The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Moss].

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I rise in support of this legislation recognizing that it is, as all legislation must be, the result of careful deliberations-a compromise in some respects. Many of us would want more, and some would want less.

In balance, it is an excellent piece of legislation.

In my judgment, it is far stronger than the legislation which reached our committee from the other body. It is broader in its scope. Its tire section is strong and effective. It is an effort to improve the safety of the motor vehicles which we operate in such tremendous numbers in this Nation.

I am not so naive, nor do I believe the Members of the Committee to be so naive, as to fail to recognize that in most accidents there is human error, there is human fault, or failure on the part of at least one of the drivers. But we must be concerned with the increasing toll of life, and the destruction of the ability of the surviving individual to enjoy a productive life as a result of the so-called second impact which occurs inside that vehicle.

There I believe the automobile industry of this Nation stands seriously indicted for their failures to recognize the need to give a safer environment than they have provided so far.

I do not question that this, as we measure industrial responsibility, is a responsible industry. But on occasion it acts in strange fashions.

I personally have experienced in at least three automobiles purchased from major manufacturers defects which could have caused fatal accidents, and had the accident occurred I would probably have been listed as statistically chargeable with bad driving, and yet that would not have been the case.

The effort is here to encourage by appropriate standards, to empower Government through persuasion and finally compulsion, to insist that we be given the safer environment and the safer operation.

There is need to continue the efforts in better driving education, to discourage the driver who is irresponsible and takes to the road when he has had too much to drink. All of these things contribute, and inevitably the toll will increase unless we improve human performance.

But in every accident there is one party normally not guilty of failure, and that party can frequently suffer the consequences of the accident for the remainder of his life.

At the beginning I said this is not perfect legislation. After 18 years of legislating I have come to expect that we make beginnings. We hope that the beginning is all that is necessary. But I believe the temper of the American public

and the temper of this Congress is such as to place the industry on notice that failure to give greater emphasis to appropriate and obvious safety requirements will compel the Congress, in response to the public demand, to enact more strengthened legislation than that we have before us today.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM ].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, as I said when we were discussing the rule, this bill will not solve in any significant way the traffic accident problem with which we are all familiar. In fact, I do not know that it will even make a slight dent in the problem.

This legislation, which puts so much emphasis on design of the automobile, really resulted from extremists' campaigns and the sensationalism that resulted from the writing of a book by a young man with no experience whatever in this field. Of course, it is always popular for some to attack big corporations, even though those of us who have been in this field professionally for many years know that the automobile is not at fault, and therefore the manufacturers are not at fault. So I say with all confidence and conviction that this proposal will merely dent the problem, if that. You could build a car like a Sherman tank and it would not solve the auto accident problem.

I served 6 years as manager of the Omaha Chapter of the National Safety Council before I came here. I served as mayor of our city of over 300,000, and had charge of all safety activities-fire, traffic, public safety, et cetera-so I think I know something about this problem. Many things cause accidents, and I think we are all familiar with them. In the end they all point to the fellow behind the wheel. But he may be excused in many instances if there is a bad street design, if there is a traffic light that has in the background a lot of neon signs of various shades and colors placed there by merchants, so that when the driver comes up to the light he cannot tell if there is a traffic light there or not. A hedge might stick out in an intersection and cause an accident. It may be the condition of a road. It may be inadequate street lighting. There has not been adequate traffic law enforcement, and surely we know there has not been adequate enforcement in the courts throughout all the years this problem has been with

us.

We know there is what we call the three E's in traffic safety-engineering, education, and enforcement. A good Job has been done on education. Engineering could be better and I am talking now about traffic patterns, street lighting, and so forth. A much better job could be done in that field if funds in the local communities were availabl to do it.

Enforcement is the weakest link in the whole chain. Every State and community would like to have two or three times as many traffic-enforcement offcers on the streets and the highways as they are able to provide.

They do not have the funds, so that is the reason that particular link in this "EEE" chain is the weakest. But that is not the only reason. The courts have

been very lax in their responsibilities in this field. Drunken drivers have gotten by with a mere slap on the wrist on many occasions. Again may I say this is a much broader problem than is encompassed in this bill.

This bill provided originally a section which would really get into the guts of the problem as we know it, but, as I said in discussing the rule, there was some conflict, as I understand it, between our Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Public Works Committee, because that particular sectionwhich I believe was the most important of all-had something to do with the highway trust fund. So through an agreement between our chairman and the chairman of that committee, which was certainly proper, that particular part of this bill was taken away from us and given to the Public Works Committee.

