In short, these are the recommendations which you make at this time with the qualifications which you have already given of trying to establish a true partnership between the Federal Government and State Government in railway safety?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bloom, if H.R. 16980 is enacted into law as it is now written, would that put you and your State commission out of business insofar as railroad safety is concerned?

Mr. BLOOM. It would put us out of business so far as railroad safety is concerned except in section 4 where they say:

A State may regulate safety in rail commerce, in a manner which does not conflict with any Federal regulation, in the following areas, and no others; (1) vertical and horizontal clearance requirements; (2) grade crossing protection (including grade separation) which relates to the location of new crossings, closing of existing crossings, the type of crossing protection required or permitted, and rules governing train blocking crossings; (3) the speed and audible signals of trains while operating within urban and other densely populated areas. Mr. KORNEGAY. Stop right there.

Mr. BLOOM. The rest of it does not amount to anything; that is, spur tracks don't mean anything so it is really those three things that would be left to us.

Of course, the one carrying a lot of cost of money to the Commonwealth and to the States is this grade crossing, and they leave us the burden of taking care of grade crossings which is a rather expensive thing for State.

So, we would continue to have that part which costs a lot of money. Mr. KORNEGAY. That area is always a headache so far as the State commission is concerned, or the railroad is concerned, as is the general public.

Mr. BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Now, (3), "the speed and audible signals of trains while operating within urban and other densely populated areas"; just for the sake of this problem, suppose that the Federal regulation called for a 15-mile-an-hour speed limit in certain areas but the local commission or the State commission thought it ought to be 10, that is, 5 miles less. What would be the situation the way the bill is written? Mr. BLOOM. The way the bill is written, our regulation which conflicts with the Department of Transportation, it would prevail.

Our regulation would mean nothing because they start out by saying the State may regulate safety in a manner which does not conflict with any Federal regulation. So, if they had placed a regulation on the speed of a train as it enters a station or at some location and we feel that that is not sufficient under our police power to protect the life and property of the people of our State and we say 10 miles is fast enough and we don't think it should be faster, our regulation would be invalid according to this act as I interpret it.

Mr. KORNEGAY. In other words, you would interpret that example as being one in conflict, that is, as being different from that prescribed by the Federal regulation.

Mr. BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Your term would be in conflict.

Mr. BLOOM. Yes, sir. That is the way I have interpreted it, and I have asked counsel if he so interprets it and he said "Yes."

Mr. KORNEGAY. I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harvey.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bloom, I gather that the gist of what you told Mr. Kornegay just a minute ago relative to section 4 is that if the Department of Transportation chooses by their regulation that they can' also exclude everything that is listed under section 4.

Mr. BLOOM. I would say they could.

Mr. HARVEY. That is my interpretation, also.

Mr. BLOOM. We could take jurisdiction in these areas provided we did what they said we could do. If we didn't want to do what they laid down in their regulations, then we could not pass anything that was in conflict with that.

Mr. HARVEY. That is my interpretation, also.

Now, Mr. Bloom when Mr. Lang, the FRA Administrator, was here, he made some statements on page 10 of his testimony that I just would like to read to you. He said:

Few State regulatory agencies have had the manpower or funds moreover to conduct major rail safety programs.

Then he went on to list the States which had been active, and I noted that he did not include the State of Pennsylvania that had been active in a rail safety program.

Mr. BLOOM. He didn't?

Mr. HARVEY. He did not include Pennsylvania.

Would you concur with that statement that few State regulatory agencies have had the manpower or funds to conduct major rail safety programs?

Mr. BLOOM. I don't know what other States have done but I think that our State has been one of the best. I think New York, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, California-I am talking about-I am familiar with those States; I think they have done pretty good jobs in connection with safety.

But to enumerate the 50 States, I could not enumerate what all they do.

Mr. HARVEY. Let me just ask you this question.

Mr. BLOOM. Excuse me.

I wanted to add Michigan as another State that has done a good job. Mr. HARVEY. He goes on to enumerate the States that have been active in the amount of personnel in the various States and he lists New York, 27 people; California, 26; New Jersey, 12; Ohio, 7; Tennessee, 6; Michigan 5.

Where would Pennsylvania rank in that group?

Mr. BLOOM. We have 16 engineers and that is not counting the stenographic help and all of the other people who contribute and give time to the railroad division of our commission.

But there are 16 engineers and safety inspectors that are called upon. I said in my written statement, compare that with 150 that DOT has all over the United States with 50 States to work with, and we have 16 engineers and safety inspectors in the State of Pennsylvania. alone.

Mr. HARVEY. It is fair to say, then, that certainly you disagree with this statement by Mr. Lang, is that not correct?

Mr. BLOOM. I disagree with it and particularly as to Pennsylvania, and I think if any of the men connected with the brotherhoods were asked as to the program that Pennsylvania has and the work that the Pennsylvania commission has done in the way of safety, that they would concur with me that Pennsylvania has been an outstanding State in this field.

Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Lang then went on to spell out the areas of local concern which would be retained relative to grade crossings, street control, and so forth.

Then he said under the legislation posed here, "The impact on State programs will be minimal."

Would you agree with that statement that he made?

Mr. BLOOM. No, sir; it certainly is not so.

Mr. HARVEY. The impact would be devastating, would it not?

Mr. BLOOM. The impact so far as Pennsylvania is concerned, would put us out of business except as to grade crossings. Then they could put us out of business there, too.

Mr. HARVEY. He went on to speak, Mr. Lang did, of the new Federal-State relationship which would authorize the Secretary, and I quote again:

To utilize the services of State agencies and to reimburse them for their role in the inspection and surveillance necessary to insure safe railroad operation.

