The CHAIRMAN. I think if it is going to take a little while. We have all the cabinet people here and the President's representative. I think we would like to finish this morning. Senator TYDINGS. Do you want me to come back? The CHAIRMAN. Could you come back at 2 o'clock this afternoon when we have finished the Government's witnesses? We are right in the questioning process now. Senator TYDINGS. All right. The CHAIRMAN. Would that be convenient anytime this afternoon? Senator TYDINGS. All right. The CHAIRMAN. Anytime this afternoon? Senator TYDINGS. I will come back at 2 o'clock. The CHAIRMAN. Would that be appropriate? Senator TYDINGS. Fine. The CHAIRMAN. We deeply appreciate your doing this so that we can complete the testimony from the witnesses. Thank you. Senator Allott? Senator ALLOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not think we have a basic question for determination in this matter. Everybody is concerned about the quality of our environment and you do not have to go far to meet some aspect of it. It seems to me that the basic problem with which we are involved is not a determination of whether there is a problem, nor are we even concerned at the moment with, what we do with specific problems. Basically, we are concerned with the best method of coordinating and making effective the various activities of the Government to solve the environmental problems, about which we are all concerned. Now, the Chairman has already pointed out that there are many agencies involved in this matter, and he did not even begin to exhaust the list. As I took my high school physics-Dr. DuBridge, and you may not believe it, but I did take it-I recall something to the effect that you cannot destroy matter; you can only convert it. Is this roughly the truth? Dr. DUBRIDGE. Yes, sir-if by matter you include energy, of course. Senator ALLOTT. Matter and energy. And therefore in the problem of pesticides, for example, you cannot destroy a pesticide. It only is converted by deterioration or photosynthesis or some other method to other forms of matter. You pointed out, and I think it is true-at least I am satisfied that this Senator owes his own good health after 2 years in the South Pacific to the prolific use of DDT-that literally hundreds of thousands of our men who have served in those areas owe their health to the use of what was then and still is a very efficacious pesticide but which has turned up side effects which are not so desirable. For example, it would be easy in an emotional way to say we do away with all pesticides, including DDT. If we did this we would also destroy the fantastic productive capability of our American agriculture. Dr. DUBRIDGE. That is correct. Senator ALLOTT. This would be a necessary fallout, if you just did away with them. So this raises the question, do you find more effica cious means of killing bugs and blights and weevils, and so forth, or how do you do it? You were facetious, perhaps, in your remark about passing a law to stop selling gasoline. Now, no one has ever mentioned this before that I can recall, but it is possible without greatly inconveniencing the American public to cut down on these gas eating monsters of 380 and 400 and 425 and 440 cubic inch displacement. Everyone could get adequate transportation with a cubic displacement in the automobiles of at least half that size. And yet no one has suggested this as a means of cutting the auto pollution in half. It is one thing that could be done. Which brings me to the point that, if we are going to really solve the environmental problem, which is basically a problem of the population growth which in turn has produced the industrial expansion, many of us are going to have to modify in some respect what we have long considered to be our manner of life. I am particularly glad to see Secretary Braman here because he represents a field and is from a department in which I am greatly interested. Mr. Secretary, I am not wrong, am I, in saying that if we were to have an adequate subway system in the District of Columbia, we could move 40,000 an hour on a single line where we are moving 25,000 on a single street? Are these figures way out of line? Secretary BRAMAN. I would not be able to testify to the exact figures in the District of Columbia, but they are quite in line with other figures that I have knowledge of in the past, yes. Senator ALLOTT. So that it seems to me that we have a lot of thinking to do about this. The fourth thing about it is that no one here is in conflict about the basic problem we have. I would like to say that in listening to you gentlemen-and I want to give my colleagues an opportunity to express themselves, and also to ask questions-the one thing that appeals to me about your approach, Dr. DuBridge, is the argument of having heads of departments on the council who can implement and initiate policies. I will not cast a blight on any of the dozens of interdepartmental committees and joint committees that exist. I belong to one joint committee which meets at least once every year, not much more often. But, there is no question in my mind that through Parkinson's Law, we develop these things each one requires office space and for each employee you hire, you have committeed the Government to $15,000 in space and salary on an average. I am concerned that about all of the studies that can come out of a council; a commission, or a committee without producing actual results in the end. The most appealing thing to me about the Administration's approach to this thing, the President's approach, is that you develop the staff under the people who can actually implement and initiate policy under the direction of the President. And, of course, Congress always has its prerogatives to guide and appropriate, and so forth, in these areas. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Allott. Senator Anderson? Senator ANDERSON. I am interested in Secretary Hickel's statement. Was your statement approved by the Bureau of the Budget? Secretary HICKEL. Yes. Senator ANDERSON. Therefore, the Bureau of the Budget condemns these three bills? Secretary HICKEL. I would not say that specifically. Secretary HICKEL. I did not ask specifically. The CHAIRMAN. He says he did not ask them specifically. Secretary HICKEL. Yes. I think the objective of the whole idea, as put forth in Chairman Jackson's statement so well, is an excellent one. Senator ANDERSON. Well, and I quote: "It is our belief that the proposed new Environmental Quality Council makes unnecessary the kind of Council proposed in S. 1075." Secretary HICKEL. Right. Senator ANDERSON. Later on in your statement: "It is our recommendation that legislation such as contained in Title I of S. 1075 not be enacted." Secretary HICKEL. That is right, Senator. Senator ANDERSON. Well, then, does that not hit the three bills? Secretary HICKEL. It does. The CHAIRMAN. Would the Senator yield there? I think it is in the present form, because in the letter signed by Under Secretary Train, he says, "while we favor the objectives of these bills, we do not recommend their favorable consideration in view of President Nixon's announced intention to establish an interdepartmental Environmental Quality Council." I take it that the objection runs to the structuring of an organization within the executive branch and not to the policy declarations of the committee, that are proposed in the three bills. Am I correct in that? Secretary HICKEL. I think that is right. They favor the objectives of the bill. It is just a matter of whether it is done executively or legislatively. Senator ANDERSON. If you favor the objective, why do you say it should not be done? The CHAIRMAN. In the present form. Secretary HICKEL. Because the President has the intention of establishing an interdepartmental Environmental Quality Council. And he feels it does not take legislation at this point. Senator ANDERSON. My concern is that the groups have had this type of organization before, and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is an example of it. I just hope that you do not kill Senator Jackson's bill. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Senator Anderson. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I commend the panel for their fine statements in this very important area. It seems to me while there may be a difference of how to implement policy, there is very little difference in the policy itself. Is this a fair statement, Mr. DuBridge? Dr. DUBRIDGE. Yes, sir. The only question is: What is the most effective instrument to get the action that is recommended in this bill? Senator JORDAN. Yes. And you personally would not object to a statutory declaration of policy if that appeared to be an important matter? Dr. DUBRIDGE. I think the administration would welcome that very much; yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. Well, I call your attention, all of you who are here, to the declaration of policy which the chairman referred to earlier in the Employment Act of 1946. And I think it is important enough, Mr. Chairman, that I want to read it into the record at this time, because here is a declaration of policy that was put together to meet an emergency situation at the time, and the fact that it has not been amended down through the 23 years since that time indicates that there is still a meeting of the minds in this area. So I read it just hurriedly. Section 1021. Declaration of Policy of the Employment Act of 1946. The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means consistent with its needs and obligations and other essential considerations of national policy, with the assistance and cooperation of industry, agriculture, labor, and State and local governments, to coordinate and utilize all its plans, functions, resources for the purpose of creating and maintaining, in a manner calculated to foster and promote free competitive enterprise and the general welfare, conditions under which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities, including self-employment, for those able, willing, and seeking to work, and to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power. Now, that statement of policy has stood the test of time, and to implement it a Council of Economic Advisers was set up independent of the executive branch, that