he "shall consider what is practicable" included the right to consider the costs.

It was finally agreed to write into the report a certain understanding which was to be used as a guide in interpreting the language used.

I now ask the manager of the bill, the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON), to point out and read the language in the bill that is intended to aid in the interpretation of what was meant by the committee.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from Ohio is correct. The committee considered this question at some length. Several members of the committee thought that the reasonableness of cost and feasibility would be included in the words "standards shall be reasonable, practical, and appropriate." So we say in the report, to clear up this question once and for all:

In promulgating any standard, the Secretary is required to consider whether such standard is reasonable. practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed, and consider, also, the extent to which such standard would contribute to carrying out the purposes of the act (secs. 102(c) and 103(c)). The Secretary is not expected to issue a standard covering every component and function of a motor vehicle, but only for those vehicle characteristics that have a significant bearing on safety.

The General Counsel of the Commerce Department stated in a letter to the committee:

"The test of reasonableness of cost, feasibility and adequate lead time"

Which are important

"should be included among those factors which the Secretary could consider in making his total judgment."

Mr. LAUSCHE. There is one more paragraph immediately following what the Senator has read.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes.

The committee intends that safety shall be the overriding consideration in the issuance of standards under this bill. The committee recognizes, as the Commerce Department letter indicates, that the Secretary will necessarily consider reasonableness of cost, feasibility and adequate lead time.

Mr. LAUSCHE. The language just read by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce is the language which the committee decided to include in the report as an aid in interpreting the language of the bill.

Mr. MAGNUSON.

That is correct.

Mr. LAUSCHE. It interprets words "reasonableness,

and appropriateness."

the

practicability,

I thank the Senator from Washington. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, as I understand, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is now to be recognized, but his remarks will not come within the time limitation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PROXMIRE in the chair). The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for as long as he desires to speak, but his remarks will not come within the time limitation under the unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, today the Senate has before it one of the most

significant pieces of consumer legislation It has ever considered-the proposed Traffic Safety Act of 1966.

This bill will not work miracles. It will not bring back those precious lives and careers that have been lost. It will take 10 years or more before all cars on our highways include the barest minimum safety standards for the protection of the occupants. It will take many more years before the States are able to effect some degree of uniformity on their roads and before most drivers have been educated in how to drive. But we have an obligation to the people we represent to begin immediately the safety programs provided for in the bill.

It has been charged that the bill is unfair to the automobile industry, that it imposes undue restrictions which will stifle inventiveness and innovation, and that the threat of its passage has affected the volume of sales which in turn has influenced the economy.

The fact is that travel in automobiles today causes death and injury in enormous numbers some 50,000 last year. It is the fourth leading cause of death and injury for the American people. The automobile alone is not the cause. But there is well documented research and evidence showing that it could be so designed and so contructed as to protect the driver and passengers from death and injury in most kinds of accidents. Some scientists and engineers have estimated that with such modifications the number of traffic accident deaths could be reduced by as much as 50 percent even though the number of accidents remains the same.

If this is the case, and experiments and tests indicate that it is, the question remains, why have the manufacturers not so designed and constructed cars? I cannot answer this question. I am told that precedence is given to stylistic innovations which attract customers, the obvious objective of any businessman. Stylistic emphasis is fine for stereophonic consoles and female attire, but the automobile manufacturer has a greater responsibility-a life and death responsibility to his customers.

If he is not willing to or simply does not accept such responsibility, then the Government has no recourse but to require that he give attention to this facet of his production.

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

Mr. MONDALE. I yield.

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has done yeoman work in the entire field of auto safety.

The Senator has been very much aware of the problem. He certainly has been activated in his work by a great desire to save the lives of the people of our country.

I deem his amendments and suggestions to be very valuable.

I consider that the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has made a significant contribution to the entire field of improved traffic safety.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I am most pleased and flattered by the remarks of the distinguished Senator from

Vol. I

14246

Connecticut because the remarks come from a man who, probably more than any other man in the country, has led the fight which has brought us to the day when hopefully we will pass, after long years and unfortunate delay, a meaningful and substantial automobile traffic safety law.

