meaningful way, we are going to get to the final conclusion of the problem a lot faster.

How much faster, I don't know. I don't think good knowledge ever hurt a problem-solving activity, and that is what I think we are going to do here.

Senator MUSKIE. You think this bill might significantly advance the state of the art?

Mr. MISCH. I think it might significantly advance it; that's right. Senator MUSKIE. In such a way that it can measurably advance the targets?

Mr. MISCH I would hope that would be the result, yes, sir. Senator MUSKIE. So, if our present expectation is that we could reach 50 parts per million by 1980, this bill, if it is implemented, ought to advance that date?

Mr. MISCH. It ought to advance it. I can see no way it would retard it.

Senator MUSKIE. I would prefer it if you didn't say that. That is negative. I want to advance the tax date.

Senator HART. Maybe this is the way it could be phrased: If the standards that are established, either directly in the bill or by the Board that the Magnuson-Muskie-Jackson bill would create, are what people talk about as the target for 1980, and if the Board would fix the 1980 goal we are all talking for Government purchase immediately, then it is possible that we can make cars meeting the 1980 standards available for consumer use earlier than 1980, and perhaps substantially earlier than you would get, absent this kind of bill? Isn't it in the nature of the economics that it would have this result, inevitably?

Mr. MISCH. It would seem so.

Senator HART. Unless you couldn't, in fact, meet any of these limited procurement standards, and if you couldn't do that, you would be busy pursuing other technologies.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it true that you might be willing, with this kind of market available to you, to put a car on the road earlier than you would if the test was to be general public approval of the result? Mr. MISCH. There is no doubt about that. That would be true.

Senator MUSKIE. If the Government is willing to experiment as a consumer, you would be willing to experiment as a manufacturer? Mr. MISCH. Well

Senator MUSKIE. I mean within looser limits, perhaps.

Mr. MISCH. Yes. It is more than just a willingness of the Government to be an experimenter. It is the fact that the Government has fleets of vehicles that are under proper maintenance control and operational control and so forth, so that meaningful technical data could be gleaned from such experiments.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you this question. The first standards that we set for 1968 were applied and met in accordance with an averaging concept, because of the quality control problem which means you don't get exact carbon copies of vehicles. Some perform better than others. On the average, you get the standard set.

Here you are going to have a smaller number of cars. Does that mean you are going to have a better quality control?

Mr. MISCH. It is conceivable if there is a small enough number that you could determine in fact the specific level of each and every vehicle. It depends on the size of the grouping of vehicles.

Senator HART. Under this bill we are talking about this test procurement, but it is not limited just to the government purchases by the Federal Government, but States metropolitan areas could adopt a comparable policy that might encourage à still broader application of this proposal?

Mr. MISCH. That is as we understand it, yes.

Senator HART. Mr. Jensen or Mr. Taylor, did you have anything you would like to say?

Mr. JENSEN. No, thank you.

Senator HART. Mr. Misch, thank you very much. We will see you on February 5.

Our next witness is a figure well known, the chairman of Lear Motors, Mr. William P. Lear. Mr. Lear was here. In fact, he was pointed out to me. Well, more than anyone, Senator Cannon regrets Mr. Lear is not here, but we all regret it. He was here. Perhaps if he is, in fact, able to extend his stay in Washington we would have an opportunity in the morning.

Senator MUSKIE. We would like to hear from him.

Senator HART. Yes; we surely would. The statement has been delivered, and while it would be possible to put it in the record, we would not have the opportunity to question, to develop a broader understanding on our part.

Let's recess for a moment to see if Mr. Lears is in the immediate vicinity.

(Recess.)

Senator HART. Mr. Lear is unavailable, and will be rescheduled

tomorrow.

Let me order printed in the record a letter from the General Motors Corp., dated January 12 of this year, to the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Senator Magnuson, from the chairman of the board of General Motors, Mr. J. M. Roche.

I would assume that rather quickly copies could be made of this letter. It concludes, after describing the concern and interest of that company, in developing an emission-free engine:

Thus we at General Motors need no incentive, such as your bill would provide, to produce a low-emission vehicle. However, your bill could induce others to seek a solution to the problem and, therefore, because we agree on the necessity of achieving this result, we hope that Congress will give serious consideration to your proposal. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter and enclosure to Senator Muskie and to Senator Jackson.

(The letter follows:)

GENERAL MOTORS CORP., New York, N.Y., January 12, 1970.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I have read with interest your remarks on the floor of the Senate in introducing the bill, sponsored by you, Senator Muskie and Senator Jackson, to stimulate the production of low-emission vehicles. I want you to know that I fully share your concern for the problem of air pollution and I agree that further progress toward achieving a low-emission vehicle is necessary. Moreover, as I have already stated publicly, you can be sure that General Motors Corporation is dedicated to reaching this goal.

