now what it is going to be in the future, if we do not do something about this system.

So I hope you will push this study, which I am sure will show there is need for acceleration of our ABC system, particularly the half-mile and mile roads adjacent to the urban areas. And I am sure that there are some secondary roads outside of the urban areas that need attention, where we have not had nearly enough money to meet the needs of this growing system.

Yesterday AASHO presented to you a paper or statement on the principle in substance of the association and the Bureau of Public Roads.

There is a last paragraph that I would like to read. I have a comment to make on it.

It says that the Bureau of Public Roads and the State highway departments cooperatively utilize their experience and resources to develop and keep current those administrative and scientific techniques and standards needed to carry out the Federal air highway program.

This is not mentioning the experience and the help they could get from the experienced traffic people in our large cities.

We have no representation, cities have no representation, in the standards committee. We are now assured that they are going to

move in that area.

We have gone a long way in building up a cooperation between the city, county, State, and Federal governments, but as far as the urban standards are concerned, we just are not up to snuff. And I think part of it is that they have not taken advantage of the experience we have in our large cities, such as New York and Chicago and Philadelphia, as well as many smaller cities, which have very competent traffic engineering bureaus, accident prevention bureaus. These things which we have learned from experience you have to build into your highways.

I am hoping that the Bureau will in the future allow city experts on city traffic planning right in the cities-to be a part at least of the standards committee.

We have not stressed a change in relationship between the Federal Government and the Bureau of Public Roads. We have not asked for a direct relationship, because I do not think that is the way to build highways. But I am hoping, and Mr. Rex Whitton I am sure agrees with me, that there should be a greater impetus put on this cooperation, particularly in standards in our urban areas.

And I am sure he agrees with me also on the need for concentrating our effort on these mile and half-mile roads which are feeder roads to our very wonderful interstate and trunkline systems.

I think that brings out the points I had in mind. I think we ought to be awfully proud of the program, when we think of what it is doing for the unemployment of this country. You cannot look any place in the country without seeing men working, machinery working, every place you look. And I think that has helped us at least get to somewhere near the prosperous state in which we are now.

I am hoping that the House Committee on Public Works will strongly favor the accelerated public works bill, when you get to

it. It is a little off the point, but I am hoping while I am here that I can ask your support, in the Public Works Committee of the House. I think it ought to parallel our highway legislation, that we ought to be spending $2 billion a year rather than $1 billion a year.

Do you recall, Congressman, when we proposed a $2 billion program, here, and you only had half a billion dollars, and you said we were crazy? Well, I think the people of this country are talking about an accelerated public works program to meet the other needs of our country that are so deficient, and having a captive audience, here, I hope that I can ask your support for the accelerated public works program which I appeared on this morning before the Public Works Committee.

Mr. FALLON. We appreciate your coming here this morning, Mr. Richards, and giving us the benefit of your knowledge and experience on the subject.

Mr. BALDWIN. You have mentioned that the highway program is financed, and you have mentioned the additional needs in the highway field. And there is no question in my mind that there are additional needs.

You may or may not be aware that there are now very direct efforts being made to raid the highway trust fund and actually reduce what is available for this. What position has the American Municipal Association taken on H.R. 5050 to get a gasoline rebate for taxicabs taken out of the highway trust fund?

Mr. RICHARDS. At this time I do not believe our executive committee has taken any position, but I am glad you have asked that question, because we have always been against subversion of the highway fund. We have fought for years to get this committee and the other committees of Congress not to allow reimbursement for utilities.

Mr. BALDWIN. Well, let's not go off on anything except the one immediately before us.

Mr. RICHARDS. We are opposed to any diversion of these funds. Mr. BALDWIN. This bill is before the Rules Committee. What action do you propose?

Mr. RICHARDS. I assume our executive committee will meet in the near future and will consider that bill at that time, and that our director will send in other information to go along, if you want it, as to our stand on that particular bill.

Mr. BALDWIN. I hope you will make your stand known to all the Members of the House, including the members of the Rules Committee.

Mr. RICHARDS. I am sure we will take that up at our next committee meeting and make our position known throughout the committees.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Richards, on behalf of the committee, I thank you again for coming from the great city of Detroit and giving us this information.

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to have been here again.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Hillenbrand?

STATEMENT OF BERNARD F. HILLENBRAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

Mr. HILLENBRAND. Mr. Chairman, my name is Bernard F. Hillenbrand. I am the executive director of the National Association of Counties.

I am appearing here today on behalf of another fellow Marylander,Spero T. Agnew, the elected county executive of Baltimore County, who is chairman of our roads committee. He could not be here today to testify on behalf of the association. But I am accompanied by C. D. Ward, the general counsel of our National Association of Counties, and our statement will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, We appear here today to vigorously support your bill, H.R. 9905, and the bipartisan bill, Mr. Cramer's bill, H.R. 9906.

I would like to read a very brief formal statement from our American county platform, which is our policy position, which is exactly to the point of your bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALLON. Go right ahead.

Mr. HILLENBRAND. Federal aid secondary.

This is our policy platform point No. 3.4.

"Counties which have primary responsibility for over 500,000 miles of Federal aid secondary roads urged the Congress to honor its commitment expressed in the 1956 act to increase appropriations for the primary, secondary, and urban extension system by $25 million annually until they reach a level of $1 billion a year.

"Each county in cooperation with the State and Federal Government should immediately undertake a more detailed highway needs study, upon which we can develop a realistic national program to keep development of the secondary system in balance with the other systems of roads."

