Was not the designation of the Appalachia system worked out in the same manner with the Bureau of Public Roads and the State highway commissions?

Mr. BRIDWELL. As any other highway system, Mr. Clark?

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLARK. I wanted to correct the record, that's all, in the discussion between the chairman and you.

Mr. BALDWIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Bridwell, I just want to ask you a question to clear up something in my own mind.

The Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Long of Louisiana dealing with patents, making them available to the general public if they developed apparently out of a contract involving appropriated funds.

The amendment, as I understand it, was put in on page 40, which apparently was at the end of a section under title 3, administration, and subsection entitled "Grants for Administrative Expenses for Local Development and for Research and Demonstration Projects." There is $5.5 million specified in that subsection.

But in reading the Long amendment, it says:

No part of any appropriated funds may be expended pursuant to authorization given by this Act involving any scientific or technological research or development activity unless such expenditure is conditioned upon provisions effective to insure that all information, copyrights, uses, processes, patents, and so forth, will be made freely available to the public.

Now, that particular first sentence does not limit the impact to this subsection. It seems to me it would apply to any appropriated funds under this act, including the appropriations for the development of the roads program.

Now, if this is the case, it seems to me that we would be in a sort of a strange situation in that the Bureau of Public Roads will be administering the Interstate Highway System, under the Federal aid to State primary and secondary roads and this development road system. And if I read this correctly, this one section on development roads in Appalachia would be subject to this provision on patents, because there are some research funds under the road program. But our Interstate Highway System, our State primary and secondary systems would not be.

Now, am I making a correct interpretation of this Long amendment?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Baldwin, I have not examined the Long amendment, in light of the research program conducted under title 23. I would like, if I may, to defer answering that question and supply an answer for the record.

Mr. BALDWIN. Could you supply that for the record before we reach a vote in this subcommittee? Because I think we should know what the impact of this Long amendment is, whether it is actually limited to this section 302, the fact of the $5.5 million funds, or whether it is in fact applicable to the entire road system.

Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir, I will.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

(The above information follows:)

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, D.C., February 10, 1965.

Hon. ROBERT E. JONES,

Chairman, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Appalachia,
Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to a question asked me by Mr. Baldwin during the February 3, 1965, hearings of the subcommittee on H.R. 4, S.3, and related bills. The question was whether the so-called Long amendment, section 302 (d) of S.3, applies only to section 302 of the bill, or whether it is applicable to the Appalachian developmnet highway system and local access roads under section 201 of the bill.

It is our view that the Long amnedment would technically apply to the road program under section 201 of the bill. However, that section does not involve any scientific or technological research or development activity within the meaning of the Long amendment. Further, subsection (a) of section 201 provides that only such provisions of title 23, United States Code, as determined by the Secretary not to be inconsistent with the provisions of S. 3 shall be applicable to the road program of section 201. The research activities under section 307 of title 23, United States Code, would be regarded as inconsistent with the roadbuilding program established by section 201 of the bill.

I trust this is the information that you desire, and if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know.

LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, Deputy Under Secretary for Transportation.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, a couple more questions and I will be finished.

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. You have given us the estimated cost for the total construction. Can you give us the estimated cost for the thousand miles of access roads?

Mr. BRIDWELL. It is the same as it was when it was 500 miles, Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. That is $50 million?

Mr. BRIDWELL. $50 million, yes.

Mr. CRAMER. Now, do you have any time schedule as to construction of these highways?

Mr. BRIDWELL. The planning efforts that are being conducted by the States now contemplate starts just as soon as money is made available through the appropriation process. And of course it is a 6-year program.

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I was told it is a 5-year program before, although the section 201 dealing with highways just does not say how long it is. Do you understand it, then, to be a 6-year program ? Mr. BRIDWELL. To complete construction, Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. As a matter of fact, the money could be spent in the first few years after the construction tooled up, could it not? It would not prevent you from constructing it all in 3 or 4 years?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Legally, no. Practically, yes, from a standpoint of the ability of the State highway departments to construct the system and the amounts that the Congress would appropriate in any given fiscal year.

Mr. CRAMER. Now, last year there were added paragraphs (d) and (e) on page 15, which relate to

In construction of the highways the States may give special preference to the use of mineral resource materials indigenous to the Appalachian region.

43-521-65-7

That too is a new departure in highway legislation, is it not, requiring certain materials to be used?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Well, it does not require it. It says that they may give special preference.

Mr. CRAMER. Well, suggesting that they should.

Mr. BRIDWELL. That is an economic consideration, and indigenous materials regularly are used in highway programs in various parts of the country.

Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes; I will be glad to yield.

Mr. JONES. You recall the testimony given to the committee on the Highway Act in 1954 in which the Director told us that one of the things that would be done to the Interstate System would be the use of those materials that were claimed by the community would be useful in the construction to save money. This is nothing more than a restatement of what has been in other highway bills.

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I would agree with the gentleman if the words "special preference" were not included, which means to me that, even though the cost of that indigenous material may be in excess of other available materials, this permits the State to use the more costly products.

Mr. JONES. In other words, it is totally permissive.

Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. But it does permit the States to use the more costly product in the area, does it not?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, I think you recognize that the whole program is on a very tight cost estimate. So I do not believe that the Bureau of Public Roads nor the State highway departments would attempt to go into very costly materials, just simply because they might be indigenous.

Mr. CRAMER. Did the Bureau of Public Roads ask for these two sections, or where did it come from?

Mr. BRIDWELL. I do not believe I am in a position to answer, Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. I am talking about sections (d) and (e) of this bill. Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to answer that question?

