accept will inescapably lose the broad support upon which its legitimacy ultimately depends; the same is true for a legislative body. And that is why your bill is so important, Mr. Chairman.

Our environmental problems have only reached broad public consciousness within the past two years. Prior to that, we had lived with a mythology that expressed man's domination of nature. We were taught in our schools that man could conquer nature; even our art reflects that mythology. It is interesting, parenthetically, to contract our painting with that of the oriental artist who sees man as an extension of nature and who depicts him as a tiny figure against a backdrop of huge mountain ranges and vast seas. If we are to survive, we can no longer afford the luxury of our myths.

The environmental issue is now popular. Vast numbers of bills have been introduced seeking to curb one or another form of industrial pollution. I am concerned, however, that like the civil rights movement, the fad will be over shortly and another issue will take its place. Again, like the civil rights movement, this issue will not disappear; the stakes will simply be higher and the problem more difficult to resolve. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I think your approach it critical. We must begin a massive and sustained education program right now. We must build a constituency for the future, a constituency that will not permit the issue to fade away; that will expect government and industry to clean up the air, to purify the water, and to provide a livable urban environment-and we have to begin in the public schools. We cannot afford to produce judges twenty years from now who view pollution as an inevitable consequence of a complex industrial society and thus fail to impose meaningful sanctions upon those who destroy the environment. More important, we can no longer afford those persons in positions of industrial responsibility who do not share these views. Industry right now has the technology to substantially reduce vehicular pollution; that it is not compelled to do so is a failure of education. We have been educated, especially in the cities, to accept a certain amount of pollution, a certain amount of litter, of noxious odors, of choking traffic-the list is endless.

A concrete illustration is the asbestos problem. There is compelling evidence that the spraying of asbestos and the release of asbestos into the ambient air creates a serious public health hazard; at the very least those persons in close proximity to such spraying are in serious jeopardy of contracting lung cancer. The causal relationship between spraying asbestos and lung cancer is greater than that which has been established between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. We have just promulgated the most stringent regulations in the country with respect to this problem. They will take effect on Monday, April 13. We intend to do more immediately after holding a public hearing within the next month. Had the public been educated to this problem sooner, I am certain that many lives would have been saved. It takes no education to accept the simple proposition that assault and battery is an antisocial act deserving of criminal sanction. We know without much education, that a punch in the nose hurts. It does take some education, however, to understand that asbestos particulate is far more injurious than a punch in the nose, and that such activity is far more anti-social, whatever the economic gain.

In the past few months, I have listened to many arguments in behalf of industry, arguments which center around the cost of pollution abatement. Perhaps my approach is too simplistic, but I remain unimpressed by such arguments. A burglar would not be heard to argue that the cost to him of refraining from his anti-social activities would be too great to bear and thus he should be permitted to carry out his trade, albeit perhaps, on a more restricted level. Again, the causal relationship between burglary and loss of property is quite clear. As I have become educated, and I am by no means an expert-they did not have environmental courses when I went to law school-the causal relationship between pollution and public health in specific areas has become as clear as my burglary analogy. Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Administration will take this very simple approach: others must balance the competing economic interests, the function of the Environmental Protection Administration is to protect the environment-nothing else.

When the public becomes educated through your bill, Mr. Chairman, through a series of public hearings which the Environmental Protection Administration intends to conduct over the next few months, through the media, I believe that this approach to environmental problems will be vindicated.

Because I am persuaded that the problem is too urgent to await the impact of future generations which will be more educated to it, I am particularly

heartened by the provisions in your bill which contemplate adult and industrial education. If I seemed too harsh with respect to the industrial pollution, it is not because I subscribe to an environmental devil theory, but rather because I feel that the absence of environmental education has foreclosed large segments of industry, until very recently, from giving the problem serious attention. Having permitted the problem to become as serious as it is, industry is now on the defensive. The tunnel vision which sees the short-run profit and is blind to the long-run disaster must be overcome. Hopefully, education will broaden such a vision, all of us need it.

