are well on our way toward the solution of water problem from hard detergents. I hope this experience will not be overlooked as we now look at a growing national problem with reference to automotive exhaust.

If it can be done without legislation I personally would prefer that this would be the way it be done. If it can't be done except through Federal legislation then I think that is the way it must be done.

Senator MUSKIE. On the hard detergent problem I am still not convinced that legislation won't be necessary. We are not sure yet that the soap and detergent industry has come up with an answer to the problem. But even when they do, the problem of implementing their technological developments may require legislation.

I am all for getting the maximum results out of the threat of legislation, but we may need to supplement that by actual legislation at some point. On this one, the interesting point about your recommendations is that you recommend giving the President authority to find new pollution problems but you don't recommend doing anything about the ones we know about.

You have two recommendations in the close of your statement: you say you strongly recommend that the Secretary be given authorityto investigate the potential air pollution problems before pollution happens, rather than having to wait until the damage occurs, as is now the case

*本串。

Would you take the position that California should revoke its action in requiring that devices to deal with exhaust pipe emission be controlled in the 1966 auto year?

Mr. QUIGLEY. No, I certainly would not.

Senator MUSKIE. Why is it what is good for California is not good for the rest of the country?

Mr. QUIGLEY. It may be.

Senator MUSKIE. Why isn't it good now?

Mr. QUIGLEY. It may be, but I am not certain that it is.

Senator MUSKIE. We are not certain that it is good for California in the sense of absolute certainty.

Mr. QUIGLEY. That is true. What I think we are suggesting here is that within the period of the next 6 months we will begin to get an experience in one of the largest States in the country. We will have

the benefit of that experience, coupled with the efforts on the part of the Federal Government to expand this experiment to include all new vehicles purchased by the Federal Government in the coming year.

We will have additional information, additional experience upon which a judgment can better be made, if the judgment has to be made that congressional legislation in this area is appropriate. I frankly would hope that such congressional action would not prove to be necessary, but if it does, our Department would not hesitate to so recommend.

Senator MUSKIE. How much experience in California must we have before we make that decision.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. But up to now we haven't had any as far as the motor modifications and the approaches that are about to become effective with the new models in California. Senator MUSKIE. You can't have experience unless you begin. California would not be developing experience unless somebody moved. I am wondering whether or not we would have today's automobile if someone didn't have the courage to move ahead and manufacture the model-T. Somewhere you have to develop the rudimentary vehicle to get the experience. California is moving ahead. I am sure they would like to develop at this point a much more effective device than they have. They decided at some point it was necessary to begin doing something and not just discover the problems, identify the problems, moan about them and then do something about them.

I recognize your longstanding interest, Mr. Secretary, in the field of air and water pollution and your dedication about doing something about those problems.

I think you and I have a difference of opinion. You recognize the problem, you recognize that it is a national problem, you say that a technological potential now exists for meeting the need and dealing with the problem.

Frankly I just can't make the next jump in your reasoning. You say that having said all this we don't recommend doing anything now. Mr. QUIGLEY. That is not quite what I said. We do not recommend the enactment of this particular section of S. 306 at this time. We are going to do something now. We are going to require Federal vehicles be equipped with the new devices and the motor changes, and we are going to run close checks on all of them whether they are operating in Portland, Maine, or Portland, Oreg., whether they are going to be operating in the cold winters of Buffalo, N.Y., or the sunny winters of Miami.

If they are Government-owned motor vehicles, within the next year, a very close check will be kept on them. In that way, we think we will have the benefit of an extensive controlled experiment and will then be in a position to advise this committee or to advise the automobile industry what our studies showed as to how effective or ineffective the California-type control devices proved to be under a variety of operating conditions and climates throughout the country.

Senator MUSKIE. You think that the California studies and research have been inadequate?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Inadequate? As a layman, Mr. Chairman, I am not so sure that I can comment. I think I deal enough with scientists to say that the answer to that is probably "Yes." They are also interested in research and more experiments.

Senator MUSKIE. We could have waited to manufacture the automobile until we had gone beyond the model-T in our development. But if the California research is inadequate for the rest of the country, why isn't it inadequate for California?

Mr. QUIGLEY. It may be. I don't know.

Seantor MUSKIE. Why don't you recommend that California withdraw from its decision?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Because this would be throwing the baby out with the bath. It may very well be that California is about to make the breakthrough and point the way for the rest of the country.

Senator MUSKIE. California has a more vigorous baby than we have in S. 306. If we were to make all the changes in S. 306 that you recommend we might just as well throw that baby out.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I don't read my recommendations in that way, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, let's go over them. On the automobile exhaust problem you say, "Not now." On the solid waste problem, you say, "Not now." On the question of extended research, you say, "We have enough authority now but if you want to tell us again to do it again we don't object." On the question of recommendations from the diesel-powered vehicle industry, you say, "We have no objection to including a representative," but that is hardly enough to make a solid piece of legislation.

On the pollution laboratory, even there you just want us to give you general authority and then you ask us to give you authority to find some more problems.

Mr. QUIGLEY. No, Mr. Chairman; in the interest of accuracies and for an honest exchange of views here as far as the automobile exhaust national standards are concerned clearly our recommendation is that they not be enacted at this time and that we await the benefit of two developments, the experience we will be able to evaluate on the basis of California's experience of the next year complemented and supplemented by the Federal Government's total experience.

At any time in the face of this and in the face of S. 306, there is still, we think, the important approach through the President meeting with representatives of the automotive industry and exploring what can be done to cope with this problem on a voluntary basis. On the matter of solid waste disposal my recommendation is clearly not now. My recommendation is we are not in a position where we think we can, in good conscience recommend the expenditure of substantial amounts of the taxpayer's money on construction programs on the basis of our present knowledge of how good and how effective and how efficient some of these incinerators and other devices would be that we would be subsidizing and encouraging communities to build.

Let me put it this way: I am involved, and have been for the last 4 years, primarily in water pollution matters. For the last year and a half I have been involved in air pollution matters. I am only on the fringe as far as this problem of solid waste disposal is concerned. I would say in very broad terms that we are, from the point of view of the Federal Government, roughly about 10 years ahead in water pollution than we are in air.

I would venture the observation that we are probably 10 years ahead in air pollution control, as far as the Federal Government is concerned,

46-378 0-65- -3