1 0 1 9

J) 83^2-NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SE RV ICE

GOVERNMENT

Sto ra ge

H E A R I N G

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OE THE 

COMMITTEE ON

INT ERS TATE AND FOR EIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV ES

E IG H T Y -S E V E N T H C O N G R E SS 

F IR S T SE SS IO N 

ON

H.R . 8388, H .R . 9074, H.R . 9078, S. 1440 

B IL LS TO AM EN D T H E AC T A PP ROVED JU LY 14, 1960 (74 

STAT . 52 6), REL ATI NG TO T H E ESTA BLIS H M EN T OF A REG ­

IS T E R IN T H E DEPA RTM EN T OF CO MME RC E OF CER TA IN 

MOT OR V EH IC LE O PER ATO RS’ LIC EN SES

SEPTEM B ER 12, 1961

P ri n te d fo r th e use of th e 

Com m itt ee o n In te rs ta te a nd For ei gn C om merc e

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

76084 WASHINGTON : 1961
COMMITTEE ON INTE RSTA TE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

OREN HARR IS, Arkansas, Chairman

JO HN BE LL WI LLIAMS , Mississippi

PET ER F. MACK, J r., Illinois

KENNET H A. RO BE RT S, Alabam a

MO RGAN M. MOU LD ER , Missouri

HA RL EY O. STAO OERS, West Virginia

WAL TE R RO GE RS , Texas

SAMU EL N. FR IE DEL, Mary land

JO HN J. FL YN T, Jr., Georgia

TO RB ER T II. MA CD ON AL D, Massachusetts

GE OR GE M. RH OD ES, Pennsylvania

JO HN JA RM AN , Oklahoma

LEO W. O’BRI EN , New York

JOHN E. MOSS, California

JOHN D. DIN GEL L, Michigan

JOE M. KI LG OR E, Texas

PA UL G. RO GE RS , Florid a

RO BE RT W. HEM PH IL L, South Carolina

DA N RO ST EN KO WSK I, Illinois

JAME S C. HEA LE Y, New York

JO HN B. BE NNETT , Michigan 

WILLIAM L. SP RI NGER , Illinois 

PA UL F. SC HE NC K, Ohio 

J. AR TH UR YO UN GE R, California 

HA RO LD R. CO LL IE R, Illinois 

M IL TO N W. GL EN N, New Jersey 

SA MU EL L. DE VI NE , Ohio 

ANCIIER NEL SE N, Minn esota 

HA ST INGS KEIT H, Massach usetts 

WILLA RD S. CU RTI N, Pennsylvania 

AB NE R W. SIBAL, Connecticut 

VE RN ON W. TH OM SO N, Wisconsin 

PE T E R II. DO M IN IC K, Colorado

W. E. Williamson, Clerk

Kenneth J. Painter, Assis tan t Clerk

Professional Staff

Andrew Stevenson Sam G. Spal

K urt Borciiardt Martin W. Cunningham

S u b c o m m it tee on H ea lth an d S a fety

KEN NET H A. RO BE RT S, Alabama, Cha irman

GE OR GE M. RH OD ES , Pennsylvania 

LEO W. O’BR IE N, New York 

PA UL G. RO GE RS , Florid a

PA UL F. SC HE NC K, Ohio 

ANCIIE R NE LS EN , Minn esota 

PE T E R H. DO M IN IC K, Colorado

II

{•2 J.
C O N T E N T S

Tex t of—

H.R. 8388_________

S. 1440_____________________-------------------------------------------------

Report of—

Bureau of th e Budget on H.R . 8388_____________

Commerce Depar tment on H.R . 8388________________ ZZZ

Statem ent of—

Allen, James C., Assistant Commissioner for Administration, Bureau 

of Public Roads, De partm ent of Commerce___________

Eim es, Wendell, Directo r of the Register, Depar tment of’Comm'erceZ 

Kerrick, John C., direc tor of driver license program, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators_____________

Additional information sub mitted for the record bv—~

Commerce Department, lett er from Hon. Edw ard Gudem an, Under 

Secretary______________________________

Page

1

2

3

3

7

9

nr

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE

TUESD A Y , S E PT E M B E R 12, 1961

H ouse of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubcom m it tee on H ea lt h an d S afe ty of th e

C om m it tee on I n ter sta te an d F o reig n C om m er ce,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1334, 

New House Office Building, Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. R o b er ts. The subcommittee will please come to order.

