November 19, 1963
Page 22322
DEBATE ON S.432, THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, and that the bill, as so amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the Senator from Maine? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, Senate bill 432, the Clean Air Act, introduced by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] and 24 cosponsors, would replace the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 with a new and more comprehensive program for the improvement of air quality.
Briefly, S. 432, as reported by the Committee on Public Works, provides the following:
First. Encouragement of cooperative activities between State and local governments for air pollution control.
Second. Expanded research and development in air pollution control programs.
Third. Grants for the support of State and local efforts to initiate and improve air pollution control programs.
Fourth. Enforcement authority for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in interstate air pollution cases.
Fifth. Increased control of air pollution by Federal installations.
These expanded areas of Federal activity are essential to a meaningful national air pollution control program. Federal, State, and local cooperation can meet the growing crisis in air pollution. But we cannot allow ourselves to be dissuaded from a forceful and determined effort to meet this problem by those who want to wait until we know more; by those who are more interested in avoiding the cost of cleaning up than in cleaning up the cost of doing nothing.
The proposals in S. 432, as amended, are based on hearings by the special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on the following bills:
S. 432, sponsored by Senator RIBICOFF and others; S. 444, sponsored by Senator ENGLE and others; S. 1009, sponsored by Senator NEUBERGER; S. 1040, sponsored by Senator CASE of New Jersey; S. 1124, sponsored by Senator WILLIAMS of Delaware; and H.R. 6518, as enacted by the House of Representatives.
Each of these proposals has contributed to the development of the bill as reported by the Senate Public Works Committee. From the provisions of the several bills and from the constructive suggestions made by the Senators and other witnesses who appeared before the subcommittee or submitted statements, we have been able to develop a legislative proposal which should advance the cause of air pollution control in all parts of the Nation.
I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee [Mr. McNAMARA] for his leadership and cooperation in our efforts to develop sound air pollution legislation. I am grateful to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] and my other majority colleagues on the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution for their constructive assistance on S. 432, and to the minority members of the subcommittee, led by the able Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] for their cooperative spirit and help.
Because of the joint effort we were able to muster, and the contribution of our able staffs, the legislation we have presented today has the unanimous approval of the Senate Committee on Public Works and substantial support from various segments of our society.
Mr. President, there is today a national recognition of the air pollution problem. For years men have been aware of the sooty deposits which accompany industrialization and we have been aware of the nuisance of unpleasant odors from manufacturing processes in certain industries. But so long as these side effects of industry and modern technology seemed to be nuisances and no more, we accepted them as one of the necessary drawbacks in our modern civilization.
With the outbreak of sickness and death associated with air pollution, our scientists became concerned that air contaminants could cause harm to man. Now, the Nation is aroused.
In the recent hearings of the special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, civic leaders, industrialists, medical doctors, and technicians all agreed that air pollution is a growing menace and that it must be controlled.
Air is life. We all know that we need fresh air every few seconds if we are to live. What we are not always aware of is that air is needed to sustain the kind of world in which we live. But the use of air in heating our homes, running our factories, driving our cars, and burning our wastes discharges pollutants into the air and results in physical and economic damage to the Nation.
Air pollution is injurious to health. We know, for example, that air pollution cost 4,000 lives in London in December 1952, 340 deaths in the same city 10 years later, 17 lives in Donora, Pa., in October 1948, and 200 lives in New York in November 1953. Untold thousands of Americans have suffered and died as a result of the long-term injurious effects of air pollution.
As the staff report on air pollution, prepared for the special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, has pointed out:
Of much greater overall significance than acute episodes (of air pollution) is a growing body of evidence that long-term, low-level air pollution can contribute to and aggravate certain diseases.
We do not know all we want to know about the relationship between certain harmful agents in the air and disease, but we do know enough to establish a connection between various substances in the air and numerous respiratory ailments. These include: First, the common cold and other upper respiratory tract infections; second, chronic bronchitis; third, chronic constrictive ventilatory disease; fourth, pulmonary emphysema; fifth, bronchial asthma; and sixth, lung cancer. Close correlations have been shown between all of these diseases and the level of air pollution. In addition, there is a close correlation between the size of cities, the amount of air pollution, and the incidents of respiratory disease as a result of air pollution.
There are those who say that not enough is known to justify cleaning up air pollution now. They say we must wait until we have more specific evidence on the connection between air pollution and disease before we insist on cleanup in the air. I say there is no time to wait. We are not experimenting with the mortality of fungus, or of plants, or of mice. We are faced with the problems of injury and death to human beings -- to ourselves, to our neighbors, and to our children. This is a national problem, requiring the closest cooperation between the Federal Government, State, interstate, and local agencies. If we place any value on human life, we will act now.
Air pollution is not only a menace to health, it is source of economic loss in agriculture, in the conservation of fish and wildlife, and in the upkeep of homes and the maintenance of personal property.
Air pollution injures plants and causes hundreds of millions of dollars of losses to our agricultural economy every year. Recent research in plant pathology has demonstrated that the kinds of plants affected and the nature of injury produced vary with the agent. This has made it possible to identify some of the specific pollutants which injure plants and to prove, in some cases, that they have caused damage as far away as 100 miles or more from the point where they originate. Eastern white pine, grapevines, tobacco, spinach, grains, fresh vegetables, and flowers have suffered from air pollution. Livestock have suffered serious adverse effects from airborne fluorides. Corn and peaches are susceptible to hydrogen fluorides.
The annual cost of air pollution damage to property has been estimated at $11 billion for the Nation. Air pollution accelerates deterioration of metals, fabrics, leather, rubber, paint, concrete and building stone, glass and paper.
For the homeowner air pollution adds to the cost of painting, cleaning of clothing and furniture, and the replacement of many items. For industry, the cost of air pollution is measured in the replacement and protection of precision instruments and other complex control systems which are so important to modern technology.
Travel is affected by air pollution. In at least two recent instances -- one in Pennsylvania and another in Louisiana -- major turnpike crashes were attributed to poor visibility caused by air pollution. Air pollution, aggravated by atmospheric conditions, has increased transportation costs for air carriers. It has been estimated that 15 to 20 air crashes in the United States in 1962 could be attributed to air pollution.
To these health and economic hazards we may add the nuisances of irritated eyes, unsightly haze, soiled clothing and buildings, and unpleasant smells. Air pollution makes life difficult, costly and unpleasant.
Air pollution is no respecter of persons, property lines, community boundaries or State lines. Subject only to the laws of nature, it moves across the face of the earth in the envelope of air which surrounds and sustains us. Air pollution is local in origin, but its effects are widespread. Only a forceful and coordinated attack on the problem will bring us to a meaningful solution.
Our supply of air is limited. It cannot be increased. The supply of air is fixed as are our supplies of other natural resources such as coal, petroleum, iron ore, uranium, and water. We realize that these are not limitless and must be conserved. We must take the same view of our air resources.
Our population is increasing and our standard of living is going up. Our industries, homes, and office buildings and motor vehicles take the air, combine it with fuels and return the air-polluting compounds to the air. The more we prosper, the more we foul the air we breathe.
Approximately a ton of air is required for every tankful of gasoline used by a motor vehicle. The billion gallons of fuel consumed annually by motor vehicles in the United States used 94 trillion cubic feet -- 640 cubic miles--of air.
Other fuels need comparable quantities of air. Burning a ton of coal consumes about 27,000 pounds of air, and a gallon of fuel oil about 90 pounds of air, while approximately 18 pounds of air are used in burning a pound of natural gas. About 3,000 cubic miles of air must be provided annually to satisfy the oxygen requirements of the fossil fuels presently used in the United States alone.
If we do not halt the present rate of pollution from all major sources we will be heading down a one-way road to physical and economic disaster.
We are doing something about air pollution. But our efforts have been late in coming and they have been very limited. We need to do much more. Our Federal air pollution program really got underway, in a very limited fashion, in 1955. Our present Air Pollution Control Act has a threefold program of research, technical assistance, and public education. It recognizes the primary place of local and State programs to control air pollution. At the same time, the act is based on the realization that air pollution is not confined to a single jurisdiction. It is a national problem, requiring a national program of research, technical assistance, and support.
One-third of the States have established programs to deal with air pollution. Most of these, however, are quite limited in scope. Local government programs, where they exist, are generally understaffed and without sufficient financial and trained manpower resources to meet their needs. Only 34 local programs have annual budgets exceeding $25,000. Seven of these are in California. Of the other 51 local air pollution control agencies, 21 tried to function on less than $10,000 per year. In the past decade, despite a 30-percent increase in urban population, there has been, outside of California, no overall increase in manpower to combat air pollution at the local level.
Mr. President, S. 432 represents a major step forward in our effort to combat the insidious threat of air pollution. It is similar to H.R. 6518, passed by the House. It is my belief that we will be able to reach an agreement with the House in the near future on a clean air act.
At this point I would like to summarize the provisions of S. 432. The purpose of S. 432, as amended, is to:
First. Replace the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 in its entirety with a new version, a Clean Air Act.
Second. Express the findings of the Congress that the increase in air pollution and the complexity of the problem of air pollution has been brought about by urbanization, industrial development, and the increasing use of motor vehicles. The act further recognizes the damage to the public health and welfare and the economic losses resulting from air pollution. It indicates also that the primary responsibility for the prevention and control of air pollution rests with State and local governments and that Federal financial assistance and leadership is essential.
Third. Express the purposes of the act to protect the Nation's air resources, to continue and extend the national research and development program, to provide technical and financial assistance, and to encourage and assist the development and operation of air pollution control programs.
Fourth. Encourage cooperative activities by State and local governments for control of air pollution and uniform State and local laws. Authorize the Federal Government to participate in such measures.
Fifth. Grant the consent of Congress to two or more States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts --requiring ultimate approval by Congress for the prevention of air pollution, and the establishment of such agencies as may be necessary to make effective such agreements or compacts.
Sixth. Authorize a broad program of research, investigations, training, and other activities relating to air pollution control.
Seventh. Authorize the compilation and publication of criteria reflecting accurately the latest scientific knowledge indicating the type and extent of effects which may be expected from the presence of air pollutants, such criteria to be revised in accordance with latest developments in scientific knowledge.
