Randolph, Hon. Jennings, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia, Article from the San Francisco Chronicle entitled, “Optimistic Glow Route 219 Association, statement of Robert C. Dilks, executive director___ Seneca Trail Highway Association, letter to Senator Randolph from J. Shriver, Hon. Garner E., Hon. Joe Skubitz, Hon. Larry Winn, Jr., and Hon. 128 Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut, ma- Facts and authority upon which estimates of the available funds were State-by-State breakdown of proposed distribution of trust funds__. 265 FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1973 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 4200, Dirksen Building, Hon. Lloyd Bentsen presiding. Present: Senators Bentsen, Randolph, Muskie, Baker, Buckley, Scott, Domenici, and Dole. Senator BENTSEN. The hearings will come to order. This morning we begin 4 days of hearings on S. 502 and related bills, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. Our consideration of this measure this year represents a departure from traditional practice. Normally, Federal-aid highway legislation is a biennial activity that takes place during the even numbered years. However, the legislation failed to be enacted last year when, on the last day of the session, the House of Representatives could not obtain a quorum to vote on the conference report, agreed on during the final hours by Senate and House conferees. Consequently, we must begin our efforts anew. As the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, I have made a pledge to move this legislation as expeditiously as possible. While the highway program is not yet in a crisis situation, many States, including my own, are rapidly depleting their resources for continued highway upgrading and development. Existing law authorizes highway expenditures through June 30 of this year, but the normal practice is for highway funds to become available several months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which they are provided. Many States, therefore, programed their expenditures in anticipation that fiscal 1974 funds would be available early this year. These circumstances make it a matter of some urgency for the Congress to expedite consideration of a new highway bill. Yet, I do not believe we would serve our cause or the Nation's by rushing this measure through without a thorough examination of the issues involved. And I do not intend to sacrifice responsible highway legislation in the name of expediency. To obtain a balanced and comprehensive view of the future directions in the highway program, I have scheduled nearly 40 witnesses drawn from all walks of life-from citizens' groups, professional and (1) trade associations, conservation and environmental groups, and all levels of Government. I expect the issues to be sharply drawn and seriously debated, and indeed, this is as it should be. The Federal-aid highway program, with its thousands of miles of roadways, its costs running into the billions of dollars, and its effects, for good or ill, on the environment, affects literally every American citizen. Serious questions have been raised concerning the future of that program, and these questions should and will be addressed during these hearings. I do not believe that any group can claim that its viewpoint is being slighted. To that end, I have directed the various witnesses to address themselves to the most difficult and controversial issues confronting us, including, the proper authorization levels for the various Federal-aid programs, interstate, primary, secondary, and urban; the value of retaining the various categorical programs as opposed to encompassing them under three or four general headings; the use of highway trust funds for public transportation purposes, including rail transit; the so-called "pass through" of highway funds to urban areas, bypassing the States; the transfer of interstate mileage and the substitution of alternative segments by the States; and the advisability of the socalled "priority primary" system in last year's House bill, which would have authorized a new 10,000-mile system to approximate interstate standards using selected, heavily traveled roads. I trust that these issues will be responsibly presented. Too often, it seems, we have allowed our discussion of the highway program to deteriorate into emotional sloganeering, with the so-called prohighway advocates on one side and the antihighway advocates on the other. All of us realize, of course, that the issues at stake are far more serious and complicated than that. One other point should be mentioned before we begin our testimony. In S. 502, I have introduced a bill which contains some $500 million less from the trust fund and the general fund than the measure which passed the Senate last year. While it still represents a substantial investment for highways and highway related purposes, it recognizes that the needs in these areas must be viewed in light of our efforts to contain inflation and offer reductions in Government spending. As these hearings into the 1973 Federal-Aid Highway Act get underway I am saddened, as I know everyone present must be, by the deaths of seven children—and the injuries to several others in an accident between a school bus and a train in my home State yesterday afternoon. This tragic accident has brought enormous grief and suffering to the Texas panhandle city of Littlefield, where it occurred, and it sets a somber mood as testimony begins here this morning. Tragedies such as this dramatize the serious national problem of highway safety in the United States. Some 55,000 Americans die in traffic accidents every year. And, although we have been able to reduce the number of deaths per mile driven, we still have not been able to make any significant reduction in that total number. 55,000 lives every year is far too heavy a price to pay. I intend to introduce a comprehensive highway safety bill-completely separate from the Federal-Aid Highway Act-within a few weeks. I believe this question deserves separate and thorough consideration. And I hope, and expect, that we can draw on a good deal of the talent that is being made available for testimony on this highway bill when it comes time to consider the highway safety legislation. Before I introduce our distinguished representatives from the administration, I would like to insert a copy of S. 502 into the record. (The bill referred to follows:) 93D CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 502 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 23, 1973 Mr. BENTSEN (for himself, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr. BAKER, and Mr. BURDICK) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Public Works A BILL To authorize appropriations for the construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States. Code, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That 5 SEC. 101. This Act may be cited as the "Federal-Aid 6 Highway Act of 1973". 7 REVISION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 8 9 INTERSTATE SYSTEM SEC. 102. Subsection (b) of section 108 of the Federal10 Aid Highway Act of 1956, as amended, is amended by strik11 ing out "the additional sum of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal |