body else that can do anything about indoor air quality, and they are filled with indoor pollutants.

Tobacco smoke presents a special challenge to architects. Our members confront it as one of the most prevalent indoor contaminants. Each year, some 467,000 tons of tobacco are burned indoors. It's highly toxic, as previous witnesses have indicated. It harms. people, as they have indicated. There is no established health threshold for tobacco smoke and EPA recognizes no safe level for it.

There are two ways to deal with tobacco smoke. You can ventilate it or filter it or you can prohibit it. The most current nationally accepted ventilation standard is called ASHRAE 62-1989. It specifies ventilation rates for different spaces of different size. The ventilation rate is the amount of cubic feet of air brought into the building from the outside in cubic feet per minute per person.

Typically, the ventilation rate for indoor spaces ranges up to 20 to 25 cfms. For smoking lounges, the rate is up to three times that. Yet, the standard cannot guarantee that there still won't be health problems.

Environmental smoke cannot be totally removed from the indoor air, except by removing the smoking itself. Separation of smokers and non-smokers only reduces the problem because the pollution disburses through a common space. Most ventilation systems in public facilities recirculate air because of the heat and cooling needs.

The most effective way to deal with tobacco smoke is to do what the legislation requires. With most pollutants, the source is hard to identify and locate. The opposite is true with tobacco smoke. We know where it comes from, and that makes it perhaps the easiest pollutant to eliminate.

In closing, I've got three comments on the provisions. First, the 1-year transition between the date of enactment and the date of passage is a good one. It mirrors the way that other laws, like the ADA and the Fair Housing Amendments Act, treat changes to public spaces required by Federal law. Second, in requiring a standard for ventilation, the legislation should reference the ASHRAE standard or any successors as it evolves rather than have the Federal Government try to develop a whole new one.

Third, don't exempt all residential buildings. Only buildings of four units or less and, in larger buildings, only the portion that's used for residential purposes. Otherwise, you're going to leave out important work spaces and public areas and possibly hotels, which, in a number of local zoning laws, are often classified as residential buildings.

That concludes my testimony and I await your questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eisenberg follows:]

1

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Albert C. Eisenberg, Senior Director for Federal Legislative Affairs for The American Institute of Architects (AIA), the professional organization of 56,000 members representing the nation's architects. This year the AIA celebrates its 137th anniversary.

I would also like to note that I am a local elected official, currently serving as Vice-Chairman of the Arlington, Virginia, County Board, the governing body for this urban community of 180,000 people. In that capacity I have worked within the limited authority allowed us under state law to increase restrictions on smoking in public places.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on H.R. 3434, "The Smoke-Free Environment Act." The AIA enthusiastically supports the thrust of your legislation. It will accomplish many benefits. It will save lives, increase worker productivity, save insurance and other business costs, and guard the rights of non-smokers who must now suffer a lethal hazard to accommodate the convenience or habit of others.

Architects have an intimate relationship with all aspects of the built environment. Through their skill and their imagination, they create the buildings and structures in which the wide range of human endeavor finds expression. In making this contribution, it is always their goal to make each space perform for people, with respect for their humanity and with care for their comfort and safety. The places that invite and serve the public, including retail stores, theatres, schools, restaurants, offices, and gyms, to name several, bear a special responsibility for the well-being of their occupants and visitors. People must go to these places as a normal part of daily life. They should not be placed in jeopardy for doing so.

As the science of design and construction have become more complex, architects have become more aware of the effects of the indoor environment on people's health. Considering that people spend, on the average, 90 percent of their lives indoors, the wholesomeness of that environment takes on profound importance. Architects are paying increasing attention to two phenomena that have been identified in modern buildings. One is called "sick building syndrome". This effect occurs when people experience such problems as headaches, dizziness, nausea, or fatigue and find relief by going outside, but the symptoms cannot be traced to any particular source. The other phenomenon is called "building-related illness". It results in such maladies as Legionnaire's disease. Building related illness cannot be solved just by leaving the building, and can be attributed to a particular contaminant.

Gases, vapors, and particles from such sources as paints, varnishes, carpets, insulation, construction materials, and tobacco smoke can permeate the interior atmosphere making people sick. Bacteria that find a home in hospitable places inside or which are drawn in through poorly maintained ventilation systems can also make people sick.