The Subcommittee on Health and Safety is meeting this morning 

to hold hearings on legislation to broaden the scope of the National 

Driver Register Service which was established in the Department of 

Commerce as the result of a bill reported out of this subcommittee in 

1960.

This register serves as a clearinghouse to identify drivers whose 

licenses have been revoked for driving while intoxicated or convicted 

of a traffic violation resulting in loss of life. We recommended setting 

up this program to help the States keep chronic law violators off our 

streets and highways. We think it will help substantially to promote 

highway safety.

Some of the States which have not adopted the uniform Motor 

Vehicle Code cannot participate in this program because State laws 

differ widely with respect to the meaning and effect of the term 

“revoked.” For tha t reason, the Department has requested tha t the 

law be clarified.

Four bills have been proposed to do this. We have H.R. 8388, by 

Mr. Randall; H.R. 9074, which I introduced; H.R. 9078, introduced 

by Mr. Rhodes of Arizona, author of the act which established the 

register; and S. 1440, an act which has passed the Senate.

At this point, text- of the proposed legislation will be included, 

followed by agency reports.

(The documents referred to are as follows:)

[H.R. 8388, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A B ILL To amend the Act approved July 14, 1960 (74 Stat. 526), relating to the establishment of a register 

in the Depar tment of Commerce of certain motor vehicle operators’ licenses

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, Th at section 1 of the Act approved July 14, 1960 

(74 Stat. 526), is hereby amended to read as follows:

“That the Secretary of Commerce shall establish and maintain a register containing the name of each individual repo rted to him by a State, or political sub ­

division thereof, as an individual with respect to whom such State or political 

subdivision has termin ated or temporarily withdrawn an individual’s license or 

privilege to operate a motor vehicle because of (1) driving under the influence of 

intoxicating liquor, or (2) conviction of a violation of a sta tute of a State, or 

ordinance of any political subdivision thereof, which resulted in the death of any 

person. Such register shall contain such other inform ation as the Secretary ,

deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.”

(Note.—H.R . 9074 and H.R . 9078 are identical to H.R . 8388.)

61
2 NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE

[S. 1440, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

AN ACT To amend the Act approved July 14,1960 (74 Stat. 526), relating to the estab lishm ent of a register 

in the Departme nt of Commerce of certain motor vehicle operators’ licenses

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, Th at section 1 of the Act approved July 14, 1960 

(74 Stat. 526), is hereby amended to read as follows:

“T ha t the Secretary of Commerce shall establish and maintain a register containing the name of each individual repo rted to him by a State, or political subdivision thereof, as an individual with respect to whom such Sta te or political 

subdivision has term inated or temp orarily withdraw n an individual’s license or 

privilege to operate a motor vehicle because of (1) driving under the influence 

of intoxicating liquor, or (2) conviction of a violation of a statute of a State, or 

ordinance of any political subdivision thereof, which resulted in the dea th of an y 

person. Such register shall contain such other inform ation as the Secretary may 

deem app ropriate to carry o ut the purposes of this Act.”

Passed the Senate June 12, 1961.

Attest:

Felton M. J ohnston, Secretary.

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau of the Budget,

Washington, D.C., August 18, 1961.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

V Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, 1961, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget with respe ct to H.R . 8388, a 

bill to amend the act ap proved July 14, 1960 (74 Stat. 526), re lating to the establishm ent of a register in the Depar tment of Commerce of certain motor vehicle 

operators’ licenses.

The subject bill is identical to a dra ft bill recommended by the Departme nt of 

Commerce to the Congress on Marc h 21, 1961, and is also identical to S. 1440 

which passed the Senate on June 12, 1961. This proposed legislation would 

facilitate administration of the register of revoked motor vehicle ope rators’ 

licenses established in the Department of Commerce.

The Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to the ena ctm ent of this 

measure.

Sincerely yours,

Phillip S. Hughes,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

General Counsel of the Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C., August 15, 1961.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your requ est for the views of the 

Department of Commerce concerning H.lt. 8388, a bill to amend th e act approved 

July 14, 1960 (74 Stat. 526), relating to the establishme nt of a register in the 

Depar tment of Commerce of certain motor vehicle operato rs’ licenses.

