When completed, the parkways will have a combined length in excess of 1,100 miles, on which now there are about 734 completed. We have about 131 miles that are started, or financed, which leaves roughly 238 miles to complete the program. We feel that the $11 million recommended in this authorization for 1966 and 1967 would allow us to continue on with this program at a reasonable rate. And I will be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Stratton, you are supporting the administration bill, 10055? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. Mr. FALLON. The amounts for parks and trails shows only a $2 million difference, the administration bill being $23 million for each of the 2 years, 1966 and 1967, and the other two bills introduced are for $22 million in 1966 and $25 million in 1967. So that is only a difference of a million dollars there, so that is $46 million against $47 million. You can operate according to your plans for $46 million rather than $47 million. Is that not correct? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. Mr. FALLON. Now, on parkways: The administration bill is $11 million for each of the 2 years. 1966 and 1967. H.R. 9905 and 9906 authorize $16 million for the 2 years 1966 and 1967. As I understand, you can go ahead with your program and complete it for $11 million in each of the 2 years, rather than $16 million. Is that right? Mr. STRATTON. This particular phase of it. This will not complete the whole parkway system, of course. Mr. FALLON. According to your present plan? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir; according to the present plan. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Cramer? Mr. CRAMER. Was the $11 million figure on parkways your recommendation for the 2 fiscal years, 1966 and 1967? Mr. STRATTON. No, sir. We were asked to use that figure by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. CRAMER. That is a cutback of $5 million for 1965 and $5.55 million for 1964, is it not? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. What did you ask for, from the Bureau of the Budget, for this purpose? Mr. STRATTON. We made a recommendation to the Department, but as I just previously stated, we were given the instructions from the Bureau of the Budget. We did not make a recommendation to them. Mr. CRAMER. You did not make a recommendation to them preceding those instructions? Mr. STRATTON. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. On what basis did you justify the $5 million cutback? Mr. STRATTON. The land acquisition-as you know, under our parkways program, the States involved acquire the lands for the parkways and turn them over to the National Park Service, and then we use these funds to construct the actual roadway. In some of the States, the acquisition has been a bit on the slow side, so that we felt that in view of this situation, together with the admin istration's program, we could do these next 2 years with an amount of $11 million. Mr. CRAMER. What can you contemplate thereafter? Mr. STRATTON. To complete the existing parkway program of nine parkways, it will take approximately $123,500,000, so that if we want to accelerate the program in future years, we will undoubtedly be asking for an increase over and above the $11 million. Mr. CRAMER. What do you think is a reasonable period of time for completing that program? Mr. STRATTON. We are geared to accomplish about $25 million worth of work a year in the parkway program. Mr. CRAMER. And you could accommodate $16 million this year, or for 1966 and 1967, if you had the money. Is that not right? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So maybe in 1968 you will be asking for $25 million. Is that it? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. In order to complete it in a period of 4 or 5 years thereafter? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir; otherwise, at this rate, it will take a longer period of time to do it. Mr. CRAMER. At this rate, it would take about 12 years. Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Stratton, were the figures in the bill 2 years ago, the $16,550,000, for fiscal year 1964, and the $16 million for 1965-were those figures that your Department had recommended to Congress at that time? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir; and that is in the 1962 Highway Act that we recommended these figures. Mr. BALDWIN. In both years? Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Now, could I ask this question: Just what mechanical procedure is necessary for a highway to be included in this parkway system? Suppose somewhere, in some State, there was a proposal to make a highway a part of the parkway system of the Federal Government. What process would be required, legislativewise or otherwise, to actually incorporate that? You mentioned that you have nine parkways now. Suppose some place they wanted to create a 10th parkway. How would they do that? Mr. STRATTON. It would take legislation, sir. Our parkways are authorized by legislation, such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, or the Natchez Trace Parkway, handled through an act of Congress creating it. Mr. BALDWIN. So each one of these nine have been separately authorized by an act of Congress? Mr. STRATTON. I believe so, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. And any new additions would have to be above and beyond that? Mr. STRATTON. Any new additions, even to an extension of one of these parkways over what was originally contemplated in the organic act, would take further legislation. 