be closed for economic reasons. In either case, the shareholders would lose-along with the employees and the community.

To Employees

Management also has significant and clearly recognized responsibilities to the employees-those men and women who, whether or not they also may have invested their savings in the enterprise, are contributing their brains and muscles and skills to it. These responsibilities obviously include appropriate compensation in accordance with the work done, satisfactory working conditions, adequate safety precautions, and many so-called "fringe benefits."

But management's larger responsibilities to the employees as well as to the shareholders must necessarily also include making a profit and perpetuating the business. The long-range best interests of the employees are not served by misguided overemphasis of employee benefits and comfortable working conditions which could result in a noncompetitive, uneconomic, and eventually closed plant.

Again relating these generalities to air pollution abatement, management certainly has an obligation to make sure that its employees are not subjected to health hazards resulting from airborne wastes and that their effectiveness is not impaired either on or off the job by excessive air contamination in and around the plant. But, with equal force, the real interests of the employees as well as the shareholders demand that all unnecessary and unwarranted expense be avoided. An absolutely clean, smokeless, odorless plant might be a pleasant place to work; but this pleasure would be fleeting and illusory if the price of such excessive cleanliness were the profitability of the enterprise or its ability to compete effectively.

To the Community

To an increasing extent in recent years, it has been recognized that industry and industrial management carry substantial responsibilities with respect to the communities in which they operate. Today responsible management generally realizes that its own enlightened self-interest, if nothing else, demands that the needs and sensibilities of the community be respected.

When it comes to air pollution, industry is keenly aware that there are limits beyond which the waste-absorbing capacity of a given community's

atmosphere cannot be exceeded without damage to the community-and eventually to the industry itself. To an encouraging degree, when such a point is clearly reached, industry is increasingly demonstrating its readiness to take the necessary corrective steps-provided, of course, that technically sound and economically feasible control methods are available.

But there is another side to this coin also: a community which insists on too rigorous air pollution control; imposes too stringent air quality standards; or sets up and tries to administer an unfair, discriminatory, or confiscatory air pollution control program, in the long run harms itself. I can assure you from personal experience that it is not just idle talk that industries do very definitely assess the air pollution control policies of a community, among other factors, before deciding on the location of a new plant or the expansion of an existing one. There is a happy medium between too much control and too little, just as there is between too much expenditure for air pollution abatement and too little. It is in the community's best interest, as well as that of the shareholders and the employees, to find this optimum.

Industrial Statesmanship

From the foregoing, necessarily sketchy review of some of industrial management's inescapable responsibilities to the shareholders, to the employees, and to the communities in which the industry operates, I hope it is apparent that opposing forces are constantly at work-some pulling in this direction, some in that tending to influence the decisions of management regarding air pollution abatement as well as other matters. I submit that industrial statesmanship in air pollution control comprises balancing these forces in the best interests of the several groups to which management has responsibility: shareholders, employees, and the community. It should not be surprising to anyone when, in the field of air pollution as in other areas, the longrange good of all requires a sacrifice of the present preferences of some.

Clearly a great deal of individual judgment is involved and, since we are all individuals, our judgments will frequently differ. It falls upon all of us, therefore, in considering what should be done with respect to any given air pollution situation to remember that there are always counterbalancing forces which may be equally as important as those we are most acutely aware of. We need to remem

ber also that there is room for honest differences of opinion as to which forces deserve the greatest response at any given time.

Guidelines

In striving toward this statesmanlike balancing of opposing forces and in seeking optimum use of our air resources, consideration of the following simple but important guidelines may be helpful.

1. Be sure there is a real problem. This complex and troubled world we live in is so full of significant, pressing, and perplexing problems that we can ill afford the luxury of wasting effort on imaginary problems or trying to discover problems where none exist. Let us avoid the temptation to assume that because one industry or one community has a certain air pollution problem, other industries and other communities are also faced with the same problem. We need always to remember that communities vary widely in their topography, their meteorology, their degree of industrialization, and other factors, and that circumstances which might lead to an intolerable condition in one locality could be entirely harmless and acceptable in another. Because human health is of such vital personal concern to each of us that we are naturally inclined to get emotional about it, we should be particularly cautious in ascribing or assuming a cause-and-effect relationship between air pollution and health until scientifically reliable supporting evidence is available.

