by the conferees are in my opinion so serious from the standpoint of the safety of millions of Americans who are traveling the highways, that I propose to make a brief speech at this time in opposition to the conference report, in order that my colleagues in the Senate may have an opportunity between now and the time the Senator from Massachusetts calls up the conference report, to consider the objections to it which I now raise.

My major premise is that, if adopted, the conference report, as I am informed, would I think constitute a serious threat to the safety of America's highways, be

cause a member of the Interstate Com

merce Commission advises that the Com

mission would feel that it would have no course of action to follow other than that of abolishing its safety offices in the various States.

which is increasing year by year. I have under study a recommendation which I think has great merit. I have submitted it to traffic experts for their opinions upon it. I have submitted it heretofore and I propose to do it again. It is a proposal to require the placing of governors on automobiles for the purpose of limiting their speed, except as to certain vehicles, such as ambulances and fire apparatus.

Mr. President, if the facts are what I have been led to believe them to be namely, that the greatest cause of highway fatality is speed-then we had better do something about diminishing the

cause. If we do not, then our neglect as Senators and Representatives, it seems to

I yield to the Senator

Mr. MORSE. from Massachusetts.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Senator. I was going to ask the Senator to yield on another subject, but I may simply say to him on this subject that the House conferees felt very, very strongly on the question, and refused to yield. While I should have preferred to have included in the bill the provision concerning safety regulations, to which the Senator plans to address himself, in order to get any conference report at all the Senate conferees yielded on that matter. I shall certainly be glad to discuss it with the Senator from Oregon in full and to advise him of everything I know about the subject when the report comes before the Senate.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts, setting forth his position on the conference report. However, my reply to him is, it would be better to have no bill at all than to have deleted the item to which I refer. Mr. President, when we are dealing with a subject matter involving what I consider to be one

of the most serious domestic problems which confronts us, namely, the problem of highway fatalities, when we stop to think of the thousands of people who are killed each year on the highways, I am astounded that there should be brought back to the Senate a conference report which, apparently, the experts generally agree would result, if it were adopted, in increasing the dangers to human life on

our highways. I say there is a responsibility resting upon the Congress, not only

to refuse to agree to the conference report, but there is also a responsibility resting upon the Congress to proceed to face the problem of fatalities on American highways; because we are not performing the task in connection with traffic safety which I think must be done. Mr. President, if there were turned loose men handling dangerous instruments, and they were killing people by the scores, we would not hesitate very long in the Congress to pass whatever legislation might be necessary in order to bring to an end such a loss of human life. Yet the fact is that somehow we have permitted ourselves to grow numb in regard to the highway fatality list,

fect of highway accidents.

Improved highways do not solve the problem, because the record is pretty clear on the basis of the statistics which have been submitted to me to date, that improved highways, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike, are proving to be among the most dangerous highways in America, since they are an invitation to uncontrolled speed. Mr. President, there are many other causes, but let me say that liquor mixed with speed does not eliminate speed as one of the principal causative factors in the fatalities resulting from the mixing of liquor and speed.

I make these preliminary comments on the whole question of traffic fatalities, a problem which I say is even larger than the problem to which I shall direct attention now, but relating to the one to which I intend to direct attention.

We cannot justify allowing tens of thousands of fellow human beings to be maimed and killed on the highways of America, and take the position that, after all, we have no legislative responsibility in regard to it. We do have, Mr. President.

That leads me to the subject matter of the conference report. I hope, when the Senator from Massachusetts calls it will be sent back to conference, because, up on Thursday or Friday, the report in my opinion, it cannot be justified in view of the elimination of the field safety offices of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. President, I hold in my hand an Post, headed, "If Congress Approves article from this morning's Washington Report Seen as Putting End to ICC Truck Regulations," by Richard L. Lyons.

I read:

Federal regulation of interstate trucking will end if the conference report on the first independent offices appropriation bill is apterests complained yesterday. proved by Congress as written, trucking in

Interstate Commerce Commission regulations require periodic inspection of vehicles, uniform running lights, brakes that stop in a certain distance, flares or flags set out by trucks stopped on highways. They also limit

truck drivers to 10 hours at a stretch.

for ICC, said a survey of 461 carriers showed W. Y. Blanning, director of motor carriers deaths caused by accidents involving their trucks dropped 42 percent 1 year after they had adopted ICC safety regulations. ICC

also requires carriers to prove they perform a needed service.