Eighth. Authorize grants to air pollution control agencies to develop, establish, and improve programs for the prevention and control of air pollution, specifying that grants to air pollution agencies shall not exceed 20 percent of total funds authorized.
Ninth. Authorize grants up to two-thirds of the cost of developing, establishing, and improving air pollution control programs to air pollution control agencies, and up to three-fourths of such costs to intermunicipal or interstate air pollution control agencies.
Tenth. Authorize a procedure to carry out abatement actions whenever the health and welfare of persons is being endangered by air pollution.
Eleventh. Direct the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to encourage continued efforts on the part of the automotive and fuel industries to prevent pollutants from being discharged from the exhaust of automotive vehicles.
Twelfth. Authorize the establishment of a technical committee to evaluate progress in the development of automotive pollution control devices and fuels, and to develop and recommend research programs which would lead to the development of such devices and fuels; also to make the necessary reports on the findings with respect to results obtained and steps necessary to alleviate or reduce pollution from these sources.
Thirteenth. Recognize the need for cooperation by Federal departments in controlling air pollution from installations under their jurisdiction and authorizing a procedure whereby the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may establish pollutant sources for which a permit must be obtained in cases where any matter is being discharged into the air which may add to the overall air pollution problem.
Fourteenth. Authorize establishment of such regulations as are necessary for the effective administration of the bill and provide for accountability of financial assistance furnished under the act.
Fifteenth. Authorize fiscal year funds for 1964 to be used for the purposes of this bill, and authorize funds as follows: Fiscal year 1965, $25 million; fiscal year 1966, $30 million; fiscal year 1967, $35 million; fiscal year 1968, $42 million; and fiscal year 1969, $50 million. The total authorization for the 5-year program would be $182 million.
Mr. President, S. 432 is a sound piece of legislation. It is a meaningful step in the right direction on the road to more effective air pollution control, and a healthful environment for all of us.
I urge its passage by the Senate.
Mr, BOGGS. Mr. President, I am very happy that the Senate is considering S. 432 as amended, known as the clean air bill. It was my privilege to be a cosponsor of this legislation.
The increase in air pollution and the complexity of the problem of air pollution has been developing to the extent that it has become a serious public hazard, a damage to the public health and welfare and to the economy. It has become necessary that every reasonable and practical step be taken at every level of Government to help meet the air pollution problem.
It is well to keep in mind that much is being done already by industry and local governments, but the problems of air pollution have been developing in scope, number and complexity much faster than have our efforts to deal with them. Therefore, this legislation is timely and provides for a more realistic and effective clean air program.
This legislation recognizes that the primary responsibility for the prevention and control of air pollution rests with State and local governments while at the same time providing Federal financial assistance and leadership.
It is my belief that this legislation will help provide the coordination, stimulus, research and technical assistance essential to a successful clean air program.
It is a privilege to serve on the subcommittee under the chairmanship of the distinguished junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE]. The subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works under his leadership, along with the other members of the committee and the staff, worked most effectively, objectively, and diligently on this legislation.
Air is probably the most important of all our natural resources. Everyone is aware that we need fresh air in order to live. This legislation will go far in overcoming air pollution and assuring safe and clean air for our citizens.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, for myself and the junior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], I offer a patent amendment to insure that the fruits of the research to be funded by this legislation will be freely available to Federal and state governments and to the general Public, and I ask that the amendment be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 7 between lines 23 and 24, it is proposed to insert the following new subsection:
(d) All scientific and technological research or development activity contracted for, sponsored, cosponsored, or authorized under authority of this Act which involves the expenditures of Government funds shall be provided for in such manner that all information, uses, processes, patents, and other developments resulting from such activity will (with such exceptions and limitations, if any, as the Secretary may find to be necessary in the interest of national defense) be available to the general public. This subsection shall not be so construed as to deprive the owner of any background patent relating thereto of any right which he may have under that patent.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, this amendment has been discussed with the Senator in charge of the bill. I believe he is agreeable to accepting it at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there were some reservations in the committee about such a provision in the bill. The provision was included in the bill introduced by the distinguished Senator from Oregon. The reservations resulted because we had not taken much testimony on this subject.
Since the hearings we have explored the record with reference to the problem. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement I have had prepared on other pieces of legislation to which similar amendments have been attached.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
The Senate of the United States has on many occasions expressed its view that the results of publicly financed research should be freely available to the general public.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 contained such provisions, which were reaffirmed in 1958.
So did the coal research and development bill enacted by Congress in 1960, the helium gas bill enacted in 1960, the oceanography bill passed by the Senate in 1961, the saline water and the disarmament bills passed by the Congress in 1961.
In this session of Congress the Senate unanimously legislated in the public interest by making sure that research authorized by the mass transit bill (S. 6) and the water resources bill (S. 2) would be used for the benefit of all the American people.
Mr. MUSKIE. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare policy in this field, which is consistent with the amendment of the Senator from Oregon.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF THE PATENT POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE BY MANUEL B.HILLER, DEPARTMENT PATENTS OFFICER, MAY 24, 1963
Consistent with the Department's statutory responsibility for the advancement of science and knowledge and the dissemination to the public of the results of research, it is the general policy of the Department that the results of Department-financed research should be made widely, promptly, and freely available to other research workers and the public. This availability can generally be provided by dedication of a Government owned invention to the public.
Consequently, our regulations, in which our patent policies are expressed, uniformly provide as to employee inventions, inventions resulting from Government grant support or from contract, that the ownership and manner Of disposition of all rights to such inventions shall be subject to determination by the head of the constituent unit responsible. Copies of the pertinent regulations are attached hereto.
Part 6 of the regulations establishes the general policy of the Department: viz, to provide by publication or other means for free access to the results of Department research. It also provides the criteria for issuance of licenses under patents for administration of which the Department has responsibility (45 C.F.R. 6.3).
Part 7, covering employee inventions insures that such inventions when directly related to the employee's official functions or to which the Federal Government has made a substantial contribution shall be owned and controlled by the Government for the public benefit. The criteria for determining domestic rights to employee inventions, which are set forth in section 7.3 and are identical to those provided in Executive Order 10096, provide for flexibility in making determinations respecting title to employee inventions.
Part 8 of the regulations governs inventions resulting from research grants, fellowship awards, and contracts for research. As to research grants, the regulations provide: "That the ownership and manner of disposition of all rights in and to such invention shall be subject to determination by the head of the constituent unit responsible for the grant" (45 CFR 8.1 (a)).
The criteria upon which that determination is to be made, set forth in section 8.2, are similarly calculated to secure wide availability of the invention.
However, where a grantee institution has an established patent policy and its objectives are consonant with the policy objective of the Department, disposition of invention rights may be left with the grantee by the head of the operating agency making the grant provided a formal agreement can be reached between the Department and the grantee which then governs invention rights arising under all grants to that institution by that operating agency of the Department. Such agreements are executed only where there is assurance that any invention resulting from the project will be made available to the public without unreasonable restriction or excessive royalties (see. 8.1 (b) ).
Section 8.6 provides for similar disposition of invention rights arising out of the performance of work under research contracts. The same alternative provided to nonprofit grantee institutions is carried forward in the contract area by a provision in the regulation that contracts for research with nonprofit institutions may leave the invention rights for disposition by the institution if its policies and procedures are acceptable as meeting the requirements applicable in the grant situation.
There is one exception to the Department's policy against relinquishment of invention rights to a private contractor, viz, where contracts with industrial profit-making organizations in the cancer chemotherapy program are involved. That program represents an intensified effort of the Public Health Service, with special appropriations made available under a congressional directive, to explore exhaustively and rapidly the potentialities of chemical compounds in the control of cancer. Because of the peculiar exigencies of this program and in order that the resources of pharmaceutical and chemical firms may be brought to bear with a minimum of delay, an exception to general Department policy has been authorized in the negotiation of industrial contracts for this program. (Sec. 8.7; and see, patent policy statement of the Secretary applicable to cancer chemotherapy industrial research contracts, July 31, 1958, set forth in section 6-10-20 of the materials attached hereto.)
In essence, that exception provides that in industrial research contracts in the cancer chemotherapy program, the contractor may accept either the standard patent clause which implements the general policy of the Department reserving the right of disposition of inventions to the Surgeon General, or a standard alternative clause leaving the right to patentable inventions with the contractor subject to certain limitations deemed necessary to protect the public's interest in the results of contracted research. The crucial provision therein (sec. B.4 of the policy statement) reserves to the Surgeon General the right to either dedicate the invention to the public or to issue royalty-free, nonexclusive licenses notwithstanding and in derogation of any patent which the contractor had theretofore obtained. The exercise of that right is conditioned upon a finding that either the supply of the invention is inadequate to meet the public need, the price is unreasonable or its quality is insufficient. Moreover, the right is subject to certain procedural safeguards which are specifically spelled out in paragraph B.4 of the Secretary's statement of policy.
There is thus provided a mechanism by which the public interest in any invention resulting from Government-financed cancer research is protected against insufficient supply to meet the public need, unreasonable price or inadequacy of quality. At the same time, the Department's policy and the contracts executed pursuant thereto provide reciprocal protection against precipitate governmental action which might destroy rights to which a contractor might reasonably be entitled.
Summarizing, the criteria employed by the Department for the disposition of invention rights in the field of employee inventions, research grants, fellowships, and research contracts are designed to foster the dissemination of the scientific and technical information gained thereby and to insure that the benefits of such work will be available to the public.
Mr. MUSKIE. With this background, I am perfectly willing to accept the amendment and take it to conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon for herself and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG].
The amendment was agreed to.
CLEAN AIR ACT
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, we are about to come of age in our relationship with our environment. The bill now before the Senate, S. 432, the Clean Air Act, represents the product of joint effort by the distinguished chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution [Mr. MUSKIE), the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], who has given us the benefit of his broad experience as Secretary of HEW, and others among us who have long sought appropriate action to preserve the purity of our skies.
