out of the air here because our trouble will be very, very great if this is not the case and I don't think that you can maintain that it doesn't have any effect.

The sulfur dioxide, as has been shown, is oxidized by this same photochemical complex, oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons rapidly oxidize and an air sac is formed which adds to the haze that we already have.

Now, how much this is is extremely difficult to say, of course, but in a situation like we have, we better lean over backward and control what we can control.

This has been the policy of the control district. We had opposition when dump burning was asked. The dump burners said, "You are wrecking the economy."

Then came the incinerator; the incinerator ban was wrecking the economy; then we can go down the line like that. Everything was wrecking the economy and we are still living.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you believe that it is currently feasible and practical to control oxides of nitrogen emissions from vehicles?

Professor HAAGEN-SMIT. I think that the situation in that respect has greatly improved.

In 1958, 1959, when the law on hydrocarbons was contemplated, we knew that at some time we had to control oxides of nitrogen, but this was set aside because at that time we didn't have any feasible way and so it was never forgotten.

Right now I would say the show is on the road; we are in the process of controlling hydrocarbons. Now, it is time, like Mr. Maga said, to start in on the other ingredient and the work of Mr. Coper of the Richfield people; then work at the Franklin Institute. They all know that it is possible.

Maybe right now the device is not fully practical in the sense that you can screw it onto a car or so, but relatively short time and some encouragement from us will certainly go a long way to get a good device.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you have any questions, Senator Bayh?
Senator BAYH. No.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Moss?

Senator Moss. No.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much, we are very grateful to you both for your very useful testimony.

We have reached the end of our witness list for the day.

The staff advises me that a number of statements have been submitted. We are happy to receive them and will include them in the record and we are most appreciative for this day of hearings in Los Angeles.

Senator Moss has a statement to submit for the record and I will ask him to identify it.

Senator Moss. I have, Mr. Chairman, a statement that was prepared by Harold W. Kennedy, County Council of the County of Los Angeles, on the legal aspects of air pollution control.

This was prepared for the Institute of Public Health Law, held at the University of California at Los Angeles on December 12 and 14, 1963. This is very complete and definitive a paper on the legal aspects of pollution control and therefore I think would add significantly to our record and I ask that this be planted in the record in full.

Senator MUSKIE. Without objection it will be included in the Appendix to today's record.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would be interested in hearing very briefly from a representative of the taxpayers in this county?

I will be very brief.

Senator MUSKIE. What organization?

Mr. FISHER. Southern California Taxpayers.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, we must leave here in 5 minutes.

Mr. FISHER. Well, I will try and make it 5 minutes.

Senator MUSKIE. If you will please identify yourself, sir, and your organization.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE FISHER, SECRETARY, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS COUNCIL

Mr. FISHER. My name is George Fisher. I am secretary of the Southern California Taxpayers Council. We are very much interested in this smog problem. We have listened to a long day of testimony here today and of course to all of us it is bound to have been very confusing.

I would like to submit that it has been very confusing because over the past 20 years the entire matter of smog here has gotten entirely off the track, entirely out of control and that is why it seems so very complicated and so very complex.

Almost every testifier today has emphasized the complication of the problem. That I would like to submit is the greatest fallacy. The problem of smog is not complicated. The problem of smog is extremely simple. The problem of smog in Los Angeles is no different from the problem of smog throughout the history of the world, since Sodom and Gomorrah in biblical times, fire and brimstone rained.

In Tokyo and London it came from soft coal; in Pennsylvania and Belgium it was zinc smelting; in Los Angeles it was the oil wells coming because we have the greatest deposits of sulfur-bearing oil in Los Angeles County anywhere in the world.

Now, it is not a complicated matter here. The oil refineries in Los Angeles County have known about sulfur as the chief ingredient of smog for many years and eliminating sulfur from smog has been their greatest study.

They have the finest chemical laboratory in the world. They have a corner on all the research brains. We couldn't possibly contribute anything; the Federal Government couldn't contribute anything to research because the petroleum industry has the corner on all the brains and all the facilities and all the money too.

Every 2 years they put out a handbook and this handbook, about one-third of it is devoted to the problem of eliminating sulfur. In other words, they know how. They have exhausted methods of eliminating sulfur and sulfur has never been eliminated anywhere else through any auto device. It has to be eliminated at the refinery or not at all.

The automobile industry has never said that an exhaust control device would do anything for smog.

They have never said that a crankcase device would do anything for smog. These devices are entirely political gimmicks.

Even our own local scientists have said that the crankcase device and the exhaust control device cannot possibly eliminate any of the smog ingredients. Even the scientists of the air pollution control district, I want to emphasize this, entirely political matter.

Now, I am going to close by giving you my opinion of what you came here for and that is concreate suggestions to what the Clean Air Act of 1963 can do.

As I have indicated there is nothing you can do in the way of research because we had the answers many, many years ago, very simple answers. What you can do to aid us here is to put your money into researching the legal means for forcing the oil industry to clean up their gasoline before it leaves the refinery. It is just as simple as that. [Applause.]

If we can get them to do that we will have the problem licked and that is all there is to it.

All the complexity that we have brought into it is entirely a political matter. You men from Washington have seen the same kind of money spent on studies that are merely political footballs. We want an end to it, so our organization represents that if you have any money to spend you spend it on researching the legal avenues for forcing the oil companies to clean up the gasoline before it leaves the refineries. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, sir.

The Chair wishes to announce that it has received a number of interesting statements and papers pertaining to this complex problem. One dissertation is entitled "Legal Aspects of Air Pollution Control." It was prepared by Harold W. Kennedy, county counsel of the county of Los Angeles and legal adviser to the Los Angeles County air pollution control district for the institute on public health law of the UCLA School of Public Health. That and other typical statements will appear as an appendix at the end of today's printed proceedings.

These hearings are recessed for the day, and tomorrow we will undertake our field trips, and I am most appreciative for all those who have been here; the quite obvious effort which they have made in preparing the statements and in contributing to the record of information which the committee now has available to it.

Thank you all very much.

(Whereupon, the public hearings portion of the subcommittee was closed at 5:05 p.m., to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIX

DIGEST OF CALIFORNIA' AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS

1. State Department of Public Health

Article 9, Chapter 2, Part 1, Division of the Health and Safety Code gives the State Department of Public Health certain duties with respect to air pollution. They include research, establishment of standards, monitoring air pollution, and assistance to local agencies.

A. RESEARCH

The Department is required to:

1. Conduct studies to determine health effects of air pollution.

2. Determine physiological effects of air pollution on plant and animal life.

3. Determine factors responsible for air pollution.

4. Monitor the concentration of pollutants in the air.

5. Develop administrative procedures for control of air pollution in emergencies.

6. Assist local agencies in air pollution activities.

The Department of Public Health may enter into agreements with any public or private organization, agencies or individual as may be deemed necessary to carry out its functions.

B. THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH WAS DIRECTED, PRIOR TO
FEBRUARY 1, 1960, TO:

1. Develop and publish standards of quality for the air of the
State. The standards shall "reflect the relationship be-
tween the intensity and composition of air pollution and
the health, illness, including irritation to the senses,
and death of human beings, as well as damage to vegetation
and interference with visibility" (@ 426.1, Health and
Safety Code).

2.

Determine the maximum allowable standards of emission of

1/ Citations refer to West's Annotated California Codes, Health and Safety Code and 1961 Cumulative Pocket Part. Deering's California Codes Annotated contains parallel citations.