House-Senate conferees last week wrote into

At the urging of House Members, the

their report language "requiring" ICC to spend the $1,793,157 requested for this work on "other work of greater importance."

I do not know what work of the Inter

state Commerce Commission could be of greater importance than is the work of know of any possible work, translated preventing highway fatalities. I do not into human values, more important than is this safety work. I think, Mr. President, it is just as important that there

be safety regulations applying to interlations applying to interstate trains. state trucks as that there be safety regu

What would have happened, do you suppose, Mr. President, in the accident records of American railroads if Congress years and years ago had followed the recommendation set forth in this conference report? The conference report takes us back decades. I am for sending the report back to conference with instructions that it not be submitted to the Senate until there is writthe safety regulations of the Interstate ten into it the Senate requirement that Commerce Commission as administered by the safety office be continued.

The Washington Post story continues as follows:

of California, who led the fight against the

Representative JOHN PHILLIPS, Republican

work the States do or should do. He added, ICC truck program, said it largely duplicated that ICC was not bound by the language of the report.

ICC officials doubted the Commission would continue the work, however, if the conference report is allowed to stand. "After all, we've got to go back for money next year," said an ICC official.

I respectfully say to my good friend, Mr. PHILLIPS, of California-and he is my personal friend-that if he does not mean to have the Interstate Commerce Commission drop its safety work, he should support the elimination of that language from the report. I put to Mr.

PHILLIPS a very simple test. I say, "You

either mean it or you do not. Your objective is either to end the safety work

of the Interstate Commerce Commission or to continue it."

To come forward with a statement to the press which he has released today to the effect that this is only the language of the report, in my judgment, evades the issue which the conference

Commerce Commission. report now puts up to the Interstate

The entire Interstate Commerce Commission's Bureau of Motor Carriers' field staff and all the motor carrier safety work, including the safety regulation of interstate trucks and buses will come to a halt the first of August if the Senate agrees to the conference report on the first independent offices bill.

That is the advice which comes from the Interstate Commerce Commission. That is the way the Commission looks at the conference report, and rightly so. Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. WELKER. I wish to join the able Senator from Oregon with respect to

his objections to the conference report. Just a moment ago an official of the State of Idaho called me and told me of the disastrous effect it would have on the motor-carrier industry in my State should the conference report be approved. I certainly hope we can get our colleagues to appreciate the dilemma in which we shall find ourselves.

Mr. MORSE. I want the Senator from Idaho to know that I appreciate his support in this matter, as I have always appreciated it in connection with other matters on which we have seen eye to eye. The only reason why I am bringing up this question, somewhat out of order, is that I think a fair warning needs to be served on the Senate as to what is implied in this report, because as Senators know, in the rush at the tail-end of a session of Congress, very frequently conference reports get through the Senate without our taking a great deal of time to deliberate on them. But here is one which is so serious in its implications that I am taking time today-the conference report will not come up for possibly 2 or 3 days-to forewarn the Senate as to what is involved in the report. I am satisfied that if the Senate will give heed to the arguments of the Senator from Idaho and

the Senator from Oregon there will be a chance of getting the report recommitted.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield further? Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. WELKER. Am I correct in my understanding that if the conference

report is adopted it will mean, in effect, the closing of the Interstate Commerce Commission's field safety office?

Mr. MORSE. I am certain that will be the effect of it.

Mr. WELKER. And there is no way in which a carrier or anyone else can get relief unless he first processes his objection through the field office?

Mr. MORSE. That is correct.

Mr. WELKER. I thank the Senator. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the independent offices bill recommended to the full Appropriations Committee and this committee adopted the recommendation to the effect that all funds for work relating to safety and field in the Bureau of Motor Carriers, amounting to $1,793,157, be denied and that this sum be distributed to other work of the Commission, "which the committee regards as of greater importance than the use to which such funds are presently being applied."

It should be pointed out that the chairman of the subcommittee was Representative JOHN PHILLIPS, Republican of California, who has attempted to convince the House in the past several Con

gresses that funds for ICC safety and

field work should be denied.

Recognizing that this action would have the effect of nullifying the administration of the Motor Carrier Act and would, in effect, end the regulation of interstate trucks and buses, including safety regulations, and standardization of equipment requirements, all those or

ganizations representing the motor carrier and allied industries requested the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Independent Offices bill to take action to nullify the House language and to make sure that the Commission remained in this field as it is required by statute. The Senate subcommittee agreed with this point of view and so did the full committee and the Senate.

