What unifying thread is there among the subsidy approaches to Amtrak, the northeast rail situation, and transit operating subsidies? To what extent is general aviation in the "public interest" and how does this relate to our subsidies for local air carriers? A major related question is that of railroad bankruptcies: We now have a mixed system of public ownership (nationalization) on one hand and forms of private ownership and operation on the other. What is the rationale for this split and is it valid?

Another major question is: What is the Federal role in regulating and promoting competition? How will you decide the extent to which the free market should be restrained by regulations and what is the proper role for competition in our society? We would like for you to tell us how you propose to go about determining what the proper balance is between public and private development and operation, and between Federal and local participation. Why subsidize Amtrak, for example, to compete with other modes which are also subsidized either directly or indirectly? If you consider Amtrak to be a political fact of life, then should other policy choices be altered in recognition of that? If not, then how is duplication to be avoided-or should it be? The issues underlying the question of regulation and competition range from freight rates and ICC regulatory activities to the competitive conditions faced by our international air carriers. These sorts of issues should be examined in light of what the Federal role should be.

Our third major policy question is: How can the decisionmaking process be structured to provide for multimodal or cross-modal cohesiveness? At the root of this question is the observation that the means qualify the ends. The importance of organization lies in the often determinative effect that execution has on program substance. It is clear to us that there needs to be a definitive statement on the proper role of the Office of the Secretary in both the broad and routine activities of the Department. How can an entity such as TSARC be justified? Would a single transportation fund, such as Representative Brock Adams proposed at our hearings last year, show us-or force us to decide where we are going with our transportation system and allow us to "balance" or make tradeoffs between modes instead of only within them? The continued impact of trust funds on transportation development should be considered. Would general, rather than categorical, grants allow more flexibility in multimodal use of funds or would that result only in increased fragmentation and lack of cohesion? We would like to receive within a month or so a sort of "functional" breakdown of the 1976 DOT budget, showing types of expenditures (salaries, research, etc.) by transportation function (urban transit, long distance intercity, etc.). This should help form a "crosswalk" between the modal structures. We would be interested in finding out what generic or broad priorities have been established in research and development funding: for example, is more R. & D. being undertaken on safety matters than, say, energy efficiency? What should the relative priorities be? What should be done to develop means to ensure a viable short haul intercity passenger transportation network?

The fourth major policy question is: To what extent should the "outward forces" of transportation facilities be considered in the making of DOT decisions? As was pointed out in our hearings last year, transportation is at once both determinative and resultive of many

aspects of contemporary life: commerce, ecology, employment, housing, defense, and social welfare, to name only a few. How will you go about insuring the consideration of these "outward forces" in DOT decisionmaking and what should their proper role be in those decisions? For example, to what extent is (or should be) the purpose of urban mass transportation the reduction of air pollution rather than the reduction of urban congestion? Or, to what extent (or under what conditions) should highways be built primarily to provide jobs? Or, further, should the impact of transportation capital improvement on real estate values bear any weight on whether those improvements are undertaken? In other words, to what extent should the social implications of transportation programs be the primary or the secondary purposes of those programs?

Another major question is: Should there be a different policy and philosophical approach to urban as compared to rural transportation programs? Rural transportation "policy" seems to be varied and rather haphazard, ranging from the interstate and farm-to-market roads to subsidized local service air carriers. Would a greater and more coherent rural emphasis lessen the growth or severity of urban transportation problems? Urban congestion is perhaps our worst and probably our most frequently experienced transportation problem. Do we have adequate means to measure whether our programs are making things better or worse, and to what degree?

The sixth major policy question is: How can we adjust our transportation services and facilities to meet the increasing demands placed on them by energy scarcity? Transportation is by far the Nation's most wasteful user of energy. To what extent will technology be able to meet the requirements of energy scarcity and still provide reasonable levels of service to the American public?

A seventh major question is: How can we best resolve the often-conflicting objectives of energy conservation, environmental protection and automotive safety?