30-413-64- -6 As a matter of fact, there is a case in point. The Congress authorized us to study and make a feasibility report on an extension of the Blue Ridge Parkway from a point in North Carolina down 190 miles to near Atlanta, Ga. The feasibility has been completed, and legislation will have to follow in order for us to make this extension to the existing parkway. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. Mr. FALLON. Thank you very much, Mr. Stratton. Mr. STRATTON. Thank you, sir. Mr. FALLON. That is all of our witnesses for today, so the committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 12, 1964.) FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1964 THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1302, Longworth Building, Hon. George H. Fallon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. FALLON. Ladies and gentlemen, the Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works is meeting again this morning for the further consideration of H.R. 9905, H.R. 9906, and H.R. 10055, to authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1966 and 1967 for the construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and for other purposes. The first witness this morning is our colleague, Mr. Johnson, who has a statement for the record. He is a member of the committee. STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here briefly this morning on behalf of this particular bill that you are considering or bills that you are considering. Mr. Chairman, this committee has before it three bills relating to authorizations for Federal highway and road purposes for the fiscal years of 1966 and 1967. I would like to address myself primarily to one section of all three bills, that pertaining to the forest development roads and trails. In the past, I have appeared before your committee to stress the importance of timely development of forest roads and trails. This is of utmost importance to the economy of my district and the country as a whole. Transportation system development is the most essential element of effective multiple-use land management. The road system or lack of roads dictate the uses of the land and the harvesting, protection, and utilization of the resources. The road system largely determines the timber values and even which timber can be marketed. It allows or discourages the development of recreational areas. It provides for the protection of the lands from fire, insects, and disease. 79 I believe the appropriation level provided in H.R. 10055 provides for an orderly development of the forest road system. In the past, I have emphasized the need for an adequate system of forest development roads and trails, and mentioned the proposal for a 10-year development plan which the late President Kennedy said he would recommend. This program was submitted to and approved by the Congress, and I believe the appropriation level which is proposed is in line with this approved development plan. In the past 2 years on visits to my district, I have had opportunities to observe the effect of the expenditure of the funds provided for forest roads and trails under this program. The 10 national forests in my district have increased the rate at which they are selling and cutting timber, and all 10 forests have shown an increased recreation use. As encouraging as some of the statistics are, there are some very apparent weaknesses. To fully develop the national forest timber resources, we are going to have to have our road system fully developed. Of necessity, we have been developing the areas which are most easily accessible. It will take a greater expenditure of road dollars to keep our national forest timber cut up to its sustained-yield rate and to sustain the economy which is dependent on this timber. Further, in my district, and I am sure it is representative of many other national forest areas, there has been a rapid increase in water development. This development throws a tremendous burden on the national forest road system. New water oriented recreation developments, increased recreational travel, and the mixing of recreation and logging traffic has created the need for many new and higher standard roads on the national forest system. If we are going to fully develop the potential of these resources, we must provide access at an accelerated rate. In conclusion, I would like to urge that this committee give authorization to expend $85 million for fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and $95 million for fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, for forest development roads and trails. These are the amounts set forth in H.R. 10055, and I believe you will have testimony before you today that such levels are recommended by President Johnson and his administration. Should the committee decide to proceed on one of the other bills, H.R. 9905 or H.R. 9906, I would hope that these levels of authorization could be written in paragraph (3) of section 2. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to comment on this section of the Federal Highway Act because of the tremendous importance of these roads to the economy of the mountain and valley areas of the Second Congressional District. The cost of constructing these roads is very small when compared to their benefits, and I believe that this type of development has proved in the past and will prove in the future to be a very sound investment on the part of this Nation. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for the opportunity to appear here. I would answer any questions, if you have questions, at this time. Mr. FALLON. Well, I anticipated your testimony, Mr. Johnson. I was almost sure you were going to support the administration bill. |