Both of these sections were put in in the Senate last year at the request of the subcommittee chairman, Senator Randolph. I might point out when this came over to the House last year we modified the Senate's language in both (d) and (e) so that in lines 14 and 15 the word becomes "may" instead of "shall"; and in line 12 we put in "to the maximum extent possible."

Both these sections become permissive acts on the part of the Secretary of Commerce and not mandatory.

Mr. CRAMER. The reason I mentioned this, it is a departure from existing highway regulations, and I refer to regulations 1.19, which says:

No requirement shall be imposed and no procedure shall be enforced by any State in connection with a project which may operate (a) to require the use of coal product derivatives in favor of articles or materials produced within the State.

Now, the reason for that is obvious-that they do not want a greater cost of highway construction than is available on bid basis, on a competitive basis. This deviates from that basic policy, does it not?

Mr. JONES. I cannot see that we should be excited about this road program in Appalachia.

Mr. KUNKEL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONES. Actually, State highway departments are going to be just as anxious as they always have been to do a good job.

Mr. CRAMER. What is the State highway department going to do pursuant to the paragraph which says the Secretary is authorized to require each participating State, to the maximum extent possible, to use coal derivatives in the construction of which it is not to exceed 10 percent of the roads authorized?

Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Now, the result of that, what is the State going to do under those circumstances. I will ask the witness.

Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, I believe this committee has always expressed, both in words and in deed, considerable faith in the State highway departments and in the Bureau of Public Roads to construct highways, quality highways, as economically as possible. I do not see any set of circumstances involved in this program that is any different.

Mr. KUNKEL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. There must be a reason for writing it in. We have never written it in before. It is not in there for decorative purposes. There is a purpose of giving preferential treatment if there is a differential in the cost of material.

I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KUNKEL. Referring to sections (d) and (e), I would like to read an extract from a letter from a constituent of mine. Quoting:

These sections remove the selection of highway construction materials from the realm of engineering consideration and economic analysis that have long been employed very successfully in guiding Federal Government support to our highway systems. These sections favoring the use of indigenous materials are vaguely worded and could be the source of future misunderstanding and unwise expenditures of public funds.

I urge you to consider elimination of section 201(d) inasmuch as selection of construction materials is properly and more completely covered by title 23, United States Code, as included in lines 5 and 6, page 14 of H.R. 4.

And I would also urge modification of line 14 of section 201 (e) to require engineering analysis as the basis for deciding where coal-derived products should be employed on the roads authorized.

As aforestated, the possible ambiguity that might result from local interpretation of these paragraphs, section 201 aforestated, can be completely eliminated and the same provisions which are quite clear and are defined for the use of materials in highway construction are fully covered by title 23 of the United States Code, are quite comprehensive.

That is the end of the quotation.

Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. BRIDWELL. My position, as I attempted to state it, Mr. Kunkel, is that I do not believe either the State highway departments or the Bureau of Public Roads would be a party to using either (a) inferior materials or (b) excessively costly materials in this program any more than they would in any other part of the Federal highway program.

Mr. KUNKEL. Yes, but has not your program progressed very well under the old title 23 of the United States Code, and has not the construction work gone along in a very satisfactory manner under the old standards, and why would we want to change them? Is there any particular reason?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Well, we certainly think so. Although I believe, Mr. Kunkel, this actually states what was actually practiced.

I believe the chairman actually pointed out that this has been an actual practice of the State highway departments for many years. Mr. KUNKEL. Well, if it is an actual practice, why is it necessary to change them by legislation? Why not leave it flexible?

Mr. CLARK. Would the gentleman yield for a comment at this point? Mr. CRAMER. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

I think we can say that we cannot blame the Bureau of Public Roads for this new section, or this section that you just read. This section was put in in the Senate and by the Senator from West Virginia. And this is a point that probably will be discussed for a long time.

But I think we can also state that this point you brought up does not make a demand to any State or any section as to the Appalachian program that they must carry out this amendment in order to construct their highways.

Mr. KUNKEL. Well, I will agree that the section (d) is permissive. But certainly section (e) reads to me as if it was at least of a mandatory character. The Secretary is authorized to require each participating State, to the maximum extent possible, to use coal derivatives in the construction of not to exceed 10 percent for roads authorized under this act.

Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield to me at that point?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes; I yield.

Mr. WRIGHT. I think that there are two phrases in subsection (e) which make it wholly permissive rather than mandatory.

The first phrase is the word "authorized." We do not say, for example, the Secretary is directed to require each participating State to do this. We do not say the Secretary is instructed to require each participating State to do this. We say merely that the Secretary is authorized. This does not mean that the Secretary must do so. We authorize a good many projects which in fact never get built. And every member of this committee knows that.

Now, the second phrase, I would say to the gentleman, making it entirely permissive, is the phrase pointed out by our committee counsel: "To the maximum extent possible."

Now, it might be determined by the Secretary in his wisdom, after having examined these indigenous materials and these coal derivatives, that it is not possible to any extent, and therefore we would not do it. I can remember certain situations dating back a good many years when I was a member of the Texas Legislature, in which we authorized the State Highway Department of Texas in certain circumstances along coastal areas to use seashells rather than gravel, because seashell was available in more abundant quantities in those areas, and because it was less costly to acquire it and to use it.

So it is altogether conceivable to me that, upon thorough examination, the Secretary might determine, upon the advice of the Bureau of Public Roads, that certain of these indigenous materials, being available locally, might possibly result in a saving.

But if upon examination he does not make such determination, he is not required to use them; he is permitted only to use them.