We are concerned that no act of government, (whether under the powers of $3400 or in grants, loans, "dismantling" or "excise" taxes or in any subsidy form originating form any other government source,) shall make the government a party to the concentration of economic power in the scrap industry, or shall assist in speeding up the disintegration of the industry's base of independent and small units, so vital to the economics of secondary raw materials. It is our position that scrap is charged with the "public interest", because it involves three national policies-national defense, conservation and the preservation of small business. Fundamentally, the major problem is one of merchandising and marketing, of removing the forces that tamper with the "free market" function. We respectfully question whether "solid waste" or "natural beauty" are proper forums for the study of the "free market". It is our conviction that, instead of new legislation, what is called for, is an interdepartmental committee at Cabinet level, (including, among others, the Depts. of Commerce, Interior, Justice, Council of Economic Advisors, and Budget Bureau,) to study and implement with appropriate actions, the balancing of the metallics in the annual "crop" of scrap, with imports of iron ore, with the aim of bringing about a larger use of the scrap in the melting process. The Committee should concern itself with the scrap cycle, in terms of national defense and the conservation of a natural resource, and with the effect of research and technological proposals on the small and independent operator, as part of the essential collection and processing function of the industry. Senator MUSKIE. Senator Boggs? Senator BOGGS. I have no further questions. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwartz. Mr. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. Senator George Murphy, who is unavoidably detained and who is a member of this committee, has a statement which will be presented by Mr. Carter of his staff. Mr. CARTER. Senator Murphy unfortunately has lost his voice. Senator MUSKIE. I don't know whether that is a blessing or a hardship. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MURPHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PRESENTED BY JOSEPH CARTER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Murphy's statement: Mr. Chairman, before beginning I want to again congratulate the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee for his vision and for the leadership he has given this Nation in the fields of air and water pollution. In my judgment, the pollution problem is one of the most serious domestic problems facing our country today. While serious, it is not yet critical. But time is not on our side. It is running out. Delay will not only be costly in terms of dollars, but even more important will be the possible detriment to human health and the interference with the general well-being of our society. Damage resulting from air pollution in this country has been estimated at $11 billion a year. Economic losses alone indicate the need for action. It has been estimated that agricultural losses in California alone total approximately $132 million annually. Pollution contributes to the deterioration and corrosion of our physical structures. The consumer may see the effects of pollution by the need for more frequent trips to the laundry. Even more important are the adverse effects that pollution may have on human health. Evidence grows associating air pollution with certain respiratory disorders, such as asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. While the evidence is not conclusive, a strong suspicion is present, and one thing is certain, air pollution does not do us any good. Although there has been a great deal of activity lately in the air pollution field, probably due in no small part to the Clean Air Act, it appears to me that the Nation has not fully grasped the seriousness of the air pollution problem. This is true despite the fact that polluted air is daily gasped by all too many Americans. For some reason the American public has the impression that the air pollution problem only exists in Los Angeles and a handful of other cities. Over the years I have had the pleasure of flying across this Nation and seeing much of the country. In so doing, I can say that contrary to this popular notion, Los Angeles is not the only area with a major pollution problem. While this may have been true at one time, one can clearly see that today air pollution is a national problem and a growing one. Take the Nation's Capital, Washington, D.C., for example. Our Capital City truly is a beautiful one. The millions of tourists who flock to Washington yearly cannot help but return to their respective States with a better understanding and a better appreciation of what America is all about. Washington continues to be a great source of inspiration to me personally. This is why I view with great concern the inadequate pollution programs in the District of Columbia area. For Washington, although a great inspirational and beautiful city is also, from an air pollution standpoint, a dirty city. Experts say Washington is many times dirtier than the city of Los Angeles. That such is the case saddens me as it should all Americans, for it should not be. For Washington has no substantial industry and far better meteorological conditions than Los Angeles. Such pollution is also inexcusable because modern technology has advanced to such a state that most of the pollutants from stationary sources can, and should be, reduced or eliminated. In Los Angeles County a vigorous and effective program to abate air pollution from stationary sources is paying off. Aimed at reducing air pollution levels from stationary sources to those existing in 1940 the goal has almost been reached. Los Angeles County control program for stationary sources has kept more than 5,000 tons of contaminants out of the air daily. It The District of Columbia area could also achieve similar results by eliminating or reducing pollutants from stationary sources. can and should be done. Under the Clean Air Act, Federal action is authorized to abate interstate air pollution problems. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare again may take such action on his own initiative or after consultation with the officials of the States involved or at the request of the States. It is my understanding that to date Federal authority has been invoked in eight interstate areas. Certainly the Federal Government has a particular responsibility, too, in the Nation's Capital. The Federal City, pollutionwise, should be a model city of clean air. I only wish, Mr. Chairman, that the State of California was making as rapid progress in controlling the pollution from the automobile as we have made in controlling pollution from stationary sources. