after the standards have been set, try to put a car on the highways, or sell it, so that someone might be killed or injured. But we thought we needed this section. The committee discussed it at great length.

There is also a provision which provides for an injunction procedure, so that the Attorney General can go into court to obtain an injunction against a manufacturer for failure to comply with the standards. Of course, if that injunction were violated, the court could hold the persons or the corporation in contempt and could establish a criminal penalty, a civil penalty, or both. But there were three penalties in the bill. There was much argument in the committee and I guess there will be on the floor, because I understand that an amendment will be offered to restore the criminal penalty section. It is true that we have had few Federal laws which imposed both a civil penalty and a criminal penalty as well.

The question was raised: Why was it put in the bill? Because we are dealing with human lives. We are dealing with the possibility that someone might willfully, knowingly, and deliberately violate the act and should therefore, be subject to criminal penalty. In the past, numerous laws have been passed by Congress which have dealt with safety and standard settings. Most of these laws have provided a criminal penalty for knowing and willful violations. Many of these laws came out of the Committee on Commerce. I am the author of some of them. We provided a criminal penalty in the safety field just 2 or 3 years ago when we passed the bill on the Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, the Truth in Fabric Act, the Drug Amendments of 1962, steam boilers on vessels, interference with navigation, and the brake fluid and seatbelt acts. Thus, there is precedent for criminal penalties. But the committee, after long deliberation on this matter, voted to retain the civil penalty, and take out the criminal penalty for willful and knowing violations, leaving in the injunction, which in itself can result in a criminal penalty. I do not believe that any of us are reluctant about expressing our views on it. I hope the criminal penalty will be put back in. I shall vote to restore it. Other members of the committee will doubtless have good reasons to vote not to do so when the amendment is presented.

The effect on State laws is quite important and is what makes a bill of this kind so difficult. Primarily, in the field of highway traffic safety, the States have important authority and should continue to exercise such authority. They determine the age of drivers, issuing drivers' licenses, inspections, speed laws, those regulations designed to reduce to a minimum the number of bad drivers on the highways.

I guess we will never get rid of bad drivers on the highways, but what we are trying to do here is to insure that, even if a bad or a drunken driver runs into someone who is a good driver, the vehicles themselves will afford some protection for both drivers, and reduce the deaths and the terrible injuries which are inflicted on Americans every day

even at the very moment than I am speaking.

The States have great responsibility in the field of highway traffic itself. There is no intention by the committee or by anyone associated with the bill, to say to the States that they should not continue to do more in this area.

Some States have more stringent laws than others, but concerning the car itself, we must have uniformity. That is why the bill suggests to States that if we set a minimum standard, a car complying with such standard should be admitted to all States. Otherwise, the manufacturers would have to make at least 30 different models to comply. The centralized, mass production and high volume character of the manufacturing industry requires that the safety standards be not only strong and adequately enforced but, as I say, also uniform. I would suspect that the States, if these provisions are going to be what I think they are going to be, would be thoroughly satisfied with the uniform, mandatory safety standards that would be on the

They are the most courteous and helpful. They have vehicles which in themselves are great, big, juggernauts which are capable of creating great destruction and hazards; but, technologically, they are as safe as they can be made by the ICC under its standards.

Let me read from the report:

The act thus covers not only passenger carn but buses, trucks, and motorcycles.

The bill excludes, however, those buses and trucks which are subject to safety regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission (sec. 101(c)), although it is anticipated that should the proposed new Department be created

And the proposal provides thatsafety regulation of all trucks and buses will be transferred to the Secretary of Transportation.

Such regulations would be covered by that Department.

When we come to agriculture-exempt trucks, and private carriers, over which the ICC still has jurisdiction as to minimum standards, there has been some question about the Department's having enough inspectors to do the job which we should like it to do. I doubt if it could be done wholly. But the example will be set by this bill so that manufacturers of trucks will themselves establish minimum standards. They are already doing it. Many trucks are custom built. They are built for a purpose. There would be variations in construction.

