Mr. ANDERSON. No questions.

Mr. KHEEL. It should have a great future.

There are a few other documents I would like to submit for the record.

Mr. HOWARD. Without objection, so ordered. They will be made part of the committee files.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I want to commend the gentleman for coming here. We are not unsympathetic at all. We are just saying we don't think your recommendations are going to do much for it. You should take a second look at the total problem and visit with people who are planning and working with this.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Fulton could not appear, so without objection his statement will be made part of the record. (The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD FULTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to communicate to the Subcommittee on Highways what I feel is an urgent need which falls within the jurisdiction of this group.

This need is the long and costly neglect suffered by our national parkway construction program administered by the National Park Service within the Department of Interior.

At present, requirements for construction of new parkway roads for four unfinished parkway systems total 351 miles. Estimated cost for this construction is $240,000,000. A breakdown on these figures, as provided me by the National Park Service by letter on January 26, 1972, is as follows:

Gentlemen, I readily admit that even in the Congress where we are commonly dealing with authorizations and appropriations totaling in the billions of dollars, $240,000,000, is still a very large sum of money. Nonetheless, it is a figure that should be given serious consideration at this time. It has, unfortunately, been completely ignored by the Office of Management and Budget and in the new budget proposals for 1973. For the new fiscal year, the Administration is asking only $4,400,000, in funding for work not on just one, but all our National Parkways.

Mr. Chairman, this neglect only underlines the growing fear that these Parkways are fast becoming a neglected stepchild of the Federal government. For too many years, including the present, every new budget has brought not promise of hope for completion of our parkways, but only prolongation of the status quo. This has not only prolonged unnecessarily the completion of the parkways but added considerably to their cost.

As an example of this, I wish to point out that in the figures I mentioned earlier, the estimated cost for construction of the 122 remaining miles of the Natchez Trace Parkway is, as of January 26, 1972, $80,500,000. Just four years ago, in 1968, the National Park Service estimated that it would cost $59 million to complete the Natchez Trace Parkway. Thus, in just four years, inflation and other increases have moved the price of completion up more than 33 percent.

It certainly is economy to delay low priority spending and eliminate unnecessary spending. But there is no economy at all to further delay work on these projects when the cost is rising at a rate of 8 percent a year or better. In the

interim practically no construction has taken place on the Natchez Trace and I would venture that the other projects mentioned earlier lie in a similar state of neglect.

It seems to me that ultimately a significant savings of taxpayer dollars could be realized if this stagnation were terminated and construction on a meaningful scale recommended. It would further appear that, while $240,000,000. million dollars is a great deal of money, it pales somewhat in the light of the $271 billion in new spending authority which the Administration is requesting for fiscal 1973.

In addition, the expenditures of these funds would create new Federal revenues through increasing tax dollars. As every section of these parkways are contracted, jobs and payrolls are created. As every section is completed, it opens avenues for business opportunities and the creation of even more jobs. This type of real growth contributes markedly to an increase in Federal

revenues.

It probably is not practical or possible to authorize the entire amount needed at this time to complete these parkway projects. However, there is reason to hope that an appropriate authorization might be made which would move these projects forward over the next two years. If we initiate enough momentum now, then when this authorization is considered two years from now, it will be much easier to continue the work.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge this committee include in its proposed authorization sufficient funding for this undertaking. I would leave any specific dollar amount to the wisdom of the committee, but it would seem to me that an amount of $50,000,000 would serve adequately for initial financing. In the long run, I am convinced that we will save money by avoiding further delay.

Mr. HOWARD. The subcommittee stands adjourned until March 9. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 9, 1972.)

1972 HIGHWAY LEGISLATION

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1972

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John C. Kluczynski, chairman, presiding.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The hearings will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Roads continues this morning our hearings on 1972 Highway Legislation.

We have completed our hearings on safety and Mr. Harsha introduced an omnibus safety bill last week which was cosponsored by every member of the full Public Works Committee.

We have not as yet received any recommendations from the administration, although we now have Mr. Volpe scheduled to appear before this subcommittee on March 16. Perhaps at that time we will have some inkling of the administration's position.

We have not yet received the highway needs report in Congress, but that is no longer disturbing us. It is not essential to our passing good highway legislation this year. And we will pass a great highway bill this year.

These hearings will terminate on March 29. We have many witnesses yet to appear before us.

Today we have an excellent set of witnesses representing the American Road Builders' Association. This group has appeared before us many times and has been a great help to the subcommittee and to the full committee.

