to about 20 mph, air cushions above 30 mph. The actual effectiveness in prevention of fatalities extends to speeds much higher than these voluntary limits. Estimates from actual accidents where belts have been used show survival of accidents of intensities equivalent to 30 mph barrier crashes. (a) Unfortunately, belt usage is pathetically low. Less than 5% of automobile occupants are wearing their shoulder belts. Only 20% wear any active restraint. DOT has encouraged increased usage by automobile modification (in the form of 1973 warnings and 1974 starter interlock systems) and by recommending State legislation for mandatory belt wearing. Results of the Australian mandatory belt wearing law are encouraging, and confirm our laboratory and field findings that belts can save lives. They also seem to confirm our findings that better restraints and better structures will be needed for full protection. Increase of usage from 25% to about 85% in Australia reduced fatalities by 23%, compared to earlier baselines. (b) Yes, Based on the active research and development program future improvements in restraints may be expected to extend the effectiveness of restraints to 50 mph barrier equivalents, and thus prevent over 90% of the frontal fatalities. Developments in other crash modes likewise offer promise. Q. Should motor vehicles in use be inspected periodically to insure that they are maintained in a safe operating condition? A. Evidence to date indicates that mechanical defects definitely contribute to highway accidents and that periodic inspection programs aimed at identifying and correcting these defects can result in a reduction of traffic fatalities and injuries. It is unclear at present how great a reduction would be effected. However, the Department is currently involved in two different efforts which are designed to clarify the program benefits and costs. First, the Department is funding a Prototype Inspection Program in Washignton, D.C., which is working to develop model inspection standards for the most critical automotive systems (tires, brakes, steering, and suspension) to serve as guidelines for program development in all the States. Second, the Department will be establishing demonstration diagnostic inspection centers this fall as part of the 1972 Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. These centers will be closely monitored and fully evaluated to determine benefits and cost effectiveness relative to other highway safety activities. Q. What do you suggest we do to reduce the number of defectively manufactured automobiles? I have introduced a bill requiring manufacturers to at least remedy without charge the defects. Do you think that will help? A. Since September 1966, there have been 1,237 safety defect notification campaigns involving approximately 40,000,000 vehicles. The manufacturers offered to remedy the defects in approximately 36,000,000, or 90% of these vehicles. In addition, since we have been keeping sufficiently accurate records to make reliable estimates, approximately 86 percent of the recall campaigns have been initiated voluntarily by the manufacturers without direct influence by the Department. The problem is, and has been, that when a defect is identified, not all vehicles are returned for remedy. It is logical to assume a greater percentage of the owners affected by a particular defect campaign will respond if there is an offer to remedy free of charge than if no such offer is made. Our position with respect to your bill, S. 355, was presented to your Committee on January 30, 1973, by Mr. Toms, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Q. This Committee has strenuously pursued the experimental safety vehicle program as a critical element of a technologically sound auto safety program. Will you continue to give this high priority and commitment? A. Our Experimental Safety Vehicle (ESV) Program will continue to receive high priority attention. The success of the International ESV Program under NATO's Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) has far exceeded our expectations. The total systems approach to automotive safety design applied by the ESV program will be continued and supported, but will be applied to other classes of vehicles as well. AUTO REPAIR COSTS Q. Mr. Brinegar, in the 92nd Congress we sent to the President and he signed into law the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, known generally as the "bumper bill". This legislation, according to DOT's own estimate, could save consumers more than a billion dollars a year if a minimal bumper standard were established. Will you pursue that course of action? A. A special task force has been established in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to address the requirements for bumper standards as mandated in title I of the Act. At present, the specific engineering criteria and data required for cost effective analysis for such standards have not been developed. As soon as possible, the Department will determine and implement a course of action to comply with the requirements. Q. The auto repair problem continues to plague American consumers. Under Title III of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act pilot diagnostic inspection demonstration projects could set the stage for a solution to the auto repair problem. Will you examine that provision carefully and report to me as soon as possible your intended course of action? A. As soon as funds become available, Title III of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act will be vigorously pursued. Preliminary planning is presently underway. NHTSA will develop the criteria which will guide the States in their requests to participate. The sites will be selected in those areas which meet these criteria and fulfill the evaluation needs. The demonstration projects will be designed to obtain sufficient information and data for the prescribed feasibility analysis. No-FAULT INSURANCE Q. 1. Mr. Brinegar, are you aware that the DOT has undertaken a comprehensive study of the automobile compensation system and concluded that it is a total failure? (a) Do you endorse and support the Final Report of the Department of Transportation: (b) Do you intend to carefully review whether action at the State level has been sufficient to date or is likely to be sufficient in the future? 