H.R. 8388 would amend the act approved July 14, 1960 (74 Sta t. 526), re lating 

to the National Driver Register Service, and is identical to a d raf t bill su bmitte d 

bv the Dep artm ent of Commerce to the Congress on March 21, 1961, as a part 

of the Depar tment’s legislative program for the 87th Congress, 1st session. 

The pending legislation is also identical to S. 1440 which passed the Senate on 

Jun e 12, 1961. The Senate bill has been referred to the Subcom mittee on Health 

and Safety of the Intersta te and Foreign Commerce Committe e and was the su bjec t of our letter to you on July 14.

As pointed out in our July 14 letter, the proposed legislation is largely technical 

in nature; however, its ena ctm ent is urgently needed in connection with the 

current planning and scheduling of th e work of the driver ’s register. The amendments proposed by both H.R. 8388 and S. 1440 would permit additional States
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE 3

to part ic ip ate in th is pro gr am and wou ld mor e effectively refle ct th e in te n t of 

Co ng ress in en ac ting th e or ig in al en ab ling legi slatio n. I t is co ns id er ed th a t 

tim el y en actm ent of th e pr op os ed am en dm en t is ne ce ss ar y sin ce it affects th e 

im m ed ia te pl an ni ng a nd co or di na tion o f th e pr og ra m . D el ay in its co ns id er at io n 

and enactm ent wo uld ad ve rs ely affect th e im ple m en ta tion of th is im p o rt an t 

dri ver re gi ster ser vic e.

T he D epart m ent of Com merce , th er ef or e, ur ge s th e ea rly enactm ent of th e 

pr op os ed leg islatio n.

T he Bur ea u of th e B ud get ad vise s th a t th er e wou ld be no obj ec tion to th e 

su bm ission of th is re port from th e st andpoin t of th e adm in is tr ati o n ’s pr og ra m . 

Sincerely ,

R o b er t E. G il e s .

Mr. Roberts. Our first witness this morning will be a representative of the Department of Commerce, who will explain the need for 

this legislation. I believe tha t Mr. James C. Allen, Assistant Commissioner for Administration, Bureau of Public Roads, Department 

of Commerce, Washington, D.C., will now testify. We are happy to 

have you here this morning, Mr. Allen.

When this legislation was before the subcommittee, there was some 

question in the Secretary’s office about whether or not this legislation 

would be beneficial, and I am glad to see t ha t the Department is now 

here and they all are asking tha t it he expanded, so tha t all the States 

can participate.

STATEMENT OF JAMES C. ALLEN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

FOR ADM INISTRATION , BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY WENDELL EAMES,

DIRECTOR OF THE REGISTER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Allen. Th at is certainly true, Mr. Chairman. The Department is very well pleased with the legislation, and would like to have 

it expanded so tha t we can make a better program out of it than 

what we now have. I have a short state ment which I will read, if it 

is satisfactory to the chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is 

James C. Allen. I am the Assistant Commissioner for Administration of the Bureau of Public Roads. We are glad to be given this 

opportunity to appear before your committee today in support of 

H.R. 9074, II.R . 9078, II.R . 8388, and S. 1440, identical hills which 

would amend Public Law 86-660. The amendments which would 

be made hv the hills are principally technical in na ture but are badly 

needed if the law is to be fully effective.

Public Law 86-660, approved July 14, 1960, directed the Secretary 

of Commerce to establish and maintain a register containing the 

names of each individual whose driver license had been revoked by 

a State or political subdivision because of driving while intoxicated 

or conviction of a violation of a highway safety code involving loss 

of life. The responsibility of administering this program was delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to the Federal Highway Administrator, who is required to furnish information contained in the 

register to any participating State upon request. It is felt tha t the 

States making use of the register would be able to prevent or a t least 

reduce the possibility of the inadvertent granting of driver privileges 

to individuals whose licenses have been revoked in another State 

and whose operation of a motor vehicle would be likely to create a 

disproportionate hazard to other highway users.
4 NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE

As it exists at the present time, the law provides for a register of 

licenses which have been revoked. One of the first steps taken in our 

effort to establish the register was a preliminary survey of State laws 

and practices. This survey revealed tha t many States will not be 

able to participate in the national register because of the limiting 

language found in the laws of the States. Many States do not provide 

for revocation of motor vehicle operators’ licenses under the two conditions set forth in the law but do provide for suspension of licenses 

for varying periods of time. Since the law provides for a register of 

revoked licenses, those States which suspend rather than revoke 

licenses could not participate in furnishing information to the register.

