Mr. GARRITY. I think so.

Mr. DONDERO. Which undoubtedly would be a mistake.

Mr. GARRITY. Roads already built and financed should remain with their past financing. What we need is more roads, more arterial highways, and not to spend money on old roads, but to spend it on new construction and new roads that need future financing.

Mr. DONDERO. I think you and I see the problem alike. I wanted to be sure I was right on the last paragraph on page 1 of your statement that I was not misinterpreting it.

Mr. BECKER. In your brief here, Mr. Garrity, you say that your parkways should be designated as interstate highways. I don't believe, under the law today, you can designate passenger highways, parkways, as part of the Interstate System. So I don't see how you can get Federal funds.

Mr. GARRITY. I don't maintain that these parkways as they are now constructed or used are proper use for them. I think they are 20 years behind the times, Congressman, and that we should now have, especially through a suburban area like Westchester, we should have high-speed arterial highways, not just for passenger cars. Traffic today is not a passenger problem alone. It was in 1914 when they built these.

Mr. BECKER. But you have the Boston Post Road that should be an interstate road. I presume it is.

Mr. GARRITY. It is not, sir.

Mr. BECKER. The Boston Post Road?

Mr. GARRITY. No, sir; they have never designated it. They should have.

Mr. BECKER. How about the Albany?

Mr. GARRITY. Never. That is what I have been fighting for, for years.

Mr. BECKER. That is part of the problem of the Federal Bureau of Roads to get on the Federal Interstate System, not the the State of New York.

I do not see how, under the law today, your Federal law, that you can get aid for your parkways.

Mr. GARRITY. I have learned that since I have come down, Congressman. I am frank to admit I did not know that and I am going back to the State of New York to the commissioner of public works and the engineering end of it to make the first step now to see if I cannot get Westchester County highways placed on their State arterial maps so it can be approved by the Federal Government.

Mr. BECKER. I would be inclined to oppose you on that. I would be very much inclined to oppose you on it because I think New York State can build their parkways as they have been doing and pay for them but God help us if this parkway such as it is were permitted in every part of the country and every State in the country and have them on the Interstate System as we have in New York State in passenger highways. Lord knows where we would go in costs. They would be pyramided clear out of the sky and New York has never asked for Federal money for parkways and I do not think we should. I think we are able to pay for them. If they want to put tolls on Westchester County, I think that is their prerogative, but you cannot do what you ask here, to put these on the Federal highway system and get Federal aid.

Mr. GENTRY. Will the gentleman yield just for a second?

Mr. Garrity, I think you are also an outstanding witness. I want to ask you one question.

Outside of New York City but in the general area of New York City, do you observe a woeful lack of proper highway facilities, a great lack of proper highway facilities?

Mr. GARRITY. I do not think I am competent to answer that question. I am familiar with Westchester and the suburban area, I might say, more than I am with the rest of the country.

Mr. GENTRY. Do you think you have sufficient highway facilities in Westchester County today?

Mr. GARRITY. Oh, no.

Mr. GENTRY. Are they insufficient?

Mr. GARRITY. The best example is the Boston Post Road that runs through Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, and Port Chester, and the heavily populated sections of Westchester County and you cannot cross the Boston Post Road at night. The trucks run within 10 feet of each other and unless there is a stoplight, you do not get across. Mr. GENTRY. Do you know how many average vehicles a day are on that road? That is, throughout the year?

Mr. GARRITY. I am sorry, I do not have that.

Mr. GENTRY. I am surprised that is not on the interstate.

Chairman BUCKLEY. I am, too. That ought to be on the Interstate System.

Mr. BECKER. The Boston Post and the Albany Post Roads. I agree. That is something worth while fighting for.

Mr. GENTRY. That is not Highway 1?

Mr. BECKER. The Boston Post Road, I think, is Highway 1, is it not? Mr. GARRITY. Yes; and Albany is 9.

Mr. FALLON. This is not the place to do it.

Mr. GARRITY. I found that out and I am going back to New York State.

Mr. ALGER. Let me ask one more question. I have just one question relative to what Mr. Hopkins said about the design of the Westchester Road and one of the parkways. I understood him to answer me that the roads were not, that they designed them differently because they were for passenger cars and were not for trucks. My question to you would be on the design or technical end. Could those roads, by putting them on the Interstate System, be made capable of taking the heavy loads of these trucks, bumper to bumper?

Mr. GARRIT. They would have to be designed. Twenty years ago, Bob Moses offered to take over the Bronx River Parkway, redesign it and make it into a State highway. The bills were introduced and then killed in committee for other reasons at the time pertinent to your question.

Mr. GENTRY. They won't do for heavy trucks?

Mr. GARRITY. No, sir.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you, Mr. Garrity.

