Mr. GUDE. I have thought about this. Maryland has adopted a very good air pollution statute and they are working on this problem. I feel that our regional approach under our Council of Governments here is a very workable way to tackle the problem. Possibly this might be formalized in an interstate compact at a future time, but I think we are showing a cooperative regional approach can work.

Mr. MULTER. At any rate, there is ample legislative authority in the Commissioners, or in the Commissioner who will succeed the Commissioners, to work out some compact and then, of course, if necessary, bring it before the Congress for approval.

Mr. GUDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Winn.

Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend Congressman Gude for the many hours that he spent on this problem. It is one of the first things he tied into right after he was elected and sworn in. Many of us throughout the nation have also been greatly concerned about the air pollution problem.

Congressman Gude, we have done some anti-pollution work in our Greater Kansas City area which has much heavier industry than we have around here. But we have also found that many of the antipollution devices are not available. I noticed in your statement on Page 3, next to the last paragraph, you said "For those governmental agencies, industries and individuals unable to comply with the standards set in the legislation, Section 15, on Page 20, would provide for an exemption procedure. Exemptions, however, cannot be authorized for a period to exceed one year."

Now I am no expert on this by any means. There may be some experts in the room. But I understand from some of the local authorities in my district that the anti-pollution equipment is not available and cannot be secured. The manufacturers are way behind on production. This is a vital consideration. Possibly that one-year compliance deadline might be too strict through it is important to attack pollution as quickly as possible.

But if the necessary anti-pollution devices are not available to industry, then they would be in an untenable situation even though they may want to purchase the appliances.

Mr. GUDE. I agree with you that one year in regard to some of these problems could be too short a time. However, you can renew the exemptions. The philosophy behind the one-year exemption period is that the person who cannot comply or does not wish to comply has to come back and defend their lack of compliance and get the exemption renewed. So I think, as I said, this merely puts the people who cannot comply or do not wish to comply on notice that they are subject to review.

Mr. MULTER. In other words, if they are making an honest effort to secure these machines or this equipment then they could receive an extra year or six months, whatever their delivery date might be? Mr. GUDE. Exactly.

Mr. WINN. Are you talking about a national program? Is that what you have in mind?

Mr. GUDE. Well, this legislation, of course, applies only to the District of Columbia, and these standards would apply to the District. I think they have been drawn up keeping the problems of this region

in mind because they were done by this regional Council of Governments.

Mr. WINN. As I understand it there are some national standards that have been made by the U.S. Government for other cities.

Mr. GUDE. I think the idea of this legislation would be that the national standards as far as automobiles would be tied in.

Mr. WINN. I really was thinking more of industry than I was of automobiles-the point being that there has been a discrepancy of opinion again on which types of equipment and which procedures are acceptable and not acceptable. There are several cities that have tried to originate their own air pollution control systems and because of the differences of opinion on what will work and what won't work they can't seem to get these programs off the ground. Maybe they are purposely dragging their feet. I am quite sure some cities are using this as an excuse so they won't have to spend a lot of money or industries in their cities will not have to do so.

Mr. GUDE. Well, I think that, as I said, these standards were drawn up in conjunction with staff people in the Public Health Service, and I am sure they do not deviate from the pretty well accepted national standards. The contention is made that how can we live if we have a standard set for one area that is not set in other areas. I go back to the point I made about the detergent industry in my testimony that various jurisdictions were alarmed about the problem of detergents which were not biodegradable going into waters and polluting them and causing a lot of trouble in sewage plants. The contention was our industry can't possibly live, unless we have uniform legislation, but then a biodegradable detergent was developed and the problem was licked. I think that if Congress or the other legislative body showed that they do feel we have to conform to certain standards as far as air pollution is concerned, we are going to get industry developing what is necessary to lick the problem.

I think the system of exemptions that we provided here gives the flexibility to the law so there is no injury done to somebody who is making an honest effort to conform.

Mr. WINN. I do think the detergent industry as a group has tried. Of course, they have been badly criticized in the press and probably logically so in a great many cases. But I think they have made an outstanding effort to try to cure their problems. They have problems that are unusual.

I think, Mr. Chairman, if this Committee, before we do anything, would take a ride through the D.C. area behind some of these buses and cars from 5:30 to 6:30 at night and then take an evening ride down the Potomac, we could come up with some ideas of our own. Mr. MULTER. Yes.

Mr. WINN. I am not talking about water pollution.

Mr. MULTER. If we are not asphyxiated as we make the tour.

Thank you, Mr. Gude. I would appreciate it, if you have the time, if you would join us here and participate throughout. You will be free to ask questions of any of the witnesses that are called and we would like to have your cooperation.

Mr. GUDE. Thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. MULTER. Next is our colleague from New York, Mr. Horton.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK HORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before you and your distinguished colleagues on the committee to testify in support of the several companion measures to control air pollution in the District of Columbia. As a sponsor of one of these bills, H.R. 10017, I am gratified that you and the other committee members have acted so promptly to consider this much needed legislation.

Although I am a member of the House District of Columbia Committee, I shared the surprise of many of my colleagues when it was announced early this spring that the District of Columbia has the fourth worst air pollution problem in the Nation. Each of us is constantly exposed to air pollution and its effects and, as a result, we become complacent about the problem. To most of us air pollution is only a problem when atmospheric conditions in a particular locale are such that stagnate air poses an immediate and visible threat to life and property.

Many of us fail to recognize that air pollution continually threatens our health and property. "Crisis" levels of pollution occasionally cause people to collapse in the streets from suffocation in one degree or another but even worse is the fact that "normal" levels of pollution cause or aggravate respiratory diseases in tens of thousands of Americans. The unrelenting corrosion of metal exposed to the polluted urban atmosphere is not particularly dramatic but the property damage totals many millions of dollars annually.