Mr. BLOOM. That is the section that provides that they may enter into agreements with the State. It is rather humiliating for a commission that has any pride and dignity about itself to become an employee of a Federal agency and that is what we would lower ourselves to.

Here is a commission that is duly created and been in existence since 1914, the Public Utility Commission, for some 54 years.

Then we have to give away or they take away from us our jurisdiction and say that we will enter into an agreement to be an employee of a Federal agency to carry out their act and to work for the Federal agency and be reimbursed by a Federal agency.

I think most commissions would have the feeling that rather than do that let the Federal agency handle the whole thing.

Mr. HARVEY. I thank you very much, Mr. Bloom.

I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Watson.

Mr. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bloom, we appreciate your testimony. I think it has been very helpful. I was going to ask the same question as the gentleman from Michigan. Why would you suddenly gain the competence as a contractor under the Department of Transportation which allegedly you would not have now?

I wonder why when you are transferred from your regulatory basis that you would suddenly have all of this competence. I think that is another one of the weaknesses and fallacies of this whole bill.

I am concerned about the blanket indictment of State regulatory agencies by this legislation and that is what it is. You failed according to this legislation and according to the testimony of the executive department.

The brotherhood failed, they are not conscious or concerned about safety at all. The carrier has failed and now the Federal Government is going to step in as I recall, with some 30 employees and gradually develop to 69 employees, and they are going to do the job in such a superb manner.

I fail to see where any reasonable person would buy that bill completely.

Do you know, or perhaps Mr. Rodgers would know, how many employees you have over the Nation in the various States, regulatory agencies, directly involved in this particular field?

Mr. RODGERS. Hearings have been held so promptly that we have not had an opportunity to conduct a survey. If it will be of assistance to the committee we will be happy to undertake such a survey and make a report to the committee.

Mr. WATSON. I believe that information would be helpful since all of this is going to discredit all the brotherhoods and all the State agencies and everybody else.

Of course you might find this. If the Federal Government is going to be able to take care of this problem with 39 people and we can do away with all the State agencies. Since the States are pushed for money, might it not be helpful to eliminate all these State regulatory agencies? At least it might help financially.

We might kill more people but it would save money.

I don't want you to comment on that but I think it points up the facetiousness of this thing.

Now you have been in existence since 1889.

Mr. BLOOM. Yes, sir.

Mr. WATSON. I assume all regulatory agencies try to get the best talent in this particular field within their financial limitations.

Mr. BLOOM. We try to recruit the best talent that we can get.

Of course we have to compete with private industry, and State salaries sometimes don't give us a chance.

Mr. WATSON. I agree with you wholeheartedly. At the same time, too, I believe the carriers are interested in this, at least from an economic standpoint, and they would try to get the best expertise. Mr. BLOOM. That is right.

Mr. WATSON. I am sure the brotherhoods are interested in it. Where would all this expertise come from that the Federal Government is going to take up now?

Mr. BLOOM. We have men in our commission that have been with us for 30 and 40 years, that have become very, very proficient in their work, they are experts in their field.

We had a man who retired not very long ago that had 57 years of service with the Public Utility Commission. Now you can't replace people like that.

We have a number of them with many, many years of service.

Mr. WATSON. Yes, sir. But they can't do the job, you haven't done this job. Give us an idea where the Federal Government is going to get these experts to do the job since your men are unable to do it, the carriers have been unable to do it, the brotherhoods can't do it. Where will the Federal expertise come from?

Mr. BLOOM. I would rather Mr. Boyd would answer that question.

95-388-68- -25

Mr. WATSON. I am delighted to have you here, Mr. Bloom, to have somebody defend the States that have been trying to do something about it."

Yet as is so often true, we feel nowadays the only way to solve the problems is to eliminate the States and all other activities and let the magic Federal wand be waved over everything and our problems will be solved. I appreciate your testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you too, Mr. Bloom, you and your associates, for coming here with a thought-provoking presentation. I recognize Mr. Keith.

Mr. KEITH. I would like to receive any information that you have at the State level on Massachusetts-the adequacy of the job of the Massachusetts Authority comparable to what yours does.

Do you know anything about Massachusetts?

Mr. BLOOM. Not offhand. We are going to to try to get something together for all the States and submit it to your committee. We didn't have time because of the fact that the bill was just introduced a short time ago and we have not been able to compile it.

Mr. KEITHI. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to follow this up briefly. How soon can you get this data?

Mr. RODGERS. We will try to get the questionnaires out this week. Hopefully, we can get the information in possibly 2 weeks.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be helpful to the committee in consideration of the matter on the floor.

Thank you again.

At this time we will hear from Thomas Goodfellow, chairman of the board of directors, Association of American Railroads. I see that you have a fairly short statement, Mr. Goodfellow. You may read the

statement.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. GOODFELLOW, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM M. MOLONEY, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. GOODFELLOW. I shall not be long. I have asked Mr. Moloney, our general counsel, to sit with me. I have a few things I would like to say in connection with this bill.

My name is Thomas M. Goodfellow. I am president of the Association of American Railroads here in Washington. Before that I was president of the Long Island Railroad. And prior to that I had worked for the Pennsylvania Railroad since graduation from Cornell in 1929. My railroad experience has been in maintenance of equipment, maintenance of way, transportation, and operations.

My purpose in appearing here today is to assure you gentlemen that American railroad management is more deeply concerned than anyone else with all aspects of railroad safety.

By opposing this legislation, we are by no means opposing safety. But we seriously doubt that legislation is the magic wand that can produce safety.

If you examine the railroads' safety record carefully-and if you look at the complete picture rather than at a single statistical tableyou will find our safety record is one of steady and consistent progress.