must be emphasized that a highway system whose traffic demands are geared directly to an expanding economy and virile population growth can never know completion. This conclusion is supported by the report of the Secretary of Commerce submitted to Congress March 25, 1955. The Bureau of Public Roads has estimated that in addition to the $23 billion construction needs on the Interstate System until 1974, an estimated nearly $10 billion additional will be required by 1984. The report states: "There is no foreseeable period in the future when there will be no highway needs." If the Congress will but establish a definite longrange financial foundation for the Interstate System, it can properly subject it to careful periodic scrutiny and make later adjustments as such seem necessary. 4. The matching ratio for the Interstate System should be at least 75–25 and preferably 90-10. It would be unwholesome to relieve the States entirely of financial interest and responsibility in its construction. 5. It is strongly urged that, with an accelerated program on the Interstate System, the initiation, administration, and construction of all projects be carried on by the State highway departments in cooperation with the Bureau of Public Roads as at present. The past accomplishments of this cooperative relationship are in themselves outstanding achievements in this country. To me, it would be unthinkable that this cooperative leadership should not be permitted to continue its direction of the entire highway program. 6. Special emphasis on the Interstate System, if characterized by a marked increase in the Federal-aid portion as to financing, will be of direct benefit to the States. It will relieve them of substantial outlays for the most expensive part of their highway programs and will thus enable them to transfer available funds thus saved for use on their regular Federal-aid primary and secondary systems, as well as the other important State system sections of their highway networks. 7. The principle is quite generally accepted-and it is officially confirmed by constitutional provision in 25 States as well as by Congress in section 12 of the Hayden-Cartwright Act—that revenue from taxes on motor transportation should support the highway program. On this premise, it is difficult to understand how the immediate urgent needs of the Interstate System can be supplied without floating bonds or drawing upon the Federal Treasury on a pay-later basis. In order to overcome the present deficiency in the foreseeable future on these systems, more revenue is needed during the first few years than could be realized from any realistic increase in Federal tax rates on motor fuels. It must be kept in mind that this is also the source upon which the States must depend for the major portion of their highway funds, and many of them will be obliged to increase State tax rates on gasoline and oil. As previously stated, answer 12 outlines a suggested detailed financial plan for the interstate, as well as the other, Federal systems. 8. If bond financing for the Interstate System is adopted by Congress, the principal and interest should be provided by revenue from the Federal motorfuel taxes. 9. There are some advantages connected with the setting up of a Federal corporation to issue bonds in its name as was recommended by the advisory committee and as proposed by H. R. 4260. President Eisenhower suggested this plan only as a detail in his broad highway program. This witness is in favor of such bonds becoming a direct obligation of the United States rather than their being issued by a Government corporation. 10. Any sound, realistic study of this highway financial problem now facing Congress, ultimately drives one to the inevitable conclusion that, if the highway user is to supply revenue for the present Federal-aid highway program and still support bond issues to meet the Government's obligation required for a sharply stepped-up development on the Interstate System as is proposed, the Federal taxes on motor fuels must be increased. 11. This witness suggests therefore than an overall financial plan be adopted which rests upon a 50-percent increase in Federal motor-fuel taxes which would raise the Federal gasoline tax from 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon. This increase would not seriously crowd the leeway remaining in this field for use of the States which may find it necessary also to raise their gasoline taxes. With this increased Federal revenue normal increases from year to year in appropriations for the regular Federal-aid programs could be provided. 12. At the end of this written statement will be found a detailed analysis showing a possible application of this increased revenue over a 30-year period, using the Bureau of Public Roads' estimate of future yields from fuel taxes and assuming that there be no diversion for other than highway purposes. With this plan, funds would be available in sufficient amounts to sustain a progressive expansion on all of the Federal-aid systems including a stepped-up program for the Interstate System. Its features are more particularly described as follows: Column 1 shows estimated total revenue by years which through 1984 totals nearly $75 billion. Column 2 indicates annual allotments which could be made for the Federal highway needs other than the Interstate System beginning at $681 million for 1956 and increasing at the rate of 32 percent compounded to $1.8 billion for 1984 with a total for the 30-year period of $33 billion. In column 3 will be found the remaining balances available for the Interstate System totaling $37.5 billion, of which $10 billion would be supplied by bonds or loans from the Treasury. Columns 7 and 8 indicate annual credits to the Treasury for interest or interest charges on bonds in the amount of $4.2 billion, plus repayment of the $10 billion principal. It will be noted that this plan would completely fill the financial requirements for a vigorous Federal aid program on all parts of those systems during the entire future 30 years. It would accommodate the presently needed acceleration on the Interstate System and still sustain a normal growth on the Federal primary and secondary systems. The annual allotments to these latter would be directly geared to the estimated annual motor fuel tax revenue which is the best measure obtainable of future volume of highway traffic. 13. The introduction of the proposed Federal Highway Corporation into the highway administrative program unless its functions be limited strictly to those of supplying funds, will tend to complicate the existing administrative machinery. Any extension of such a corporation's authority beyond that limited field is bound to affect adversely the long-established and successfully executed FederalState relationship-a relationship which has been forged out of 40 years of continuous and active experience. 