Senator MUSKIE. Of course we recognize a great deal of your time is taken up here arguing with us.

Senator Bayh said this might take less time if we agreed.

Mr. QUIGLEY. The very fact that you asked those questions, of course, might expedite matters a little bit.

Senator MUSKIE. I want to say there is a lot of other ground we could profitably cover with you gentlemen. I am sorry that we did not get to your assistants. I wanted to get into the question of solid waste disposal more with you, and other aspects of the bill, but I think ought to, out of courtesy, get to our other witnesses before the morning totally expires.

May I say I appreciate your frankness, and the free exchange of views we have had. I hope that your mind is as open as mine.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate how inconvenient it has been for some witnesses who are ready to testify this morning. If at any time in connection with this series of hearings, or otherwise, you want us to come back, we would be happy to do so.

Senator MUSKIE. As you know, we are going to Detroit tomorrow to hold hearings there with the automobile manufacturers. We will be back here on Thursday. We might very well be interested in having you come back on Friday.

Mr. QUIGLEY. My present schedule has me in Chicago on Thursday, but I will be back on Friday.

Senator MUSKIE. Why do you not keep that in mind, then?

Thank you very much.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness is speaking for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, another old friend, from the nearby city of Wilmington, Mayor John E. Babiarz.

I know that Senator Boggs would like very much to introduce the mayor, and I would be delighted to have him do so.

Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I do consider it a great privilege and pleasure as well as an honor to present the distinguished mayor of Wilmington, Del., Mayor John Babiarz, a good personal friend of mine, and an outstanding and able mayor of the city of Wilmington, now serving his second term as mayor, to this committee.

He is representing the mayor's association, and it is not only valuable to have his testimony in this representative capacity, but I can assure you and members of the subcommittee that I shall listen attentively and value what he has to say in his individual capacity.

It is a pleasure to have you here, Mayor, and we appreciate your coming.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. BABIARZ, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Mr. BABIARZ. Thank, you, Senator Boggs.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, of which I am a member of the advisory board, in support of S. 306 now pending before this subcommittee.

I am chairman of the regional conference of elected officials which embraces 11 counties in 3 States-Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey-in the Delaware Valley between Wilmington on the south and Trenton on the north, with the other major cities, Philadelphia, Camden, and Chester, Pa., along with Trenton and Wilmington, Del., as the 5 major cities. So in addition to representing the conference of majors, I will be representing this group.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously appeared before this committee in support of the provisions of Public Law 88-206. As a matter of policy, the U.S. Conference of Mayors had resolved in 1963 that the following action be taken :

Enactment by the Congress of legislation authorizing the Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to

(a) Engage in an expanded program of research and investigation concerning the causes, effects, and control of air pollution; (b) Expand its program of technical assistance and consultation to State and local governments concerning prevention and control methods;

(c) Expand its training program directed toward increasing the number and competency of persons trained for air pollution research and control work;

(d) Provide Federal financial assistance to State and local air pollution control agencies which will help them to initiate and improve their control programs;

(e) Conduct studies on air pollution problems of interstate and nationwide significance; and

(f) Take action to abate interstate air pollution when State or local governments fail to do so.

Air pollution is a serious national problem. Formerly, it was a local issue largely concerned with industry. But today, a significant source is an ubiquitous autombile in addition to other sources. The automobile and the automotive industry are essential to our way of life and to our economy.

But the increasing level of pollution of the air in our communities requires effective action. At present, the Federal Government is spending about $24 million a year under the provisions of Public Law 88206. We believe, considering the potential seriousness of the problem, that this sum seems much too small.

The bill, S. 306, now pending before this committee, improves, expands, and supplements the provisions of the existing law. We support the principal objectives of this bill.

Polluted air, not being a respector of the political jurisdictions, requires effective action for its control at all levels of government. To accomplish this, we believe that Government must provide the leadership, not fellowship.

President Johnson in his messages on the "Problems and Future of the Central City and Its Suburbs" and on "Natural Beauty of Our Country" reflected in large measure the views of officials of government and the public.

We support the position of the President in this regard, and we believe that S. 306 would significantly further the objectives set forth by the President in his messages.

Mr. Chairman, I will not attempt to deal in the technical aspects of the bill now before this committee, except to say in passing that rather than including specific emission limits for motor vehicles, that those limits be deleted, and that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare be given the necessary authority and flexibility on the basis of technological feasibility to promulgate such standards as may be necessary.

The research needs to obtain the necessary answers to the many facets of the air pollution problem requires suitable facilities, adequately staffed and financed. The cities of this Nation do not have the resources to conduct such research. It is only the Federal Government who can perform this important function.

We support the establishment of a Federal Air Pollution Control Laboratory. We do not believe that the current hodgepodge of facilities adequately meets the needs.

With regard to the problem of the disposal of solid wastes, we can only report that this is a rapidly increasing problem, and the land available for safe and sanitary disposal to the principal cities of this country is rapidly diminishing. The mountains of waste must be adequately disposed of from the standpoint of air pollution as well as from the other public health aspects associated with such disposal. We are facing this problem with great concern. It has been estimated that approximately $1 billion is necessary to meet the current needs of our cities. We support the provisions of the bill to provide financial assistance through a program of grants, and we also support the President when he stated that, "We need to seek better solutions to the disposal of these wastes," in his message on "natural beauty." What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the problem of solid wastes disposal should be approached in a comprehensive manner which will provide for research and demonstration projects leading to more effective methods for disposing of solid wastes in addition to the authorities for construction of such facilities.

