passive. It is there when it is needed. It doesn't require an active act every time a motorist gets into the car. That is what we are aiming for. Senator CURTIS. Now I asked you before the recess if there had been any advertisements gone out or announcement directly or indirectly by you or by anybody else holding you up as a consultant for lawyers and litigants in reference to traffic accidents. Did you think of any during the recess? Mr. NADER. Did I think of any during the recess? Mr. NADER. My comment stands as it has stood. To my knowledge no, Senator, and I would like an opportunity, since you are bringing this up repeatedly, and I think it is an important issue, if you decide that it is important, I would like an opportunity to comment on this whole aspect of litigation, lawyers, lawsuits, product liabilities, and whatever extensions proceed from that. I request that in particular, Senator. May I? Senator CURTIS. Yes, if it won't take you long. Mr. NADER. Senator, the area of what I call judicial protection of bodily rights is in its infancy. We are far ahead now in protecting civil rights. We have articulated them. We have put them into law. We have governmental and citizen groups trying to further them. However, when it comes to an individual who is injured by the negligent or defective design of a product, we sometimes think that if he proceeds in court against the defendant, there is something dirty about that. Well, there is nothing dirty about it at all. The courts are perfectly equipped to process the fradulent claims from the genuine claims. The laws of evidence are very strong here. What we have to recognize is that just as 15 years ago when somebody went into a court to try to preserve or acquire a civil right denied him, and was looked upon with contempt or ridicule, that we are about at this same point here in terms of people trying to recover in courts of law against the harmful effects of technology. Now I see nothing more proper than an attempt to articulate these rights, to bring the facts out into the public domain outside of the chrome curtain-and when it comes to curtains, chrome is much more impenetrable than iron, Senator-to bring these out into the factual domain whether they are by hearings, executive hearings, legislative hearings, interrogatories, depositions, or what not. Senator CURTIS. What is the chrome curtain? CHROME CURTAIN Mr. NADER. The chrome curtain is that which hovers around the automobile industry and makes it extremely difficult, for example, to ask the industry or the tire industry to give this legislative body and other Senate committees the test data that show whether their tires are safe or no safe. Instead they are giving these committees adjectives. They are not giving their engineering test data. Can you imagine a drug company telling the Food and Drug Administration, "Our drug is safe. Believe us. We will give you 50 adjectives to support it but not data." That is the chrome curtain, Senator; part of it. Senator CURTIS. Have you appeared before any legislative groups in New York? Mr. NADER. You mean before the New York Legislature? I have not, Senator. Senator CURTIS. Any Government group? Mr. NADER. No, I have not. Senator CURTIS. Have you appeared before any bar groups? Senator CURTIS. Where? Mr. NADER. I have appeared in New York, at the recent announcement of the program "Stop Murder by Motor" by the American Trial Lawyers Association, to which President Johnson sent a message. I have appeared at an annual convention of the National Association of Compensation Claimants Attorneys several years ago in New York, and I am quite sure that a few other places I have appeared as well which I Senator CURTIS. Did you appear by invitation? Mr. NADER. Yes, sir. Senator CURTIS. Were you compensated? Mr. NADER. For which appearance? For the trial lawyers? Mr. NADER. No, sir. Senator CURTIS. For the other one that you mentioned? Mr. NADER. No, sir. Sir, if you are concerned about the problems of earning a livelihood, I am too. I could very easily earn a livelihood in courts representing clients, because my specialties run from international legal problems of trade to products liability. But I have been away from practice and away from courts in a pretty thankless, however necessary, endeavor of trying to bring this issue before the American people, and I don't mean that in any melodramatic sense whatsoever. I can make more money, much more money, just staying home, and so any other implications which you want me to bring out I would be happy to. Senator CURTIS. No; I am not interested in implications. I am trying to find out some facts. Is the National Safety Council behind the chrome curtain? Mr. NADER. Is it behind? Well, it straddles it. One leg is behind and one is in front of it. Senator CURTIS. How about the automotive safety foundation? Mr. NADER. That is again a front for the automobile industry. Senator CURTIS. How about the insurance institute for highway safety? Mr. NADER. This gets us into the area of what is the responsibility and what have been the roles of the casualty insurance industry in the highway safety. I can elaborate if you wish me to. Senator CURTIS. Are they behind the chrome curtain? Mr. NADER. They are not behind the chrome curtain. They have accommodated to the principals that operate in the automobile industry and the traffic safety establishment. Senator CURTIS. You in your paper have questioned their role in whatever part they have in the proposed program. Mr. NADER. Yes, I have, Senator. I think Senator CURTIS. Now wouldn't it by every feature of the whole insurance principle, their economic interests would be on the side of fewer accidents and less costly accidents, and fewer injuries when there is an accident, isn't that right? Mr. NADER. Therein lies the paradox, Senator. You are right. Prima facie this would seem to be the operating motivation of the insurance industry. But unfortunately they have not participated in the types of checks and balances in our private sector that limit the excesses of one another. I can give you reasons Senator CURTIS. How about the President's Committee on Traffic Safety? Mr. NADER. Yes, Senator, what about it? Senator CURTIS. Is it behind the chrome curtain? You condemn it here in your statement. Mr. NADER. The President's Committee for Traffic Safety is basically an executive agency run by private interests, especially the automobile interests. It has articulated and furthered an ideology of traffic safety which does not bide well in terms of progress. Senator KENNEDY. Could I interrupt the Senator. Senator CURTIS. Yes. Senator KENNEDY. As I explained to the Senator at about 5 minutes of 1, I am scheduled to preside over the Senate and they have wanted me over there. I would be glad to recess and come back with Mr. Nader if it is convenient. AUTO INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY Senator CURTIS. I just have one more question. You say in your book "the heart of the malady is the blueprints on the Detroit drawing board." Now by that do you mean that the biggest cause of accidents and injuries resulting therefrom is the design, the mechanics in the manufacture of automobiles? Mr. NADER. I believe that the overwhelming responsibility for what happens to occupants inside the automobile in a collision is on the shoulders of the automobile manufacturers. In terms of the cause of accidents, there are many causes, vehicle, driver, and highway. How we reduce these accidents boils down to improving the engineering of the highway and the vehicle so as to take advantage in the most safe way possible of the limitations and capacities and failures of the driver. I think this has been the whole thrust of the interstate highway safety system, and although there are exaggerated claims for that system, there is no question, Senator, that by eliminating intersections and by having a broader spread on the side and having median barriers, these engineering inputs have reduced the occurrence of accidents. That is my point. I would divide the situation into two segments, accident causation and injury causation, and the most effective and fastest and most efficient pay off here is to design a safe automobile that will protect people in collisions. If we want to act fast and efficiently, that is what we should should ask, and the auto industry is wonderfully capable and has all the competence and financial resources to do so if it wants to-once it decides to do so. Senator CURTIS. I won't argue with you about exaggeration. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator KENNEDY. As I understand from your answer to the last question, your position is that some of these accidents can occur and will occur, but that the injuries can be drastically cut. Mr. NADER. That is right. Senator KENNEDY. Injuries to the individual, the deaths that have occurred and the maimings that have occurred, if the automobile is constructed properly. Mr. NADER. That is right, Senator. Senator KENNEDY. Let me just say in closing I appreciate your testimony. There have been some estimates made about the automobile companies, and I think rather harsh and very strong criticism of the way and the direction in which the automobile companies are moving and what is motivating them. I am sure it will meet with the approval of the chairman and the members of the committee that the automobile companies appear immediately before the committee. If the presidents and the chairmen of the boards of General Motors, Ford or any of these other companies wish to appear before the committee and refute the testimony, they should be given that opportunity. Senator CURTIS. In that connection may I ask one question? Senator KENNEDY. If I could just finish; let me