Page images
PDF
EPUB

the automotive industry, in his stand-
ards-setting process. With this admis-
sion, the committee stated its preference
that such consultations be provided for
by law.

inclusion of the Council will guarantee a free flow of information between Federal authorities, State, and local bodies concerned with the bulk of the safety effort envisioned in this act and supplemented by H.R. 13290, through driver The committee has treated the problicensing and vehicle inspection proce- lem of safety standards for used cars by dures, the industries affected, and the including in section 108 a mandate that ultimate consumer of the vehicle-the at the end of 1 year from the date of general public. With the Council, in- enactment of this act, the Secretary shall 19632 dustry can advise the Federal Govern- complete a study of the problems relating ment and other interested parties of the to the safety standards for used vehicles, safety innovations it has made in auto- and make recommendations to the Conmotive design, thus guaranteeing against gress for any additional legislation he any established Federal standards be- feels necessary. It is the intent of my coming a ceiling on performance, rather amendment that no later than 1 year than a minimum of performance. This from the date of the submission of the advice will guarantee against a status Secretary's report, the Secretary, after quo in engineering progress. Also, pub- consultation with the Council and other lic members can advise on needs and de- interested public or private agencies, mands of safety. shall establish Federal vehicle safety inThe establishment of an Advisory spection standards applicable to used Council has precedence in the executive motor vehicles. These inspection standbranch of the Government. For ex- ards, expressed in terms of vehicle perample, the Defense Department has a formance, may be revised by the Secrenumber of industry advisory councils to tary from time to time after advice from work with departmental officials even in the Council. In this mandate to the such delicate questions as procurement Secretary, such used car safety inspecand materiel specifications, as well as tion standards would become effective research and engineering development. upon issue by the Secretary or within a The Surgeon General of the United reasonable time thereafter. The full efStates has and is effectively utilizing ad- fect of these used car inspection standvisory councils in matters such as the ards lies in the enforcement provisions awarding of contract grants for medical seen in H.R. 13290, which offers grant inresearch. centives and withholds Federal road con

The Secretary of Commerce has stated struction funds to hasten adoption of vethat the Department intends to consult hicle inspections by the States. with the appropriate parties, including

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19633

Mr. YOUNGER.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the visory Council which he himself chooses. bill. I voted for it in committee and I We had better abolish the Advisory hope we can change the appointment of Council rather than to have a self-servthe Advisory Council to a Presidential ing Advisory Council. appointment, confirmed by the other body.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is wrong to have the Secretary appoint an Ad

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the bill and I hope that it passes.

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19638 and 19639

Mr. GROSS. Will it be within the
scope of the Advisory Council to do some-
thing about driving while intoxicated?
As previous speakers have stated this is
one of the worst contributions to auto-
mobile accidents.

Mr. WATSON. As far as the Advisory Council is concerned, they are to work with the Secretary, the Secretary having the ultimate authority, in the promulgation of safety standards for the automobile itself-and not for the operation or not for the operator. Production is one part of it, but the operation is the most important factor.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PICKLE] whatever time he might require. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I recommend passage of this measure because the principles are sound and they are needed in the public interest.

I found in the discussion of this legislation that the manufacturing industry 19639 has welcomed the opportunity to help establish fair and reasonable motor vehicle standards. I have found that the Governors of the States welcome the opportunity to establish fair and reasonable standards with respect to the operation of highway safety programs.

One provision that we have established in this legislation and in the legislation that follows (H.R. 13290) is the medium of the Advisory Committee. I should like to point out to this House that this is one time that this kind of committee must be made to work in an effective manner. There has been a feeling down the street over the years that an advisory committee provided in legislation is just something to be suffered with. We are trying to provide in this legislation that we give these people the industry, the States, and the public-a voice in establishing the standards, and then the public interest will be helped, as it should be.

I would like to recommend passage of the motor vehicle and traffic safety legislation that is before us today, and especially call to the attention of my colleagues a provision of this legislation and a provision in H.R. 13290 that I feel is of paramount importance.

I am making reference to the establishment of the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee-H.R. 13290 and the Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Committee-H.R. 13228.

As recommended in the highway safety bill, the "Committee shall advise, consult with and make recommendations to, the Secretary on matters relating to his activities and functions in the field of highway safety." As established under the motor vehicle safety bill, the Secretary "shall seek the advise and recommendations of the Advisory Committee before establishing, amending, or revoking any motor vehicle safety standards."

Since the effects of this legislation will bring the control of at least minimum Federal standards down into the very heart of State and local powers, I feel that the proposed Advisory Committee must be more than a paper organization. If I could have my way, I would make it much stronger.

This is one advisory committee that must be made to function, and I am hopeful that, with the establishment of the Committee, it will not only serve a useful purpose, but that a proper StateFederal relationship will be established and maintained.

Traditionally, such functions as motor vehicle registration, driver licensing, vehicle inspection, and traffic enforcement have been left to the individual States. If we allow the Federal Government to have control of this responsibility, then the lure or appeal of grant money-without their full approval-could lead to a Federal police system, which I am sure no one wants.