I have had a few statements handed to me, one by Representative Lee Metcalf and Mr. R. A. Lumpkin, president of the Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co., and a brief summary of the trucking industry's position on the highway program.

There is also a letter received by Mrs. Blitch from the State Highway Department of Georgia.

Without objection, may these be included in the record at this point?

(The documents referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

I appreciate this opportunity to present to this committee my views on the important highway legislation before you.

I congratulate the members of this committee for your awareness of the need for accelerating our highway program. I was pleased to see Congressman Fallon's recent statement that the committee feels it is generally agreed that the national highway program should be accelerated, that hence, there is no need for testimony on highway needs and the only question is how and to what extent, within the Federal and State budgets.

Although this committee is not considering S. 1048, appended to my remarks is an analysis of pending highway legislation by Mr. Scott P. Hart, State highway engineer, Montana Highway Commission.

I am also making part of your record the recommendations of the national affairs committee of the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce.

I am in complete agreement with the stated objective and policy of H. R. 4260. I oppose the rest.

I oppose the proposed method of financing.

I oppose the creation in title I of a Federal Highway Corporation to issue up to $21 billion in bonds outside the national debt, with allocation of enough gas tax revenue to repay the bonds.

My objections to title I include:

1. This method of financing would be more expensive. If the Federal Government borrowed $20 billion at the 2.3 percent average interest on Federal securities, use of this money would cost $8.8 billion, over the 30-year period. President Eisenhower's Highway Advisory Committee, which recommend this method of financing, estimated that the Corporation would have to pay 3 percent interest on these bonds. The interest payment on $20 billion for 30 years at 3 percent is $11.5 billion, or almost $2.7 billion more than if the Treasury borrowed the money. Even this is not a true picture of the additional cost, because two Cabinet members testified before the Senate Public Works Committee that the Corporation would have to pay more than 3 percent on these bonds. As you know, Commerce Secretary Weeks said it might be 3% to 34 percent. Treasury Secretary Humphrey indicated the rate might be 3% to 3% percent.

Even at 3 percent, the additional cost is too great-when you consider that the extra $2.7 billion in interest is enough to take care of the needed highway construction in 3 States like Montana, which needs $749 million worth of highway construction through 1964.

2. I object to stepping outside the Federal debt with this financing proposal. At best. it can be described as an evasion of the ceiling, imposed by law upon the Federal debt. Our Federal debt picture is cloudy enough already, without further obscuring the financial facts of fiscal life.

3. The setting up of such a corporation also would take away from Congress, and thus from the people, control and supervision of the highway program. For under this bill, Congress would be committed to appropriating fixed amountsenough to meet the principal and interest on the highway bonds-and for an indefinite period, since H. R. 4260 and companion bills place no time limit on the issuance of bonds.

What title I of this bill doesn't take away from the people through their Congress, title II does. This section turns over to the Secretary of Commerce all decisions as to the scheduling and priority of construction of projects.

Title II also, I believe, overemphasizes the Interstate System to the detriment of all other Federal-aid highway systems, including other Federal-aid primary, Federal-aid secondary, Federal-aid urban and forest highways. As you know, although the Interstate System carries one-seventh of all traffic, it will get four times as much Federal money under this bill as will all other types of Federal-aid roads combined.

As a result, the needs of the Interstate System will be met after 10 years. But the primary system will slide backward. Under this bill, only 25 percent of the primary system needs will be met in 10 years, compared with 31 percent at present.

In addition. Interstate System highways are largely limited-access roads. You can only get on them at widely spread intervals. This means that farmers and others in sparsely settled areas, like Montana, probably would have to drive several miles before they reach a highway entrance. Once on the highway, they may have the same trouble getting off.

In Montana, we would be better off if we spent more money on primary and secondary roads. The farm-to-market road program still is a long way from being completed.

Since the Interstate System is our national defense system, I believe the Federal Government should assume a much greater share of the construction cost. The Federal share should be at least 90 percent.

Noting the Advisory Committee's recommendation that $225 million be spent on forest highways during the next 10 years reminds me of a need which I have discussed previously this year with the Agriculture Subcommittee of the Committtee on Appropriations.

Because it involves millions of sportsmen and millions of dollars in revenue, I believe your committee will be interested in the problem of recreation roads. Most forest road money goes for roads over which to haul national forest timber that has been cut by private operators. This is good business, since mature timber needs to be harvested from remote areas before it is destroyed by forest pests or disease.

However, many of the forest roads and trails used by sportsmen are in bad shape and need rebuilding or extensive maintenance. Also, new roads are needed to accommodate the rapidly increasing number of people using our forests. Many such roads are needed in the West and also in the national forests of the East.

In Montana, we need several roads solely for the people coming to the forests for recreation. Since funds earmarked for building timber access roads should not be diverted to building roads for recreational needs, attention should be given to an appropriation of $3 or $4 million a year for building recreation roads in the next 4 years. This money will come back to us many times over.