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Although we are making progress, the truth of the matter is that we have to run as fast as we can to stand still. This is so because of our rapidly growing population, which is expected to double by the end of this century, and the increasing number of autos. On May 27 the Air Pollution Control District of the County of Los Angeles issued its report to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles regarding the status of air pollution control in Los Angeles County and the prospects of success of the current control programs. Their conclusions were: (1) Current motor vehicle control programs will not achieve acceptable air quality in Los Angeles, in the next decade, and (2) control of motor vehicle emissions must be intensified and accelerated if Los Angeles County is to have acceptable air quality by 1980. Since it has been estimated that emission from the motor vehicles is responsible for about 80 percent of the Los Angeles problem, and a substantial contribution elsewhere, we must do better. In California, all 1966 and later model cars must meet California standards that limit the amount of hydrocarbons to 275 parts per million and carbon monoxide to 1.5 percent. Standards have been adopted to further reduce these exhaust emissions in the case of hydrocarbons from 275 parts per million to 180 parts per million, and carbon monoxide from 1.5 percent to 1 percent by 1970. This raises a very interesting question, Mr. Chairman. The question of Federal preemption. Since the Federal Government is in effect going to adopt the 1966 California standards as national standards on 1968 vehicles, the very serious question of whether the Federal Government's action will preempt the field and thus prevent California from enforcing more stringent standards established for 1970 is presented. It would be undesirable from a policy standpoint for the Federal Government to preempt the field. I feel certain such was not the intent of Congress in enacting the Clean Air Act, since primarily the responsibility for air pollution was recognized rightfully to belong to the States. For obviously the degree of control needed in one community will vary with the degree of control needed in another. I therefore believe the committee should clarify this point. Mr. Chairman, I would also urge that the automobile industry of this country give the problem of air pollution the top priority to which it is entitled. I feel very confident that the industry, if it focuses the skills and abilities of its personnel, will find solutions to the pollution problem. In any event, the industry should move and move quickly, for I can say that the public is demanding answers to the problem of air pollution. Also Mr. Chairman, I believe it imperative that the Federal, State, and local governments undertake educational programs designed to make the public aware of the air pollution problem. In this effort, I would hope that such voluntary groups as the tuberculosis association might join in such a campaign in view of the increasing statistical evidence showing some relationship between respiratory problems and pollution. Finally, although I understand, Mr. Chairman, this lies outside the jurisdiction of this committee, I believe the Federal Government should provide a tax incentive to private industry to anyone who acquires, constructs, or installs air pollution devices that have been certified. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the work of this subcommittee is as important as that carried on anywhere in the Congress. Indeed, if we are to pass only the benefits of our great civilization and unsurpassed technology to future generations without eliminating or at least controlling some of its undesirable byproducts, such as pollution, we may be cursed rather than praised. We in this country must learn to conserve our air and water resources, just as we learned to conserve other natural resources. We have already been given a glimpse of the folly of the failure to do otherwise. In closing, I again congratulate the chairman and my colleagues for their work in keeping the air pollution problem before our people and for their efforts in bringing S. 3112 before the subcommittee. I feel confident that the enactment of S. 3112, which establishes maintenance grants and increases the authorization by $9 million during fiscal year 1967, will help us to continue the battle against air pollution. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this concludes the reading of Senator Murphy's statement. Senator MUSKIE. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Murphy, although he is not present, for his excellent statement. I particularly commend to the attention of the Secretary Senator Murphy's suggestions relative to the city of Washington. They are most appropriate and most pertinent. On the question of stricter State standards on automobiles than those of the Federal Government, I would say that it is the intent, of course, of the committee, and as indicated in last year's bill, that the whole country be given the benefit of any technology which is used in California to control the performance of the automobile. We would expect the Secretary to reflect in his legislation the advance of the technology which might be reflected in California regulations. But, nevertheless, if there is a discrepancy which puts the Secretary in a bad light on this point then I think we ought to make sure that the lesser or lower Federal standards do not preempt the higher or more effective standards of any State, including California. So I think we will undertake to clarify both of those points. I think Senator Murphy has made a distinct contribution in raising this question at this point in the record. Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. This concludes the scheduled hearings on air pollution legislation. We never foreclose the possibility that we may schedule others to further probe points that have been raised but we have no specific plans to do so at the present time. So, for the present time, the hearings are adjourned and the record will be kept open for a week to 10 days for any additional statements. Thank you all very much. I note that we have a number of communications and statements in the hands of the staff. I will order them and any subsequent statements placed in the record at this point. (The material placed in the record is as follows:) CONFERENCE OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE:The Conference of State Sanitary Engineers sincerely appreciates the opportunity to present its views on the Federal Solid Wastes Program initiated under P.L. 89-272. We are extremely gratified with the prompt and effective initiation of the new Federal program by the Public Health Service, and in particular, the efforts to encourage and develop State programs to cope with this serious and growing problem. At the 41st Annual Meeting of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, action was taken to review the present authorizations, and resolutions were adopted which we believe should be considered when modification of the present Act is undertaken. Copies of these resolutions are enclosed for your consideration. Sincerely yours, MEREDITH H. THOMPSON, Eng. D., Chairman. RESOLUTION No. 1. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GRANTS Whereas, P.L. 89-272 provides funds for the development of State comprehensive plans for solid waste disposal, and Whereas, these grants will provide a nucleus of trained professional personnel capable of maintaining and carrying on statewide programs of solid waste disposal, and Whereas, the basic concept behind the development of comprehensive statewide plans is the establishment of a continuing, on-going program in solid waste management, and Whereas, the fiscal resources in many of the States are not adequate to support the costs of such a program, and Whereas, the problem has certain intrastate, interstate, and regional aspects: Therefore, be it Resolved, that the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers requests consideration by the Congress of amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide for solid waste management grants to the States, regions, and communities on a matching basis which will permit funding and support of comprehensive programs of solid waste disposal: And be it further Resolved, that copies of this resolution be transmitted to the State and Territorial Health Officers, to the Surgeon General, Public Health Service, to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and to the appropriate members of Congress. RESOLUTION No. 2. SOLID WASTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT GRANTS Whereas, the Solid Waste Disposal Act provides authority for the awarding of grants to assist in the demonstration of new and improved solid waste disposal techniques and facilities, and |