(There follows data on results of air monitoring program and yearly summary for 1964:)

1 Station began operations in March.

2 Second highest 5-minute value. Maximum value of 0.85 was suspect.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Such disparities in the data indicate at least that there is need for further research. The figures do not establish photochemical smog as a major problem in the other communities listed.

For these other communities, and the Nation as a whole, it is important to note that a reduction of 30 to 40 percent of total vehicle emissions of unburned hydrocarbons was achieved in 1963 model automobiles by use of crankcase blowby controls on gasoline-powered vehicles, following 2 years of experience with blowby control equipment on automobiles in California.

In States and communities where the problem is much less than in Los Angeles, the automobile manufacturers' efforts already are an important factor in reducing the air burden as far as unburned hydrocarbons are concerned.

An important purpose of this statement today is to bring your committee up to date on the efforts of the vehicle manufacturers during the past year, and the progress made in coming into compliance with the California emissions standards.

We also desire to comment on proposals for Federal standards, the need for logical and effective procedures-whether on the Federal or State basis-and to offer some specific comments about the legislation proposed in S. 306.

If you would like, Mr. Chairman, we can move right ahead on the other statements. Whatever you prefer.

Senator MUSKIE. May I ask one or two questions, Mr. Williams? First of all, I would like to thank you for your statement, for its constructive tone, and for the effort you obviously have made to offer useful suggestions.

This is always most helpful. However you might disagree with the bill or its objective, I think that it is always very helpful to us in the legislative level to get suggestions, for sometimes suggestions from people who disagree are often more helpful than suggestions from those who agree.

I think you have found that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Senator. We have felt with the 12 years' experience we have had perhaps there is something we can be helpful in.

Senator MUSKIE. I am sure there is. You devoted some portion of your statement to developing the nature of the air pollution problem and its extent, and you have referred to some data in previous hearings by this subcommittee and have emphasized some portions of it. I gather, but I want to make clear, that there is no doubt in your mind that air pollution is a problem, and that it is a growing one and that it has an impact upon people and upon their health that makes it inevitably a matter of public concern.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is no doubt in our minds about that point, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. Now there is some disagreement, of course, among people who have been exposed to this problem, as to the degree to which we must define with precision its exact nature, dimensions, and ingredients before we institute actions and programs to deal with it. You have referred in your statement generously to my speech to the municipal officials on water quality standards. Now the objective of water quality standards is to apply some preventive measures so we

can avoid the development of the problem to the point where surgery is needed rather than the less drastic preventive medicine.

Frankly, that is what we are concerned with in the air pollution problem. I think that we are fortunate that this problem has been identified in a relatively early stage of its development so we are in a better position to apply preventive medicine.

We don't really know, I think I am right in this, what the accumulative residual effects of air pollution may be, what permanent impact it may or may not be making upon the quality of the atmosphere which surrounds this planet.

I think the possibilities in this connection were brought to our attention by nuclear fallout in connection with the development of hydrogen bombs. I think we believe quite strongly that there is a residual effect that we may never be able to wash away totally in the atmosphere from that development.

We are worried that maybe there is this same kind of accumulating residual effect attributable to other sources of air pollution. This is one of the reasons that I think the public itself is developing a strong feeling of urgency about it even in States like mine where air pollution couldn't conceivably be described as an immediate problem.

I think you will agree with this or I am asking whether or not you would agree with this general observation.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think we would with the general observation, Senator. But there is so little information beyond what has been developed so very capably and so well in California. There is very little information on which to base action in other cities and large communities and the like.

We are talking here about a rather severe economic penalty on the motorist which we think should be given careful consideration. I mean in some areas perhaps what we are already doing, which is the crankcase device, may prove to be sufficient.

Senator MUSKIE. In reply to your first question: Does a nationwide photochemical smog problem exist? We held hearings in Los Angeles. They believe there is one in their area. We have held hearings in Denver, the Mountain City. They believe there is a problem in their area, and they believe it so strongly they have begun a program and undertaken some costs to deal with it there.

We have held hearings in Boston. They believe there is a problem in their area. We have held hearings in Chicago. They believe there is a problem in their area. We have held hearings in New York. They believe there is a problem in their area. We have held hearings in Florida. They believe there is a problem in their area.

Every year I drive with my family several times from Washington to Maine over the expressways, some 700 miles of them, that go through several of ours States. I can tell you that I believe there is a problem all along that route. So I have no doubt in my mind that there is a nationwide photochemical smog problem.

I have no doubt also that it has not been as fully explored in a scientific sense, in the laboratory sense, as perhaps we should eventually before we know exactly what it means in terms of impact on health. But I am equally sure that the existence of a problem is so clear that we ought not to wait until we have identified with all of the precision that a laboratory technician would like to identify the elements of

an experiment or aspects of a problem before we take some action. Mr. DELANEY. Senator, could I make an observation here? Senator MUSKIE. Yes, indeed.