These bills would amend the existing law by providing for a register 

containing the names of individuals whose license or privilege to 

operate a motor vehicle has been terminated or temporarily withdrawn. 

The bills would make certain other changes in the language of the 

existing law to permit greater participation by the States.

Shortly after enactment of the existing law, representatives of the 

American Bar Association, the Traffic Institute of Northwestern 

University, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Safety Council, 

motor vehicle administrators from each of the four regions, and one 

private consultant were invited to Washington for a 2-day planning 

conference to insure tha t this service would be most useful to the 

States. It was recognized at the outset tha t one of the problems to 

be faced was that motor vehicle driver licensing, including revocation 

and suspension requirements and practices, are handled in a variety 

of ways by the States. The conference noted tha t State laws differ 

widely and vary in terminology and effect where intoxicated or drinking drivers are concerned, as well as in other respects having a bearing 

upon the administration of the act.

A proposed amendment to Public Law 86 -660 was drafted and 

approved by those representatives attending the conference. The 

recommendations made by these men are identical to the language 

used in the proposed amendment. The passage of this amendment 

would be extremely helpful in establishing an effective register and in 

complying with the inten t of the Congress because the language used 

in Public Law 86 -660 is believed to be unduly restrictive.

Excellent progress has been made in establishing the register provided for in Public Law 86 -6 60 . Mr. Wendell G. Eames, who was 

appointed Director, Driver Register, by the Federal Highway Administrator in October 1960, has surveyed the records of all Government agencies, and other organizations in the area having similar 

identification and communication problems, in order to determine 

personnel and equipment needs, and devise the most effective procedures. State motor vehicle administrators in 48 States and the 

District of Columbia were visited to solicit their participation and 

their records were surveyed in order tha t a compatible system might 

be established. Specifications for the operation of this register were 

furnished to 24 equipment manufacturers who were invited to submit 

proposals for the most feasible and economical method of establishing 

and maintaining the file. All forms and printed material necessary 

to this program were designed, printed, and distributed to the 

participating States and territories and a staff was recruited and 

trained to permit the National Driver Register Service to be fully
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE 5

operational on July 1, 1961. The Service has been in operation since 

that date on the electronic data-processing equipment already installed in the Bureau of Public Roads. By using this equipment on 

the night shift the rental cost is only 40 percent of the prime shift 

cost. All media of data transmission, including manually prepared 

forms, tabulating cards, punched paper tape, and magnetic tape, are 

acceptable from the States.

Although this Service has been in operation only a little over 2 

months, the States have already sent in information on over 65,000 

drivers. Forty-five States, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have agreed to cooperate, and 

43 of these jurisdictions are participating at the present time. Other 

States have advised us that they will soon be ready and tha t we can 

expect submissions from them in the near future. At this early date 

we have sent 912 items of information to the States as the result of 

our file searches. The acceptance of this program by the States is 

excellent and we feel that we arc rendering them a valuable service 

which will increase as the file grows.

We feel th at it is extremely important for H.R. 8388 to be enacted 

by the Congress. We are not aware of any objection to the bill, 

and an identical bill (S. 1440) has been passed by the Senate. We 

strongly urge tha t the committee give favorable consideration to this 

legislation.

Mr. Wendell Fames, Director of the Register, is here with me and 

we will be glad to answer any questions which you may have.

Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Are you prepared to tell 

us how much the present program is costing per year?

Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. Our budget for the current year is $400,000. 

About one-half of tha t sum is for punching tabulating cards and we 

have a contract with the Census Bureau to do that work for us.

About $55,000 of the $400,000 is for the rental of the computer 

and related equipment on the second shift basis, which is only 40 

percent of what i t would cost if we had it rented on a first shift basis. 

There are 17 positions in the National Driver Register Service, and 

the salaries total around $108,000.

Mr. Roberts. How much additional expense would result from 

the enactment of this proposed legislation?

Mr. Allen. We have based our budget on the hope that this legislation would be enacted, and the $400,000 for this year will cover us, 

if this legislation is enacted. There will be no additional cost over our 

present anticipated budget.

Mr. Roberts. Tha t is excellent. Now how many States would 

the new legislation allow to participate in this program? Do you 

have the names of those States?

