Mr. BROWN. You said earlier that if a train crew agreement between labor and management was beyond that which the Department of Transportation deemed necessary for safety you would not be involved in the contract between labor and management in that regard.

But it occurs to me, if you said that a crew in the interest of safety only required a number of personnel, however labor would like to have a few more personnel on that train, management is going to hold out for the minimum number which the Department of Transportation indicates is a safe number by which that train should be operated. Secretary BOYD. I would fully expect them to do that.

Mr. BROWN. It occurs to me then that, whether or not you are directly involved in the negotiations, it would be a rather definite involvement in the power of persuasion of the Department in setting the safety standards.

Secretary BoYD. There is no question about it, Mr. Brown, none at all, and I would certainly expect management to rely on that. How successful they would be is something else because we have the identical situation in the airline industry and the crews are larger in many cases than the FAA regulations require.

We have the same identical situation in the merchant marine and, God knows, we have got more seamen on these ships than the Coast Guard ever thought was necessary.

Mr. BROWN. In view of the fact that many of our labor difficulties in the railroad industry seem to wind up at some Federal level for negotiation, arbitration or in fact settlement by law, it seems to me. that the Department of Transportation is taking a big step in the Railway Labor Union organization.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I agree with Mr. Brown in his last statement, Mr. Boyd. It seems to me that wages and hours and working conditions have always been a matter for collective bargaining. It looks to me like you fellows are getting yourselves in a spot when you attempt to take over matters which should be negotiated through collective bargaining.

Secretary BOYD. I would just like to refer both of you gentlemen to the fact that the airlines in the country are operating under the identical legislation.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Let's take hours of employment for example.

Suppose that you should determine that no man, from a safety standpoint, should work over 7 hours.

Secretary BOYD. The hours of service is specifically excluded from this legislation.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Where is it excluded?

Secretary BoYD. Well, I shouldn't say that. It is not included and there is a law passed by the Congress.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I can't think of anything that affects safety any more than the number of hours that a man works. A man driving a truck for 14 hours is liable to go to sleep. An engineer is liable to do the same thing on a train.

Secretary BoYD. Let me say this: if the committee in its wisdom wants to put the hours-of-service law in this bill that is its business, but it is not in the bill now.

Mr. SKUBITZ. You wouldn't accuse us of gutting the bill if we did something like that; is this correct?

Secretary BOYD. No, sir. We don't do that.

Mr. SKUBITZ. There is one other point that sort of intrigued me. Mr. Boyd. In Mr. Lang's statement relating to inspection, he said this: "Perhaps most important of all in the field of inspection would be the design of passenger cars."

Is this correct, Mr. Lang?

Mr. LANG. Yes.

Mr. SKUBITZ. This confuses me because during the past few years we have seen the passenger train going completely out of business. In the year 1967 hundreds of actions were brought under 13 (a). Doesn't the discontinuance of that passenger service throughout the country disturb you?

Secretary BoYD. Well, that is getting off on another subject.

Mr. SKUBITZ. It sure is, but you are talking about inspection of passenger cars. Mr. Lang says that priority should be given to the design of passenger cars. this way.

Secretary BoYD. Let me answer you

We are now working on a train operation, two train operations between Washington and New York and New York and Boston which we hope will

Mr. SKUBITZ. That doesn't interest me at all. There is one from Kansas City down to New Orleans that does. In every one of the passenger service discontinuances, the railroads have argued it was necessary because of the loss of mail contracts. Were you interested enough to discuss this matter with Mr. O'Brien?

Secretary BOYD. Mr. O'Brien and I had a number of conversations on this.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Well he must have won out. I think in the next 10 or 15 years we are going to be forced to build a lot of rail beds, subsidize train and car production, because the Department of Transportation has not had enough vision to intercede in some of these discontinuance requests.

Secretary BOYD. Now, Mr. Skubitz, I just have to refer you to the Department of Transportation legislation. We are a creature of statute and that statute does not give us any authority, any responsibility, or any powers in connection with railroad passenger train discontinuances. I do not want to accept the blame for somethingMr. SKUBITZ. All right then, Mr. Boyd.

Would you mind recommending legislation that we could consider? Secretary BOYD. The Congress has historically authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission to act in this area and we have no desire to take away any of the power the Interstate Commerce Commission may have.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Well, I have lost a lot of respect and confidence in the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. BROWN. Would you yield?

Mr. SKUBITZ. I yield.

Mr. BROWN. I want to ask one more question. Section 3(a) (3) says: "The Secretary is empowered and it shall be his duty to promote safety in rail commerce by prescribing, and revising from time to time-(3) rules, regulations, or minimum standards, governing qualifications of employees, and practices, methods, and procedures of rail carriers as the Secretary may find necessary to provide adequately for safety in rail commerce."

It is your contention, Mr. Secretary, that that does not apply to hours of service?

Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. That is my contention. The Hours of Service law is a law enacted by the Congress, signed by the President. It is not being repealed by this legislation.

Mr. BROWN. The only comment I could make, Mr. Secretary, is that the breadth seems to cover almost everything including the kind of soap used in the washroom.

Mr. FRIEDEL. What page are you reading from?

