The CHAIRMAN. When it hits home, you do. Somebody can say, "That is only four men," but if it hits your home or my home, it would be a different proposition.

Mr. MOLONEY. I think so, Mr. Chairman, but I don't think you can measure safety by isolated accidents. I think you have to look at an overall record.

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to do better. We are going to look at this thing to where we hope we can give somebody an idea of setting minimum standards for safety, as we have in many other fields. This is the only one that has transportation and men involved where there have been no safety standards.

Mr. MOLONEY. I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman, but I also make the statement that in my opinion there has been no record submitted to this committee that justifies or requires this kind of legislation. I think no case has been made for it. I am not simply arguing against it.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have to make a case when men are killed and that with the great numbers that have been killed and maimed and injured that somebody can't do something better?

Mr. MOLONEY. People are trying to do something better.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course they are, but they are doing it in isolated things and different ways, and if we have minimum standards that we say everybody must adhere to, don't you think it would be better? Mr. MENK. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on this?

The CHAIRMAN. I would say that I am to appear before the Rules Committee on another bill right now. I must go, but I will be back.

Mr. MENK. If I might, for the record, clear this radio thing up, the radio is a supplemental device. In addition to the radio, when you have track that is under maintenance and/or impassable, you have rules which cover it, and one of the rules is that a red signal be placed on each side of the affected work area. The train must stop before passing. A yellow flag must be placed two miles in advance of the red flag.

If the rules are complied with, there is no way that the train can. come in, radio or no radio, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Was this done on that day?

Mr. MENK. I don't know what case you are talking about.

The CHAIRMAN. Was this on your track?

Mr. MENK. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody here that can tell me that that was complied with that day?

Mr. MOLONEY. The flag was not placed out that day.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you sure? Is that a matter of record?

Mr. MOLONEY. I think the record shows the investigation.

The CHAIRMAN. What record?

Mr. MOLONEY. The accident that you are referring to, Mr. Chairman, was the subject of a formal investigation and report by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. And is this contained in the report?

Mr. MOLONEY. I think the statement in there is that when the foreman said that he could not reach the train by radio on that last-minute attempt to correct his erroneous information, that he then went down with the flag and tried to flag them.

The CHAIRMAN. And you allow these things, or whoever this railroad was, allows these things to be done on their railroad, and there is something the matter in the land. We are going to have to set some standards that are going to be adhered to. You said, all right, maybe this line had it, but they weren't enforcing it, were they? What was the matter with them?

Mr. MOLONEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand, frankly.

You have referred to enforcement. I have listened carefully to the testimony of the Secretary and the spokesmen for the Department of Transportation, and I have yet to have a clear understanding of how they intend to enforce their regulations.

I heard them say they would have 14 field inspectors. Now, if you think 14 field inspectors are going to flag every motor car operation in this United States

The CHAIRMAN. I know that is an idle gesture for you because you know that is impossible, but you know, too, that if they put some enforcement and some punitive measures here, you know that the railroads of this country are going to try to see that they are enforced, and they would see that those flags-I don't know whether they were out that day or not-but there would be no doubt in your mind or mine that, if you had some Federal standards to go by, those flags would have been out there that day.

Mr. MOLONEY. There must be some doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course there is. You have put a doubt in my mind.

Mr. MOLONEY. The Brotherhood has proposed an amendment to this bill that would say if the man did not put the flags out, if he did not abide by these regulations, he would not be subject to any penalties or sanctions whatsoever.

The CHAIRMAN. Who said this?

Mr. MOLONEY. Railroad labor has said that that is an amendment. that is necessary to this bill to make it acceptable to them.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to see that amendment.

Mr. MOLONEY. It is in the record, Mr. Chairman. It has been the subject of a great deal of testimony.

Mr. MENK. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but I would like to say this before I must leave.

I am hopeful that we will be through with these two gentlemen as soon as we can because I think it is a rehash of most of the questions that have been gone over in the past. I don't want to cut anybody off, but I think that we want to make the record as clear as we can anyway. So I will turn this over to Mr. Friedel. I recognize you, Mr. Skubitz, before I leave.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I have one question.

Mr. Menk, you were speaking of putting flags along the track. Whose responsibility is it to place the flags, the railroad or the employees?

Mr. MENK. Well, it is not a brotherhood matter. It is a matter of complying with the rules of the railroad, and it is the foreman's responsibility to see that the flags are placed in accordance with a predetermined plan as is illustrated by this chart that I have in my hand.

Mr. SKUBITZ. The foreman is responsible for the flags?

Mr. MENK. That is the track foreman's responsibility, and the thing I cannot understand, without being argumentative, is that if you put on 500 DOT inspectors, how are these inspectors going to prevent failures of this type?

We conduct 1,300 safety meetings a month on our railroad.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SKUBITZ. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The other day I heard you say that there wasn't any evidence of any trestle or bridge failures in the last 6 years.

Mr. MENK. I said in casualties as a result.

The CHAIRMAN. One involved some people in my district who were killed. It was a basketball team from Martinsburg. There was a trestle. The track on top of the trestle gave way and one of the cars tumbled into the river on the B. & O. Railroad going into Parkersburg. This happened a couple of years ago, the National Limited. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. MENK. My testimony, sir, was to railroad employee accidents. I don't know anything about that.

The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't matter who it is. This was an accident of some young people. I don't know if there were any members of the team, but some who were along with it that were drowned. Four people were killed.

Mr. MENK. I will accept that. All I am saying is that my testimony went to railway employees.

The CHAIRMAN. I would say anybody in America who gets killed. That is our job here, not only railroad employees or employers. It is anybody that loses his life.

Mr. MENK. I agree.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. FRIEDEL (presiding). I just want to ask one more question, and I will be through. I think I will address it to Mr. Moloney.

