Page images

testing under safety standards, and mothods The Attorney General is also authorized and equipment for testing motor vehicles to seek injunctions against the performance and motor vehiclo equipment (1 107).

of any prohibited act and to enjoin the sale The Secretary is also authorized to estab- of any vehicle which falls to conform to apIlsh training programs for Federal, state, and plicable standards under the act (soc. 111). privato personnel for testing, inspection, and

INSPECTION, RECORDS, AND REPORT other purpoot (1 108).

The Secretary is authorized to conduct OBLIOATION OR NONCOMPLYING MOTOR VEHI

such testing. Inspection, and investigations CLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT

as he deems necessary to ald in the enforceI a motor vehicle or Item of motor vehicle ment of standards prescribed under the act equipment falls to meet the standards pre ($114(a)). He is given express authority to scribed by the Secretary or contains a safety conduct on-site inspection in factories, warerelated delect, the manufacturer must either houses, or sales orces ($ 114(b)). Manulacrepurchase from the dealer the defective turers are required to maintain records, make vehicle or Item of equipment, or if the manu- reports, and provide the information reasonfacturer chooses, instead promptly deliverably required by the Secretary (8 114(c)). corrective parts to the dealer and relmburse The committee bill provides that the recthe dealer for making corrections ($ 119(a)). ords, reports, and Information the Secretary Dealers may bring court actions to recover may reasonably require shall be limited to damages for the breach of this obligation those relevant to determining whether the ($ 119(b)).

manufacturer has acted or is acting in comThese obligations apply only between the pliance with title I and motor vehicle safety manufacturer and the dealer or distributor standards issued thereunder ($ 114(c)). For who purchases & vehiclo or item of oqulp. example, the relevant records, report, and mont from the manufacturor, and only dur information would cludo data relating to ing the period before such distributor or design, manufacturing procedures, quality dealer has sold such vehicle or Item of equip control, and shipping records for currently ment to & customer ($ 119(a)).

manufactured vehicles, and would not in. PROHIBITED ACTO

clude such closely held competitive trade

secroto A nnancial, price, or cost data The bill makes it a prohibited act to manu. facture, sell, or introduce in Interstate com

(1 114(d)).

EFFECT ON STATE LAW merce any motor vehicle or component which falls to conform to applicable Federal salety

The centralized, mass production, high standards (f 109(&) (1)). Similarly, the fall.

volume character of the motor vehicle manuure to furnish the certincation of compliance

facturing Industry in the United States reand the furnishing of a false certification are

quires that motor vehicle safety standards made prohibited acts ( 109(&) (3)).

be not only strong and adequately enforced, It is also a prohibited act to obstruct en

but that they be uniform throughout the forcement of the act by falling to make re

country. At the enme time, the committee ports or refusing access to or copying of rec

believes that the States should be free to

adopt standards identical to the Federal ords, or entry or inspection, or failing or refusing to furnish notification of defects, as

standards, which apply only to the Arst sale required by other sections of the act ($ 109

of a new vehicle, so that the States may

play a significant role in the vehicle safety (a) (2) and (4)). Tho prohibitions against the manufacture,

neld by applying and onforcing standarde

over the lito of the car. Accordingly, Stato shipment, or mle of substandard vehicles or

standards are preemptod only 11 they dider equipment or issuance of a false certifcation

from Federal standards applicable to the parof compliance do not apply(1) To any sale or shipment after the Arst

ticular aspect of the vehicle or item of vehicle

equipment (sec. 104). sale for purposes other than resale; or

The States are also permitted to set moro (2) To any person who relles upon the certincate of compliance from the manufac

stringent requirements for purposes of their turer or distributor and does not actually

own procurement. Moreover, the Federal know of any fallure to conform to stand

minimum safety standards need not be inter

preted n8 restricting State common law ards; or

standards of care. Compliance with such (3) To a manufacturer or other person who

standards would thus not necessarily shield establishes that he did not know and did not have reason to know in the exercise of due

any person from product liability at common

law. care that such vehicle or item of motor

USED MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION vehicle equipment was not in conformity with such standards (sec. 109(b)). For

In recognition of the fact that the setting example, & manufacturer could be relieved

of new car standards is a partial solution to from llability upon a showing that he did

the problem of motor vehicle safety, the bill not know of the fallure to conform and that

expresses & congressional policy "to encourdue care had been exercised in manufactur

age and strengthen the enforcement of State ing, Inspecting, and shipping the vehicle or

inspection of used motor vehicles" (dec. item of equipment, in accordance with the

