Page images
PDF
EPUB

or any other provision of law of the United States relating to conflicts of interest.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 13228

H.R. 13228, as it comes from this committee is a good, well considered and workable bill. It has had the very careful attention of the committee, unhurried and unaffected by any sensationalism which may have originally colored the thinking of the public and even the Congress on the subject of automobile safety and the steps necessary and desirable to eventually eliminate, so far as humanly possible, the slaughter on our Nation's highways.

In the course of deliberating this measure the committee discussed at length the desirability of creating an advisory body bringing together the experience and the views of the various private and public elements concerned with the subject of safety standards for new cars. After thorough discussion it was decided that a group appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate would be in the best interests of the public. Such a group, disconnected from the responsibility of administering the act could bring forth all points of view, all complexion of ideas, suggestions, and technical possibilities. Once it became known that such a provision had been agreed upon, the pressure to undo and reverse the decision was intense. Obviously the Commerce Department considers such an advisory body as a hindrance and danger to its own ideas of the proper methods to be used in the very important business of setting automotive safety standards. The very ferocity of the effort should indicate to a casual observer that there must be a good reason to have such an independent deliberative group to assist the Department and make recommendations which are open to the public.

In the course of the hearings on this bill it was readily admitted by those agencies of Government concerned that they had no extensive expertise in this field. The real knowledge and experience lay in the industries involved and in the private and public agencies, particularly the State and local governmental agencies directly concerned with auto safety over the years. The relatively independent and autonomous Presidential board provided in the original version as accepted by the committee brings this experience into play in a meaningful way. It gives the various interested elements, including the public members, a forum for working out tough problems and coming to some reasonable solution. The Secretary may not always accept its recommendations but he will be better informed. And because of its activity so will industry and so will the State and local governments.

The very requirement that prospective members of the safety council be confirmed by the Senate, with open hearings on the background of each, should assure that it will be made up of the highest qualified representatives of the groups set out in the law to participate. Its very makeup should engender confidence in the public that auto safety has been placed above mere bureaucratic procedure and above politics. It is our intention to make every effort to amend the bill to provide for the Presidential advisory body.

Our objection to the present advisory council provisions is directed 47 at both the procedures by which they were inserted into the bill and the merits. The latter we have discussed.

The former should be of interest to those outside the committee considering the bill. The committee having carefully devised the provisions for a presidentially appointed council making - written recommendations, the first attempt to scuttle them was rebuffed. At the very last meeting of the committee, called to report out the bill, a substitute bill was offered changing only this portion to accommodate the Secretary of Commerce, and the substitute carried by one vote, 13 to 12. This manner of undoing the careful work of the committee should not be accepted by the House of Representatives, and we urge the return to the earlier concept.

William L. SPRINGER,
J. ARTHUR YOUNGER,
SAMUEL L. DEVINE,
ANCHER NELSEN,
WILLARD CURTIN,
JAMES T. BROYHILL,
ALBERT W. WATSON,
Tim LEE CARTER.

Senate Passed Act

Contains no comparable provision.

Senate Debate

Congressional Record-Senate
August 31, 1966, 21487
Mr. MAGNUSON.

The House bill established a National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council. After considerable discussion, & revised Council provision was adopted by the conferees. The specific representation of motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and motor vehicle dealers was left to the determination of the Secretary of Commerce, who will appoint the Council, except that the bill expressly requires that

a majority of the Council represent the general public. In addition, the requirement in the House bull that the Secretary must seek the advice and recommendations of the Advisory Council betore establishing, amending, or revoking any standard was modified to require that the Secretary generally consult with the Advisory Council on motor vehicle safety standards.

Congressional Record-Senate
August 31, 1966, 21489

Mr. HARTKE. Chrysler put heavy tion for the retail automobile dealers. emphasis on safety. I think the rest of Also, State and local governments are the industry will do likewise. This leg- to be represented. They may consist islation is something that will not be of a representative of the safety council harmful to industry, and will be very of a State, or & safety commissioner aphelpful to the public. I hope it will con- pointed by & Governor, or it may be a tribute to reducing the death toll on the member of a State highway patrol, or highways. With respect to the matter an independent expert in automotive of an advisory council, I think we ought safety. None of these laws will work to consolidate the matter as provided in without a conscientious highway patrol. this bull and in the Public Works bill. So we agreed that the council should I do not think we need two advisory have on 1: a majority of public members. councils.

The thought also was that there should Mr. MAGNUSON. This was one of not be any chance of having any one the sectors of the bill about which we group dominate. When we say that a had a great deal of discussion. We had majority of the council are to be public to take some of the House views. The members, it may be that the designation House provided for the council in its "public" may indicate unanimity of opinbill. We did not have it in our bill. In ion, but we know they will have individ. particular, the Senator from New ual ideas of their own. They are going Harapshire and I insisted that, if there to be independent in their approach, and was to be such a council, the public have their own independent ideas. This should have the majority representation is one matter on which we had problems. on that council.

Mr. HARTKE. I am glad to see the I think we were also practical in that traffic council concept in the bill. I we wanted to have the manufacturers, thank the chairman for his efforts in both of automobiles and equipment, rep- that respect. resented on that council. The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON) did yeoman work in also getting representa

Senate Committee Report Contains nothing helpful.

Executive Communications Contains nothing helpful.

As Introduced As H.R. 13228 in the House and S. 3005 in the Senate: contains no comparable provision.

Section 105

« PreviousContinue »