Bureau of the Budget for funds, you don't think that would be an improvement?

Mr. LAWTON. No, sir; I do not. I can tell you what has happened and I think you gentlemen are familiar with it. You are familiar with the budgetary process whereby a unit of Government goes through the various layers within their own department to get a budget. This again is handed to the next in line, in this case it might be, talking of the days of the CAA, the Department of Commerce. These budgetary needs and requests were balanced against others in the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce came up with a budget, a proposal. This went to the Bureau of the Budget. Again, this was placed against other departments. And finally, through a system with which you are familiar, of long and hard struggle, they are permitted to present a budget to Congress. But you gentlemen do not usually know, unless adroit questioning brings it out, what the actual needs, what the actual proposals of the agency originally were. I have gone through this many times with the Weather Bureau. And we have found various measures of relief. You gentlemen are familiar with the facts, when you ask the man, the head of a bureau "Do you have enough money?" or "Does this budget represent your total needs," you know full well what the answer will be, or else you are going to help him find a job a couple of months later.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. My own judgment is that agencies ought to have to struggle to get funds. I also don't think it is a fair comparison to compare the climate of public acceptance of aviation 10 and 15 years ago with what it is today. I think times have changed. I think the aviation agencies do well because times have changed, not alone because of the structure in Government.

Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Roback?

Mr. ROBACK. What would happen to Government if you applied this logic to every department? How many agencies would improve themselves by being out from under?

Mr. LAWTON. This is an excellent argumentive technique, this is known as reductio ad absurdum.

Mr. ROBACK. The argument is absurd, and maybe the opposite is also.

Mr. LAWTON. No, this is an effective technique

Mr. ROBACK. You are interested in the Weather Bureau, so you want it as a separate department; you are interested in aviation, so you want it as a separate department.

Mr. LAWTON. I did not so state.

Mr. ROBACK. You are a maritime small boat operator, and you would want the Coast Guard to be a separate department perhaps, or whatever other agency would be involved.

You understand where it cuts across the issue, it is understandable you would want to have an agency as a self-contained entity, but from the standpoint of those who have to worry about all of the agencies of Government, the same conclusions would not necessarily follow. You understand that?

Mr. LAWTON. I understand that, and I agree with you to the point we believe it can be done with the existing mechanisms. We don't believe, in our view, a tremendous new Cabinet status is necessary for a job of coordination. And that is the sole reason that has been offered by the executive branch, that of coordination.

And to put the regulatory, or quasi regulatory agencies-I am talking about regulations from the standpoint of operating proceduresunder this umbrella for coordination purposes, doesn't make sense. Mr. ROBACK. Your organization, as far as Federal aid and investment goes, in a sense is one of the least involved agencies? That is, you don't depend on Federal subsidies for your business operation? Mr. LAWTON. Only to the extent we use the Federal airways and airports, which are beneficiaries of Federal aid. Not subsidy, no.

Mr. ROBACK. But in terms of Federal investment in a basic development of a mode or in terms of supporting the mode, you are not involved.

Mr. LAWTON. We are to the extent that we need airports, we need airway facilities, good air traffic control system, because we use them. We also pay taxes to support them.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Copenhaver?

Mr. COPENHAVER. Mr. Lawton, when the FAA was the CAA and located in the Department of Commerce, did the Administrator of the CAA come before Congress himself to seek appropriations and authorization for funds?

Mr. LAWTON. It is my understanding that the Administrator appeared before the Department of Commerce, supported by his staff, and made their case, which is similar to other Government agencies. Mr. COPENHAVER. So Congress would have his views on the record as to the needs?

Mr. LAWTON. Commerce would have them; yes, sir.

Mr. COPENHAVER. No, Congress. The question was could the Administrator of CAA come before Congress? Congress, not Commerce. Mr. LAWTON. Yes. The CAA Administrator appeared before the Appropriations Committees of Congress.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Thank you.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Lawton.

The committee stands in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

(Thereupon, at 12:08 p.m. the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 26, 1966.)

CREATING A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE

REORGANIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Chet Holifield (acting chairman) presiding. Present: Chairman William L. Dawson, Congressman 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; and William H. Copenhaver, minority counsel.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order.

This morning we continue our hearings on H.R. 13200, a bill to create a Department of Transportation.

Our first witness will be the Honorable George Fallon, chairman of the Committee on Public Works.

Congressman Fallon, we welcome you to the witness chair. We know that you are more accustomed to sitting in the chairman's chair than you are the witness chair and we are happy to have you.

Mr. FALLON. I am more comfortable up there, too. [Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE H. FALLON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity of appearing before your committee this morning.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Excuse me. Did you have any copies of your testimony?

Mr. FALLON. Yes. I have one, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Proceed.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I repeat, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your committee this morning to express my views as chairman of the Committee on Public Works on pending legislation, H.R. 13200, which establishes a Department of Transportation. And I believe there is a need to channel, coordinate, and harmonize the present many scattered facets of our transportation program and policy into one executive body and to give this program the proper and full-scale recognition it deserves. I support this legislation but

with certain clarifications and with a proposed amendment that I will explain in my testimony.

As chairman of the Committee on Public Works I am certainly vitally interested in anything affecting transportation. In the Committee on Public Works we cover the major portion of the transportation field, including the Federal-aid highway program which is under our jurisdiction at the present time and is handled by the Department of Commerce in the Bureau of Public Roads.

In addition, we have jurisdiction of the programs of the Corps of Engineers, including its rivers and harbors functions. Both the operations of the Federal Bureau of Public Roads and the Corps of Engineers are tremendously affected by H.R. 13200.

At the outset, might I state that the major portion of the funds to be transferred under this program to the new Department of Transportation are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works. This includes more than $4 billion annually for our great Federal-aid highway program and a substantial sum for rivers and harbors projects which are usually authorized on a biennial basis in an omnibus river and harbor bill.

May I address my remarks first to the operation of the highway program and the Federal Bureau of Public Roads. Throughout the entire existence of our great Federal-aid highway program the Bureau of Public Roads has worked closely with the State highway departments. Over the years, there has been a most effective cooperation on a State and Federal relationship within this great highway program. It is my hope and desire that this cooperation between the several States and the Federal Bureau of Public Roads will continue. Thus I strongly recommend, if and when legislation is reported by this subcommittee, that proper emphasis will be given under the bill to the position of the Bureau of Public Roads so that they may maintain this much-needed independence of operation in their relationship with the States in the full-scale development of our highway program.

Section 2 of this legislation contains a broad declaration of purpose, looking to, among other things, the development and recommendation of national transportation policies and programs to accomplish the objectives of this act.

Section 4(a) directs the Secretary of Transportation in carrying out the purposes of the act, to exercise leadership in transportation matters including those affecting the national defense, national and regional emergencies, and the development of national transportation policies and programs. In my opinion, a tremendous authority and a most responsible one is given to the Secretary of Transportation under these two sections of H.R. 13200.

Let us consider the authority given to the Secretary under section 2 and section 4 and their relationship to section 7 of the bill which covers transportation investment standards.

This language seems to be a substantive change in the law under its operation. If enacted as now written, the Secretary of Transportation would have the authority to control all projects involving Federal funds in the field of transportation including, among others, highways and waterways. If, as I emphasize once again, as read in conjunction with section 2 and section 4, it appears that the Secretary would have the authority, among other things with respect to highways, to approve