The CHAIRMAN. Have you got a good smoke ordinance in Detroit? Mr. LINSKY. We have a good smoke ordinance.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your biggest problem in enforcing it?

Mr. LINSKY. The biggest problem in enforcement, I think, is some of the unsolved problems. The one that comes quickest to mind and that covers most of the area is the apartment-house incinerator, where the problem technically is not solved yet. We can't reach into a handbook or a design book and pull out an answer and hand it to the property owner and say, "Here is how you clean it up."

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the biggest problem is the equipment necessary to eliminate the smoke?

Mr. LINSKY. In our particular case, we think not. We think it is the research needed for the design of equipment that does not yet exist.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you think maybe the equipment does not exist at the moment to eliminate much of this smoke?

Mr. LINSKY. Much of that which is an enforcement problem. Aside from that it is just a matter of work on the part of our bureau, on the part of the owners of property, on things that are already known. That work we are doing as fast as we can with our staff. We have a staff of 27 people working on air pollution control on the payroll of the city of Detroit. The work that has been done in the past 612 years totals over $14 million in actual air pollution control equipment installation.

The CHAIRMAN. By private industry?

Mr. LINSKY. By all owners of property, including the city as an owner of property, including our board of education as an owner of many school buildings, most of which are right in the hearts of the residential areas.

The CHAIRMAN. This bill proposes three things: First, quick amortization for tax purposes for those who will install the necessary equipment to eliminate smoke; second, permitting the FHA to guarantee their mortages, making it easier for them to borrow the money if they need to do so to put in the necessary equipment; and third, money for research.

Of the three, which would help you most in Detroit?

Mr. LINSKY. They would all three help. The one that is most essential for us, I believe, is the research money. But that is a Detroit situation.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that might well be local to Detroit because you do have a good ordinance now and you have been after it for six and a half years and much progress has been made?

Mr. LINSKY. That is correct. We are favorably situated in that regard.

In other communities I am certain it is different.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are getting down now to the point where I gather most of your smoke is coming from sources that you do not know how to control, or which they do not control, and you don't know how to tell them to control it; is that the situation?

Mr. LINSKY. Basically, that is it with a little modification. We still have to do a lot of crank turning on problems that we know about. You can't dash madly in all directions like writer Haggard's hero. You still do things in an orderly fashion with the time and staff that you have.

Mr. CHARMBURY. We can try to find that information, although the companies are rather reluctant to give it out.

The CHAIRMAN. If you can find it, we will appreciate it.

Thank you.

Mr. COLEMAN. One comment on that is that for the plant to which I referred, it was computed that when they constructed their new wet process plant the cost was approximately $10 million to construct an entirely new plant which is in our particular borough. I don't think the cost to which we referred in any way compared to the combined sums that the householders are obliged to spend in constantly painting year in and year out and in the damage to their laundry and the brooms, and so forth, that are required to constantly clean the community. It might be interesting for you to know that for most of the automobiles, when they are washed, it is necessary to use some sort of acid to wash off the cement dust that cakes on the automobile.

Mr. MEESER. Vinegar.

The CHAIRMAN. I know your two Senators will be vitally interested in this subject and also the Congressmen from the State of Pennsylvania. I hope before you gentlemen return today that you will call upon each of them and discuss this with them and get their support.

Mr. CHARMBURY. We will.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you gentlemen have any other suggestions? I think you have made your position very clear and we certainly appreciate very much your coming down here. I would suggest that you give these facts and figures to your Congressmen and Senators. The matter of amortization, of course, is primarily a Finance Committee matter and Senator Martin is on that committee.

Mr. CHARMBURY. That will certainly be handled through the various communities that are in this area.

Mr. COLEMAN. I might say, Senator Capehart, that I am quite sure that Congressman Francis E. Walter, representing our district, is very familiar with the problems of that area and I am sure that his wholehearted support can be obtained.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I am sure it can. It is just a matter of getting them organized now, because we are going to start writing up this legislation. We were going to write it up on Tuesday. We are not going to write it up now until right after the first of May. Maybe they would like to file statements with us. You might find out. We will hold this record open for a couple of days and if they want to they can file statements.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. MEESER. Senator, may I add one thing? The labor unions in the mills are back of this anti-air-pollution amendment because it creates a hardship in working inside the plants.