Mr. Allen. Mr. Eames, would you like to answer that?

Mr. Eames. I can’t give you the names of all the States, but I can 

give some examples.

In Wyoming they suspend a driver’s license for 30 days for the first 

offense of driving while intoxicated. They suspend for 120 days on the 

second offense, and then they revoke the license on the third offense. 

Wyoming can participate partially and is now doing so, insofar as 

revocations are concerned.
6 NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE

But we do need the enactment of this legislation in order for them 

to send in reports of suspended licenses, as well as those which have 

been revoked.

Connecticut is another example. They suspend licenses rather than 

revoke. California does the same to a great extent, and so its participation can only be token, until this amendment is enacted.

Mr. Roberts. You say Arizona?

Mr. E ames. No, California.

Mr. Roberts. California?

Mr. E ames. Yes, sir. Arizona is participating now.

Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Eames.

Now, Mr. Allen, I believe you said tha t the program became operational the 1st of July of this year, and tha t since th at time you have 

had some indications from 43 States and the District of Columbia 

that they were ready to participate in the program?

Mr. Allen. Forty-three States are participating and have submitted to us certain information. The submissions include records 

of past revocations because of driving while drunk, or violation of 

the highway safety code resulting in loss of life.

Mr. Roberts. Tha t is very gratifying to this committee. It is a 

really finer participation than I thought we would have this early. 

So it is an indication tha t this service is going to be widely used, 

I think.

Mr. Allen. I am sure it will be. Mr. Eames has visited 48 of the 

States. The only ones he missed were Alaska and Hawaii.

All but five States agreed to participate, and we have now information from practically all of the States that have agreed to participate. 

The States all seem to be very enthusiastic about the establishment 

of the registry. It is catching hold, and we think that we can do 

some good.

Mr. Roberts. The list I have of the States tha t would be able 

through this amendment to participate are Arkansas, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and West Virginia. 

Would you check on those, Mr. Eames, and then supply whatever 

information you have for the record?

Mr. Eames. I will. I might mention tha t Arkansas and West 

Virginia are participating now, and are sending information in.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I think (Florida has determined not to, 

haven’t they?

Mr. Eames. No, we visited them and they haven’t given us a 

definite answer, so we will have to wait for that. We hope they 

will participate, of course.

Mr. Roberts. Any questions? Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. Nelsen. No.

Mr. Roberts. Mr. Rogers?

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I would like to find out a few items now. 

As I understand it, the change in the law would permit suspensions 

to be a reason for recording in the national clearance setup?

Mr. Allen. Tha t is correct, sir.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. These suspensions just are concerned with 

drun k driving or an accident where a death occurred?

Mr. Allen. You are correct, sir.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. Just those two items?

Mr. Allen. Only those two items.
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE 7

Mr. Rogers of Florida. And would your records show tha t they 

were suspended for so many days, and the information would go to 

any State requesting the information?

Mr. F ames. Yes. I think we have passed out a brochure.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Yes, I have it.

Mr. F ames. There is a copy of the form in the brochure. There 

are three dates indicated on the form. One is the date the license 

was revoked or the privilege of driving withdrawn.

The second is the date tha t the driver is eligible fcr reinstatement.

The third date is entered in the record when the driving privilege 

is restored.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Have you any examples where this has 

really been of great value in keeping off a man or woman driver who 

has been convicted many times, and the State was not aware of it?

Mr. Eames. Mr. Richard Tow, the assistant commissioner of public safety of Iowa was in, and reported tha t there were six cases so 

far tha t had proven extremely valuable to them. Convictions in 

other States tha t they did not know about were discovered by searching the driver register.

We have had letters from a few other States, but if the States don’t 

advise us, we can’t always tell how valuable the information is.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Yes. But you feel response has been excellent so far from the States?

Mr. F ames. Very gratifying.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. And tha t you can hold your budget to 

$400,000?

Mr. Allen. For this current year we can hold it to $400,000. As 

the file grows and the States expand the service, the budget will probably have to go up 10 or 20 percent higher than that.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Is that every year?

Mr. Allen. No. It would reach a ceiling, another 10 or 20 percent higher.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you very much.

M r. Allen. Thank you very much. sir.

Mr. Roberts. Thank you, gentlemen.

