and Federal agencies responsible for the development of transportation systems have tended to overlook pollution aspects of various transportation designs and emphasis has been placed on expanded highway construction. Today, as a result, the average American spends some 13% of each working day breathing in the fumes of the car in front of him. And to further aggravate the problem, we are now producing automobiles faster than we are producing people. This trend makes our battle to offset automotive contamination similar to a journey on a tread mill.

Although any meaningful use of mass transit will involve substantial public investment, relatively modest support of innovations with existing transit systems could have noticeable effects on auto use. As an example, a recent high speed rail project from the Village of Skokie to downtown Chicago initiated by the Chicago Transit Authority, with financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, shifted approprixately 2,000 auto trips to mass transit facilities. Federal spending related to programs of this type could change commuter travel patterns and significantly reduce air pollution.

In this regard, there is growing interest in legislative programs for mass transit. Last spring I joined with 40 of my colleagues in proposing a bill to provide $10 billion in Federal expenditures over the next 4 years for mass transit conveyances; and to establish a mass transit Trust Fund to be administered by the Department of Transportation.

While local innovation for mass transit has not been overwhelming, the amount of federal assistance available for highways has been so much greater than that for mass transit that cities have never really been given equitable options when considering transportation systems. This bill would greatly help to put mass transit on a par with highways and thus help to alleviate a major source of air pollution.

POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

With regard to other Federal efforts in the fight for a healthy environment, I feel serious consideration should be given to legislation which would prohibit the issuance of federal government contracts to those industries which do not meet certain pollution control standards.

We find precedent for such a measure in the Equal Opportunity Employment Act and the Health and Safety Construction Act. These regulations insure equal employment and safe working standards for our nation's labor force. Can we do less in protecting them and all our citizens from the health hazards of pollution? The federal government has taken a first step in assuming its responsibility in this area through the Federal Facilities Air Pollution Abatement Program. The July, 1968 progress report shows a total of 387 installations implementing 442 remedial action programs. This program is commendable and its extension into all areas of federal contracting would seem logical and valuable.

In considering a proposal such as this, we immediately face the dilemma of setting uniform yet just standards. Do we commission the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to promulgate national emission standards? In accord'ance with most recent legislation, it would seem that air quality control regions would provide the most effective and equitable standards. In this way, each application for a federal contract could be reviewed in light of the applicant's compliance with emission standards in his air quality control region. If national emission standards were adopted, these could be applied to applicants not located in air quality control regions.

There are questions technically and administratively which would have to be studied before a proposal such as this could become a reality; but we cannot afford to neglect any reasonable and feasible effort in this fight to control the pollution threat.

This possibility of establishing pollution standards for government contractors, together with national industrial emission standards, the establishment of a guaranteed market for low emission vehicles, and federal funding for development of mass transit systems, represents constructive ways in which the Federal government can contribute to air pollution control efforts. However, only a public policy which is contributed to by every level of government, by industry, and by all citizens can effectively alleviate the dangers of air pollution. This has been the objective of the Air Quality Act of 1967: to promote and encourage the development of policies and institutions geared to the regional nature of air pollution problems. Whether this policy succeeds will depend on

the degree of commitment we get from State and local government, from industry, and from the taxpayer and citizen.

There are cynics, I am sure, that would argue that the Air Quality Control Act, in placing emphasis on State and local efforts, runs against the lessons of history because the lesson of our federal system is that, increasingly, State and local government and local and private groups find it difficult to successfully deal with public problems until there is no recourse but national policy, national agencies and national enforcement.

I reject their argument. Although this may or may not be the lesson of history, it cannot be the lesson of the future. We must undertake in ways suggested by the Air Quality Act, and possibly by the further federal efforts I have suggested, to revitalize the policy-making processes of our country at the State and local level and revitalize the idea that public policy is not only the product of public agencies, but of the private sector and of concerned citizens.

I believe that in St. Louis we have the concerned citizenry so necessary to the formation of effective public policy. And this concern is to be encouraged. It is greatly stimulated by the warnings of ecologists all over the world who are alerting us to the dangers of our continuing desecration of the natural environment. Air pollution is only a part of man's disregard for the delicate balance of nature upon which life on this planet depends.

None of us would like to think he is contributing to the evolution of a world populated-in the words of Missouri Botanical Gardens Director, David Gatesby "half-starved, depressed billions gasping in air depleted of exygen and laden with pollutants, thirsting for thickened, blighted water." But tragic air pollution incidents within the last twenty years indicate that this may be the very course we are pursuing.

