struction equipment. We must seek to reduce the noise from presently dieseldriven compressors, concrete mixers, hoists, etc. The use of electric machinery is one answer.

One point I would like to make about electric propulsion: Citizens for a Quieter City would like to see the reduction of one form of pollution, noise, without adding to air pollution. Our interest in electric and other types of quiet power is predicated on parallel developments in controlling the emission of pollutants from power-generating stations. We would not like to trade decibels for sulfur dioxide.

In any case, the pursuit of alternatives is in the finest tradition of American democracy, and may stimulate the competitive spirit in the area of less noise as well as more power. I believe all of us would like to see quiet operation a sales point in all motor vehicle promotion.

Citizens for a Quieter City thanks Senators Muskie and Magnuson and the members of the Senate Committees on Commerce and Public Works for extending to us this opportunity to express ourselves on a subject that so vitally concerns our sonic environment.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. CARTER F. HENDERSON, PRESIDENT, CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR, INC., NEW YORK, N.Y.

My name is Mrs. Carter F. Henderson, and I am president of Citizens for Clean Air, Inc., headquartered in New York City, which represents thousands of citizens from all walks of life who have had their fill of polluted air, and understand that they do not have to tolerate it as a price of progress. We have learned that air pollution is no petty annoyance . . . it kills. It has made respiratory disease (not including lung cancer) the fastest increasing cause of death in America. And it maims. Emphysema, one of the principal diseases caused or worsened by air pollution, each month leaves 1,000 or more workers unemployable.

The dimensions of the threat are not yet fully perceived. Dr. Rene DuBos of Rockefeller University, goes so far as to predict that poisoned air is breeding a generation of "respiratory cripples." One of the full-page ads that Citizens for Clean Air has sponsored in major national magazines sounded the warning with this headline:

"Introducing a New Disease: New York Lungs"

We could just as well have said Los Angeles Lungs, Chicago Lungs, or even Washington Lungs . . . because air pollution is spreading like a cancer all across our country . . . and the chief culprit is the internal combustion engine, which now accounts for over half of all of America's air pollution problem. Nor is it only our large metropolises that are afflicted . . . but even as city dwellers try to escape to the suburbs, they are forced through lack of other transportation facilities to bring their polluting vehicles with them . . . thus spreading the contamination they sought to avoid.

Citizens for Clean Air is at the same time well aware of the debt the country owes to the conventional internal combustion engine, whose role in the development of America was as important as that of the railroads. It has shaped the era which is now receding, and became a powerful agent for social change. It linked a largely rural population and helped to weld us into a nation, and it made Americans the envy of the world. Now all that is past. We are now an urban nation, and growing increasingly so each year, as more and more of us try to cram ourselves into approximately 2% of our total land area. Now many of our in-city journeys are best accomplished on foot, because the vehicular traffic, with all its horsepower cannot move on the choked thoroughfares. In fact, the average speed at which traffic moves in Midtown Manhattan is 8 miles an hour . . . a speed which even our present electric cars have no trouble in beating! Therefore, let us with due honors retire the internal combustion engine, and ensconce it in the Smithsonian Institution, where our children may come to gaze on it with the same wonder and reverence that they do the steam locomotive and all the other glorious symbols of America's past technological genius. The kind of private transportation that is needed for the America of today and tomorrow must be radically different in several ways. First and most urgent of the new demands that will shape the automobile market is that there be no poisonous emissions, and, ideally, no combustion process which competes with humans for the limited oxygen supply in congested areas. In many American cities, merely to walk a few blocks in a clogged downtown street can bring on a headache and nausea in susceptible individuals. Surely we must plan for all our citizens and not just for the survival of the fittest.

Secondly, we need automobiles that are quiet, and could help to reduce the constant uproar that unnerves the city-dweller, and may in itself be a cause of human deafness, hypertension, and many other physical and psychological complaints.

Thirdly, we need cars that are smaller and more maneuverable for easy parking, and so that limited space in urban areas may accommodate more of them in less street and off-street space.

And, lastly, we all want safer cars of a basically more simple design, with fewer moving parts that need costly repairs and replacement.

We believe that the electric or fuel cell car can meet all these demands, and, therefore, we commend the two Bills you are now considering, because they will not only strike at the heart of the air pollution problem, but will also serve as a catalyst, in developing a car that will meet more realistically the needs of today's consumers. We also feel, however, that the total appropriation of only $8.5 million for which the Bills call is almost a token amount. The dimensions of the problem and current costs of comparable research and demonstration programs would indicate that $7 million for S453 and $10 million for $451 would be more realistic. Surely this program is at least of comparable importance to the recently proposed nuclear rocket program to explore the planets for which the initial sum suggested is $91 million. We urge this because time is running out and we must move forward with this task before the increase in both human and auto populations of this country make our urban areas unfit for human habitation.

Already there are omnious signs that the American is becoming disenchanted with the automobile. Not only is it poisoning him, but it grates on his nerves, destroys his sense of smell and drains his resources. Measures are being seriously considered in many states to curb the auto, to limit its access to urban cores, to ban it from parks so that strollers can smell the grass again, and some have even talked of banning the internal combustion engine altogether. However, it is not the auto in itself that they object to... but only its objectionable qualities. Therefore, if research and development are stepped up now, we believe that the next generation of cars will be able to meet the present objec tions and thus avoid having to throw out the baby with the bath water. If nothing is done to meet the deficiencies of present cars, the only alternative would seem to be restrictive legislation and a massive shift in emphasis to public transportation systems. We think that personal transportation is worth saving, and that it can be made viable again, and it is toward this essentially conservative and constructive goal that these bills are aimed.

