« PrécédentContinuer »
Mr. KORNEGAY. Was section 5(a) of the act part of the bill that was passed out?
Secretary Boys. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Mr. Brown. I think the gentleman from Washington misses the point. The point is that the language of the legislation in controversy was drafted by the Secretary's Department, and all of us on the subcommittee are aware of that.
Now, it is one thing for the Secretary's Department to draft language with which he disagrees. I think that is an administrative problem for the Secretary. But it is another thing for the Secretary to criticize the committee for adopting language which his Department suggested.
Mr. Adams. I would just reply to the gentleman, this was never represented to me, in committee or otherwise.
Mr. Brown. It may not have been, but as a member of the subcommittee, I can assure the gentleman that that is exactly where the language came from.
Mr. Adams. Then the gentleman of the subcommittee who brought it up should have so stated to the rest of us.
Mr. KORNEGAY. As I recall, it was stated in the full committee.
I just want to say that I think the Secretary has shown considerable stature in the attitude that he has taken this morning.
It is possible to find a friend in disagreement, and to feel that the friend made a mistake. I consider the Secretary a friend, and I consider that he made a mistake, and I just want to say that I am very happy he delivered that speech in Denver, instead of San Diego. [Laughter.]
Secretary Boyd. Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide for the record, in either this hearing, or if not possible, in connection with the natural gas pipeline bill, what are the facts as to whether or not my Department drafted the language. I think this is a fairly crucial point, and I would like the opportunity to present the facts for the record, as I am able to ascertain them, when I go back to the Department.
Mr. FRIEDEL. Well, I want to tell you it would not be very timely to submit it for the record, because we are hearing another bill, but because it was brought in, that remark will be included.
Secretary Boyd. Thank you, sir. Mr. FRIEDEL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Nelsen. Mr. NELSEN. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Pickle. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Secretary, it is always good to see you here, even when there are matters of controversy.
If it wouldn't be out of order, I would like to ask you a question about the railway sa fety bill. [Laughter.]
Last week, in the hearings, I raised a question about the definition of the word "railroad," and it says it means any contrivance now known or hereinafter invented, used or designed for operating on or along a track, monorails, or guide rails.
My concern was that this gives, by definition, jurisdiction to a Secretary from now and forever on inventions that perhaps are not even known or heard of.
Now, do you care to comment whether you think it should be this broad, and should include inventions now, hereinafter, to be invented ?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir, quite clearly. At the time the Air Safety Act was adopted, in 1926, there was no concept of a supersonic transport, much less a hypersonic transport, which will have hardly any of the vestiges of the airplane except that it will start in the atmosphere, on the surface, and it will land in the atmosphere, on the surface.
Under the existing law, the Federal Aviation Administration will have the power to issue safety regulations pertaining to the construction, operation, and maintenance of a hypersonic transport.
Mr. PICKLE. Should there be, if this jurisdiction is kept in the bill, with reference to safety—that is the key word—if that is kept in the bill, should there also be language in that measure that says that this is subject to a finding of fact of some kind, by some board, or some group, so that we will say a railroad has some means of protecting itself, or preparing itself, in the event that this jurisdiction was extended?
Now, in the air, on noise abatement measures, this is in the language, there must be a finding of fact that it must be economically feasible, and other factors. Now, why wouldn't language like that give some protection, we will say, to a railroad?
Secretary Boyd. Congressman Pickle, if I understand, the Administrative Procedures Act provisions pertain to the establishment of these regulations, and those require that the basis for and purpose of the rule be stated, in effect findings of fact, and there is also a provision for judicial review.
I believe that Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Secretary, I am not an attorney. I don't know. I am advised that the Administrative Procedures Act does not pertain to these standards, and even with respect to judicial review, as I recall, only with respect to the interim standards.
Is that correct, or not?
Mr. PICKLE. All right. Then you are saying that the Administrative Procedures Act does pertain, and therefore must be a finding of fact before this can be put into effect?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. PICKLE. All right. Well, my concern, Mr. Secretary, is that surely we should address ourselves to the matter of safety. We must be for safety, and try to come up with a reasonable bill.
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. PICKLE. And I hope if we do, we won't find ourselves subject to attack again that we have been going against the public interest, because we do try to do the best.
What we ought to be doing is finding ways, in this particular bill, how we can improve railways, railway transportation, through demonstration projects and any other means, rather than to be pulling back on technicalities, about the way the measure is written.
This is our great need, rather than to be concerned over the language of the law.
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. PICKLE. I take the same view with respect to the natural gas pipeline bill. It may not be all everybody wants, but it was the opinion