The Senate committee in its report said that it "disagrees with the House recommendation for discontinuance of the safety and field work of the Bureau of Motor Carriers with denial of funds amounting to $1,793,157 for such work and allocating that amount to other work of the Commission." The committee went on to say that

It is advised that the upward trend of fatalities and injuries on the highways of the Nation requires more instead of less activity on the part of this Bureau in the formulation of regulations for the safe transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles and regulations governing

qualifications and maximum hours of service of drivers as well as safety of operation and standards of equipment on motor vehicles.

Every Senator can testify as his own witness with respect to the correctness

mittee. Each one of us who drives on the highways of America knows that the problem of safety involves a problem of increasing danger on the highway, not

of this observation of the Senate com

less danger.

for a moment. It so happens that I have I might give this personal testimony trips between Eugene, Oreg., and Washcompleted the first leg of eight round ington, D. C., with my car and a stock trailer behind it. From my driving experience, I have had ample opportunity

to observe some of the traffic hazards

and problems of the transcontinental highways of the United States. I have driven along with truck drivers. I make it a practice to stop at places where they eat and sleep. From my conversations

with them and my observations of their work, I know something about what is involved in driving large trucks, sometimes with trailer trucks attached, across the highways of the United States.

I am at a complete loss to understand how there could be submitted to the Senate any conference report which seeks to bring to an end Federal regulation of interstate trucking activities. It would be just as sound to bring in a report seeking to bring to an end safety regulations on the railroads of America. The safety of the American people demands and requires the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in imposing Federal safety regulations upon the trucking industry of the United States.

Mark you, Mr. President, this is not a posed to the regulations. As will be seen case of the trucking industry being opfrom telegrams I shall read before I finish my speech, it is a case of the trucking industry pleading for Federal regulation. It is a case in which both industry and labor, in the field of the trucking industry, recognize the importance of continuing the safety operations of the

Interstate Commerce Commission. Yet on the floor of the Senate a few minutes ago the chairman of the committee said the item had been eliminated from the conference report because the Senate conferees could not persuade the House conferees to the contrary.

Mr. President, as one Member of the Senate, I do not propose to have the House of Representatives impose its will on me, when, in my opinion, by the imposition of its will, the danger to the lives of fellow citizens traveling on the highways of the United States will be increased.

In my opinion, we have already waited too long to adopt more effective traffic regulations which would bring to an end, or at least diminish, the great dangers to life on the highways of the country. I certainly shall be no party in support of a conference report that increases the danger to the lives of fellow Americans on the highways simply because some group in the House of Representatives has been insistent for years that this particularly activity of the Interstate Commerce Commission should be brought to an end. I refuse to surrender to what I believe is a short-sighted policy on the part of the House con

ferees.

The Senate conference committee is an agency of the Senate and we owe it to the American people traveling on the highways of the United States to send

the committee back to conference with will increase the traffic hazards on the not agree to a conference report which clear instructions that the Senate will highways of the Nation.

the groups that are qualified to speak on Mr. President, listen to the names of

they speak when it comes to traffic hazards on the highways of America. position and requesting that the House Organizations supporting the Senate action be rescinded included the American Automobile Association, the American Trucking Association, the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, the Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Trucking Industry National Defense Committee, the Truck-Trailer Manufacturers

this subject, because they know whereof

Association, and the motor truck and bus divisions of the Automobile Manufactur

ers Association.

These are associations and groups of industry and labor best qualified in the entire country to speak and testify on the merits of this proposal. They are alarmed that there should come before the Senate a conference report which would bring to an end safety field offices of the Interstate Commerce Commission. These are inspection offices, the offices that stand as guardians of the safety of the American people on the highways. Necessarily there is danger on the highways as a result of the heavy transport system which has developed in the trucking industry, as well as the great increase in pleasure cars.