Another major question is: To what extent, or in what way, should consumer costs be integrated into transportation decisionmaking? An example of this type of concern is the cost of modifying the existing air carrier fleet to conform to noise abatement standards. The new automotive "safety" bumpers have been costly to consumers, as have emissions reduction devices, yet the bumpers may be justified on the basis of auto safety (cost) and human safety.

The ninth question is: What long- and short-range improvements need to be made in intercity freight transportation? Looking ahead 10 or 15 years what are some of the options available to us in intercity freight transportation and how might railroad productivity improvement, better rolling stock (freight car) control and utilization, railroad electrification, and the development of intermodal containerization and intermodal terminals affect these options? Basically, what direction should we be headed in this field?

The final question is: How will you go about establishing some minimal common denominators or standards of the Federal Government which outline desirable levels of service, comfort, safety, amenities, and so forth? The need for these service standards, or criteria, was presented at greater length in our policy hearings last year. It is clear

that there also needs to be established productivity improvement criteria with respect to subsidy allocation.

Mr. Secretary, we have not attempted to provide an all-inclusive list of questions. It is our hope, however, that in the process of addressing these questions you will move forward in the formulation of a national transportation policy which was begun by Secretary Brinegar. A policy which consists of a thoughtful and well reasoned plan designed to accomplish agreed upon goals which are well specified, attainable, and easily understood.

Mr. Secretary, now that all the members are here and you have met them all we will be very pleased to have your first statement as the new Secretary of Transportation.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Secretary COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am quite aware that this committee has had serious conversations with the previous Secretaries in connection with developing a transportation policy statement. I have read the statements developed by Secretary Brinegar, and I think that they ought to go some of the way towards meeting your objectives. I think I am very fortunate in having this position because the people in the Department seem to be very able and very competent and I think that under Secretary Brinegar they conducted the various analyses and developed options that will help me, if I have the ability, to put it all together and perhaps come forward with a policy. That is something we are working on already, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is my first appearance before you. Indeed it is my first appearance before any congressional committee since my confirmation hearing. The fact that I appear 72 hours after my confirmation I hope will convey some of the significance I give to the work of this committee. I appreciate very much the opportunity to meet with you as you start hearings on the Department of Transportation's fiscal year 1976 appropriations request. This annual "overview" session serves as an important vehicle for all concerned-the committee, the Department and the public-for obtaining an overall perspective and understanding of the Department's programs for the coming fiscal year.

The departmental briefings I have been having for the last 2 weeks should prove helpful to me in answering your questions. For some of the discussions, it may be necessary to call on my new colleagues or, in some cases, to provide you with written responses. But in all cases I would like to assure you we pledge candor and prompt cooperation. I know that the Department will continue to benefit from your counsel, not only during the hearings process, but throughout the year ahead.

RELEASE OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS

Before turning to the overview for fiscal year 1976, I would first like to say something about President Ford's February 11 announcement concerning the Department's plans to accelerate approval of projects estimated at up to $2 billion additional from the highway trust fund. As a lift to our economy, we forecast that these plans will generate about 55,000 primary jobs and induce an additional 71,000

ancillary jobs, for a total of 125,000 new jobs. As a strictly budgetary matter, the impact would be to increase our 1975 obligations and our 1975 and 1976 outlay estimates above those amounts contained in the budget message of the President on February 3. An amended request reflecting these changes is now being developed for your consideration. The figures I will use in the remainder of my testimony address the amounts in the President's budget as originally submitted to you and do not take into account the impact of the February 11 announcement.

OVERALL BUDGET PROGRAM

The total program level for the Department of Transportation's 1976 budget amounts to $11.3 billion, an increase of $1.36 billion over

1975.

