Mr. JONES. The same way as the Secretary of Commerce can veto an appropriation to build any road.

Mr. CRAMER. With regard to parallel highways in these areas, do any of these developmental highways, portions of this "system," parallel existing highways? This may does not indicate the extent to which they do.

Mr. SWEENEY. In some instances, Mr. Cramer, they are an expansion of existing highways. In some cases, those highways have been deemed so inadequate that there is actually a parallel route that will replace in effect the existing major arterial route. This is common in present highway construction practice.

Mr. CRAMER. So in some instances what you are doing is providing updated highways and not new highways?

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir; that is why I think the cost is relatively small.

Mr. JONES. I think you will find, Mr. Cramer, the 1954 Highway Act made State highway departments include existing highways for updating, rehabilitation, and repairs.

Mr. CRAMER. That is part of the Interstate System, that is correct; but we are talking now about opening up new development areas.

The point I want to get to is: Do you think establishing a system of highways is a better approach than considering each area that needs development and working from that direction, rather than the direction of trying to set up a system?

Mr. SWEENEY. I think it was the original starting point, to look at those areas which had substantial population clusters, significant resources and little access, and start from there, but then, to make sure this highway did not go from nowhere to nowhere, to relate them to a system which would provide total access into the region and within it. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have the Bureau of Public Roads testify?

Mr. JONES. We are hoping so. Let us conclude with Mr. Sweeney and then we will bring in the other people.

Mr. CRAMER. I ask that he be requested to bring a map of existing highways with this superimposed on it, so we may take a look at it and see what this plan is, as we did when the Interstate System was planned. We knew exactly where the terminals and corridors were. Mr. JONES. I don't think there is anything in this section of the bill that departs from the normal operation or system of scheduling the highway routes or approval by the Bureau of Public Roads. This is just a restatement of the present policy in the maintenance of the same theory of highway construction. The only thing it does is confine it to areas of the Appalachia and try to correlate it to the most useful purpose it could serve in doing the things that Mr. Sweeney has been talking about.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of Mr. Sweeney?

Mr. JONES. Let us proceed, and then I will call on you.

Do you have any further questions?

Mr. CRAMER. I will yield to the gentleman if it is in context. Mr. HENDERSON. How far along have you gotten in your efforts with the State in the development of this system? The highway commission has been working on this for some time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Sir, we have a survey of what highways they have thought appropriate as they have been approved by the Bureau, and the relative cost of each section of those highways.

The point I was making, in some States there has been substantial local pressure brought to bear to provide somewhat different routings of these highways, which the State highway departments are considering in conjunction with our staff. I am making an airplane trip next Thursday over southwestern Virginia, along with our staff people, to determine exactly what the issues are that confront the local people in their desire to see some slightly different routing.

I would say 80 percent of this system is locked in as it appears on this map, because those are obviously the roads that are the most necessary. In 20 percent of the cases there may be disagreement, and they are in the process of being resolved at this moment.

Mr. HENDERSON. This program is one of a joint effort between the State highway commission

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir; the Bureau of Public Roads and our staff. Mr. CRAMER. That is what I was getting into. Did your Commission ask the States to recommend, No. 1, where development highways should be located; No. 2, access highways, and where they should be located?

Mr. SWEENEY. The access highways, no, sir; because they are really dependent upon other forms of investment in this bill. You have to have a total development picture of a given area before you can determine access roads. If you are going to develop a portion of the region in a certain manner for industrial purposes, the needs for access roads might be entirely different from those to be developed for recreational purposes or for timber development.

Mr. CRAMER. Is it your intention as it relates to access roads to first ask the States what they believe they are entitled to in the way of allocations of this thousand miles?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Cramer, just like every other section of the bill, highway recommendations will come up through the States.

Mr. CRAMER. It does not read that way. On page 14 it says:

As soon as feasible, the Commission shall submit to the Secretary its recommendations with respect to (1) the general corridor location and termini of the development highway, (2) the designation of local access roads to be constructed, (3) priorities for construction of the local access roads and of the major segments of the developmental highways, and (4) other criteria for the program authorized by this section.

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Other than No. 4, these are responsibilities and rights of the States under the present highway system determining where highways shall be located and which ones should be built.

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir. We don't think we interfere with that at all. The section of the bill first says, section 223, the Commission must consult with appropriate State officials and Governors; secondly, the lock-in provision of section 303 states an application for a grant or for any other assistance for a program must come to the Commission through the States. The Commission itself cannot unilaterally-and by that really you are saying the Commission staff-recommend any program. It must come to it from the State, and no program can be approved by the Commission that has not been approved by the State. Mr. CRAMER. We are talking about a specific project.

Mr. SWEENEY. Or program.

Mr. CRAMER. We are talking about the total access road program for a given State.

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. It must first come from the State before you people consider it?

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir, and we cannot approve it unless it is approved by the State.

Mr. CRAMER. What standards under this section are provided for access roads?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Cramer, the standards would be those that apply in title 23. I will not try to answer this specifically because you are going to have witnesses from the Bureau of Public Roads to explain what those roads are.

Mr. CRAMER. As I understand it, there are no instructions down there for the access roads.

Mr. SWEENEY. The title 23 standards apply.

Mr. CRAMER. There are no access roads in existence under title 23 at the present time.

Mr. SWEENEY. It is our belief that they will qualify in terms of the secondary road standards that are presently in existence under title 23. Mr. CRAMER. Do you have any objection to writing that in the bill? Mr. SWEENEY. I would rather have the Bureau of Public Roads answer that because I am not certain in some cases, where you are putting in a forest or timber access road, those are necessary. I don't know that from a technical standpoint.