Architects attempt to alleviate these problems in several ways, generally grouped under four categories: 1) site planning, 2) overall architectural design, 3) ventilation and climate controls, and 4) materials selection and specification.

Architects can reduce the potential for indoor air pollution that results from the invasion of outside contaminants like gasoline fumes, radon, and particulate matter. The way a building is sited or oriented and the way that traffic is routed can reduce the impact of these substances.

Architects can incorporate more open windows, moving away from the sealed windows that so many large, new buildings feature. Balanced approaches can be developed that allow operable windows to work in harmony with sophisticated ventilation systems designed to deliver air to all parts of a building's interior.

Architects can specify low-pollution materials, keep vehicular access adequately separated from entrances and air intakes, and make special provisions for polluting activities. They can isolate fax machines, copiers, printers, and activities such as printing which generate particulate and chemical pollution. Smoking can also be isolated, as H.R. 3434 provides for those places where it is not prohibited altogether.

They can also pay particular attention to the optimum design of ventilation systems, assuring the appropriate location of air intakes. They can specify air cleaning and filtration where outdoor air is contaminated, control for the invasion of microbes through the ventilation system, and seek adequate distribution of outside air to building occupants, relating ventilation rates to both human density and the kinds of activities in which building occupants will be engaged.

And they can address the pollution potential of new or renovated spaces, by taking such steps as specifying extra ventilation just before and right after initial occupancy, or the use of what is known as "bakeout". This involves raising the temperature of the building for two days or more to reduce contaminant concentrations.

But there are limits to these design techniques. For one thing, the design of ventilation systems does not guarantee that they will be properly maintained and kept in good operating condition. For another, outside air brought into a building unfiltered may not be clean. Some substances, like chemicals and pesticides, are beyond the reach of the architect. So is the operation of the facility. In addition, many existing public accommodations and workplaces were not built with the services of an architect; or are designed for a different use from the current one; or have deteriorated or have been illegally or expertly altered, and as a result contain significant amounts of indoor air pollution that architectural services will probably never reach.

When it comes to the pollutant of tobacco smoke, architects face several challenges. First, tobacco smoke is one of the most prevalent of indoor contaminants. Over 50 million people smoke about 600 billion cigarettes a year, along with 4 billion cigars, and 11 billion pipesful of tobacco. Some 467,000 tons of tobacco are burned indoors. Tobacco smoke is highly toxic, containing 4700 chemical compounds, including benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic, ammonia, vinyl chloride, and hydrogen cyanide. Now classified as a known carcinogen in its passive form, tobacco smoke contains 42 carcinogenic compounds, and according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), environmental tobacco smoke is the major source of indoor mutagenic substances--which are compounds that cause permanent, often harmful, changes in genetic material of cells. As you know, each year passive smoking kills 3000 people a year, and is responsible for up to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections among children aged 18 months or less, resulting in as many as 15,000 hospitalizations. It also increases asthmatic episodes among as many as 1 million asthmatic children.

Among restaurant workers, the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke are great, again particularly for teenagers/young adults. The fast food industry estimates that 40 percent of fast food restaurant workers are aged 18 or less, and studies indicate that the level of second-hand smoke in these places is 1.6 to 2 times higher than in offices, and 1.5 times higher than in residences with at least one smoker. In addition, as many as 25 percent of fast food customers are under age 18 and 10 percent below age 10.

Field studies, controlled experiments, and mathematical models show that under typical conditions of smoking and ventilation, environmental tobacco smoke diffuses rapidly throughout buildings. Tobacco smoke produces major amounts of particulate matter. In areas of public or commercial buildings where smoking is permitted, particulate levels are considerably higher than in non-smoking

areas.

It is important to stress that there is no established, health-based threshold for exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. EPA does not recognize a safe level for the substance.

The most current, nationally-accepted standard for ventilation is known as ASHRAE 62-1989, developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The purpose of the standard "is to specify minimum ventilation rates and indoor air quality that will be acceptable to human occupants and are intended to avoid adverse health effects." It is interesting to note that the ventilation rate is typically 15 to 20 cubic feet of outdoor air per minute per person (cfm's). For smoking lounges, however, the recommended rate is 60 cfm's, three times the highest rate prescribed for other spaces. The standard "does not, and cannot, ensure the avoidance of all possible adverse health effects..."