We will be having that bill up, I presume, following this one, and that is the bill that will make a real dent in this problem, because it provides these very funds needed at the local level and will help the local communities do the job in traffic safety they are anxious to do. We know that is where the fault lies, and where the lack of facilities, financing, manpower, et cetera exist. So I will vote to approve this bill, but I am fearful too that this particular piece of legislation we have today may possibly set back the cause of traffic safety many years.

As

In fact, this may increase the number of deaths in traffic accidents and injuries. I say that for this reason. I understand it, and as I stated in my additional views, it is conceivable that the automobile industry, which has done a terrific job in trying to build a safer car-and they have been doing thatwill have the Federal Government say to them, "Here are the standards we want you to provide."

The automobile industry will then say, "OK, we will provide them." Then they will no nothing further than that. They may do away with the people who work in their industry who have been trying to do the right type of job on their automobiles as far as safety is concerned. They will say, "OK, we will just follow what the Federal Government says we must do," and this may not be enough.

So these Federal standards may put a ceiling on performance. That is why I say this could actually increase the number of deaths and injuries and traffic accidents as the years go on. I be

lleve we ought to remember that and think carefully about that possibility.

I would sum up by saying, yes, we will pass this bill. I will say there has been too much sensationalism surrounding the design of the automobile as far as it concerns traffic safety. There is not a bit of evidence that would indicate that the design of the car is the cause of the accident. In fact, surveys have been made that prove to the contrary. I have evidence of this. I do believe that we have more or less made a mistake in repealing some of the safety requirements we passed in other years which legislation was brought out of our committee. I do hope that when the following bill comes up from the Public Works Committee, all the Members will recognize that it is the one that offers the greater opportunity to meet this problem with which we are all concerned.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. MACKAY].

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Sixty-three Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. BOGGS, having assumed the chair, Mr. DADDARIO, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 13228, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 367 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee rose, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. MACKAY] had been recognized for 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes.

Mr. MACKAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in behalf of the Staggers bill, H.R. 13228, and urge its adoption. I also urge passage of its companion measure, the Fallon bill, H.R. 13290. I believe we ought to consider why these bills are before us. They are before us because of the force of American public opinion.

These safety bills are before us because there has been an alarming upturn in the rate of deaths throughout the Nation-about 8 percent for the first 6 months of this year. In my own county of De Kalb in Georgia, more people have been killed this year already than were killed last year. These bills are before us because public opinion belleves that we could be doing more than we are doing now to reduce the number of accldents, deaths and injuries.

They are before us because the American people now realize that the traffic environment is a national environment. It is not a local, a city, a county, a State environment, or even a regional environment. It is a national environment.

Our problem is so acute now that we are suffering a national loss which has already been pointed out to be in excess of 50,000 lives this year, 225,000 people permanently disabled, and an economic loss in excess of $9 billion.

Since we are dealing with a national problem, there must necessarily be a national response. The significance of these two bills is that they define a new Federal role. I am very proud of the fact that this new Federal role has unanimous bipartisan support on our committee, and, I believe, on the other committees that have considered it.

What are the three elements in this new Federal role? First, the definition and enforcement of national safety performance standards for all motor vehicles. Fifty State legislatures simply cannot set these standards without chaos to the industry.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MACKAY I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, does the bill give the Secretary authority to standardize operation control equipment on different kinds of new automobiles if safety performance is affected?

Mr. MACKAY. Yes, it does. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS] presented an excellent amendment to provide an advisory council that will bring in all the interested parties-State and local officials, automotive industry and equipment people-to participate in the formulation of those standards.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. MACKAY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. TAYLOR. For instance, I drive a car made by General Motors. My wife drives a car made by Ford Motor Co. The gearshift on one is just the opposite from the other. It is difficult for me to drive her car in traffic when quick, auto

matic action is needed. The differences in gearshifts add to the hazards of driving and could cause an accident. I am of the opinion that operating features on new cars, such as gearshifts, should be standardized.

Mr. MACKAY. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. That is a good illustration of the type of safety hazard we are trying to get at.

At this time I should like to pay my respects to Mr. Ralph Nader, who has probably gotten across better than anybody else in the country that we can and must build safer cars and that it is easier to change cars than people. Mr. Nader has contributed mightily to our understanding that we can build safer automobiles. The Nation is in his debt. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MACKAY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MOSS. I should like to join the gentleman in paying tribute to the highly effective work of Mr. Nader. I believe his efforts have acted as a catalyst and contributed very constructively to bringing to the attention of the American public the very serious problems we face in resolving the excessive number of accidents.

I believe that the American Association of Automotive Medicine and the very distinguished Trial Lawyers Association are groups of very dedicated individuals who also contributed to the work of the committee and to bringing these serious problems into focus.

Mr. MACKAY. I thank the gentleman from California. Recognition is also due Senator Speno of New York and former Congressman Kenneth Roberts of Alabama for their contributions.

