My point is, and my reason for mentioning it now, that I think private industry can do a great job in coming to grips with this basic problem.

ROLE OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY IN BASIC PROBLEM

My personal feeling, Mr. Chairman, is that private industry can do a far better job than can Government-first of all because I think that if we speak of the work training programs-first off, we have the implied assurance that, if a company is training an individual, there likely will be a job for his talents once he has gained some competence in that area. And second, that people, on the basis of the experience Ford Motor Co. had in Detroit, seem a little more willing to participate in programs that are private industry oriented than has been the case with some of the Government programs. It has been a difficult thing, so far as I can determine, for Government to get people to come in and to avail themselves of the opportunity to increase their skills and competence under federally or State oriented and directed programs of manpower and development training.

I would just conclude by saying that I think what you have done has a significance far beyond those persons who are still with Ford who were first employed under that program, because I suspect a lot of other businesses are going to be studying what you have done, and I hope a lot of Government executives, too, will give attention to what you have done, so as better to understand what I think is a preferred way of trying to meet this problem of the hard-core unemployed. I would like to compliment you and through you the company you represent for having charted some new territory. You have plowed some new ground. I think that it is quite significant, and certainly most commendable that you would have moved in as you did, trying to fill this vacuum, and to get people into activity where they could assume responsibility and find the personal satisfactions that I think does come from work, and to divest them of the frustrations that I feel so often characterize those who are caught in the web of a welfare program and have nothing to do and are dissatisfied with society generally, and certainly inwardly quite displeased, I suspect, with themselves. And if we can replace a system of caring for people that I think has oftentimes, too often, demonstrated its inability to solve the problem, it simply tends to perpetuate the problem, with programs which will give people a chance to do what those with Ford now have done, it certainly deserves the attention of all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GHETTO EMPLOYEES HAVE GOOD RECORD

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Senator Hansen, for those kind comments. I conclude Senator Hruska is not only a good friend, but a good reporter as well.

I might say just briefly we are continuing to be pleased with our results of hiring in the inner city. The number now has increased to 3,200, hired in the inner city of Detroit, and in addition another 1,800 from that area have gone out and applied at the plant gates. We keep a weekly record of this, and the records indicate that the retention among these employees we have hired from the inner city is marginally higher than those we have hired from the outside.

I think our experience has-it will now be done on a broader basis. As you know, Mr. Henry Ford II is the national chairman of the National Association of Businessmen, which in cooperation with other Government programs extending this across the country, and we, too, are very hopeful that business will be able, working with Government, to increase job opportunities for these disadvantaged people. Thank you.

MEETINGS WITH BLS STAFF RECOMMENDED

Senator RIBICOFF. Would you be willing-not yourself, personally, but members of your staff who worked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to meet with other representatives in a like position in the other automobile companies, and members of my staff, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to try to work out procedures and methods that we have been discussing today?

Mr. MILLER. We would be extremely cooperative, Senator.
Senator RIBICOFF. Does Chrysler feel the same way?

Mr. BUCKMINSTER. Yes, sir; we would.

Senator RIBICOFF. And would American?

Mr. SECREST. Yes, sir.

Senator RIBICOFF. I am not excluding General Motors. They were here this morning. I don't know if anyone remains from General Motors who can speak for them. Otherwise I would ask the same question. I don't want to exclude General Motors. They will get transcripts of what transpired here.

ALTERNATE CARS COULD MEET BID SPECIFICATIONS

I was just wondering, Mr. Miller-it disturbs me this $100 excise tax. The Government charges $100 excise tax for every car-it is ridiculous to me. Moreover, since 1959, we have had a $1,500 limitation. General Motors mentioned the fact they thought they could supply a Chevy II, which is a good automobile in their opinion-and which could satisfy the basic needs of the Government as well as other cars that are specified.

Is the Ford Motor Co., in a similar position? Do you have a car you would like to have bid on that would be cheaper than the car that you have to bid on now? Is this something that bothers you?

Mr. MILLER. We have a better car at the same price, Senator. We would be glad to sell it to the Government when their specifications calls for it. The only difference is we would be losing money, but not quite as much money, because it still costs us more than $1,500.

Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, is there a sense of reality in this limitation of $1,500 on you and Chrysler and General Motors and American?

GOVERNMENT BIDS NOT BOYCOTTED

Mr. MILLER. Senator, in our judgment with the inflationary trends that are present, whether we like it or not, it is becoming increasingly difficult to continue to sell. One reason we do so is because we think it is probably temporary. We take heart in your statement that you didn't expect companies to lose money doing business with the Gov

ernment.

96-045-68 -15

In earlier testimony you asked, "Are you boycotting the Government?" The answer is no, we are not, and we won't.

Senator RIBICOFF. As far as Ford is concerned-if there are requirements you would be unhappy with, you are not going to say, "Because we are not happy with your specifications we are going to refuse to sell to the Federal Government.'

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. We try to be good citizens. We did temporarily withdraw for awhile last fall, when we had strike shortages, during the strike. That is because we had a particular problem. But as soon as the supplies built up, we came back in, and we hope to stay in. We believe we have an obligation. And we want to sell to the Federal Government. But we don't think it makes sense to expect the ceiling to continue as the product value and inflation continues in this country.

S. 2865 WOULD NOT CHANGE PRICING POLICY

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Javits requested the following question. I don't know whether he still wanted to ask, in view of our discussion, but I told him I would ask this question of all witnesses:

If S. 2865 were enacted, what would be the effect of requiring the disclosure of the price items of safety equipment upon the pricing policy of your company, pricing as to both the Government and the public.