Each year, additional millions of people are coming into the national forest to camp, hunt, and fish. So far, we have failed to provide safe, passable roads for them. I believe we cannot turn our backs on this situation much longer. Somehow, we must provide for improving at least two-thirds of the existing 20,000 miles of recreation roads in the national forests as well as bulding another 12,000 miles of new recreation roads to meet the ever-increasing numbers of people coming into the forests.

These recreation roads at the end of the highways are a magnet which draws sportsmen into our forests and dollars into State and Federal treasuries. The 40 million people who go into our forests for recreation each year spend millions in gasoline taxes alone, and probably make a forest road a better gas tax revenue raiser than a turnpike.

Now several people have called my attention to a need for a provision for reimbursement for moving utility facilities incident to highway relocation.

You have the April 8 letter on this subject from Gus Norwood, executive secretary of the Northwest Public Power Association, composed of 97 electric systems serving 1,750,000 people in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska.

This problem has also been called to my attention by Mr. C. W. Haas of the Big Timber Telephone Co., Big Timber, Mont.; Mr. Grant Preston of the Hot Springs Telephone Co., Hot Springs, Mont.; Mr. K. P. Todd of the Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., Helena, Mont.

I want the committee to have this paragraph from Mr. Haas' letter to me under date of April 21:

"You are probably informed that the Bell system is perfectly capable of handling its own relocation costs, but I would like to inform you that two-thirds of the area of the United States, receives its telephone service from some 5,000 independent telephone companies. The cost of relocating their telephone lines for highway relocation is sometimes a severe burden on these small companies." However, relocation is also a severe burden on Bell system companies. I see no reason why the electric and telephone utilities have to pay for moving their lines as a result of relocation of highways, but other utilities are reimbursed. If there should be reimbursement, it should be applicable equally to all telephone and electric utilities small and large alike.

Relocation is also an expensive problem for our public water supply utilities. I have the following telegram from Mr. A. W. Clarkson, Helena, secretary-treasurer of the Montana section, American Water Works Association.

"Montana section, American Water Works Association, at annual meetings in Butte April 29 and 30 unanimously voted to request that you do everything in your power to endorse legislation relieving public water supply utility owners of financial burdens caused by Federal highway relocations."

Here is the material previously referred to. You will note that Mr. Hart's analysis of pending highway legislation is dated February 17, 1955. By airmail, dated April 23, 1955, I asked him to make any changes he wished as a result of legislative action since that date. I have had no reply to that inquiry.

Hon. LEE METCALF,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

STATE OF MONTANA,

HIGHWAY COMMISSION,
Helena, February 17, 1955.

DEAR MR. METCALF: I know you are well aware of the difficult problem facing Montana in providing adequate revenue for the maintenance and construction of its highway system. S. 1048 would make full participation by Montana in the Federal-aid program an impossibility.

The Federal Aid Act of 1954 provided $13,531,734 to Montana for the fiscal years 1956 and 1957. This represents an increase of $4,363,953 over the previous allotment and requires $2,769,761 per year in additional State matching funds.

Senate bill S. 1048 would increase the Federal aid to Montana to a new total of $24,805,175, or $11,273,441 per year over the amount apportioned in the 1954 Act, and increases the Federal aid by $15,637,394 over the current year's apportionment of $9,167,781 which is effective under the 1952 act. The equivalent annual State matching funds required amount to $6,916,045 under the 1952 act, $9,685,806 under the 1954 act, and $16,279,086 under Senate bill S. 1048. The following table presents a comparison of the effects of the various apportionments:

At the present time, we have a backlog of $6,798,543 in Federal aid which has accumlated over a period of years and which we are unable to match under present revenue sources and amounts. An additional $5,128,141 in State funds would be required to match this backlog of Federal aid.

In addition to this amount, $2,769,761 in new State revenue must be obtained to match the increased Federal aid under the 1954 act.

This financial problem has been under study by the Governor's interim highway committee for the past year and recommendations were made to the legislature which, if enacted, will provide sufficient additional revenue to enable the State to overcome the backlog of Federal aid within a few years and to match the Federal aid accruing under the 1954 act.

These measures include an increase in the gasoline tax from 6 to 7 cents, an increase in the diesel tax from 6 to 9 cents, and a general increase in the gross vehicle weight tax rates. Since the payment per vehicle in road-user taxes in Montana is already well above the national average, the enactment of these additional taxes will increase the tax burden very close to the breaking point.

For this reason, we can forsee no possibility of raising sufficient additional State revenue, over and above that now being considered by the 34th legislative assembly, to permit the matching of the $15,637,394 per year in additional Federal aid under Senate bill S. 1048.

With reference to the Clay committee proposal, it is our understanding that the State matching requirements will be held at approximately those prevailing