Mr. FALLON. Congress has been able to protect this fund and throw off several attacks to get some of the money out of it over a period of years, and I think we should exercise the authority.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The point is you don't want funds that have been earmarked by Congress for both purposes to be used to build harbors, or money for harbors turned over to the roadbuilding fund, you object to that on principle?

Mr. FALLON. Either that, or we don't want it to be used for transportation of any other form, either.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The basic statutes I believe would control that. But nevertheless I think this is worthy of consideration in that we do not disturb, unwittingly certainly, the statutes that now exist. The Appropriations Committee is the second line of defense the Congress has against any kind of conversion contrary to the basic statutes. Mr. Dawson, do you have any questions?

Chairman DAWSON. No.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Any further questions, Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. I do have one further question I would like to ask Mr. Fallon or counsel. Under the present arrangement for navigation projects, we have the cost/benefit ratio. Isn't that correct?

Mr. FALLON. Yes.

Mr. ERLENBORN. And this is established by the Corps of Engineers and they make a report to the committee, showing the cost/benefit ratio.

Mr. FALLON. That is correct.

Mr. ERLENBORN. And on the basis of this a determination is made as to whether the project is feasible or not. Is that correct? Mr. FALLON. That is correct.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you feel that this section 7, together with the other sections of this bill, would give the Secretary the authority to establish the standards that would affect the cost/benefit ratio? In other words, you take away from the Corps of Engineers the authority to establish this cost/benefit ratio?

Mr. FALLON. That is our interpretation.

Mr. ERLENBORN. And do you think that this is also an undesirable effect of this bill?

Mr. FALLON. Very much so.

Mr. ERLENBORN. You would rather this stayed with the Corps of Engineers, the present system is working well?

Mr. FALLON. And the recommendations come directly to Congress. Mr. ERLENBORN. You also feel that there is authority given to the Secretary of Transportation under this bill to ignore the wishes of Congress in any way, and that if Congress appropriates money for a project that does not fit the standards and criteria established by the Secretary, that he could then refuse to expend the funds on that project?

Mr. FALLON. I coudn't say on that.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Well, I would draw this parallel. At the present time I think we have, and we have for some years, had a dispute between the Congress and the Secretary of Defense as to certain projects for the development of manned bombers. As I understand it, Congress from time to time has appropriated funds for this purpose and the Secretary of Defense has not expended these funds. Don't

you feel that the Secretary of Transportation could likewise refuse or fail to expend the funds that are appropriated by Congress for transportation projects?

Mr. FALLON. He could, yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Of course, this goes to the inherent constitutional powers of the President, which might be exercised by any Secretary of any agency of the Government and which, to this date, the Congress has found no means to cope with, I might say. [Laughter.]

This is nothing unique, because it comes as a division of constitutional power and, while we can appropriate, we cannot mandate the President to expend, and this is a sore point with a good many people. But nevertheless it would be no different than it now obtains in other departments, Cabinet department levels. Is that not right? Mr. FALLON. That is right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. No.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Thank you very much. We will certainly take into full consideration your testimony and your amendment, Mr. Fallon. Mr. FALLON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Cramer?

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like for the record to introduce, also to be available to answer questions, Mr. Clifton Enfield, who is minority counsel for the Public Works Committee and former General Counsel for the Bureau of Public Roads under President Eisenhower, and Bob May, who served in the capacity of Assistant Counsel under President Eisenhower, who are authorities as much as anyone in this country, I believe, on this subject.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We are very happy to have your associates and you before us this morning.

Mr. CRAMER. And I am sure they will correct me if I say anything that is not consistent with their experience or the law.

Let me comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman, before I get into my prepared statement, on two or three of the questions asked, because I think they get to the heart of the question and the problem involved. At the outset, I say that generally the idea of coordinated transportation planning has merit, obviously. The question is, how do you accomplish it and what do you destroy in accomplishing it, if anything? What should be protected against, so as not to destroy on going programs presently underway, many of which are tremendously successful. And I don't think there is a program in this Nation more successful than the Federal highway program. There is now $4 billion out of the trust fund going into that program. The highway user fee concept has been accepted by the public.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Of course, if that was done, if I may say, it would be contrary to the stated declaration of purpose in section 2. The purpose of the bill would be for the purpose of improving and making

more efficient and coordinating and not for the purpose of destroying these programs which I agree with the witness are proceeding in many instances very well.

Mr. CRAMER. And I have no quarrel with the stated objectives.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And you do not believe that the President would appoint a Secretary that would go in and deliberately do this sort of thing, of destroying the purpose of making a more efficient transportation system in the United States, and of defining what a national transportation policy should be. Certainly he would be in real trouble if he tried to contravene the will of Congress.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I would be the last to suggest bad faith on the part of anyone. But I would suggest that those who drafted this legislation, and I don't think that the bureaucrats who do the drafting have knowledge that is not subject to review by the Congress. My objective is to present some constructive suggestions relating to problems as I see them concerning the highway program, and rivers and harbors authorization program, because I feel that the way the language is drafted, particularly in section 7, let alone the delegation of all power under all of title 23 to the Secretary, under section 6, has any result other than to substantially change the concept of the present program and the authority that presently exists.

Now, let me say that, No. 1, I am going to make three recommendations, basically, that I think demonstrate the reservations that I have and the questions in my mind. And I don't think there is any question but what the way it is drafted, these reservations are justified.