Mr. CRAMER. It says: "They shall be added to the system and be required to be maintained by the State." That applies to development highways, but not to the thousand miles of access highways. Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. What is the reason for that?

Mr. SWEENEY. Again, I would rather have the Bureau answer that question.

Mr. JONES. Are there any other questions?

Mr. CRAMER. No.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Edmondson?

Mr. EDMONDSON. No.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Henderson?

Mr. HENDERSON. I should like to compliment Mr. Sweeney on his presentation today, and particularly for his explanation of the basic concept between the State effort and the Federal effort. I think this is a sound approach to this problem, particularly with the idea of using existing agencies and existing programs to get this job done in this region. I think it is certainly novel and unique, one that the framers of this piece of legislation should be complimented on. That is all.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Baldwin?

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Sweeney, you mentioned that when and if this bill was enacted into law there would then be submitted immediately a supplemental appropriation request, and you mentioned specifically that included in that supplemental appropriation request would be about $50 million for programs that are now authorized under existing law which would be speeded up in the Appalachia region. Is there in

the present budget funds for fiscal year 1966 for those activities that would be authorized under the actual provisions of this bill?

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALDWIN. What amount is in the budget for fiscal 1966 for the programs to be authorized by this bill?

Mr. SWEENEY. $365 million in new obligation authority. That is within the President's budget message he has submitted to the Con

gress.

Mr. BALDWIN. I am curious in this respect. If the some $350 million were included in the budget message to Congress and put in there on the assumption this bill was passed, why was not the other $50 million likewise put in the budget?

Mr. SWEENEY. That is included within that dollar amount, sir. $365 million includes funds necessary to authorize this program contained in H.R. 4 plus the supplementation to existing authorizations. Mr. BALDWIN. Why would it be necessary to submit a supplemental budget request if they are already in the budget that has been submitted?

Mr. SWEENEY. I am sorry if I confused this question. I based my statement on several assumptions; on the assumption that the Congress would act early this year rather than have a program delayed until July of 1965-the President might send up a budget and an appropriation bill that would be applicable to 1965, a supplemental bill, which would enable them to recommend expenditures which the Federal agencies would then expend under the 1965-66 budget.

They might recommend a supplemental bill that would carry the Commission through to July of 1966. There is $365 million in NOA authorized.

Mr. BALDWIN. Does that mean a portion of that would simply be moved up as a supplemental request in fiscal 1965 ?

Mr. SWEENEY. All I am saying, if the supplemental approach is adopted-and it depends largely on when the Congress passes the bill-if you gentlemen were to enact the bill, let us say, by March 31, and the President to sign it immediately, that would leave 3 months of activity still remaining in 1965. I have no idea what the Budget Bureau, and ultimately the President, will decide. They could put out a supplementary bill that would put the Commission in operation right away.

Mr. BALDWIN. I would like to go into the matter of distressed counties in Appalachia in comparison with those which are not.

As you know, I was interested in this yesterday and I was also interested in it last year. The testimony we had last year was that there are about 67 counties within Appalachia that did not meet the definition of a depressed area under the bills. This may have varied in the intervening year because of changes of employment in the various counties.

It is my understanding, for example, that the county in South Carolina that has the highest per capita income of any county in the State is within the defined Appalachian region.

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALDWIN. It is my understanding also that this may likewise be true in Alabama, that the county which has the highest per capita income of any county in the State is within the Appalachian region. Mr. SWEENEY. I believe that is true. I believe that is the Huntsville area.

Mr. BALDWIN. The thing that bothers me is that there are counties outside of Appalachia that are depressed, that have a substantial amount of unemployment that would meet the test of the ARA bill or the APW bill, but because they are outside of Appalachia, they woud not only not qualify for any of these particular additional benefits, but would be paying Federal taxes to make these programs available to these 67 counties in Appalachia which are in themselves not depressed.

Just as case in point, we have in California-not in my district, but in the district that suffered the tremendous flood damage of a month or so ago counties which have been depressed for years because of a depressed condition in lumber. But those counties will be paying taxes to make it possible for all these special benefit programs to be made available to the county in South Carolina which has the highest per capita income of any county in South Carolina.

To me, this is discriminatory.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Baldwin, will you yield for a moment?
Mr. BALDWIN. Yes.

Mr. JONES. You know I was appointed chairman of the subcommittee which just visited the devastated areas of the West, and it was our expectation the Federal Government, through various agencies, would have to provide extraordinary funds to relieve those people out there and give them an opportunity to restore their economy.

We in Alabama don't like to pay taxes, any more than any other area does, but it is a responsibility we have to see that northern California is not disrupted to the point that it cannot be productive. Mr. BALDWIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONES. I don't think that provincialism is a proper description of this bill, because it has universal results needed in our country. Mr. BALDWIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONES. Yes. I just wanted to make that observation.

Mr. BALDWIN. I understand and I appreciate this. This does not apply to my district because my district was not involved. I appreciate the fact the subcommittee went out there, and this is only proper. We have done this traditionally. But you mentioned this will restore the flood damage.

I just mentioned the flood damage incidentally. These counties have met the test of depressed counties for years, because of a depressed condition in lumber. The point I make is I do not want to restrict it to California; it would apply to any State.

Counties in many different States are in themselves depressed, that have 15 to 20 percent unemployment, that meet the test of a depressed area under the ARA and APW, but they not only do not qualify under this act for any special benefits, but must pay taxes to counties

43-521-65- -5