2. Make certain that we know what the problem really is. Even when there is clear evidence that a problem exists, its true nature is sometimes far from clear. Embarking on control or abatement programs before the objective is well defined is both costly and ineffective, as demonstrated by a number of classic and well-known "false starts" in air pollution control.

3. Be sure that technically sound, economically feasible, and effective methods for solving the problem are available. Passing laws and issuing regulations will do no good unless and until effective means to comply with them are at hand. Sometimes such means are already known and only dissemination of them is required. In many other cases, more research

and development are necessary, responsibility for which can sometimes be appropriately shared between government and industry.

4. Use explanation, education, and persuasion to the fullest before resorting to compulsion. Most people, most industries, most communities will respond favorably when a real need is pointed out to them and when effective means for meeting the need are available. Such voluntary cooperation is often more intelligent and, therefore, more truly effective than blind compliance with even the most carefully written regulations.

5. If compulsory measures are necessary, be sure they are fairly devised and fairly administered. Regulations which unfairly discriminate between industries or activities have no place in an intelligent attack on any community's air pollution problems. While intentional damage is undoubtedly rare, it is highly desirable that the necessary time and study be devoted to the matter to make certain that no harm, either intentional or unintentional, is done to any individual or group unless it is required by the common good.

6. Keep control measures and their enforcement as local as possible. Communities and areas differ so greatly in their needs and resources that broad, general, all-embracing regulations on a nationwide or sometimes even a statewide basis are almost certain to be too stringent for some localities and not strict enough for others. Indeed, standards which are appropriate for one city may actually be harmful for another. Furthermore, in a na

tion as vast as ours, no central agency can possibly be as effective in dealing with local problems as those who are intimately familiar and concerned with them. The overall national good, as well as the best interests of the local community, are best served, I believe, by letting each local area subject to the same group of pollution sources make its own determination of what air pollution regulations are necessary and appropriate for it. This does not mean that State and Federal agencies do not have an important role to play in the air pollution field: conducting research, providing technical assistance, offering training, assisting local groups in conducting studies and surveys, and the like. It does mean leaving the control

function where it rightfully belongs in the hands of local agencies.

7. Above all, avoid control for control's sake. Diligence, energy, and enthusiasm are characteristics which are essential for those whom we would entrust with our air pollution control activities. Those so entrusted, however, bear a heavy responsibility to make certain that controls are not extended for their own sake or because air pollution control is "fashionable.” While the above thoughts could undoubtedly be expressed more eloquently and in many different ways, I believe the principles underlying them are sound and deserve our continuing consideration.

In conclusion, I am convinced that industry is ready, willing, and able to do its part in combating excessive air pollution-indeed wants to do its part when a real need exists and where feasible means are available. Industry realizes-and it hopes that all concerned realize that it alone is not responsible for many of our air pollution problems and it alone cannot solve them. Industry is determined to do all it can to be sure that its efforts and its money are employed effectively toward the solution of real problems; and it will strive with equal vigor to avoid unnecessary and ineffective expenditures. This willingness to cooperate, coupled with this determination to be effective is, I believe, the essence of industrial statesmanship in air pollution control.

HARRISON A. WILLIAMS

U.S. Senator Westfield, N.J.

It is a pleasure to be here with you today to discuss the problem of air pollution.

In thinking about the subject of "Political Statesmanship," I was struck with the thought that the theme of this conference-"Let's Clear the Air"-may have a double significance.

For one thing, it strikes me that there is a scope to the theme that is important and appropriate for the wealthiest nation on earth in mid-20th century.

"Let's Clear the Air." Not just because it is now a definite health problem and may be a most serious health hazard in the future. And not just because air pollution causes tremendous economic damages-amounting to billions of dollars a year— to industry, agriculture, the community, and the individual.

I think we ought to clear the air if only because it sometimes smells bad, it too often robs us of seeing the full beauty of a sunset, and in general constitutes a blight that mocks our efforts to achieve a safe, decent, and attractive living environment for a large majority of the American people.

Perhaps there are some who would disagree with my idea that the goal of air pollution control should be so sweeping that it should embrace more or less esthetic as well as health considerations.

But I think one illustration will serve to make my point. I am told that the fumes from a diesel bus, which I am sure we have all experienced, are far less of a threat to health than the exhaust from an automobile.