I believe we can see that the argument has been won that the time has arrived when national safety performance standards should be established and enforced. No one is seriously contending that in respect to standards for motor vehicle safety that we can function at any level effectively other than the national level.

Second, a new Federal role is our provision for comprehensive research. The great scandal revealed by our committee is that the Government has failed to collect the data needed and on which we can base judgments as to the causes of deaths, accidents, and injuries. Congress shares the blame because we have not heretofore explicitly assigned this responsibility to any department.

We know that one of the first results will be this: We are going to begin vigorous comprehensive research so that we can make our counterattack at the right points.

The third Federal role is the provision in the Fallon bill for grants in aid to help the States build better traffic safety programs within their borders and build a safer and more uniform traffic environment. This is an effort to get the States to work together in a way they have not thus far.

Both bills provide for agencies and administrators.

Last March 2 the President said in his message on transportation, that he, by Executive order, would under existing law coordinate all safety activities in the Department of Commerce. Now, 16,000 deaths later, the executive department has not moved. Nothing meaningful has been done about which we have any knowledge.

I believe it is the duty of this Congress, therefore, to see to it that we assign specific responsibility. When we fly on an aircraft we know that the FAA and the FAA Administrator are watching over the total environment for the safety of every air traveler. We must, by analogy, assign responsibility for an agency to watch over the total traffic environment and consider every element in it.

I predict that unless the Congress assigns explicit responsibility to an agency and administrator under this bill, or under the Department of Transportation, this fine legislation will not be implemented and executed.

I believe that what we should do, today and tomorrow, is pass these bills, and then follow through on our responsibility, which is to make effective legislative assignment of responsibility to administer these traffic safety measures in the executive department.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support and urge the passage of H.R. 13228 authored by Chairman STAGGERS and entitled "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966." It is not a perfect bill but it is a good bill and constitutes two-thirds of what many of us deem to be a proper basis for a national attack on traffic accidents. The other

third of the program is encompassed in H.R. 13290 authored by Chairman FALLON and entitled "Highway Safety Act of 1966." I strongly support that measure also.

The Staggers bill provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety performance standards for all motor vehicles. And it provides for an accident and injury research and test facility. It incorporates a title on tire safety and provides for the continuance of seat belt and brake fluid standards. These latter provisions deal specifically with matters that will of necessity be included in any list of safety performance standards developed under title I. They have been treated specially because they are three critical factors in automobile safety which had attracted the attention of Congress before the big safety push of 1966 began.

The Fallon bill provides for a program of grants-in-aid to the States and lesser political subdivisions to develop a safer and more uniform traffic environment. Specific provision is made for assistance to States in developing and improving highway safety programs through: improved driver education; improved pedestrian performance; effective record systems of accidents and accident investigations to determine the probable

causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths; uniform vehicle registration and inspection; highway design and maintenance and detection and correction of high accident locations; more uniform traífic control signs; more uniform trafic codes; and provision for better emergency services when accidents occur.

Both bills recognize the need for the explicit assignment of responsibility to an agency and for an administrator. Both bills provide advisory councils to assure the involvement of appropriate interests and individuals in the formulation of standards.

Logically there should be one trafic safety bill instead of two bills. In a sense these two measures represent an uncoordinated effort to mount a coordinated attack on the problem. On the other hand they are comprehensive in their content and given proper Executive leadership these two measures provide the substantive authorizations necessary to attack and reverse the present trend of increasing deaths and injuries. I believe both bills should pass the House and then be given further attention in the conference committees. To turn the trick and get the best result we need a conference committee between the two conference committees.

The committees of the House and Senate have done good work. The executive department, on the other hand, has been a divided house. The Department of Commerce has appeared to be "turning loose" a hard problem. On the other hand, the shapers of a Department of Transportation have been beset by so many problems of putting so many agencies together that this giant traffic accident problem has appeared to be more of an irritant than the prime concern it should be.

It is apparent that the great force of public opinion which has been generated in support of a national traffic safety program could be dissipated if the executive branch fails to recognize and support the need for Congress to explicitly assign responsibility for the implementation of these new laws in an office or agency and an administrator.

If the Department of Transportation fails in this Congress the creation of such an agency is all the more important because the Department of Commerce, in the opinion of many, simply will not apply the vigorous leadership this great problem demands. It has too many other

concerns.

If the Department of Transportation is established then the traffic safety function logically fits under the high.way section and should receive the fulltime attention of a high-level administrator on the level of the Administrator of the Bureau of Public Roads.

The advice of the Bureau of the Budget against the agency idea has prevailed and this advice in my opinion has been wrong. We have witnessed accelerating death by committee when we need to wage war against an enemy within our gates that has taken a toll just as cruel in its consequences as an invader could exact.