It has been under the States' leadership, direction, and financing that many of the highway safety programs were established and carried out. Whatever programs we have made over the years have been through State leadership, not Federal leadership.

In my home State, for example, an effective annual vehicle inspection law has been on the books for many years. Our highways are reportedly the best of any State, and our department of public safety has long been recognized as perhaps the most effective in the Nation.

I insist that the establishment of the National Highway Safety Committee and the Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Committee will mean a continuation of the progressive State efforts in the field of highway safety.

It seems to me that it would be logical and proper to call on the State experts, such as Col. Homer Garrison, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety,

to help formulate highway safety plans. Not to take proper advantage of the knowledge and experience of such men as Colonel Garrison-or the various States would appear to be wasteful.

The increasing number of deaths on our highways has given birth to this legislation. I strongly assert that even though such laws are necessary to curb this death toll, I trust that they would not lead to only minimum participation by our States.

have done the only job. By and large the States have done a good job. I do admit that we have reached a point where we must have a clear delineation of authority between the Federal and State Governments if we are to establish much needed minimum standards, but I do not subscribe to the position that each State has done a poor job in this field of traffic safety. Indeed the number of deaths and injuries per million miles traveled during the past 5 years Somehow, the feeling has developed in my State-and I believe most States throughout these hearings that "since has declined percentagewise most subthe States have failed to take proper stantially. This credit should be given steps by establishing uniform safety the States. If we are to have a meaningstandards, the Federal Government must ful highway safety program or motor now step in and do it for them." This vehicle safety standards in the years to simply is not the case. It is better to come, it must be with the continued say that neither has done a sufficient leadership of the States. job, but the plain truth is that the States

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19660-19662

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SPRINGER

jected to the language "by the Presi

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I dent with the advice and consent of the

offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SPRINGER: On

page 34, line 14, strike out "Secretary," and insert in lieu thereof the following: "President with the advice and consent of the Senate,".

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, in view of this being, I think, only one of two amendments, I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, this has to do with the Advisory Council. We feel that the formation of the Advisory Council was one of the real important parts of this legislation. This Council is composed of 13 members, of which one is the chairman. Now, at the beginning the original legislation had the provision as I want it in it. May I say this is a rather unique situation. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS] offered the first amendment and we adopted it. Under that amendment the bill then read that it, the Council, would be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Now, within a very few days after this the Secretary of Commerce strenuously ob

Senate."

Now, if I were the Secretary of Commerce, I might want it that way. The Advisory Council as we set it up appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate is a pretty independent body, because it receives the final approval of the Senate. It was our feeling that a body as important as this, which is going to make up standards for this country in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, ought not to be under the immediate domination of the Secretary. So the Secretary began to exert pressure on everybody, including me, to see if he could get this changed back from the way that the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. ROGERS] has put it into the bill finally. That amendment carried in the committee 13 to 12. Thirteen for making the change to give all of the power to the Secretary with no hearings on the appointment of the members of the Advisory Council. I am sure if the Secretary of Commerce had not intervened, this bill would have remained exactly as it was. It was only because of the pressure of the Secretary of Commerce that the change was made.

Why is this not in the public interest? I think that is pretty important to know. Under the language now in the bill, the Secretary of Commerce can appoint those 13 people this afternoon and they

go to work tomorrow morning and the
first time anybody would know about
it is when those men were on the job, or
you read about it in the newspaper.
There is no intervening time for any-
body to make any objection. You would
not even know who the candidates

were.

Mr. Chairman, this Council of 13 people is going to advise the Secretary on automobile safety standards for 93 million automobiles of which there will roughly be 160 million people driving.

Mr. Chairman, if there is anything that can affect every home in this country more, I do not know what it is.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered would strike out "Secretary" and insert "President with the advice and consent of the Senate." Mr. Chairman, why is it important to put this provision in here? In the first place, everyone of these 13 members should be publicly exposed by a hearing in the Senate. I do not mean held up to 19661 ridicule; of course not. What I mean is that when the President nominates them, within 30 days they will come down to the Senate for confirmation and there will be a hearing on each one of these 13 people.

Mr. Chairman, there should be questions put to each of these appointees as to their qualifications.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you would
have an opportunity to examine those
people. If they are not qualified, then
they should not be accepted in the public

interest-if their record indicates in the
past that they were not capable of act-
ing in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, there is a second reason
why we wanted the Council to be rela-
tively independent. In other words, Mr.
Chairman, they should be standing up
for the public interest and they should
not be under the domination of the
Secretary. I know that Members on both
sides of the aisle were for the Advisory
Council but said that the Advisory Coun-
cil ought to be making its recommenda-
tions in writing so that there would be no
doubt that the Council was acting in the
public interest.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, we have made it impossible for the Secretary to consult with two or three of these people and put these standards into operation tomorrow and say that they

had been consulted.

Mr. Chairman, we made it mandatory that the Secretary had to consult with the Advisory Council.