say that all of these individuals appeared before the committee last year, and had an opportunity to testify at that time. I was present during their testimony. I am sure, though, that the chairman of the committee would be delighted to have them back. I would be delighted to have them and I am sure the other members of the committee would be delighted to have them. So if we could issue a general invitation, if they wish to come after reading your testimony and reading this hearing, that if they wish to come before the committee, they are welcome. I am sure that Senator Ribicoff would be delighted to have them. Senator Ribicoff asked me to announce that the hearings will resume the first week in March with some other witnesses. But in the meantime I hope that the automobile companies will read this testimony carefully and take some action in the immediate future to deal with some of these problems, because the situation is most unsatisfactory at the present time. Senator CURTIS. In that connection, prior to the publication of your book did you visit and confront any of the automobile manufacturers with the complaints and charges and problems relating to their products discussed in your book. Mr. NADER. Yes, I did, Senator. Senator CURTIS. Whom did you meet? Mr. NADER. I met their representatives at technical meetings. Mr. NADER. The Stapp conferences, for example. Senator CURTIS. Who? Mr. NADER. Representatives of all the companies. Mr. NADER. One Senator CURTIS. What was the date? Mr. NADER. One occurred in 1964 and the other occurred in 1965. Senator CURTIS. And what are the names of the individuals and what are these charges in your book that you mentioned? Mr. NADER. I can't give you the names now. I can tell you basically that the chief safety engineers and many of their representatives were there, and we mixed after technical papers were given, and during technical papers questions were asked. Roy Haeusler of Chrysler, for example, one of the more enlightened safety engineers in the industry. Senator CURTIS. How long did you take propounding the specific car defects in this book to those people. Mr. NADER. Many, many hours, Senator. I scoured the literature. I tried to get every paper on vehicle safety which their representatives wrote, the statements that they made, the speeches. I wanted to find the best arguments that they could make, and I searched Senator CURTIS. Where was this meeting? Mr. NADER. Pardon, sir. Senator CURTIS. Where was this meeting? Mr. NADER. These were two meetings, one in Detroit and one in Minneapolis. Senator CURTIS. What were the dates? Mr. NADER. As I said, Senator, in the fall of 1964 and 1965, two annual meetings, and there have been other meetings. Those are not the only ones but those are the most intensive ones. Senator CURTIS. What are the other ones? Mr. NADER. Meetings on an individual basis or meetings as SAE convocations or other technical meetings such as the physician groups that get together with industry-minded people and so forth. Senator CURTIS. Did you confront any automobile manufacturer with the specific charges against a specific product or part thereof and ask for his statement? Mr. NADER. Yes, Senator. Senator KENNEDY. Senator, the Senate is going to come to a grinding halt unless I go over there. Senator CURTIS. You have? Mr. NADER. Of course. Senator KENNEDY. The hearing is recessed. (Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the hearing was recessed.) EXHIBIT 109 STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES E. BENNETT TO THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman, since 1957 I have sponsored legislation to require certain safety standards on all motor vehicles sold in interstate commerce. I presently have two bills before the House, H.R. 414 and H.R. 9303, which would establish safety standards for certain automobile equipment, and require that equipment on all automobiles sold in interstate commerce. Notwithstanding the fact that over 1,250,000 Americans died in automobile accidents since 1899, the Congress has taken little affirmative action toward curbing the rapidly rising number of automobile accidents. The establishment of manufacturing standards for seat belts sold in interstate commerce, and the requirement of certain safety devices on vehicles purchased by the Federal Government, is a good beginning, but little more. Last year another record was set when more than 50,000 persons were killed in auto accidents, 2 million others injured, and $3 billion in property damages. The U.S. Public Health Service Accident Prevention Bureau recently advised that 43 percent of those persons killed in auto accidents last year died because their vehicle was not mechanically safe. It is hard to believe that 22,000 persons might be alive today if a greater effort had been made to keep these unsafe vehicles off the public highways. |