ELECTRIC VEHICLES 327 we just set up a department of Government to undertake this entire problem of research and development. As you point out, one company may come up with one answer and somebody else will build a better mousetrap and he will get the business that way. I agree with Senator Cotton that no one is going to buy a car just on the basis of the amount of air pollution that its exhaust fumes cause. That is the other fellow's worry, not mine, when I am driving a car. I have a hard time when I get behind a diesel bus right now. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I do commend you for your statement. I think it is very enlightening. Mr. Dunlop. Thank you. Senator BAYH. Thank you, Senator Morton. I should know better than to tangle with you. Senator Baker? Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dunlop. I want to say first that of all the witnesses I have heard, both in our Subcommittee on Air Pollution and in these joint committee hearings, I don't believe that any has presented a statement that is more lucid and better organized and more to the point than the one that you have just given us, and I commend you for it. I have two or three questions that relate to what has been my principal concern in connection with the statements of other witnesses. Before I ask those questions I want to respond to the remark made by Senator Cotton to the effect that I have created a degree of confusion in his mind about certain variations in the problem of air pollution. I will start by saying that I plead innocent on the proposition. My father once told me to always guard against speaking more clearly than I think. [Laughter.] So you see I am going to try to elaborate on what I was thinking. Senator CorroN. I was afraid you were going to say that I was confused long before you ever came to the Senate. [Laughter.] Senator Scorr. That is a concomitant of seniority. Senator BAKER. That is a debate that I couldn't possibly win between you and Senator Cotton, so I will stay out of it. The question which I have put to other witnesses, and which I would like to put to you, Mr. Dunlop, is this: First of all I am concerned that because the impact of pollution is so different from area to area, depending upon geographical and meteorological conditions, no single device, and no single technique is likely to solve the automotive pollution problem in all parts of the country at the same time. This in turn leads to the very serious question of whether or not Federal regulation in this field should invoke the doctrine of preemption and thereby prevent other regulatory authorities-States, counties, and cities--from making additional or supplemental regulations; that is, requirements and standards of their own. In the Los Angeles Valley Basin, for examule, we have a smog-type problem which, according to the testimony I heard in Los Angeles, may very well be worsened instead of improved by present techniques for the removal of hydrocarbons becaiie, as we engage ourselves in better combustion techniques, we probably produce a higher level of the