2-YEAR TERM Department American Trucking Associations, Inc., Washington, D.C. Walter Reuther, president, United Automobile Workers of America, Detroit, Mich. David Busby, Busby & Rivkin (Law Lewis Kibbee, director, Engineering Firm), Representative for Automobile Importers of America, Washington, D.C. Thomas L. Dougherty, manager, Product Reliability & Safety, Internnational Harvester, Chicago, Ill. James W. Hall, chairman of the board, Red Ivey's Automotive Service, Atlanta, Ga. Leonard A. Sawyer, State Representative, Olympia, Wash. 3-YEAR TERM John Conger, Ph. D., vice president for John Forrest Floberg, vice president, Edward J. Heitzman, research staff, The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Younger. Thomas F. Malone, Sc. D., vice presi- Derwyn M. Severy, research engineer, Mr. YOUNGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to compliment you, Mr. Trowbridge, for a very concise and fine statement. I think it is quite a bit in contrast to all of this. I think we probably will get far more out of this concise statement than we ever will out of the contents of the folder, which brings to mind one of the problems that Congress is confronted with, which is the competition between the departments for publications. They think that the Government is running a paper and pulp mill. We get more material on our desks every day from the departments than we could read in a month's time. Very frankly, practically all of it goes into the wastepaper basket. I think every Congressman will tell you that if they are honest. This runs into millions and millions of dollars. I was very glad to see our new Governor from California, in one of his first acts he told the departments to cut down on their publications. They are saving several million dollars just in the State of California. I would daresay that if care was taken in regard to the publications, even you in your own department, and if you just put your foot down and say "No, we will not put them out," great results would accrue. Now they are going into three-color jobs in a lot of departments. I would like to follow up just a little bit on what my colleague from Florida was saying. I, personally, do not like that Advisory Council at all. In the first place, I cannot see why it is necessary to take three out of the 29 from Austin, Tex., which is true, and one from the State of California, the speaker of the assembly, who has nothing to do with the industry or anything except politics. Here you have the State with the largest number of automobiles, largest number of accidents, the greatest mileage of highways, and we have one man. But you have three from Austin, Tex. I think that is a very poor distribution of personnel so far as the population goes in this country. So, I want to register a complaint that California has been relegated to a third- or fourth- or fifth-class position in the selection of this Council. Mr. BROWN. If the gentleman will yield. Mr. YOUNGER. Yes. Mr. BROWN. I think it ought to be pointed out that there are more members from Austin on the Council than there are TV stations in Austin. Mr. YOUNGER. Yes; I don't doubt that. I think that is something that is just inexcusable. I think the President or you or whoever is responsible for this certainly made a serious error. I am surprised that the President would not be more modest in his demands for Austin, Tex., than to show that three out of the 29 had to come from that one town. So, I want to register a serious complaint and then for California just to take the speaker of the assembly as the only one in California who has to do with safety. I would say he has the least to do with it of anybody in California. You should take the highway commissioner or anyone else out there. But you take a politician and put him on. I don't consider that the appointments on this Council are at all following the intent of Congress when we passed the act. I hope that it can be revised but I don't see any chance of it. When you make the transfers and you are left with 28,000 positions and a budget of $1.4 billion, will your department then be the smallest Cabinet department in the Government? Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Congressman, I do not believe so. For instance, in the Department of Labor, I believe there are 9,000 employees. I am not sure what their budget level is. I believe the Department of State has a budget level comparable or slightly smaller than the one which we will have. Mr. YOUNGER. The Department of State? Mr. TROWBRIDGE. If I am not mistaken, outside of the aid program Mr. YOUNGER. The aid program is in State? Mr. TROWBRIDGE. That is the foreign aid appropriation and, if we put that aside, the operating budget of the Department of State is close to ours; possibly a little smaller. As you undoubtedly know, the major portion of the funds being transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Transportation involve the highway trust fund. That is the large portion of this $4.2 billion. I am quite sure we will not be the smallest department in the executive branch after this transfer. Mr. YOUNGER. The new Department of Transportation will end up with 100,000 employees and a budget of over $6 billion. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I believe that is correct, Congressman, with all of the consolidation of activities. Mr. YOUNGER. So that the child you give birth to is going to be much bigger than the parent. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. That is true, in numbers. Mr. YOUNGER. I have one other question. You give a percentage on page 6 of the increase in the overseas visitors that are coming, 135 percent and 51 percent increase in expenditures for the same period for our people going overseas. That does not mean much unless we get it down to dollar figures. Could you give us the dollar figures? Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Yes, indeed, Congressman. What we are talking about here is overseas visitors. This does not include the Canada and Mexico travel flow or the payments for tickets. But in 1961, our receipts from visitors were $235 million and in 1966 they were $555 million. The expenditures by our citizens abroad in 1961 were $940 million; in 1966, $1,420 million. Now, I would like to clarify the use of the word "ease" there on page 6 toward the end of that paragraph where I said, "thus helping to ease our serious balance-of-payments deficit in the travel account." I don't want to mislead the committee with that word because the proper description would have been that we would have had a larger deficit had we not been engaged in these promotional activities, in my opinion. Because when we look at the entire travel account, it has been growing as a deficit item in our balance-of-payments figures. Mr. YOUNGER. Yes. I think that is a very worthy project. I am just wondering, the actual increase which we had would be some $320 million and that doesn't help too much when our people are spending $1,420 million. That is what I am trying to get at. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I think, Congressman, we have seen here not only the tremendous and explosive growth in travel both ways but, of course, as our country has been going through a very buoyant economic period our citizens have been traveling by the thousands, as you know. The rate per traveler of expenses abroad, the American traveler generally spends more; I think we have a whale of a lot of additional work that we can and should be doing of accentuating the positive, trying to bring more foreign citizens to our shores. We have an awful lot to show them. We ought to be in a position, I think, of doing a great deal more. We have some budgetary limitations, as you are aware. We have been operating now since the USTS was established on the same budgetary level that was originally set as a start-up program basis, $3 million. In spite of authorization for a larger amount each year, we have undertaken to implement our program with that amount. I would like to see a bigger push on this one. I think it is a positive program. I think it is an awful good program that we should be proud of. I hope we can do more. Mr. YOUNGER. Thank you very much. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Thank you, sir. Mr. DINGELL (presiding). Mr. Pickle. Mr. PICKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I have not been able to read your report. I have been at another meeting. My question will be toward this point. I am concerned about the status of our high-speed ground transportation in two categories, the one that we passed 2 years ago from here to Boston, the so-called New England corridor, and then the general approach for which apparently a panel has been appointed on the subject of high-speed ground transportation. Can you give me the status of the New England project, the northeast corridor, and then the others? Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Congressman Pickle, on page 10 I noted that demonstrations are planned to begin on the New Haven Railroad first of this year, Boston to New York in 3 hours 15 minutes. And on October 29 of this year, demonstration on the Pennsylvania Railroad, Washington to New York, with a schedule of 3 hours. I have with me today Mr. Robert Nelson who is director of the high speed ground transportation program. I would like to ask him to comment on that, plus the second part of your question, sir. Mr. PICKLE. Fine. STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. NELSON, DIRECTOR, HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committeeMr. PICKLE. Would the gentleman use the microphone? I don't believe I can hear. Mr. NELSON. It is true that we are going to, or at least we have very high hopes of beginning a service between New York and Boston with two train sets on July 1. I think we have proceeded quite rapidly in getting the construction of the equipment. We have gotten very good cooperation from the supply industry. The service between Washington and New York is scheduled_to begin October 29 of this year. The cars are under construction. We expect to begin to get delivery of the cars in June. There will be 50 of them. We believe that the entire fleet will be available to begin service at the scheduled time. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Nelson, of the 50 cars and the other equipment that has been involved in this project, are these being paid for by the appropriation we made, the $90 million we appropriated for the Department? Mr. NELSON. In the case of the New Haven demonstration, we are leasing the two train sets from the United Aircraft Corp. for a period of 2 years. We are paying the entire amount of the lease cost. In the case of the New Haven Railroad, as you know, we are dealing with a bankrupt railroad which has very few resources. I think that an accurate representation of our relationship with the New Haven and the conduct of the demonstration between New York and Boston is that the U.S. Government will support all of the costs to maintain the service which will amount to four round trips a day but the U.S. Government will also retain the revenues to cover those costs. So that the New Haven Railroad is essentially going to be left whole, neither gaining nor losing. In the case of the demonstration on the Pennsylvania Railroad, the U.S. Government has a contract with the Pennsylvania Railroad to perform the demonstration over a 2-year period. The Government is paying a total of about $9.6 million to the Pennsylvania Railroad to perform the demonstration. We have set down, I think, quite stringent requirements in the contract with the railroad, requiring them to acquire the 50 cars; we have set very rigid specifications for the cars. We have also established very rigid specifications for the service and the condition of the roadbed over which the trains will operate. Mr. PICKLE. In connection with the roadbed, are any of the funds. appropriated being used for the improvement of the roadbed? Mr. NELSON. As I stated intitially we are paying the Pennsylvania Railroad less than $10 million to perform the demonstration. The Pennsylvania Railroad on its side is investing in this demonstration, in the roadbed particularly, an amount which will probably be somewhere between $35 million and $45 million. So that, the Pennsylvania is investing a sum which is substantially above the amount of the cost of upgrading the roadbed. Mr. PICKLE. Why are we investing on roadbeds? I recall we stipulated this was for equipment and not roadbed and this was to be an obligation of the railroad. Mr. NELSON. As the contract developed, Mr. Congressman, we decided that the Government would gain the most by establishing a performance requirement for the Pennsylvania Railroad and the contract was written in performance terms. It does not stipulate that the Pennsylvania Railroad spend a certain amount of money on equipment. It stipulates that the Pennsylvania Railroad acquire 50 cars. The total cost of the fleet of 50 cars is over $20 million. It is true that, as the relationship with the Pennsylvania Railroad developed, it was assumed that the U.S. Government was going to make a contribution toward the cost of acquiring the equipment. We can still look at it in that way although the contract formally is stated in performance terms. Mr. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman yield just to straighten this out? Here is a contract, C32-66, Pennsylvania Railroad, $9,600,000. Scope of contract, operation, and demonstration project between Washington, D.C., and New York City. Whatever operation means, that is it? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. Is that correct? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. I would like you to submit to me a statement later in order that we do not prolong this, just what governmental funds are being used with respect to roadbed and your authority for spending this money. I don't think it is. I would like you to submit to me, if you would, a follow through of this interrogation, if you will. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. We will submit that, Congressman Pickle. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have that submitted for the record. I think it is agreeable with Mr. Pickle that it should be, so that the whole committee may have the benefit of it. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. All right, sir. (The information requested follows:) STATEMENT ON AUTHORITY FOR PARTICIPATING IN FINANCING RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE DEMONSTRATION Under authority of sections 2 and 7 of the Act of September 30, 1965 (P.L 89-220), the Department entered into a contract with the Pennsylvania Railroad for a demonstration of rail passenger service between Washington and New York. Under the contract the Government has agreed to contribute to the cost of the demonstration. The contract does not earmark Federal funds for any particular element of the demonstration. The Pennsylvania Railroad agreed to pay the costs involved in conducting the demonstration in accord with performance standards set down by the Government. In order to assure a high level of riding comfort these performance standards include the maintenance of a prescribed level of track alignment. The Federal Government has agreed to pay the Pennsylvania Railroad $9.6 million for the conduct of the demonstration. It may be noted that the cost to |