We welcome you here today, gentlemen. But before you start, I think that the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harsha, would like to say a few words.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harsha.

Mr. HARSHA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to welcome the American Road Builders Association and their fine executive director, Mr. Burt Miller, and his staff here. I know they will make a very interesting and informative statement for the benefit of the committee.

As you indicated, the entire committee has joined me in introducing an Omnibus Highway Safety bill which I think has some very far reaching provisions in it that will go a long way toward not only making our roads much safer in the years ahead for the traveling public, but will help us to offset some of the resistance we seem to be getting over the construction of roads.

We are anticipating suggestions and recommendations from the Administrators. As yet we haven't received them. I urge them to expedite matters in order to get their recommendations before the committee so that we may have them before us in our deliberations. Hopefully, they will soon be submitted.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Harsha.

The witnesses today will be the American Road Builders' Association, Washington, D.Č.

So, Mr. Miller and your associates, will you kindly take the witness stand, please.

Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to have you before this committee this morning and I am sure you will do your usual good job. So the Chair at this time recognizes our old time friend Burt Miller.

Mr. Miller, for the record, will you introduce your associates, please.

STATEMENT OF BURTON F. MILLER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ROAD BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD H. HOLT, PRESIDENT; EUGENE JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, ASPHALT INSTITUTE; ROBERT HAJZYK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, CECIL COUNTY, MD.; AND J. L. CONE, JR., PRESIDENT, CONE BROTHERS CONTRACTING CO., TAMPA, FLA.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, first may I express our gratitude for this cordial welcome. We are most appreciative, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Burton F. Miller. I am the executive vice president of the American Road Builders' Association, with headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with our presentation relating to the future of the Federal-aid highway program, I would like to make a few observations regarding the beginning of the Federal-aid highway program.

It might be helpful to look over our shoulder and see from whence

we came.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Fine.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, in 1912, by an act of Congress, a joint committee comprised of five members of the then Senate Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads and five members of the then House Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, was established to inquire into the feasibility of providing Federal aid for the development of good roads. The work of this committee was carried on for 3 years culminating in the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1916.

To assist in placing our testimony in proper perspective, it is interesting to note that this report clearly established the Federal interest in highway development in the following language and I quote from this official report of Congress:

Federal aid to good roads will accomplish several of the objects indicated by the framers of the Constitution-establish post roads, regulate commerce, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare. Above all, it will promote the general welfare.

The joint committee further pointed out that:

"Systematic efforts and cooperation of Nation, States, and counties will make American highways the best in the world, bring remote agricultural lands within practicable hauling distance from railroads, materially raise the value of farm property, enhance the margin of profit on farm products, vastly increase the average daily attendance at rural schools, raise the standard of rural education, make the motor truck an economical vehicle for American farmers" -I might interpose here for a comment, this is indeed interesting, these following reasons justifying the Federal Government embarking on the good roads program-"lighten the labors of American horses, save wear and tear on harness and wagons, and add to the comfort and happiness of all rural residents."

This is very enlightening, Mr. Chairman, when today people are challenging need for better highways.

Of perhaps more significance are those sections in the report dealing with policy. Here it is clearly delineated that any program should carefully avoid building up a bureaucratic organization in the executive department to which the people in general and even the Members of Congress must bow.

This is not my words, sir; this is from the report.

This admonition is again set forth in the following language, and I quote:

To make State highway commissions or State highway engineers subservient to a Federal bureau would be disastrous. It would stifle initiative, discourage original research, and cause all State highway officials to await the action of the Federal authority.

The better plan would be to place responsibility upon the State authorities, thus encouraging them to proceed along original lines in accordance with the best interests of their own localities, with the result that all the States would secure the benefit of the experience of that State which proved to be most successful.

These words are so applicable today, Mr. Chairman, and these points will be further exemplified by the witness for the American Road Builders' Association.

On the humorous side, it is refreshing to note that the joint committee received an appropriation of $25,000 to carry on its extensive study. At the end of 3 years, when they submitted their report, they returned an unexpended balance of $14,269.62. It is most interesting to note that the disbursing officer for the joint committee was one Richard Nixon.

Now, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to say that this is identified as Document No. 1510, 63d Congress, Third Session.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the American Road Builders' Association is grateful for the privilege of appearing before your distinguished committee.

I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of coming before you today in the company of four leading members of our association who will make the ARBA presentation. These witnesses have been carefully selected from industry because of their broad background and exceptional expertise.

In bringing this team of experts before you, Mr. Chairman, it is our earnest hope that the information presented here today will be