ards governing qualifications of employees. Such standards would include minimum physical, mental, technical, and training requirements. As in the motor carrier field, these could relate to vision, hearing, freedom from organic diseases likely to interfere with the same performance of duties, or excessive use of alcoholic beverages. They could also relate to the ability to read and understand the English language, and a basic knowledge of rules and regulations relating to safety. It is not the intent that this give us the authority to issue a Department of Transportation license or certaificate to, for example, each and every locomotive engineer or tower operator. It would give us the authority to require that carriers, where necessary in the interest of safety, provide proof that their employees are properly qualified. While we don't seek licensing authority over individual employees we are asking for the authority to license persons to act in the Secretary's behalf. In carrying out his responsibilities under section 10(b), the Secretary is authorized to delegate to authorized persons certain functions relating to examinations and inspection and testing. Under this provision, the Secretary would, in a sense, certify or license railroad officials and employees to assist in the administration of regulations and reporting requirements. This authority could be used to license rules examiners, mechanical inspectors, track inspectors, and others, under whose supervision the procedures required by the regulations are to be accomplished. Mr. SPRINGER. What kind of authority presently do you have, under the safety transferred to you by ICC? Secretary BOYD. The authority we have today is specific statutory authority. Mr. SPRINGER. All right, now what is that authority? Secretary BOYD. The Safety Appliance Act which prescribes Federal standards and regulations concerning power brakes, couplers, secure grab irons, handholds, ladders, running boards, handbrakes, and height of drawbars. The Locomotive Inspection Act which requires locomotives to be in safe operating condition and authorizes the Bureau of Railroad Safety to inspect locomotives and order out of service any not in conformity. The Ash Pan Act which requires locomotives to be equipped with ash pans which can be removed without requiring employees to get under the locomotive. The Accident Reports Act which authorizes the investigation of collisions, derailments, and other accidents resulting in serious injury to person or property of the railroad. Carriers are required to file monthly reports of such accidents. The Signal Inspection Act which provides authority to order installation of signal devices, and to prescribe rules and standards and instructions for installation inspection, maintenance and repair of such systems. The railroads must have Federal Rail Administration approval to materially change the existing signal system. Mr. SPRINGER. All right, now, Mr. Secretary, at the present time, you don't set up any qualifications under the authority transferred to you from ICC for employees? Secretary BOYD. No, we do not. Mr. SPRINGER. Now you are asking for a broad delegation of authority in the field of who can be employed on railroads? Secretary BOYD. No, sir, that is not correct. Mr. SPRINGER. Well, by your standards you are doing that, aren't you? Secretary BOYD. We are saying that if this bill becomes law, we would then be in a position to require the employees of the railroads to have basic qualifications depending on the job and of course there is no intention that the qualifications would go to the total railroad activity. Mr. SPRINGER. Do you mean those that do have something to do with what you consider safety, you have qualifications? Secretary BOYD. With the rolling stock, yes, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. All right. Mr. Chairman, if you say your time is up? Mr. FRIEDEL. I will say your time is up. Mr. SPRINGER. All right, now I want to be sure, Mr. Chairman, that the Secretary is coming back. I have got a total here of 13 questions and I have asked one so I want to be sure the Secretary is going to be available for questioning because we have not even got started on these questions and I just want to make it clear, so there will be no misunderstanding that the Secretary does not get out of here without coming back to answer the questions which this committee propounds. Mr. Secretary, on the first round, this committee has a rule of only 5 minutes. Later on, we interrogate until we get through, the second time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Kornegay. Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, as I recall, it was last Tuesday when Mr. Lang testified for the Department on behalf of the bill we have under consideration. At that time several of the committee had comments to make with reference to the speech that you made in Denver, back on April 10. They were critical of some of the statements that you made during the course of that address. I was one of the members who participated in some of the comments that were made on that occasion, and I think it only fair to you to go back into it at this time, because I have always believed in not saying anything behind a man's back I would not say to his face. Certainly, there was some degree of disappointment expressed by certain members of the committee over some of the comments that you made about the committee in Denver and more particularly about a bill that was recently reported out of this committee, namely, the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. You described that act, and the action of the committee as being meaningless, an empty gesture, a dangerous deception and a failure to protect the public interest. Is that about the gist of your comments on that occasion? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir; I think that is an accurate paraphrase. Mr. KORNEGAY. Now, I assume one of the criticisms that you had of the bill relating to the Gas Pipeline Safety Act was 5 (a). Is that right? Secretary BOYD. I beg your pardon, sir? Mr. KORNEGAY. Was section 5(a) of the act part of the bill that was passed out? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. KORNEGAY. Which provides for certification by State agencies? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. KORNEGAY. Now I wanted to find out why you were so critical of that section, when it is my information that your Department actually drafted that section of the bill? Secretary BOYD. Well, it may be that Mr. KORNEGAY. Provided you sent it to a member of the subcommittee who introduced it, and it was adopted by the subcommittee, and then by the full committee. Secretary BOYD. It may well be that there is an information block going both ways, Mr. Kornegay. Your information may be correct. I do not have that information. Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, he called me and said I could do it. Mr. Rooney is not here today, but he advised the subcommittee and he has advised me that that section was actually drafted in your Department and furnished to him and it was his amendment. Secretary BOYD. I can only say that is very interesting. Mr. KORNEGAY. And you know nothing about the fact that it was actually provided by the Department of Transportation. Secretary BOYD. No, sir; I do not. Mr. KORNEGAY. Now under that before the rules committee, I assume you have read the bill? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir; I have read the bill. Mr. KORNEGAY. Since the subcommittee reported it out? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. KORNEGAY. You have the authority as Secretary of Transportation, to establish the standards, safety standards to be imposed upon the natural gas pipelines. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir; I read that in the report. Mr. KORNEGAY. And there are three ways, three systems of enforcement, one is through certification, one is through agreement, and one is direct supervision by the Department. Is that not correct? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. KORNEGAY. And under certification, if the State agency certifies, or even though they don't certify, you still have the right to reject that certificate of certification; don't you? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir; on the basis of a finding. This is one of the points I commented on in my talk in Denver. Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, if it is the finding that the State agencies are not satisfactorily enforcing compliance with the present State safety standards, then you can reject it? Secretary BOYD. That is right, sir. Mr. KORNEGAY. Are you interested in trying to get some help in providing safety standards, or providing enforcement of safety standards by State agencies? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. KORNEGAY. Some of the States are equipped to do that job; aren't they? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. KORNEGAY. And to assist the Department of Transportation in carrying out, then, its responsibilities under the law? Secretary BOYD. I believe the latest information I had is that there are probably two States who have the capability and the interest. Mr. FRIEDEL. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman, in about 15 seconds, to the Secretary, that we on the committee tried to do the very best job we could. We sat and listened to all the witnesses and all the testimony, everybody who wanted to testify, and we came up with the best answer we could, in connection with this problem; and I regret very much that you are disappointed with it and I regret very much that you did not come to us with your great concern about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary BOYD. May I respond, Mr. Chairman? Secretary BOYD. I would like to say, first and foremost, Mr. Kornegay, that I wrote a letter to the committee expressing my concern about these various points; so I did come to the committee. Secondly, I would like to state, sir, that the information I had— which may well have been incorrect, but at any rate, it is the same way that I have been obtaining information for the last year-was that the purport and the intent of the bill was considerably different than as it turned out to be in the interpretation of the bill in the legislative history, in the committee report. Had I received different information, information which in fact would have had to do with the way the committee report was written interpreting the law, I would not have made those statements, and I regret that I was misinformed. I am sorry that I put the committee in the position of feeling that they had been maltreated. Mr. BROTZMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. FRIEDEL. Briefly, to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. BROTZMAN. Well, we can probably save a lot of time. I happened to be at the meeting that day and I had welcomed you to Denver. I was very sincere in doing that and I was glad to have you in our city. But frankly, having sat on the subcommittee, and Mr. Kornegay has alluded to one provision, section 5 (a), that was presented by a very credible member of the subcommittee, that I understood you objected to in your speech but which I believe did come from you, or from your Department. It was presented to us that way, and so, of course, I was rather startled, disappointed, and chagrined; because we had, and I want to assure you we had, spent a lot of time to consider all of these matters very honestly, as to what was in the public interest. I felt that you were impugning the integrity of this committee. Mr. FRIEDEL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Chairman, I will yield the time allotted to me to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Brotzman. Mr. BROTZMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. So your speech startled me that particular day when I thought we were being criticized for something that you in a sense had initiated. I don't think I even talked to a member of this subcommittee when I got back, but when they saw your speech I found that they had ex actly the same feeling that I did. I think we have had a good working relationship over a period of time, and we certainly want to have you present your argument for things that you believe to be in the public interest, but we have the final determination and we have to be the final judge as to what is in the public interest. I was critical and I think I expressed that thought to your representatives here the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you exactly how I felt about it, too. Secretary BOYD. Well certainly Mr. Brotzman, if in fact my Department drafted that language, I am way off base. I do not know that to be a fact but I assure you I will find out and, if that is the case, I will write a pubic apology in the record to this committee. Mr. ADAMS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. BROTZMAN. Yes. Mr. ADAMS. I think that probably I should comment upon this also because I don't want to see the Secretary placed in the position of being caught in between two forces on the committee and I think it should be clear, and I think the gentleman from Colorado and Mr. Kornegay will agree that there was a sharp difference of opinion on the full committee, regarding section 5(a) and it was not represented ever to me as being from the Department of Transportation; in fact, it was quite the contrary. I know the gentlemen are aware and I will state it again publicly to all the men on the committee that I for one am violently opposed to section 5 and a number of others did, also, on the basis that it completely changed the purport of the bill and if the Secretary accepted the public statements that I made about the bill and I would repeat them again, as being a force on this committee that we were in disagreement. I think that this is fair comment for the Secretary to make. Now I for one do not impugn, and I am certain none of the rest of the members of the committee do, any member of this committee for his publicly stated positions on this legislation. I also might say again to the members of the committee that we anticipate that when this matter reaches the floor, there will be a sharp fight as to what we believe the public interest to be, and I certainly expect the gentleman from Colorado and Mr. Kornegay, and the others, to oppose the position that I take with a great deal of vigor, and very effectively but I don't think that the Secretary should be attacked. I don't understand that his position has been one of saying that this committee was all bad at all. I think he simply has taken a position that he believes the public interest is in one position, and it may happen to parallel mine and oppose that of other members. There may be other sections of the bill where his position will parallel that of other members of the committee. But the comments that a man who is going to be involved, eventually with trying to work on this bill and the comments that we make, I think, are just differences on what we believe is the public interest and that we will have this out eventually on the floor. I too thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Chairman, if I have any time left, I yield the balance to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown. Mr. FRIEDEL. You have 1 minute. 95-388-68- -16 |