The action was started in 1958. This is 1970. That is 12 years, and it is going to be another 2 years before we complete it. That is 14 years. So, I am kind of shocked to even have an implication that we are going to redesign and relocate highways to get at the root of this problem.

It seems to me when a Nation can establish the goal of putting a man on the moon and do it as we did here in the Congress 10 years ago and accomplish that in 10 years, certainly we ought to be able to set a target of less than a 10-year period to correct the pollutionemission problem.

You are suggesting in your statement that by 1980 we will have some added standards and perhaps something to shoot for. You say, "In November 1969 Secretary Finch set forth the motor vehicle emission goals that we believe new cars must be capable of reaching no later than 1980."

If his Department can't solve that problem in less than that time, I would suggest maybe we ought to turn it over to the space program. Mr. BLACK. Let me make several comments here. First, I think you are reading more into my statement than was intended about the highways.

Secondly, I think your analogy as far as the space program is an apt one. We did not reach the moon by saying this year we are going 9 miles toward the moon and next year 9 more after that. We set a target for reaching the moon and mapped out a program for accomplishing

it.

I think to some extent that is what we are doing here in this field of emissions. Heretofore, it has been on a year-by-year basis, based on what our present technology is capable of doing.

Now the Secretary has said we are setting some goals that we expect the industry to meet in 1980. We are also going to set interim goals that we expect the industry to meet in 1975. We expect the industry to work toward this. This is why I say I think the private sector is going to have to take a more substantial role in this.

We are not going to conduct all the research and say next year you can do this much more. We have set a long-range goal which we think is realistic and which can be met. As far as the highways are concerned, I think, as I say, what we are doing doesn't depend on the completion of the highways. We will go ahead with the development of low-emission vehicles, but I think we would concede that since we do have so much more work to do on our highway system that certainly we ought to keep this total problem in mind as far as any future work to be done on the highways is concerned.

Senator CANNON. Of course, if you are suggesting relocation, you know the highway program was certainly a massive program and a very expensive program, and I am glad you followed up on the analogy to the space program.

When we established the goals of putting a man on the moon, I happened to serve on the committee at that time, and we did that by committing ourselves to spending some money.

Here, for example, you recommend that a million dollars this year would be about correct. If we had suggested proceeding toward a 10

year goal of putting a man on the moon at a million dollars a year in the research and development phase, we wouldn't be starting to build the boosters by now.

Mr. BLACK. Again, the million dollar figure is only one part of a larger effort within our Department and within the whole Federal Government. Furthermore, as I indicated, we don't think that the Federal Government is the only one who is or should be active in this field. That figure we are talking about is a fiscal 1970 figure. As I indicated earlier, the President will speak to this in his budget message, which is going to come up next Monday, and in his environment message which will follow on February 10.

So, I think you will have to judge the program for the future on what comes out of these.

Senator CANNON. Senator Muskie?

Senator MUSKIE. I think it might be helpful if we reviewed the budgetary figures or the authorization figures and the budgetary figures, but before doing so, I would like to make two points and see if you agree with them.

I am quite sure from your statement and from what you have said in response to questions that you will agree, but would like to make this clear.

First of all, in the subcommittee we have always recognized that research is a critically important factor if this country really is to roll back the tide of pollution-air, water, and otherwise, and secondly, that research takes a long lead time. You don't produce instant results in the laboratory by appropriating money.

So, you have got to start spending money when you get it, if you are to meet the problem created by long lead time considerations. Now, in the 1967 Clean Air Act we set up two authorizations, (1) for section 104, research, and (2) for section 309, programs, including enforce

ment.

The figures were, I think, in section 104, research, for fiscal year 1968, $35 million; for fiscal year 1969, $90 million.

This last year we had before us in the Congress new authorizing legislation for fiscal year 1970 because we were not authorized for 1970. The House and Senate enacted different figures for authorization. The Senate approved $90 million to continue the level of authorization which had been approved for 1969.

The House approved, I think, $20 million or $21 million which reflected the full budget request of the administration for last year. Am I correct up to this point?

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir; those figures are correct.

Senator MUSKIE. In conference the issue between the House and Senate conferences was whether or not the authorization for 1970 ought to be the budget request of the administration or the authorizing committee's estimate of what was needed.

The House position was that since the administration was prepared to spend only $21 million, it was pointless to authorize $90 million. The Senate position was that since $90 million was our estimate of the research level that ought to be made, it was our responsibility as the authorizing committee to say what we thought was the necesary level.

We compromised at $45 million, or one-half the figure that we had thought essential for 1969.

Finally, the Senate approved increasing the appropriation, the bill that was vetoed last night, from $21 million to $45 million.

Now, is that extra $24 million the wrong amount of money in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Mr. BLACK, I think, Senator Muskie, I would rather respond to that in a general way.

First, this program is one

Senator MUSKIE. I have no doubt about your preferences. If you don't like the rhetoric because it is too familiar, then, let me ask you this. Do you think-in light of the considerations you and I have agreed upon here, that research is critical and that it involves long lead time that $45 million is too much for section 104, research, at this time?

Mr. BLACK. That is a question that I think would have to be answered by the professional program people in this Department. We have a number of programs at HEW, those of us who came in last year have found out, that you can fund at only certain levels effectively, and that involves some of the programs involved in our present controversy.

Senator MUSKIE. We have learned in several programs, notably health programs, that the Congress can prod the bureaucracy for higher levels of program activity by appropriating more money than the bureaucracy requests.

