such projects. For purposes of considering standards and criteria for the transportation features of water resource projects the Secretary of Transportation is made a member of the Water Resources Council. The standards and criteria developed or revised pursuant to this subsection shall be promulgated by the Secretary upon their approval by the President. (b) Every survey, plan or report formulated by a Federal agency which includes a proposal as to which the Secretary has promulgated standards and criteria pursuant to subsection (a) shall be (1) prepared in accord with such standards and criteria; and upon the basis of information furnished by the Seeretary with respect to projected growth of transportation needs and traffic in the affected area, the relative efficiency of various modes of transport, the available transportation services in the area, and the general effect of the proposed investment on existing modes, and on the regional and national economy; (2) coordinated by the proposing agency with the Secretary and, as appropriate, with other Federal agencies, States, and local units of government for inclusion of his and their views and comments; and (3) transmitted thereafter by the proposing agency to the President for disposition in accord with law and under procedures established by him. Federal investments in water resource projects are seldom made solely for transportation purposes. In the great majority of projects already developed, the navigation feature for transportation purposes has been only one of many features. Other features include flood control; water stabilization for general public use including municipal use, industrial use, agricultural use, low flow augmentation, and sanitation; hydroelectric generation, land enhancement and recreation. Future projects will contain all these features and perhaps others. We believe that evaluation and determination of economic criteria and standards for water resource projects should be made on a basis which takes into consideration the many facets of public benefits to be derived. Standards and criteria for transportation features should not be considered separate and apart from the standards and criteria for other purposes for which water resource improvements are made because they are inseparable in most cases. In order to accomplish this we are recommending (1) that the word "multipurpose" be eliminated so that there can be no doubt that this section of the proposed law applies to all water resource projects; and (2) that the Secretary of Transportation be given authority to "recommend" standards and criteria, rather than to "develop" them, and that his recommendations go to the Water Resources Council for approval by that Council. The Water Resources Council was established by the Water Resources Planning Act which was passed by the Congress in 1965 for the announced purpose of having the Council develop standards and criteria and make recommendations to the Congress for the orderly improvement of our water resources consistent with the needs of the entire nation. We believe the Water Resources Council is the proper agency to develop the standards and criteria for water resource projects, including the standards and criteria for federal investment for transportation in such projects. In order to give the Secretary of Transportation a voice in the determination of standards and criteria for the economic evaluation of the transportation features of water resource projects, we propose that he be made a member of the Water Resources Council for the purposes of the Council's consideration of such projects where transportation features are involved. We recommend that the following language be eliminated from Section 7(b) of the bill: "*** and upon the basis of information furnished by the Secretary with respect to projected growth of transportation needs and traffic in the affected area, the relative efficiency of various modes of transport, the available transportation services in the area, and the general effect of the proposed investment on existing modes, and on the regional and national economy ***.* This language itself constitutes a statement of standards and criteria and should not be incorporated in the law. Particularly we think it would be objectionable to have a federal agency seeking to make a determination concerning federal investment in transportation facilities to be required by law to make such a determination on the basis of the general effect on existing modes. Every time a better airplane is put into service, federal funds have gone into the development of that airplane and its use is going to have an impact on other modes. Research and development under federal sponsorship of a rapid rail transit system will affect other modes of transportation, and the possibility of that effect should not be used to determine federal investment in research and development. Federal research and development in highway construction and highway construction itself affect other modes of transportation, but such effects should not necessarily influence federal investment in such research, development and construction. The same can be said with respect to inland waterways transportation. With respect to our proposed amendment to the portion of Section 7(b) which reads as follows in the legislation before the Congress: "*** (3) transmitted thereafter by the proposing agency to the President for disposition in accord with law and procedures established by him," an error apparently occurred in drafting this section which should be corrected. In our testimony we pointed out the desirability of establishing legislative history with respect to the intent of Congress concerning determination of navigation clearances in bridges crossing navigable waterways in the transfer of such authority from the Army Corps of Engineers to the Secretary of Transportation. Our purpose in doing so is to seek to resolve in advance some of the differences which are certain to arise in the interplay of forces within the Department of Transportation between the Bureau of Public Roads on the one hand, whose only purpose is to build a bridge to carry surface transportation, and navigation interests on the other hand, who must have adequate overhead dimensions and horizontal dimensions for the waterway in order to continue to provide service. We do not propose an amendment to the legislation. We only seek to have the Committee in its report on the legislation say in whatever fashion the Committee sees fit that the Secretary of Transportation will not permit restrictive clearances in bridges crossing navigable waterways. Our suggestion was that the Committee in preparing its report on the bill indicate the intentions of the Congress and we suggested that those intentions might be consistent with S. 2483, now pending before the Congress, which reads as follows: (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law the Secretary of the Army shall not approve, under this or any other Act, the plans for any bridge construction, reconstruction, or alteration over any navigable river or waterway connecting with the sea, which would have the effect of reducing the least bridge clearance provided for vessels moving between any point on such river or waterway and the sea, except that in any case where (1) such plans are for the construction of a new bridge and there is no other bridge between such bridge and the sea, and (2) the next bridge above the site for such new bridge provides unusually high clearance because of the terrain or other special circumstances, the Secretary may reduce the clearance which would be required under the provisions of this subsection by any amount which he deems to be unnecessary clearance.'" With respect to our interest in seeing that the U.S. Coast Guard's merchant marine safety functions are not subjected to substantive review by the National Transportation Safety Board, we do not believe an amendment to the legislation is necessary. We do believe, however, that the Committee report on the legislation should show that it is the intent of Congress, in transferring the Coast Guard as a legal entity from the Treasury Department to the Department of Transportation, to have the Coast Guard retain its autonomy with respect to its merchant marine safety functions. Again may we express our appreciation to the committee for giving us an opportunity to present our views on this proposed legislation. Sincerely yours, F. A. MECHLING, Chairman, Legislative Committee. BRAXTON B. CARR, President. (PART 2) HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 13200 A BILL TO ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES MAY 2, 3, 17, 18, 19, 24, AND JUNE 21, 1966 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 62-699 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1966 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Illinois, Chairman CHET HOLIFIELD, California L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina JOHN S. MONAGAN, Connecticut TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island JOHN G. DOW, New York HENRY HELSTOSKI, New Jersey FLORENCE P. DWYER, New Jersey CHRISTINE RAY DAVIS, Staff Director EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE CHET HOLIFIELD, California JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois ELMER W. HENDERSON, Counsel 1 Resigned from committee May 10, 1966. 2 Came to committee May 24, 1966. |