For myself, this legislation represents the culmination of an effort begun nearly 3 years ago. The bill which I introduced at that time and the bill which we are called upon to debate today were in measured response to the indelible portrait of death and destruction by air pollution, drawn for us in deep strokes by President Kennedy in his health message to the Nation: Economic damage from air pollution amounts to as much as $11 billion every year
In the United States, agricultural losses alone total $500 million a year. Crops are stunted or destroyed, livestock become ill, meat and milk production are reduced. In some 6,000 communities various amounts of smoke, smog, grime, or fumes reduce property values and -- as dramatically shown in England last year -- endanger life itself. Hospitals, department stores, office buildings, and hotels are all affected. Some cities suffer damages of up to $100 million a year. One of our larger cities has a daily average of 25,000 tons of airborne pollutants. My own home city of Boston experienced in 1960 a "black rain" of smoke, soot, oil, or a mixture of all three.
Last week's New York Times carried a report from the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association of the first conclusive finding that normal city air pollution affects death rates.
The report, the joint report of the Division of Air Pollution of the U.S. Public Health Service and the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, found that residents of polluted areas suffered increased death rate from respiratory infections.
This report follows close upon several recent investigations which have revealed the peculiarly lethal role played by sulfur compounds. These studies have demonstrated the existence of a dramatic relationship between the levels of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide in the air and the frequency and duration of chronic respiratory diseases including asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, and even the common cold which each year costs this Nation tens of millions of lost workdays. There is also evidence that sulfur dioxide and sulfate levels have been extremely high during the several acute episodes of air pollution in this country and abroad which took the lives of many victims.
Sulfurous compounds in the air are produced primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as coal or oil. It is abundantly clear that if we were able to remove the sulfur from fuels before they were burned, economically and efficiently, we would have taken a great stride toward curing the air pollution problem. As of yet, however, such methods have not been perfected.
It was for this reason that I proposed that the subcommittee adopt a provision directing the Secretary of HEW to conduct extensive research toward the development of improved low-cost techniques for extracting sulfur from fuels. Happily the committee bill incorporates this measure.
As a cosponsor of S. 432, I commend the committee for its creative work in bringing before the Senate legislation truly deserving of the title "Clean Air Act."
I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled "Polluted Air Said To Raise Death Rate" be printed at the close of my remarks.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
POLLUTED AIR SAID To RAISE DEATH RATE
(By Walter Sullivan)
KANSAS CITY, Mo., November 12. -- What is said to be the first clear evidence that normal city air pollution affects death rates was presented here today.
The report dealt with a survey of deaths in and around Nashville, Tenn., in the 12 years that ended in 1960. It found that two factors strongly affected death rates from diseases of the respiratory system: the extent of air pollution and economic status.
Those who did the study believe it demonstrates that the levels of pollution characteristic of city air have important long-term effects on health. They were surprised, however, to find no correlation between air pollution and the incidence of lung and bronchial cancer.
The report was presented to the annual meeting of the American Public Health Assoclation being held here this week. Some 4,000 specialists from this country and abroad are in attendance.
The weakness of present administrative machinery for combating air pollution and other health problems was also discussed at today's sessions. A series of reports was presented on the nationwide survey of this machinery, initiated last year by the National Commission on Community Health Services.
The target date for reports by the seven task forces delving into various aspects of this problem is next November. In the spring of 1963 there is then to be a National Conference on Community Health Services. The project is being sponsored by a number of national health agencies.
The Nashville study was developed jointly by the Division of Air Pollution of the U.S. Public Health Service and the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. The Tennessee health department furnished business machine cards giving data on the death of 38,207 people in and near Nashville.
Those of the deceased for whom addresses were available were classified both according to the economic level of the section in which they lived and the air pollution characteristics of that section. To this end 123 air-sampling stations were operated for a year. Data were drawn from 67 census districts in the city area. It was then possible to study the air pollution effect, free from influence by economic considerations. Similarly the effect of economic status could be separated from that of pollution.
For example, the socioeconomic factor was presented only for those exposed to moderate levels of pollution. This, presumably, eliminated the pollution effects on the relative statistics. Likewise, air pollution factors were presented only in terms of those tabulated as middle class.
Residents were divided economically into three classes. Those of the lowest class had a death rate from respiratory disease of more than 60 per 100,000 compared to only 25 per 100,000 for those of the upper class. The effects of air pollution were broken down according to various indexes of pollution, such as dust fall and the content of sulfur oxides. The latter are byproducts of the burning of coal and other fuels.
In all cases, the sections of the city subjected to heaviest pollution were areas of maximum deaths from respiratory diseases. Past surveys of this sort have been criticized on the ground that the effects of poverty were intertwined with pollution effects. If a person is poor he is likely to live in a smoky section of town.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement on this subject prepared by the junior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], who is perhaps the Senate's most determined and articulate champion of a sound public patent policy, may be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR RUSSELL B. LONG, DEMOCRAT, OF LOUISIANA
Polluted air is injurious to the health and welfare of our people. The Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized by S. 432 to conduct research; promote the coordination and acceleration of research investigations, experiments, and studies; and to engage in other designated activities that would assist in protecting the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the population.
The growth of urbanization, industrial development, and increasing use of motor vehicles have resulted in polluting the air, with serious danger to the health and well-being of the public. Air pollution prevention and abatement is essential if growth and progress is to continue.
The research to be financed by these funds is intended to benefit the public. Its purpose is the increase in knowledge and the development of devices that will enable us to lessen the dangers resulting from air pollution. It may even become a "must" for the public to use specific inventions designed to reduce air pollution. Such inventions could well include devices to curtail poisonous gases coming from automobile exhausts and industrial plants, devices for burning all kinds of wastes and for many other purposes. It is natural, therefore, that the results of the research should be available to those whom the research is intended to benefit: The United States, the individual States, the general public, and the populations of many areas which suffer from problems of polluted air.
The effects of air pollution in my State of Louisiana, in New Orleans, for example, are all too evident. The incidence of lung cancer is considerably higher there than the national average. In addition, in the New Orleans area there are periodic epidemics of asthmatic attacks. At that city's Charity Hospital, for example, the normal load of asthmatics appearing for emergency treatment increases from an average of 25 to 30 per day up to 200 or more at certain times. This condition can be benefited potentially by better control of atmospheric conditions.
The amendment proposed by myself and the junior Senator from Oregon win assure that the intent and purpose of this legislation will be carried out for the benefit of all our people. This amendment is substantially the same as the corresponding provisions of S. 1009, the air pollution control bill introduced by Senator NEUBERGER, and H.R. 4415, introduced by Congressman ROBERTS. A reading Of the hearings on this bill, at least on the House side, indicates that the Public Health Service approved the patent section.
This item is one of the two stressed by Senator NEUBERGER before the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution as being required to maximize the public benefits of this legislation.
The subcommittee chairman recognized the necessity of the amendment, and stated during Senator NEUBERGER'S testimony that the "provision in your bill is a sensible one and that is as we achieve breakthroughs in the state of art in dealing with the problem, unless those are made available on a wide scale, we are going to substantially inhibit progress in the field."
On October 10 of this year the President of the United States issued a memorandum on "Air Pollution Control," hearings before Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Sept. 9, 10, and 11, 1963, p. 200.
Government patent policy to the heads of the executive departments and agencies. Under that document the results of Governmentfunded research in fields which directly concern the public health or public welfare would be made freely available to the general public. Obviously, the research authorized by S. 432 would fall under this category. We must remember, however, that the President's memorandum does not have the force of law and is only a policy recommendation. My proposed amendment is consistent with that policy recommendation.
The Senate of the United States has on many occasions expressed its view that the results of publicly financed research should be freely available to the general public.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 contained such provisions, which were reaffirmed in 1958.
So did the coal research and development bill enacted by Congress in 1960, the helium gas bill enacted in 1960, the oceanography bill passed by the Senate in 1961, the saline water, and the disarmament bills passed by Congress in 1961.
In this session of Congress the Senate unanimously legislated in the public interest by making sure that research authorized by the mass transit bill (S. 6) and the water resources bill (S. 2) would be used for the benefit of all the American people.
The only difference between those bills I just mentioned and this air pollution control bill is that this one directly concerns the health and welfare of our people. It does not seem reasonable to me that we try to protect the public interest in disarmament or helium gas bills and then fail to do so in legislation, the primary purpose of which is to guard the health of the public.
To carry out the provisions and the objectives of this act, it is imperative that inventions, know-how, and technical data resulting from air pollution prevention and control should be freely available to everyone. To permit private interests to acquire proprietary rights to withhold from the public or to delay the benefits of such research would be to defeat the worthy purpose of the measure.
I believe that the amendment we have offered is the absolute minimum that is necessary.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I am aware of the fact that the bill was reported by the committee virtually unanimously.
Mr. MUSKIE. It was.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I know that all minority members of the committee support the bill.
Some opposition has been registered with me on the ground that industry has done such an excellent job in researching this whole problem and is a little alarmed about the intrusion of the Federal enforcement power. I understand that intrusion could not occur unless it came on the request of a Governor in a given State or when the pollution started in one State and carried over into another, therefore making it an interstate matter.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I have amendments on this subject which I believe will take care of what the Senator has in mind.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I should like to record what the Commission said in Pittsburgh, where an exceedingly good job has been done:
Industry's determination to do everything in its power to rid all affected areas of air pollution is perhaps better realized when measured in dollars and cents. It is spending at the rate of $500 million a year for pollutant control, a sum which exceeds the annual taxes collected by 32 States and exceeds the annual budgets of 42 States. And it is only fair to point out that much of these expenditures are for equipment, sometimes massive in size, that is not only nonproductive but often slows normal production in a plant.
In connection therewith, the Illinois Manufacturers' Association made a statement on the bill. I ask unanimous consent to include it in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRUENING in the chair). Is there objection?
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY ILLINOIS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, RE PENDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION RE AIR POLLUTION
The Illinois Manufacturers' Association (IMA) fully appreciates that prevention of air pollution is a subject of importance to every citizen and that effective action is required to achieve and maintain a goal of cleaner air.
However, IMA is opposed to Federal intrusion in this matter in the form of S. 432 or H.R. 6518, or of any other proposed Federal legislation on air pollution control that would expand the Federal Government's role in local air pollution control and abatement.
The Federal Government's role should be limited strictly to that of providing research material and technical know-how to assist the several States and their local governments in their responsibility for policing and enforcement.
This is clearly stated in the existing law, Public Law 159, 84th Congress, approved July 14,1955, as amended.
Public Law 159 stresses research and technical assistance and development of methods for control and abatement of air pollution by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and by the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. It recognizes the primary responsibilities and rights of the State and local governments in controlling air pollution and authorizes Federal grants to assist local governments in their programs.
The specific objection of the IMA to S. 432 or H.R. 6518 or to the other proposed Federal legislation on the subject of air pollution, is that such bill or bills provide for direct Federal intervention into State and local government affairs --specifically, Federal activity in the area of abatement or control.
It is IMA's position that the purported need for Federal interference, as was contended in hearings on this bill in the House, was based on a premise that there has been over the past years, an increase and growth in the amount, volume and complexity of air pollution which has resulted in increased hazard to public health.
IMA believes this contention is refuted by substantial evidence showing that air pollution nationally is on the decline now. Industries have made significant progress in controlling smoke emissions. They have substituted oil and gas heat for coal in many instances and have installed and are installing new cleaning devices, as well as engaging in better housekeeping. Evidence shows that in a period a few years, measured dustfall in Chicago proper has decreased substantially. The same experience will be found in other areas of the country.
The only other possible justification for further injecting the Federal Government into this area of local jurisdiction is the assumption that the State or local governments are either not able to handle the problem or have refused to do so. This certainly is not true, as successful local programs have been instituted in recent years in Pittsburgh, Chicago, and St. Louis and at the State level, here in Illinois; during the last session of the legislature, a very effective air pollution statute was enacted with the cooperation of Illinois industry and with the
active assistance of this association.
Where air pollution problems arise between States and action need be coordinated, IMA believes that States involved (for example, Illinois and Indiana, or Illinois and Wisconsin) can cooperate by means of interstate compacts as is being done currently in regard to automobile safety device legislation. This is certainly preferable to Federal legislative control.
The Illinois Manufacturers' Association expresses the hope that the legislation relating to this subject now pending in the U.S. Senate will be rejected because it is unnecessary and represents an unwarranted intrusion by the Federal Government into the prerogatives of the State and local governments.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I think there is much to be said about the fear and apprehension of consistently calling upon the enforcement arms of the Federal Government to intervene in matters that are essentially local in character and should not go beyond State lines. I am glad to know that the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] will in part cure this problem with an amendment which he proposes to offer.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it has been consistently the intention of the committee to protect the primary areas of the States and local governments in this field. I invite the attention of Senators to the fact that the Manufacturing Chemists Association, Inc., expressed the same concern which the minority leader has expressed. Many changes in the bill were responsive to that concern. Since the bill has been reported, we have received a letter from the Manufacturing Chemists' Association commending the committee's work on the bill.
I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed at this point in the RECORD as further reassurance to the minority leader.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I thank the Senator from Maine.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Washington, D.C.,
November 6,1963.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Having seen S. 432, the Clean Air Act, as amended and reported, we would like to commend your subcommittee
for the highly significant improvements it made therein, rendering the bill, in our view, far superior to its original form or to the bill received from the House. We believe the provisions, in sections 3(a) (3) and 5(c) (1) (C), for Federal cooperation with local, State, and interstate agencies, and for the discretionary exercise of Federal enforcement authority in interstate situations represent constructive and eminently desirable amendments. They clearly reflect the conscientious efforts of the subcommittee to protect local, State, and interstate air pollution control agencies in meeting their responsibilities without Federal action wherever they are able and willing to do so.
From the position taken by our association during the subcommittee hearings, you are aware of our belief that Federal enforcement of air pollution control should in each instance be predicated upon an invitation issued at the State level. This would allow for fully effective Federal leadership, and at the same time it would minimize diversion of Federal effort from research, training of technical personnel, and related technically oriented endeavors where we believe the Federal Government can make the greatest overall contribution to progress in this important field. While this position is not fully reflected in the bill as reported by the subcommittee, we wish to express our deep appreciation for the careful consideration accorded our recommendations by the subcommittee and staff assistants concerned.
Sincerely,
G. H. DECKER, President.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment, on behalf of myself and the junior Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING], and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the senior Senator from New York, for himself and the junior Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING], will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed, on page 12, after the period on line 5, to insert the following:
No grant shall be made under this section until the Secretary has consulted with the appropriate official as designated by the Governor or Governors of the State or States affected.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, under section 4 of S. 432, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to make grants directly to local air pollution control agencies without the concurrence, approval or consultation of the States in which the local recipients of Federal funds are located. The deep concern that the State air pollution agencies might be bypassed by direct allocation of funds by the Federal Government to local air pollution agencies is reflected in the report of the Senate Public Works Committee on this bill and in the testimony before the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. The Public Works Committee specifically recognized and dealt with the problem of the local agencies bypassing the State by stating at page 8 of its report on S. 432:
The committee would expect, however, that in the administration of this program, the Department will take precautions to insure that a grant will be made only after appropriate consideration has been given to the views of the State air pollution control authority (where such a State authority exists) with respect to the particular program for which a grant is sought.
Secretary Celebrezze recognized the problem in testifying before the subcommittee at page 72 of the subcommittee record of hearings that:
I would recommend that we be permitted to make grants directly to local communities with the State, of course, taking an active part.
Edward Michaelian, county executive of Westchester County, N.Y., representing the counties of the United States, expressed his concern over the bypassing of the States in the allocation of funds when he testified at page 132 of the record of hearings that:
It is my personal opinion that the State should be a party to such interlocal agreements, acting in a supervisory capacity subsequent to the receipt of a grant for assistance or a grant-in-aid from the Federal Government.
New York State, however, is sufficiently concerned with this problem to feel that the requirement for coordination between local and State air Pollution control agencies be expressly provided for in the bill.
I am, therefore, introducing an amendment to prohibit the allocation of funds under section 4 of the bill until the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has consulted with the appropriate officials as designed by the Governor or Governors of the State or States affected. In view of the fact that only one-third of the States have established programs to deal with air pollution, it is evident that all States do not have State air pollution control agencies with whom the Secretary of HEW may consult. It is intended that the Secretary of HEW would, in good faith, consult with the appropriate official designated as responsible for air pollution control matters by the Governor or Governors of the State or States in which the local agencies receiving the funds are located.
My amendment is thus intended to require that the work of the local agencies, receiving Federal funds, be coordinated with the State agencies to insure an effective air pollution program and to prevent duplication of effort. After full discussion with the Senator from Maine and others interested in the bill, it is our feeling that the provision for consultation satisfies the previously stated requirements and provides adequate safeguards for the problems I have depicted.
I hope that the chairman of the subcommittee and the Senate will consider the amendment favorably.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. As the Senator from New York has pointed out, the proposed amendment is completely consistent with the entire philosophy of the committee and the intentions of the committee. It is a constructive change in the bill, and I am willing to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] for himself and the junior Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk, which I offer on behalf of myself and my colleague from New York [Mr. KEATING].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed, on page 19, line 19, beginning with the word "may", to strike out all before the period on line 22, and insert in lieu thereof "at the request of the Governor of such State, shall provide such technical and other assistance as in his judgment is necessary to assist the State in judicial proceedings to secure abatement of the pollution under State or local law or request the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution."
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the primary concern reflected by this amendment is that the States have an opportunity through their own law enforcement agencies to enforce intrastate air pollution violations. With respect to the institution of proceedings on intrastate air pollution, section 5(f) (2) of S. 432 presently provides that "in the case of pollution of air which is endangering the health or welfare of persons only in the State or local law. It would also permit charges in which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution) originate", the Secretary with the written consent of the Governor of such State, may request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution. My amendment would allow the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, upon the request of the Governor of the State affected, to provide such technical and other assistance as in his judgment would be necessary to assist the State in bringing proceedings under State or local law. It would also permit the Secretary, again upon the request of the Governor of the affected State, to request the U.S. Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the United States. In effect, the amendment would authorize the Secretary, contingent upon the request of the Governor of the concerned State, either to assist the State in bringing abatement proceedings under local law in State courts or to request the U.S. Attorney to bring proceedings in a Federal district court. This amendment would be consistent with the policy of S. 432 as expressed in section 1 (a) (3).
Secretary Celebrezze, on page 64 of the record of hearings of the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Public Works Committee, testified to his preference for State enforcement. The report of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare also reflects the Department's preference for enforcement by State or local authorities to the procedure of the U.S. Attorney General bringing suit. There is additional testimony, presented by the National Association of Attorneys General, supporting the enforcement by State legal officers of intrastate problems.
The concern for local enforcement was also reflected in the intrastate air pollution enforcement Section of H.R. 6518 which the House passed on July 24, 1963. The House-passed bill provided that, at the request of the Governor or Attorney General, the Secretary shall provide such technical and other assistance as is necessary to assist the State in judicial proceedings to secure abatement of the pollution under State or local law.
It is believed that State and local enforcement of purely intrastate pollution problems would be a healthy and constructive contribution to the air pollution program. Moreover, the flexibility of alternatives for enforcement provided for in this amendment will go a rather considerable distance toward meeting the point made by the Senator from Illinois, as well as satisfying the concerns of many of us.
Again I emphasize that we are dealing with differing states of preparation in different States. Hence, there must be flexibility of approach. Not every State is equipped, as my own State is, to deal with enforcement problems. Therefore, I believe, after much consideration, this is a fair and equitable way to work out the problem, consistent with the policy of the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The thrust of the amendment offered by the Senator from New York is that in intrastate pollution, any action by the Federal Government shall be initiated only by the request of the Governor. Therefore, in intrastate questions, control is within the State entirely or the State administration. I think this, too, is consistent with the philosophy of the bill and the thinking of the committee. It is a constructive addition to the bill, and I am willing to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KEATING subsequently said: Mr. President, I am happy to join with my colleague the distinguished senior Senator from New York in offering these amendments. I would like to take this opportunity, also, to compliment the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] and the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] for their diligent efforts to devise the best possible bill.
