States across the Nation have not faced up to this problem equally well. For if they had, the hearings we are holding today might have been unnecessary. The facts are, however, that pollution in the United States is a serious problem and it is becoming more serious every day. Over the years I have had the pleasure of flying across this great Nation on many occasions. Many of my good friends in the east for a long time had the impression that pollution was a problem peculiar to the State of California. Today because of outstanding reports and analyses by the various communications media and through the efforts of the subcommittee led by our distinguished chairman, the people of this country realize that pollution is not an isolated phenomenon. They are determined and demanding that steps be taken to assure that future generations of Americans will enjoy cleaner air. We should be under no illusion that cleaning up the air will be an easy or cheap task. But whatever its cost, however long it takes, we have no choice. And one thing is clear-that whatever the costs of clean air, the cost of inaction is even greater. It has been estimated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that air pollution costs us $11 billion yearly in property damages alone. A New York consultant estimated that the cleaning and repair bills of a family of two or three in the city of New York has been increased by $600 yearly as a result of pollution. Recently, the Department of Agriculture estimated that air pollution cost the American farmers $500 million last year. Pollution costs California farmers alone approximately $132 million annually. According to the Surgeon General of the United States, pollution poses a real health hazard to our people. The Surgeon General has stated that there is a definite link between air pollution and the increasing incidence of respiratory diseases. One respiratory disease, emphysema, is one of the fastest growing diseases in the United States today. While it may be true that the evidence associating respiratory diseases, lung cancer and others is not conclusive, I am certain myself that polluted air is at least a contributing factor. So, if we are to make any mistakes, we must do so on the side of the people and on the side of safety. Much progress has been made by California in fighting pollution. While our citizens and our State officials realize that we cannot be complacent, I believe that we nevertheless may be confident that so long as our citizens remain aroused and concerned, so long as efforts and cooperation by industry, government and private individuals continue, it will be possible for Californians to have the air quality they demand and to which they are entitled. We in California have demonstrated to the Nation that pollution from stationary sources can be eliminated. We in California must now demonstrate to the Nation that the pollution problems of a nation on wheels can be solved. I urge the great automotive industry of this Nation to place first on its priority list efforts to reduce or overcome air pollution. It has been said that "necessity is the mother of invention." I believe this to be true. There seems to be little question of the necessity for finding the solution to this problem, and I for one have the utmost confidence that if the automobile industry focuses its attention and expertise on this problem a solution can be reached. Last year the chairman will recall that I raised the question of Federal preemption in connection with the Federal standards that are to be made applicable to 1968 vehicles. Since California has adopted more stringent standards which will become effective in 1970, I think it is most important that we make sure that the Federal standards do not preempt the higher or more effective standards of California. Along with other members of the committee, I am looking forward to hearing from the many experts that I see are scheduled to testify today, and I hope that they will, among other matters, discuss before the committee this serious question of Federal preemption. Finally, last year in my statement before this distinguished committee, I pointed out that Washington, D.C., was many times dirtier than the city of Los Angeles. I know this statement shocked many of the citizens of Washington, but of course this is a fact. It is, of course, a tribute to the efforts being made in Los Angeles and in California to eliminate pollution from stationary sources. In Washington, Time Magazine pointed out that Only five minutes from the White House a holocaust of smoke and grime is sent up by open air burning at Kenilworth garbage dump operated by the District of Columbia on land owned by the National Park Service. This problem has worried the citizens of the Washington area for around 25 years. Since the Federal Government has a special responsibility in the District of Columbia, during the air pollution hearings last year I urged immediate action to abate the pollution problem. Finally, last week it was announced in Washington that steps were to be taken to end the problem. I can only say that the American people and particularly the citizens of California cannot wait 25 years for solutions to the Nation's pollution problems. It has always been the aim of Americans to pass on to the next generation the benefits of our great civilization. However, if we merely pass on these benefits and our unsurpassed technology