sachusetts) there were ayes 15, noes 120. So the amendment was rejected. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOSS Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: On page 30 strike out lines 22 and 23 and renumber succeeding paragraphs and any references thereto accordingly. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I do not believe this amendment is controversial. I have discussed it with the distinguished ranking member of the minority and with the chairman of the committee. It would strike the definition of "person" as contained in this proposed statute, and therefore fall back on title I and the definition of "person," broadening it, and I feel in a constructive manner. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment on this side. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether this is the amendment which we discussed previously? Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. SPRINGER. tion. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it is. We have no objec The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOSS Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: On page 59, line 1, after "State" insert "a political subdivision thereof". Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, again I do not believe this is controversial. It makes it quite clear that a district attorney or a city prosecutor could seek information from the drivers license registry maintained by the Department of Commerce. The present language is rather confused. It states "at the request of a State." It does not say who in the State makes the request. It is not clear at all whether a district attorney, a county or, as I say, a city prosecutor could forward a request and have it responded to. I have discussed this also with the distinguished gentleman from Illinois and with the chairman of the committee, and I believe it is also noncontroversial. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. Mr. STAGGERS. We have no objection to it. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Moss]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to make an inquiry of the distinguished chairman of the committee. On page 29 of the bill, on line 18, under the definitions, a motor vehicle is defined as meaning "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." Do I understand that this means the provisions of this law do not apply to off highway vehicles or vehicles such as Indianapolis race cars which are towed to and from the race track or modified stock cars which are geared in such a way that they cannot be used on the highways? Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct. My interpretation would be it does not apply to them. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask of the distinguished chairman or the ranking minority member where in this bill the public is guaranteed quality control. The manufacturer cannot guarantee quality control, because if he insists on the representative of the labor union to perform quality control, they could walk off the job. That is not the fault of the manufacturer. All of us know that there are many cases in our own experience where there are obvious defects in our cars which we buy which are not the fault of the manufacturer but the negligence of some employee. Does this bill give the manufacturer an opportunity to guarantee to the using public that there will be quality control as part and parcel of this law? You cannot impute all of these faults to the manufacturer exclusively. Mr. KREBS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I am asking one first. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I yield. Mr. STAGGERS. I would say to the gentleman that this is a safety bill and not a quality control bill. Although, quality has to come into safety. We are insisting that everything be done to make the car safe. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. But you do not give the manufacturer an opportunity to guarantee that his employees will give the using public a product which is safe from obvious defects on the part of the employees. Mr. STAGGERS. We have a provision in here that every car turned out must be certified as in conformance with safety standards before it goes to the first buyer. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. If you knew anything about the automobile business, you would know this cannot be done. Mr. STAGGERS. We have it in the bill. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I know, but you will find out. You ought to give the manufacturer some credit for something, and you are not doing it in this bill. Now I would like to inquire of the ranking minority member as to the same thing. Is the manufacturer given any opportunity to compel his employees to guarantee that their product is not fraught with negligence? Mr. SPRINGER. I am not sure that I understand the gentleman's question. I have no brief for the manufacturers. 19665 I shall be happy to answer the gentleman's question if I am sure I understand it. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I do not think that your bill protects the using public insofar as employees are concerned. If you give all the punishment to the manufacturers and none to the employees Mr. SPRINGER. Well, may I say that there is a responsibility on the, part of the company, all the way down the line. Now, you might have an employee down here who might turn out a defective piece of equipment or a defective automobile under the language which we put in this bill, but the company, collectively, is liable. We do not exempt any employee specifically. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Well, say, a manufacturer insisted upon a performance on the steering wheel which they compelled the employees to perform and they refused to do it. quality product because they drive them themselves. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I will say that that has not been my experience. I wish they could have been made to drive some of the cars I have owned. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CRALEY Mr. CRALEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. CRALEY: On page 34, after line 11, insert the following new subsection: "(1) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards requiring that every motor vehicle used or to be used as a schoolbus shall be equipped at each passenger seat location with a seat belt." Mr. CRALEY. Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a few minutes on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I feel that this amend Is there any redress on the part of the ment is a justifiable one. public? Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, do I understand that if he ordered an employee to carry out a safety function which he believes will make his product safe, and there is a refusal on the part of the employee, there is no punishment? Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Well, they walk off the job. The gentleman has heard of that, has he not? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, there has been much expert testimony and statistics which have been offered to prove that seat belts have been a factor in safety in private vehicles, in Government vehicles, and in any other vehicle. I think it is foolish for us to write a piece of legislation providing for national safety and not protect the welfare of our children who, in my opinion, are our most important and valuable assets. We have required many safety fea Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. And tures on schoolbuses, and I feel that it they do it every day. Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, and you can fine them. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. However, where has a manufacturer got any redress? Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the only redress he would have would be to fire an employee for negligence, and if he did not follow the safety standards set up by the company, it is my understanding, under almost any company rules or under any union rules, that you have a right to fire them. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. You fire them and watch them tie up the whole process. Everybody in the country knows this and everybody in this House knows this. Mr. CEDERBERG. will the gentleman yield? I is proper and fitting to require in this legislation that schoolbuses be equipped and required to be equipped with seat belts. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRALEY. I yield to the gentle man. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman's amendment require all of these schoolbuses to be equipped with seat belts, or just newly manufactured schoolbuses? Mr. CRALEY. The amendment requires that every motor vehicle used or to be used as a schoolbus be equipped with the seat belts. This would apply to not only new ones, but to those schoolbuses already in use. Mr. DINGELL. May I ask the gentleMr. Chairman, man, then, because I can see that the interstate commerce powers of the Federal Government under the Constitution would afford appropriate authority for dealing with the question of these vehicles that are to be sold in interstate commerce in the future, but I would like to know under what power can the Congress constitutionally legislate the use of seat belts on all schoolbuses, including those which are not sold or operated in interstate commerce? Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CEDERBERG. I think it would be a mistake to infer that the employees of the automobile manufacturers would in any way try to turn out a product that was not safe and up to the standards that the company requires. Mr. Chairman, in the first place, these employees drive these cars themselves. Their own safety is at stake. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the automobile manufacturer and the responsible people who represent these employees recognize that it is in their best interest to turn out a quality product. There are probably always some things that can happen. But, by and large, these employees are going to turn out a Mr. CRALEY. I would state to the gentleman that I am not an attorney, and I would have to bow to the gentleman on that question. My feeling is that if the legislation is passed it will be required, and would be mandatory that in order for these motor vehicles to operate, that they would have to have seat belts. 19666 DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I think that if the gentleman were to change his amendment to say that it would apply to motor vehicles sold in interstate commerce for service as schoolbuses, and they should be fully equipped with seat belts. that would be one thing. I think it would be constitutional and I personally would support the amendment. But I cannot support the amendment when we go back and deal much more broadly than I feel we should, and the amendment raises this particular problem, but here without that proviso in it there might very well be a broad constitutional question that I, as an attorney, cannot answer. Mr. CRALEY. Mr. Chairman, I would leave that to the opinion of the courts. My amendment would require this safety feature, and I will let it stand at that. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and speak out of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first I desire to apologize to the Members of the House for digressing from this important discussion of an important bill. But since I do not take the floor very often, I think I am Justified in doing so now and speaking out of order. Today we are witnessing a part of the overall Communist conspiracy in this country right here on Capitol Hill in the caucus room of the Old House Office Building where the Committee on UnAmerican Activities is attempting to conduct a hearing on Communist participation in an effort to thwart the war efforts of this country in Vietnam. The disorder, the turmoil and the rioting which has occurred in the committee room today is nothing short of a demonstration of the Communist conspiracy to destroy our Government. These people operate in every field where they can push their way in. Of particular interest to me, the people of Mississippi, and I am sure to this House is the conduct of the witnesses subpenaed by the committee and their attorneys in these hearings today. We have just learned not only that a number of the witnesses were seized by police and marshals and placed in jail. but also one of their attorneys, Arthur Kinoy, was also incarcerated for his disorderly conduct and efforts to disrupt the orderly procedure of the committee. And who is this man, Arthur Kinoy? Mr. Chairman, on February 16 last year I advised the House that Arthur Kinoy and William M. Kunstler, both New York City lawyers, together with Benjamin E. Smith, Morton Stavis, and William L. Higgs were listed as attorneys for the contestants in the movement by the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party-an offshoot of SNCC-to unseat the Mississippi delegation in the House. And, I further advised the House that this movement was a part and particle of the Communist conspiracy. In that statement I further pointed out that of the 159 lawyers listed in the