117(a)). manufacturer's obligation to produce vehi

In addition, the Secretary is directed to cles conforming to the standards.

conduct & thorough study and investigation

to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle PENALTIES AND INJUNCTION

safety standards and motor vehicle inspecThe bill imposes & civil penalty not to

tion requirements and procedures in each exceed 31.000 for each prohibited act (sec. State and the effect of programs authorized 110(a)). The maximum civil penalty 18 Ilm

by this bill upon such used car standards. Ited to $400,000 for any related series of vio

requirements, and procodures (sec. 117(b)). lating (sec. 110(a)). For example, 11 &

The Secretary is directed to report to Conmanufacturer produces several thousand

gress not later than 1 year after enactment substandard vehicles or items of equipment of the bill the results of such study, together as the result of the same error in design or with such legislative recommendations as he construction, or the use of the same derec

may deem necessary in the interests of trafic tive component, the maximum penalty to be

safety (sec. 117(b)). Imposed upon any one person for those violations would be limited to 8400,000.

EXISTINO FEDERAL LAWS ON VEHICLE STANDARDS The Secretary 18 authorized to compromise

The bill repeals the Brake Fluid and Seat any civil penalty and, la determining the Belt Standard Acts (Public Laws 87-637 and amount of the penalty, the Secretary or court 88-210), since these subjects are among those 18 directed to consider the appropriateness of covered by the present bill (sec. 120). The the proposed penalty to the size of tho bugi- Automobile Pollution Control Act (Public ness of the person charged and the gravity Law 89-272) is not repealed, since air polluof the violation (sec. 110(b)).

tion devices on automobiles are considered

appicant for that.


the resun or the useimum pen

22 relate to public health and safety generally

In order to protect the public Investment APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS

in research and development activities under Por the reasons set forth below, the com- the act, the bull provides (f 100(c)) that mittee included a provision in the act pro. when the Federal contribution for in reviding that "nothing contained herein shall search or development activity suthorized by be deemed to exempt from the antitrust laws the act is substantial, the Secretary must of the United States any conduct that would include in the contract or grant providing otherwise be unlawful under such laws or to for such research or development provisions prohibit any conduct that would be lawful efective to insure that all information, wes, under such laws" (113)

processes, patents, and other developments Although the committee Armly believes resulting from that activity will be made that competition ainong automobile manu

fully and freely available to the general facturers in the development of safety im


puo provements is essential for the achievement

It was the committee's judgment that of rapid progress in automotive safety, the

when the Government finances safety recommittee is aware that cooperation in re

search, the public is entitled to the fruits, in

search, the public is en search and testing among manufacturers can cluding the right to any inventions discoValso play a significant role in safety develop ered in the performance of that research. In ment. To this end, the bill authorizes the

dealings wito their employees and subconSecretary to advise, assist, and cooperate

tractors private business firms typically rewith manufacturers of inotor vehicles and

tain the right to any inventions discovered. Inotor vehicle equipment, among others, in

on the understandable ground that the one the development of motor vehicles safety

who has provided financial support is enstandards and the testing of motor vehicles

titled to the resulting product. Such a poland motor vehicle equipinent ($107).

Icy is especially applicable where taxpayer The committee considered including a pro

funds are involved and where the research is vision in the bill to the effect that coopera

intimate!y associated with the public health tion among manufacturers in developing

and safety On several occasions, running safety desices or in exchanging onormation

back more than a decade, Congress has proabout safety standards is not illegal per se,

vided for public retention of results in but may be justified under the "rule of

Inventions made in the course of Governreason" to the extent consistent with the

ment-supported research. This policy is in. antitrust laws and without creating any ex

corporated in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. emption from the antitrust laws.

the Coal Research and Development Act of However, the committee was advised by the

1960, the Saline Water Conversion Act of Department of Justice that such a provision

1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act was unnecessary, since cooperation in the

of 1961. the Water Resources Research Act of development of safety devices and in ex

1964, and the Appalachian Regional Developchanging information about safety stund.

ment Act of 1965 ards would not be unlawful per se under the

Consistent with this approach the commitantitrust laws but would be permissible un

tee sought to secure to the public the bene. der the "rule of reason" where joint efforts

fits, accruing from research sponsored by the seem necessary and constructive and are not