"The problem of earth hygiene", as Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov has said, "is highly complex and closely tied to economic and social problems. This problem can therefore not be solved on a national and especially not on a local basis." Certainly, strong programs to control pollution in our country will be a step in the right direction. But the ultimate salvation of our global environment requires that we surmount political and ideological differences, and work together as members of the family of man to care more for our planet home.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Congressman Symington, for a very thoughtful and provocative statement. I appreciate your quoting from those "learned air pollution experts" Pogo and Aristotle. The only significant one you omitted was Hugh Heffner.

I must say that one line in your statement needs to be underscored. "We are all at fault." I think that is completely true. It is not the purpose of this hearing to try to point the finger of guilt at any one person, any one company, or any one group. We have individuals and companies that are not doing what they should be doing, but we are all at fault-all of us-the totality of the American citizenry has contributed to the dilemma that we face, not only in this city but elsewhere as well.

Let me say to you, Congressman Symington that I have read your statement. We had it in advance. It will be made part of the record in its entirety. One of your points relates to national industrial emission standards. Aside from the debate over the propriety of national emission standards-which can be strongly debated either way-even if a Senate committee and the Senate were to recommend it, the continuing stumbling block in national standards, I think you well know, is the U.S. House of Representatives. We would appreciate, if we would deem to go that route, such assistance as you could give us with the conferees representing the House committee. Specifically, your fourth point deals with pollution standards for Government contracts. A provision analogous to this in the field of water quality has been passed by the U.S. Senate, and it is now in conference with the House. It will be interesting to see whether the House conferees who are loath to accept national standards, loath to let the Federal Government set

38-702-702

the policy nationwide, will accept this precedent in the Water Quality Act. If they do, it would be an encouraging precedent to translate. We are in conference on that now, and time will tell.

I would like to invite Congressman Symington to join us here at the committee table. He is catching a plane to Washington. If he has a few minutes to spend, we would be glad to permit him to question any witnesses that follow him.

At this time I would like to place in the record a statement by another Symington. We do have a fine statement from his father, and my senior colleague in the U.S. Senate, Senator Stuart Symington. It will be made a part of the record.

(The prepared statement of Senator Stuart Symington follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. STUART SYMINGTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MISSOURI

CAUTION: BREATHING MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

Recently my office received a bumper sticker printed in St. Louis which read, "Eliminate Pollution Before Pollution Eliminates You." Many people may believe this an overstatement, but as a result of the four-day air pollution emergency which St. Louis experienced in August, our residents now know that this message should not be taken too lightly.

I was in St. Louis at the time of the air pollution alert and remember experts saying that just breathing the air was comparable to smoking four packs of cigarettes a day.

During that four day period, as so many St. Louisans know, our city was afflicted with discomfort, ugliness, and in some cases personal tragedy, as pollution became trapped in the city by an atmospheric quirk.

I have been informed that the peculiar phenomenon which occurred in St. Louis results when warm air traps cooler surface air, thus cutting off vertical circulation. This is called an "inversion"; and if at the same time there are no lateral surface winds to disperse the gases and other effluents pouring into the air, a "stagnation" is produced, and may be compared to a lid being clamped over a city trapping pollution inside.

In recent years, as air pollution has increased, "stagnations" have become more and more common and have contributed to an alarming number of deaths among people suffering from respiratory ailments and cardio-vascular diseases.

As example, "stagnations" have stricken London and many other cities with increasing frequency in the past two decades, taking a high toll of life. In four days, from December 5 to December 9, 1952, some 4000 excess deaths were attributed to pollution blanketing London. Almost a dozen other serious instances of pollution concentration have been recorded in that city since the 1952 nightmare. One of the most noted examples of a "stagnation" in the United States occurred in 1948 in Donora, Pa., when lethal air hung over the small mining community for three days, causing 20 excess deaths and 6000 reported cases of illness.

In that so many U.S. cities have been besieged by serious concentrations of noxious fumes, I believe that the control and prevention of air pollution should receive immediate attention as we re-order our national priorities.

Air pollution is increasing rapidly in the United States with an estimated 142 million tons of toxic material released into the air every year in this country. If we are going to protect the health of our citizens, then we must stop the poisoning of our air.

The problem is as close to us as the air we breath. Therefore, I applaud my distinguished colleague Senator Eagleton for his initiative in scheduling this hearing and will support his efforts to prevent St. Louis, one of the most beautiful cities in the nation, from again becoming a murky sea of foul air.

Senator EAGLETON. Our next witness is the administrative assistant to Congressman William Hungate, Mr. Pete Steiner. Mr. Steiner, if you will, please come forward and make a statement on behalf of Congressman Hungate of the Ninth Congressional District, which includes all of northeast Missouri and significant portions of St. Louis County.

Mr. STEINER. I have a statement from the Congressman which I will read. As Senator Eagleton said, part of the Ninth Congressional District consists of northern St. Louis County, portions of Spanish Lake, basically the area north of the airport. The statement is as follows:

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE NINTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

"The Air, the Air, is Everywhere sleep (cough, cough!)."