From your remarks, it could be inferred that you and perhaps others question whether General Motors is willing to consider alternatives to the reciprocating internal combustion engine. I want to assure you that we are. We are actively exploring alternative power sources as well as trying to improve further the present engine. In the event it did not come to your attention, I am enclosing a copy of the recent statement made by Dr. Paul Chenea, vice president of General Motors in charge of our Research Laboratories, before Representative Jarman's Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare. I am sure you will be interested in his report of what has been accomplished and what we are doing to achieve the goal that both you and General Motors seek.

In particular, your attention is invited to the statement at the top of page 2 that "General Motors is irrevocably committed to finding a solution to automotive emission problems at the earliest possible time.

And in seeking solutions that we will have no hesitation in using a power source other than the internal combustion engine if it will meet the needs of our customers, at a price they can pay, and will solve the emission problem." I fully endorse that statement.

The great challenge in the Seventies is to fulfill our responsibility to the American environment. We have committed ourselves to take the automobile out of the smog problem altogether. Our objective, as I have indicated, is to find new ways to further reduce emissions from the internal combustion engine and to explore through research potential new power sources which can be developed on a practical basis.

We must meet the transportation needs of our customers, at a price they can pay, and eliminate the automobile as a cause of smog. This has been our objective for some time. We have made substantial progress. Someday we will achieve our goal. We are coming closer every day.

Thus we at General Motors need no incentive, such as your bill would provide, to produce a low-emission vehicle. However, your bill could induce others to seek a solution to the problem and therefore, because we agree on the necessity of achieving this result, we hope that Congress will give serious consideration to your proposal. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter and enclosure to Senator Muskie and to Senator Jackson.

Sincerely.

J. M. ROCHE.

Senator HART. We are adjourned, to resume at 9:30 tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, January 29, 1970.)

FEDERAL LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE PROCUREMENT

ACT

THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1970

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NATURAL RESOURCES,

AND THE ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. Philip A. Hart (chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment) presiding.

Present: Senators Hart, Pastore, Cannon, Long, Spong, Randolph Baker, Cooper, and Dole.

Senator HART. The committee will be in order.

We welcome the very able Secretary of Transportation, the former Governor of Massachusetts, John Volpe.

May I explain, because there is a hearing on the nomination of a man to the Supreme Court, I have some problems this morning, but Senator Cannon very kindly has consented to serve as chairman, and I shall be in and out. But I look forward to hearing the Secretary's remarks.

Senator Cannon?

Senator CANNON. You may proceed, Mr. Secretary. We are very happy to have you here today and hear your views on the pending legislation before the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. VOLPE, SECRETARY OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Secretary VOLPE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I want to say I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed Federal Low-Emission Vehicle Procurement Act (S. 3072).

Air pollution is one of the most serious problems facing America today, and the automobile is its principal cause. We are particularly concerned about this in the Department of Transportation, and we recognize fully the need to attack the problem on the broadest possible basis.

As a nation, we have taken justifiable pride in our pursuit of an ever-improving standard of living, holding out to our children the hope and promise of a better life. However, we now find that the automobile which has been a major factor in raising our standard of living has also become a major public health problem through its contribution to air pollution. Air pollution has become, literally, a black mark on our Nation. It could threaten our very existence.

The statistics on our national output of air pollution give us some indication of the magnitude of the problem. In 1966, about 190 million tons of pollutants were dumped into the air. Motor vehicles contributed about 90 million tons to the total. No other single source of air pollution approaches this magnitude. In our largest cities, the motor vehicle is a particularly heavy contributor to the pollution problem.

Air pollution affects us in many ways. It strikes at people, property, and even plant life. It is a national burden from the standpoint of health, economics, and esthetics. Because the automobile is by far the greatest contributor to air pollution, the outlook is particularly depressing when one considers that vehicular traffic will double in 15 years if the present growth rate continues.

Our choice is clear. We must solve the pollution problem or stop the growth. This is the message which I intend to handcarry to Detroit on the 12th and 13th of February. At that time, I hope to explore the problem in depth with each of the major automobile manufacturers.

The principal effort of the Federal Government thus far in attempting to control air pollution from vehicles has been the establishment of emission standards respecting the output by internal combustion engines of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. This effort has brought about some appreciable reductions on a per vehicle basis, but more needs to be done because of the continuing growth in the number of engines in use. There remains some doubt whether, over the long run, improvements in the internal combustion engine can be an adequate solution to the auto pollution problem. There is a body of technical opinion holding that, in the face of increasing auto use, it will be necessary to develop an entirely new propulsion system.

The Department is attempting to reduce air pollution from both public and private vehicles. In December, two new types of buses designed to reduce pollution were demonstrated. One was equipped with the new General Motors low-pollution device, sometimes referred to as the "environmental improvement kit." The other was an experimental turbine bus.

I want to say when the three different buses started up, the difference was so evident that even a 5-year-old child could have detected it. When we started a diesel bus of the type presently in use, the smoke, noise, and smell was just horrible. When we shut that bus off and started the bus equipped with the environmental improvement kit, we found it a great deal less noisy. The exhaust pipes, instead of being horizontal, were vertical, and you saw no smoke at all.

And then the turbine bus, of course, was completely noiseless and completely pollution-free.