Those who deal directly with the causes and effects of air pollution. are increasingly aware of the fact that the Nation is faced with a problem of crisis proportions. Fortunately this concern by those working in the field of pollution abatement and control has awaken public officials: to the crisis which confronts America. It is now generally recognized that all levels of government must act immediately to relieve the problem.

I am pleased that my own State of New York has been a leader in acting to solve the problem. With the aid of Federal enabling legisla tion, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Connecticut are joining in an interstate compact to combat air pollution. These States have established pollution control standards within this regional airshed as the first step in a far-ranging attack on the problem which confronts them all.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation which your Committee is considering today exemplifies the type of legislation which every city in the country should adopt as a first step in combatting air pollution. These bills, drafted by the Metropolitan Council of Government in the District of Columbia, are truly model legislation of general applicability. It is therefore particularly appropriate that such a bill be adopted by the Congress for the District.

If air pollution is to be controlled, all levels of government must be committed to difficult courses of action. The authors of these bills recognize this fact and set such a course for the District government. For instance, the selection of the fuel to be used by a householder or industry was formerly regarded as a decision totally within the discretion of the individuals involved. However, with over seventy percent of the population today living in urban areas, the range of

the individual's discretion must be narrowed if the health, safety and welfare of one's neighbors are to be preserved. Accordingly, these bills ban the use of fuels with a sulfur content of more than one percent. This is but one example of the hard decisions which must be made in the near future if our atmosphere is to remain breathable. I commend all agencies of local, State and Federal government which have had the courage to reach these decisions, and I urge this Committee to likewise act for the mutual benefit of Washingtonians by favorably reporting a strong air pollution control measure to the whole House.

Mr. MULTER. I would like to say before calling the next witness that while we will not make it a part of our record, we have before us for reference when we get into the executive sessions on the bill an 833-page volume of testimony entitled "Problems of Air Pollution in the District of Columbia", being Joint Hearings of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia Subcommittee on Business and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare and Safety, 90th Cong., 1st sess., during March, 1967. Our attention has also been called to the following bills that have been introduced by members of the Congress, indicating there is wide interest in the matter. These bills, while they will not be made a part of the record, will be by reference before us in our executive session.

The numbers of those bills are as follows: They are all House bills, H.R.10, H.R. 42, H.R. 668, H.R. 818, H.R. 819, H.R. 896, H.R. 1199, H.R. 2050, 3126, H.R 3293, H.R. 3583, H.R. 4279, H.R. 4322, H.R. 4340, H.R. 4527, H.R. 4528, H.R. 4874, H.R. 5088, H.R. 6488, H.R. 6801, H.R. 6829, H.R 6830, and H.R. 7740.

I might say while some of these are duplications to indicate cosponsorship, many of them indicate a different approach to the solution to the same problem. I am sure our attention will also be called to the bills that have been introduced in various state legislatures covering the same problems.

Our next witness this morning will be Mr. Griswold from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. Griswold, please..

STATEMENT OF S. SMITH GRISWOLD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ABATEMENT AND CONTROL, NATIONAL CENTER FOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY VERNON MACKENZIE, ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF DISEASE PREVENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Winn, Congressman Gude.

My name is S. Smith Griswold and I am Associate Director for Abatement and Control, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to express my appreciation for your efforts to insure the development of a modern and effective program for the prevention and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia.

Air pollution is clearly a significant problem both in the District of Columbia and the Washington metropolitan area. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Gardner has called for Federal action to help deal with the interstate aspects of this problem. Within the next few months, we expect to hold an abatement conference, at which Federal, State and local representatives will have an opportunity to participate in the development of recommendations for controlling sources of interstate air pollution throughout the metropolitan area. Other opportunities to plan an effective attack on the Washington area's air pollution problems already exist. The activities of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments are a continuing source of such opportunities. The Solid Waste Management Conference held last. month by the Public Health Service provided a forum for examining ways to deal with one of the important classes of air pollution sources in the washington area-the disposal of refuse by open burning and incineration.

In short, air pollution in the Washington area is beginning to receive the high degree of attention it so clearly demands. This is indeed encouraging. But we must bear in mind that the extent to which attention will be translated into action will depend in very large measure on the activities of the State and local governments in the Washington area; unless they are all prepared to develop and carry on effective programs for the prevention and control of air pollution, the opportunities for progress toward cleaner air will be largely missed. There can be no doubt that the District of Columbia is ill-prepared to take advantage of these opportunities. The current program for the prevention and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia is clearly inadequate, in considerable measure because the existing statutory authority for the program is obsolete. For the most part, air pollution control activities in the District are conducted under the provisions of a law passed more than 30 years ago.

Since then, the population of the District has jumped from 486,000 to 800,000. This growth has led in turn to greatly increased demands for heat and electric power; at the same time, the use of motor vehicles and production of refuse have both increased at faster rates than the population. These trends have helped to create air pollution problems of much greater magnitude and complexity than any which existed 30 years ago.

Of equal importance is the vast change that has taken place in scientific and public awareness of the dimensions of urban air pollution problems. In the 1930's, most law dealing with air pollution, including that in the District, were intended almost entirely for the abatement of visible smoke and only to the extent that such smoke constituted a nuisance. But we know now that smoke is just part of the total air pollution problem and, most importantly, the air pollution is not a mere nuisance but, rather, a serious threat to our health and welfare.

The statute passed 30 years ago in the District of Columbia simply does not provide an adequate basis for dealing with the modern air pollution problem in all its complex ramifications. A new statute clearly is needed if the District of Columbia is to succeed in attacking its existing air pollution problem and in preventing that problem from worsening.