The Nation will always owe an enormous debt to the Senator from Connecticut. When the Senator from Connecticut served as Governor of his State, he was widely regarded as the leading government official in the country in the endeavor to obtain automobile safety legislation. He was responsible for arousing a consciousness on the part of drivers of the need for safe driving and of the consequences of the failure to drive safely.

The Senator has pursued the same objectives during his service in the Senate.

I am flattered by the remarks of the Senator. The Nation will be forever grateful for the magnificent contribution of the Senator from Connecticut in this field.

It is a sad commentary that this must be the case for one of the largest and

wealthiest industries in our Nation.

But the automobile industry will not stand alone among large corporations after the passage of this bill. Today

there are laws regulating most hazardous economic activities and products including food and drugs, air, rail and ship transportation, construction, cosmetics, and many others. In fact, the automobile industry now stands virtually alone in its complete unilateral control over the design and merchandising of its products.

My only regret in voting for this legislation is that it is necessary, because it was not enacted 40 years-indeed a million deaths ago.

Forty years ago there were a staggering 23,000 automobile accident deaths annually, ample carnage to arouse public opinion and pressure government to take corrective measures. I am amazed that we the Congress the Executive and the public-have failed for so long to act positively to protect ourselves from constant daily exposure to death or permanent crippling disability.

I commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee. Mr. MAGNUSON, and the chairman of the Public Works Committee, Mr. RANDOLPH, for the bill each has reported which when combined will constitute the Traffic Safety Act of 1966.

This will be a balanced bill. Unlike those that have been introduced in previous Congresses, each of which dealt with only one minute part of the traffic safety problem, this bill covers the total traffic accident phenomenon.

There is provision for safety standards to be incorporated in the manufacture of motor vehicles.

There is provision for comprehensive research of vehicles, drivers, the configuration of highways, the uniformity and visibility of signs and signals, the cause of accidents, and to carry out much of this research, there is provision for the construction of a research facility or facilities.

There is provision for setting up or enlarging State traffic safety programs-an absolute necessity and one of the most important parts of this bill. Without action all over the Nation to promote vehicle inspection, driver education, the construction of the safest possible roads, uniformity among State laws and signals so that the driver will not continue to face mass confusion as he travels from State to State, and comprehensive, complete and accurate accident investigation, there is little possibility of reducing the number of traffic accidents-now estimated to number about 12 million a year.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Public Works Committee is to be complimented for the additions made by his committee to the administration's bill.

In recognition of the tremendous traffic problems facing highly populated sections, a new section has been included providing grants for urban and metropolitan areas programs similar to those authorized for the States.

Another addition is a National Traffic Safety Advisory Council. In this relatively untried area of Federal involveSecretary with objective and farsighted ment, such a Council can provide the

recommendations for improvement of the total traffic safety program.

The Public Works Committee has

wisely added a third feature to the bill which directs the Secretary of Comand State highway safety agencies, to merce, in cooperation with the Governors

make a detailed estimate of the cost of the grant programs to the States and to furnish this information to the Congress with recommendations by January 10, 1968.

The chairman of the Commerce Committee has done a monumental job with this bill. His personal contribution to the improvement of it is obvious throughout.

A major addition to title I is the provision for interim motor vehicle safety standards which must be incorporated by manufacturers no later than January 31, 1968. Recognizing that the Secretary would not have the time to develop permanent standards that quickly, but also recognizing that the adoption of some safety standards immediately could save many lives, the chairman developed this middle course to resolve two opposing but equally practical problems. This provision is a tribute to his reasonableness and his ability.

A major strengthening of the administration's bill which was an amendment in committee and which also had been proposed separately by several of my colleagues is the requirement for the Secretary to mandatorily set motor vehicle safety standards. The permissiveness of the original bill gave the Secretary no direction by the Congress. The bill places on him enough other burdens without also requiring him to administer a law without positive direction.

An example of the balance in this bill as it has come out of committee is the combination of significantly increased funds for administration coupled with provisions for oversight in the requirement for a detailed annual report to the Congress on March 1 of each year and

for approval by the House and Senate Commerce Committees of plans for the construction of research facilities.