without eliminating or at least controlling some of society's undesirable byproducts, we will have failed posterity. In closing, I would say it is great to be home and I am pleased to have my colleagues here with me. In an effort to have time this morning, I would merely say that we are very pleased that you and the committee have seen fit to come to Los Angeles. We feel that we in Los Angeles have made the greatest progress and have achieved the finest record in combating air pollution. We have been troubled with smog because of a certain geophysical condition that exists here, and so we had to get out ahead of it. We also are fortunate to have, I think, the best accumulation of scientific brains and knowledge accumulated any place in the Nation, and they have been at work at it. One of the things that I point out in my statement, it will be no easy job to clean up the air. I pointed out in the hearings in Washington last week that we in Los Angeles stopped all of the backyard burning, we thought that would help a great deal, and the smog got worse. There isn't any question but what the main source is from the emission of pollutants from the exhausts of automobiles, of which we have a great number. Fighting pollution will be costly, but pollution itself is also costly. It is estimated that it costs $11 billion a year in property damage alone across the Nation. In New York there are estimates that it costs each family of two or three in New York $600 a year. The Department of Agriculture estimates that air pollution costs the American farmers at least $500 million a year, and pollution costs the California farmers alone an estimated $132 million annually. So you can understand why I am so pleased to be a member of this committee and why I am proud of the chairman of the committee, Senator Muskie, who has done a magnificent, tireless job in doing what I think is one of the most important jobs in Congress. If we can't find a way to solve the pollution problem, this will not be a habitable place. As the gentleman asked earlier, he said that it had been estimated that in a thousand years you wouldn't be able to live on earth unless we can curb these things. I don't know whether it will take that long if the air condition and the water condition of pollution continues at its present rate. It is going to take the complete cooperation of government and industry on a Federal, State and local level. There are some differences on the committee as to the way this should be confronted. I have on our own side suggested that there be a tax credit given to industries for the amount of moneys that they spend in actual containment of the air pollution problem. I have cosponsored and worked for such a tax incentive. On the administration side there is a feeling that this should be done in another way, maybe by Federal grants. However, it must be done. I am pleased the committee is here, and I extend a warm welcome to all my colleagues on the committee, and particularly to my friend Ed Muskie, the chairman, with whom I am very pleased to serve. Thank you. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Senator Murphy. Now, I would like to introduce for a statement the chairman of the full Committee on Public Works, who has given this subcommittee his unstinted and unqualified backing for its work in this field. The Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of this committee, Senator Jennings Randolph. STATEMENT OF HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important this morning that we begin the hearings as quickly as we can. These opening statements are helpful, but I think when we have the opportunity to hear the witnesses and comment on testimony and question those who have appeared, we will begin to bring out the hard facts which are necessary in hearings of this type. May I review very quickly, however I hope within 2 minuteswhat we have begun to do in the Congress of the United States in reference to the abatement and control of air pollution. The first action of the Congress in this field was with the Act of 1955, which provided for a research and development program and technical assistance to State and local governments. The Clean Air Act of 1963 extended the research and development programs, expanded the Federal authority for assistance to include regional air pollution control programs, authorized Federal abatement procedures for interstate air pollution, and established provisions for the control of pollution from Federal facilities. In 1965, as an amendment to the Clean Air Act, the Congress passed the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, authorizing the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to establish standards for emissions from automobile engines. And in 1966, the Congress further amended the Clean Air Act by providing research and development funds, and funds for support of State and local air pollution control programs. The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution now has pending before it the Air Quality Act of 1967, a proposal which stems in part from the very affirmative position taken by the President of the United States. I am confident that the Subcommittee, under the distinguished leadership of our chairman, Senator Muskie, will give the most detailed and careful consideration to the proposed legislation, and that the full Committee on Public Works will continue its commitment in this