Although we commend the Secretary for his fantastic step in the right direction, we believe that in the future it will be necessary to earmark much more to keep the transit systems in our cities from floundering. Cities should be able to use the trust fund money for operating expenditures for transit systems if they choose to do so. Our final comment on Mr. Volpe's proposal concerns the moneys apportioned for the Interstate System. If the citizens, officials, and planners now working on the restudy in Duluth find that the 90/10 funds which would be spent for I-35 could better be used for mass transit and TOPICS programs, we hope that we will be allowed to spend our money this way. Therefore, we urge you to adopt an option provision in the highway legislation which would allow us to do so. I will again refer to our wholehearted support for the basic tenents of Mr. Volpe's plan. Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before you today. Mr. CLARK. we appreciate your coming. I have only one question: What would you do in rural areas with mass transit? Mr. SATTERLEE. As I believe I mentioned in the latter portion of my testimony, this is not to draw away from other highway needs. This is to help the transit needs that we do have in the cities. Mr. CLARK. So what you really want, you want twofold-you want to have both. You want to have your cake and eat it too, in other words. Mr. SATTERLEE. No, what I am advocating is that instead of cluttering our cities with further highway development, I think we need to place emphasis on mass transit in the cities. Mr. CLARK. Well, how do you expect to finance a program that would go to what you want and at the same time take away from the trust fund, or do you not advocate taking funds away from the trust fund? Mr. SATTERLEE. I do advocate taking funds away. Mr. CLARK. You do? Mr. SATTERLEE. For allotment into mass transit. Mr. CLARK. This is the only place we do not agree on. We agree that we need both. And I think the emphasis should be put on both. But I cannot see us taking away from the trust fund funds that are directly, supposedly, siphoned into this highway fund, not for mass transit. We have a mass transit program that I think should work. Mr. SATTERLEE. I think as air pollution problems worsen, people's positions on this will change. Mr. CLARK. Oh, I agree with you, in the cities we should have. some kind of a mass transit program and have buses into the cities and do away with as many cars as we can in the city. I just got a new automobile and it is about 50 horsepower less than what it should be because of the fact we have all this antipollution gimmicks on the car. Question? Mr. RIVARD. I have a question along the same line. When you indicate taking money from the trust fund for mass transit, we had testimony this morning, and it was also in Mr. Volpe's testimony, that the highway needs of the Nation to the year 1990 are in the magni tude of $600 billion, and that the order of magnitude of the transit needs are about $65 billion-about a 10 to 1 ratio. The amounts of money that Mr. Volpe proposes, to take out of the Highway Trust Fund for mass transit, of course, are a much greater ratio than that, as far as mass transit is concerned. Would you be opposed to the creation of a mass transit trust fund? Mr. SATTERLEE. That would derive its funds from where? Mr. RIVARD. I am just asking if you would be in favor of a separate mass transit trust fund, just as we have the Highway Trust Fund? Mr. SATTERLEE. Yes, I think that would be good. In this case, I am advocating taking funds that come from gasoline tax. Mr. RIVARD. I understand that. But you would be in favor of a mass transit trust fund? Mr. SATTERLEE. Yes. Mr. RIVARD. If funds were made available for such fund? Mr. CLARK. Mr. Peet? Mr. PEET. No questions. Mr. CLARK. Well, thank you very much for coming. And we do appreciate your contribution today to the committee. Certainly we are all in agreement with you that mass transit has to be uppermost in everyone's mind. I have been an advocate around the Pittsburgh area and I can see the need for it. It is needed very, very badly. And those that will be commuting one of these days within the next 10 years from Philadelphia to Washington-I can see it coming here easily within the next 10 years, and they are not all going to be able to get on the highways. The sooner we get the mass transit going, and I am not only talking about busing, I am talking about fast railroads fast trains. I am not in particular agreed on financing different companies that have presidents on salaries of $800,000 a year and then coming in to Congress and asking to make sure that they get this kind of money. I feel that that kind of money should be put into mass transit cars themselves and get something worthwhile for the 260 million people that will be here in 10 years. Thank you very much. Mr. SATTERLEE. Thank you. Mr. CLARK. Do we have any other witnesses here? Is there anyone else who would like to speak? If not, the meeting is adjourned. (Thereupon, at 2:45 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene on Wednesday, March 22, 1972.) 1972 HIGHWAY LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1972 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John C. Kluczynski, chairman, presiding. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The hearing will come to order. Today the Subcommittee on Roads is privileged to have the greatest highway organization in the world as its witnesses for this morning as we continue our hearings on the 1972 Highway Legislation. Of course, I mean the American Association of State Highway Officials. Over the years we have looked to you for guidance. You have given it to us. We look to you again this year because your guidance is urgently needed. We especially want to hear how you people as the designers, builders, and operators of the highway system of America recommend how we proceed with our program. We have heard Mr. Volpe's proposals. And now we would like to hear yours. If we find some minor differences, then I guess the committee will have to try to straighten them out. We welcome you before the subcommittee and look forward to your testimony. The Chair at this time would like to recognize one of our outstanding members of the committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jim Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you for this privilege, Mr. Chairman. It is a rare honor for me to present to the committee a great American, and the truly distinguished son of our State, Mr. J. C. Dingwall, who is president of the American Association of State Highway