bill, that the 65-year age limit negotiated by agreement would prevail, not the 60-year rule adopted by the administrator.

In that circumstance, the 60-year-old age rule adopted by the administrator would be beyond his authority. I think the court would have to hold that he had no authority, because this was a subject covered by a negotiated agreement under the Railway Labor Act, and therefore, having paramount control under this amendment No. 9. Mr. KUYKENDALL. I would like to see a compromise on this particular thing. I would be happy.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Broyhill, your time has expired.

Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chesser, I would like to express my appreciation to you for coming in and presenting your testimony and views, and the views of your organization, on this legislation.

The thought has occurred to me that we go into the reason for the increase in the number of accidents and the number of deaths, and the number of injuries, such as management touched on. In fact, Mr. Rogers pointed out this attachment B which was presented to us yesterday by the Government witness, Mr. Lang. I noticed here that in each category, negligence of employees, defect in or failure of equipment, defect in or improper maintenance of way and structure, and all other causes, including unknowns, there has been a constant increase in each of those categories from 1961 to 1966. There is an increase in every category in every year.

Yet on locomotive accidents and casualties, we have another chart, and there is an indication that, for the same years, 1961 through 1966, that there has been a decrease in the number of accidents, and a decrease in the number of persons injured insofar as locomotives are concerned. I don't know whether that is significant, or something that is really worth going into, or not; but I thought I would direct it to your attention.

In your opinion, as to the rapid increase in the number of accidents and the number of injuries and deaths, just what causes it? What has caused it, really?

Mr. CHESSER. Well, Mr. Kornegay, it is significant because, particularly with a locomotive that is one part of a train, and there is a specific act with some teeth in it, for inspection of locomotives, and this is what we are

Mr. KORNEGAY. Has that act been enforced?

Mr. CHESSER, Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. In other words, are the locomotives being inspected? Mr. CHESSER, Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Is that by the ICC inspector, the DOT?

Mr. CHESSER. Yes, sir. And I think it shows the difference between that and the appurtenances on the other rolling stock.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Is there any inspection

Mr. CHESSER. That is not required for certain inspections. And there is no penalty, there is no law that requires inspection as it does apply

to a locomotive.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Any inspection required of the freight car?

Mr. CHESSER. No, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Passenger cars?

Mr. CHESSER. No, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. The right-of-way or the tracks?

Mr. CHESSER. No, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Crossties?

Mr. CHESSER. No, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Grade separation, bridges, and trestles?
Mr. CHESSER. No, sir. No act includes.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, irrespective of the fact that there is no act, are those items periodically or systematically inspected by the railroads?

Mr. CHESSER. I would say this: If they are, it is a very poor inspection.

I think it is very significant, the item that you mentioned, the inspection of locomotives, versus all of these other items that you mentioned. Mr. KORNEGAY. That would certainly make out a case for inspection; wouldn't it?

Mr. CHESSER, Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Of other items.

Now, to what extent, in your opinion, does the scheduling of trains relate to a rate of accidents?

Mr. CHESSER. Well, the scheduling of trains per se, I would say, would be very little. We have had some instances where, through block signal operation, two trains were allowed in the same block, between signals.

I can recall one instance some time ago where this happened. This, of course, is very dangerous; and I remember at that time that the Interstate Commerce Commission said that even in their block signal, their signal control, the authority that they had did not reach far enough to correct this situation.

Mr. KORNEGAY. What about speed?

Mr. CHESSER. Well, speed, of course, has a great deal to do with accidents; and by the same token, we are not saying that freight should be speeded up, that trains should not be speeded up. But a lot of this equipment is old, it is not properly inspected, and I think it stands to reason that a car might operate maybe more efficiently, or the case of danger might not be so great if it was at a slow speed as if it was operating at a speed

Mr. KORNEGAY. I see he is waving that gavel, and there is one other thing I would like to ask you but-if you will let me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FRIEDEL. Be very brief.

Mr. KORNEGAY. All right; in that sense, has moving from a double track operation to a single track operation contributed to increase in accidents, as far as you know?

Mr. CHESSER. Has a move from a double track

Mr. KORNEGAY. From a double track to a single track.

Mr. CHESSER. No; I think that the dangers, of course, are greater on a single track operation, because all of the trains are in a single track operation, trains are going both directions. On a double track operation, of course, they are only going in one direction.

Mr. KORNEGAY. That is right; but I just didn't know, and wanted to find out. I have observed that there has been a tendency to eliminate double track, and go to the single track, and employ, you have got some initials for it, that I can't recall at the moment, but——

Mr. CHESSER. CTC, centralized traffic control.

Mr. KORNEGAY. CTC; is that an advancement in railroads?
Mr. CHESSER. Yes; it is.

Mr. KORNEGAY. All right.

Mr. FRIEDEL. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chesser, I think you are to be congratulated on a very fine

statement.

Mr. CHESSER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HARVEY. And a very thorough statement, and you have demonstrated a thorough knowledge of some of the problems facing the railroad industry in dealing with safety.

Let me just say I think you have demonstrated that to a much greater extent than the witness that we had yesterday and the Department of Transportation itself has thus far, which accounts for my next question.

Were you or the Brotherhood consulted in the drafting of this act? Did you have a hand in it at all? I notice you have so many amendments, is what prompts the question.

Mr. CHESSER. As to having a hand in it, Mr. Harvey, I wouldn't say that we did. We did consult with the Department of Transportation, and we offered a great many suggestions of what we thought should be, how the bill should be drafted.

And as a result, we offered these suggestions to you, because some of theme were not placed in the bill.

Mr. HARVEY. Well, I just get the impression here that there is such a difference, let's say, between management and the Department of Transportation, and between the Brotherhood and the Department of Transportation, that perhaps neither one were consulted, and I just wondered if they were?