The next witness I have is Mr. Leland S. Harris. Would you state 

your name for the record, sir?

STATEMENT OF J OHN C. KERRICK, DIRECTOR OF DRIVER LICENSE

PROGRAM OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

Mr. Kerrick. Mr. Chairman, I am John Kerrick, director of the 

driver license program of the American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators.

I am here without a prepared statement to represent Mr. Harris. 

I came down on short notice.

But as you will recall, before the Federal register was set up, many 

of our jurisdictions questioned the workability of the register, and 

Mr. Harris appeared before the committee and mentioned some of 

those questions.

This amendment we think will clear up one of the questions proposed in the limitations of the word “revoked,” which is very com-
8 NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE

monly used as synonymous with all withdrawals of driving privilege, 

and there is a fine distinction between a revocation and a suspension, 

and our member jurisdictions will be glad to see that cleared up.

In view of the questions raised before the register was established, 

I want to assure you tha t since the law has gone into effect and the 

agency is functioning, we are doing what we can to encourage participation.

The question was raised a moment ago as to a distinction between 

“can” they participate and “will” they participate. There are some 

of each.

We have a few States who have flatly said “No,” due to individual 

administrators, but there are very few of those. The greater number 

are affected in th at while they can participate, they cannot participate 

fully.

The State of Oregon supplies an example. The term “revocation,” 

as denned in the Uniform Vehicle Code, means that the driver, after 

1 year, can reapply. When the State of Oregon, using it only as an 

example, wanted to extend that period for a third conviction, they 

extended it to 3 years, and to overcome this limitation of the term 

“revocation” they changed that to “suspension” following conviction 

for driving while intoxicated.

It is only a single example, but largely due, I think, to Mr. Eames’ 

efforts, the participation is very good, and we are doing what we can 

to encourage it. We think this amendment will do a great deal to 

further it and further encourage participation.

Mr. Roberts. We are glad to have your statement, Mr. Kerrick. 

I remember that when Mr. Harris testified on behalf of the American 

Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators he was somewhat in 

doubt as to whether or not the legislation would work, and I am 

delighted to have the support now of this organization, which we 

recognize as being very important in this field and in other fields, too.

How many States do you represent? How many States do you 

have organizations in?

Mr. Kerrick. All of them.

Mr. Roberts. In all of the States and, I assume, the District of 

Columbia?

Mr. Kerrick. The District of Columbia.

Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Kerrick, very much. We appreciate 

your appearance here very much. Any questions?

(No response.)

Mr. Roberts. Thank you.

Mr. Kerrick. Thank you.

Mr. Roberts. At this time, without objection, 1 would like to put 

in the record, from the Secretary of Commerce, signed by Mr. Gudeman, a lette r dated July 14, 1961, which is favorable to the legislation.

(The document referred to is as follows:)
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER SERVICE 9

T h e Sec r eta r y o f C om m erce,

Washington, D.C., Ju ly 14, 1961.

H o n . O r en H a r r is ,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

D ea r M r . C h a ir m a n : On M ar ch 21, 1961, th e D ep art m ent of Com merce , as a

p a rt of its legi slat iv e pr og ra m fo r th e 87 th Co ng res s, 1st ses sio n, su bm it te d t o th e 

Co ng ress pr op os ed le gi slatio n re la ting to th e N at io nal D rive r Reg iste r Servi ce. 

Thi s dra ft bill wa s enti tl ed “ To am en d th e act ap pr ov ed Ju ly 14, 1960 (74 Sta t. 

526), re la ting to th e est ab li sh m en t of a re gi ster in th e D ep art m ent of Co mmerce 

of ce rtai n m ot or ve hicle opera to rs ’ lic en se s.”

Leg islatio n id en tica l to th e D ep art m en t’s dra ft bill was in tr od uce d in th e 

Se na te as S. 1440. Thi s bill ha s now pa ss ed th e Sen ate an d ha s been re fe rre d to 

th e Sub co m m itte e on H ealth an d Sa fe ty of th e In te rs ta te an d Fo reign Co mmerce C om m itte e of th e Hou se of R ep re se nt at iv es . It is un de rs to od th a t, a t th e 

pr es en t tim e, no ac tion has be en sc he du led or is co nt em pl at ed by th e su bc om ­

m itte e w ith re sp ec t to th is bill.