Many Detroit experts tell us that electric or fuel cell cars are a decade away, and that in any case, they would never have the speed or range that the U.S. consumer demands. We would only point to the increasing evidence that technological innovation is largely a function of the priority and the resources allocated to any particular area of endeavor. Professor Daniel Bell of Columbia University in a recent essay entitled "Notes on the Post Industrial Society" illustrates clearly the absolute speed up of technological innovation and application in this century. Specifically he states that the average time span between the initial discovery of a new technological innovation and the recognition of its commercial potential decreased from 30 years during the early part of the century to 9 years for the post World War II period. In other words, we can do it if we want to and will allocate the necessary effort.

So what is the basic underlying road block? We submit that it is a marketing problem. It is the lack of a viable consumer mass-market for the new cars. The sure knowledge that such a market existed would provide the incentive for the private sector to tool-up and mass-produce these vehicles. As we all know, most consumer demand in our economy today is created. So how can we create, in a very short space of time, the consumer demand for our new product; a demand to which our private enterprise system should then respond with the alacrity and efficiency for which it is rightly famous? We submit that the tool used to create markets is advertising. If advertising can be used to create million dollar markets for such items as electric knives and toothbrushes, surely it can help sell a new fume free car to the public!

We therefore urge that funds be made available under the provisions of $453 to run a nationwide all media consumer advertising campaign to acquaint the public with the new cars that are coming, and of all the advantages they hold. This campaign could be conducted in conjunction with the many companies who are already working in the fields of battery and fuel cell design, and possibly

the electric utility industry which hopes to re-charge all those batteries. There are many precedents for this type of campaign in private industry, which have sought to prepare consumers for accepting a product before it was actually available in the marketplace. The latest example is a large electronics company which is running consuming advertising to acquaint the public with all manner of yet unavailable gadgets and devices for personal and home use.

After the campaign had been run for several months, the next step would be to conduct a market survey to determine the penetration of the advertising. Such a survey could be undertaken by the automobile companies in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, and would quantify what percentage of American consumers would be interested in purchasing an electric vehicle, possibly as a second car, if one were available as a mass-produced, and therefore competitively priced, product. We believe that this initial approach to the present problem would complement the intent of the legislation, which, as we see it, is to stimulate the private sector in as many ways as possible. We believe that an initial ad campaign and market survey would be the most efficient means to stimulate the private sector in the shortest space of time by demonstrating that a market exists. For the need is so urgent that the existing research facilities of the auto industry are needed in addition to the Federal program called for in the proposed legislation.

Let me finish by saying that the organization which I represent is a case study in the effectiveness of the marketing approach. Before the year 1965 when Citizens for Clean Air was founded, there was little widespread understanding of air pollution or demand for clean air. Then, with the help of a public-spirited advertising agency, Carl Ally, Incorporated, we launched an all media advertising campaign to acquaint the consumer with the fact that clean air was for sale, and that he could buy it if he didn't mind paying a few dollars more per year for some goods and services. This campaign, with time and space worth millions of dollars freely donated by national magazines, newspapers, and all our local radio and television stations in the metropolitan New York area, has almost singlehandedly created consumer demand and a viable market. This has encouraged some hesitant companies manufacturing pollution control equipment to tool up for the coming rush of business, estimated by Fortune Magazine to be worth $3 billion a year, and has encouraged some polluting companies to purchase the control equipment in the sure knowledge that consumers will be willing to absorb the cost in slightly higher prices.

So we urge that the case of the electric car, too, an informed consumer and the free enterprise system be put to the test.

Senator SPONG. The committee will now stand adjourned until further notice.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the joint committee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)

ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE

MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION

OF THE SENATE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE,

Washington, D.C. The joint committee met at 10 a.m. in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie presiding.

Cochairman MUSKIE. The hearing will be in order.

This morning the Committee on Commerce and the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee will continue hearings on S. 451 and S. 453, bills to promote the development of electric vehicles and other nonpolluting alternatives to the internalcombustion engine. This is the fifth and final day of hearings.

Interest in the earlier hearings ran high, and all of the scheduled witnesses were not heard. The committees are hearing those witnesses today. In addition, a witness from the Westinghouse Corp. is present and will explain to the committees its very interesting decision to manufacture and distribute one of the types of urban electric vehicles that has been the center of so much attention at these hearings and in the press.

The committees have heard a great many witnesses and have received a great many statements on the bills. Today's witnesses will doubtlessly offer additional suggestions, recommendations, and ideas. On the basis of the testimony and statements submitted, the committees will want to give serious attention to all ideas in redrafting the legislation to accurately reflect both the promise and complexities of the subjects of electric vehicles and other nonpolluting alternatives.

As I look at the first name on the list of witnesses, it seems like we are coming in on a movie for the second time. It was my pleasure to hear him last week, and it is my pleasure again to welcome the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, Mr. Lee C. White.

STATEMENT OF LEE C. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be back for the second run of hearings here, and our second opportunity to talk about technology.

We spoke last week with reference to Senate Resolution 68 in a more general sense, about the contribution that technology can make

79-607 0-67-25