« PreviousContinue »
vided that we can stimulate the Bureau of Mines with the sense of
Thank you very much.
Senator MUSKIE. We have four other questions that we will submit to you, Dr. Hibbard. We don't want to take the time for it this morning.
Dr. HIBBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MUSKIE. I will place in the record a number of communications which have been submitted. (The material is as follows:)
CONFERENCE OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS,
Albany, N.Y., June 9, 1966.
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
The Clean Air Act, as presently amended, represents a welcome departure from prior legislation in that it created within the Federal Government new mechanisms for participating in and greatly stimulating the national effort to abate and control air pollution.
The Conference of State Sanitary Engineers is vitally concerned with all provisions of the Clean Air Act. Many of our members administer the program in their state. The Conference membership is particularly pleased with the results obtained by the application of Section 104 of the Clean Air Act, which authorized grants to air pollution control agencies in support of the cost of developing. establishing, or improving programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. Under this provision, 28 State agencies have received financial support since its enactment and funds first became available. Two other State agencies have applied for grant support but have been advised that their requests must await the availability of funds. Thus, this financial incentive has had a salutory effect in stimulating new or improved State control programs. A similar effect has been noted with regard to local and regional control programs.
While the program grants authorized under Section 104 have resulted in many new and strengthened programs, these short-term grants are not adequate to meet the need for
continuing and effective programs necessary to meet the air pollution problems. Further, the present provisions of the Act have tended to penalize State and local agencies which acted on their own initiative to control air pollution prior to the availability of Federal matching funds, in that only "new" non-Federal funds could be used for matching purposes.
We strongly support the provision in S. 3112 which would authorize the making of grants to air pollution control agencies to support the cost of maintaining programs. In supporting this provision, however, we believe that subsection (b) of Section 104 should not be made applicable to the maintenance grants that would be authorized if S. 3112 were enacted. This subsection would preclude the granting of Federal funds for program support during any fiscal year if the State or local funds for program support are less than those expended in the preceding fiscal year. We believe that the objective of maintenance grants is to ensure a sustained effort over a period of time, at the level necessary to ensure effective prevention and control of air pollution.
Another of the provisions of S. 3112 would delete that portion of Section 104 of the Act which limits the total amount available for control program grants to 20 percent of the total air pollution appropriation in any one year. There does not appear to be a need to fix the relationship between the level of funds for grant support and that of the total appropriation. As air pollution technology is developed and improved, and as air pollution problems tend to become accentuated, the need for the application of this knowledge will become even greater than it is today. The Conference, therefore, supports the deletion of the 20% limitation in that it will allow for flexibility in making determinations of the
level of funds for each of the several aspects of the Federal program in accordance
MEREDITH H. THOMPSON, Eng. D.,
STATEMENT OF AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, ERNEST L. STEBBINS,
M.D., PRESIDENT The American Public Health Association is happy to have the opportunity once again, as on previous occasions, to support measures being considered in this Committee to strengthen national efforts to control environmental pollution, and specifically to bring about a reduction in the pollution of air and improved handling of solid wastes. The Association speaks on these matters for a membership of public health officials and other trained and experienced health professionals at work throughout the nation on problems relating to public health.
This membership recognized long since that air pollution is much more than a nuisance, constituting as it does a national health hazard of great significance. Our organization consequently has expressed strong support of air pollution control measures over many years.
We are grateful for the continuing attention which has been given by this Committee to problems of air pollution. We value the outstanding contribution the Committee has made to increased public awareness of the true dangers of air pollution and to the initiation and development of control programs.
At this time we would like to express specific support for Senate Bill 3112 as it would extend the programs authorized by the Clean Air Act. We favor the proposed amendments which would authorize grants to air pollution control agencies to maintain air pollution control programs in addition to the present authority for grants to initiate or improve such programs; which would make more flexible the use of appropriations by consolidating the appropriation authorizations under the Act; which would delete the provision limiting the total of grants for support of air pollution control programs to 20 per cent of the total appropriation for any one year.
The original limitation of three fiscal years on the program established by the Clean Air Act was for the purpose of permitting re-examination of the program within a short period of time. This re-examination "assuming the expectations for the program are realized, will permit the Congress to provide necessary increases in authorizations for future fiscal years," in the words of the Conference Report. It was recognized that increased fiscal support of air pollution programs might well be required as a result of the problems accompanying population growth and urban expansion.
The expectations of Congress, as expressed in the Conference Report of December 1963 which accompanied the Bill subsequently passed as the Clean Air Act, have been realized. Air pollution continues to be a widespread and increasing hazard in the United States. A sound beginning has been made in control programs, largely as a consequence of the Federal legislation, but a continued. unrelenting, and stronger attack must be maintained if this problem is to be contained. We support, therefore the extension of the appropriation authorization for the Federal air pollution control programs, an increase in the appropriation as provided in this measure, and consolidation of the appropriation authorizations.
We are convinced that consolidation of the appropriation authorizations, now contained in sections 209 and 306 of the Clean Air Act, will make for a more eficient and flexible mechanism. Circumstances neither anticipated or provided for under separate authorizations could seriously hamper the operation of the program. We believe that flexibility to permit program and financial adjustments according to the judgment of responsible administrators is preferable to unnecessary and possibly harmful legislative restriction.
