Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. FALLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. D'Amico has a question.

Mr. D'AMICO. Mr. Miller, in your statement you indicate: "President Nixon himself has recognized that the burden of Federal interference in State and local decisionmaking has become intolerable." Was your choice of the word "interference" inadvertent or was it used advisedly? The term seems to conflict with what Mr. Burgess indicated as a desire for guidelines, a desire for adequate controls, a desire for prudent business management. Just exactly what do you mean by the term "interference"?

Mr. MILLER. This term is used advisedly, in the same context that the last witness detailed. It is our experience, sir, and our honest belief, with all due deference to our many good friends here in the Federal Government, that all of the engineering knowledge, all of the honesty, all of the trustworthiness, is not centered in Washington.

We firmly believe, as I stated-and there are many that entertain this thought today, sir-that the Federal interest can be protected and at the same time delegate the basic responsibility for the design and construction of roads to the people where it belongs and the States where it belongs, with the Federal Government utilizing its power to see that projects are built in accordance with proposed plans and specifications.

Mr. D'AMICO. It was my understanding of what Mr. Burgess said that there is a need for Federal interest.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; correct.

Mr. D'AMICO. He suggests that the capacity for making decisions not be delayed or forced to go a route of step by step by step to Washington and back. But that more authority be placed in the resident Federal representatives. Is that your understanding, Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. D'AMICO. I wonder how you translate that into interference? Mr. MILLER. Here we are really dealing with matters of degree. No one, sir, would suggest to the Congress and this distinguished committee, certainly, that the trust fund moneys, if you please, be distributed with no strings. Of course not. The public interest must be protected.

But, as to the degree of that protection, sir, I think there is evidence here showing that Federal requirements are out of proportion to what you are protecting; the money you might be saving. This has nothing whatsoever to do with-maybe I can give you an example, a personal experience might clarify my position.

Certainly, I am interested in the protection of my property and my home. Recently I had a person call upon me with a new electronic device. He was going to rig my home and make it burglarproof. And this is a good thing, I would say.

But, when he wanted $1.200 for the installation of this, then it was not economically feasible.

And this goes with the standards, sir, and all the things we talked about. As Mr. Hajzyk so ably stated, no engineer would possibly deny the soundness of the most rigid standards for safety, especially. Some of the beautification things might be questioned, but, sir, not for safety. But certainly we could not take a stretch of miles of road from A to B involving 100 miles, take 20 miles of that and build it to the highest

design with every known electronic device which would take up the entire fund and leave the balance without any protection or practically in the mud. So it is really a question of engineering judgment in many

cases.

I would like to ask my witness here from the contractors, do not some of these problems have to be resolved by engineering judgment? Mr. TEER. They always revolve on engineering judgment.

Mr. D'AMICO. Commonsense.

Mr. MILLER. And we are asking for procedures that will not only delegate but encourage and demand the field organization of these Federal departments to recognize that and make decisions promptly on the field, giving recognition to other abilities.

Mr. CAFFERY. Mr. Chairman, I would

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Caffery.

Mr. CAFFERY. I would like to compliment the witness on having brought out what I think is a very valid point. It seems to me that all too often Federal people, if you will, are inclined to think that they have a monopoly on morality and a monopoly on intelligence and a monopoly on commonsense. I don't think that is always true, and I think the point and the observation that the witness makes is a valid

one.

I think that if we are talking about the elimination of redtape and the making of decisions and the accepting of responsibility, that there ultimately is going to have to be a delegation of authority, and decisions that can be made by, let's say, man No. 1 can and should be made by him, and then so forth, on up the hierarchy.

I think that too often we have tended to centralize this decisionmaking, and instead of causing the process to become more streamlined, it has been caused, instead, to become more cumbersome and more burdensome. So I think the committee should be grateful for having heard the testimony of this distinguished witness and of this enlightened panel.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Terry of New York.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, last week we were privileged to have Mr. Turner, the Federal Highway Administrator, appear before this subcommittee. And in his direct testimony he stated, under the question that we have spent time on this morning, the delegation of authority:

More important, such decisions are being made closer to the people affected by highway projects. A survey was made to determine the number of Federal aid highway project approvals made by the Washington office during the first half of the calendar year 1970. Of the total of 5,515 project approvals, 217 were referred to Washington for a decision. Now, out of those 217 projects referred to Washington, only 154 required the approval of the Washington office. The other 63 were sent to Washington for advice.

[blocks in formation]

In other words, 97 percent of the highway project decisions are being made in the field office.

I wondered if you might desire to comment on that statement made by Mr. Turner.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; I would, Congressman. First, again, I would like to reiterate that I have had the pleasure of cooperating with Mr.

Turner for 30 some years. I have the highest regard for him. He is a man of outstanding capability. Mr. Turner operates a vast organization. How many thousands of engineers and employees, I don't hazard a guess, but it is a vast organization. He has regional offices and district offices. There are many other echelons of authority, if you please, sir, before it gets to Mr. Turner's desk. He is referring to papers on his desk. Mr. TERRY. I don't think so. I think he is referring to the Washington office. That was his testimony.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. I have stated our position based upon the best information we could obtain. If the chair would permit, I would be glad to make a more indepth study because we have reason to believe that there are delays, and substantial delays, and these account for a tremendous loss of funds. I will certainly accept the Administrator's statement of how many cases come to Washington. But there are many, many areas, if you please, sir, of delay before this project gets to Mr. Turner's desk.

Mr. TERRY. I think that is what we are interested in ascertaining, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TERRY. Where is that level of delay? If Mr. Turner's statement is accurate, and the survey is accurate, then 3 percent of the highway projects decisions were made and required to be made here in Washington. Then there is a division here that is holding it up.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; the real power as you get away from Washington is what they call the regional office. This is between the regional and district office, and it goes back and forth.