Secretary in accordance with section 106. accompanied by any unduly restrictive col

that might help reduce accidents involving lateral agreements. Since the provision un

motor vehicles and reduce accompanying der consideration would have done no more

deaths and injuries As set forth in section than confirm this interpretation, the com

1061c), the bill provides that the Secretary mittee decided that the amendment was

shall include, in any contract, grant, or other unnecessary

arrangement, provisions effective to insure The committee by this indication of its

that all resulting information, uses, proc. views in no way intends to change the ap

esses, patents, and other developments will

be made freely and fully available to the genplication of existing antitrust Laws with respect to cooperative activities among auto

eral public, wherever the Federal contribution mobile manufacturers in the field of safety

to that activity is substantial Oi necessity.

this condition must be satis!ied on a case-bydevelopment.

case basis, but it deserves emphasis that it is The advice received from the Department of Justice, as summarized above, is con

the particular activity from which the InforLined in a letter from Assistant Attorney

mation, uses, processes, patents, and other General Donald P. Turner to the chairman

developments "result" which is the basis for of the committee dated April 6, 1966, and a

the determination whether the Federal confurther letter from Deputy Attorney Gen

tribution is "more than minimal." eral Ramsey Clark to the chairman dated

Section 106 (c), by denying contractors exJune 2. 1966. An extract from the letter of

clusive rights in the performance of research April 6 follows:

activities where the Federal contribution 18

"more than minimal," will help curtall un"Nor is there anything persuasive in the

necessary industry pleas for Government general argument that the vagueness of the support where the companies can antitrust laws prevents the formation of any

do the research themselves. By doing their cooperative effort to develop safety devices

own research and securing patents on invenor to exchange information concerning

tions which they discover, the companies in Standards. The antitrust in wo do not pro

the litu induntry can mike subnLAntial prof. hibit such irrungeinonta where Juint eltorto

ress toward increasing auto safety-without seem necessary and constuctive and are not accompanied by unduly restrictive collateral

having to make substantial use of public

funds agreements. Moreover, clurication of the

The committee considered a problem preapplicability of the antitrust laws to any particular proposal has always been readily

sented by automotive manufacturers relating

to the dilemma that would be created 11 the available by consultation with the Depart.

Secretary issued a Federal motor vehicle ment of Justice and submission of a proposal under the Business Review Procedure or for

safety standard that could be met only by other review. (As an example, the major

using a patented device, structure, or method

and 11 the patent holder unreasonably renetworks and press associations requested

fused to license the use of his patent or was the Division to review a proposal for indus

willing to supply the item or permit its use trywide cooperative efforts in the compllation

only on unreasonable terms. of returns in the forthcoming national elec.

The automotive manufacturers therefore tions. After consultation and revision, the

proposed an amendment that would bar patindustry was advised the Division did not

ent holders from en joining the use of any intend to take action under the antitrust

Patent that is necessary to meet a Federal laws against the arrangement.)"

motor vehicle safety standard, and would


establisherforming ties be

limit the patent holder to a sult for damages in the form of a reasonable royalty.

Tho committee concluded that any legislative solution presents great complexities, sinco a balancing of equities as between the manufacturer and the patent holder 18 bound to vary from one case to another. The committee decided it would therefore be prelerable to leave the matter for resolution by the courts on a case-by-case basie. In this connection, it is the committee's understanding that under established patent case law the Federal courts, in performing their treditional role of balancing the equities before Issuing an injunction, will decline to enJoin the use of a patent when its use is required in the public interest. (See City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge, 69 F. 2d 677 (7th Cir. 1934).) The conmittee therefore assumes that the courts are unlikely to enjoin the use of any patent when an automotive manufacturer can show that use is necessary to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard and that the patent holder is refusing to supply the item or otherwise permit such use on reasonable terms. The committee also assumes that the Secretary is not likely to adopt a standard which can be met only by using a single patented device, and that the Secretary would, before doing so, take steps to obtain an understanding from the patent holder that he would supply the item or grant licenses on reasonable terms.

R: PORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Secretary is required to make an annual report on the administration of the act on March 2 of each year. The report shall include, but is not restricted to

(1) Accident and injury statistics;
(2) A list of Federal standards;

(3) The degree of observance of the standards;

(4) A summary of current research grants and contracts;

(5) A review of research activities completed and technological progress achieved during the year;

(6) 'The extent to which technical information was disseminated to the scientific community and consuiner-oriented inform&tion was made available to the motoring public (sec. 123(a)).