The CHAIRMAN. I can well understand it.

Mr. MEESER. We have had cases where the unions have put down their tools and stopped work until the companies have laid some of the dust inside the plant.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a problem and that is why the Federal Government ought to help on it. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate it.

Our next witness will be Mr. Linsky, chief smoke inspector for the city of Detroit, Mich.

Is the administrative assistant to Senator Clements present? I believe you have a statement you would like to present for the Senator. We are delighted to receive it. This is a statement by whom?

Mr. FLURY. This is a statement by John J. Maloney, who is well qualified to speak, being the mayor of Covington.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have it in the record. (The prepared statement of Mayor Maloney follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MALONEY, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF COVINGTON, KY.

It is my understanding that Senator Capehart's amendment to Senate bill No. 2938 on the subject of air pollution is designed to provide for rapid amortization of capital funds expended by industries for facilities to control air pollution at the source; providing such installation of equipment is required and certified by a State, Territorial, or local agency, or authority charged with enforcement of laws relating to the abatement of atmospheric pollution.

I wish to urge this honorable body to kindly consider several facts which I believe to be pertinent to the welfare and future development of all cities or fringe developments of industries in their immediate sphere of influence.

The rapid growth and improvement of industrial developments throughout the country has often been at the expense of people living not only in the immediate vicinity of large plants, but also extending for several miles around the area. This is caused primarily from fumes and smoke that lie close to the earth and add to the discomfort and health of persons affected and to the deterioration of neighborhoods because of this discomfort, and the effects on buildings. We have had several unhappy experiences in the city of Covington, of houses far removed from any particular plant or plants, yet in many cases paint has become discolored and even has been blistered and peeled; this only adds to a final deterioration of the entire neighborhood. I cite only this one instance because it is brought closest home to those in residential areas which form the backbone of any community.

I believe the passage of this bill would encourage the installation of air-pollution abatement equipment by industries, especially during periods of high earnings of which we all hope the future holds.

It further encourages communities to enact reasonable and effective legislation, and establishes means of enforcement to reduce air contamination, thus permitting industries to take advantage of the provisions of this amendment for which they will be repaid, not only through the amortization of capital funds, but in public relations affecting the communities in which they operate.

The communities themselves will thus receive the benefits of cleaner air, wherein they now endure needless and unnecessary air pollution.

With continued research to improve our industries' developments or attaining technological advancements, are too often planned without any thought of obnoxious fumes and odors that we have come to know as the natural result of our larger factories. This amendment should encourage industries, as well as make them cognizant of the fact that the Federal and local governments will work with them to eliminate this hazard to public health and welfare.

The city of Covington joins the city of Cincinnati and the other communities surrounding us in making this request, as we know that fumes and smoke recognize no political boundaries. For this reason, we compliment the Senate of the United States in recognizing this fact by proposing aid to the local political subdivisions in combating this evil.

With these thoughts in mind, I earnestly urge this honorable body to give due consideration to this amendment, which will provide so much aid and relief to many industrial centers throughout the Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Linsky, you have a statement, I presume.

I have here the proofs of a bibliography on air pollution prepared by the Bureau of Mines which is just going into print. That takes it up to a point. It doesn't keep it current, however. Where do I go for my answer now? As to the haze, smoke and smog that many areas have experienced, by doing inter-city research or measurement at the same time under different weather conditions in different parts of the country those areas that have the trouble may learn why they have it by comparing with others that aren't having it. What is it that Los Angeles does have in its atmosphere? If we could do a complete measurement of several communities the thing might stand clear and would help Los Angeles with their specific problem. Detroit is doing work, of course, and is working with the University of Michigan; with the other universities in the area, and with the other cities. But more work needs to be done, not only in Detroit but in every other major city. The question has been raised about the effect on blight. I would like to talk about that a moment. It is highlighted, possibly, in an advertisement of one of the fabric companies. It says, "Safer in Soot." I believe it is that kind of thing that is chasing people away from the cities.