brief of the contestants, 14 are identified Communists, a total of 63 or over one-third have some kind of Communist or Communistfront record. Mr. Chairman, I cited the record of Arthur Kinoy and I read it now as follows: Arthur Kinoy, New York City: Member of National Lawyers Guild, vice president in 1954; member of executive committee for the American Student Union which has been cited as Communist by Ave investigating committees; attorney for Communist-controlled United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers Union; attorney for Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, executed spies; attorney for Steve Nelson, the international Communist leader; member of law firm which received payments from various Communist groups including the Committee for Justice for Morton Sobell, and the Labor Youth League, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Volume 111, part 2, page 1950. I further read the reference to William M. Kunstler as follows: William M. Kunstler, New York City: Featured speaker at rally sponsored by Communist-front group, Citizens Committee for Constitutional Liberties; has appeared on platform with identified Communists Carl Braden, Frank Wilkinson, and Henry Winston; counsel for Southern Conference Educational Fund. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 111, part 2, page 1950. Incidentally, I point out that the William L. Higgs cited, now of Washington, D.C., was disbarred on a morals charge in Mississippi. Again, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out that these same lawyers were the attorneys who attempted to enjoin the Committee on Un-American Activities from holding these hearings. After Kinoy was arrested, this same William L. Higgs is now along with the same William M. Kunstler in the attempt to disrupt the orderly procedure of a committee of this Congress and were among those other lawyers who walked out of the committee today in an attempt to show their contempt for the committee. Mr. Chairman, in view of the pressure groups that bombarded the Members of this House to unseat the duly elected Members of the House from Mississippi, I thought it might be well to refresh the memory of the membership and to again point out and emphasize this Communist conspiracy to destroy our cherished American form of government. Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. BURTON of California. I am sure the gentleman would not like the RECORD to leave the impression for any of the readers of the RECORD that the 154 attorneys to whom the gentleman refers a great number of whom are from San Francisco-including attorneys from some of our leading law firms Mr. COLMER. Yes; you had a good representation. Mr. BURTON of California. I am sure that the gentleman is not trying directly or indirectly to impugn either the motivation or the personal character of these attorneys, who include among them, many of the most distinguished fellow members of the bar, and I would like to have the RECORD most clear on that point. Certainly we should build cars as safe The administration asked for authority Mr. COLMER. I get the gentleman's to control design but the committee, in implication. Mr. BURTON of California. I would further like to state that neither the real or alleged conduct of a client can properly be imputed to his attorney. May I pose this question to the gentleman: The gentleman, I would hope, would fully understand the great difficulty anyone mentioned on the floor of this House is confronted with-speaking. as the gentleman does, under the cloak of congressional immunity. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I desire to speak briefly to the subject that is before us. The gentleman suggested an amendment dealing with safety belts in school buses, et cetera. I have been studying that subject for 2 years. Earlier this year I introduced a bill to do that. We discussed it in our committee. But we feel, and I think it is a fact, that the Interstate Commerce Commission has authority to provide safety devices on any vehicle under their jurisdiction, and that includes many schoolbuses, interstate buses, and so forth. They have already announced that they plan, I belleve, to go ahead and require that. With that information from the ICC, we did not take it up specifically in this legislation. its wisdom, deleted this from the bill. If the Federal Government is to decide Where and on what basis does the assumption come from that the Government has or can get personnel who know more about building cars than those in industry? Must every spare part be manufactured to a Government standard before it can be sold? Is the Government to duplicate the research and development facilities of industry? Are, in the end, prices to be subsidized with hidden subsidies in the form of grants for research, test, and development, the cost of which must or will not be recovered in the sale price of the car? Many more questions can be raised but it is safe to say that this bill rises or falls on whether or not commonsense is employed in its administration. To be sure, more commonsense will be required than has been used in the Beautification Act, for example, to date. I have always been guided by the rule Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, will of "when in doubt don't." I am in the gentleman yield? doubt today. The man behind the wheel Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the is the greatest safety factor of all. gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. STAGGERS. I understand the gentleman did not withdraw the amendment, and it is still before the House. I agree with the gentleman from Nebraska that we are giving the Secretary the right to put these in and to proceed. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. HENDERSON]. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CRALEY). The amendment was rejected. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the bill terminate in 15 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia? There was no objection. (By unanimous consent, Mr. GROSS yielded his time to Mr. HENDERSON.) Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I would like to make a brief statement to the House and pose a question to the chairman or to a member of the committee. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today creates a new agency and a new function. I have looked through the report accompanying the bill, and I cannot find any reference to the compliance with Public Law 801. I would point out to the committee that this law, originating from the Manpower Subcommittee that I have the honor to chair, requires the execuMr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, tive department to furnish with its report this bill is fraught with danger and as to the committees of Congress the mansuch it establishes a dangerous prece- power implications of legislation prodent. I shall vote for it with reluctance posed by the executive, that would reand fear for I am fearful the day will quire new functions or create new come when we will regret this action. agencies. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. WAGGONNER). It does increase the authority of the I am most hopeful that the chairman Federal Government over private enter- or some member of the committee can prise and it does weaken the free enter- inform the committee at this time how prise system. For this reason I have many new Federal employees this new trouble understanding why the automo- agency will require and give us some idea tive industry wants this legislation. But of the payroll or manpower cost if the they say they do for the reason it will bill is enacted. produce safer cars we are told. Indeed I yield to the distinguished chairman I hope they are right and I am wrong. from West Virginia for a reply. 19667 Mr. STAGGERS. I might say to the gentleman that the agency was added in executive session and without consultation with the executive department, so we do not have the number. Mr. HENDERSON. May I ask the further question: Does the committee have in its fille any information for the members of the committee as to the manpower cost of the new agency? Mr. STAGGERS. The cost of the new agency? No. I do not believe that the cost would be too much more. Mr. HENDERSON. I would like to put the chairman of this committee and other committee chairmen on notice again, that Public Law 801 is an act of Congress which should be complied with. I recognize that the chairman in this instance makes the point that the new agency was created by the committee, and was not a recommendation of the executive, but I believe by the enactment of Public Law 801, Congress indicated that it wants this information on hand in every committee as it considers a bill. We are going to do our best to see that Public Law 801 is complied with. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HENDERSON. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. I believe this is a strange situation, when no member of the committee can tell us what this bill will cost in terms of additional manpower. There is not one, but two agencies are being created under the terms of this bill. As the gentleman from North Carolina has well pointed out, this committee has completely ignored Public Law 801, which is mandatory with respect to the creation of a new agency or the expansion of an old agency. I am surprisedI am shocked to learn we can get no figures, not even an estimate, of the manpower cost of this legislation. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HENDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. STAGGERS. I might say that specific monetary authorizations are in the bill before us. The bill sets forth the authorized appropriations in dollar amounts. Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will yield, can the gentleman tell me how many additional employees there will be? Mr. STAGGERS. I do not know, but we have set up the monetary limit and it cannot go beyond that. We can give you a breakdown of the totals. Does the gentleman want me to say what they are? Mr. GROSS. That is scarcely an answer to the question. Public Law 801 requires the information. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM]. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, as I said before today, I favor this bill, and I shall vote for it, but it is not the solution to this problem. It puts the emphasis where it does not belong. I would be hopeful that the Members would pay particular attention to the bill which perhaps will come up as the next order of business before the House of Representatives, a bill out of the Public Works Committee, which really has great possibilities for doing something about preventing the accidents, the deaths, and the injuries on our highways. I would not want anyone to think this bill is going to solve any problem, because there are no statistics whatsoever which indicate that the design of the automobile is a factor in the large number of deaths and injuries on the highways today. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL). Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply for the purpose of pointing out to my colleagues that this committee has exercised great wisdom in reporting to this Congress one of the best pieces of legislation I believe we have ever had the privilege of considering within that committee, and I suspect within any committee of the Congress. It does full equity and justice to the public interest, providing for adequate safety and safety standards for the American motoring public and the American people. More importantly, it will do this in such a way as to not unduly jeopardize the legitimate interests of the auto manufacturers. I would point out to the gentleman from Iowa and also to my good friend from North Carolina [Mr. HENDERSON), who spoke in the well not long ago, that this committee has adhered very carefully to matters and cost estimates approved within the budget and the Bureau of the Budget for the cost of this agency and the cost of carrying out this legislation. I would also point out that, as a member of the committee, I have not the slightest intention, I say to the gentleman from Iowa and also to the other gentleman on his feet at this time, of being bound by some previous legislation in my consideration of legislation which happens to be before me. I would point out to the gentlemen that the minute this Congress permits itself to be encrusted by ancient and hoary statutes, or by other statutes which may or may not have relevancy, it will cease to be the great deliberative body needed by the people of this land. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DINGELL. I will be happy to yield in just a moment, but I would point out to my good friend I expect that the departments downtown in staffing to carry out the functions required by this legislation will exercise great prudence. It is the expectation of this committee and every member on it that these matters will be conducted with great care and circumspection. Now I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to point out that Public Law 801 requires the executive department to report to the Congress, and I hope that the gentleman will join us in insisting |