I have, Mr. Chairman, just some final observations. Your bill speaks in terms of environment and ecology. I have used the word environment in my talk. Ecology is generally associated with the balance of nature, focusing upon our rivers, forests, natural resources and the like. When I think of the environmental problems of the city, I think of rats, roaches, garbage, blighted housing, neon lights, everything that fouls the city. I hope that the educational programs implemented under your bill will address themselves to those issues as well as to the ecological problems. The two problems are, of course, ultimately inseparable. But in the short run at least we must find environmental solutions for the city. We must find ways to sustain our own peculiar ecological balance, to dispose of the staggering amounts of solid waste, to retrieve our abandoned cars, to reduce the choking traffic, to clean up the city's air. In short, we must strike an ecological balance between man and man, as well as between man and nature. One final thought, and that is the establishment of a federally funded environmental college. I am not fully familiar with the literature in the field, and so my idea may not be a new one. In any event, I believe that the city needs a systems approach to these problems. Every relevant discipline must be involved. Environmental effects of a particular technology are far-reaching, having political, social, economic and legal consequences. In order to understand these problems, I believe that such a college, having available under one roof all of these related disciplines would be invaluable. I recommend it to you for your consideration. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify before your committee.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. I think your statement is a first-class one.

One reason I think it is, is I think you are the first witness we have had perhaps before our subcommittee who made a point that was very much in my own mind as we worked in putting this legislation together, namely that it was essential, if we were going to be effective in attacking the problem of pollution and protecting the quality of the environment, to be able to generate public support for measures, both private and public, and that, unless we had a citizenry literate in these matters, we were never really going to be able over the long haul to get much done for the reasons you point out in such excellent fashion on page 3 of your statement where you note that too many citizens, even in positions of important responsibility, simply assume that pollution is part of what an industrial society has to live with. So I appreciate that analysis.

I might also say finally that with respect to your suggestion of a federally funded environmental college, you may be interested to know that a report was published a few weeks ago for the President that required the President's Advisory Council recommending environmental colleges at 20 of the universities and colleges in the United States.

We heard a few weeks ago from the coauthor of that report. So that may be in the direction to which you referred.

I have no other questions other than to thank you for your excellent statement.

Mr. Reid?

Mr. REID. Thank you very much, Mr. Fabricant, for your thoughtful testimony and I wish to express our appreciation to Jerry Kretchmer as well, who couldn't be with us.

Let me ask you this question. From the standpoint of the law-and I gather you are somewhat concerned as general counsel in this area— do you feel that you begin to have the needs to deal with a Con Ed which does not have stringent standards on the ecology and may not even have very stringent thoughts about thermal pollution or radiation dangers?

And, do you have any suggestions as to what could be done in this area that would be helpful to you from the standpoint of the term you used a minute ago, municipal colleges?

Mr. FABRICANT. Yes, the present fine structures are entirely inadequate when imposed, and that is part of your bill.

The judges themselves don't view the problem in the way they ought to, simply because I think they are not educated in the problem. What we ought to be thinking about is an environmental court which would deal with the problem administratively and impose realistic fines.

It is quite easy for a large industrial corporation to accept a $25 fine over and over again and continue to pollute and accept that as a cost of production.

Mr. REID. What about a hundred thousand dollars a day?

Mr. FABRICANT. I would be in favor of an injunctive remedy, where a willful and continuous violator would have his doors padlocked period, until he had his standards in conformity with the requirements of the municipal authority.

That's the actual remedy, I think.

Mr. REID. You feel there is no large fine that would be meaningful to the large polluter?

Mr. FABRICANT. Of course I do. But I think there would be reluctance on the part of most of the judiciary to impose such a fine.

And in conjunction with a fine system that would be more realistic I think the injunctive approach, I think those two would be more realistic.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you.