In addition, the report shall contain recommendations on additional legislation to promote cooperation among the States and Lo strengthen the national tramic safety progrunn (sec. 123(b)). TRAFTIC ACCIDENT AND INJURY RESEARCH AND

TEST PACILITY The Federal Government does not presently hive an adequate research capability to meet the responsibilities which it would assume under this act. Its capability is inadequate both with respect to research facilities capable of single types of tests or test on single components, ns in the National Bureau of Standards, or Department of Defense test tracks for military purposes, there is no test track where Federal scientists and enginoori Onn mnko avon the most olomolitary operu. tional tests on vehicles, let alone conduct full-scale research on motor vehicles and the highway from a safety point of view. The Bureau of Public Roads has been forced to resort to testing on sections of highways and airport landing strips before these were open for public use.

In testing automobile odometers recently. the National Bureau of Standards had to use the public highways. There is no Federal facility or laboratory equipped and capable of testing the interaction of the vehicle interior and interior equipment with the oc. cupants or a vehicle in the investigation of the "second collision." the impact of the occupant with the vehicle.

Test facilities in industry aro considerable, but are used primarily in connection with

product development in which vehicle and passenger safety is only one of the elements considered. Results are proprietary and, for competitive reasons, are not generally avall. able. Furthermore, manufacturers' facilities hardly seem the appropriate place for the Government to conduct Its research and testing on vehicle safety performance standards as well as other aspects of highway safety.

Laboratory facilities are needed where the Government itself can conduct systematic scientific research and evaluation of all safety performance characteristics of motor vehicles and motor vehicle components. The facilities must be suitably equipped and staffed to evaluate standards already in effect, as well as proposed deletions, changes, or additions of wholly new standards. Facilities are required to carry out these responsibilities.

In addition to research, development, and testing related to motor vehicle performance 8tnndards, there laboratory facilities Are needed for studying improved geometric design of highways for increased safety, improved paving material that reduce dangerous skidding especially in winter driving. better tramc control devices that reduce the chance of accident-producing driver errors, improved highway lighting for increasing night visibility, and finally the wide range of problems associated with driver performance and skills. Clearly, proper performance standards for vehicles and design criteria for the highway network can only be realized by taking into account the physical and psychological capabilities or drivers,

In short, some type of Federal facility is needed where the Government can conduct systematic controlled research, development, and test activities related to all aspects of traffic safety. Title II would authorize & study of the needed facility or facilities and the planning, designing, and construction of Auch facilities. It would authorize appro. priations of 83 million from the highway trust fund for planning and feasibility studies, and so much as is needed for construction subject to later congressional approval of appropriations requested

THE NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE The proposed section 404 of title 23. United States Code. would codify and amend the National Driver Register legislation. The National Driver Register Service is now maintained in the Department of Coinmerce as & voluntary driver records exchange program participated in by All States, the District of Columbia, and four territories,

The service permits the States to report to the Secretary on drivers who have had their driving privileges suspended or revoked because of a conviction involving a fatal ccldent or drunken driving, and to have access to such information centrally fled by all of the States.

This service permits the States to prevent drivers who have lost their licenses in one State from nullifying the effectiveness of a State's laws by securing a license in another State without revealing their driving records.

Since 1961. this State-Federal voluntary driver records exchange program has developed to the point where today, on the average, over 44.000 Inquiries are sent to the Register by the States each day The Register malls positive replics to these inquiries within 24 hours of receipt or the inquiries.

Over 19 million searches have been made of the Register's computer Alle since 1961. This has resulted in over 111.000 reports of potential problem drivers being sent back to the States.

While the Driver Register Service is now a valuable aid to the States in their e forts to supervise effectively the licensing of drivers, its effectiveness is limited since it covers only summary reports of license suspensions or revocations where there is drunken driving or fatal accident involvement.

Fack wht militarepart,

The proposed legislation would remove order to reduce the deaths and Injuries this limitation on the electiveness of the resulting from accidents. Driver Register Service by authorizing the fling of reports on license denials as well

The breadth and scope of the powers w withdrawals of licenses, for whatever cause,

given to the Secretary of Commerce except for thdrawals of less than 6 months

carrying extensive authority over the based on accumulation of minor violations. Nation's largest industry would be un

Section 404 also would make it clear that thinkable if it were not invoked for pubPederal agencies can participate in the Driver lice safety and carefully circumscribed Register Service as part of their employee for that purpose. driver safety programs.

