that you now have with the proliferation of transportation activities, under the broad Federal wing.

All I am raising is the question here, it seems to me, as to whether or not you can really achieve what you hope to achieve in the policy statement in S. 3010. I agree with the chairman-I think they will up for some amendments.

be

Mr. BOYD. Let me give my answer to that, and then turn it over to the Secretary to straighten it out.

My answer is that everybody who has gone into a thorough study of this, going back as far as we want to remember, has concluded that this is the right approach.

Now, as far as a guarantee, it is impossible.

Senator JACKSON. Well, it is a thankless assignment. It is almost an impossible one-almost comparable to the task before the United Nations. Because certainly in the transportation field, there are a million and one ideas about how we should regulate existing means of transportation, and certainly what the competitive factors should be or should not be. There is no area in the economic sector that I know of which is more of a jungle than this one, and I certainly admire and commend anyone who undertakes to even get involved in it.

I am just trying to ask some questions here that might confuse it a little more.

Mr. BOYD. I would like to say one more thing, Senator. Everything you say is exactly right, and it has often seemed to me anybody who got involved in transportation was a masochist of greater or lesser degree.

INVESTMENTS IN TRANSPORTATION TO INCREASE TREMENDOUSLY

But the fact is as Senator Magnuson stated in his testimony this morning, and both Director Schultze and Secretary Connor-the demands for transportation investment in this country are going to be so vast that what we have had to do in the past, from the Federal level, is going to pale into insignificance, and the concern of these various modes, about whether they are going to get their share, is really the wrong question for them to be asking, because there is going to be so much business, both passenger and cargo, waterborne, land and air, that the real problem is whether any of these modes going to be farsighted enough to keep up with the demand. It is not going to be a question of anybody getting cut out. That is really no problem at all. But if this economy continues to grow, there is going to be so much of an investment requirement for all the modes that they will be falling all over themselves trying to keep up with the demand.

Senator JACKSON. I think most of them are not worried about being cut out. They all just want a little more, and each fellow figures he wants more than the other fellow is getting. That is what you call competition, or maybe something else.

That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Anything further, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary CONNOR. No, sir; I think that summarizes it for the moment, Mr. Chairman. We will stand ready at your call to come back and try to answer some more questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Secretary CONNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We have as our next witness General MacDonnell. General MacDonnell is Acting Chief of Engineers.

We are very glad to welcome you, General.

Where is the Chief?

General MACDONNELL. He is in Vietnam.

The CHAIRMAN. We wish he was here. But I am sure he has able representation in you.

General MACDONNELL. Thank you very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have you here today, General, to give us the views of the Corps of Engineers.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. R. G. MacDONNELL, ACTING CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

General MACDONNELL. Thank you, sir.

The Department of the Army is of the opinion that there is a need for a Department of Transportation in the executive branch of the Federal Government. Hence, we favor the enactment of legislation that would achieve the objectives of S. 3010. While in the main the bill would affect other departments of the Government, insofar as it affects the Department of the Army it has our full support.

The major impact of S. 3010 on the programs of the Department of the Army would be its effects upon the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers.

Section 6(f) would transfer to the Department of Transportation certain regulatory functions for which the Corps of Engineers is now responsible, involving factors which have a bearing on the movement and operational cost of land and water transportation.

Section 7 would require the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate standards and criteria "for the formulation and economic evaluation of all proposals for the investment of Federal funds in transportation facilities or equipment."

It would also provide for cooperation and coordination.

The regulatory functions that would be transferred to the new department under section 6(f) include the authority to regulate the location of vessels at anchor, to prescribe drawbridge operating regulations, to require alteration of existing bridges considered to be unreasonably obstructive to navigation, to review and determine reasonableness of tolls charged for crossing bridges, to administer the act for the prevention of the pollution of the sea by oil, and to control the location and clearances of bridges over navigable waters. These are considered to be proper functions of the contemplated Department of Transportation and their transfer would be in accord with accepted tenets of good organization and administrative management.

As indicated previously, section 7 would require that studies of waterways, harbors and other navigation projects by the Corps of Engineers be made in accordance with standards and criteria pertaining to project economics established by the Secretary of Transportation.

61-552-66- 8

The responsibility would continue to be that of the Corps of Engineers for engineering standards and criteria, the studies themselves, and the reports to Congress thereon.

To insure coordination betwen the economic standards and criteria promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation, and the policies and procedures governing Federal water resources development programs, S. 3010 would require the Secretary to consult with the Water Resources Council recently established under the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.

This provision is made in recognition of the fact that the Water Resources Council now has the authority to promulgate economic standards for Army and other Federal water resource developments. Since navigation projects are not only additions to the Nation's transportation system, but are also important water resource developments, it follows that the Secretary of Transportation and the Water Re sources Council must discharge their standard-setting functions in a compatible fashion. The fact that both the Water Resources Planning Act and this bill require Presidential approval for proposed ecnomics standards insures adequate coordination betwen transportation policies and water resources development policies.