Officials. He is the Chief Highway Engineer for the State of Texas. He is a career public servant. He is not a political appointee. He has spent most of his adult life building roads and directing the manner in which roads are built. He has done a truly outstanding job in our State, and I think he distinguishes himself and honors the association for which he speaks as president of the American Association of State Highway Officials. Mr. DINGWALL. Thank you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to join with you and Mr. Wright in welcoming this distinguished organization before our committee. We have relied very heavily in the years past on the recommendations of AASHO. We consider them to be very helpful. And this year again, as always, we anticipate that AASHO will play an effective role in the formulation of a highway program to meet the needs of the country in the years ahead. We are certainly delighted to have you, Mr. Dingwall, the organization you represent and Alf Johnson, who has served your organization so well over the years. Mr. DINGWALL. Thank you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward with great pleasure to hearing the testimony of the distinguished gentleman from Texas. I think the record should state that although he is not going to be speaking, Mr. Robert Whitaker, New Hampshire Commissioner of Public Works and Highways is present at this hearing. He was in my office early this morning. Perhaps he was afraid that maybe I had been listening too much to Mr. Volpe lately. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe our colleague Jack Brooks of Texas is in the hearing room today. Jack has not asked to be heard. I asked if he would like to share words of wisdom with us and he indicated that he would rather listen. But he is here with some of our joint friends and constituents, and I thought we should take notice of his presence. Mr. BROOKS. I appreciate that, Mr. Wright and Mr. Chairman. I do want to support this delegation in its efforts to retain the integrity of the trust fund. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Brooks, it is quite a pleasure to have you here. It is one of the finest subcommittees in the House of Representatives. Mr. Dingwall, the floor is yours. You may proceed as you may wish. It is a pleasure to have you before the committee. You have some of your associates there with you. Will you kindly acknowledge them for the record, please. STATEMENT BY J. C. DINGWALL, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID STEVENS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MAINE; AND A. E. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AASHO Mr. DINGWALL. This is Mr. David Stevens on my right, who will assist me with this presentation. Mr. Stevens is chairman of the Highway Commission in Maine. On my left is Mr. A. E. Johnson, executive director, American Association of State Highway Officials. We also have, Mr. Chairman, several highway administrators from other States over the Nation that are here this morning that you may wish to recognize. We also have a large delegation from the Texas State Roads Association, Pennsylvania and some of the other States, who are here in support of the AASHO position with respect to this highway program. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. It is a pleasure to have you before this subcommittee. Mr. DINGWALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. we are both anxious and pleased to have the privilege of appearing before you today and giving you some of our thoughts on a 1972 Federal-aid highway bill, along the lines of the thinking of the men who head the State highway departments, and in the light of recent happenings. I am J. C. Dingwall, State highway engineer of the Texas State Highway Department, and have the honor of being the president of the American Association of State Highway Officials, and as such, am testifying for the member departments of the association. I am accompanied by Mr. David H. Stevens, commissioner of the Maine Department of Transportation, who is the chairman of our Special Committee on a Continuing Federal-aid Highway program, and Mr. A. E. Johnson, our executive director. There are other State highway officials in the room today, and I can assure you that we would have had every State represented had the time element, and their legislative chores back home permitted. In some ways, this is an unusual hearing since we are not testifying on a bill, and since the administration's revenue sharing proposal, reflecting certain political implications, has been resubmitted masqueraded as the 1972 Highway Needs Report. We note that Secretary Volpe has been quoted in the press that the pace of construction on the Interstate highway network should be slackened, in contrast to the statement of Congress that it should be completed at the earliest possible date, to which we subscribe. We have also seen statements of the administration in the press that by 1977, there will be a $10.7 billion "surplus" in the Highway Trust Fund when, in fact, a "surplus" per se has never existed, but only a manipulated balance, but more will be said about that later on in this statement. Our main purpose here today is to give you our 1972 recommendations, which add to or amend those that we made before your committee in 1967, 1968, and 1970. We experienced our first surprise and major element of uncertainty in the highway program while the State highway officials were enroute to the annual meeting at Wichita, Kans., on November 22, 1966, at which time the first cutback in the program was announced. As a result, Chairman Kluczynski, at that meeting, asked AASHO, representing the several State highway departments, to develop and present recommendations for the consideration of Congress based on the needs, since he had some reservations about the creditability of recommendations that might come from the administration in the future. The State highway departments collectively have the major highway responsibilities of the Nation, are in close everyday contact with the public, and we believe know more about the highway needs in this country than any other group, agency, or organization. We are also more interested in and affected by legislation coming out of this committee and Congress than anyone else because it does, in effect, mold our own programs. First of all, we would like to say that we had an excellent FederalAid Highway Act in 1970. We thought that this year, we might talk about some remedial and specific legislation for the present effectively utilizing the Highway Needs Study and the Functional Classi |