The main objective of our two amendments is to insure Federal-State cooperation in preventing air pollution. The New York State Department of Health, under the leadership of Dr. Hollis Ingraham, spends more than a quarter of a million dollars a year on an extensive air pollution control program. In addition number of cities and communities in the State have their own programs. Since our State and many others have had considerable experience in this field, we want to be sure that they are given a substantial part to play in this Federal program.
Our amendments provide:
First. That the Department of Health, Education and Welfare consult with the State government before awarding a grant within the State; and
Second. That the consent of the Governor of the State be obtained before the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare gives technical assistance to the State and before the Attorney General of the United States was asked to take any action to combat intrastate pollution.
I am gratified that the distinguished Senator from Maine has agreed to accept these amendments and trust that their inclusion in this bill will bring about a strong Federal-State program -- with shared responsibilities and pooled resources -- to eliminate this menace to our health and welfare.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, under the leadership of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] the Special Subcommittee On Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works has brought to the floor of the Senate two bills of great importance.
First, the water pollution control bill, S. 649, which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate on October 16. I was proud to be a cosponsor of this measure which makes meaningful improvements in the Nation's clean water program.
Second, the clean air bill, S. 432, now before the Senate. As author of the bill I know I speak for its many cosponsors in paying tribute to the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] and his entire subcommittee for the prompt attention it has given this important problem. And I think special praise is due the ranking minority member of the subcommittee [Mr. BOGGS] who joined with me last January as one of the first cosponsors of S.432.
The Muskie subcommittee, Mr. President, in less than a year of intensive study and effort has presented to the Senate carefully worked out effective measures to deal with air and water pollution. Since, like sin, everyone opposes dirty air and water few realize how controversial measures to deal with the problems can be. The bill before us was no exception, but by careful and deliberate action, the subcommittee has worked out a landmark bill deserving of the unanimous approval it received by the full Committee on Public Works. This in itself is a tribute to the leadership of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], And to the effective assistance given him by the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS] and all the members of the subcommittee.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish to express my gratitude to the Senator from Connecticut for his very generous remarks. He is, of course, the leader in the Senate with reference to this legislation and what has been accomplished by "holding our feet to the fire," in a sense, by calling attention to these problems, and by the proposals he has made. I am grateful for his leadership.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BOGGS. I want to endorse what the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has so ably said to the Senator from Connecticut in appreciation of his leadership in this field. I am glad to be a cosponsor of the bill that was introduced to establish this air pollution control authority. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his kind remarks.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, after listening to the Senator from Illinois, I should like to point out to him and to other Senators that within the next few days I will introduce an amendment to the tax bill, which recognizes the role industry must play if we are to accomplish the objectives of the bill. I believe the enactment of a tax program to encourage private industry and the bill which will pass today will be a two-pronged attack on the problems of air pollution.
Mr. President, this bill is a good reminder that dirty air is not a partisan matter and partisanship went out the window in order to work out an acceptable and at the same time effective bill.
Actually, Mr. President, when it comes to the problem of dirty air there is neither room nor time for partisanship. The original air pollution control bill establishing the present Federal clean air program was introduced by the Senator from California (Mr. KUCHEL], who was also an early cosponsor of S. 432, and effective air pollution control has long been sought by the junior Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE]. Adequate legislation in this field has consistently been advocated by the Senator from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER], another cosponsor of S. 432, whose special concern about the health effects of air pollution have been incorporated in the bill.
We must face up to the fact that the land on which we live and work, the air we breathe, the water we drink and use in industry, agriculture, and recreation have been altered over the past half century by a manmade fallout far more abundant and potentially more dangerous than the contamination of nuclear weapons testing.
The nuclear test ban treaty we begin debate on today will be a great step toward ending one source of air pollution -- radioactive fallout. We must not miss the opportunity to prevent and bring under control all the other poisons in our atmosphere.
Since there is such a vast amount of air above us, many people ask how is it possible that pollution can be a serious problem.
The answer is that only a small part of the total air supply is available for our use in any single location. Over one-half of our population now lives on less than 10 percent of the land area of the country. For the most part, sources of air pollution are concentrated where people are concentrated. Furthermore, there is every indication that, by 1970, two-thirds of our population at that time will live in this same limited land area.
We are already overburdening those portions of the air resource available to many of our cities. Few people realize the enormous amount of pollutants being discharged into the atmosphere. One of our larger cities has a daily average of 25,000 tons of air-borne pollutants. More than 180 million Americans live on the bottom of an ocean of air contaminated by an ever-growing volume and variety of pollutants.
How did all this happen? The answer is found, oddly enough, in the very hallmarks of contemporary society -- our technological capacity, industrial output and rising standard of living.
Manmade forests of advanced technology sprout up across our land, creating an abundance of services and consumer goods, and creating vast amounts of waste materials.
As our Nation has grown -- as more people crowd together in bigger cities and drive more millions of automobiles and trucks -- contamination of our air becomes more serious -- sometimes critical.
The essential elements of the problem are simple. We burn fuels in thousands of ways to produce the power and products necessary to our high standard of living. Often we burn them poorly --hardly ever completely. Our factories and automobiles throw chemical compounds into the air. Acted upon by sunlight, they produce new compounds more damaging and toxic than the original wastes.
So we turn our precious air supply into a vast dump for gases, fumes and many many different dusts. We have created sewers in the sky.
The damage caused by this dirty air is appalling. It hurts our lands, stunts or destroys our crops, makes our livestock ill, reduces our meat and milk production. It soils and corrodes buildings, bridges, monuments, and physical structures of all kinds. It causes extensive plant damage of many types. It irritates the eyes. By reducing visibility it creates traffic hazards. It causes unpleasant odors. It endangers our very health and lives. Expert estimates of the high price we are paying for filth in the air today run as high as $11 billion a year, and this figure does not include the most important cost -- the cost to our health. We do not have any realistic figures for the medical and hospital care of people made sick by breathing -- day in and day out, year in and year out -- air that is simply not fit to breathe. Neither do we know exactly how many people each year die of air pollution. But some things we do know.
We all know the story of Donora, Pa. There, during 3 days of dense, choking smog, in October 1948, 20 people died and more than 4,000 suffered acute illness because their part of the ocean of air was too polluted for safe breathing.
In 1952 between 4,000 and 5,000 Londoners died in a single week. The cause? Polluted air.
In December 1953 New York City was pinned under an inversion that trapped filthy waste between layers of air, making the air unfit -- even lethal -- for human lungs. When the weeklong smog was over, 200 people were dead. These 200 deaths were not even noted until 9 years later when a statistical study brought this quiet tragedy to light.
Just last December, London was hit again. The death toll was 300 to 400 at the latest count, and British health officials think the real number killed will prove much higher after hospital records and death certificates have been thoroughly examined.
This episode occurred 3,000 miles from our shores. At almost exactly the same time, a stagnant air mass over the northeastern United States caused a steady, alarming increase in pollution levels from Richmond to Boston. In our Northern Hemisphere, weather systems move from west to east. The set of meteorological circumstances which caused the London smog developed in the eastern United States several days earlier, with the result that sulphur dioxide levels in Philadelphia and New York, between November 30 and December 4 of last year, averaged three and a half times normal, and were, for several days, over five times normal.
During this same period, levels of solid matter in the air rose correspondingly. In my own State of Connecticut, the 5-day average in Hartford and Middletown was over three times normal with individual days of from four to five times normal.
If we had not been lucky -- if this mass of contaminated air had not been blown out over the ocean -- the United States might have suffered the worst air pollution calamity in history.
I think in this mid-20th century, as we contemplate putting a man on the moon, we would be negligent if we continued to rely on the wind to save us from air pollution disasters.
These episodes of acute illness and death are serious but of even greater concern is the problem of the long-term effects of air pollution. Constant exposure of urban populations to low concentrations of air poisons which could result in gradual deterioration of health, chronic disease and premature death is a modern day fact of urban life. Leading scientists feel air pollution may have a good deal to do with aggravating heart conditions and increasing susceptibility to respiratory disease: asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer, particularly among older people and the ever-growing urban population.
Studies will show that death rates for cardio-respiratory diseases in the United States are greater in urban than in rural areas, and, in general, increase with city size. Within the last few years, this urban-rural difference has also shown up in mortality of infants less than 1 year of age and is accounted for by respiratory illness.
A recent study in a southern city shows that acute asthmatic attacks among susceptible patients were directly correlated with variations in total sulfate air pollution from time to time.
Finally, although I am not a scientist, I think only commonsense is needed to tell us that the rising incidence of lung cancer in this country, particularly in cities, emphasizes the need for a careful look at the health importance of air polluted with potentially carcinogenic substances.
Analyses of air samples from over 100 cities by the Public Health Service have shown that 3-4 benzpyrene, a potent carcinogen, is present in concentrations which could result in human dosages approximating or exceeding that from cigarette smoking.
A recent report entitled "Atmospheric Factors on Pathogenesis of Lung Cancer" by Kotin and Falk, states:
The most satisfactory explanation for the consistent observation of an increased incidence of lung cancer in urban populations is exposure to polluted air.
According to the recent report of the Committee on Environmental Health Problems:
Because a number of statistical studies have indicated a higher incidence of lung cancer in urban than in rural areas and because such well-known experimental carcinogens as benzpyrene have been found in community air, the finger of suspicion has been pointing for some time to atmospheric benzpyrene and related aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons as at least contributory etiologic agents in lung cancer. Certainly it does not seem possible to attribute the alarming increase in lung cancer incidence to smoking alone.
A growing body of experimental evidence incriminates atmospheric hydrocarbons.
Mr. President, the problem of air pollution has obviously gone beyond the simple eye irritation nuisance stage. These are deadly poisons being poured into our atmosphere. It is time we do something more than talk about them. We need a national clean air program as envisioned in S. 432.
The role of the Federal Government to date in this field has been limited to a supporting one of research, technical assistance to public and private organizations, and training of technical personnel. We urgently need significant expansion in the scope of the Federal air pollution control program.
The Federal Government must provide leadership, encouragement, technical know-how, and financial assistance to local and State governments in the development of a national program of research and development for the prevention and control of air pollution. This is its proper job. This national problem requires national effort. State and local agencies cannot deal with the situation alone.