The 1967 act was enacted in part at least over the initial objections of the administration, so, the Congress mandated an air pollution program in 1967. As part of that mandate, we said research is essential. Without it we will never fully lick this problem.

Now, somebody must speak for those people in the Department who program research. You do not, I take it?

Mr. BLACK. I am not a program person. I hope that the people who operate this program will have an opportunity to come back after the President's message and answer that kind of question for you specifically.

I think it is quite possible, as I said, that in a number of our programs, certainly we don't dispute the need for additional research. We don't think, as I also said, that the Federal Government can do it all, but we are not saying that this is as much money as we should spend effectively.

Senator MUSKIE. We are not talking about the Federal Government at all. I have in my hands here a program for progress titled "Automobile and Air Pollution," part 1, it is a 1967 report, issued by the Department of Commerce in October 1967.

I assume this report had the endorsement of the program people of that time, whatever may be the position of the program people in this administration. With respect to research in this field of automobile

emissions, and this report is two and a half years old, recommendation 14 was this:

Recommendation 14: The Federal Government should initiate a 5-year program in total amount of approximately $80 million to support innovative developments usefully in the establishment of future emission standards in the following areas;

(a) Energy source for vehicles.

(b) Vehicular propulsion systems.
(c) Emission control devices.
(d) Special purpose urban cars.
(e) General purpose vehicles.

There are five programs.

The recommended support level is seen as a modest investment for future air quality and amounts to approximately 13 cents per year for each vehicle currently in operation in this country.

The Government should not become involved itself in vehicle manufacture or in the design of complete vehicles for consumer use. The specific intent of this recommended program is to provide support for that research and development which is necessary to demonstrate potentially attractive alternatives for automobile pollution control.

This was said in 1967-presumably after considerable thought. It is a long report. It looks to me like an intelligent report. That is 212 years ago. Yet, you are now spending $4.5 million or roughly a third of the annual investment in research for automobile pollution control that this report recommended.

May I suggest that this report is consistent with the authorizations put in the law by the committee and the Congress in the 1967 act. I don't expect from what you have said to get a final, definitive answer from you, and I am using this colloquy to drive home the point.

The state of the Union messages don't create the programs necessary to deal with our air pollution problem, and I would hope that the environmental message we get on February 10 will come to grips with the realities of environmental pollution problems. If the President hasn't had this report brought to his attention I suggest that you and your program people bring it to his attention, and I hope there is something better than this in the Department.

If there isn't, it is an indictment of the previous administration and this one to the extent that you haven't used the last year. We are criticized for not using the last year to solve the crime problem of this country.

Maybe you should have done something about this problem in the last year. I want to back off from that partisan rhetoric at this point; we get sucked into it quite easily around here in an election year. But this is a serious point I am making. Research is important.

As of this moment so far as this adminisration's intentions are concerned, we have last year's budget for research in this field, we have the refusal to increase that budget last year. We have last night's veto message which may have been on other grounds than last year's refusal, but so far as we know the veto criticized all of the increases approved by the Congress in that budget, including this one in this vital field of research.

The figures are in the record, and I am not going to belabor the point about research. I want to make it clear, because we are not going to forget the point, and if you would like to comment additionally at this time, I would be happy to have you comment.

Mr. BLACK. I would appreciate that opportunity. Let me say first that obviously we have no obligation here to defend what has gone on in the past. This administration has been here for a year.

Our opportunity, as you know, Senator, as a realistic matter, to have very much impact on the 1970 budget was limited by the time when we came in, first, and second, by the inflationary pressures of this particular period. As far as the 1967 report and recommendations there concerned, I think those are something which obviously will be judged and taken into account by our people, but I think our own program will be produced in time.

I think, furthermore, I wouldn't want the total efforts of this administration to be judged even by our next budget but by the results that we can produce over a period of time.

I think that the question first is how far, how fast you can go. Second, there is a question how far the Congress is willing to go. Mr. Auerbach has pointed out in fiscal 1969 the authorization on 104 was $90 million, the President's budget was $31 million, the appropriation was $18 million. We have to be able to take Congress with us.

I hope certainly that we can come up with a program that will answer in detail the questions that you raised and that Congress will find attractive in meeting the problem.

As I say, we are not in a position of having to defend all that has gone on in the past, but when I was going over this subject with some of our people in our Department I raised some of the same questions that you have. I said we have a budget of roughly $100 million in the air pollution field. We are spending $5 million for automobile pollution, plus another $2 or $3 for enforcement of these standards. We have recognized that automobile pollution accounts for half of the total pollution problem. Aren't we a little out of balance?

The answer I get is that at this point anyhow we have been able to accomplish a dramatic reduction in automobile pollution with technology already available to us. Here we have reached a point where with these 1971 standards we have reduced automobile pollution with the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide approximately 75 percent for each since this program got underway.

In other areas of pollution, technology was such that we could make almost no reduction without spending much greater sums of money, which helps explain what seems to be disproportionate amount of money going into other areas.

Now, the problem we face is that we have reached this 75-percent point. Our projections are that the emission curve is going to continue to go down through the 1970's, but what we are concerned about is that 1980 period when you go up. You are right, it will take a long leadtime on research, and I would certainly expect that as time goes on a greater proportion of our research funds will be going into this problem because that last 25 percent is going to be the difficult area in which we try to reduce pollution.