Our first estimate showed that about nine States would transfer somewhat less than $200 million collectively from one of their own apportionments into another.

Senator BURDICK. Aren't they borrowing from funds to make up the proportion they did not match?

Mr. LAMM. No, sir, it is not a question of removing the Statematching requirements. They would continue to have to match the funds under the apportionment which they end up using. Let's take North Dakota, for instance.

North Dakota very quickly uses up its Federal-aid secondary money. This provision would permit North Dakota, if it were in the position of having no apportionment remaining in the secondary program, yet having a secondary project ready to go, to shift funds from the Federal-aid primary account into the secondary account, and then advance that project.

I might mention though that North Dakota is not one of the nine. States which proposed to use this feature.

Senator BURDICK. I understand that. They are borrowing from their own categories, is that right?

Mr. LAMM. They are in effect advancing a project for which they would have to wait another 6 months otherwise.

Senator BURDICK. That makes me feel somewhat better. North Dakota has-let me tell you what they have done on the floor here. We in North Dakota managed our operations and funds in such a manner as to be able to match all Federal funds released. We are in a position to catch up on apportionment as the authorized matching requirement. This has been accomplished by reducing personnel, reducing maintenance programs. We have been helped by State legislative action and the highway distribution fund and depositing driver license revenues in the highway distribution fund.

We have done a lot of things to keep this program going. I did not want to be singled out by being penalized by taking all those extra steps.

Mr. LAMM. We would congratulate North Dakota for having advanced the program as well as they have. Our estimates show the final 1975 total for the State is going to be more than twice as much as they would originally have obtained out of the original $4.6 billion release.

So North Dakota obviously is a State which is profiting from the addition of the release of obligating authority.

Senator BURDICK. To make it perfectly clear, the borrowing you talk about is from other categories which the States are entitled to? Mr. LAMM. It is within a single State and doesn't entail any waiving of Federal match.

Senator BENTSEN. Thank you, Senator Burdick.

If there are no further questions, thank you, Governor Tiemann, Mr. Wells, Mr. Coupal, and Mr. Lamm, for your testimony. [Governor Tiemann's prepared statement follows:]

54-039 O-75-5

STATEMENT OF NORBERT T. TIEMANN
ADMINISTRATOR

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC WORKS

April 30, 1975

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

On February 11, 1975, the President directed that an additional $2 billion in obligating authority be immediately released to the States for use in expanding their "Federal-aid Highway" programs. The release increased the total available

for these programs from the $4.6 billion originally planned for F.Y. 1975 to $6.6 billion. It was made from contract authority already enacted by Congress through F.Y. 1976, and it reduced the amount of that authority which had been impounded at that time from $11.1 billion to $9.1 billion.

3

Both Houses of Congress have introduced legislation which will give temporary relief to the matching problem. The bill recently passed by the House of Representatives also contains a provision to partially alleviate the impasse resulting from lack of authorizations by permitting certain inter-system transfers.

-

S. 952

We are here today to discuss with you the relative merits and needs for this prospective legislation dealing with the matching problem, and, H. R. 3786, dealing with both matching and transfer of authority.

Before commenting on these proposals, I wish to report on the progress that has been made so far in the Federal-aid Highway programs. At the time of the release, more than seven months into Fiscal Year 1975, program obligations were $2.7 billion. As of April 18, they were $4.3 billion. In the ten weeks since the release, the States have obligated $1.6 billion, or twice the rate which has been our normal experience for this period of the year. In the two and one-half months remaining, they must obligate an additional $2.3 billion if we are to meet our goal of $6.6 billion.

This is a formidable challenge, but

we are optimistic that it will be met.

4

I should point out, however, that we do not believe the program can be increased much above the $6.6 billion level. Give or take a small percentage, this is about optimum considering both the capacity of the program itself to expand and the constraints which it faces, such as environmental issues, alignment controversies, transit substitution questions, and others.

I will now turn to the matching issue.

We have examined this problem in some depth over the past several months. We have discussed various elements of it before this Committee, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, the House Public Works Committee, and the House Appropriations Subcommittee in recent weeks.

H.R. 3786 and S. 952 both include provisions which permit Federal payments for certain projects approved between February 12 and June 30, 1975, to be increased above the

statutory Federal share if so requested by the State. In