Current city, county, and regional air pollution control activities need expansion, also. Data submitted at the National Conference on Air Pollution show that only 34 local governmental air pollution control agencies have annual budgets of $25,000 or more; fewer than 1,000 people are employed by all local governments to control their air pollution problems; and only 13 air pollution control agencies employ more than 10 people. About 200 cities with populations over 50,000 are considered to have air pollution problems, but only approximately half of them have an air pollution control program -- and many of these programs are seriously understaffed.
In addition, State air pollution control programs must be strengthened. Of the more than $2 million all 50 States spent for air pollution control in 1961, more than half was spent by California alone. Although today most States have air pollution control legislation of some kind, only 17 States spend more than $5,000 annually for their programs; only 9 States spend $25,000 or more. And only approximately 150 people are employed by all State Governments to combat their air pollution problems. State activities must be greatly accelerated if all citizens are to enjoy clean air.
We must obviously elevate the Federal role in air pollution control to a proper status of responsibility and leadership while recognizing the basic responsibilities of State and local governments and helping them fulfill those responsibilities. This is the purpose of S. 432. Adoption of this legislation will give us an action program with two basic elements -- first, stepped-up research on some still unanswered questions regarding the sources, the nature, and the effects of air pollution and on better methods and instruments for abating it; and second, more effective control through application of our present knowledge.
I am convinced the American people are now ready to support such a program and to accept the regulation and costs that are necessary to carry it out. They realize that the days of letting poisonous wastes billow into the air are over -- that air pollution is a threat to our economy, to our health, and to our lives.
The air we breathe is free, but when it is filled with filth, it is no bargain.
I urge the enactment of S. 432.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the Senate in expressing appreciation to the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] for sponsoring the basic bill and for campaigning for its enactment. I shall be glad to join in sponsoring the tax amendment, as will other Senators also. This is extremely constructive proposed legislation.
I have had occasion to work closely with the Senator from Maine. Sometimes he has been with me, and sometimes he has been against me, but always he has worked most creditably and always has made a very fine contribution to this body.
My old friend, -- CALEB BOGGS -- is a constant source of joy and pleasure, and has always been, as I have seen him come along through the House of Representatives, as Governor of his State, and now in this present august position He has always given to the people of our Nation a luminous mind and understanding.
I shall conclude my remarks in a moment. I call attention to subsection 4(b) of the bill, and the fact that it provides three criteria upon which grants under the bill shall be made. First, there is population; second, the extent of the actual or potential air pollution problem; and, third, the financial need of the respective agencies.
Rather than trying to do anything further with the bill by way of amendment, as this is essentially a matter of administration, I should like to ask the Senator in charge of the bill on the floor this question, so that the legislative history may be clear.
With respect to subsection 4(b) of S. 432, is it not the committee's intention, in considering the three factors to which due consideration shall be given in establishing regulations for the granting of funds, that the Secretary shall place primary emphasis on "the extent of the actual or potential air pollution problem?"
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President the committee intends that in evaluating the three factors the Secretary give primary consideration to the extent of the actual or potential air pollution problem. The House version of the Clean Air Act contained a general formula for the allocation of grants to the several States to “assist them, in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining programs for the prevention and control of air pollution." The Senate committee modified the language to insure that the Secretary gives sufficient weight to the areas of serious air pollution as he administers the grant program. We want to meet the problem where it exists.
It is clearly the intent of the committee that primary emphasis be given to the extent of the actual or potential air pollution problem in the community or area for which an application for funds is made. The committee recognizes that air pollution is most severe in the areas of concentrated population, where there are large numbers of motor vehicles, and where there is a substantial volume of pollution from industrial buildings, refineries, and other chemical plants, and homes, apartments, and public buildings.
I assure the Senator from New York that it has been the understanding of the committee that this is the area of primary emphasis.
Mr. JAVITS. I am grateful to the Senator from Maine. I believe his statement clarifies the legislative history.
I close my remarks by calling attention to another provision in the bill, which I believe is a very important one for Senators to bear in mind as we move into this new concept in our country. I refer to the provision giving an incentive for interstate cooperation through interstate compacts.
We talk about decentralization. This is the way to do it. I had the honor to sponsor, in connection with the mass transportation bill, a provision enabling States operating under interstate compacts to pool their participation.
The committee has made a valuable contribution by endorsing the use of incentive premiums, increasing the amount of the Federal participation where such pooling under interstate compacts takes place.
I call the attention of Senators to an excellent precedent in terms of the Government techniques which are involved. I congratulate the committee, and I thank the chairman for his cooperation.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I do not want to delay the passage of the bill. I merely wish to express my congratulations and gratitude to the distinguished Senator from Maine for assisting in this matter and accepting these amendments to this very helpful and constructive bill.
Mr. JAVITS. My colleague from New York may not have been in the Chamber at the time, but I made it clear that both of us sponsored these critically important amendments.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my friends from New York.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, without delaying the Senate, I also wish to add my voice to the expressions of my colleagues in the Senate in appreciation for the work that has been done by the Senator from Maine. I am in favor of the whole bill. In particular, I am glad that there was included in it a provision I suggested during the consideration of the bill by the subcommittee and the full committee. It deals with the mandatory application of the criteria with respect to various agencies. This provision will be most helpful. I support the whole bill, and I am grateful to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The committee drew very heavily on the Senator's own bill in shaping that provision in the bill now before the Senate.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, this body is once again charged with the responsibility of enacting legislation for the improvement of our physical environment in the enhancement of public health and the general welfare.
Recently, under the exceptionally able leadership and floor management of the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority the Water Pollution Control Act of 1963. The same philosophy of Federal responsibility within a framework of Federal, State, and local partnership is implicit in the pending Clean Air Act. I have cosponsored both of these vital bills.
We have long recognized the right of the people of our communities to have pure foods, pure milk, and pure water. And we have increasingly come to recognize the regulative powers of Government to assure those rights. It is now evident that additional governmental action and authority is necessary to assure the right to breathe clear air -- the most ubiquitous of the elements of our natural environment.
During our hearings of the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, conducted under the chairmanship of Senator MUSKIE, it was amply demonstrated that local and State efforts to control air pollution are not keeping pace with the rapid process of industrialization, the increase in our national fuel and energy requirements, and the growing concentration of our population in great metropolitan centers, many of which cross State boundaries.
It is in answer to the problems generated by these conditions that the pending measure calls for increased research and training activities, grants for local air pollution control programs and limited Federal authority in the field of abatement.
West Virginia has established a State air pollution unit, and we would hope to fit it within the framework of cooperative assistance of this act.
Findings presented to our subcommittee by the Public Health Service indicate that all communities in the United States with populations of more than 50,000 have air pollution problems, as do about 40 percent of the communities in the 2,500 to 50,000 population range.
Yet, only 17 States maintain air pollution programs which require expenditures of more than $5,000 annually, and local agencies in 1961 spent approximately $8.2 million. This is a grossly inadequate effort when compared to the estimated $10 billion in annual property damage wrought by air pollution on farm and flower crops, livestock, soiling and corrosion of buildings and materials, and in the hazards to surface and air transportation.
One cannot, of course, measure in dollar terms the cumulative effect of air pollution in the creation and aggravation of respiratory and bronchial ailments. It has been frequently demonstrated by investigators in the United States and abroad that the frequency of occurrence of such illnesses is higher in areas which have higher air pollution levels.
Mr. President, all the evidence testifies that the pending measure is a necessary and desirable advance in the exercise of Federal responsibility for enhancing the public health and general welfare. I am confident that the Senate will act with dispatch in approving S. 432.
PROGRESS IN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, there is no doubt that a great deal more research needs to be done in the field of air pollution. I am for research; I think it has been valuable, and I hope it is continued.
But I also think there is a great need for action -- a need to put into practice the air pollution control methods and devices which research has already provided. The existing air pollution program is fundamentally inadequate, because it provides funds solely for research, and research alone will never clear away the smog.
The Clean Air Act of 1963, which I was pleased to Join Senator RIBICOFF in sponsoring, would provide funds to State and local agencies for air pollution control programs, and it seems to me that this is the approach we need if we are going to do the job of eliminating air pollution. I think that the House vote of 272 to 102 in favor of a similar proposal is evidence of concern over the damage to health and property caused by air pollution, and I hope that the Senate will show the same concern by passing S. 432 overwhelmingly.
A New Jersey allergist, Dr. Frank L. Rosen, has made a long study of the effects of air pollution on the human body, and I would like to call the attention of the Senate to some of his observations.
In addition, the September issue of Reader's Digest contains an article which not only lists the dangers of air pollution, but also describes progress that has been made in some areas and could be made in others if public opinion demanded it.
I think an examination of these articles can be of substantial help in clarifying the issues involved in the control of air pollution, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Reader's Digest, September 1963]
How POLLUTED IS THE AIR AROUND US?
(The stuff we pour into the air we breathe adds up to a major hazard for city dwellers. This hopeful study shows how the problem can be licked.)
(By Wolfgang Langewiesche)
People can have clean air if they demand it. The remedies for air pollution are known; they need only to be applied. Some cities already have applied them: in Pittsburgh, the housewife now washes her curtains twice a year, instead of once a week. St. Louis has abolished its pall of smoke. In London, the big fog of December 1962 killed only 340 people as against 2,000 for a similar fog in 1952. And Los Angeles, despite a spectacular increase in population and industry, is at least holding its own.
But, while the worst places are getting better, good places are getting bad. It's the shadow side of prosperity and progress: more power used, more cars; and even the poor now keep warm. In Paris, days with fog have increased in our lifetime from 90 per year to 150. Metal roofs that used to be good for 20 years now last only 5. Lung cancer is on the increase. In Austria and Italy, the beautiful valleys are filling with smoke. In Rome, the picturesque pines are dying, their needles coated on the underside by an oily deposit that comes from the air.
Everywhere the lungs of city dwellers, which should be pink inside, are black with dirt.
Different cities have different problems because of different climates and different fuels. In Los Angeles, the main problem is automobile exhaust. In London, it's coal smoke. In New York City, it is ash and smoke from burning garbage. Elsewhere it's smoke and dust and smells from steel mills, cement works, powerplants, smelters, oil refineries, papermills, chemical plants.
