lines between major cities of medium distances would be clearly mass transit. Mr. BROWN. You do have a heavily populated area in between here and Boston. Mr. BoYD. That is right. Mr. BROWN. This leads me to suggest that we are dealing with a megalopolis between Washington and Boston, and whether it should be under Housing and Urban Development or whether Mr. BOYD. I don't think there is any question about that. I say I don't think there is any question, and I don't. Mr. BROWN. Which way are you reading it? Mr. BoYD. Because of the fact that you are dealing with different political subdivisions which have limited relationships, if anywhereas the HUD effort, as I understand it, deals with a city center, and its outlying environs, to try to provide for some sort of land use planning, which includes transportation, to maintain the viability of the city as such, and to make it possible for the people who live and work either in the city or in the suburbs to live with some sense of dignity and comfort. Mr. BROWN. I would enjoy pushing this further, but I don't want to intrude Mr. BOYD. Let me elaborate a little bit here, Mr. Brown. The high-speed ground transportation program has a major purpose, in terms of the dollars to be spent, what we call hardware research, which goes into extending the state of the art in types of transportation, in types of equipment, that can be utilized which will not necessarily be related to the northeast corridor at all. We don't know what the results of this research will be. But we feel that ultimately it will be as important to freight movement as it will be to passenger movements. We feel that the bulk of our findings will relate to movement between San Francisco and Los Angeles, Portland, and Spokane, and places like that, to the same extent it will in the northeast corridor, but they will not have the same requirements in those areas at this time to move people that the northeast corridor has. Mr. BROWN. It would be the ambition of the Department of Transportation to coordinate this research, is that what you are saying? Mr. BOYD. No, sir. That is being done right now in the Department of Commerce. That whole program is in the Department of Commerce at the present time. Mr. BROWN. Is this going to be left in Commerce, this kind of coordination? Mr. BoYD. The high-speed program will be transferred. I'll tell you the kind of research that will be coordinated. There is a great deal of interest today in what is called the railroad car shortage, and there are many differences of opinion as to what is the shortage, and what caused it. The Federal Aviation Agency in Atlantic City has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing systems for identifying aircraft. There is no question in my mind that if we can plug in on the research which is being done and has been done by FAA, we could develop some leads to the kind of identification methods that can be used for railroad cars, so that we will know just exactly what is the magnitude of the car shortage, which will lead us then to devising methods which can be utilized by the railroads toward eliminating the railroad car shortage. I cannot prove this. But I am convinced that this is possible, and this is the type and kind of research that needs to be coordinated. Another quick example-the FAA is responsible for the Federal aid to airport program, and this involves standards and criteria, if you will pardon the expression, on runway construction and ramps. The Bureau of Public Roads has a tremendous effort going on standards and criteria of construction materials, stress, and things of that nature. for highways. These efforts can be coordinated through a depart ment. Mr. BROWN. Can they be coordinated now? Mr. BOYD. No, sir. I think we could say we will try, and we will try. There is no effort to be independent. But people have got to be concerned with what their major interest is. The FAA has a major interest in aviation, the Bureau of Public Roads has a major interest in highways. People tend to be modally oriented as long as they are operating in a modal function. There has to be some coordination at some level. We don't have that. With all the good will in the world. this does not tend to work out without somebody having the power to sav, "Gentlemen, this is the way it will be." Mr. BROWN. In other words, somebody with some authority, and in effect we get back to Secretary of Commerce Connor's comment-a strong Secretary of Transportation. Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir. The President of the United States has the authority today to do exactly what I have been talking about, but he also has some other problems which seem to him to be of more importance. This is going to continue. What we are talking about here is putting this authority the President has at some level where it can be utilized. Mr. BROWN. But this authority will be utilized in a fair and equitable way between various modes of transportation by the new Secretary of Transportation, I am sure. May I go back to Mr. Schultze-and this is my final question, Mr. Chairman. Are we not reorganizing our Government to orient it to consumer society rather than in the operating way in which we had it organized some years ago. In other words, we have created a Health, Education, and Welfare Department, which I presume in some future day may be split into three distinct departments. We have Housing and Urban Development, and now we are going to have Transportation. We have recently had a reorganization plan which would include under one activity. Water. I presume some future date we can have a Department of Food and a Department of Clothing-rather than Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Labor, and that type of organization which we had formerly. Is there a trend in this direction, do you feel? Mr. SCHULTZE. My short answer-and I don't want to appear to be short-is, "No." But that is not an unreasoned no. In the first place, the Department of Transportation affects the American people, both in their capacity as consumers, and in their capacity as producers as producers of transportation, and indirectly as consumers of transportation, through shipment of goods, and directly through movement as passengers. Certainly we have never conceived the creation of a Department of Transportation in terms of organizing the Government around consumer categories. To be quite honest with you, I had never thought of it before, until you brought it up. It is true, of course, that HEW in one sense is highly consumer oriented. But in turn, here, perhaps to a lesser extent than in the case of transportation-again it affects the American people both as consumer and as producer, and I give you as the most pertinent illustration, the Food and Drug Administration. Obviously, on the one hand it is consumer protection, but it also deals very heavily, of course, with producers. Mr. BROWN. So there is, and probably always be, some difficulty in getting under one roof, or into one department, things that do not affect other departments. Mr. SCHULTZE. Correct. I would fully agree. That is quite correct. Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Rosenthal has a question that will take a second. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Schultze, I am considering the wisdom of offering an amendment when the committee reports out this bill, presumably to create an aircraft noise abatement service, and I wonder if between now and tomorrow morning you could be in touch with General McKee of the FAA, and ask him merely to consider his thought on this subject so we can discuss it tomorrow. Mr. SCHULTZE. I will. Chairman DAWSON. We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning when these hearings will be continued―at that time other Government witnesses will be heard. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 1966.) CREATING A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Chet Holifield (acting chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Chet Holifield, Henry S. Reuss, Benjamin S. Rosenthal, John N. Erlenborn, and Clarence J. Brown, Jr. Also present: Elmer W. Henderson, subcommittee counsel; James A. Lanigan, general counsel, Committee on Government Operations; Herbert Roback, assistant to Congressman Holifield; J. Philip Carlson, and William H. Copenhaver, minority counsels. Mr. HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order. Our first witness this morning is Lt. Gen. William F. Cassidy, Corps of Engineers. General Cassidy. STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. WILLIAM F. CASSIDY, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY General CASSIDY. I am Lt. Gen. William F. Cassidy, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army. The statement I am about to present expresses the views of the Department of the Army, as well as those of the Corps of Engineers. The Department of the Army has given very careful consideration to H.R. 13200 and has concluded that the establishment of a Department of Transportation would be in the national interest. Hence, we favor the enactment of legislation that would achieve the objectives of H.R. 13200. While in the main the bill would affect other departments of the Government, insofar as it affects the Department of the Army it has our full support. The major impact of H.R. 13200 on the programs of the Department of the Army would be its effects upon the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. Section 6(f) of the bill would transfer to the proposed Department of Transportation certain responsibilities for regulating and protecting transportation by water which are now discharged by the Corps of Engineers. Section 7 would require the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate standards and criteria "for the formulation and economic evaluation of all proposals for the investment of Federal funds in transportation facilities or equipment." This section would also |