year, both in Washington itself and throughout the metropolitan area; moreover, it will inevitably worsen if its sources are not controlled.

In the District of Columbia, there is often as much visible dirt in the air as we might normally expect to find only in larger and more industrialized cities. I know it is visible on the window sills of my apartment, here on Capitol Hill, and judging from the complaints of other people, it must be visible on theirs as well.

No building in the city can escape the problem. In 1965, such a complaint came to us from the White House. The complaint was about heavy accumulations of soot on window sills, roofs, gutters, walls, and balconies; we were advised that the front of the White House had to be hosed every day to keep it white.

Airborne dirt falls with total indifference to where it lands; it falls on the homes and offices of Democrats and Republicans alike; it falls on every building, every car, and every statue in the city.

Odors are another common annoyance in many parts of the city. In Washington, as in other places, the odors emanating from dieselpowered trucks and buses are among the most common-and the most objectionable. But there are others, including sewage treatment plants, and food processing operations.

Thus far, what I have been saying is that air pollution in the District of Columbia is a nuisance-often very obvious and bothersome. But air pollution is by no means a mere nuisance, either in the city or the suburbs. Throughout this area, air pollution is clearly a threat to public health and a cause of economic losses.

In the District of Columbia, we have been measuring important types of air pollution since 1962 at a station operated in collaboration with the local department of health. Other local and State agencies and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments have also conducted air sampling studies. In general, the data from all these sources show that pollution in the area frequently reaches or exceeds levels known to produce adverse effects on human health.

To cite a few examples, there are many times each year when photochemical smog, which is derived mainly from motor-vehicle pollution, is sufficiently intense to produce eye and throat irritation among normal people and to cause special problems for persons who suffer from chronic respiratory illnesses. Sulfur-oxide pollution, which arises principally from the use of sulfur-containing coal and fuel oil, often reaches levels known to be associated with the occurrence and worsening of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and other chronic respiratory diseases; indeed, the annual average concentration of sulfur dioxide consistently exceeds levels associated with impairment of respiratory function and increased respiratory disease death rates. In addition to its effects on people and their health, air pollution in the District of Columbia has an impact on the cost of maintaining buildings and other property. Over the past several years, the Federal Government has had to spend large sums of money to clean buildings blackened by air pollution. As an example, it cost $150,000 to clean the Executive Office Building; a number of others have been cleaned at costs averaging $50,000.

Other extra expenses resulting from air pollution may seem small, but are nonetheless significant. Take, for example, the cost of keep

ing clothing and home furnishings clean. Few people in the District of Columbia probably think about air pollution when they pay their cleaning bills, but some of these bills represent part of the price of uncontrolled air pollution. One or two extra cleaning bills a year may not mean much to one household, but multiplied by 250,000 households, they amount to a very substantial sum.

Air pollution in the District of Columbia injures vegetation, as well. The characteristic effects of photochemical smog have been seen on tobacco plants and food plants at the U.S. Department of Agriculture research facility in Beltsville, 13 miles from downtown Washington; surely, some of that smog came from the city. There have been no detailed studies of the effects of air pollution on trees and foliage in the city itself, but what I have seen in other places makes me think that efforts to beautify the city by planting trees and shrubs will certainly fail, at least in part, if air pollution is not controlled.

In brief, Mr. Chairman, the effects of air pollution in the District of Columbia are numerous and diverse and they are serious. The people of this area are already paying a high price for the polluted air they breathe; moreover, we can expect the problem to worsen in the months and years ahead unless decisive control action is taken.

The Nation's Capital lies at the heart of one of the fastest growing urban areas in the entire country. The population of the Washington metropolitan area increased by nearly half a million between 1960 and 1965, and there were corresponding increases in automobile registration, fuel consumption, and refuse production. As these trends continue into the future, they will inevitably create an even more serious threat to the quality of Washington's air.