Though the mixture varies from city to city, the ingredients are always much the same. There are solid particles -- many of them too small to be seen; bits of metal, bits of stone, bits of carbon and ash. There are droplets of oily and tarry matter. They float in the air almost as a gas; or slowly fall out, coating windshields, vegetation, everything. And there are gases, some of them visible or smelly, others not noticeable. Some of these things are poisonous; others are merely dirty. Some attack stones and metal. Some are known cancer agents. Some react chemically with others to form new poisons: stuff that kills vegetation, cracks rubber or attacks ladies' stockings. And all of this dirt is put into the air by nobody else but us.
Most of this dirt can be stopped at the source.
Industrial air pollution can be stopped by fitting the right kind of device. For instance, the electrostatic precipitator. It works by electromagnetic attraction -- the way, in school, a glass rod rubbed with silk picks up bits of paper. Mounted in a factory chimney, the precipitator picks the soot and fly-ash out of the smoke. Other devices mix the escaping gases with water in a whirling cyclone, or run them through filter bags like those of a vacuum cleaner, or expose them to chemicals which capture the noisome vapors. Any industrial operation can be made virtually smokeless, odorless and dust free. All it takes is money -- a lot of money.
Small household fires are harder to clean up. The open fireplace, which still heats most homes in England, is responsible for most of the smoke problems of the world's coal-burningest country.
To clean up home fires in England, the Clean Air Act of 1956 empowered local governments to set up smoke-control areas. These are parts of town in which, quite simply, smoke must not be seen to come from chimneys. But you are excused if you burn coke or "smokeless" coal. To burn them you may need a more elaborate grate or an enclosed stove; or else you can change to gas or electric beat. The cost of the conversion is borne 30 percent by the householder, 30percent by the local government, 40 percent by the National Government. Progress is slow -- but measurable. In London's West End the air now contains, on the average, one-third fewer soot and ash particles than 10 years ago.
St. Louis cleaned up using a similar method, right after the war, by passing an ordinance requiring that only smokeless coal could be fired by hand; the smoky coal may be used only with mechanical stokers. Smoke and soot are a sign of incomplete combustion -- too little air. With enough air and a hot-enough fire, smoke will burn, but it takes the forced-draft, elaborate furnaces of industry to do it. Coal was classified; coal dealers were licensed and forbidden to sell the wrong kind. Inspectors, instead of policing and annoying everybody, policed the dealers' delivery books. It has worked like magic.
But visible smoke is only part of the problem. When you burn coal, or coke, or heavy fuel oil, you liberate an invisible gas -- sulfur dioxide. This gas comes out of the most scientific industrial plant just as it does out of sooty household fires.
This sulfur gas makes building stones crumble and eats into metals. What it does to our lungs we don't know. Where it can cling to floating bits of ash and soot, it often changes into a chemically even more aggressive form, sulfur trioxide, which penetrates deeply into the lungs. There's now a German and an American process being developed that takes the sulfur out of the flue gases of big powerplants. Both, however, will be expensive, maybe too expensive.
Los Angeles now forbids the burning of sulfurous fuel oils during the 7 months of the smog season. Industry then shifts to natural gas. Los Angeles is lucky, as are other U.S. cities, in that it has plenty of cheap natural gas, and the smog season is in summer, when gas is not needed for house heating. Europe has more difficulty. It has not yet found many deposits of natural gas, and the smog season is in winter.
The British will soon bring natural gas from the Sahara by ship. The French are the first Europeans to store gas in porous rock layers underground, creating artificial gas wells. The use of natural gas wherever it can replace coal or other fuels may help clean Europe's air.
But now, the automobile. The bulk of automobile exhaust is carbon dioxide and water vapor -- both of them harmless. Mixed in with this is carbon monoxide, a deadly poison; benzpyrene, a cancer agent; all sorts of other fumes produced by incomplete combustion of the gasoline. Add fumes from hot and half-burned oil, and a sloppage of raw gasoline. All this we breathe as we drive in each other's wake.
There's worse to come. It is what happens to automobile exhaust after it has blown away with the wind, and we've forgotten about it. At first it is invisible and unsmellable. Then, in the next few hours, under the influence of sunlight a lot of chemical reactions take place between the oxygen and water vapor of the air, the half-burned gasoline vapors, and similar pollutants from other sources. Entirely new substances form, both gases and submicroscopic droplets, with chemical names and chemical smells. And that is the famous smog of Los Angeles. Photochemical smog is the accurate name for it.
This stuff is bad in an entirely new way. It sickens trees and damages commercial crops. It irritates noses and lungs, makes eyes smart, cracks rubber tires. It cuts down visibility and spoils what once was a paradise on earth. It is a specialty of southern California because that region has so much sunshine and a car for just about every adult. But you see photochemical smog now also in New York, Rome, Paris, even in Honolulu. It has damaged growing tobacco in Connecticut, vegetables in Maryland. All it takes is a windless day, a lot of traffic, and sunshine.
California is trying to starve the smog of its raw material by stopping the flow of unburned and incompletely burned gasoline vapors into the air. Automobile exhaust can be cleaned up with ease -- in the laboratory. You simply run the exhaust gas through an afterburner, a chamber where the unburned or half-burned portions of it are burned up. The problem is how to build the same idea into a practical accessory that will do it on an automobile -- one that costs no more than, say, $100, lasts at least 10,000 miles, and works under all driving conditions.
So determined are Californians to clean up their air that they have done a novel thing in lawmaking: a law in full force now requires afterburners on all new cars sold in California -- starting a year after a special board will have certified at least two such devices as practical.
Another California law is already having effect. The smogmaking fumes an automobile spews out come not only from the exhaust pipe, but also from the crankcase breather tube, hidden under the hood. Beginning this year, new cars sold in California must have this vent connected to the air intake of the engine, so that the engine will suck these fumes back into itself and burn them up. In response to this California law, all American cars, for all markets, now have this arrangement. Many European makes have long had it.
It takes not only smoke to make a smog, but also a special weather setup. The air is clear on days when upward currents can carry the smoke away to high levels, and thin it out in the vast air ocean. The air gets thick on days when these upward currents are not working. What stops them? Normally the air aloft is colder than the air near the ground. Sometimes this normal condition is reversed, and a layer of warmer air lies aloft, on top of cooler air. Such an "inversion" acts as a lid. A batch of smoke rising from a chimney, for instance, the moment it rises into a warm-air layer finds itself cool by comparison, has no lift, and cannot rise farther. All the smoke gets trapped below the inversion.
The most dramatic of all air pollution problems, the classic London fog, is caused by a strong inversion which forms very low -- only 300 or 400 feet above the ground. Below this lid, the smoke of millions of coalburning fireplaces is trapped and can not get out. The inversion usually lasts several days. Visibility goes down to 5 yards officially; unofficially, you cannot see your own feet. The beastly stuff is a dirty yellow. Being not fog but almost solid coal smoke, it comes into the houses and does not dissolve, as real fog would.
The inversion that brings on Los Angeles smog is much higher --about 2500 to 4,000 feet. It leaves much more room for smoke to dissipate. But it is persistent. Elsewhere in the world, an inversion lasts a few days, then is blown away. The Southern California inversion can be there day and night all summer long.
Since inversions cause smog, could we blow them away? Could we somehow heat dirty air so it will balloon away? It would take too much energy -- megatons of heat every hour. The same goes for "smoke sewers" which would collect smoke and lead it to a super chimney high on a mountain: they would cost too much. Maybe someday we can spray chemicals from high-flying airplanes to clean the air.
But, for the present, the only known way to clean up our air is to put less smoke into it, and this needs the compulsion of law. It's much like taxes: nobody wants to do his share if he can't be sure that everybody else will pay up, too. Smog control is expensive. A catalytic cracking unit in a refinery may cost $7 million; smog-control equipment for it costs $3 million. An openhearth furnace in a steel plant may cost $200,000; smoke control costs another $150.000. A little drycleaning shop may need a $3,000 carbon filter. It is difficult for a business to go voluntarily to such expense.
Industry, therefore, generally fights back: First against smoke-control legislation in general, then against its detailed provisions, then against their enforcement. The arguments are always the same: "You'll drive jobs out of town." "It will price our product out of the market." "The stuff may stink, but you can't prove that it is a menace to health." "We have been making smoke here for 50 years. Why are we suddenly the villain?" None of these arguments is phony; some make good points.
Just the same, where public opinion is determined, smog control wins. The fact is that industry does not fight back very hard.
Often a company is quite willing to be compelled, provided only that its competitors are forced to go to the same expense. In the last analysis, if industrial costs rise across the board, the bill is paid by the public. And the rewards are very great: Apart from health angles there's the effect on real estate values, the savings in cleaning bills, the reduction in airline delays, and the overall effect on the community.
The world's most smog-controlled city is Los Angeles. Not only is there that seasonal prohibition of sulfurous fuels, but every other source of pollution is covered, too. In Los Angeles you can't burn refuse; you can't let raw gasoline vapors escape from storage tanks; you can't run a dry-cleaning shop, printing press, restaurant kitchen, dog food factory, coffee roasting plant without a vapor filter. You can't even make dust. Before a contractor starts an earth-moving job, he has to soak the ground deeply with water.
Industry has greatly cleaned up, at enormous cost. The refineries are almost odorless and smokeless. The Kaiser steel mill at Fontana is a good example of virtually smokeless steel making; it looks dead by contrast to the spectacular belchings of, say, South Chicago. The great remaining dirt source is the automobile, and the law about that is already in force.
All this may sound a little ridiculous, since Los Angeles is still so much troubled. But with its difficult climate and its enormous growth, Los Angeles would by now have disaster days if Californians acted as most other people act. If Los Angeles can hold its own, other cities can have their air crystal-clear.
A hundred years ago the civilized world made a great effort to get clean drinking water. At the time, this seemed unnecessary to some, impossible to others; but it was done. Now the world wants clean air.
(From Consumer Bulletin, September 1963] THE ROLE OF THE ALLERGIST IN THE BATTLE AGAINST AIR POLLUTION
(By Frank L. Rosen, M. D.)
In many respects we are the cleanest people in the world. Our teeth glisten and gleam. We bathe often with the finest soaps, use millions of dollars worth of deodorants lest our perspiration offend -- yet the air we breathe is dirty. And in this dirt there is danger.