The p ro po se d legi slatio n is larg ely te ch ni ca l in n atu re an d is not a co nt ro ve rsia l 

mea su re . How ev er, enac tm en t of th is le gi slatio n is urg en tly ne ed ed in co nn ec ­

tion w ith cu rr en t pl an ni ng an d sche du lin g of th e wor k of th e dri ver’s r eg ister.

As yo u kn ow , th e dri ver’s re gi st er wa s cr ea te d under th e pr ov isions of th e ac t 

ap pr ov ed Ju ly 14, I96 0 (74 S ta t. 526). Thi s re gi ster is desig ne d to serv e as a 

clea rin gh ou se of in fo rm at io n to id en tify for a S ta te th os e m ot or ve hicle dr iv er s 

wh ose lic enses ha ve be en revo ke d un de r th e law s of oth er Sta te s be ca us e of 

dr iv in g wh ile in to xi ca te d o r co nv ictio n of a tra ffi c vi ol atio n re su lti ng in loss of life.

It wa s recogn ize d a t th e outs et th a t on e pr ob le m to be face d wa s th a t m oto r 

ve hic le dr iv in g licenses , in cl ud in g re vo ca tion an d su sp en sion re qu irem en ts an d 

pr ac tic es , are ha nd le d in a vari ety of way s by th e Sta te s. S ta te law s diffe r qui te 

widely, in fact , w ith re sp ec t to th e mea ni ng and eff ect of th e te rm “r ev oked .” 

S ta te la ws also v ary in te rm in ol og y an d eff ect whe re in to xic at ed o r d rink in g drive rs 

are co nc erne d, as well as in oth er re sp ec ts hav in g a be ar in g up on th e adm in is tr ation of th e ac t.

U nd er th e pr es en t lang ua ge of th e 1960 ac t, m an y S ta te s will not be ab le to 

part ic ip ate in th is dri ver ’s re gi ster be ca us e of ce rt ai n lim itin g la ng ua ge fo un d in 

th e law s of th e Sta te s. For ex am ple, m an y Sta te s do not pr ov id e for “ re vo ca ­

ti on” of mot or ve hic le opera to rs ’ licenses und er t he tw o co nd iti on s se t fo rt h in th e 

1960 ac t, but do pr ov id e fo r su sp en sion of licenses for va ry in g pe riod s of tim e, in 

some cas es, for mo re th an a yea r de pe nd in g on th e se ve rity of th e offense. The 

am en dm en t pr op os ed by S. 1440 wo uld per m it ad ditio nal Sta te s to part ic ip ate in 

th is pr og ra m an d wou ld mo re effecti ve ly refle ct th e in te n t of Co ng ress in en ac ting 

th e original en ab lin g leg islatio n.

At th e pr es en t tim e, a to ta l of 41 Sta te s ha ve ag reed to part ic ip ate in th is 

drive r re gi ster pr og ra m , an d all pl an s are m ov in g alon g ve ry sa tisf ac to ri ly . If 

th is leg islatio n is not en ac te d, ho wev er, th e S ta te s th a t ca nnot part ic ip ate und er 

th e pr es en t lang ua ge of t he law be ca use of lim itat io ns in th ei r ow n S ta te law s will 

ha ve to dr op out an d will not be able to part ic ip ate , al th oug h th ey al re ad y ha ve 

in di ca te d th ei r wi llin gness to co op er ate w ith th is pr og ra m on th e ba sis of th e 

ch an ge prop os ed by S. 1440.

It is esse ntial, ther ef or e, fo r th e eff icient pl an nin g an d co or di na tion of th is 

pr og ra m th a t S. 1440 be co ns idered by th e Hou se of R ep re se nta tive s as soon as 

po ssibl e. D elay in its co ns id er at io n an d enactm ent will mea n de lay in im pl em en ta tion of th is im p o rt an t re gi ster serv ice . It is ur ge d, th er ef or e, th a t ev er y 

po ssible effort be ex te nd ed to w ar d th e sp ee dy co ns id er at io n an d enactm ent of 

th is bill.

You r co op er at io n in th is m att er is gr ea tly ap pre ci at ed .

Sin cerely yo ur s,

E dw ard G u d em a n,

Under Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. Roberts. Do we have any further witnesses? Gentlemen, 

this will conclude the open hearing, and without objection the committee will now go into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to 

proceed into executive session.)

o