Yet how can we entertain the notion of achieving a genuinely civilized urban environment without somehow controlling the obnoxious belching of the bus exhaust?

The theme is also significant from another standpoint.

I think that before we can hope to clear the air around us, we first have to clear the air in our discussion of the problem. Which brings me to the subject of my talk.

It seems to me that an essential part of political statesmanship is the willingness to face and meet the real issue honestly.

Yet from my limited perspective, I can't help wondering whether there isn't more smog shrouding the real issues of air pollution than there is smog covering most of our cities.

I think this state of affairs can be attributed to a lack of sufficient political statesmanship in facing the real issues.

And when I speak of "Political Statesmanship," I am not limiting it to the role that has been played by public officials at the Federal, State, or local level.

The challenge of political statesmanship faces every individual and every organization involved and interested in the problem.

It even faces this conference. Certainly it is no secret that any conference, no matter how noble its objectives, can turn out a failure if the participants leave under the impression that progress has been made by simply talking about the need for it.

I think this conference has the goal of finding not how much we have yet to learn about the problem, but how much and what we should be doing in

terms of concrete action to actually clear up the air, with the benefit of what we do know. This is a task of political statesmanship, and I am sure the conference will succeed.

And by setting out the courses of action that are needed, you would also help others face the issue more squarely. And that goes for us in Congress.

I stress this because I am afraid we have perhaps seen as much gamesmanship as statesmanship in the efforts to help clear up the air.

Research, of course, is one of the favorite tools in the practice of political gamesmanship.

This is not to say that research is not important, especially in this field where research could lead to important technological breakthroughs in the creation of more economical pollution control devices. But research is worthless unless it is accompanied by a desire and a determination to translate the fruits of it into action.

Research somehow has a way of becoming an end in itself, and of course those who really don't want to face the hard issues of taking action can always think up endless questions that deserve further study.

For example, there are those who think it is very important to study the question of when air is polluted and when it can be considered pure. After all, we pollute the air every time we smoke a cigarette.

Certainly we need some kind of standards here, but we have so far to go in bringing pollution under satisfactory control that the question of whether or not we may eventually be engaging in needless effort is one that is less than urgent in my scheme of priorities.

Then there is the closely related question of determining the exact amount of economic damage caused by pollution so that we don't end up spending more to control the problem than the problem is costing in damage.

Again, this question is far from critical inasmuch as the damage from air pollution is estimated at more than $7 billion, while the Federal Government is spending some $11 million a year and industry perhaps several hundred million.

Another favorite sport seems to be the search for the final percentage.

I remember a committee report that made a strong statement that the Federal Government ought to be doing more to determine and I quote "the part that motor vehicle exhaust and

combustion play in the problem of atmospheric contamination."

This is an interesting question, but I think we have enough information to safely say that the part is substantial and that we have a long way to go in actually coping with it.

This year the Congress amended the Air Pollution Act, and made special reference to the automobile exhaust problem, directing the Surgeon General to conduct "Studies of the amounts and kinds of substances discharged from the exhausts of motor vehicles and of the effects of the discharge of such substances. . . ."

But it seems to me that this kind of research is considerably less important than undertaking research to find economic methods and devices for preventing or controlling the pollution we know comes from vehicle exhausts.

Other than adding this paragraph, the only thing. Congress did this year in air pollution was to extend for 2 years the life of the basic act, which was scheduled to expire in 1964.

And of course the basic act, approved in 1955, is simply a research program.

In 1958, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare sponsored the first National Conference on Air Pollution which involved people other than just those working at the professional and technical levels. The goals of this conference were listed as assessing the existing state of knowledge, and determining future goals.

Then in 1960 we saw the report of the Surgeon General's task group on air pollution. (No doubt the task group was a prototype for what we now like to call a task force.) This group listed some 10 national goals that ought to be accomplished in the decade of the sixties. All of these goals, by the way, were in the field of research. The first goal was "To Determine the Effects of Air Pollution on Human Health."

I must confess that I was struck by the announcement of this goal, for up until then I had been unaware that air pollution had any good effects on human health.

But more to the point, I think our goal ought to be the elimination of air pollution by the end of the sixties, and not just the elimination of our ignorance about the problem.

We have been trying to eliminate our ignorance for the last 6 or 7 years now, and we have yet to fully face the fundamental issues-which are money and the enforcement of air pollution control.