Air pollution, a major peril to all of us, is a far greater menace to our allergic patients. They also are more susceptible to variations in weather, and changing weather factors themselves may induce asthma without the existence of any air pollution problem. When a combination of both factors occurs. then allergic patients are hit much harder than the general population.
Epidemics of air pollution with resultant bronchial asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory and cardiac aggravations have been described in medical literature and received wide coverage by the lay press. I reported one such incident in New Jersey which occurred in November 1953. The individual patient, however, who gets asthma, bronchitis, running nose, burning of the eyes, etc., from polluted air, has received remarkably little attention. In his search for the cause of these symptoms, rarely does the general physician or even the allergist consider air pollution as a cause.
The menace of air pollution is great. Yet, strangely enough, most people consider it no more than a minor annoyance, like an unusual, irritating odor or a larger laundry bill, although it causes losses in the United States estimated at $1.5 to $11 billion a year. We are more disturbed by local sewage problems, and certainly by the more dramatic but less universally, encountered problem of cancer related to smoking.
AIR POLLUTION MORE IMPORTANT THAN SMOKING?
Benzpyrene is a leading chemical substance that is blamed as a cause of lung cancer. "It was estimated that the average quantities of benzpyrene inhaled by persons exposed for a year ranged from 0.1 microgram in a State forest to 150 microgram in one of the cities. By comparison, it was estimated (in a U.S. Public 'Health Service publication) that a person smoking one pack of cigarettes daily for a year, might be exposed to 60 micrograms. Thus, a person breathing the air of some cities over a year's time might inhale as much benzpyrene as from smoking two packs of cigarettes daily." Hoffman and Wynder of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research have reported finding that gasoline engine exhaust gas condensate contains agents that promote tumors on mouse skin. Its tumor activity was compared to that of corresponding concentrates of cigarette smoke condensate.
It was found that the tumor potency was about two times higher for the exhaust tar than for the cigarette smoke condensate. Thus one can see that air pollution is just as important, if not more so, than cigarette smoking in the causation of lung cancer. Unfortunately, one can give up smoking but one cannot give up breathing polluted air.
AIR POLLUTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLES
A 40-year-old woman moved to a new home within a block of a heavily traveled highway. Her asthma attacks increased in both frequency and severity and were relieved only when she moved to a new area.
A 40-year-old man gets asthma attacks chiefly on his way to work and coming home from work, while he is in heavy traffic surrounded by noxious fumes. This is such a widespread occurrence that it is essential that our cars be equipped to make exhaust products innocuous or nearly so, regardless of cost. During New York City's unprecedented ban on nonessential vehicles during the February 1961 blizzard, air pollution dropped dramatically, by 66 percent.
AIR POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRIAL FACTORS
I have several patients who get asthma attacks on days when the wind blows a pollutant from a nearby factory. I also have a patient who gets asthma only on days when a neighboring chemical plant makes penicillin. The meteorologist at a nearby airport informed me that many people who work there have nasal and bronchial symptoms when pollutants are blown in from local industrial areas by the winds. A new offender, at large airports is the jet plane. The takeoff of one commercial jetliner has been estimated to create a quantity of air pollution equivalent to that produced by 6,850 passenger cars.
In industrial medicine we see patients whose asthma attacks have been precipitated by minute concentrations of chemicals in the factory air. These triggered attacks often persist for years, causing untold headaches for the courts in compensation cases.
AIR POLLUTION FROM SPRAY AND INSECTICIDES
Rachel Carson, in her recent bestselling book, "Silent Spring," dramatically portrays the universally harmful effects of insecticides and sprays. The allergic patient suffers to a far greater extent not only from the toxicity but from sensitization reactions.
Recently, I saw a 9-year-old boy who would come home with asthma after attending day camp. At first I thought it was due to exertion or exposure to pollens and molds in the fields. I later found that these factors were not the cause, but that he had been exposed to spray in the area. It seems that many day camps spray the grounds daily with insecticides before camp starts, and sufficient time was not allowed for complete dispersion of the vapor.
AIR POLLUTION FROM LEAF BURNING
In October, in the suburbs, leaf burning becomes a menace for patients with allergic respiratory disease. In New Jersey, the Air Pollution Control Code states:
"Prohibition of air pollution: No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit to be emitted into the outdoor atmosphere substances in quantities which shall result in air pollution."
Note well, however, that "open burning of plant life grown on the premises is not intended to be covered by this code." In other words, you may burn your own leaves in your own backyard, even if your neighbor gets an asthma attack from the smoke. Many towns have passed local ordinances prohibiting the burning of leaves because of a fire or pollution hazard. Other towns have passed laws that such burning may be stopped if it is a nuisance to a neighbor. Certain towns in New Jersey, like many others elsewhere, do nothing, because they say, "We cannot afford the cartage and many people will not use the leaves for compost."
The allergist must take the lead in warning the health officers, the physicians, and the public as to the dangers that leaf burning adds to the air pollution problem.
AIR POLLUTION FROM RAGWEED POLLEN
Unfortunately, a patient may listen to the pollen count on the radio, read it in the newspapers and, if it is high, his symptoms are increased by the power of suggestion. Often these pollen counts are taken many miles from his environment, and have little relationship to the count in his immediate area. It is the pollen that is in his own environment that is important.
I have a large framed picture of a ragweed plant in my examining room. Not long ago, I saw a 30-year-old woman with severe hay fever symptoms who looked at the picture and asked, "Is this ragweed? Does this cause my hay fever? It's growing very high right outside my bedroom window. It even comes into the bedroom." She was getting a pollen count of thousands when the reported count was ten. Her symptoms cleared dramatically when her husband cleared up the backyard.
Meteorologic factors are just as pertinent as the amount of pollen produced. The pollen is borne on the wind and its direction is of primary importance. For example, hay fever patients who live in shore areas do well on days with an ocean breeze, but with an inland breeze their symptoms are similar to those of their inland brothers in distress. Pollen can blow into a community from 100 miles distant. So local laws, even if they are strictly enforced, do comparatively little to cut down the amount of pollen in the air.
WHAT CAN ALLERGISTS ACTUALLY DO ABOUT All POLLUTION?
We can think about air pollution as a cause of symptoms of many of our patients. I am convinced, after being in the practice of allergy for 25 yews, that many asthmatics are wrongly labeled psychosomatic, when their trouble is actually coming from polluted air. Studies are now going on in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Nashville, and other cities to determine the effect of air pollution on bronchial asthma. Far more work of this nature is needed.
The U.S. Public Health Service, the State, city, and county health departments are eager to cooperate with us, but allergists must be the ones to inform them of the particular problems of the allergic patient. We must initiate interdisciplinary conferences where we can exchange information with health officers, engineers, botanists, etc. After all, our patients are more susceptible than anyone else to air pollution factors, and the more we learn about this subject the more we can do to make their environment and that of all the rest of us a healthier and more pleasant place to live in.
We have taken great strides, in other fields, at preventive medicine, but we are only beginning to grapple with the vital problem of air pollution. The air is a giant open sewer, and since we have no choice but to breathe it, it is high time we paid some attention to the garbage we spew into it.
ADDITIONAL POINTS FROM DR. ROSEN'S ATLANTIC CITY PAPER, READ BEFORE A SESSION OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Medical evidence has been piling up in the past few years that air pollution is deadly. It can kill you quickly, as it did 4,000 in London in 1 week in December 1952, or 400 in a week in December 1962. It can kill you slowly with an earlier death from prolonged chronic illness like lung cancer, bronchial asthma, chronic bronchitis or emphysema.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND AIR POLLUTION
Motor vehicles cause 60 to 80 percent of the pollution problem in cities. "I thought they had something to put on a car now so that it's harmless," is a remark I hear frequently. The comment refers to the crankcase ventilating device (blow by). It seems to me that the public is being lulled into a false sense of security with this mechanism.
So far as I know, no practical solution has yet been achieved for the tail pipe exhaust, which is responsible for at least 70 percent of the air pollution from motor vehicles.
LEAF BURNING
"Last year at least one and possibly two deaths were reported in local papers of asthmatic children who died after inhaling the smoke of burning leaves," says a Long Island, N.Y., physician.
THE RAGWEED PROBLEM
In a letter to the NW York Times. dated August 2, 1959, Dr. Louis Mamelok stated, "Many years ago, after the first frost, when hay fever sufferers (in New York City) stopped sneezing, their symptoms returned. The cause was a windstorm from Louisiana, bringing ragweed pollen from an area where frost had not appeared yet."
A booklet on hay fever revised by the Allergy Foundation of America in August 1962, states, "The seed of ragweed may lie dormant in the soil for 20 years, so that weed eradication must be continued for many successive seasons."
The Air Pollution Code of my own State, New Jersey (January 1962), certainly gives authority for eradication of ragweed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendments to be offered, the Chair places before the Senate the House bill, which will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R. 6518) to improve, strengthen, and accelerate programs for the prevention and abatement of air pollution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. IS there objection to the consideration of the House bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to strike out all after the enacting clause in the House bill, and insert in lieu thereof the text of S. 432, as amended.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
The bill (H.R. 6518) was read the third time and passed.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate bill, S. 432, is indefinitely postponed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House of Representatives thereon, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Maine.
The motion was agreed to; and the Chair appointed Mr. MUSKIE, Mr.
RANDOLPH, Mr. Moss, Mr. METCALF, Mr. BOGGS, and Mr. PEARSON conferees on the part of the Senate.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it is my intention to call up another bill, on which I understand the debate will not take too much time. Before I do so, I would be derelict in my duties and responsibilities if I did not commend the distinguished junior Senator from Maine. In this session he has reported to the Senate two extremely worthwhile bills, among others, one having to do with water pollution, and, today, the bill having to do with air pollution. He is to be commended for the initiative and consideration he has shown with respect to these two most difficult problems. The same goes for the distinguished ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS].
All members of the subcommittee and of the Committee on Public Works, which reported the bill to the Senate, are entitled to the thanks of the Senate and the country. A special vote of thanks should go to the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], who, as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare did so much to get these programs started, and deserves great credit.