14. Subsection 102 (d) of H. R. 4260, as well as subsection 102 (b), would extend such a corporation's functions beyond the limited field as defined in the next above paragraph. 15. Absolutely indispensable prerequisites to a sound highway expansion program are adequate legislation to provide for advance purchases of rights-of-way, and for adequate control of access. These important functions should remain with the States. Where State laws are deficient in these respects, corrections to them should be a condition precedent to eligibility for receiving Federal aid. The financial advantages to be obtained by the States for such compliance are more than great enough to insure prompt compliance. 16. One of the results of the serious highway deficiency through which we are passing is the rebirth and tremendous growth of the toll-road program. It was adopted for the simple reason that it appeared to be the only means feasibly available to many of the populous States to escape from intolerable traffic conditions. The toll road is in no sense a sound solution to the general highway problem. It is at best but an expediency, and a very expensive one. The question of reimbursement or not for toll roads, on important units of the Interstate System and now constructed to satisfactory standard, is but a detail of the overall highway problem, but a very vexatious one. The important and desired end is to make free roads of them as soon as is feasible. If some type of reimbursement be necessary as a means to this end, surely here is a case where the end justifies the means. There is much to commend action by Congress authorizing a nominal reimbursement as a principle to be administered under strict control of the Secretary of Commerce and to include only such toll road projects as are completed. 17. One of the urgent and obvious reasons justifying a drastically stepped-up construction program on the Interstate System is to remove the necessity for a continued tollroad development on units of that system. A nonreimbursement policy should therefore apply to all roads built after the new program becomes effective, so as to discourage such future developments. 18. There seems to be no justification for reimbursement except as a price tag for the retirement of toll-road bonds and freeing such roads from tolls; there fore, any reimbursement should carry this requirement. CONCLUSION In summary, it is suggested that: 1. The framework of the new legislation follow the form and structure of the well-tried highway acts of the past. Periodic adjustments may be made by Congress as experience dictates. 2. Congress should depart from the 2-year authorization policy and define authorizations as far ahead as is prudent. With greater emphasis on the Interstate System, it will become the foundation stone of progress for all parts of the highway network. For sound long-range cooperative planning affecting Federal, State, and local units, 10 years is a short enough period. 3. The American people are willing and able to pay for adequate highways. Their willingness is perhaps best evidenced by acceptance of high toll-road charges, and their ability by the ever-increasing demands for new motor cars and trucks. Now, in closing, will you permit without offense this parting word from one who has lived long and intimately with the highway problem? Through 40 years of periodic changes in national administrations, highway legislation has been singularly and remarkably free from partisan political controversy. It is earnestly hoped that this legislation during its journey through the necessary and beneficial process of congressional testing will not engender such controversies, especially over matters of secondary importance as to weaken our united determination to meet the urgent needs of the hour. Bold, united leadership at the national level is vital to the success of the whole highway program. Mr. FALLON. Gentlemen, the reason for that is we have a very important bill on the floor this afternoon, and the members have expressed their desire to be present on the floor most of the afternoon, so it will be impossible for us to continue the hearings for an afternoon session. I understand some amendments will be offered within the next hour, and the members would like to be there to vote. It is unfortunate we cannot meet this afternoon. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Thursday, May 19, 1955.) NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. John J. Dempsey presiding. Mr. DEMPSEY. We will now resume hearings on H. R. 4260. Mr. Sidney J. Williams, assistant to the president, National Safety Council, will be our first witness. Mr. Williams, if you desire to insert your statement in the record and then brief it, you may do that, or read it, just as you wish, but we may be back on a quorum call again before too long. Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will put this statement in the record, and I will present the substance of it briefly and not in terms of reading the statement itself. Is that all right? Mr. DEMPSEY. Without objection, the statement will be received. STATEMENT OF SIDNEY J. WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL Mr. WILLIAMS. My name is Sidney J. Williams. I am assistant to the president of the National Safety Council. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to abbreviate this? Do you want me to skip the formalities? Mr. DEMPSEY. Skip all the formalities and give us the highlights of your statement. Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. I am appearing here not for or against any particular measure. I am not appearing on economic and fiscal problems, but on the safety aspects of the highway system. This first chart shows three significant trends. The double line that runs upward across the chart is traffic volume on the highways, and you see how tremendously it has increased in the last 30 years. The solid black line that goes irregularly across the chart is the number of traffic deaths each year, which you will see reached its peak in 1941 and has never been that high since. And the red line going downward across the chart shows the mileage death rate. Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Williams, what was the peak in 1941-the number? Mr. WILLIAMS. Almost 40,000 deaths. And we all take great encouragement from the fact that we have never since hit that peak, although the volume of travel has been continually going up. |