2. Would you advocate establishing a new system of compensation which does not afford insurance benefits to the seriously injured auto accidents victims who, though small in numbers, sustain the bulk of the loss resulting from auto accidents? A. I am aware that the Department did a complete and comprehensive study of the auto insurance and compensation system in this country and that it found major defects in that system. I do endorse and support the Final Report of the Department of Transportation. I will carefully review whether action at the State level has been sufficient to date or is likely to be sufficient in the future. With respect to the compensation of seriously injured accident victims, I do believe that any new system of compensation should afford benefits to seriously injured accident victims. In this respect let me simply cite the recommendations of the Department on this point as included in the Final Report of the Department of Transportation two years ago. Speaking of the recommended system: . . It should cover the economic losses associated with medical expenses, income loss, funeral expenses, required replacement services and property losses, at levels designed to prevent or effectively mitigate any serious economic dislocation for the individual victim or his dependents in all but the most catastrophic cases. Supplemental benefits should be available on a voluntary basis. At the same time, drivers should be given a choice not to insure themselves against minor losses, but instead to absorb them directly and, thereby, avoid the high administrative costs that the insurance institution incurs when handling minor claims." (Motor Vehicle Crash Losses and Their Compensation in the United States, March 1971, p. 129.) AMTRAK Q. The Committee has been advised indirectly that some of the nation's bus companies may be seeking the same kind of assistance as Amtrak is now obtaining. Do you have any thoughts on the merits of such request? A. In the absence of knowledge of the specific nature of such a request it is not possible to comment fully. However, we may say that in general the Department does not favor new categorical programs for providing support to the current operating expenses of transportation operators. We have repeatedly made this position clear with respect to urban mass transportation. The Department views the current Federal support for Amtrak as the cost of a necessary experiment to determine the extent of economic feasible rail passenger service in America today and not as a permanent and indefinite subsidy. EGIL KROGH, JR., OF WASHINGTON, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1973 U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:37 a.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Warren G. Magnuson (chairman) of the committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The hearing is for the purpose of considering the President's nomination of Mr. Krogh to be Under Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Krogh has provided the committee with a biographical sketch and a financial statement. I'll say to those present that it's been the practice of this committee for a long time to take the financial statement and put it on file with the committee so it's available to anyone who wants to look at it, Senators or the press or public or anyone. The biographical sketch will be entered in the record, and, of course, I'm pleased to note that Mr. Krogh has close ties with my part of the country. He is an alumnus of the law school that both Senator Jackson and I attended. They turn out some pretty good lawyers in that school. We're honored to have today my colleague, Senator Jackson, who would like the privilege of introducing Mr. Krogh to the committee. (The biographical sketch follows:) BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF EGIL KROGH, JR. Egil Krogh, Jr. has been Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs since November 1969. He also serves as Assistant Director of the Domestic Council Staff, as Executive Director of the Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control, and as District of Columbia liaison for the White House. Mr. Krogh's other Domestic Council responsibilities are in the fields of transportation, corrections, and legal services. Mr. Krogh was appointed Deputy Counsel to the President in May 1969, a position he held until appointed Deputy Assistant to the President in November 1969. In late 1967 and early 1968, Mr. Krogh served on the Stanford Research Institute team studying Vietnamese land reform for the Agency for International Development. During 1968 and while studying at the University of Washington Law School (1966-68) he was with the law firm of Hullin, Ehrlichman, Roberts and Hodge in Seattle, Wash. Mr. Krogh was born August 3, 1939, in Chicago, Ill. He graduated with highest honors from Principia College, Elsah, Ill., in 1961 and was a communications officer in the