Just what kind of power and duties The amendment of the existing Driver Register Service legislation as proposed in

will the Secretary of Commerce have section 404 should double the productivity

under the bill, as reported by the Comof the driver register program within a short

mittee on Commerce. period with negligible, 11 apy, increased costs. He wou first have to issue interim COST

safety standards for new cars, effective The authorization for programs to be cas.

in the fall of next year with the 1968 ried out under title I (sec. 124) provides for

model cars. These standards must be •11 million for racal year 1907, 917 million based on existing safety standards and for fiscal year 1968 and 123 million for fiscal must be developed on the basis of adyear 1969.

vice and counsel from the States. InterFor the tramc accident and injury research state safety agencies like the Vehicle and test facility authorized by title II, the Eauipment Safety Commission, the autocommittee bill would authorize $2 million

mobile industry. and others. for planning, including necessary feasibility

A year later, the Secretary must prestudies. Before any appropriation can be made for copatruction of the facility in ex.

scribe such new and revised salety cess of $100,000, the Secretary must submit standards for new cars as he finds necesa prospectus of the proposed project to Con- sary, based on his research and developKress and obtain approving resolution from ment work and on consultation with the Committee on Commerce of the Senate State safety agencies. Effective. farand Committee on Interstate and Foreign reaching means of enforcement insure Commerce of the House of Representatives.

that car makers and parts makers will As the administration of the Tranc Safety

comply with the safety standards Act of 1966, as reported, will require execu. tive talent of a very high callber, the com

These fundamental provisions of the bill mittee estimates that an allotment of ap- are accompanied by a host of related secproximately 45 positions in grades GS-16, tlons spelling out the details, providing 17. and 18 of the general schedule of the for court reviews and prescribing the reClassification Act of 1949, as amended, lationship between the manufacturer should be reserved to ald in implementing and the dealers in cases where the salety this legislation. The shortage of available

standards are not met. professional skills and manpower in com

In addition, the bill requires the manubination with the high priority for imme. dlate action concerning tramc safety requires

facturers, or the Secretary of Commerce, certainty as to the availability of needed to notify car buyers In cases in which management. Administrative, sclentinc, and defects related to safety are found. The research positions needed to staff these pro- Secretary is also given broad gage Krauns.

powers to carry out the necessary safety Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I

research, testing. Inspection, and evaluanow yield to the distinguished ranking

tion. minority member of the committee (Mr.

While these powers of the Secretary COTION).

are enormously broad as they relate to Mr. COTTON, Mr. President, the the car manufacturers and the automopending bill, S. 3005, the Traffic Safety

tive parts industry. they are still narAct of 1966, is truly landmark legislation. row as compared to the problems of For the first time, Congress has the tr

traffic safety. opportunity to enact & comprehensive

First. The safety standards apply only and coordinated assault on the problems

to new cars and not to the 87 million of traMc safety. The Senate will seize motor vehicles now on the highway. that opportunity today. I hope, and ap. While the committee bill. fortunately. prove the bill substantially as reported requires a study of the possibilities of by the Committee on Commerce.

better safety inspection of older cars, Clearly new ways must be found to nothing in the bill directly deals with cope with the rising tide of slaughter and the safety standards or maintenance of mayhem on our Nation's highways.

these cars on the road today. Even the Since the automobile was first invented. 1968 and later models which would be we have had 1.500.000 deaths from auto. subject to safety standards when built. inobile accidents. That is three times as are beyond the reach of this bill once many lives as our enemies have been able they leave the showroom floor. to take in all our wars. Last year alone Second. The Senate should be clearly nearly 50.000 persons lost their lives in aware of the fact that vehicle failures tramc accidents, and 1,800,000 were in- of all types are a causative factor in only jured to the extent of being disabled for a very limited percentage of all traffic at least the second day. Experts have acciclents. The best figures I have found. put a price tag of $8.5 billion on the eco- published by the Travelers Insurance nomic cost of last year's trafic accidents. Co., of Hartford, Conn., show that 87 These facts leave no room for compla- perccnt of accidents which caused highcency. They offer no excuses for inac way deaths and injuries were the direct tion

result of driver violations of the rules of This bill confers new and significant the road, excessive speed, driving on the powers on the Secretary of Commerce to wront side of the road, failing to yield prescribe safety standards for new auto andards for new auto

the right-of-way. reckless driving, and mobiles and to undertake research in the like. The safety standards pre14237

the right-of

ecolhed under title I of the bill will do unanimous consent agreement at such nouing to reduce accidents caused by time as the Senator feels it to be approsuch factors as these.

priate. However, Mr. President, the buil- and Mr. COTTON. I suggest the absence this is one of its major justifications is of a quorum. designed to help reduce the extent of the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The injuries, regardless of how the accident clerk will call the roll. itself is caused.