The Chair wants to thank the witnesses who have appeared before the subcommittee this morning. Their testimony has been most valuable.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY EDUCATION ACT

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Brademas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Brademas, Bell, and Hansen.

Staff members present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel; Marty LaVor, minority legislative coordinator; Ronald L. Katz, assistant staff director, Maureen Orth, consultant; Arlene Horowitz, staff assistant; Toni Immerman, clerk.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The subcommittee will come to order for further consideration of H.R. 14753, the Environmental Quality Education Act.

The first witness this morning is John W. Macy, Jr., president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Co., former chairman of the Civil Service Commission. I am very pleased to welcome Mr. Macy here today and look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MACY, JR., PRESIDENT, CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Mr. MACY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to have the opportunity to testify before you in the company of so many others who are interested in this legislation.

I would like to commend you for your landmark efforts in an area with tremendous implications for the future of human life. I commend you not merely for your proposal as it stands an act of wisdom and promise but also for the sounding board these hearings provided for the various spokesmen of our national effort to improve the quality of human environment.

I am pleased to be able to add my support to that of those who consider the objectives of H.R. 14753-the Envorinmental Quality Education Act as among the most vital imperatives of today.

The doomsday soothsaying has done its work. It has jolted us into awareness that we are lockstitched into the deteriorating fabric of life and there is nowhere to go but here.

Lest this awakening jar us past useful action and knock us into a state of frozen apathy, it is time now to turn our attention and energy to building-building in new directions on new information. One of the most important of these directions is toward new at

47-238 0-70- -28

titudes, new awareness of what constitutes a satisfactory human condition.

There is much that can and must be done immediately if we are to survive long enough to make environmental education a factor for the future. But in the thoroughly justified haste to do what must be done immediately, we cannot neglect the longer range tasks-those that must be undertaken at once if they are to bear fruit in time to keep the whole crisis from happening again and again.

It is my wish, Mr. Chairman, in appearing before you today to emphasize what I consider to be the most helpful direction implicit in your bill-that of innovation. It is obvious that the old methods have failed. Conservation education has tried manfully to do the job, but the ecological state of the Nation belies the effectiveness of measures that were, for the most part, resource-oriented.

If I read your proposal correctly, you are not recommending that we simply keep on doing more of what we have been doing. As I understand your proposal, it is aimed at finding new ways of bringing the environment (what is around us), ecology (the way it all works) and man (who is the most disruptive factor in the ecologic/environmental picture) into personal, working focus.

In other words, this bill would foster new approaches to making ecology a part of every individual's awareness patterns. As a longrange goal, only this kind of altered human outlook will do.

I am very much interested in the ways that public broadcasting can interact with your educational efforts to improve the quality of the environment.

The aims of this bill conform to the concerns expressed in a resolution passed by the National Association of Educational Broadcasters at their meeting of last November. This group represented all facets of the public broadcasting community, including station managers, educators, and program specialists. This resolution read

We are concerned primarily with the need for greater public awareness and commitment to resolving the important issues concerned with the natural environment and with the man-made conditions which jeopardize it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer for insertion in the record the full text of this NAEB resolution, as it demonstrates the awareness and commitment of public broadcasting, from station level on up, to working for the environmental cause.

(The resolution follows:)

RESOLUTION OF THE NAEB EXECUTIVE BOARD, NOVEMBER 1969

Resolved, by the Executive Board of Directors of NAEB, that its staff and membership are asked to identify specific ways and means by which radio and television can be used to deal with matters of major national priority. We are concerned primarily with the need for greater public awareness and commitment to resolving important issues concerned with the natural environment and with the man-made conditions that jeopardize it. And we are concerned as well with the critical deficiencies in education and the inadequacy of traditional means for dealing with them efficiently.

In the matter of ecology we must find ways to communicate the critical nature of the problems this society faces as we disturb traditional balances in the biological and physical nature of life on the earth; and we must encourage the means by which these changes can be accommodated or prevented. Substantial public understanding and constructive action only come as a consequence of