U.S. Navy serving aboard the U.S.S. Yorktown from 1962 to 1965. He received his law degree from the University of Washington Law School in 1968. He married Suzanne Lowell of Miami on July 2, 1963. They have two sons, Peter and Matthew. STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm very pleased to present Egil, better known as "Bud" Krogh, to this committee in connection with the confirmation proceedings. He comes from Seattle, Wash. He was born in Chicago. He graduated from Principia College in Elsah, Ill., with highest honors, in 1961. From 1962 to 1965, he was an officer in the U.S. Navy, serving, I believe, as a communications officer a substantial part of the time aboard the U.S.S. Yorktown. After coming out of the Navy, he attended the University of Washington Law School, graduating in 1968. While he was in law school, he worked and did research in the law firm of Hullin, Ehrlichman, Roberts & Hodge. He also found time-I don't know how he was able to do all these things to be deeply involved and concerned with land reform in Vietnam and participated in a study, I believe, made under the sponsorship of the Stanford research organization. This was headed up by a very able person well known to us out home and nationally in the area of land reform, Prof. Roy Prosterman of the law school. After the new administration came in, Bud went to work in the White House, and he has served in various capacities in the White House, all of them involving many difficult problems. Just to mention some, he was deeply involved with narcotics problems, assisting in connection with a long list of things in the District of Columbia, including transportation problems. I just want to say that in connection with his duties as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, my staff and the chairman's staff had the privilege of working with Bud Krogh. We always have found him to be a man of integrity, a man of his word, an honorable person, and above all an extremely competent person. I believe he will make a good Under Secretary for this Department. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Any questions of Senator Jackson? Senator COTTON. No. We are very honored to have Senator Jackson with us. We value his recommendation very highly. Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Senator Cotton. The CHAIRMAN. Now we have another witness, Mr. Tedson Meyers, who is a District of Columbia city councilman who wants to make a statement regarding the nominee. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Meyers. Mr. MEYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Now, all of you have to pull those mikes as close as you can and talk a little louder than usual so they can hear in the back of the room. STATEMENT OF TEDSON MEYERS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITY COUNCILMAN Mr. MEYERS. My name is Tedson Meyers, and I appear in support of the nomination of Mr. Egil Krogh, Jr., to be Under Secretary of Transportation. It is a privilege to testify before you and a source of deep personal satisfaction to appear in Mr. Krogh's behalf. Let me relate my point of view and my perspective: First, I am a resident of the District of Columbia and an attorney at law. I have served twice under men who reported directly to the President of the United States and the Congress. In the first instance, my principal, Newton Minow, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, reported to the members of this committee. In the second instance, my boss was Jack Vaughn, then Director of the Peace Corps. In addition to that experience, I have been for the past year a member of the City Council of the District of Columbia. Next, I am a Democrat. I have worked in or managed local and congressional campaigns in New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia; directed the operations of a national convention headquarters; written speeches for presidential candidates; and served as the Democratic National Committee's representative in a key State in 1968 where, I am proud to add, we won by two points. I was selected Senator COTTON. You also are associated with my old and highly esteemed friend, John L. Sullivan of New Hampshire, former Secretary of the Navy, aren't you? Mr. MEYERS. Yes, sir. He is my law partner and my father-in-law. Senator COTTON. I would say you were associated with him! [Laughter.] Mr. MEYERS. A good man, sir. I was selected as a member of the city council because I am a Democrat, as the legal balance of the council so required. Another reason, I believe, is that I live in the inner city and share with my family and my neighbors both the benefits and the aggravations of such residence. I was introduced to Egil Krogh shortly after he became concerned with District of Columbia affairs as a member of the White House staff. As one who had served with all vigor in opposition to the election of the President in 1968, I was skeptical and cautious. Fortune and coincidence gave me the chance, however, to observe the pattern with which he approached the city's problems. I urge upon the committee that this approach was as surprising as it was commendable. Here was neither a young man with all the answers, nor one surrounded by advisers who claimed that distinction nor blessed with a host of cronies to second-guess the mayor and the council or dictate policy or shape administration. Rather, it soon became evident that Mr. Krogh's method-which his superiors apparently accepted-was to give the city fathers all possible authority in reaching their own decisions in the public interest, while at the same time holding them accountable for the general welfare of |