Mr. WRIGHT (presiding). I am pleased to note that Mr. Turner has reported to this committee that new procedures have recently been initiated to expedite some of this work.

Mr. MILLER. Again, we have a very practical problem, and I understand Mr. Turner's responsibilities. But the delegation of authority is one thing and the acceptance of that responsibility with prompt execution is something else.

Mr. TERRY. I think we could well be interested in your offer to file for the record this question of where is this delay. Is it a fact that a man has the power but will not exercise it? In the instance of a certain percentage of these, 154 required approval but 63 were sent for advice. In those instances, certainly, a man may have in fact bucked it upstairs on an advice factor. That percentage is relatively small. But if it is a question of not making decisions at that division, district, regional level, that is something that this committee is interested. in, too. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, indeed. I think that is very much in point with our whole study.

Mr. TERRY. Now, how would you proceed on the question of, say, environmental protection which is now required by the Congress if you were delegating down the authority, as you propose in your statement, Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. I think it is being done with a great deal of success in a number of States. Many States have environmental agencies with highly qualified ecologists and other scientists that are doing an outstanding job.

And I really believe that sometimes-again, I will use the term advisedly, sir, and I don't apologize for using it, counselor-interference, that interference from Washington has not only delayed but has produced a negative net result in many instances.

Mr. TERRY. I am presuming that in connection with the Federal wage requirements, that that would be a postaudit procedure.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. And here again I am at a disadvantage, Mr. Chairman, because many of those persons involved are close friends of mine. But I am under oath to give you the best of my information. And I respectfully submit, sir, that the industry, the State highway officials, the project engineer there in the field working day in and day out on construction projects, have a better idea of what the proper going wage is than someone sitting in Washington. Mr. TERRY. That is right, and I can well see that with respect to the wages.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TERRY. But with respect to the environment, the problem is that once you put that road there, you are not going to tear it up or put those trees back, or whatever. And there the delegation of authority to a level that might not be as concerned as Congress is, we could well be subject to substantial criticism in the event of allowing this delegation and not having used it properly.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; you are absolutely correct. We have found in our experience that in some areas this whole question of environment has become quite emotional. We have also found in other areas that Federal agencies are competing with each other as to who can lay down the most stringent regulations, apparently. I think this has been recognized in the recent establishment of the new Environmental Protection Agency by this administration.

We were subject to 16 different groups telling us to put the tree over here, put it over there, tear it down, put it up, put a shrub in there. Industry can't operate like this, sir.

Mr. TERRY. You appear to be saying that the new EPA was pulling these together. Have you seen in their short history this happening?

Mr. MILLER. No, sir, we did not. But certainly this is one of the things that can help industry and cut this redtape in this area.

Another area where we have had a terrible experience, sir, and this distinguished committee, Mr. Wright, has done so much to help usis in the field of equal employment. There were many agencies involved and you go from one to the other.

Finally, Congress included a provision in the act of 1970, I believe it was, endeavoring to place the jurisdiction over equal employment and training programs under the Federal Highway Administrator; to be funded out of the trust fund.

But there is still so much redtape. We can't get any funding and it is difficult to get anything done.

Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TERRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. In connection with the environmental impact studies, I have just had some conversations with representatives of the Department of the Interior.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. It was that department which proposed the new sheet of check lists for reference. This is exhibit 1 in the committee's file.

They have advised me as of today that the filling out of this form will not be required of the individual project sponsors, and that it will be used solely as an internal device within the Government itself as a means of simplifying a quick reference to whatever environmental factors may be involved in a project, and that it will not be anticipated that all of the squares be filled out, and that out of the 8,800 squares, they would not anticipate that more than 50 squares at a maximum would be involved in a given project.

So I wanted to clarify that fact for the committee, inasmuch as I was partly responsible for pointing a finger at this newly proposed form. I am delighted that they will not be requiring the individual applicants to add this burden to their other burdens of paperwork.

Mr. TERRY. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WRIGHT. If there are no other questions-well, we might ask this. Mr. Burgess made a comment to the effect that: "We need to be constantly looking for better ways to communicate with the citizens in a meaningful way. Guidelines and check lists are certainly fine, but there is a limit to which we should go." Would you care to elucidate on this?

Mr. BURGESS. I think we have alluded to that in our statement here about, for instance, the double public hearing Bob Hajzyk mentioned a few moments ago. I think one of these public hearings is superfluous. I do not think we need the double public hearing. I think it is confusing.

I think that the one that I mentioned a few moments ago about the inner-loop in Shreveport is a good example of what happens to our citizens because of the time delay. We try as best we can to inform the citizens about the route by these public hearings and by meetings, and so forth.

But in this instance, particularly-and I had a letter, I don't know what happened to it, from one of the citizens on that route. He was asking that their case be declared a hardship case and that the house be purchased immediately because they had gone out to buy a house. I don't think that I can elaborate any more about that point or about our contacts with our citizens. However, I do think that it is a very important area.

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. If there are no further questions, then the committee wants to express its grateful appreciation to Mr. Miller and all of the members of his panel who have been with us-Mr. Burgess, Mr. Teer, Mr. Hajzyk. You have enlightened us in many respects. We appreciate your coming, and we look forward to working with you in the future.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, I want to express our sincere gratitude for the privilege of this appearance.

Mr. WRIGHT. The witnesses this afternoon are singular; there is only one witness for the afternoon hearing. Therefore, will it be able that we recess until 2:30.

The committee will be recessed until 2:30 this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m. a luncheon recess was taken.)

agree

« PreviousContinue »