The rest of the bill pretty much deals with the effect of the promulgation by the Secretary of standards.

I hope there will be some discussion on the floor as to the application of the antitrust laws to the manufacturers themselves in getting together within proper limits to exchange views and ideas on safety standards, so we can get the best available technological advice and expertise. That question will be discussed on the floor.

All in all, I think the bill is not only long overdue, but that it is a stringent bill. I think conditions call for a stringent measure.

Many newspaper men have asked me in the past week: "Is it true that this bill is a tougher bill than the administration bill?" I said I did not like to interpret the word "tough." The reason the word got into newspaper stories is that the original bill proposed to make these regulations discretionary. We have made it mandatory in the bill and subject to a time limit. So I suppose it can be said that it is a tougher bill.

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. RIBICOFF. I say it is a tougher bill and it is a better bill than the administration bill. I cannot be too lavish in my praise of the distinguished Senator from Washington and the Commerce Committee.

It seems to me that the services performed by the Senator from Washington and the committee deserve great credit. I am personally very pleased with the bill. The Senator from Washington and the committee deserve the gratitude of the whole Nation.

In addition, the Senator and the committee are taking world leadership in this field. The legislation will cover foreign cars as well as domestic cars by making it absolutely essential that before any foreign cars can be imported into the United States they must comply with these standards.

The automobile manufacturers in the United States generally manufacture automobiles which are safer than foreignmade cars. There are a few exceptions, but I do not think the people in the rest of the world are going to sit by and see their own manufacturers build cars of higher safety standards for the U.S. market than apply to their own cars.

What the chairman of the committee has done is bring about a public realization of the importance of highway safety.

While the emphasis in the past 6 months has been on the automobile, I think we would be making a great mistake if we forgot the so-called highway safety triangle, which includes the driver and the road, in addition to the car. What has been proposed in title I is revolutionary. But the white heat of publicity has placed the emphasis on the automobile. I think there should be as great an emphasis placed on the other facets of this critical problem, because we shall never take care of this serious problem unless we attack every phase of it.

I think the bill which the Senator has reported is a great bill. I have said publicly, and I say it now on the floor, the

Senator and his committee have done a masterful job.

There is no doubt in my mind that this bill will save many lives, prevent untold suffering, and reduce the enormous economic loss incurred through traffic accidents. It will benefit both the motorist and the pedestrian-the driver who earns his living at the wheel and the average citizen.

It will add significantly to our understanding of the dynamics of highway safety, the causes of traffic accidents, and ways to reduce the terrible consequences of those accidents.

It will, in a relatively short span of time, give the motoring public safer motor vehicles cars that are more roadworthy and more crashworthy.

It will protect the motoring public from the hazards of defective motor vehicles by prescribing procedures for the prompt notification of the public when any safety-related defects are discovered.

It will, for the first time, give statutory recognition to the fact that the motor vehicle constitutes an important social problem in the United States-a social problem that warrants Federal action.

The legislation now before us will provide the authority to establish a comprehensive, meaningful, and effective Federal role in traffic safety. The Senate Commerce Committee has done a superb job in drafting a bill that is stronger than the legislation originally recommended by the administration and which contains none of the weakening amendments proposed in recent weeks.

This is a tough bill, but it is also balanced and reasonable. It directs the

Secretary of Commerce to establish Federal safety standards for all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, foréign as well as domestic, including trucks and buses not already subject to ICC regulation. The authority is mandatory, as it should be-not discretionary.

The Secretary would be ordered to prescribe interim standards, by January 31, 1967, to become effective from 6 months to a year after their publication. These interim standards will bring at least a measure of Federal control to 1968 model cars.

The Secretary is ordered to consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, with other State and interstate agencies, including legislative committees, with motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, as well as with scientific, technical, business, and consumer organizations-before setting these standards. He must also consider whether they are reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicle involved.

