I think you have complicated the matter and you are in a position of contradicting yourself virtually in response to every question.

Now, why could you not simply have said, "We do not have the facts; we have been unable to get the facts; we have not reached a conclusion," rather than make such a statement as that?

Mr. Lang, isn't that a fair question?

Mr. LANG. I am perfectly willing to accept your language as being fairer than mine, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. WATSON. Why didn't you tell the committee that rather than having this elicited through the form of questions of this committee? Mr. LANG. I am afraid it proves only that my command of the English language is something less than complete.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to join you, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman from Illinois in expressing my great disappointment, amazement, and chagrin over the speech of the Secretary made out in Denver and I am frank to say that in my opinion it is highly inaccurate, misleading, and certainly not in the interest of getting good legislation. I find the statement certainly inconsistent with the facts as I understood them to be from the experts who testified before the subcommittee in connection with the hearings on the Gas Pipeline Safety Act.

I have not had the opportunity to study very carefully this bill you are speaking on today, Mr. Lang. But, from the questions that have been asked from persons who looked at the bill, I would say your testimony is that if you compared the railroad safety bill that you are speaking of and the gas pipeline safety bill you will probably find that there are a whole lot of areas that coincide and are very similar. In fact, some of the language in the safety bill, the railroad bill, looked as if it were lifted completely and totally out of the Gas Act and also that in the end the Gas Act may be a much stronger bill if it had not the many pitfalls and loopholes as enumerated.

You say this bill does not touch or affect the railroad operations unless they are actually engaged in interstate commerce; is that true? Mr. LANG. In handling interstate commerce, this would also include intrastate railroads that interchange traffic with interstate railroads.

Mr. KORNEGAY. That would be in interstate commerce and under the definition of interstate commerce, but, as I understood your statement, in answer to the chairman's question, the provisions of this bill did not cover activities generally described as affecting interstate com

merce.

Mr. LANG. Yes, sir; it does.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Is that correct?

Mr. LANG. It does.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, that would be my reading of section 2, subsection 6, but I must have misunderstood you when you said that it didn't affect local operations.

Mr. LANG. I believe that the question related to subway systems. Mr. KORNEGAY. What about local transportation systems?

Mr. LANG. Well, these subway or local transportation systems are unconnected to the interstate rail network.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Would this cover people, say, working in the railroad shops?

Mr. LANG. Yes, sir; it would.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Would it cover the man that sells the tickets in the station?

Mr. LANG. Yes, sir; it would.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Does it cover the man who takes the tickets? Does it cover the president of the railroad, too?

Mr. LANG. You bet it would.

Mr. KORNEGAY. 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. Only to the effect that these have any bearing on the problem of safety.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, the bill does not say that.

Mr. LANG. I think the bill was intended to be very explicit in that regard. Section 3 right at the outset states that the intention of the bill is to promite safety and

Mr. KORNEGAY. Provides from time to time, subsection 3, "Rules, Regulations, or Minimum Standards, Governing Qualifications of Employees."

Mr. LANG. Only to the extent that they were in some way connected with safety.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Do you disagree that some officers' estimate or version of what ought to be a safety practice would under this bill give you the authority to disqualify that particular officer of the company?

Mr. LANG. I don't think, if I understand you correctly, it would; no. The practices which were followed in the operation of the railroad, to the extent that any of our regulations touched those practices, would have to conform to those regulations to any employer of the carrier

Mr. KORNEGAY. What about the man working out in the shop? Suppose his ideas on safety failed to conform with what the Secretary thought safe? Would he give the Secretary the authority then to come in and disqualify the mechanic or the man working in the railroad shop?

Mr. LANG. No, sir.

Perhaps I should explain a little further what we have in mind here in this regard to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. Mr. KORNEGAY. Maybe I don't understand it.

Mr. LANG. In answer to the chairman's question, I pointed out that there may be certain what you might call certain critical jobs-from a safety standpoint-being performed in connection with railroad operation or the maintenance of equipment used in those operations which required of those doing that work that they meet certain minimum standards so far as their qualifications; that is to say, they know their job or know certain aspects of their job, including perhaps very importantly any safety regulations that might have been promulgated by the Secretary. It would be to that extent only.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Suppose he is satisfied with the standards of the brotherhood and the management insofar as his job is concerned, but the Secretary disagreed and the Secretary overruled; would he have the authority to take some action to remove him from the job even though his qualifications came up to the standards required by the management?

Mr. LANG. Well, if those standards were less rigid than standards that might have been set forth in regulations that were created as a result of the administrative procedures process, then he would not be able to operate in that job.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. NELSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lang, I have been a witness before a congressional committee and I recall that at times it could be a bit uncomfortable. I am sure you would endorse my observation.

No. 1, is the dollar figure that is provided in this bill included in the 1969 budget? I guess it is $5 million for the first year. Do you know if it is in the budget?

Mr. LANG. No, sir; it is not in the current budget.

Mr. NELSEN. It is not in the budget.

With reference to State regulations, suppose a State has more severe regulations than your rulemaking would later provide. Will the Federal regulations supersede in the event, say, the State regulation is more stringent than the rules that you may set up?

Mr. LANG. As this legislation has been drafted, the Federal regulations would supersede State regulations except in those specific areas enumerated, regardless of whether they were more stringent or less stringent.

Mr. NELSEN. When the transit authority is finally established here in the District of Columbia, which would go into Maryland and Virginia, your authority would reach out into that area, too, would it not? Mr. LANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. NELSEN. Which would be interstate.

