435 



■where these will be allocated, and there is no final answer that I can 

 give you right now. 



Mr. Rogers. I wondered what you had requested. I realized 0MB 

 often does not agree with your request. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. We requested allocation of $85 million between 

 the problems of air and water i)ollution, and pesticides, radiation, and 

 solid wastes, and obviously we don't come up with the authorization 

 in the bill, if it is even a portion of the $85 million. 



Mr. Rogers. Very, very short ? 



Mr. RucKELSHATJS. That is right. 



Mr. Rogers. Do you agree with that approach ? 



Mr. RucKELSHATJS. I believe that in looking at the new and inno- 

 vative projects which the bill authorizes us to fund as they come in, 

 there are not that many new and innovative projects. We have already 

 been criticized by GAO for funding projects that were not new and 

 innovative at all. In fact, they were redundant as to other projects. 



I think we have to be careful to perform what Congress has said we 

 ure supposed to perform, which is to put this money into new and inno- 

 vative demonstration j)rojects. 



Mr. Rogers. No; it is not just demonstration projects. There is a 

 section for demonstration projects. There is also a section to help com- 

 munities bring about new methods, but it is not just demonstration, 

 which does not mean it has got to be new over what they have out in 

 Seattle, Wash., the very latest there, but it means it is new in that 

 area, an improvement. 



Mr. RucKELSHATJS. I suppose this is an argument that in looking 

 at legislative history was an argument that went on through Congress. 



It is our interpretation of the act that it does mean new in terms of 

 the Nation, because if the purpose of the act is for this Federal agency 

 to provide means of the treatment of solid wastes, that can be adopted 

 in communities around the country when they see they work. 



Mr. Rogers. Well, may I say, then, you probably will end up with 

 only one project in the United States a year, or a month. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. No ; I don't think that is right. 



Mr. Rogers. I thought you said there were not that many new and 

 innovative projects. 



Mr. RucKELSHATJS. Well, there are not, but there are more than one. 



Mr. Rogers. If you will analyze, and I happen to be the author of 

 that section, I would tell you that the intent is that it does not have to 

 be the same in Florida, on the same level as it does in Washington, 

 but it should be new and innovative in that area, an improvement for 

 that grant section for the demonstrations, yes. 



I think if you will check that, maybe that will help in getting more 

 funds. 



Then finally, let me conclude by saying I believe you do have pri- 

 mary responsibility for enforcement in the Air Pollution Act for new 

 stationary sources. 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. That is right. 



Mr. Rogers. You don't have to wait for the State. 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. That is right. 



Mr. Rogers. For airplane pollution ? 



Mr. RucKELHAus. We have a year before we have any authority for 

 airplane. 