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

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. TOBEY. It might be of interest to the Senator from Oregon to know

that counsel for the Interstate Commerce Commission has advised me that representatives of 40 State governments have communicated with him to the effect that they cannot live under the terms of this conference report. The States cannot conduct the studies which are necessary, so that work must be taken care of by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. MORSE. To use an illustration for the purpose of exaggeration, but exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis, in a sense it would be just as sound to say that Congress proposes to do away with Federal law enforcement officers in the field of criminal law, as to say that Congress proposes to do away with safety officers in the field of traffic. If we did away with law enforcement officers, the danger to human life would be increased, and we would understand that. We would understand that we were taking away from law-abiding citizens protection from unlawful, criminal elements throughout the country.

Yet here is a proposal in a conference report that seeks to place the American traveling public at the mercy of whatever safety regulations may exist in this, that, or any other local jurisdiction, as the public travels across the country on transcontinental highways.

We would go back 50 years if we adopted that principle. Have we not learned in the past 50 years that there are some problems national in scope and Federal in responsibility? We learned it in connection with the railroads. Cer

tainly we should learn it, if we have not learned it by now, in connection with interstate traffic of interstate common carriers on the highways of the Nation. It should be pointed out that the Senate conferees have yielded to the position of the House conferees and, according to the House manager's statement to the House, they have agreed "to the proposal of the House requiring that the sum of $1,793,157 requested for work related to safety and field in the Bureau of Motor Carriers be distributed to other work of the Commission which is rated as of greater importance than such safety and field work."

It now appears that in a statement in the public press and in answer to various queries, Mr. Phillips, as chairman of the House conferees has indicated that this language does not require the Commission to abolish its field offices and cease its safety activities, but is only a recommendation that it do so.

However, a member of the Interstate

Commerce Commission, who has served on that Commission for some 25 years

and who is chairman of its administra

tive activities, is quoted as saying that the Commission would not dare refuse to abolish its field offices and its safety work in light of such language in the House committee report.

I say most respectfully again to my friend from California, "If you do not mean to have the Commission abolish its safety offices, then why not agree to strike the recommendation from the report, if you think it is only a recommen

dation?" The fact is that our own Senate conferees do not look upon it as a recommendation. They do not want it in there. They look upon it as an action by the committee to bring to an end the safety work of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I quite agree with the member of the Commission that that is the only interpretation, in view of the unequivocal language of the report, that any member of the Commission could make.

It should be pointed out, however, that at no place in the bill itself, is there any admonition to get out of the safety work and abolish the field work of the Bureau of Motor Carriers. It is understood that Mr. PHILLIPS is now taking the position that this language is simply a committee report and does not have the effect of law.

One of the country's leading safety organizations, which represents the passenger car owners, declared yesterday in the words of its executive vice-president, Mr. Russell E. Singer, of the American Automobile Association, that—

A vote for the conference report in its present form is a vote for substantially increased traffic deaths and injuries.

That is good enough for me, Mr. President. This witness knows whereof he speaks. This witness holds a position of responsibility which has brought him of America. This witness, the vice presiinto close study of the traffic problems dent of the American Automobile Association, solemnly warns the Senate

task which confronts the Appropriations Committee of the Senate that the committee should always lean over backward to see to it that by way of appropriations and action on appropriation bills, it does not, in effect, amend the substantive statutes passed by the Congress, falling within the jurisdiction of other committees. If there is to be a proposal to end the work of the field safety offices of the Interstate Commerce Commission in respect to the regulation of trucks and buses, such proposal ought to be put in bill form. It should then be referred to the appropriate committee, which would be the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; and that committee should submit its recommendation for or against such proposal. No hearings have ever been held in the Senate on any such proposal as is sought to be accomplished by the report of the conference committee.

What we are actually doing by way of denying funds in the Interstate Commerce Commission appropriation bill is amending an existing statute. We, the Congress, have said that the Interstate Commerce Commission should exercise jurisdiction over the regulation of common carriers on the highways in interstate commerce; and yet, this conference report seeks to deny to that Commission the funds it needs to carry out that statutory mandate. It is amendment through the back door. It is amendment, by way of action on an appropriation bill, of a law which, if it is to be amended, should, I say be amended by a clear bill, after

One effect, Mr. Singer said, would be to abolish the enforcement activities of the ICC with regard to interstate truck operations with consequent increased danger for all who use the traffic lanes.

Thus

He said

the ICC would be hamstrung in carrying out its responsibilities for limiting hours of continuous driving, safety equipment of commercial vehicles, and minimum requirements as to qualifications of truckdrivers in interstate commerce.