Safety standards prescribed under the terms of this bill would be intended to protect the American public from unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of motor vehicle design or construction and also from unreasonable risk of death and injury should an accident occur. The Commerce Committee rightly saw fit to extend this definition to nonoperational safety aspects of motor vehicles so that it covers such items as a faulty jack that slips and injures a motorist changing a tire, or an improperly designed hood or trunk lid which falls and injures someone.

The bill would make it illegal to sell any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment which did not conform to these Federal safety standards and would provide for stringent civil penalties for any violation. It would also give the Secretary of Commerce authority to carry on whatever testing, inspection, and investigation was required to help in the enforcement of these standards. This would include the on-site inspection of factory and warehouse facilities.

Standards now prescribed for brake fluid and seat belts would continue in effect under the Commerce Committee bill and I am certain that any standards prescribed for tires, along the lines of the bill unanimously adopted by the Senate last March, would likewise be a part of the Federal traffic safety program.

I am particularly pleased that the Commerce Committee saw fit to provide the Secretary with authority to develop prototype safe cars through grants or contracts. Although no funds are specifically authorized for such projects, ample money will be available to develop and test demonstration vehicles that can significantly advance our knowledge of what constitutes safe motor vehicle design.

The Secretary would also be authorized to assist and cooperate with State agencies and other public bodies in the development of safety standards, inspection and testing methods, and testing equipment. In addition, he could undertake a variety of training programs designed to

create cadres of professionally qualified experts who are equipped to interpret and apply safety standards. This trained manpower will play a vital role in administering a comprehensive and balanced traffic safety program.

There is ample provision in the committee's bill to insure prompt and effective disclosure of any hazardous defects that might turn up in a motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment sold to the public. The burden of responsibility for correcting any such safety-related defect or nonconforming condition would rest on the manufacturer rather than the dealer-a powerful inducement for the automakers to maintain the highest standards of quality control.

While rejecting a specific requirement for compulsory safety inspection of used motor vehicles, the committee bill would declare that it is the policy of the Congress to improve and strengthen the enforcement of State inspection of used motor vehicles. It would also order the Secretary of Commerce to study the adequacy and effectiveness of State safety standards and inspection requirements and report back to Congress within 1 year with recommendations for additional Federal legislation in this area.

The committee would authorize the expenditure of $51 million for the first 3 years of this new Federal traffic safety effort almost three times what the administration had suggested. In addition, the bill would authorize whatever outlays are required to build an up-to-date accident and injury research center.

I repeat, this is a good bill. It includes all of the provisions that I felt were lacking in the administration's bill, including a requirement that the Secretary furnish Congress an annual report giving a comprehensive account of how the act is being administered, including a review of research activities and recommendations for any additional legislation required.

This legislation gives the Federal Government a permanent responsibility in the traffic safety field. It is a responsibility too long neglected. We have Federal programs to insure safe travel with every means of transportation except that which carries and kills the most people-the motor vehicle. When we commute to work on the train-when we fly to a distant city by plane- or when we travel overseas by ship we know that the train, the plane, or the ship meet certain minimum standards of safety. But when we put our families in a car to drive to the country, we have no such assurance.

For years, the Federal Government has specified the number of handholds for trainmen on freight cars. Is there anything improper in the Federal Goverment specifying the number and kind of lights required on motor vehicles? Can we not insist that car doors stay closed in a 40-mile-an-hour collision? Can we not demand gas tanks that will not rupture in a crash? Can the Federal Government not require the auto industry to build a car with a stronger passenger compartment-with effective padding-and a steering column that will not impale a driver in a collision?

If we are to tame the motor vehicle, we must make a conscious decision to do all those things that are required to make our highways as safe as humanly possible. The automobile is part of our environment-like the jet airplane, atomic energy, pesticides, and a whole host of new life-saving drugs. We have learned to control these technological wonders just as we will learn to harness the marvelous inventions and discoveries of the future.

The problem of death and injury on our highways is a challenge to man's technical genius and his ability to control his environment. It is a challenge we must now decide to meet and overcome. The first step is to enact the legislation now pending before us.