Mr. CHESSER. Well, in all fairness

Mr. HARVEY. It seems to me that this is the way to draft legislation like this to try and get the two of you together, and try and at least work out something.

Mr. CHESSER. In all fairness, I must say we were consulted. We met with them, and conferred on this legislation. However, I don't believe we say a final draft. We did discuss the bill with them, and at that time, offered our suggestions as to what we thought were good suggestions to correct the meaning of the bill.

Mr. BROWN. Would you yield?

Mr. HARVEY. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BROWN. I am anxious to know whether the Department of Transportation accepted any of your suggestions?

Mr. CHESSER. I don't believe so. I will stand corrected. I don't—I will defer to our counsel.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. We never saw the proposed legislation except in the form you have it before you, but there were discussions of what it would be like, and we had meetings, and we made suggestions, and one subject matter, the other was a service law, they apparently gave consideration to our thoughts.

Others, we do not know what consideration they gave, although I am reminded some 30 years ago, I worked for the Republican mem

ber of one of our administration agencies, who, when protest was made by a particular company as to how matters were being handled in hearings, and he received advice from his counsel as to how he ought to proceed, he said, "We will give them due process, and then tell them where to go."

Now, we don't know what consideration has been given the other items we submitted; actually, our full submission in writing was made after, I understand, the Bureau of the Budget cleared the proposed bill, but there were discussions with DOT, both before and after.

Mr. BROWN. Is it fair to say that you were told how the legislation would be administered, but not how it would be drawn?

Mr. CHESSER. Partly that they would listen to our thoughts, but we did not know to what extent they would consider them, or what the problems were on the management side, so I don't know how they would evaluate these, and while I am speaking, if I may say, while there are 40-some amendments, the greatest number of them are purely draftsmanship, and many of them are used by renumbering sections, as we tried to do it in proper legislative form.

Mr. BROWN. Did you meet with Secretary of Transportation Boyd, or did you meet with personnel down the line?

Mr. CHESSER. No, we met with Mr. Lang and his staff and I don't want to leave the impression here to indict Mr. Lang, because he was very cooperative, and I have to say I know he is interested in a good safety bill.

Mr. BROWN. I think Mr. Lang and Mr. Boyd are in a position to speak for themselves on this subject.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Harvey, your time has expired.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Van Deerlin.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Everything is relative, Mr. Chesser, but I was astounded by the figures on casualties in the coupling and uncoupling of cars that were contained in your testimony-eight killed and more than a thousand injured in a single year.

You point out that legislation has been on the books since 1893, which is designed to prevent injuries and deaths.

What actually happens in the coupling and uncoupling of a car? I had assumed this was fairly automatic.

Mr. CHESSER. No; it isn't automatic, Mr. Van Deerlin. It is automatic only to the extent that it is necessary to operate a cut lever that is attached to the apparatus that connects the cars, we call a pin lifter attachment. Now some of these become inoperative.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. And you have to put the pin in by hand, after the cars are coupled?

Mr. CHESSER. No, sir. The pin, as the coupling is made, the pin is supposed to automatically drop. It doesn't always do that, but it is supposed to.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Then it is in the uncoupling, I presume, rather than the coupling, that these casualties occur?

Mr. CHESSER. Well, it is some in the coupling. No, I would say more in the coupling.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. What does a man have to do with the coupling? Mr. CHESSER. In the coupling? He has to open the connection. In other words, it is where the cars are coupled, they fit something like

this (indicating). The knuckles as we call them. Sometimes, they are hard to operate. Sometimes, the lever that you lift to open that coupler doesn't work. Sometimes it is hard to work. Sometimes it is necessary for a man to reach inside of the knuckle itself with his hand to trip that lever.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. He is always standing in between the cars, though, before this coupling?

Mr. CHESSER. In this instance, he would be in between the cars. If the pin lifter and the lever is operating correctly, as it should, he doesn't have to get between the cars. The lever extends out, almost even with the side of the car.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Now after the cars have been coupled, does he have to move in to connect hoses, and steam, and braking equipment? Mr. CHESSER. Yes, sir; not only the man that operates them, but also the carman. He may be the individual who couples the air hoses.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I would assume that the man who is killed is run over by a car.

Mr. CHESSER. Sometimes, under the wheels of the car, or he is Mr. VAN DEERLIN. He surely-do you have instances in which he gets caught in between the couplers?

Mr. CHESSER. This has been; yes, sir. Many lose their hands in this operation.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. The injuries would be mainly to the hands, I suppose, lost fingers, and so forth?

Mr. CHESSER. Yes; mostly.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Well, I just can't understand why-is it the equipment that is faulty? Should it be better maintained?

Mr. CHESSER. It is faulty in operation, and should be better maintained, and some of the newest equipment, with the long draw bars, that extend out, this equipment, supposedly, when it works correctly, on impact, this so-called extended draw bar, which has the couplers on the end, will not shoot out so to speak, by a spring action, but many times, on this new equipment, it does.

We have had a lot of people injured, some killed, by this new equipment. Particularly if it is on a curve. We argued before the Interstate Commerce Commission on this case. We knew how dangerous it was. We tried to tell the railroads how dangerous it was. We spent $100,000, trying to make this equipment more safe before the Interstate Commerce Commission. It went into operation, and they have got a monster on their hands here. It is increasing every day.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. You mean that new equipment is not properly engineered?

Mr. CHESSER. It is not properly engineered, it is not properly designed, in this specific instance, of these long draw bar cars.

Mr. ROGERS Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Does the ICC have jurisdiction over this now?

Mr. CHESSER. No, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. It does not.

Mr. CHESSER. No, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. DOT does?

Mr. CHESSER. No, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. Under current law?