field by reporting to the Senate this session, an effective and realistic measure to extend the effort to improve the quality of our air. As important as is the area of water pollution, Mr. Chairman, there seems to be more interest among people generally in the problem of air pollution. There are many, many millions of people in this country who may never see a polluted body of water, but who are breathing polluted air. So the impact of air pollution is something I think we all recognize. I wish to place in the record at this time a newspaper article which appeared in the New York Times of Sunday, February 12, "Antipollution Cost Is Expected To Soar." Now, this isn't a statement from a member of this subcommittee, and I personally and officially want to say to Senator Murphy that we are delighted with his service on the Public Works Committee of the Senate, and we are very happy to appear here in his State of California. But this is a statement from banking authorities; the financiers of this country begin to realize the cost that will be entailed. The cost of abating air and water pollution will require tens of billions of dollars from industry over the next decade, but some of the money will be revenued from an expanding new industry, the Chase Manhattan Bank says. The cost of American business The article continues and government efforts to preserve clean air and pure water is likely to double by 1970, to more than ten billions a year. Now, I will not read the rest of the article, but I will ask, Mr. Chairman, to place it in the record. Senator MUSKIE. Without objection. (The newspaper article referred to is as follows:) [From the New York Times, Feb. 12, 1967] ANTIPOLLUTION COST IS EXPECTED TO SOAR The cost of abating air and water pollution will require tens of billions of dollars from industry over the next decade, but some of this money will be revenue for an expanding new industry, the Chase Manhattan Bank says. The cost of American business and government efforts to preserve clean air and pure water is likely to double by 1970 to more than $10 billion a year, the bank says in current bimonthly economic report. Sources of pollution-population, motor vehicles, industrial production—are increasing, the bank says, and the problems of pollution will have to be tackled with increasing vigor. Industry now supports about half of all water treatment facilities, with the proportion rising to two-thirds, the bank estimates. For air pollution, business's share is four-fifths of total costs, according to Chase. The problem of pollution abatement is a complex one, the bank contends, and one requiring much further research into its legal, economic, scientific and technical aspects. The costliness of combating pollution stems from the fact that abatement equipment is often more expensive than the facilities that create the problem, the bank observes. But the question who shall pay for control and prevention of pollution, the bank says, is one of "maximizing the welfare of the whole community. A good deal more information is needed before it becomes clear just what proportions meet these fine objectives," technical feasibility and economic efficiency. Senator RANDOLPH. We do realize, coming to Los Angeles and the dynamic State of California, that within a few hundred yards perhaps of where these hearings are being held we have the Harbor Freeway. I remember when it was built in its first mile, and when we think of 225,000 motor vehicles moving past one point on this freeway every 24 hours, and then realize, as I believe I am correctly informed, that approximately 98 percent of all the traffic moving in the Los Angeles area is by private automobile, we can see the impact which we have from the exhausts, from the fumes, from that which pollutes the air coming from motor vehicles. I want to say in closing that the Public Works Committee of the Senate has a commitment and all members share it. We may perhaps vary as to the ways that we think this job can best be done, but basically we know that there is a problem here, which the Congress of the United States as well as the American people must attack on a broad front. We cannot be timid. We must make an all-out attack against these basic causes, and in one area of the country the basic causes perhaps are different than in another area. The commitment of the Congress, I think, is a commitment that must be kept. It is a commitment which calls for responsibility on our part, and responsiveness to the needs of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. Senator Baker. Senator MUSKIE. Senator Tydings. Senator MUSKIE. It takes time in the service of the Senate to really get into these subjects. It is a pleasure to be here. May I read into the record the welcome from one of your distinguished political leaders: This telegram this morning is from Gov. Ronald Reagan. Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Los Angeles, Calif.: SACRAMENTO, CALIF. On behalf of the people of the State of California, may I welcome you and the members of your Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to Los Angeles for your two day visit. We pledge you our cooperation in making available any facilities you might need to make your visit a success. I regret that the press of State business makes it impossible for me to join you, but you may be assured that I shall follow your hearings with great interest. I share with you |