The carnage on our highways is nothing less than an insult. It insults our humanity and our sense of the value of human life. It insults our sense of pride in the technological achievements of this nation-in our ability to master the complexities of modern life. It insults our confidence in the legislative process-in our ability to protect the health, welfare, and happiness of the American people.

When this legislation is enacted, it will be a landmark of consumer protection legislation.

Every member of this generation and the generations to come will owe a debt of gratitude to the Senator from Washington for the outstanding task he and his committee have performed on this bill, and I cannot help but commend him highly for his performance.

Mr. MAGNUSON. We thank the Senator very much, and we are very grateful for his kind remarks, of course. I had the fine cooperation of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the minority, and all the other members of the committee.

I should like the Senator from Connecticut to respond to this thought. I share his view of the impact that this legislation might have, not only on the United States but worldwide. I failed to mention that we have provided in the bill for foreign cars, that they must comply with the standards; and we have even allowed them to come in under something like a free-port arrangement, where, if they are not in compliance, dealers can bring them up to standard.

The Senator from Connecticut and I have discussed the fact that we have world conferences on safety at sea, world conferences on safety in the air, and world conferences on safety of explosives and hazardous substances, and I mentioned that I hope the day will come soon when we will have a world conference on automobile safety. Millions of lives could be saved if that were done.

Mr. RIBICOFF. There is no question that what the Senator says is absolutely true. I can tell from my mail, as I am sure the Senator can from his mail, the deep concern and the impact that this legislation has had on foreign manufacturers, because they want a portion of the American market, and they know that they will not be able to retain a

portion of the American market unless they build safer cars. So unquestionably the work of the Senator and his committee has had a worldwide impact.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I think the Senator from Connecticut should pursue the matter, and undertake the leadership of a worldwide conference on auto safety. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield. I thank the Senator from Connecticut again for his kind remarks.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, as the junior member of the committee, I wish to commend the distinguished chairman, the Senator from Washington, [Mr. MAGNUSON] for the truly magnificent job he has done in managing this bill in the committee. The Senator was fair to all the committee members; he considered every Senator's point of view; he considered both the needs of the public and the needs of industry. It has never been my experience to serve with or serve under a more fair or conscientious presiding officer than the Senator from Washington in handling this bill. In my judgment, he has brought forth a truly remarkable bill to protect the public interest and to save vast numbers of lives from being lost in traffic accidents. The senior Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] has given careful consideration to the needs and the viewpoints of all segments of business, both large and small, to make it possible for them to comply with the bill without injury to their economic interests or future prospects. At the same time, he has brought to the Senate a bill which carefully protects the interests of the public, and assures that deaths on the highway will be greatly reduced as a result of the work of his committee.

It has been a real pleasure to serve with the Senator as chairman of the committee.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Every member of the committee is deeply indebted to the chairman for the very thoughtful and kind consideration he gave to each of us in permitting us to express our views, and in reconciling the many divergent viewpoints, to bring forth a bill that represents the best judgment of the committee.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from Louisiana was very helpful to the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON), myself, and all of us in arriving at what we think is a sensible bill-for that is what we feel it is.

As I pointed out earlier, this is an industry that employs, directly or indirectly, one out of every six people employed in the United States. It means a great deal to our economy. But I hope the Senator from Connecticut and other Senators will not be satisfied. I agree with what the Senator has stated on driver education. I cannot think of anything that would be of better use, for the expenditure of a small amount of money, than a worldwide conference on auto safety.

Mr. RIBICOFF. I think the suggestion is a sound one, and I think the

Senator will find general agreement from every nation which has large numbers of automobiles. I have been asked to speak in many nations outside the United States on this problem. I hope the chairman will initiate such a conference, and will invite me to attend with him when the conference is held.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I say to the Senator from Connecticut, no one has been more zealous in pursuing this matter over the years than has he. I read the article in the New York Times last weekend. It was not immodest at all about what the Senator has done in this field. I think it woke a lot of people up.