Mr. LANG. Yes; it would, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. NELSEN. Now, as I understand the bill, the safety regulatory provisions that are in existing law would be repealed and then you would encompass all of the provisions in your new rulemaking.

Would you have to go through a rulemaking process to reinstate the existing statutes under this process?

Mr. LANG. As the legislation which you have before you is drafted, all of those rules, regulations, and standards which are currently enforced under the existing statutes would be reissued as interim regulations.

The bill is drafted so that we would not be required to go through the rulemaking process in connection with that reissue on an interim basis. We would then have 2 years to go through this rulemaking process and to reissue these as permanent regulations, and to give all of the interested parties an opportunity to be heard in connection with that permanent reissue.

Mr. NELSEN. I note on page 18 that you say, "We are not proposing a punitive program of railroad safety regulations."

I compliment the statement.

I presume one of the areas that the industry fears would be that a Federal agency might exercise a good deal of muscle that could be almost punitive, financially speaking, to the industry. Of course, this would be an area that I think should be carefully reviewed so that in no case do you move beyond what are reasonable safety objectives.

I just make this observation but I think this paragraph certainly has the tone that I think our committee would endorse.

No more questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pickle.

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lang, I have not been able to read all your testimony yet so I have only one or two questions at this point.

I was concerned about the percentage of increase in accidents that show a 76 percent increase. Perhaps your testimony should contain it. Is this with respect to passenger train service or freight or all kinds, or do you make any distinction as between the types?

Mr. LANG. That is all kinds, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. PICKLE. But it would be a lessening, I presume, of passenger service_percentagewise with respect to freight; is it not?

Mr. LANG. Yes.

Mr. PICKLE. One question I want to ask you, not as a matter of principle but I am concerned about the question that Mr. Kornegay had asked you with respect to section 3 when you get down to the third paragraph of the rules, regulations, or minimum standards regarding qualifications of employees.

Now, last year we had a long, involved section on the matter of wage rates or mechanics based on your qualification. Is it your interpretation in this section that this would give you the authority to grade employees according to their qualifications?

Mr. LANG. No, sir; that is not the intention of this provision. This provision is intended to make possible the sort of certification from a safety standpoint of key employees that is the practice now under the Federal Aviation Act by the Federal Aviation Administration where they certify instructor pilots and supervising mechanics.

Mr. PICKLE. It does give you the power to say what qualifications are required for a given job; does it not?

Mr. LANG. It would give us that authority; that is correct.

Mr. PICKLE. But in your opinion it is not the intent of this legislation to give you authority to grade the employees according to qualifications?

Mr. LANG. Absolutely not; no, sir.

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lang, I call attention to section 6 (c) which provides for certain criminal penalties whenever any person engaged in the performance of inspection or investigating duties is intimidated or interfered with. Certain criminal penalties are prescribed in this section and it goes on to describe even stiffer penalties later in that particular section if these inspectors are assaulted with a deadly weapon or killed during the performance of their duties.

In section 13, the section which reveals certain legislative authority that you presently have, is this criminal section included in any of these acts or in any legislation which will be repealed?

Mr. LANG. No; none of the existing acts include this kind of provision.

Mr. BROYHILL. Could it be that you are anticipating armed resistance to inspection?

Mr. LANG. Well, Mr. Broyhill, the Interstate Commerce Commission has had more than one instance of their safety inspectors having been

forcibly denied access to equipment and in some cases having been assaulted.

I do not recall any recent instances of this happening, if, indeed, any has ever happened, in connection with our railroad safety inspectors, but this has happened with motor carrier safety inspectors.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has recommended more than once that these kinds of penalties be authorized to protect their safety inspection employees.

Mr. BROYHILL. Is your answer that we can expect a safety bill up here something similar to this bill applying to trucks?

Mr. LANG. If my memory serves me correctly, the Commission has recommended such legislation in the past. I don't know that they have any such legislation pending now.

Mr. BROYHILL. Then can you give the committee any other justification for including this section in the bill?

Mr. LANG. That is the basis for our having written it into this draft bill.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Satterfield.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief because the hour is late.

A few minutes ago in answer to a question from the chairman concerning the meaning of section 5 (b) of this bill, I believe it was indicated that you would submit a document in writing that would set forth its meaning.

I am wondering whether or not you will agree now at the same time to include in that writing a precise legal memorandum dealing with the opinion of the Department as to whether or not 5(b) as written will transfer liability to the Federal Government; if so, to what extent and to what extent it might preempt liability on the part of the railroad industry.

Mr. LANG. I would be glad to provide that for the record. (For information requested, see p. 25.)

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Thank you.

I would like to direct one question to a point if I understand you correctly, that you raised in answer to Mr. Pickle. I heard you mention something to the effect that this was similar to the powers the Department now has in certifying aircraft mechanics.

Is it your intention that at some time the Department might get to that point where it would certify railroad employees for specific jobs? Mr. LANG. I have no specific intentions at this point in time with. regard to using this kind of authority. It is, however, only reasonable to suppose that as we get more and more deeply into some of these safety problems that we have not heretofore been in that we may find that the carrier's own practices with regard to qualifying certain key employees whose work has a direct impact on safety may be following practices that are less than desirable.

I don't want to suggest that the carriers don't qualify their employees for the jobs that they are on; they do so, but the care with which these qualifications are determined and the frequency with which these employees are reexamined on these qualifications do vary considerably from one carrier to another.