Extracted from Congressional Record, Daily Digest, House Traffic Safety Act: By a record vote of 365 yeas the House agreed Pages 21342, 21348-21354 Congressional Record-House August 31, 1966, 21342, 21348-21354 21348 21349 NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966 Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I call the up conference report on the bill (s. 3005) to provide for a coordinated national safety program and establishment of safety standards for motor vehicles in interstate commerce to reduce accidents involving motor vehicles and to reduce the deaths and injuries occurring in such accidents, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia? There was no objection. The Clerk read the statement. (For conference report and statement, ser proceedings of the Houses of Aug. 30, 1966.) The SPEAKEP. pro tempore (Mr., SIS). The gentleman from West Vir ginia [Mr. STAGGERS] is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I stated when this legislation came before the House on August 17, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce labored diligently over the proposed lage, islation and reported a good bills 7 I believe that in the floor action: eral improvements were made. The1 other body requested a conference and we went to conference last Wednesday and Thursday on a number of poina have counted 43 separate items, ti before the conference committee. Any of these were relatively minor but quite a number were significant. The managers for the Senate receded entirely on 27 items. On another seven, they reeeded with minor modifications. There were only eight recessions by the managers for the House. Of these eight, I believe it would be accurate to ch terise seven of them as minor. I am not going to unnecessarily take up time to go through the actions of the conference committee one by one. of this is set forth in the conference report and the statement of managers. However, to emphasise my conviction that the House was very successful in this conference, I would like to single out a few of the more important subjects which were discussed and the action which was taken as to these important items. DEFINITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE The House definition covers all vehicles, including trucks and buses. The definition in the Senate version was more restrictive and was interpreted as not including trucks and buses. The managers for the Senate receded. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT In the House version, the research and development provisions are mandatory rather than discretionary and they are also broader in scope than the Benate version. The managers for the Senate receded. USED VEHICLE The House provided for the development of used-car standards. The Senate version contained no comparable provisions. The managers for the Senate accepted the House version. THE SAFETY The House version contained a separate and specific title directed to tire safety standards. The Senate version made no mention of tires although pas senger car and station wagon tires had been dealt with in a separate bill. The managers for the Senate accepted the House version. COMMON LAW LIABILITY The House version contains a provision which specifically provides that compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. The Senate version had no comparable provision. The managers for the Senate accepted the House version. NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY AGENCY The House version contains provisions creating a National Tramc Safety Agency, and requiring the appointment of an Administrator for that Agency by the President. The Senate version had no comparable provisions. The managers for the Senate accepted the House version. NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL The House version requires appointment of an Advisory Council to be made up of representatives of those industries concerned, State and local governments, and the general public. The Senate version has no comparable provision. The managers for the Senate, with some modifications, sucepted the inclusion of an Advisory Council. You can readily see from this brief summary that the managers for the House were able to maintain the position of the House in many important respects. Of course, a conference requires give and take, but in my review of this conference, the only item of any significance where the managers for the House accepted the Senate version is in section 106(c) which provides information, uses, processes, patents, and other developments which result from research which is supported by Federal funds will be made freely and fully available to the general public. I want to commend the members of the conference as well as the members of the House Commerce Committee. In a spirit of helpfulness they have conscientiously weighed every proposal which might add strength to the bill. The final result is a true reconciliation of a long list of ideas, many of them mutually antagonistic. For this determination to find an acceptable solution, I thank them. It has been a long and arduous job, but we are proud of our work. I believe that under any fair evaluation, one would have t consider this conference as highly successful from the point of view of the House membership. I strongly urge that the House agree to the conference report. Following the precedent of the gentleman who handled the previous bill, I should especially like to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], the gentleman from California [Mr. YOUNGER), and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DEVINE] for their cooperation and support and for their diligence to duty in helping to get this bill through the committee and through the House, as well as the conference. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from West Virginia yield? Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Is the money figure in the conference report the same as it was in the House bill? Mr. STAGGERS. Exactly; $51 million plus expenditures for tires and research. Mr. GROSS. Fifty-one million dollars. Mr. STAGGERS. It is a total of about $58 million. Mr. GROSS. What was the one area in disagreement? Mr. STAGGERS. The one area we had to give in on, and we did, was with respect to patents. The Senate was quite adamant on it. Mr. GROSS. Patents? Mr. STAGGERS. Yes. The Senate had taken a rollcall vote on this separate feature. They gave in to us on many things, and we were trying to get our bill. We did, almost in its entirety. We believe it is even a stronger bill than the one we had to start with. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAGGERS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. PICKLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.. I believe the gentleman said in his statement with reference to the National Advisory Council "some changes had been made," primarily by the other body, and this was agreed to by the conference. Mr.STAGGERS. No. Mr. PICKLE. At least, some changes were made with respect to this Advisory Council. Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct. Mr. PICKLE. I am trying to determine what these changes were. If I read from the correct section of the conference report, section 104(a) states: The Secretary shall establish a National Motos Vehicle Safety Advisory Council, a majority of which shall be representatives of the general public, including representatives of State and local governments, and the remainder shall include representatives of motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and motor vehicle dealers. Thus, the statement is made: A majority of which shall be representatives. A majority of how many? Mr. STAGGERS. Of 19. The committee was expanded. Mr. PICKLE. I do not see where this reference to 19 is made. Originally it was 13. Mr. STAGGERS. I am sorry; that was incorrect. The figure of 19 was discussed at some length. We leave this discretionary with the Secretary. We do insist that the public have the majority. Mr. PICKLE. The measure which affects highway safety, which was brought to the floor by another committee, had a provision of 29 members, Mr. STAGGERS. Yes. Mr. PICKLE. A specific number. Vol. I Mr. PICKLE. To be appointed by the President. It is a committee of some considerable standing, and I think that is fine. It seems to me that we ought to have a definite number here. This could be a majority of three or four. It says "a majority of which" and therefore you could have any number. This leaves it mighty wide open, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. STAGGERS. Certainly we could have a much larger group than three. Mr. PICKLE. But it does not say that. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAGGERS. I shall be glad to yield to the gentleman. Actually, Mr. ROGERS of Florida. what we have said here is that there will be a council appointed by the Secretary. We have not set a specific number, but we have said that the majority must be public members. This does leave in the discretion of the Secretary as to whether it shall be a 13-man, a 19-man, or a 26man committee, but what we have insisted upon is the fact that the majority shall be public members. We have suggested in the legislation the other areas from which the appointments will come, as the gentleman will notice. Therefore we have set up the basis of the commission but left it to the discretion of the Secretary since it is an advisory 21350 committen. We have not specified that It must be 12. It may be that he will want to put various industry people on this council. He may want to put some automobile dealers on it, because they do have an interest in it. He may want to put a used-car dealer on it. However, if he puts these people on, then he must put a like number of public members on it so that there will be a majority of public members. Mr. PICKLE. The same argument could be made with respect to the highway safety measure in which they say 19 members. On the basis of this language, you probably would have at least five members. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes. Mr. PICKLE. I think it would be the intent of this Congress that you will have more than five members, because this is supposed to cut across the board in a broad field. Five is a limitation. Would you not say that it was your intent to have at least 15 members? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I think it was the intent of the Congress that we have more than five, because we have listed some people that certainly ought to be considered for membership, but we have not tied the hands of the Secretary as to how many he should have on it. It is certainly the intent that it be a reasonable membership to accomplish and make up a proper advisory committee. That is the intent of the whole Advisory Council. It is to make it a useful tool for the Secretary in setting standards. Mr. PICKLE. I will say to the gentleman that this seems to me to be a glaring weakness in the report in that you do not specify the number of the advisory committee, which is something fundamental. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. If the gentleman will permit me to say so, I will disagree with him very definitely, because if we were to say that there should be only 13, as we originally intended, then you will have groups coming in that want to be mentioned and represented and perhaps should be. What we have done is to take a reasonable course, listing people who ought to be considered for membership, and leaving at the discretion of the Secretary the right to expand on it. Mr. PICKLE. It seems to me that the gentleman is making an argument which is just the opposite of the point he is trying to make. If you put a specific limitation on it, then he will appoint that many and no more. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. It may be that the Secretary feels he wants certain ones on it, and we do not want to do anything that will restrict him. He may want a number of automobile men on it and some used-car people on it and some truck equipment manufacturers. We do not know yet who will be helpful to him in this advisory capacity. This allows him the flexibility of doing whatever is necessary and appropriate for an advisory committee. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a deficiency and it ought to be definitely stated as to the number that should be on this Advisory Council. NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966 Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER). Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, there were four substantive differences between the Senate version of auto safety and that which was considered by our committee and passed by this House. Of those four differences three were accepted almost entirely intact by the Senate conferees. The first of these was the incorporation in the auto safety bill of provisions dealing with tire safety and including a uniform grading system. While it is true that S. 2669 dealt with the problems of tire safety and in general terms covered the same ground as the House amendments, it was the conviction of our committee, as confirmed by this body, that tire safety legislation belonged properly as part and parcel of auto safety. We felt then, and still do, that the tire safety provisions of HR. 13228 were particularly well considered and worthy of adoption, and I am happy to report that they were accepted. The second difference of consequence in the House bill was that section which created a Traffic Safety Agency in the Department of Commerce or the Department of Transportation as the case may be. It seems highly desirable to concentrate in one place under a high-level administrator all of these activities dealing with automobile and trafic safety. This provision was acceptable to all of the conferees, and we feel that it greatly strengthens the conference version which, if accepted, will shortly become law. In my personal opinion the third difference constituted the greatest change 21351 made by this House in the substantive provisions of 8. 3005. It had been my conviction from the beginning, and the conviction likewise of many of the members of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee that it was our duty to make some provision for used-car standards. Even though the eventual implementstion and enforcement of used-car standards must be accomplished at the State and local level and under the provisions of the bill emanating from the Public Works Committee, it nevertheless was not only desirable but imperative that a provision be made for the imposition of minimum standards for those 80 million cars untouched by the other provisions of this bill. It could not be left to chance or speculation that other legislation might be adequate. For these reasons our House bill required the Secretary to create and impose standards for used automobiles after certain preliminary research and studies were completed. The conferees agreed to accept this portion of the House bill, and in my opinion this alone would make the conference version worthy of acceptance by this body. The other major difference involves the Advisory Council which was worked out in the Commerce Committee and accepted by the House. No similar provision had been considered by the other body. I know that the Members of this House are fully aware that I advocated an Advisory Council appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and counsel of the Senate. The House did not see it to accept my recommendation in this regard. It did, however, provide an Advisory Council which in its main provisions was adequate and highly useful. The Advisory Council provided in the conference report is not what I would want it to be. It leaves entirely too much to the discretion of the Secretary as to its makeup and its functions. I do not feel, however, that legislation as important and farreaching as this National Trame and Motor Vehicle Safety Act should be jeopardized because of the relative weakness of this one feature. To oppose it because of this one weakness would be a disservice to the country. I am hopeful that the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of Transportation, as the case may be, will read carefully the hearings and other legislative history and will make every effort to create an Advisory Council which is strong, independent, realistic, and truly constructive to the purposes of this act. With this slight reservation and this admonition I endorse and support the acceptance of this conference report. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I would like to join with the gentleman from Illinois in making it very clear that we certainly did agree and insisted that this is a mandatory provision that he must consult with this advisory council before he does issue any standards at all. 790 Mr. SPRINGER. I think the gentleman from Florida was quite insistent on this when we had it up in our committee. It is one of the better features of the bill, because this does not give discretion to the Secretary to consult but it is mandatory. He also should receive any report from the council that they wish to make in order that he may have the advise of that council. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. GROSS. Earlier this afternoon the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PICKLE), made a very good point that there ought to have been a limitation on the number of members on the Advisory Council. I, for one, am surprised and disappointed that the conferees came back with a report that provides an unlimited number and without any specification as to whom they may be. It may be 26 political castoffs appointed to this Council. Who knows? Mr. SPRINGER. May I say in answer to the gentleman that I am just as disappointed as he is. We had just one alternative offered to the conference from the other body, and that was no council at all. We either had to have this kind of council or no council at all. And that was the only alternative which was presented to us. The reason that we took it in this form is only because we believed that a Safety Council was necessary, and if we were going to have this thing function properly we simply had to have a concern about it. May I say in further reply to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa that even under the other plan that even if they desired to do so, we cannot keep him from doing that. This is the reason I wanted this Council appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, because we would have an opportunity over here to do something about it. However, this was adopted in our committee and we want to do this. Mr. Speaker, may I say that we came back with the best compromise which we could obtain, and that is the reason this is written in this form. Mr. Speaker, I am just as unhappy about it as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross), but I wanted to explain to Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia for the purpose of responding to the question. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas that the language of the report is to the effect that the membership should be composed of a number of between 13 and 19, or some number in between. A number of other Members thought that in order to get the bill out, we should agree to this figure. Mr. Speaker, the word "representative" means two. We have 6-different groups represented and that would mean 12. We would like for each group to have two. We discussed the numbers between 18 and 19, and that would be my understanding, if the Secretary does not add to these members with reference to |