I am particularly pleased to see included in this bill the fair warning amendment I proposed several months ago. This provision requires every manufacturer of motor vehicles to notify the purchaser of any defect which the manufacturer determines in good faith relates to safety. The manufacturer would have to furnish such notification within a reasonable time after discovery. No time limit is included in the legislative language because of the probability that such a limit would be unduly restrictive and subject the manufacturer to a civil penalty. My original amendment set a time to furnish notification, and I would hope that the Secretary would attempt to use this as a guideline.

The bill also requires the manufacturer to send the safety defect notification by certified mail to the purchaser and by certified mail or more expeditious means to the dealer or dealers of the vehicle or equipment in which there is a safety defect. The notification must contain a clear description of the defect, an evaluation of the safety risk involved in the defect, and a statement of the measures to be taken to repair the defect.

I have always considered this latter requirement an essential part of any type of fair warning to the consumer, but my resolve on this matter was greatly strengthened the other day when a recent letter addressed to Ralph Nader from a gentleman in Falls Church, Va., came to my attention. Enclosed was a letter from his Buick service manager which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DEAR BUICK OWNER: It has been called to our attention by Buick Motor Division that a bolt installation on the brake mechanism of your particular Buick LeSabre, Serial or Vehicle No. which we delivered to you might prove to be troublesome some time in the future.

In order to forestall this possibility, it would be appreciated if you would bring your car into our Service Department in the immediate future in order that we may check this installation and make any necessary corrections.

When you bring your Buick in, this matter will receive prompt attention; however, you may prefer to call us at for a definite appointment, which will allow us to give you preferred service.

Very truly yours,

Please call our Service Department at 5348500 for appointment. For your convenience we will be open Saturday, June 11th, & 18th, especially for this modification.

Thank you.

BRUCE LEISTER, Service Manager. Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, the recipient of this letter states:

This letter is unique in that the concern of General Motors. or Buick Motor Division, or the dealer or the somebody who did not sign the undated letter (except as a post script)-this sudden concern over the brake mechanism which "might prove to be troublesome some time in the future"-comes

some 18 months and 11,000 miles after the car was delivered in January of 1965!

Fortunately, the braking system, up to now, is one of the things that has not caused trouble or inconvenience. Nonetheless, I am moved to sympathize with those other own

ers of 1965 LeSabre Convertibles who, belatedly, may have found "a bolt installation ... troublesome . . ." some time in the past 18 months. One cannot help but wonder about the seriousness of the trouble that may have been experienced by such owners and their families. Also, I am inclined to speculate as to whether or not Buick and/or GM, at this late date, would have incurred the expense involved in the modification of early 1965 models had it not been for the pressure of public opinion generated by your excellent research and tireless determination.

The letter from the Buick service manager, although it suggests corrective action as soon as possible, makes no mention of the fact that the problem may endanger the life and limb of the occupants of the car. On inquiry yesterday, the service manager stated that the problem involved the bolts on the brake locking plate which he said were not selflocking and might work loose. If they did work loose, he said, the wheel could fall off without warning. I do not consider it necessary to speculate whether a wheel falling off without warning is a safety hazard. Obviously, it is. Yet, the letter to the owner did not make clear either the problem or the great risk involved. Rather, it attempted, with clever wording, to conceal the nature of the problem and the danger involved.

It is my view that the fair-warning provision is essential to make sure that the automobile consumer is warned of hazards such as this.

It is only fair, in view of the vast organizations established for the sale and service of these automobiles, to notify the owner in clear and unmistakable terms, once a safety defect is known that a safety hazard is involved, what it is, and what corrective steps can be taken.

I compliment the members of the committee for accepting my fair-warning amendment, so that this long overdue inadequacy in notifying owners can be corrected, as required by the provisions of the bill.

I was pleased that the Commerce Committee adopted other measures concerning defects, such as the requirements that the manufacturer furnish the Secretary with representative copies of all notices, bulletins, and other communications to dealers of any defect, and authority for the Secretary to make public the information contained in such notices. Also, in the same section of the bill is another fine addition. If the Secretary determines, after allowing the manufacturer chance for rebuttal, that a vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with Federal safety standards or contains a safety defect, he must direct the manufacturer to notify the purchaser of this noncompliance or safety defect, as provided in my fair warning amendment.

These provisions, the fair-warning amendment, and other defect amendments which were adopted in committee on the recommendation of several Senators combine to make a neat package