But the very fact that the Senator did not seem to obtain much reaction anywhere except in his own area, working under great odds, points up the necessity for doing what we are doing here.

Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct. It can be done on a localized basis, but it becomes very obvious that this problem is so vast that the Federal Government must have a role. It is obvious that the 50 States cannot individually set standards for the automobiles that come into those 50 States from a mass production industry.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The State Governors have appointed a committee to cooperate and work out these problems. They had a short meeting here 2 or 3 weeks ago. The chairman is the Governor of Wyoming. Governor Romney of Michigan is on the committee, as is the Governor of West Virginia. They intend to take the matter up at their Governors' conference, which is to be held on the 4th and 5th of July in Los Angeles.

Mr. RIBICOFF. With the passage of such legislation as this, its impact in the States will follow accordingly. Once the States realize that the Federal Government has an interest, and once the news is out that this is a national policy, then the reluctance of many States to take the steps that they must and should take on the question of driver education, the question of licensing, and the question of making sure their roads are proper will disappear, and the matter will become an important State Issue. Then the pressure will be on the Governors to do the jobs. My feeling is, having been a Governor

Mr. MAGNUSON. And the legislatures.

Mr. RIBICOFF. And the legislatures. But the key must be the Governor. The Governor must be the driving force in his State for highway safety. He must take what seemingly is an unpopular tough course. But basically he will be pursuing a popular course, because the American people wish to save their own lives and those of their loved ones.

Now we are making it possible to attack one important facet of the accldent triangle so that, to the greatest extent possible, it will be possible to minimize accidents and the seriousness of injuries, and reduce the number of deaths.

Now that congressional attention has been focused on this subject, the Federal Government will have a principal role in promoting highway safety, and we

shall find that the States will accelerate their own activities on the local and State levels.

By our action on this bill, we shall be making a distinct contribution to highway safety.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I agree.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD excerpts from the report.

There being no objection, the excerpts from the report (Rept. No. 1301) were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

The critical definitions which delimit the scope of the bill are those of "motor vehicle" and "motor vehicle safety."

"Motor vehicle" for purposes of coverage of the act is defined as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power primarily for use on the public roads, streets, and highways (sec. 101(c)). The act thus covers not only passenger cars but buses, trucks, and motorcycles. The bill excludes, however, those buses and trucks which are subject to safety regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission (sec. 101 (c)), although it is anticipated that should the proposed new Department of Transportation be created, safety regulation of all trucks and buses will be transferred to the Secretary of Transportation. In the interim, to avoid the imposition of dual standards on these vehicles, the bill requires that the Secretary not adopt standards which differ in substance from applicable safety regulations issued by the ICC (sec. 103(g)).

"Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment in such 8 manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of accident occurring as the result of the design or construction of motor vehicles; and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury to persons in the event accidents do occur, and includes nonoperational safety of such vehicles" (sec. 101(a)).

Thus the bill is intended to reach not only the safety of driver, passenger, and pedestrian, but the safety of those who must work with or otherwise come in contact with the vehicle while it is not operating.

INTERIM AND REVISED STANDARDS

The bill, as amended by the committee, assigns responsibility for the administration of safety standards and research to the Secretary of Commerce (sec. 101(1)). In order that the congressional mandate be made unequivocal and certain and that safety standards be established at the earliest practicable time, the bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe interim motor vehicle safety standards by January 31, 1967 (sec. 102). These standards are to be effective within 6 months to 1 year thereafter. Such interim standards, which will be promulgated before the Secretary is able to derive substantial benefit from the new research and development activities also authorized by the act, will necessarily be based upon existing public and private standards, evaluated in the light of available technical Information.

Thus it is anticipated that in selecting interim standards, the Secretary will consider and evaluate the current GSA safety standards for Government-purchased vehicles (a copy of the current standards is included in the appendix to this report). The Secretary will also be expected to review exlating State motor vehicle standards as well as voluntary SAE standards to determine which may appropriately be used as a basis for interim national standards.

Subsequently, on or before January 31, 1968, and thereafter at least once every 2