Mr. BROWN. Page 3, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary BOYD. It does not purport to supersede the Hours of Service Act.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN. I vield.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Boyd, I want to get clear in my mind because I think the language is a little confusing when you say it does not affect hours of service, on page 3 in paragraph two, line nine, you say, "the use" and then you go down "of rail facilities and equipment." Wouldn't that bring in hours of service "the use."

Secretary BOYD. Well now that might pertain to hours of service of equipment, yes, but I had understood that our whole discussion here on hours of service had to do with the hours the employees were either permitted or authorized to work. As I pointed out in discussions with Mr. Springer earlier, it is entirely possible-going back to your comments this morning on the effect of braking on the wheels of this high-speed train-that we might require an inspection of the train wheels after so many hours of operation. However, I didn't understand that that was the same thing we have been talking about in hours of service.

Mr. FRIEDEL. I am questioning whether we can read this into it because you say, "use, inspection, testing, maintenance, servicing, repair, and overhaul of rail facilities and equipment."

Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir; but that does not include employees.

Mr. BROWN. Well, Mr. Secretary, in response to questioning about whether or not the Department of Transportation and the agency which Mr. Lang heads under this legislation

Mr. FRIEDEL. Would you yield a second.

I want to announce, and very proudly so, that I have 100 pupils from my district from Windsor Mill School, which is a fine group, and they are accompanied by Mrs. Thomas.

I want to welcome you here. You are seeing Government in action. We have a very complex hearing here on railroad safety and I am glad you are here to witness our Committee at a hearing.

You may now proceed, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN (continuing). I have only one final comment, Mr. Secretary, and that is with reference to the testimony on this legislation and with reference to language in the legislation itself.

On the first day in the course of Mr. Lang's testimony before the committee, Mr. Kornegay asked if this legislation covers "the man who takes the tickets? Does it cover the president of the railroad too?"

Mr. Lang said, "You bet it would." Mr. Kornegay said: "And it would give the Secretary the authority to have the final say to pass on the qualification of the people that I have enumerated, such as ticket taking, ticket selling, and the president of the railroad?

Mr. Lang replied, "Only to the effect that these may have bearing on the problem of safety."

I think Mr. Kornegay points out very pertinently that he does not feel the bill says that specifically.

Mr. Lang has a difference of opinion on whether or not the language does specify that. But it seems to me that this is extremely broad language. I can't think of any area in the railroad operation that the Department of Transportation would not have authority to go into and issue regulations if it can relate these regulations in some way to safety. That applies not only to the operation of the trains by the railroad executive decision, but also the operation of the trains in detail by the employees of the railroad even down to the least of the employees. With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, speaking for myself as a member of the committee, I should like to tell you now, so that you don't react unfavorably when it occurs, that I look to this language as being much more severely proscribed than it is in the legislation presented to us. That is why I suggested to the chairman that it may take more than next Monday for us to report the legislation

out.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRIEDEL. The first bell rang and we are in session.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I think I have the floor, Mr. Chairman and I yield. Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, really I wanted to just say a word to these students. I wanted to tell them they have a very able and fine representative here, and he is doing an admirable job in chairing this committee. I am sure if you had known what I was going to say you would have recognized me.

May I ask one question, now that the gentleman has yielded to me. Mr. Chesser is a fine gentleman and he is chairman of the committee on safety in the Railway Labor Executive Association. He makes a statement on the bottom paragraph of page 6 of his statement and I quote him: "Thousands of train accidents and a large portion of the train service casualties which occur each year are directly attributable to the acts of personnel which are subject only to the operating rules of the carriers."

Is it your idea that you are going to get into establishing specific operating rules for all of the carriers?

Secretary BOYD. I am not sure that I understand what the definition of operating rules is. I will tell you what we specifically propose to do with this legislation. As we discover areas which seem to require regulation for the improvement of safety, we will issue proposed regulations covering all of the operations which are pertinent. Whether or not this has anything to do with operating rules I don't know.

Mr. WATSON. Here is one other thing that he states. On page 6 he questioned the effectiveness of the Locomotive Inspection Act as I read his testimony. He says it just hasn't worked at all.

95-388-68- -20

How do you propose to implement yours to make it more effective? Secretary BOYD. This raises the question that Mr. Brown just commented on. The legislation that we have had in the past has been fairly circumscribed and what we are seeking is broad general authority to issue regulations to the extent they seem to make sense and not be limited to something which the Congress tries to spell out.

Now, it may be that you gentlemen have the vision to see where the problem areas are now and where they are going to be in the future. I hope you do but the purpose of this legislation if enacted would be to give us the authority to go to where the problem is in fact, propose regulations, get comments on them, put them into effect, and, if they don't work, pull back and try again. I don't have any reason to think that all of the regulations which may come down the pike are going to be good ones. They will be based on the best knowledge available at that time.

Mr. WATSON. According to the knowledge that comes from the industry?

Secretary BOYD. Certainly.

Mr. WATSON. As far as saying we have the visionary outlook, I question whether the Department has the visionary outlook.

Secretary BoYD. I think that is very right.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Boyd I think you have made a very fine witness although I don't agree with everything but I think your testimony will be very helpful.

I would like to ask the children of the three grades of School 87 to walk by here and we will distribute one of these little books from my office.

I understand that there are three teachers here. I said Mrs. Thomas. We also have Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jerry Perkins.

I want to thank you for being here.

The meeting stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 4, 1968.)