Another matter that this bill concerns itself with is that of the extension of motor vehicle inspection programs to include air pollution control systems of such vehicles. Currently, less than half of the States have such programs, and in many cases they are limited in their scope and effectiveness.

In those States not even having any simpleness of an inspection program, we find that in a large number of cases such States and communities are becoming the "dumping grounds" for unsafe vehicles.

We support the need for effective motor vehicle inspection systems. Such systems in our view would protect the safety, health, and welfare of all our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, when the Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, it revamped the role of the Federal Government in air pollution control. The Clean Air Act of 1963 represents a sharp departure from prior legislation in that it created within the Federal Establishment a mechanism for greatly stimulating the national effort to abate and control air pollution.

Its provisions were broad, and they ranged into fields which the Federal air pollution effort had not previously entered-abatement authority and financial aid to control programs, to mention only two.

Nevertheless, enactment of the Clean Air Act is not in itself the end, but rather a fresh beginning.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of this committee, on the basis of what I have just said, a suggestion for your consideration of a program of grants for the maintenance on a continuing basis of air pollution programs at State and local levels of government.

As you know, section 4 presently limits Federal participation to projects, supported by non-Federal funds over and above the previous year's expenditures, that is, "new" money, to develop, establish, or improve programs.

This provision has been interpreted as excluding Federal participation in the costs of maintaining existing programs, upon which the eligible project may be based. This approach suggests a Federal role limited to merely providing an initial stimulation of program improvements and subsequent withdrawal of support, on the assumption or hope that non-Federal funds will be available to substitute for the Federal share.

We believe that this limited role is not in accordance with the true nature of the problem. Thus, the adverse effects of air pollution upon health, agriculture, property, highway, and air transportation safety, esthetics, the quality of life in our communities generally, coupled with the heavy Federal investment in urban renewal and other programs to protect and conserve urban life, suggests a strong Federal interest in air pollution as a problem whose solution is of vital importance to the Nation.

This Federal interest is, of course, reinforced by fact that air pollution may be carried for long distances from its source and affect persons and properties in communities and States far beyond the areas where the uncontrolled sources are located.

In the light of these considerations, the strong Federal interest in air pollution controls suggests the desirability of Federal sharing in ongoing air pollution control program costs.

Further, our experience under the existing provisions indicates that certain areas, where strengthened programs are needed, are ineligible for Federal assistance which would otherwise be warranted, because very little or no "new" non-Federal funds were made available in the current fiscal year.

Increased local funds and the strengthening of local programs may have occurred in prior fiscal years. As a result the present provisions tend to penalize those areas, such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area districts in California, which acted on their own initiative to control air pollution prior to the availability of Federal grant funds.

It is our understanding that the estimate of $5 million for control program grants for fiscal year 1966 budget will not permit the award of any additional grants or project applications submitted in 1966.

The current 20 percent limitation in the existing legislation results in an unnecessary and unreasonable restrain or the development of strong State and local air pollution control programs.

We support the deletion of this limitation from the existing legislation and that such funds as may be necessary be appropriated in accordance with the normal budgetary procedures of the Congress.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we support the objectives of the President in seeking legal means for the prevention of air pollution before it occurs rather than attempting to correct a serious situation which might already have damaged the health and welfare of our citizens.

I appreciate the opportunity and the privilege to appear before this committee on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors to express our views of the bill, S. 306, and to indicate to you, Mr. Chairman, our strong support for your progressive approach to this problem and your leadership.

I might add here that in addition to being a member of the advisory board of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I am also chairman of the Regional Conference of Elected Officials in the Delaware Valley, centering on the metropolitan area of Philadelphia and extending from Wilmington on the south to Trenton on the north, and including the other major cities of Chester, Pa., and Camden, N.J.

This area comprises 3 States and 11 counties in these 3 States. We have been studying this problem on a regional basis, and the air pollution, as you well know, knows no boundaries. We in our area are in a very highly concentrated area of industry. Also, shipping uses the Delaware River. This is a very busy artery.

In many instances in Wilmington we have had problems of soot fallout which was traced to ships blowing out their boilers going down the river. There are adequate laws to control this, and yet these things do happen. This happens usually during the night.

But the point that I wish to make here is the fact that there is not enough research yet as to the effects of climatic conditions on air pollution problems.

Recently the public health laboratory in Cincinnati in its report showed Wilmington, Del., to be third in the Nation in air pollution, even higher than the city of Philadelphia.

We are small in this industrial complex. We are a corridor State through which much interstate traffic will pass, once the Interstate System is complete, and we do need a Federal approach to this problem on a regional basis.

Senator MUSKIE. I must say that several times a year, as I drive to Maine, I get an intimate exposure to the air pollution problems of Wilmington, and New Jersey, and New York. It is not until we get. to the pristine purity of New England air that I come to understand how difficult your problem is.

In esssence, you support S. 306?

Mr. BABIARZ. Yes, we do.

Senator MUSKIE. You suggest change of standards on automotive vehicles. I think that is a formula that the committee is receptive to, anyway, rather than the specific setting out of standards in the bill itself.

It is a question, I think, of trying to find the language at the moment to do the job better than the language now in the bill.

Mr. BABIARZ. That is our position.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Boggs?

Senator BOGGS. I want to thank you, Mayor Babiarz, for your appearance here. The committee will value your testimony.

Mr. BABIARZ. Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Bayh?