No. 1. The proposal that I am making is that the Bureau of Public Roads Administrator's position be preserved, specifically, by legislation. Now at the present time, as I understand it, the Administrator of the Bureau of Public Roads, appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, presently holds a level V position under the Executive Salary Act. The Assistant Secretarys, I am sure this committee knows, hold a level IV. I have felt for some time that actually the Administrator of the Bureau of Public Roads should be in a position comparable to an Under Secretary, level III.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. If I understand it, this principle that you advocate would, I suppose, apply to the other agencies that are transferring into the Department of Transportation as well as to the Public Roads? Mr. CRAMER. I would have no objection to that if they are major agencies.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. If they are major agencies and if they are put in to the President and confirmed by the Senate?

Mr. CRAMER. Right. Because I think the status of the Administrator, and of course Congress has confirmed this relating to water pollution and many other programs, the status of the person in charge largely determines what policies shall be carried out and who will have something to say about it.

Now, if the Administrator of Public Roads has to go through an Assistant Secretary, which he would, which could easily happen under this proposed legislation, then you go from the Administrator to the Assistant Secretary to the Under Secretary to the Secretary, and you could destroy your effective existing State-Federal relationships, which largely came into play because the Administrator can make these de

cisions after consulting with the Secretary and report back to the States, and you don't get an indefinite delay.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In other words, you would want this Senate approved Administrator to report directly to the Secretary?

Mr. CRAMER. Correct, and be appointed by the President.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And you feel that this would be a safeguard as to his independence of action in implementing the statutes for which Congress appropriates the money?

Mr. CRAMER. It would, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is essential that this $4 billion a year program not be buried in other transportation programs. That is essential. Frankly, I don't think any Member of Congress would not want to make certain, and be completely in accord with the objective of having nationwide transportation policies, that we preserve the existing highway program, the existing FederalState relationships, particularly when our Interstate Highway System program is now 50 percent completed, and is so successful.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, now, may I ask you for information on the record at least, if the Administrator of Public Roads at this time is a man that is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate? Mr. CRAMER. That is correct. He is, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And he reports direct to the Secretary of Commerce at this time?

Mr. CRAMER. Well, it's a matter of departmental determination at the present time. Under President Eisenhower the then existing Administrator reported directly to the Secretary. At the present time I understand the Bureau of Public Roads Administrator first reports to the Under Secretary for Transportation and then to the Secretary. But under this present setup, you are elevating the Under Secretary to the position of a Secretary and the Administrator should report directly to the Secretary. I think otherwise the delay is going to be too high a penalty to pay.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, as I understand the arrangement of the bill at the present time, the Assistant Secretaries are not line officers but staff officers?

Mr. CRAMER. Right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And therefore there would be, even under the present arrangement, there would be no necessity for them going through the staff officers?

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I think that setting it up as it has been proposed clearly indicates the intention on the part of the administration that those who make policy decisions rather than staff decisions should have a higher position than the staff Assistant Secretary. Therefore, I think that the Administrator should be level III.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Possibly an amendment to the bill in this instance, the person in charge of the public roads program would report to the Under Secretary rather than the Secretary. Is that not true? The way the bill is arranged?

Mr. CRAMER. Well, the bill provides for an Under Secretary but it does not suggest what authority the Under Secretary shall have as compared to the Assistant Secretaries or the Secretary himself. I want to see the Administrator of the Bureau of Public Roads put in a position grade which is equal to the Under Secretary so that he reports

directly to the Secretary in consultation with the Under Secretary, but not as a subordinate.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think the record is clear.

Mr. CRAMER. And I think this is essential if this program is going to go forward, and that would not in any way prevent proper coordination.

Let me say, secondly, that there should be, as the chairman has suggested, very clear language written into this legislation that the highway trust fund shall remain inviolate. I am very apprehensive, and I think I have grounds well founded for it, that the long-range concept relating to transportation, and the long-range hopes of some, is that highways should be downgraded, and that subways, for instance, should be upgraded. There are numerous other conflicting problems relating to transportation, including the thought that the highway trust fund is really something that could be diverted at a future date at the present level of income for other transportation

purposes.

Well, if this is true this violates the highway user concept. I think language should be put in the bill, as suggested by the chairman, to clearly say what Congress' intent is. I think the weakness in the legislation is it doesn't clearly say what Congress intends.

If you read section 6, which transfers all the authority relating to the highway trust fund, and I specifically call your attention to line 17, page 12, you will not find any reservation about the complete transfer of all powers relating to funds. "There are hereby transferred to and vested in the Secretary all functions, powers, and duties of the Secretary of Commerce and other officers and offices of the Department of Commerce"-which means Bureau of Public Roads"under title 23, United States Code, relating to highways." And on line 17, functions relating to the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, as well as title 23, are transferred.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. But it doesn't give him any more power.
Mr. CRAMER. Oh, yes. Now we will get to this point.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That now exists?

Mr. CRAMER. Or, yes, it does, Mr. Chairman, and that is the point I make next.

Section 7 (a) and (b), now there is no question but what the Secretary under those sections could refuse to spend money out of the trust fund for any of the purposes that Congress provides under title 23, which is, I might add, a concept that has never been exercised in the field of highways.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. But could the Secretary of Commerce also exercise that same authority today if he wished?

Mr. CRAMER. If he were invited to do so by the language similar to that in section 7. I say that under section 7 he is invited to do so. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Or if he were directed to do so by the President, under the same principle that we have discussed here this morning? Mr. CRAMER. There is no question about that, Mr. Chairman, but I say section 7 invites such withdrawal of highway programing.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. As we talked about before, that is a matter of interpretation because section 7 does not authorize transfers from the highway fund, and I can understand your fear is as to the ambiguity