visions to minimize harm to affected parkland and historic sites. The committee recommends that this policy be extended to include wildlife refuge areas as well.

(Ibid.)

The committee is firmly committed to the protection of vital parklands, parks, historic sites, and the like. We would emphasize that everything possible should be done to insure their being kept free of damage or destruction, by reason of highway construction. The committee would, however, put equal emphasis on the statutory language which provides that in the event no feasible and prudent alternative exists, that efforts be made to minimize damage. To that end, the amendment contained in section 114 of S. 3418, as reported, which would expand the definition of "construction costs," should be helpful.

The committee would further emphasize that while the areas sought to be protected by section (4) (f) of the Department of Transportation and section 138 of title 23 are important, there are other high priority items which must also be weighed in the balance. The committee is extremely concerned that the highway program be carried out in such a manner as to reduce in all instances the harsh impact on people which results from the dislocation and displacement by reason of highway construction. Therefore, the use of park lands properly protected and with damage minimized by the most sophisticated construction techniques is to be preferred to the movement of large numbers of people.

(Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968, S. Rept. 90–1340, pp. 18–19.)

Urban Impact of Highways

[p. 53]

During 1967 the committee reviewed Federal policy relating to urban highway planning, location, and design.

***Most people realize how important highways are to the continued social and economic development of our Nation. Highways have proven to be one of the great contributors to our system of communication, as well as transportion. When people are able to move freely, safely, and conveniently from place to place, the resulting exchange of information, goods, and services works to the benefit of the entire national community.

We hope through these hearings to come to an understanding of

what is being done and what can be done in urban highway construction to make highways a force for improved environment rather than as a factor which accentuates the already existing elements of decay, disruption, and displacement.

(Opening statement at hearings of the Senate Committee on Public Works, on Urban Highways, 1967, Pt. 1, pp. 1-5.)

First, we must apply to all capital improvement programs a full accounting of their social and environmental costs and build into all of these programs the means of meeting these costs;

And second, we must design all capital improvements to serve more than a single purpose so that full social and environmental benefit is extracted from such public investments.

The application of these two principles to the highway program, I believe, is clear. The cost accounting applied to urban highways until now has been deficient in that the ledger shows the costs of the program only in terms of acquisition, design, and construction. It does not show such real and tangible costs as the additional street and storage capacity required at points of egress; the taking of land from the tax rolls; the dislocation of the people in the highway's path; the reduction in value of adjacent property, the division and disruption of neighborhoods stemming from insensitive location; and the visual blight resulting from insensitive design.

I believe, and I will return to the point, that the highway program should include all the costs of building an urban highway, including those that I have itemized, and pay a fair share of these costs. To put it another way, I believe that the highway program, and the highway user, should meet the

[p. 54]

consequences of the powerful and potentially disruptive act of highway building in the city.

(Testimony of William Slayton, Urban America, at hearings of the Senate Committee on Public Works, on Urban Highways, 1967, Pt. 1, pp. 5–21.)

We had to take available published data, much of it very. primitive indeed, but I think any examination clearly must include not only factors of physiographic and slopes and so on, bridge crossings points, but really must include social factors

and resource values too, and the development I think of a humane and civilized route selection method will concentrate I think not on engineering considerations but matters of man, institution, and resource values.

(Testimony of Ian McHarg, University of Pennsylvania, at hearings of the Senate Committee on Public Works, on Urban Highways, 1967, Pt. 1, p. 61.)

In the view of the committee, the emphasis of the Federal Highway Administration on the development of multiple land and air rights use, as an integral part of urban highway planning design, is well placed. We encourage the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and individual State highway departments to give continued strong support to this so-called joint development concept.

The significance of the concept's potential value is impressive in terms of savings to the public, of more productive land use in densely populated or highly concentrated urban areas, and of prevention of haphazard development along the highway right-ofway.

The public saves from joint development because, on its behalf, the highway department eliminates costly severance damages associated with acquiring a highway right-of-way through partial takings of land. Instead, the parcels are acquired in their entirety for fair price, and the unusued portions either developed or sold for development.

(Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968, S. Rept. 90-1340, p. 8.)

Urban highway planning

There is almost universal agreement on the need to approach the complexities of urban highway planning and development with all the professional and scientific expertise available. For too long, highways were designed, located, and constructed as single purpose projects. They were built to serve the needs of traffic and, in many cases, without regard to their disruptive effects on urban environment. Use of joint urban development as well as other techniques has done much to correct the situation. The committee believes that improvement in the overall coordination of highway projects is taking place.

It should produce the basic mechanics needed, to provide a better evaluation of urban transportation needs in terms of social, esthetic, and economic values. It must be

[p. 55]

pointed out, however, that the approach must be classified as experimental. The committee is also aware that an approach such as this, will tend to prolong the completion of the Interstate System while these extensive studies take place.

There is no doubt that the knowledge gained in these efforts, will provide a foundation for new methods and techniques to assist in solving our complex urban transportation problems.

(Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968, S. Rept. 90-1340, pp. 11-12.)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

*** over the years, the steeply sloped Appalachian farms have remained relatively unproductive and have undergone severe erosion. The resulting denuded slopes have marred the scenic beauty of the land, contributed to widespread siltation of its streams, and have thus impeded the development of the great potential for recreation and tourism.

Most of the small crop farming now practiced in Appalachia is on a marginal basis and too frequently provides only a bare subsistence living for the small farmer. It is, however, unrealistic to expect every small Appalachian farmer to give up his farm immediately-an act which would largely result in simply transforming rural poverty into urban poverty. Also, many of the small farmers of the region, especially the elderly ones, are deeply rooted in the land and prefer to live out their years on the farm, rather than become public welfare clients in the towns and cities. Thus, a coherent and equitable Appalachian development program must provide for restoration of the land under its present inhabitants and enable them to realize what benefits the land can furnish.

(Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, S. Rept. 89-13, p. 11.)

Water resources

An abundant annual rainfall in Appalachia gives the region a water resource potential that can be found in few other areas of the country. Unfortunately, this potential has never been fully realized, and all too often, water acts as a curse rather than a blessing in Appalachia.

With proper control and management, Appalachia's water resources can become the region's most precious natural asset, providing almost unlimited opportunities for recreational activities and incentives for industrial development. (18)

(Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, S. Rept. 89-13, p. 15.)

Mine area restoration

Much of the Appalachian landscape has been ravaged by the mining of coal. Former practices of both strip mining and deep mining operations have eroded the hillsides, polluted the streams, and endangered the lives of thousands of people. Though present enlightened management practices have made great progress over former years, the abuses of past

[p. 56] coal mining practices serve as a major deterrent to industrial and recreational development in Appalachia.

(Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, S. Rept. 89-13,
p. 16.)

TITLE III-PROPERTY ACQUISITION
GENERAL STATEMENT

The Senate has been concerned with the problems of space almost from the beginning. When all Senators could no longer be accommodated in the Senate wing of the Capitol, the Senate in 1891 acquired the old Maltby Building which once stood at the junction of New Jersey Avenue and B Street. This building was known as the Senate Annex.

In 1909 three wings of the first Senate Office Building to be constructed were completed and occupied, and the fourth wing was completed in 1933. This building is now known as the Old Senate Office Building.

By the middle of the 1940's it became apparent that additional office space for the Senate must be provided, and in 1947 the 80th Congress passed Public Law 169, which authorized the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the Senate Office Building Commission, to prepare preliminary plans and estimates for an additional Senate Office Building. This building, now known as the New Senate Office Building, was completed and occupied in 1958.

When the New Senate Office Building was being occupied for the first time, the Committee on Rules and Administration determined that each standing committee of the Senate should be entitled to a minimum of one hearing room and five adjacent offices. At the present time there is not a single unassigned or unoccupied room on the Senate side of the Capitol Building or in either of the two Senate Office Buildings. Provision of space to accommodate Senators and Senate activities has long since passed the critical stage.

In order to determine how prevalent the shortage of space was, the