Section 7 would also enable the Department of Transportation to provide the Corps of Engineers with information, such as projections of transportation needs, for use in its studies of prospective navigation projects. This is consistent with, and is a desirable enlargement on, the present arrangements the Corps of Engineers has with the Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation in the Department of Commerce.

The fiscal year 1967 civil works budget includes $187,000 for funding data collection and analysis activities to be performed for the Army by that office, and this function would be transferred to the new Department by S. 3010.

We believe it is logical that a Department of Transportation should be the focal point for developing traffic projections and other economic background data relevant to navigation and other Federal transportation projects, and the Corps of Engineers would, of course, welcome the assistance of the new Department in this regard.

The engineering design, construction, and operation and maintenance of projects would continue to be the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers.

The opportunity afforded the Army to express its views in support of this important legislative proposal is greatly appreciated. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, General.

This is one area of governmental functions in which I am a little bit interested.

NAVIGATION ON THE ARKANSAS RIVER

My State is very fortunate in that it is blessed with great internal waterway resources, as you know. We now have in progress on the Arkansas River, in Arkansas and Oklahoma, a great navigation project, a multiple-purpose project, in fact, with major features of navigation on the Arkansas River.

I want to be thoroughly briefed and advised in this area before I make any commitment on this bill or on this part of it. I want to

know what impact it is going to have on that project, if any. I want to know what impact it is going to have on similar projects, of course, and on the potential of future projects of this nature, because we do have further projection in Arkansas.

We have the Quachita River navigation project, as you know. There is a potential Red River project, on up as far as Texarkana, on the Red River.

There are further development potentials in the White River, navigation potentials, as you know. In most of these projects, of course the overall program is multipurpose in its objectives.

Generally in the past our experience with the Corps of Engineers has been satisfactory, very satisfactory in most respects. We do not want-I am sure we do not want any reorganization here or transfer of authority or powers that would disrupt the tremendous progress that we are making in this field, in this development of our resources.

I want to know, and I am sure that other Members of Congress are also vitally interested in this issue-just what impact this is going to have, what changes will it produce in the functioning of the Corps of Engineers, in their present authority, with respect to these projects.

You say in your statement:

The engineering design, construction, and operation and maintenance of projects will continue to be the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers.

But I think the power is lodged in the Department of Transportation to set forth all of the design criteria, background-in other words, to give you a guide rule to which you must conform. Is that correct? General MACDONNELL. Our understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that

The CHAIRMAN. We want to know. We do not want a guess or belief or a supposition. Before we are through with it, we want to know just where we are in this.

General, I am just laying it right out face up, because we want to study this very thoroughly.

General MACDONNELL. So far as the engineering design is concerned, I feel there is no question whatsoever that this remains in the purview of the Corps of Engineers.

So far as economic data are concerned-and this enters the problem at the survey stage prior to authorization-at that point, under this bill, we would expect to receive from the Department of Transportation expressions of their evaluation of the tonnages that could be expected to move on a prospective waterway, and of the anticipated transportation savings.

On that basis, we would then proceed with the preliminary design at the survey stage of this waterway and come up with the cost estimate. Having received the estimated benefits from the Department of Transportation, we would compare this with the cost and be able to present to the Congress a benefit-to-cost ratio.

This is not dissimilar to what take place today in aa multiple-purpose project where we have water quality control, irrigation, and flood control. We obtain the necessary quantities required for irrigation from the Bureau of Reclamation. We obtain the benefits therefrom from the Bureau of Reclamation.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you still obtain those from the Bureau of Reclamation under this bill?

General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

General MACDONNELL. And from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare we obtain their requirements for dilution during low season flows-low flow augmentation-and the estimated widespread benefits that result from that.

The flood-control aspect we do entirely ourselves.

In other words, we turn to that point in government which can be expected to have the most expertise in a particular field of water

resources.

I view this as concentrating the expertise on transportation economics only within the Department of Transportation.

"HOW IS A PROJECT INITIATED?"

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you this, How is a project initiated? How do you get your initial directions and authority to make a survey of a suggested project?

General MACDONNELL. We must be directed to do so by the Congress as an authorization either by resolution or by act. We must then be specifically funded for that investigation.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Let's stay with the authority for a moment. I know how you get your money; I am on the Appropriations Committee. But let's explore how you get a project initiated-the authority from which you proceed to make a survey and a recommendation that the project is feasible.

The next step, then, after that you get your planning money?
General MACDONNELL. Right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You make your plans, and then you get the construction money.

Now, let's go back to the source of these projects. You get your authority now from a resolution of the Congress, do you not? General MACDONNELL. We do, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, is that authority by this bill conferred upon the Transportation Department, that authority that the Congress now gives you initially to go out and start a project, make a survey of it, and a report?

General MACDONNELL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What part does the Transportation Department play in the initiation of a project?

General MACDONNELL. Having been directed by the Congress to undertake an investigation of the feasibility of improving a waterway in a given location, we would then work with the Department of Transportation to obtain from them-and I presume we would assist in this

"LET US NOT PRESUME”

The CHAIRMAN. Please, General, let's not "presume." We want to get away from this. This is too vital. I want to know before I commit myself to the bill in its present form-I do not want presump