The legislative derk proceeded to call This refers, of course, to the so-called the roll. second collision. Regardless of what Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask causes the automoblle accident in the unanimous consent that the order for first place, it is abundantly clear from the quorum call be rescinded. extensive safety research that most in The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BYKD juries and deaths are caused when the of Virginia in the chair). Without obdriver and passengers are either thrown Section, it is so ordered. out of the car or thrown against the Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am windshield. Instrument panel. or some informed that the distinguished Senator other feature of the car's interior.

from New Jersey (Mr. CASE) has a brief As members of the Senate Commerce Amendment to offer and that it is acCommittee, we were convinced by the ceptable to the distinguished chairman evidence that, even if accidents could of the committee as it is to me and to not be prevented by this legislation, the Senators on this side of the Chamber. extent of injuries and deaths could be Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that reduced by effective attention to those the Senate be permitted to suspend the elements in the passenger compartment consideration of the Scott amendment which actually cause the deaths and for a moment, in order to permit the injuries.

Senator from New Jersey 10 Oier his Enactment of this legislation will not amendment, and that then the Senate bring an end to trafic accidents. Not may return to the consideration of the one of us can even be one tota less pending amendment. vigilant as we drive home tonight, and The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there certainly passage of this bill will not cut objection to the request of the Senator the carnage expected over the Fourth of from New Hampshire? The Chair hears July holiday next week. Nevertheless, nane, and it is so ordered. the bill is significant, farsighted, and Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I appresolid legislation.

ciate deeply the courtesy accorded me I commend the chairman and the by the Senator fron

D and the by the Senator from New Hampshire and members of the Committee on Commerce the Senator from Washington. on which I serve, as well as the staff, for I send to the desk an amendment and the long and careful study resulting in Ask that it be stated. this bill, which in my opinion, merits The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the full support of the Senate.

amendment will be stated. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator The legislative clerk read as follows: from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT), myself,

On page 64, 11ne 14, strike out "stz months" and others, an amendment has been of

and insert "ninety days."
fered which would strike out a provision
of the bill in which my friend, the dis-

Mr. CASE. Under the bill, the Driver tinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Register Service would be broadened to LONG), is exceedingly interested, and of permit the Register to list the names of which he is the author. We have now

additional categories of problem drivers reached the point of getting down to

whose Ucenses have been either revoked cases and discussing the amendment.

or suspended. However, there would be If It is satisfactory to the distinguished

one exception. The exception would Senator from Louisiana, I should Uke to

exempt from coverage those motorists suggest the absence of a quorum, and

who are deprived of their driving priviafter a reasonable time, I should Uke to

leges for 6 months or less because of make a very brief statement on behalf of

habitual violation. The bulk of those in the amendment, and then the Senator

this category. I am told. would be indifrom Louisiana might proceed.

viduals whose licenses would be taken Mr. LONG of Louisiana Mr. Presio away under & State point system. dent. I hope that my remarks will be

My amendment is designed to bring about the same length as those of the more o

the more of these bad drivers within the covSenator. I shall try to tallor my reply

erage of the Register, and thereby help to that of the Senator.

Improve highway safety. It would acAs the Senator knows, unless we have complish this by reducing the 6-month & limitation, there is always a feeling on exception in S. 3005 to 90 days. the part of the side that did not have the While I would have preferred a 30-day last say that something has been left un. Imitation, and previously Introduced & said, and they want to say something bull to this effect, I believe 90 days else.

opposed to 6 months is a step in the Mr. COTTON. I was not even sur right direction, and will make more efgesting that I make a statement and that fective the new role we are carving out the Senator respond and that we vote. I for the National Driver Register Service. happen to know that the distinguished Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President. 11 Senator from Pennsylvania, who is, I be- the Senator from New Hampshire will

e, at a meeting of the Judiciary Com- agree with me, I believe we can accept mittee now, is coming to the Chamber. the amendment. He is vitally interested in this matter. The committee decided upon & period

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- of 6 months because it felt that that was dent, I should be pleased to enter into a & proper time. However, the State of

« PreviousContinue »