That most of the area's growth is taking place outside the District. of Columbia offers no consolation. The city and the suburbs share the same air supply. The air that people inhale on Capitol Hill contains pollutants from sources located not only in other parts of Washington but in Virginia and Maryland, as well. And by the same token, people in the suburbs are constantly exposed to pollution from sources in the District of Columbia. In short, if air pollution in this area were being dealt with on the basis of atmospheric realities and social needs, rather than political traditions, there would be an effective regional control program in operation today.

No such program exists. This is not to say, however, that everyone has been oblivious to the regional nature of the Washington area's air pollution problems. For several years, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments has attempted to stimulate and coordinate air pollution control activities in the District of Columbia and suburban Virginia and Maryland. Not long ago, for example, the Council developed a model air pollution control ordinance and recommended its adoption by local governments in the area. But in the absence of a mechanism for uniform enforcement, the air quality objectives of this effort are not likely to be achieved. Throughout the Nation, wherever attempts have been made to create regional air pollution control programs based on voluntary cooperation by State and local governments, those attempts have failed.

Perhaps one of the most important reasons that air pollution is not being adequately controlled in the Washington area is the long

cherished myth that this area is so different from the Nation's major industrial centers that it could not possibly be confronted with a serious air pollution problem. In all likelihood, this largely mythical difference has served to discourage needed control action at local and State, as well as regional levels of government in the Washington area. Perhaps its most obvious effect has been to diminish the importance of the industrial air pollution sources which are located in the city and the suburbs, including such facilities as electric power generating stations, asphalt plants, junk yards, and many others.

Even more importantly, it has served to obscure the basic equation of air pollution-that more people mean more pollution. This equation applies to all urban places, regardless of their character. People and their activities are the fundamental cause of air pollution, whether those activities be the production of manufactured goods, or to cite examples that are germane to all metropolitan areas, the use of automobiles, heating and lighting of homes and offices, disposal of household refuse, or demolition of old buildings and construction of new ones. Every one of these activities contributes to air pollution in the Washington area, and all of them are increasing in proportion to the area's population growth.

The various State and local governments that serve the Washington metropolitan area are ill prepared to cope with the air pollution problems facing them today, let alone the potentially greater problems of the future. A number of local governments in the area are now considering adoption of the model ordinance developed by the Council of Governments, but nowhere in the area are there adequate regulations to control existing sources of air pollution or to prevent new ones from being created.

Opportunities to plan for the future protection of the area's air quality are also being neglected. Air pollution control is not just a matter of applying devices to keep pollutants out of the air. It also involves the prevention of air pollution during the process of planning the area's future patterns of transportation, industrial development, and refuse disposal. I see little evidence that air pollution is receiving such consideration in the Washington area. In short, the illusion that this area has no serious air pollution problem is serving only to perpetuate and aggravate the problem that exists in reality. The consequences are most obvious, perhaps, in the excessively high levels of air pollution arising from obsolete refuse disposal practices, both in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the Washington area. The Kenilworth dump is easily the most flagrant source of air pollution in this category. But there are many others, including municipal incinerators and those in residential and commercial buildings. Open burning of refuse at demolition and construction sites and in backyard burners also contribute to the problem.

There is, of course, no single, magical solution to the problem, but there are a number of steps that must clearly be considered in the development of any plant for dealing with it. It may not be sensible, for example, to permit further installation of incinerators of obsolete design in new buildings anywhere in the Washington area. Open burning must obviously be curtailed. This includes burning at the Kenilworth dump, which is not only an obnoxious local problem, but a national disgrace that has been allowed to endure much too long.

If there is a single key to the solution of the Washington area's air pollution problems, Mr. Chairman, then it can lie only in regional action. I do not see, for example, how we can expect suburban communities to prohibit open burning or impose restrictions on other activities that contribute to air pollution unless similar measures are taken in the District of Columbia. Nor is it realistic, in my view, to expect the operators of apartment houses in the District of Columbia or Silver Spring or Alexandria or any other community to willingly accept regulations that may increase their refuse disposal costs unless those regulations are uniformly applied throughout the area.

Over the past several years, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has made continuing efforts to encourage the development of regional air pollution control activity in the Washington area. A pilot study of air quality in the metropolitan area was conducted in 1960. A more comprehensive evaluation of the area's air pollution problems and the efforts then being made to deal with them was made in 1962. Throughout the 5 years since the creation of our continuous air monitoring program, one of the six stations has been located in Washington. We have provided technical assistance to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments in connection with its air monitoring activities. And, under provisions of the Clean Air Act, adopted in December 1963, we have provided financial aid to both the council of governments and the District of Columbia Health Department to assist them in strengthening their efforts relating to the control of air pollution.

The experience we have had thus far indicates that interstate air pollution is occurring in the Washington area and is endangering the health and welfare of the more than 2 million people who live in the area, to deal with this problem, Secretary Gardner issued notice, in September 1966, that he was initiating action to abate interstate air pollution in the National Capital area. As prescribed by the Clean Air Act, whenever abatement proceedings are initiated by the Secretary, a consultation has been held with officials responsible for the control of air pollution in the area-officials of the States of Virginia and Maryland and the District of Columbia.

We have since begun, with support from the two States and the District government, a technical investigation to assess the interstate air pollution problem in this area, identify its sources, and determine the extent to which it injures public health and welfare. Five major sampling stations have been set up in the suburbs, and operation of the station in Washington is continuing. An inventory of pollution sources is being prepared, partly through visits to such sources and stack sampling. Effects of pollution on property and materials are being evaluated by exposure of metal panels, rubber strips, selected plants, and other indicators.

Also included in the investigation, Mr. Chairman, will be a detailed. survey of air pollution problems at Federal facilities in the Washington area. This will supplement the other means by which we are. gathering information on the extent to which Federal facilities contribute to the area's air pollution problem and the ways in which their contribution can be reduced. Mr. Flanagan will outline our program for controlling pollution from Federal facilities when he testifies before you tomorrow, Mr. Chairman.

On completion of the current technical investigation, we will hold a public conference with the responsible State and local officials. Our current expectation is that the conference will be held late this summer or early in the fall. At the conference, we will present a full report of our findings and conclusions. The various State and local officials will have an opportunity to make similar presentations. Following such a conference, Secretary Gardner is empowered to make recommendations for abatement action and prescribe a time schedule for implementation of his recommendations. Then, if action is not taken, he can take further steps, including, if necessary, court action.

I think it is already obvious, however, that regardless of how we proceed, the ultimate objective must be the creation of a truly effective regional program for the control of air pollution throughout the Washington area. And by a truly effective program, I mean one which will have adequate legal authority to adopt and enforce regulations to control existing sources of pollution and prevent new ones from coming into existence.

The question is not whether a regional control program is needed, but how we can insure that one will be established in time to keep the area's air pollution problem from reaching critical proportions. The establishment of such programs through interstate compacts is authorized by the Clean Air Act; moreover, as an incentive, a greater degree of Federal grant assistance can be made available to regional, than to purely local, programs. Even so, there is still not a single, effective interstate air pollution control program in operation anywhere in the country. And in the period since the adoption of the Clean Air Act, only one interstate compact has come to the Congress for ratification.

It was in light of this discouraging experience that President Johnson, in his proposed Air Quality Act of 1967, recommended that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare be authorized to designate those areas where interstate air pollution control programs are needed and establish a regional air quality commission in each such area. I want to take just a minute to discuss this recommendation; since it is so germane to the problems of the Washington area, I think it is important that residents of the area and the public officials who serve them understand how a regional air quality commission would help to accelerate solutions to the area's air pollution problems without depriving citizens or their State and local officials of an opportunity to play a meaningful role in dealing with those problems. To begin with, such commissions would be created only in places. where State and local agencies have not already developed effective programs for the control of interstate air pollution problems. Thus, the proposed new legislation will not keep State and local agencies from setting up regional programs on their own initiative. They will still be free to do so, and they will still be eligible for Federal grant assistance. Each commission that is established under the proposed legislation will include not only a Federal representative but at least two residents of the States involved.

The major responsibility of regional air quality commissions will be to establish regional air-quality standards and emission-control standards for individual sources of air pollution. If necessary, compliance with the standards could be achieved through Federal action.