The increase is made up of two principal parts:

1. $1.07 billion for grants to States and communities mainly for surface transportation assistance for mass transit, highways primarily the Interstate system-and payments to Amtrak for operating losses and capital improvements;

2. $290 million for the Department's operational programs in the Federal Aviation Administration to meet the projected growth in aviation; in the Coast Guard to strengthen its programs for marine environmental protection, safety and marine law enforcement; and for our implementation of recently enacted legislation by this Congress, such as the Deepwater Port Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Rail Safety Improvement Act, the Motor Vehicle Schoolbus Safety amendments, and the Amtrak Improvement Act.

Outlays for 1976 are estimated at $10 billion, an increase of $850 million over 1975. Of this increase, $334 million is attributable to construction and improvements of highways, $275 million to mass transit assistance, and $194 million to operating and maintaining the Nation's air traffic-control and navigation system and airport development grants.

I have been assured after persistent inquiry that our budget request totals have been subjected to a close, stringent, analytical review in our Department. I look forward to participating in the formulation process in the future and I can give you my personal assurance that I will oversee the execution of this budget with the close attention it deserves.

I now will describe the highlights of our budget request.

COAST GUARD

The Coast Guard has a long and honorable history of public dedication to the saving of lives. It carries this same dedication over to its newer responsibilities such as the prevention of marine pollution through constant vigilance and rapid effective response when oilspills and other similar accidents occur. I spent about 2 hours Saturday with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and I assure you he is a first-rate leader and a man that I know I will enjoy working with.

For the Coast Guard, the Department is proposing a program level of $1.074 billion-$136 million above 1975. As you know, the U.S.

Coast Guard is the oldest and the second-largest segment in the Department. There is a growing recognition of the importance of our coastal areas as one of the key elements in our ecology and as a national resource for oil-and-gas exploration, fisheries, and deepwater ports. The Coast Guard has a responsible role in this area to insure that there are adequate marine safety and environmental regulations and that these regulations are adhered to. Our 1976 budget proposes to underpin, and where possible to strengthen, the Coast Guard's programs in these areas. At least three companies or consortiums have indicated their intent to apply to the Department for licenses under the recently enacted Deepwater Port Act of 1974. These applications will have to be acted upon in the Department.

The Coast Guard's responsibilities for marine law enforcement, safety and fisheries, and environmental protection require it to conduct surveillance over large areas of the oceans adjacent to our coastline. To keep up with this difficult task, the Coast Guard will procure 10 new aircraft replacing old, obsolete medium-range planes. To meet the precision navigation needs of tankers and other vessels moving into and between ports of the United States, expansion of coverage of the Loran-C radio-navigation system will continue, particularly along the west coast, including Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico. Research efforts will focus on insuring maximum safety for offshore loading and unloading of tanker cargoes, the so-called deepwater ports project, and on improvements to cleanup devices in the event of accidental spills.

To improve the Coast Guard's ability to keep maritime commerce moving in the winter months along the Nation's inland waterways, replacement of old icebreaker tugs will commence and two new construction tenders will be added to support our navigational aid activity. Also, during fiscal year 1976, the second of the Nation's powerful icebreakers, Polar Sea, will be commissioned.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

In the field of aviation, we will continue to concentrate on the safety of our airways and airports. We are also working on ways by which the aviation sector can contribute to energy conservation. Examples of these activities include reducing flight delays and optimizing flightpaths giving due consideration to environmental factors. Incidentally, if we can do that we will certainly increase consumer acceptance of that service, because those that have flown around airports waiting to land, sometimes get irritated because it takes you so long to get down. The fact that we will be saving energy and also helping to serve the public, I think, will be quite important.

I have been informed that the administration has analyzed extensively the Federal role in airport development over the course of the past year. As a result of this analysis, the 1976 budget for FAA proposes legislation which will continue, and, in fact, slightly expand airport grants to an annual level of $350 million, but with diminishing direct Federal involvement in program execution. However, the strong Federal role in acquisition and installation of standardized air-navigation and traffic-control facilities will be continued and a 5-year extension at the current $250 million annual level is being proposed. Funding for research necessary to improve system capacity and safety to