Mr. MILLER. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it would have no influence whatsoever.

Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, if S. 2865 became law, that would not change your pricing policy?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

FORD'S PROTOTYPE SAFE CAR PROGRAM

Senator RIBICOFF. I have some questions that Senator Kennedy asked me to ask you, too:

In 1965, you told this Committee that you did not favor S. 2162, Senator Nelson's bill to authorize the Government to produce a prototype safe car, because you felt this was a job of industry. In fact, you said, "Ford has built several prototypes in the past, and we finished another this spring."

Can you tell us about subsequent developments in the Ford prototype safe car program?

Mr. MILLER. Our expenditures on safety research and engineering have gone up considerably since I was down here in 1965. At that time I told the committee we spent $138 million. This year we estimate we will spend $213 million, an increase of over 50 percent. Part of that cost will be included with additional prototype testing and crash testing of safety features on new vehicles.

Senator RIBICOFF. The next question:

I believe the construction and testing of a prototype safe car is very important for the guidance it can provide in producing safer cars. I have been highly impressed with the New York State project. Will you consult with the other companies in the industry, and with Fairchild Hiller, and try to work out a way for your association to assist in the development of this vehicle?

Mr. MILLER. I am on the executive committee of the AMA, and I would be glad to consider that request in connection with the other

members of the AMA. I would like to point out, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Transportation in the bids they have let out for safety prototypes have made an explicit statement that the industry members are prohibited from bidding on those contracts. I am not so sure how that would apply to the request of the Senator from New York.

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FORESEEN IN NEAR FUTURE

Senator RIBICOFF. Question:

Based on your research efforts, what is the most important step you can take in the next 2 to 3 years to improve the safety of the cars you manufacture?

Mr. MILLER. The question as you read it says the most important single step. There isn't any single step, Mr. Chairman, that will have any dramatic breakthrough on the safety. This is a business now of bits and pieces. In our research and engineering laboratories we are working on literally dozens of ideas-not all of which will pay out. If I had to forecast what I thought might be the areas in which est progress might be made in the next few years, I would single out these four:

First, improved occupant restraint, especially for children.

great

Second, improved protection from outside forces, such as side impact.

Third, easier handling characteristics, to permit the driver to retain control under adverse conditions.

Fourth, improved interior design, such as arm rests, door handles, and so forth.

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTS AND RESULTS

Senator RIBICOFF. Question:

Earlier I asked General Motors about its compliance testing procedure. Can you tell us about the Ford Co.'s program? Do you test every make and model you produce at least once?

Mr. MILLER. We have elaborate testing procedures in our company to make sure that every car we produce complies fully with the safety standards. There is a good reason for that, because, for each one that fails, we are liable for penalty up to $1,000.

Senator RIBICOFF. How much does this cost you for each car? Mr. MILLER. The cost of crashing each car, including setting up the test and analyzing the results, is approximately $25,000 per vehicle. Senator RIBICOFF. Per vehicle tested?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, would you allocate the cost that goes into every car that is sold when you spread out this overall? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; the total cost of engineering is allocated to the cost of each car.

Senator RIBICOFF. What does that amount to per car?

Mr. MILLER. I do not have that. If the total amount was $213 million--I would rather supply that for the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

EXHIBIT 29

In Mr. Arjay's testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization on May 1, he indicated that Ford would supply for the record the estimated per unit cost to insure compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Total Ford Motor Co. expenditures on safety activities are estimated at $213 million in 1968, up $75 million from 1965. (These exclude the direct material and labor cost increases required to meet Federal safety standards.) On a per unit basis, the 1968 expenditures would be about $75 per car. Our records are not maintained in such a way as to enable us to state the portion of the $75 that is specifically attributable to "compliance testing," as distinct from other facets of our safety expenditures.

Senator RIBICOFF. Would you supply for the record a representative sample of the test results you have recorded on various makes and models?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)

EXHIBIT 30

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD No. 107

REFLECTING SURFACES

Paragraph S4 Requirements.-The specular gloss of the surface of the materials used for the following bright metal components in the driver's field of view shall not exceed 40 units when measured by the 20° method of ASTM Standard D523-62T, June 1962—

(a) Windshield wiper arms and blades;

(b) Inside windshield mouldings;

(c) Horn ring and hub of steering wheel assembly; and

(d) Inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket.

When tested in accordance with the above paragraph, the following results were obtained on 1968 Ford Motor Company passenger car components:

Windshield Wiper Arms and Blades.-Common finish for all car lines; the highest gloss reading obtained was 23 units.

Inside Windshield Moldings.-No car lines use bright metal inside windshield moldings.

Horn Ring.-Ford, Mercury, Meteor, Mustang, Cougar, Falcon, Fairlane, Montego-highest gloss reading was 27 units.

Thunderbirds, Mark III, Lincoln-highest gloss reading was 27 units.

Hub of Steering Wheel Assembly.-Highest gloss readings obtained were as follows:

Inside Rearview Mirror.-Arm: Common finish for all car lines; the highest gloss reading was 37 units.

Bracket: Common finish for all car lines; the highest gloss reading was 9 units.

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD No. 203

IMPACT PROTECTION FOR THE DRIVER FROM THE STEERING CONTROL SYSTEM

Paragraph $4.1 Requirements.-When the steering control system is impacted by a body block in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J944, "Steering Wheel Assembly Laboratory Test Procedure," December 1965 or an approved equivalent, at a relative velocity of 15 miles per hour, the impact force developed on the chest of the body block transmitted to the steering control system shall not exceed 2,500 pounds.