that there have been what I would call minor Coast Guard citations through the years. I am not really familiar with any of the details, surely nothing I remember that I would consider a major matter. There could have been citations, yes, sir; convictions, I am not sure of any. Many of these things are handled in the lower administrative ranks of the company. Citations aren't necessarily reported throughout the company unless they are considered serious. If you have something specific, I might speak to it. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have an important Waterway Safety Act. Mr. BRINEGAR. I mean specific citations. The CHAIRMAN. And we are hoping the regulations under that act will be stiffened, and I hope a background of working for an oil company won't deter you from doing that job. In other words, you ought to lean over backward and make them tougher. Mr. BRINEGAR. Sir, I will make them tougher if need be. The CHAIRMAN. And now I want to ask about another matter in relation to oil tankers. The new law requires, of course, in construction, new standards for oil tankers. Now, there has been in operation, and I have had a chance to view it in the last 2 weeks at home, a control system for tankers coming into Puget Sound, and it could apply to the Chesapeake or any other place, San Francisco Bay; and it's working out fine. We are reducing the possibility of tankers colliding, like the one in San Francisco where there wasn't a bridge-to-bridge radio communication call-to an absolute minimum. Now, we need a little of the wherewithal to keep these things operating and put them in San Francisco Bay, in Chesapeake Bay, and these other places. And I hope that you will talk, use your persuasion with the budget, to take care of that. Will you? Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir; I consider these important programs. Mr. BRINEGAR. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Now, did you have any role in the effort to obtain a waiver under the act of December 27, 1950, to permit the vessel to operate in coastwise trade? Mr. BRINEGAR. I had a very minor role. The CHAIRMAN. Tell us what it was. Mr. BRINEGAR. In 1969, I believe the company's executive committee reached a decision to request a waiver for the Sansinena so that it could be put into Alaska-California crude service. It was a U.S.built ship that had been put in foreign service. The executive committee asked me because I was a social acquaintance of Congressman Mendel Rivers, if I would discuss that matter with him. I did, I believe, on one occasion. That was the extent of my role in trying to obtain the waiver. The CHAIRMAN. Well, there was a little more than that happened. I want to know what your role was in it. Mr. BRINEGAR. That was the end of it. The CHAIRMAN. In what way beyond that?-and this committee had a chance to take a look at it. Now, would that be any indication that you won't-well, that you won't support fully the laws restricting domestic water transportation to vessels built in the United States under American registry? Mr. BRINEGAR. NO. The CHAIRMAN. That act is in effect. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes. I would respect the law, sir. I do not consider this matter anything that I should be involved in. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, I have some further questions for tomorrow, but Senator Baker has something he wishes to raise. Senator BAKER. No; I will be here tomorrow. The CHAIRMAN. You will be here? All right. That's fine. Well, be prepared to answer a few questions of what you think about Amtrak. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What are your views on it, and all the problems that are occurring with it. And there will be some other questions that members want to ask. We will recess now until 9:30 tomorrow morning. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, before we recess, I want to ask just one thing, and I will reserve the rest of my questions for tomorrow. Mr. Secretary-Designate, in my experience in the Senate during the past 6 years, it seems to me that one of the great difficulties we have encountered is that both Democratic and Republican administrations have tended to present their policies to the Congress as faits accomplis with no prior consultation or briefing of congressional committee members. Are you willing to confer at least with the chairman and ranking members and other members of the committee having legislative jurisdiction in the field of transportation as you may have time to do so, on the evolution and development of your major programs as they go along, so that we don't have to try to come up to speed when you bring us a completed proposal? Would that be within the framework of your concept of your job and the relationship of the Department to the Congress? Mr. BRINEGAR. Senator, it certainly seems plausible to me, and, from my background in management outside of public sectors, I have tried to operate that way. I want to deal with outsiders, if they can help me, and I want their help. I don't like the idea of surprising people. Senator BAKER. Well, we are not outsiders, and you are not an outsider. Mr. BRINEGAR. That's right. Thank you. Senator BAKER. We are all in the same boat. So let me urge you now to take into account that we want to help in the evolution and development of programs to be administered by the DOT. And for my part, I want to offer my assistance in that respect-but don't sneak up on my blind side. Mr. BRINEGAR. I would not like to do that. Senator BAKER. I appreciate your coming by my office to pay a call, and I think you are going to make an outstanding Secretary. I intend to vote for you and work with you in the evaluation and development of your transportation program. The CHAIRMAN. All right. The committee will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., January 9, 1972, the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., January 10, 1972.) CLAUDE S. BRINEGAR, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1973 U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Warren G. Magnuson (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will resume hearings on the nominee for Secretary of the Department of Transportation. Now, yesterday we-Senator Moss, did we call on you yesterday? Senator Moss. No; I was not here, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. All right, then, you can proceed unless Senator Hart wants to go first. Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have two or three questions that I would like to ask. This really has to do with the record that Secretary Volpe made, and I thought he distinguished himself with his environmental concern, particularly as it relates to the removal of billboards in rural America. Without the Secretary's personal intervention, the highway beautification program, I think, would have died. He did more than introduce beautification legislation; he met with the leaders of the House. both Houses, and personally shepherded the legislation through Congress. He also promulgated workable guidelines so that we are now on the threshold of removing the unwanted and nonconforming signs. Any relaxation of the personal effort of the Secretary of Transportation would undermine the work that has been done to date. Secretary Volpe was opposed by large corporations at every step of his involvement with the program. So I would like to know, how do you plan to continue the successful completion of this highway beautification program? STATEMENT OF CLAUDE S. BRINEGAR Mr. BRINEGAR. Senator, I speak in general, since I am not familiar with the details of the act, or with what Secretary Volpe has done specifically. As I understand this program, I certainly endorse the direction in which he has moved. I must delve into the specifics of the program before I can speak to them. People familiar with my position in industry will confirm that I have not been one who has used billboards. In fact, our company has not used them as an advertising medium for a number of years for advertising purposes. There is a recognized need for some sort of directional signs in interstate highway movement; but our company has not used billboards. Senator Moss. Well, does this mean that you have a personal involvement and will assign high priority to the implementation of the act which was signed in 1965? It has been on the books 7 years. Mr. BRINEGAR. I expect to have personal involvement, and I will certainly see that it is followed through. Senator Moss. Secretary Volpe sought to have all the noncon forming signs removed by the bicentennial year. Does this seem like a reasonable target date for you? Mr. BRINEGAR. I would have to review the Department's program to pinpoint the obstacles. It certainly sounds like a good objective. However, I would have to review the state of the law. [Further information follows:] Q. Do you plan to continue Secretary Volpe's work in the successful completion of the Highway Beautification program, including obtaining the additional funds needed? A. Yes, both our legislative and budget program indicate our commitment to the Highway Beautification Program. The Department's proposed 1973 FederalAid Highway Act would eliminate the present 660-foot limit on the control of signs along the Interstate and primary highways. After the date of enactment of the proposal, the ten percent penalty could be imposed on States which do not remove signs beyond 660 feet which are outside of incorporated cities and villages and visible from the main traveled way. In addition, our bill would require that signs not in conformity with State law would have to be removed no later than five years after they become nonconforming, unless determined otherwise by the Secretary of Transportation. Also, the authority of the Secretary to provide standards for the erection along the Interstate System of signs providing specific information for the traveling public would be expanded to cover other Federal-aid highway systems. In terms of financing, the President's Budget for F.Y. 1974 programs $55 million for the Highway Beautification Program, of which $50 million is programmed for the control of outdoor advertising in order to continue the emphasis on sign removal. Our Federal-Aid Highway proposal provides that $55 million is authorized for each of the fiscal years 1975 and 1976 for purposes of outdoor advertising control. Senator Moss. One of the devices used by opponents of the program is to have permissive signs of those that have directions on them, directional signs. So that I guess any sign that says the gas station is 6 miles down the street is a directional sign, even though it sits in the-in a clump of woods or elsewhere. Now, what is your viewpoint on that sort of a weakening of the law? Mr. BRINEGAR. Well, again, I would have to see what kind of arguments have been raised. As one who has traveled the Interstate a lot, 65-70 miles an hour, you do need a few directional signs so you can plan to be in the right lane at the right moment, but surely directional signs should not be used as a subterfuge. To me, the concept of directional signs means a few specifics. Senator Moss. Well, there are many official directional signs that are placed by the highway commission themselves that tell where the turnoffs are and how far it is to the next rest stop, and this is of that sort. But if other signs can be erected and I think at one time they said four-to-a-mile giving directions, we will end up with more billboards than we had on the highways to begin with. Mr. BRINEGAR. Well, again, Senator, I would like to consider the various arguments. However, I share the view that we should remove objectional and nonconforming signs. Senator Moss. There are, of course, some parts of the Department of Transportation that have been a bit unfriendly on this score, and I feel that if you do not have a commitment, and do not seriously press it as your predecessor did, you might find that it's watered down and blocked a lot internally within the Department. Mr. BRINEGAR. I assure you that I will not let up. Senator Moss. One other factor is-and one thing that's caused some of the difficulties, the law requires that just compensation be paid for property that is taken, and this has been abused in some places by simply long delays and really failure to move ahead. Now The CHAIRMAN. Lawsuits, bringing it into court-some of them do. Senator Moss. Yes, or just refusing to move governmentally until the people are stuck there so long the signs begin to tumble down, and they are not maintained. If we are going to do it, we have to pay the compensation and remove the signs. Is that your commitment as to what you would do? Mr. BRINEGAR. I certainly intend to enforce the law, sir. I have not looked into the legal issues you raised. Senator Moss. Well, I appreciate this because I was in on the beginning in writing this law, and I have followed it very closely. And it's been a long and difficult course. And here we are 7 or 8 years later, and still haven't accomplished what we set out to do, and what is the law of the land. Now, then, it's going to take real determination I think, on your part to see that this is finally implemented. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to say to the nominee that, one, this has been just too long-the drag, drag, drag. And a lot of the delay has been down in the Department despite Secretary Volpe's efforts. But the way to slow up the program is a very simple way-you know how that is, don't you? Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Are you going to try to get enough money to keep the program moving? Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, you are familiar with Los Angeles, aren't you? Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Well, then, you know what billboards mean. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. As I indicated, we have not used one in several years. The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect to my colleague from California, yes. I want to say off the record, I guess, in 1933 in the State legislature which I was in, I introduced a bill to abolish billboards. I have been waiting a long, long time. |