Mr. MOLONEY. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Is it a question addressed to me?

Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes.

Mr. MOLONEY. As I understood, I was coming back for questioning, and I wondered.

Mr. FRIEDEL. On page 3 of the bill there is some question about the hours of service and the rules and regulations, "minimum standards governing the use", and it goes on to "inspection, testing, maintenance servicing, repair, and overhaul of rail facilities and equipment."

There is some question in our minds whether this will interfere with the hours of service. Mr. Boyd said absolutely no. I would like to have your version of it.

Mr. MOLONEY. I will explain it in this way, Mr. Chairman.

In my opinion the testimony of the spokesmen for the Department of Transportation with respect to this bill and the hours of service law clearly showed that they do not understand their own bill, and this is not the only point where I think their testimony showed they did not understand their own bill. The paragraph that you have referred to does refer to the use.

Now, moving down, however, to section 3 (a) (3), you find there the power placed in the Secretary and the duty imposed upon him—it isn't

just the placing of a power. You can have the power. It says, "You go out and exercise it-to promote safety in rail commerce." And subparagraph (3) refers to the practices, methods, and procedures of rail carriers.

That would, I would say, enter into the arrangements, the working conditions and things of that nature. Now, the Hours of Service Act is not repealed by this bill as are some other railroad acts, but the Hours of Service Act prescribes only the maximum number of hours that an employee in a given classification, and so on, may work. You can't work him beyond 16 hours. But if the Secretary in his great wisdom were to decide that that man should not work but 7 hours and issue a regulation to that effect, there would be no direct conflict whatsoever between the Secretary's regulation and the provisions of the Hours of Service law.

So that, I do not agree with the spokesman for the Department of Transportation that this bill places in the hands of the Secretary of Transportation no power and authority with respect to the hours of service. I don't think he ought to have it, but I think the bill does place it in him regardless of what the DOT says.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRIEDEL. I just want to follow this through. As to Secretary Boyd's statement, it was that it does not cover the hours of service, but you feel that with the language of the bill as it is, he would have regulation of the hours of service?

Mr. MOLONEY. I have said, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion that statement is simply another statement by him that manifests the fact that the Department of Transportation does not understand the breadth and scope of its own bill, and I have said that in my opinion the mere fact that this bill does not repeal the Hours of Service law does not mean that the Secretary isn't given authority to function. within the maximum set by that law.

Mr. FRIEDEL. I want to get this clear and plain without going into all of that. Mr. Boyd said it was not his intention. Do you feel that this bill does change the hours of service?

Mr. MOLONEY. I think that this bill gives the Secretary the power to prescribe, in the interests of safety if he so finds, hours of service. less than the maximum provided or set by the Hours of Service law. I see nothing in the bill that will prevent him from doing it.

I agree, Mr. Chairman, that he said it was not their intention. In the beginning of my testimony I said we were not for this bill, and I said that railroad labor was not for it because it came in with 44 amendments, and they said that several of those amendments were musts, that they would not support the bill if those amendments were not put in, so that I said they were not for the bill, and we are not for the bill. I frankly do not think the DOT is for the bill because never in my life have I heard as many protestations and disavowals of intent and purpose to perform acts and to exercise authority that this bill would vest in the Secretary.

They said, "It is not our intention to get into this area," but the bill leaves the area wide open for them to get into it.

"We did not conceive that the bill would be so construed," but there is only one way to construe the bill.

"We don't think we would get into this. We are not sure about this area."

Frankly I said I think we could put the DOT along with labor and railroad management, that insofar as this particular bill is concerned, I don't think they are for it themselves.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, would you yield to a question on that point?

Mr. FRIEDEL. On that point just briefly.

Mr. BROWN. I just want to observe that it really doesn't make any difference what the current Secretary says his plans are with reference to legislation. If the legislation provides the power to the Secretary, the next Secretary of Transportation, who may or may not have testified on this bill, might have entirely different views and be ready to use the power authorized in this legislation. This is why, and I think it's important, I suggested to the Secretary yesterday that the language of the bill be cleared up so that at least this piece of legislation does what this Secretary of Transportation thinks it ought to do if that is the way we want to pass it.

Mr. MOLONEY. I think, Mr. Brown, that that would be a very difficult cleaning up task in the light of the testimony that we have heard here because I do not think that the spokesmen of the DOT have been able to tell this committee, and certainly have not been able to explain to me, what it is they do intend and do want.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Macdonald.

Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was very interested, Mr. Moloney, in your defense of the Hours of Service bill because I introduced a bill in the last session to try to amend that, to try to update it, and you talk about it as if it was sort of Holy Scripture. As we all know, it was passed in 1917 and it seems to me that the conditions on the railroads have changed to such an extent that perhaps a modification and a change in the hours of service would be helpful to everybody.

Mr. MOLONEY. If you will recall, Mr. Macdonald, we opposed that bill.

Mr. MACDONALD. Which bill?

Mr. MOLONEY. Time change in hours of service. We not only opposed it, but you will also recall that the majority of the operating crafts of railroad labor also opposed the bill.

Mr. MACDONALD. That is not my understanding.

Mr. MOLONEY. It is my understanding that the engineers opposed it. It is my understanding that the trainmen finally took a position in opposition to the bill. The firemen were probably the only ones in support of the bill.

But let me also call to your attention that, regardless of the changes that may have taken place in railroading, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was asked, not once, but several times, "Can you show us any correlation between the hours worked by an employee and the causes of accidents?" after much trial, and let's say tribulations maybe, because they had gone on record in support of the billMr. MACDONALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOLONEY. They were unable to come up with such and frankly stated that they could find no correlation or relationship between the hours that a man had worked and the cause of an accident. So there