Mr. Chairman, we have about 250,000 county employees engaged in roadbuilding and maintenance, and we in the National Association of Counties would like to be associated with the remarks of Glenn Richards, who has just appeared on behalf of the city of Detroit, and who is also a supervisor from the county of Wayne. We would like to associate ourselves with the idea that there needs to be a whole lot more attention paid to the so-called ABC highway system.

We would also like, Mr. Chairman, to associate ourselves particularly with the statement of principles that was delivered before this committee by the American Association of State Highway officials. This appears in the hearing of Tuesday by the witness from the AASHO, and we believe that it is very important for this committee and for the Congress to restate the basic concepts upon which the highway program is built.

You heard Mr. Richards mention that he has been appearing before this committee since 1943. NACO has been appearing before this committee since 1955. But there are a whole lot of new people coming up, who do not understand some of the basic concepts of highway construction in the United States.

We are particularly anxious that this committee and the other committees of Congress recognize that the highway building in the United States is essentially a partnership program. And I would like to read just a single paragraph, outlining our basic philosophy about highway construction in the United States.

The partnership of 50 sovereign States in one sovereign Nation is nowhere more clearly defined in law and practice than in the highway field. The Federal Government collects highway users' taxes nationally and returns a portion of them to the 50 sovereign States, on the basis of legislative formulas, to help finance selected systems of roads, the development of which are mutually determined to be in the national interest.

This relationship requires of the Federal Government that it plan and develop jointly with the States and their political subdivisions to conform to mutually agreed upon standards and specifications, a national system of highways, and that it must not violate the spirit of the State sovereignty through hamstringing regulations or arbitrary use of control over enormous sums of money.

It requires that the States and their political subdivisions exercise particular care in planning, staffing, directing, and supervising and controlling construction of the Federal aid system.

We are happy to report, Mr. Chairman, that the relationship of the county officials, the city officials, the State officials, and the Federal officials, on highway construction in the United States has never been better.

And we hear considerable talk and agitation about more firm Federal controls over the States and localities with respect to highway construction and so on, and we know that this committee has always been a very strong supporter of this partnership concept, and we would like to again emphasize the need to rededicate ourselves to these principles, as we start this expanded review of the highway program to decide what to do after 1972.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to come here and strongly support your bill, H.R. 9905, and to say that the counties are very anxious to have the appropriations expanded to the level of $1 billion, as originally envisioned in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Hillenbrand, on behalf of the committee, let me thank you for taking time out to come here this morning and give us the sentiments of the county officials. Your organization has always been one of the great champions and supporters of legislation that has come out of this committee. We appreciate it, and it has been a great help.

Mr. Baldwin?

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Hillenbrand, I want to ask a question similar to the one I asked earlier.

This bill would increase by $25 million a year the expenditures in the ABC program. I am not necessarily opposed to that.

If H.R. 5050, the taxicab exemption of 2 cents, goes through, it has been testified by Mr. Whitton of the Bureau of Public Roads that that would take $7 million a year away from the trust fund.

Now, Mr. Whitton gave us a schedule that showed in 1969, the critical year, we will only have a balance of $20 million in the trust fund, and if we allow a raid of $7 million a year between now and then, we will have a deficit. So we could not even continue the ABC program at the present level.

What stand has your organization taken on H.R. 5050? This one dealing with the taxicab exemption from the trust fund of 2 cents per gallon?

Mr. HILLENBRAND. Mr. Baldwin, our organization is crystal clear on this point, that we are absolutely opposed to any diversion of highway user funds from the trust fund to be used for other nonhighway purposes.

We have specifically considered similar proposals, not this specific one. But again, our organization has been strongly opposed to any diversion of these highway funds.

We have tried to emphasize in all our work in this highway field that this is not the usual Federal-aid type of program, that the Federal highway program is financed by a separate system of taxes, which go into a trust fund, and that we must not finance other aspects of the Government from a special tax that is levied against highway

users.

I think people should keep in mind that a large portion of highway user fees already go to the general support of Government, and that additional raids on this new highway trust fund would be disastrous.

Mr. BALDWIN. Could I ask one specific question? Because we are running into a time problem in the House and Senate. We have one more witness.

But does your organization intend to see that each member of the House is informed on your position on H.R. 5050 soon? Mr. HILLENBRAND. Yes, sir; we certainly do.

This bill would increase our ABC appropriations, the overall authorization, $25 million. The Federal-aid secondary apportionment of this would be 30 percent of $25 million, or about $8 million. It would not make any sense for us to support that increase of $8 million, and then on the other hand have $7 million diverted out of the fund. We would be right back where we started from.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hillenbrand.

Mr. Rykken?

Let me on behalf of the committee welcome you here this morning.

STATEMENT OF K. B. RYKKEN, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY CORNELIUS R. GRAY, DIRECTOR, LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AAA

Mr. RYKKEN. My name is Kermit B. Rykken. I am director of the highway department of the American Automobile Association. Appearing with me is Mr. Cornelius R. Gray, director of our legal department.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we had at first contemplated simply filing a brief statement with the committee, but certain facts revealed in testimony by previous witnesses before this group within the past 2 days have caused us to reconsider, thus the reason for this relatively Iate request to appear and be heard.

The association continues its historic position of support for authorizations to carry on construction on the Federal-aid primary, secondary, and urban systems. The amount of authorizations ultimately provided for the fiscal years 1966 and 1967 will, of course, be finally determined by Congress in its wisdom, taking into account the general fiscal condition of the highway trust fund. We there