is, the regular Cabinet members, and they were given independent status. So I have an open mind on how best to implement such a policy, but I do believe that it would be useful, it would be constructive to spell out such a policy in this instance. And if you would agree that statutory enactment of such a policy would be desirable, then we have one step forward in this very important area. Would you so agree? Dr. DUBRIDGE. I certainly would agree, and the policy statement here is excellent. I would only hope that you would add some action sentences to it, to authorize action as well as study and research. Senator JORDAN. Exactly so. I don't have the words, but I think the words can be had that would encompass the very objective that you have stated, that the chairman has stated in his bill, and that we all agree should be spelled out in a tangible way so that people can refer to it and say, "this is what we believe," and upon this we will bottom legislation to accomplish these objectives. No matter how you do it, whether you do it by the interagency approach or an independent agency, these are matters that could be resolved later. But the essential thing, it seems to me, is what priority we give this work. Would you agree that it should have high priority? Apparently you do, because in the recommendation that came from the administration the President is to chair Dr. DU BRIDGE. Yes. We Senator JORDAN (continuing). This committee or this council. So it is not a matter, then, of there being a declaration of policy. We are all agreed on that. Do you agree that it should have high priority? think it should have high priority. There is no disagreement there. Isn't it a matter, then, of not rejecting this bill, not rejecting this legislation, but coming forward with something that will implement what the chairman has in mind and what the administration has in mind? Dr. DUBRIDGE. I think that is exactly right; yes, sir. And I am sure the Secretary would Senator JORDAN. Secretary Hickel, would you agree? Secretary HICKEL. Yes; I would agree. I think the problem here is that environment is so broad, it covers so many things in fact, as you mentioned, unemployment. Unemployment can be more of a specific thing, and I think if we could get the broad guidelines of the intent of Congress down in some sort of declaration, that that would be a wonderful help. But every time we have tried to get into it within our Department and others, we have found another phase of environment that hadn't been thought of, for example, the beautiful building is environment in some people's eyes, and we get into all kinds of facts and factors that always kept adding up. I think if it could be broad enough, because the term environment is pretty hard to put down on a piece of paper, it would be helpful. Senator JORDAN. Well, I have an open mind on how we implement it, but I see some merit to the proposition of having an independent council whose sole and single purpose is to deal with this subject. I hope you will keep that in mind, because I have seen interagency committees come and go, and most of them never go, they live forever once they are organized. And I say in my experience this Council of Economic Advisers has been more fruitful than all of the interagency committees I have seen in this Congress. And it is an independent agency. So I recommend it to you for your inspection and your consideration. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank Senator Jordan for those questions and an excellent statement. I want to say to the administration witness that I feel that we can get together after the hearings have been completed and try to work out some acceptable solution to his problem. As I understand the testimony today there is complete agreement about the need to do something in this area. I think that where there is a difference of opinion it is as to what kind of Federal action-forcing process should be set up. I think the other problems can be resolved. Maybe we can resolve the structural problems as well. I look forward, after we have completed our hearings, to an opportunity to sit down on a conference basis and go over the differences that exist. They are minor when compared with the agreement that I find between the administration and the committee about the need to act and to implement a policy declaration and, as Dr. DuBridge has mentioned, the need for action. I am confident that we can work that out. Senator Bible. Senator BIBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hickel, could you indicate the number of bureaus and agencies within your Department that are primarily concerned with the problems of environment? Secretary HICKEL. They all are, Senator. I think on this task force Senator BIBLE. I don't mean on the task force. I mean in the agency that you head up right now, the Department of Interior. For example, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is interested in the improvement and preservation of the environment; isn't that right? Secretary HICKEL. Right; that is true. I think they all are, Senator. Senator BIBLE. Well, some that have primary responsibility, though, |