The effect of the conferees' action, if agreed to by both Houses will be to destroy the motor carrier regulation of interstate trucks and buses which has been in existence since 1935. It takes us back beyond 1935. That is what the conference committee report proposes to do. The Commission has made it amply clear that without a field force to investigate violations and assemble evidence for prosecution, the act will have no force. Moreover, it is quite clear that proposition of abolishing the safety and neither House has held hearings on the field offices of the Commisison and, if the Congress wishes to do so, it should take such action through its substantive committees, rather than by the denial of funds by the appropriations committees.

That causes me to make the point and I do so most respectfully and with a keen appreciation of the tremendous

pros and cons of such proposal.

Therefore, in approaching the conclusion of this speech I leave with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] for answer when the conference report comes up on the floor of the Senate, the following questions:

First. Was it the intention of the conferees to require the Interstate Commerce Commission to close its field offices over the country, thus losing its longtrained labor force and to abandon its motor carrier safety activities in regard to interstate trucks and busses?

Second. Is it not true that one of the House conferees-namely, Representative PHILLIPS, of California-has stated in the committee report that it “is just a committee report" and does not have the effect of law?

If that is what the committee intends, my next question is:

Third. On what grounds can you justify not striking the language from the report, so as to leave no room for doubt as to the jurisdiction, the obligations, and the duty of the Interstate Commerce Commission to spend this one-millionseven-hundred-thousand-odd dollars for

safety regulations and their enforce

ment?

Fourth. Did the Senate and House conferees realize when they agreed to the House position that they were, in effect, removing the Federal Government from the regulation of equipment, hours of service, and certificates of convenience

and necessity in the interstate truck and bus operations?

Fifth. Did the conferees know, and does the Senate know, that this drastic action is being taken without any sanction by the two committees of the House and Senate which are responsible for this type of legislation; namely, the Senate and House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committees?

Sixth. Does the Senate know that neither of these committees has held hearings to deprive the ICC of jurisdiction over safety matters in the truck and bus industry?

Seventh. Do the Senate and House Members realize that this activity is not a duplication of effort of the States and that some 40 different States have so signified in written documents?

I shall come back to that question in a moment.

Eighth. Do the Members of the Senate realize that many of the activities of truck and bus companies, being interstate in character, cannot possibly be handled by the individual States through their State and local police?

That takes me back for a moment to the question of State regulation. I can think of no way of bringing about greater confusion and chaos in interstate commerce via common carrier on the highways of America than to leave the question of safety regulations open to the States. Imagine the complexity of regulations we would have. Bear in mind the hole we would find in the safety regu

lations if we left the subject to the States. That policy would not provide us with uniform protection across the country. It would leave the traveling public at the mercy of the States, which was the situation prevailing before we provided for interstate regulation of safety appliances on the railroads of America.

It took years, as history shows, to place on the railroads of America the safety appliances necessary to protect both the workers and the public. We did it by Federal regulation. In my judgment efficiency and effectiveness require the application of the same principle to the common carriers on the highways. We have been applying the principle since 1935. The conference report is a decided backward march.

Mr. President, it is a proposal which, as the vice president of the Automobile Association so clearly pointed out, if adopted will be translated into the loss of lives of fellow Americans. If we adopt it, Mr. President and I say this respectfully-we will be walking out on our social obligations to the people of the United States to protect them by necessary regulations against the great dangers of the common carriers rumbling along on the highways.

I have been glad to do it, Mr. President, because they are right on the merits. I am speaking about an obligation not only of the Independent Party, but I am speaking of an obligation of the Democratic and Republican Parties in the United States Senate on the issue which is involved. It is an issue completely lacking in partisanship. The attention of the Senate of the United States is called to a conference report in which the Senate conferees have conferees have yielded to the House on an issue that yielded to the House on an issue that increases the danger to the lives of everyone who travels on the highways of America, because it destroys the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission and its jurisdiction over safety regulations on the highways, by denying them the funds with which to keep open their safety offices, thus automatically endangering the lives of everyone on the highways.