Among the most significant accomplishments of the Clean Air Act has been stimulation of State and local air pollution control programs through the grant mechanism. We wish to express support for the provision to strengthen this grants program so that it may be useful in sustaining important State and local air pollution control agency programs, as well as setting new ones into motion or enlarging established programs. Continued effectiveness of some State and local control programs will require sustaining grants. Such activity is appropriate, particularly in view of the national scope of air pollution, the magnitude
of effort required in control programs, and the limited resources at the disposal of localities and States. We believe that a provision for sustaining grants will remove also the likelihood of inequitable treatment, equivalent of a penalty, for those agencies which have already launched programs on their own initiative. Furthermore, the present legislation does not take into account a normal and inevitable fluctuation in expenditures, reflecting non-recurring capital outlass, for example. The criteria for grant support should be not merely statistical but capable of reacting to the need for support and the accomplishments that support would stimulate. This we believe would be the salutary effect of the proposed revision.
We strongly support deletion of the provision limiting the total expenditure for grants to air pollution control programs to 20 per cent of the total appropriation for any one year. We see no justification whatever for such an artificial barrier to flexible administration. Establishing a fixed relationship between grant funds and total appropriations is based on no relaity we can discern. The relationship between the amounts spent on grants to State and local control agencies and other activities such as research, training, abatement, and technical assistance may need to vary over a period of time. The annual budgetary and appropriation process allows for correcting any imbalance that may occur. Meanwhile, the program administration should be sufficiently flexible to allow for situations which may, in the judgment of those responsibile for the program, call for larger amounts being allocated in any one period to grants. Deletion of this provision-which contributes nothing of value and could hamper adequate response in a situation of rapid change or under circumstances which justified a larger percentage being channeled to grants—will strengthen the legislation, in our judgment.
May we take this opportunity to comment on the subject of solid wastes, since that problem is also under consideration by your Committee. As the Committee is well aware, the problems of disposing of solid wastes go far beyond the contribution to air pollution, although open burning of solid wastes is one of many serious concerns of those combatting air pollution. Inadequate and improper handling of solid wastes cause pollution of our surface and ground waters, result in breeding places for insects and rodents, result in accident hazards and cause environmental blight.
The American Public Health Association is very pleased to express appreciation for the promptness and effectiveness with which the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has moved to organize the solid waste disposal program under the new legislation. Program responsibility has been delegated by the Secretary to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service in view of the significant health implications and the earlier experience of the Service in this field. We are glad to note that the new program has been given identity through the establishment of the Office of Solid Wastes.
At the State level almost all of the Governors have already desginated the solid waste agency for survey and planning puropses under the Act.
Almost all of these are in the State health departments.
We realize that the funding of this program is not being handled by your Committee, but we do want to take this opportunity to urge full implementation of the Act through appropriations.
Since your Committee is reviewing progress under the legislation, we would like to set forth our belief that the demonstration project activity deserves special consideration. These demonstration projects, which provide the bridge between ideas and accomplishment, are extremely important in accelerating progress in controlling environmental pollution. The present authorization, however, limits demonstrations to "new and improved" techniques of solid waste disposal. We believe that when revision of the Act is considered, it would be desirable to provide also for community solid waste management program grants.
The majority of cities and towns in the United States are inadequately served by solid waste disposal programs at present, and they will find it extremely difficult to take advantage of progress in this field because of the lack of personnel and funds with which to develop and maintain effective solid waste programs. To help offset this program, the Committee may wish to consider new legislative authority authorizing solid waste program grants to operating public agencies, on a matching basis, to enable them to make necessary initial capital investments and to assure personnel and program development and continuing operation of programs capable of providing sanitary and efficient solid waste disposal service for the citizens of the area served.
Encouragement should be given to applications for program grants submitted by agencies authorized to conduct regional programs, whether interlocal or interstate. This could be accomplished by reducing the local matching funds requirement for such regional programs. Such grants should be awarded on a program project rather than a formula basis.
We thank you for this opportunity of expressing appreciation for the Committtee's fine work in combatting air pollution and in launching a program on solid wastes disposal. We believe that the changes in the Clean Air Act which are proposed in S. 3112 can measurably strengthen the programs of air pollution control. We are glad to see that the solid wastes management program is under way and are confident that your Committee will give serious consideration to ways of strengthening that program also.
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
Chicago, Ill., June 14, 1966. Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, l'ommittee on Public Works, 1.8. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The American Medical Association wishes to submit its views on S. 3112, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1966, now pending before Four Committee.
This bill would, among other things, extend the air pollution control program and increase its authorization for appropriations, and would also provide for maintenance grants. The present law provides matching grants to air pollution control agencies and intermunicipal and interstate agencies for the cost of developing, establishing or improving programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. S. 3112 would further assist programs for the prevention and control of air pollution by providing maintenance grants up to one-half to air pollution control agencies and up to three-fifths to intermunicipal and interstate agencies for the costs of maintaining such programs.
We believe the effect of this amendment will be beneficial. The grant mechanism should bolster local and regional operations, encouraging a greater degree of local initiative, particularly in interstate and intermunicipal areas. In addition, the bill would eliminate a serious inequity in the present law. Certain metropolitan regions are penalized in that they cannot obtain assistance for maintaining their currently large and expensive programs, while a metropolitan region without a program could receive up to two-thirds of the cost of creating a new program. Under the proposed legislation this inequity would be eliminated.
The American Medical Association has supported previous air pollution control measures, and recently, in June of 1965, the AMA House of Delegates adopted a statement recognizing the health hazards resulting from air pollution and recommending that maximum feasible reduction of all forms of air pollution should be sought by all responsible parties. We believe that this bill can further this end, and we support the enactment of this legislation. Sincerely,
F. J. L. BLASINGAME, M.D.,
Executive Vice President. Senator MUSKIE. This concludes our morning session. The committee is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 9, 1966.)