Mr. Chairman, this is the reason why this Council should be independent.

The members of the Committee may well say that the President and the Secretary are probably acting together. Perhaps, they are. Perhaps, the President is going to make the appointments that the Secretary wants to have made. But the important thing is that when these recommended appointments get to the Senate, you will have a right to question these men individually.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. I have tried to explain it in language which everyone can understand. I believe it is important to separate this Advisory Council from being under the immediate instructions of the Secretary, and that is the reason for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the committee it lost by only a vote of 13 to 12. This will give to the members of the Committee an idea as to how close the vote was, and may I say that the vote was bipartisan.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

5 minutes, I just want to call upon the Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the full author of the amendment, because he is the one who sponsored it, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS].

man, I thank the chairman of the Com

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair

mittee on Interstate and Commerce for yielding to me at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I likewise rise in opposition to the amendment.

I first offered this amendment I did have Actually, as has been explained, when the Advisory Safety Council appointed by the President and its members to be confirmed by the Senate.

Without any pressure, if I may say to the gentleman from Illinois, but simply as a result of discussions I had with representatives of the Department of Commerce, I changed my mind as to the advisability of having the President appoint the Council. The Commerce Department tried to point out to me what it felt were the deficiencies in the amendment as it was first offered. I agreed with the Department and offered an amendment to change the provision from having the President appoint the Council to having the Secretary appoint the members.

First of all, the purpose of this Council is to advise the Secretary. It is not to advise the President. It is not to advise

the Cabinet. It is to advise the Secretary of Commerce, on trying to set standards.

Where do we place the responsibility in this bill for the setting of standards? We do not place it in the President-we place it in the Secretary of Commerce,

and it is his full responsibility. It is only authority or the power of the Secretary right that he should appoint this group of Commerce.

to help advise him. That is all it is. He The gentleman from Florida knows full does not have to accept their advice- well that the final authority is vested or he may accept their advice if he so in the Secretary. But I believe it will be desires. It is simply an advisory com- more meaningful to have this Advisory mittee for the Secretary. Council appointed by the same method Furthermore, I think we are protected as my friend from Florida originally under the terms of office in that we have suggested.

certain set terms, and independence I fail thus far to see the deficiencies enough for any advisory committee. We that suddenly manifested themselves begive them set terms that the members tween the original proposal and the lastwill serve. We have precedent for that. minute suggestion which just passed by That is the same way it is done in the the skin of its teeth with a 13-to-12 vote. Public Health Service, the Surgeon General appoints the advisory committee to advise him. In the Department of Defense we have the same sort of setup. The advisory committees there are appointed by the Secretary, and not by the President.

I think that an overall view of the purpose of the Safety Advisory Council as set out in the proposed bill to advise the Secretary, who has the full responsibility, is exactly as the committee should be appointed and set up.

I would urge very vigorously the defeat of the amendment as proposed by the gentleman from Illinois.

[blocks in formation]

to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, my friend from Florida knows full well the high esteem that I have for him, and certainly I for one would never impugn his motives.

But I well recall, as I am sure the other members of the committee will recall, the persuasiveness and the eloquence of the gentleman from Florida when he first proposed this Advisory Council. It was his idea that it be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He did an excellent job. He convinced us on it.

It was not until the last day that they came back with the idea that the Council must be appointed by the Secretary.

Now, let me say why I can support the amendment of the gentleman from Пlinois. We have a serious problem confronting us. I want this Advisory Council to have as much prestige and respect as possible. I firmly believe that if it goes through the process of recommendation by the President, plus the advice and consent of the Senate, that this Council indeed will have national prestige, and we will get the best possible members on this Council.

Bear in mind this: Whether you have it by the method suggested by the gentleman from Illinois, or whether you will leave it as it is presently in the bill, you are not diminishing one iota the

I would urge the Committee to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois. It will give us a stronger bill. It will not diminish the authority of the Secretary of Commerce at all. I believe it will add immeasurably to the prestige of this Advisory Council as they try to wrestle with this tremendously important problem with which we are confronted.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WATSON. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina. I would say that it was not just at the last day. Of course, the substitute was put in the last day, but there were discussions before that.

Mr. WATSON. I am sure the gentleman knows there was later discussion after your original proposal.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes.

Mr. WATSON. And then it was voted down on that occasion. It was denied. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes.

Mr. WATSON. And it was narrowly passed on the last day.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. All I wanted to say was that at that time I had made the change. But, no matter, the fact that I first proposed it, as you say, I did have the President appoint them.

In further consideration of that question I felt it would not be wise. If we would give this Council the right to set the standards themselves and the responsibility to do that, then I would agree with the gentleman that it should be a presidentially appointed body.

However, in a situation where we will have given the authority to and will hold the Secretary responsible, surely it is only proper that the advisory body should be appointed by him.

Mr. WATSON. I refuse to yield further. If I might make this statement in reply, I am sure the gentleman from Florida will agree with me that an advisory council appointed by the Presi

« PreviousContinue »