Mr. President, listen to some of those for whom I speak here today. I read a telegram from R. R. Mikesell, president of the Joint Council of Drivers, No. 37, of Portland, Oreg. The telegram reads as follows:

PORTLAND, OREG., July 21, 1953. Senator WAYNE MORSE,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Conference report of independent offices bill abolishes all funds for maintaining highway safety and field enforcement of Interstate Commerce Commission regulations as applied to the trucking industry. All field offices are discontinued and only a central

office maintained in Washington, D. C. Only chaos could result in the trucking industry from such action. Please do all in your power to see that sufficient funds are allocated to carry on these vital functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

JOINT COUNCIL OF DRIVERS, No. 37, R. R. MIKESELL, President. The next telegram comes from Mr. Leland James, of the Consolidated Freightways, Inc. I know Mr. James very well. He is a very substantial and reliable citizen, who knows the trucking industry from A to Z. He knows whereof he speaks when he refers to the hazards on the highways of America. His telegram reads as follows:

PORTLAND, OREG., July 20, 1953. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Conference report on H. R. 4663, independpenditure on safety and field work bureau ent offices appropriation, prohibits ICC exof motor carriers. This will close all field offices, including district office in Portland, and end all truck enforcement. Such a policy will bring chaos to the industry and result due to greater hazard on highways in increase in accident and death toll beyond ities can be carried on without increased apthe current 38,000 per year. Present activpropriation by merely removing prohibition on expenditures on safety and field work. Strongly urge that such action be taken. LELAND JAMES,

Consolidated Freightways, Inc.

We have cause to pause when we realize that the highway toll is now 38,000 human lives. Mr. President, show me any other field of endeavor in our domestic life, wherein life is being lost, and the loss could be prevented by sen

sible preventive measures, where we are not duly concerned and anxious to do something about it.

Yet, as a people, we seem to have adopted a fatalistic attitude with respect to highway accidents. Oh, there are some who are devoted to correcting the situation, but not a sufficient number. We seem to think that it is an inevitable consequence of the mad rush in which we live. I do not accept that premise. I believe there are many things we can do and should do to cut down the fatalities on the highways of America.

I do not intend to take the time today to discuss them, because I am having prepared some proposed legislation which I believe will be helpful to that end, and I shall discuss the legislation at some length when I bring it to the floor during one of my Friday afternoon committee reports.

However, I pause long enough to say that with the knowledge of 38,000 lives lost in traffic each year, we certainly cannot justify supporting a group of conferees who bring in a conference report which at least raises a serious question as to whether the Interstate Commerce Commission can do any further work in safety control and which causes members of the Commission to state the result of it would be to close down their safety offices.

Mr. President, we cannot justify such action on moral grounds. As I have been heard to say before, one of the responsibilities of statesmanship is to translate

moral obligations and moral principles

into effective legislation. We are walking out on a great moral obligation we owe the traveling public if we adopt the conference report. As these witnesses testify in the telegrams which I have before me, it will have the effect of throwing into chaos the safety program of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

I have two more telegrams. The next telegram is from Mr. Robert R. Knipe, management director of the Oregon Motor Transport Association. It reads as follows:

PORTLAND, OREG., July 20, 1953. Senator WAYNE MORSE,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: The motor carrier industry in Oregon urgently requests you do everything possible to stop adoption of conference report on H. R. 4663, independent offices appropriations. Abolition of safety and field offices of the Bureau of Motor Carriers can mean only chaos to this industry. Further it can be expected to increase highway death toll. The motor carrier industry needs your assistance on this legislation. May we have your views on H. R. 4663?

ROBERT R. KNIPE, Managing Director, Oregon Motor Transport Association.

The last telegram is from John V. Lawrence, American Trucking Associations, Inc.:

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 20, 1953. Senator WAYNE MORSE,

United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.: Conference report on H. R. 4663, independent offices appropriations, prohibits any ex

penditures on safety and field work, Bureau of Motor Carriers Interstate Commerce Commission. For all practical purposes this ends all enforcement of part 2, Interstate Commerce Act. Most important adoption of House version of report by conferees wipes. out safety regulation conceded by 40 States to be vital factor in reducing highway death toll which amounted to 38,000 last year. We urge that something be done to remove this prohibition placed on this humanitarian undertaking and that Senate report prevail.