Mr. DELANEY. In regard to your remarks, Senator, the magnitude of the problem in these different areas varies greatly. The hearings before your committee, of course, in most cases are based on opinions and not actually on actual determinations of the extent of the problem in those cities.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me tell you something of the kind of opinion. I can recall in Los Angeles, the testimony from several doctors. We asked them what is the impact of air pollution in this area upon health. Doctor after doctor told us, "Well, we don't know exactly. But also doctor after doctor told us of death after death in which they have been involved and have had to certify to the death they have found, to them in their judgment, unmistakable evidence of deterioration of human lungs which they attribute only to the growth of air pollution. They would be the first to agree that this is not the kind of precise laboratory identification that the problem is caused by air pollution, that as scientists they would insist upon a laboratory experiment.

But in terms of identifying a problem that cries for the attention of the public policymakers of that area, they are convinced that it exists.

Mr. WILLIAMS. We agree on the Los Angeles situation.

Mr. DELANEY. There is no question that the Los Angeles situation is severe. However, on health I will make the observation that the American Society after a 2-year survey of people in and out of the smog belt in California, reported they were unable to find any correlation between lung cancer or breathing or anything of that kind in the two areas.

In other words, they were unable to find any significant difference. Senator MUSKIE. As far as I am concerned, it is not necessary to postpone action until we are convinced that air pollution causes cancer before we act. I think there are some lesser degrees of impact upon health that ought to concern us. More than that, I will say in connection with smoking, the effect of tobacco upon the lungs is a problem that was possible to isolate for the purpose of study to a much greater degree than it is possible to isolate the pollutants of air for testing. But it has taken a long, long time to establish a correlation between smoking and cancer that will convince my wife. She insists on continuing to smoke. Yet, I do not smoke and I am convinced that there is a correlation.

So I do not know how final and definitively you have to establish correlation of air pollution to cancer before you deal with the problem of air pollution.

Mr. DELANEY. I don't want to interfere into a discussion of that phase of the problem. We are not qualified to discuss that.

Senator MUSKIE. You know, when you are in my position you are supposed to be qualified to discuss something you do not know anything about. [Laughter.]

Mr. DELANEY. What I did want to point out is that in some of the areas which you cited. I have also had contact with people in those areas. For instance, in Denver the impression I got there was that they feel that the 30 to 40 percent control which we are already proving in our crankcase emissions would be adequate in their area.

In Chicago I got the same impression. Now, probably I talked to different people than you did, but nevertheless, this points up the fact that even the experts disagree on the degree of control that apparently is necessary.

Now the important thing, as I see it, however, is that we are at the present time on our vehicles eliminating 30 to 40 percent of the hydrocarbons which enter into photochemical smog and we are doing that on a nationwide basis.

Senator MUSKIE. And you think this is a good thing to do on a nationwide basis.

Mr. DELANEY. Senator, when we installed these in California, at that time we said we were willing to supply them wherever they were wanted and needed.

The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare said they were needed on a nationwide basis, so we supplied them.

Senator MUSKIE. The question is where they are wanted and needed. One of the most difficult problems that I think we face, I am speaking now of all of us as individuals, is the problem of avoiding a problem before it emerges. In the field of water pollution, for example, in my State where we have almost unlimited water, I suspect one of the reasons that we failed to come to grips with it as effectively as we should is the feeling that we have so much water, why should we worry if a stream here or there is polluted beyond redemption.

I am sure this was the attitude for a long, long time. The result is that now on three of our major river systems in the State we have surgical problems. Industry comes to us, rightly so because we must be concerned with the economic facts of life as well as others, and says, "Well, you can't force us to clean this up because you will close us down."

Now if they had provided a little preventive medicine at the outset they wouldn't face the surgical problem. We find rather than the unlimited sources of water supply that we once thought we had, we have to begin worrying about getting enough water for industrial uses. Just within the last month in my State we faced the problem of whether or not we were going to establish a sugarbeet industry in the State. And whether or not we were going to establish the industry depended on whether or not the stream on which the refinery was to be located had enough oxygen content to deal with the pollution problem of the sugarbeet industry. We almost had to turn away the possibility of providing some diversification of the agriculture problem of one of the important counties because there was not enough water for industry.

I am not talking only about fish or recreation. We are also talking about industrial requirements for water. Now if we applied ourselves a little earlier to the technological difficulties and had come up with answers to that water pollution, we might have avoided that kind of a crisis.

We resolved it how? By deliberately giving more time to dirty up the water more in order to give us the time to develop an answer to the problem. Here in the air it seems to me we have a classic opportunity to do something about a problem in a preventive sense rather than waiting until we are convinced by absolute demonstration.