The CHAIRMAN. It says, "Safer in Sun, Safer in Soot and Safer in Suds."

Mr. LINSKY. Yes. That advertisement I have seen in papers in several parts of the country. I should like to get into the record and for your own information what Detroit is spending on its air pollution work. Our budget runs between $100,000 and $150,000 a year of our bureau's operation. It has not been threatened in any way. The city feels that benefits are being obtained from that work. In addition to that bureau budget we are also engaged in research work, together with some of the Federal agencies, because of our international problem. The Detroit River runs along the other side and we have the problem of smoke from ships going up and down the river. We have been supporting that work because funds were not available to the Federal Government to do the work itself. We have been paying $4,000 a year out of our bureau's budget to rent quarters for the technical advisory board of the International Joint Commission to carry out its international treaty required actions. That is kind of silly but we are doing it because we think the results will be helpful to us and the information will be useful to us. We will be able to use it in our further program. But it doesn't add up.

This is a map of the city of Detroit. I would like to indicate blight and air pollution, if I may. The title of this chart is obvious, "Neighborhood Conservation." It has been gotten up by the City Planning Bureau of the City of Detroit and by other bureaus in cooperation therewith. The areas that I have marked as "E" are areas that are so badly blighted that they will have to be cleaned out, either now or later. In those areas marked as "#", the lighter shades are the ones they figure will have to be cleaned out or completely developed. The slightly dangerous ones in those areas are ones where they might be considered livable for a little longer but they will have to be cleared out in time, too. The areas that are marked "1" indicate our heavy industry areas.

I will just point them out. This is the down-river area, both inside and outside Detroit. Here is a heavy industry belt along here and

another industry area along through here up the river and out in the north. That area in the center, however, is the area that is blighted. It is not that which is immediately adjacent to the industries. Although there are evidences of blight in the past. As we have been cleaning up the air pollution by intensive work, that blight is reducing. In the heart of the city you have a history of blight and air pollution, of heavy smoke from badly burned coal, badly fired coal, and a generation of history, in fact, several generations of it.

People have moved out. One of the reasons that is so common is, "I wanted to get out in the fresh country air, or the fresh city air, or the fresh suburban air for my kids." This you don't pinpoint to a specific problem. It is the overall air pollution blight problem. It is in this field that I think much of this research toward which your bill is pointed can be helpful. I appreciate this opportunity to appear. The CHAIRMAN. You have certainly been very, very helpful and we appreciate it. You have given us some very fine information. I know the Senators from your State and the Congressmen are interested in this subject and I would suggest you talk to them before you leave town.

Mr. LINSKY. I will specifically, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You should get them interested in this problem. It is really their problem.

Mr. LINSKY. There is one point that they will be concerned about, just as I am certain you are. That is the requirement that should be emphasized either in wording or understanding—an understanding between men is as good as wording many times that the research be keyed to the local community problem. With $5 million worth of research you can't do a lot of wild blue yonder research. You have got to concentrate on the problems you know you have. You have got to concentrate on the smog problem that Los Angeles knows it has, on the problems that New York knows it has, on the equipment design problem that we know we have.

The basic research is good and will be useful, but I think this is not the bill for it. I wonder if that is your feeling, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the housing bill is not the bill for it? Mr. LINSKY. Not the bill for the wild-blue-yonder research but for the immediate applied research.

The CHAIRMAN. Possibly so. We feel that the housing bill covers the slum clearance and blighted areas and we feel that blighted areas and slum clearance primarily are caused by smoke, dirt, dust, and so forth. It is not going to do much good to build new buildings in these areas and then have the same condition exist with smoke coming down upon them and making them blighted and slum areas again in 10 years. We will not accomplish much by doing that. That is why we are interested in the subject as a part of this bill.

Mr. LINSKY. Along that line is why we feel that if either spelled out in the bill that there be a local advisory group of people like myself, Dr. Greenburg, Austin Daley, and others to guide that research work so that it is well pointed, it would be helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no question but what we need more research. Thank you very much.

The next witness will be Mr. Austin C. Daley, chief, air pollution regulation engineer, from Providence, R. I.