JOHN V. LAWRENCE, American Trucking Associations, Inc. Mr. President, I close by saying that sometimes issues are controversial, and sometimes there is great merit on both sides of an issue. When I find such an issue, I have the highest regard and respect for the views which differ from my

33, 411

30, 827

1,703

174

707

1947

32, 697

19481949

31, 701

1 Excludes collisions with trains or streetcars. 2 Excludes collisions with automobiles. Source: Federal Security Agency, Public Health Service, National Office of Vital Statistics. Death rates for motor-vehicle accidents, death-registration States, 1914-49

[Rates per 100,000 estimated midyear population]

However, in this case, I cannot reconcile with the performance of my duty as a Senator, support for the conference report, when apparently there are only two reasons why the report is before us. One is the argument of some that here is an opportunity to make a saving of approximately $1,750,000. The other is that it is said we have no choice because our conferees could not persuade the conferees on the part of the House. Mr. President, persuasion is a two-way street. Adoption of a conference report is a two-way street, and agreement by conferees to a report is a two-way street. I happen to be one Member of the Senate who says and I say it most respectfully and kindly-that when a conference committee brings to the Senate a report, the adoption of which will, in my judgment, endanger the lives of those who travel on the highways, by elimination of the safety work of the Interstate Commerce Commission, then the answer I must give is clear. In that case I believe I am required to say to the conferees, "Return to the conference and remain in conference with the House conferees until New Year's Day, if necessary; but do not bring back to the Senate a report 1942. which will yield on the proposition of doing everything we-should do and everything we can do to protect the lives 1946. of the traveling public."

Mr. President, I say to the conference committee that the evidence from the expert witnesses against the report is overwhelming. In my judgment we cannot accede to the report and still live up to what I think is our clear duty as representatives of the people; namely, to translate a moral obligation into legislation, and to take action to make sure that the minimum controls necessary to protect the public welfare are enacted into law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD three tables from the 1952 World Almanac, the first being the one appearing on page 442, under the heading "Deaths from Motor-Vehicle Accidents, by Class of Accident: United States"; the second being entitled "Death Rates for Motor-Vehicle Accidents, Death Registration States, 1914-49; and the third table appearing on page 443, under the title "Age of Drivers, Motor-Vehicle Traffic Accidents, 1950."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

XCIX- -587

Rate

5.8

7.1

8.6

9.3

9.3 10.3

11.3 12.4

14.6

15.3

16.8

-19.9

21.6

23. 2

1915.

1916.

1917.

1918.

1920.

1921

1922

1923.

1924.

1925_

1926

1927

1928_

1929.

25.5

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an article entitled "Report Seen as Putting End to ICC Truck Regulations." The article was written by Richard Lyons, and was published in the Washington Post of today, July 21.

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

REPORT SEEN AS PUTTING END TO ICC TRUCK REGULATIONS

(By Richard L. Lyons)

Federal regulation of interstate trucking will end if the conference report on the first Independent Offices appropriation bill is approved by Congress as written, trucking interests complained yesterday.

Interstate Commerce Commission regulations require periodic inspection of vehicles, uniform running lights, brakes that stop in a certain distance, flares or flags set out by trucks stopped on highways. They also limit truckdrivers to 10 hours at a stretch.

W. Y. Blanning, director of motor carriers for ICC, said a survey of 461 carriers showed deaths caused by accidents involving their trucks dropped 42 percent 1 year after they had adopted ICC safety regulations. ICC also requires carriers to prove they perform a needed service.

At the urging of House Members, the House-Senate conferees last week wrote into their report language "requiring" ICC to spend the $1,793,157 requested for this work on "other work *** of greater importance." Representative JOHN PHILLIPS, Republican, California, who led the fight against the ICC truck program, said it largely duplicated work the States do or should do. He added that ICC was not bound by the language of the report.

ICC officials doubted the Commission would continue the work, however, if the conference report is allowed to stand. "After all, we've got to go back for money next year," said an ICC official.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I conclude my observations by pointing out that in 1950, almost 16 million American people were involved in automobile accidents. There were 41,300 fatalities. In my judgment we cannot look at these tables and consider the facts behind them without being convinced that in connection with the adoption of the conference report, we should not follow any course of action which will decrease accident control in the United States.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the following bills of the Senate:

S. 67. An act for the relief of Anastasia John Tsamisis;

S. 69. An act for the relief of Dr. Peter C. T. Kao;

S. 143. An act for the relief of Hanni Marie Matuschke;

S. 196. An act for the relief of Alejandro de la Cruz Hernandez;

S. 486. An act for the relief of Che Kil Bok;

S. 556. An act for the relief of Marinella Taletti;

S. 615. An act for the relief of Altoon Saprichian; and

S. 669. An act for the relief of Helene Olga Iwasenko.