The fact is that environmental tobacco smoke cannot be totally removed from the indoor air except by removing the smoking itself. Separation of smokers and non-smokers in the same room only reduces the smoke problem. Pollutants disperse through a common space and most ventilation systems in public and commercial spaces recirculate much of the contaminated indoor air.

The AIA thus concludes, as does the legislation that the most effective way to minimize the hazards of environmental smoke in public facilities is to restrict smoking to areas that are separately ventilated and directly exhausted to the outside, or by eliminating smoking in the building entirely. While some indoor air pollutants can be difficult to identify or locate, the opposite is true for tobacco smoke. In that sense, it is the easiest pollutant to eliminate.

In endorsing the legislation, we have comments and suggestions on several specific provisions. First, Section 2705 provides a transition period of one-year between the date of enactment and the effective date of the legislation, which is appropriate. In this regard, it mirrors other laws, such as the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which give businesses and others ample time to accommodate changes in their policies or in their premises. It is worth noting that those that are unable to establish separately ventilated spaces by the effective date can comply with the act by prohibiting smoking until such time as they ready their premises with separate ventilation systems.

Second, Section 2701 (c)(1), which provides for ventilation specifications promulgated by the EPA Administrator, should be modified. While we agree that ventilation standards should be established, we do not believe that the Administrator should be charged with creating a new standard to replace the one that is already nationally-recognized and accepted, the ASHRAE 62-1989. A stand-alone federal standard for ventilation that supplan's or exists side-by-side with the ASHRAE standard will introduce unnecessary complexity into building design and construction. AHSRAE 62-1989 represents broad consensus among architects, engineers, builders, government officials, inspectors and others who participate in its development and evolution.

Third, Section 2706, which concerns definitions, should also be modified. As drafted, it exempts buildings used for residential purposes. This provision would thus exempt important public areas or workplaces typically found in multi-family projects, such as offices, reception areas, lounges, recreation or multi-purpose rooms open to the public, and dining rooms. In addition, in many zoning laws, hotels are considered residential buildings. The provision should be changed to exempt those portions of buildings used for residential purposes, thereby separating places where private, personal consumption of tobacco products can take place, from those places that are open to the public. This change would not eliminate smoking entirely in these places, but it would fine-tune the broad exemption of the current provision.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Eisenberg. Dr. Maves. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. MAVES

Mr. MAVES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for providing me with this opportunity to address the importance of protecting our Nation's children and adults from the dangers of secondhand smoke. I am Dr. Michael Maves, associate executive vice president of the American Academy of Otolaryngology and a practicing otolaryngologist.

On behalf of the academy, I'm here to ask that this subcommittee and the Congress pass H.R. 3434, the Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1993, and protect the Nation's children from unnecessary exposure to secondhand smoke. The academy is the world's largest organization of physicians dedicated to the care and treatment of diseases and disorders of the ears, nose, throat and related structures of the head and neck.

Secondhand smoke has contributed to so many medical complications treated by our membership that the academy recently kicked off a national campaign in January, with Joan Lunden of Good Morning America as our national spokesperson, to educate the public about the hazards of secondhand smoke and its effects on children.

I would add that Ms. Lunden regrets not being able to be here this afternoon. However, some of you should have received a letter signed by her and two members of our academy asking for your support of this measure.

The academy now has over 100 members throughout the country who are addressing schools and civic groups about this issue in an effort to protect the Nation's children. We have also produced an award-winning video about environmental tobacco smoke, a copy of which I have with me, which recently ran on the House of Representatives' broadcast channel last month.

The statistics, in fact, about the impact of secondhand smoke on children's health are staggering. Tobacco smoke aggravates, if not causes the incidence of numerous medical conditions, such as asthma, allergies, chronic bronchitis, middle ear infections, pneumonia and cancer. It also increases the number of attacks and severity of asthma in about 1 million of the Nation's 2 million asthmatic children.

A 1992 study by the Environmental Protection Agency indicates that environmental tobacco smoke causes 150,000 to 300,000 cases of bronchitis, pneumonia and other respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age each year. More specifically, environmental tobacco smoke is causally associated with a significant reduction in lung function, which can occur in all children.

More commonly secondhand smoke increases both the number of ear infections a child will experience and the duration of illness. Inhaled smoke irritates the eustachian tube, which connects the back of the nose with the middle ear, leading to fluid, pain and infection. Ear infections are the most common cause of childhood hearing loss and when they do not respond to medical treatment, they may require insertion of tympanostomy tubes to ventilate the ears in these children.