*

** breathe deep, while you

These lyrics from the broadway musical "Hair" do well in bringing the generations together to look at a very serious problem facing our country-air, which sustains life, is being threatened; it's being polluted through abuses we have been unable to control.

Our most important goal as a nation must be to preserve our environment destroying our environment is destroying our life.

To rid our air of dangerous pollutants and maintain clean air is a tremendous task, but one which cannot wait. Solutions for this problem will require cooperation and efforts from all public and private sectors. This need for cooperative effort was emphasized last week when a congressional conference on the environment was held in Washington. I was most happy to join Senator Eagleton and many other Members of Congress in sponsoring this conference where Members of Congress, scientists, scholars, business leaders, and other experts met to define the problems and to search for new approaches to preserve our environment.

The Metropolitan St. Louis community, which literally sits astride two States, can easily recognize that while this is both a municipal and State problem, it will likewise require Federal action to correct a situation where polluted air does not respect State boundaries.

The conditions which brought about the August air emergency must be corrected. I commend Senator Eagleton for providing leadership in trying to solve this problem through the coordinated and cooperative efforts of all the citizens and governmental representatives concerned. Senator EAGLETON. Also, at this point, I will place in the record a statement from my friend, Congressman Melvin Price.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN PRICE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to submit for the record my concern about the pressing needs of our area in combating air pollution. I commend you for conducting these field hearings, which enable you to have the benefit of grass roots feelings about this vital issue.

And it is a vital issue. This past August we experienced a pollution blackout because of the inability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants; consequently, the pollution concentrations increased until nature took its course that is, the winds increased and the problem was alleviated.

How long can we afford to wait for nature to take its course? Public health and safety are crucial matters and should not be left to whim and fancy. If we are genuinely concerned about controlling our environment, and I think we are, it behooves us to move ahead with our pollution control and abatement efforts. We are a complex, industrial society; we cannot rely on a natural course of events. We must utilize our technological advances to control our destiny.

The August crisis was admittedly the result of stagnant atmospheric conditions and the consequence of radical changes in the rate of pollution emission. The basic difference, therefore, was the weather. While we cannot control the weather, as such, it is possible during periods of atmospheric stagnation to reduce the level of pollution emissions below that which may ordinarily be acceptable.

This, of course, brings into play administrative efforts on a regional basis. Without intergovernmental cooperation for the prevention and control of air pollution on a regional basis, we cannot hope to succeed. This is the purpose of the Air Quality Act of 1967 whereby the Department of Health, Education and Welfare designates air quality control regions, issues air quality criteria and reports on control standards.

The States, under this arrangement, play crucial roles in our air pollution control efforts. They are expected to establish air quality standards for the designated regions and to adopt plans for the implementation of the standards, which must be submitted to HEW for review. Importantly, all such plans must include provisions for curtailing pollution emissions to prevent crisis episodes as we experienced in August.

Our area was designated an air quality control region in April. Since that time there has been confusion which must be overcome because both states must submit their standards by January 6, 1970, and by July 5, 1970, each State must submit implementation plans.

It is, therefore, with a sense of urgency that this hearing is held. If there are questions and doubts about the direction and purpose of air pollution control efforts, I am confident these hearings will help clear the air. As one who has supported every piece of air pollution control legislation that Congress has considered and enacted, I am vitally concerned about the progress that is being made in our area. My position is unequivocal: we cannot rest in our efforts. We must push forward in implementing realistic standards for controlling air pollution. Unrealistic standards are as useless as no standards at all. If further research is required it must be performed, but it should not be used as an excuse or as a delay in the fight for clean air.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to commend you for the public service you are performing by holing these hearings. They focus on one of our area's crucial problems.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you for your statement. We appreciate your presence here today and the statement on behalf of Congressman Hungate.

The next witness is Dr. David M. Gates, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden.

Welcome to you, Dr. Gates, You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID M. GATES, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN, ST. LOUIS, MO.

Dr. GATES. Senator Eagleton, Representative Symington, and gentlemen, I will read my prepared testimony and then be glad to make any other ad lib statements.

St. Louis is a city with a multitude of air-pollution problems created by industrial, automotive, and other sources of pollutants. The days which normally would be the clearest and sunniest in St. Louis are those with the heaviest concentration of pollutants. The sloping topography, which drains to the Mississippi River, tends to produce catchment basin where at times of temperature inversion pollutants concentrate over the central part of the city. Many of the industrial sources are concentrated along the Mississippi River but a large number of other sources are distributed throughout the metropolitan area. Normally, fine weather conditions, which produce clear skies and are stimulating to health and morale, occur as a high pressure system in the atmosphere centers itself over the city. But it is precisely under these conditions that the high concentrations of pollutants build up