Mr. KUYKENDALL. In other words, so we are talking about all accidents between about $750 and right at $900, would have been taken out of these figures. Is that correct? Mr.LANG. That is correct. Mr. FRIEDEL. The gentleman's time has expired, and I hate to say that the first member that appeared before the committee is the last one to be heard, Mr. Skubitz. Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Boyd, being low on the totem pole, there are very few questions left for me to ask. I was quite interested, however, in Mr. Springer's statement that no one wants this bill the railroads or the brotherhoods. Only the Department wants it. Yesterday, or the day before, Mr. Crotty testified in support of the bill. Shorty thereafter, I spoke to him personally about it. I reread his testimony. He makes this statement: Although he supports the bill, that before the brotherhoods could support such legislation, there must be revisions. One fear expressed by Mr. Crotty in his testimony was the possibility that legislation may end the functions or the negotiations under the Railroad Labor Act. My questions to you is: would you have the authority to override agreements that were reached at the bargaining table? Secretary BOYD. Yes. There is no question about that, Mr. Skubitz. In this sense-if management and labor were to agree on contracts which would provide for the employment of unqualified personnel, then the provisions of this act would be available to override that. Now, let me go on, sir, and tell you that the aviation, the airlines of this country, negotiate under the Railway Labor Act, and so far as I know, there has never been a problem on the question of overriding the agreements. Mr. SKUBITZ. Well, don't you think that the brotherhoods and the management would certainly have to reach some sort of an agreement with regard to employee qualifications before either would consent to an agreement? Secretary BoYD. Well, certainly I think this is in the hypothetical area. Mr. SKUBITZ. All right! Now let's take the next point. Secretary BOYD. All right, sir. Mr. SKUBITZ. Is there anything in this legislation, expressed or implied, that would result in a prohibition of a strike? Secretary BOYD. If there is, we don't know it. Mr. SKUBITZ. If there were something written into this bill to make sure that there wasn't, would you object to it? Secretary BOYD. I would have to see the language. Mr. SKUBITZ. The railroad workers indicate that they want to be exempt from this act. Would you favor this, or not? Secretary BOYD. Exempt from what? Mr. SKUBITZ. From this legislation. Secretary BoYD. The employees want to be exempt? Mr. SKUBITZ. Yes; they don't feel that the penalty provisions should apply to them. Secretary BOYD. I think this is an area where we feel the legislation provides the reasonable and proper approach. Certainly it ought to be subject to considerable discussion. Mr. SKUBITZ. Unless provision is made in this legislation whereby DOT could not override an agreement reached at the bargaining table, the brotherhoods indicate they are opposed to this legislation. I ask you this: Do you feel that this is a "must" in this bill? Mr. SKUBITZ. Thank you. Mr. FRIEDEL. I thank you, Mr. Skubitz. Mr. Menk, I understand you are leaving now, and we are not going to meet until Monday again, but I want to ask all members, if they wish to ask any questions, to submit them in writing to Mr. Menk, and you can answer that way. Is that all right, Mr. Menk? Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Menk, is it not possible for you to come back at any time within the reasonable future? We are going to reconvene on Monday, June 3d. Is that correct? Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes, but we have Mr. Boyd back. Mr. SPRINGER. We have Mr. Boyd back, and I would guess we would probably have at least 1 more day besides then. I haven't had a chance to ask you any questions. Part of that was my fault, but I wasn't feeling well last week, and I couldn't be here on the day that you testified. Mr. MENK. This may seem sort of strange, but the next open date I have is June 12th. I would be delighted to come back. Mr. SPRINGER. That would be a little far down the lane, I am afraid. Mr. FRIEDEL. Do you want to ask questions now? Mr. SPRINGER. No, I don't believe so. There were several I wanted to ask. Mr. MENK. Let me look, here. Mr. SPRINGER. I say for your information that Mr. Boyd probably would take most of the morning, I would say, on Monday, the second time around, because we can ask questions at length, then. Mr. MENK. I think probably I could do some canceling around and get up here on June 6th. Would that be too late? That is next Mr. SPRINGER. I would have to ask the chairman about that. Mr. MENK. That is next Thursday. Mr. SPRINGER. We can do this. If we don't finish, could we be in touch. with you, then, for Thursday, if we don't finish? Mr. MENK. Yes, sir. I am very anxious, as a matter of fact, to clear up some things that have been said in testimony, and give the members an opportunity to ask some questions. I feel very strongly, personally, and I think the industry feels very strongly about this bill." Mr. SPRINGER. Well, this is one we certainly want to exhaust all the testimony that we can upon. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Menk, pardon me. If there are certain things that you would like to clear up, you can submit them for the record. Mr. MENK. Well, fine, we can do this. Let me say this: June 6th Mr. FRIEDEL. The chairman wants to try to finish it up by Monday or Tuesday of next week. Now, whether that can be done or not, I don't know. That is why I don't want to make— Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I think the point has to be made that it benefits the committee and public information about this bill-which we seem to have had some difficulty with on previous legislation-if these questions can be asked of a witness by all members of the committee. We can then have some viable discussion on the relative merits of the provisions of this legislation. And I, for one, would-although I don't know what a railroad president costs, in terms of sitting here 2 hours waiting for questionsMr. MENK. We are pretty cheap. [Laughter.] Mr. BROWN. But I think he might cost a little more than- Mr. BROWN. Well, I won't finish the sentence. But, in any event, I do think that we as a committee ought to hear all of the witnesses whom we would like to have testify, and who would like to testify before the committee and try to schedule them so we can get to them. As I recall, Mr. Menk was invited to come back today. Mr. MENK. Mr. Chairman, thinking this over, would it be satisfactory, and could it be specific, if I could do some canceling around here and get here next Tuesday? Would that satisfy the committee? Mr. FRIEDEL. Next Tuesday? I don't know. Is anything scheduled for next Tuesday? The CLERK. No. Mr. FRIEDEL. I think Tuesday would be fine. Mr. MENK. Well, I will fly in here early Tuesday morning, then. Mr. FRIEDEL. Tuesday you will be here. And, Mr. Boyd, I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. You are always informative and very cooperative, and I want to compliment you on the way you handled questions today. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I say to you, and to the distinguished Secretary, for whom I have the highest regard, that our only purpose is to get all the information. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. I am sure he understands that. I have the highest regard, and I hope he knows that we have this for him, and we want to be sure we don't make any mistakes. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Monday morning? Mr. FRIEDEL. Monday at 10 o'clock. Secretary BOYD. Thank you, sir. (Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, June 3, 1968.) FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RAILROAD SAFETY MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Samuel N. Friedel presiding (Hon. Harley O. Staggers, chairman). Mr. FRIEDEL. The meeting will now come to order. This is a continuation of hearings on H.R. 16980, introduced by Chairman Staggers, and related bills, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish safety standards, rules, and regulations for railroad equipment, trackage, facilities, and operations, and for other purposes. Mr. Boyd, I think you were asked to return. There were quite a few questions that the members wanted to ask. Before we get into that, I would like to ask you a couple of questions about the high-speed groud transportation. I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal, and it says: FOUR MAJOR PROBLEMS Its report, disclosed Friday, found that there are four major technical problems remaining: Maintainability of electronic components in the rail cars. Dangerously high heat when applying the brakes under certain conditions, which causes the wheels to crack. Electrical instability, at high speeds, between the overhead wire and trolley, which causes some passenger discomfort. Rough riding. Would you care to comment on that? FURTHER STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN S. BOYD, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN L. SWEENEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS; J. THOMAS TIDD, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR LEGISLATION; AND A. SCHEFFER LANG, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. The report you read in the Wall Street Journal is based on the efforts of a task force I set up in April, I believe, in conjunction with the various manufacturers and the operator, the Pennsylvania Central, in an effort to ascertain exactly what our problems were and what sort of a time schedule we could hope to develop to resolve these problems. The report was released, and I received it last Thursday or Friday. I expect to be in contact with the manufacturers and the Pennsylvania Central in the very near future to reach some judgments as to where we go from here and how we go about it. That report in the Journal is accurate, by the way. Mr. FRIEDEL. I think it was reported that it might be 7 months behind schedule or 7 months from now. Which is correct? Secretary BOYD. Well, 7 months from now. Mr. FRIEDEL. Seven months from now? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Springer, do you want to ask any questions on that phase? Mr. SPRINGER. No. Mr. FRIEDEL. Now, Mr. Secretary, getting back to the railroad safety bill. Secretary BOYD. Mr. Chairman, before we get back to that, if I may I would like to provide some information for the record in connection with the natural gas pipeline bill, a matter of some interest which was raised last week when I testified. With your permission, I would like to ask Assistant Secretary John Sweeney to join me at the stand to make a statement. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Sweeney. Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I think during the course of the hearings last week there was a good deal of discussion of section 5 of the Gas Pipeline Safety Act which deals with Federal-State relations, how the Federal and State Government would split the responsibility for the regulation of either interstate or intrastate pipelines. I think the impression was left that the Department of Transportation was reneging on a commitment it had made in support of an amendment. It was stated that the Department itself had provided the amendment and that we now were in the position of opposing it. What I want to do is to relate the chronology that brought about the introduction of that amendment in the form in which it was finally adopted. During the course of the time that the subcommittee was considering the gas pipeline safety bill, we became aware that the State utility commissioners had drafted an amendment that would substantially change section 5 as it passed the Senate. I called Congressman Rooney and asked if that was the case, if there was an amendment that was about to be introduced. We were told that that was the case. The Congressman said that he thought, based on his reading of what was going on inside the subcommittee, that the amendment would indeed pass. We asked him if he might get a look at the amendment to see exactly what it said and how it would affect the administration of the act. He provided us with the amendment and told us that he thought it was going to pass and that, if we had any thoughts and judgments about it, if we thought it could be redrafted in a way that would make it easier to live with, we ought to move very quickly. We, in turn, asked the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation to review the amendment. We did revise it and we did provide it back to Congressman Rooney with the statement that we still wanted the Senate language but that, if the Congress was going to |