Page images

accepting a certificate from the State, the standards of the States have been followed.

Senator GORE. Would it be advisable to have the same provision with its same salutary effects applied to all highway contracts in which the Government contributes as much as 50 percent

Mr. CURTISS. I can see no objection to that being done. We interpreted the intent of Congress with respect to the secondary road plan to be, to the extent permitted by the law itself, that the Bureau was to accept the certificate of the State as to the procedures under which the secondary road projects were constructed.

We do have to ascertain that they have actually expended the money; that the projects are on the secondary system. We accomplish that initially through the programing procedure and then a final inspection of the construction, and that the costs are reasonable. But there was, you may recall, quite a bit of questioning on whether we were really going to relinquish any of our authority under that plan. Before the committee we insisted that we would if it were enacted into law, and we have tried to do that.

Thirty States are now operating under that plan.

Senator GORE. A recommendation has been made to the committee that the Davis-Bacon wage standards are required under this program. Were you aware of that?

Mr. CURTISS. We have reported on a bill to that effect. We made an adverse report. We would be rather opposed to that, in fact, quite strongly opposed. Many of the States have fair wage laws. Of course our Federal-aid legislation requires that we operate that the States be permitted to operate on the Federal-aid program under their State laws.

Senator GORE. Did you make the report on such a bill to this committee?

Mr. CURTISS. I do not think so. It was on a House bill.

Senator GORE. You have answered, in any event, the position of the Department.

Mr. Curtiss, do you have some additional statement? If you do the committee will be glad to hear it.

Mr. CURTISS. At one of my earlier appearances you asked me for information relative to the ability of the States to match funds.

Senator GORE. Yes; I had overlooked that.

Mr. CURTiss. I inserted a statement at that time, as I recall it, that we thought that about half of the States would have difficulty with their current revenues in meeting the requirements of S. 1048; that we were not in a position to provide data by States, and that the Secretary of the American Association of State Highway Officials was canvassing the State highway departments and would have the information.

This morning Mr. Johnson handed me this tabulation which I will be glad to submit for your information and for the record, if you wish.

Senator GORE. Without objection it will be printed at this point in the record.

(The tabulation referred to above is as follows:)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

District of Columbia
New Hampshire.
New Jersey.
New Mexico.
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Puerto Rico.
Rhode Island,
South Carolina.
South Dakota


[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]


1 2 years only. 2 Until 1960. 3 Hawaii, Kentucky, and New Jersey missing as of April 15, 1955. No copy of California, reply; it was 3 telegram. Source: American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.O.

Senator GORE. At this point in the record, without objection, there will be printed the letter and the telegram which I addressed to the governors of our various States, and their replies.

(The documents above referred to are as follows:)

WASHINGTON, D, C., March 7, 1955. Gov. JAMES E. Folsom,

Governor of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala.: Senate bill 1048 which I have introduced proposes to increase Federal annual funds for secondary roads from the present $210 million to $325 million; for primary roads from the present $315 million to $500 million; for urban roads from the present $175 million to $275 million. This to remain on a 50-50 matching basis between Federal and State Governments. It also increases funds available for the interstate roads from $175 million to $500 million per annum. This, however, is to be on a two-thirds to one-third matching basis.

The committee is also considering the Clay committee report. This report recommends greatly increased Federal expenditures on the interstate roads but also recommends that the States and local governments spend within the next 10 years $29 billion more than their present level of expenditures to bring all roads and streets other than Interstate System up to required standards. Meassured by the present Federal-State apportionment standard, your State's part of this additional 10-year expenditure over and above present levels would be very substantial.

A portion of the Clay report is embodied in Senate bill 1160. It provides no increase in Federal funds for primary, farm-to-market, or urban projects but does propose $25-billion Federal expenditures for the Interstate System for expenditure in 10 years with the States required to supply matching funds cnly to the extent required under interstate authorization contained in Federal Aid Highway Act of 1954.

The Senate subcommmittee has instructed me to invite submission of the views of the governors with respect to the ability and present inclination of their respective States to raise the additional funds to match and implement proposals now before it. The subcommittee will appreciate submission of your views for its consideration.

ALBERT GORE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Roads, Senate Public Works Com



Little Rock, April 19, 1955.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Roads, Senate Public Works Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR GORE: I have been following with interest the proceedings in Congress relating to the construction of State highways. As a former highway commissioner and highway director, I have had a great deal of experience in this field.

I strongly feel that the Federal Government should aid a great deal more in the construction and improvement of State highways. In the matter of intertate roads traversing the Nation, the Federal Government would do well to bear all the cost of construction, save perhaps the acquisition of rights-of-way. At least the Federal authorities should bear a proportion of cost of 75 percent to 25 percent as the part required of the States.

On other roads of lesser importance to the Nation, the present 50-50 ratio I feel is equitable and fair. However, the amount of Federal funds in this field of construction could be materially increased with great benefit to the individual States and to the Nation as a whole. Very truly yours,

ORVAL E. FAUBOS, Governor.



Sacramento, Calif., March 9, 1955. DEAR SENATOR GORE: I wish to acknowledge your telegram of March 8 to Governor Knight, relative to your Senate bill 1048. Your wire will be called to the Governor's attention at the first opportunity. Sincerely,

JAMES WELSII, Personal Legal Counsel.



Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Roads: Your telegram March 8 concerning Senate bills 1048, 1160, and other measures re highway program is acknowledged. California is now collecting sufficient highway revenue to permit matching of Federal funds under any of the plans being discussed. Some changes in our State laws might be required as to apportionments among various areas of the State. Intensive study now being made by both the California Legislature and my administration of the entire field with particular regard to effect on California of various proposals. It is hoped recon. mendations can be made in the near future. Cordially,

Goodwin J. KNIGHT,
Gorernor of California.



Hartford, March 15, 3955. Hon. ALBERT GORE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR : In answer to your inquiry of recent date, this is to advise that as far as the State of Connecticut is concerned, we prefer S. 1160 to S. 1048. Sincerely,



Governor of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn. DEAR ABE: In the telegram which I addressed to you on March 7 on behalf of the Roads Subcommittee, I inquired specifically as to the ability and present inclination of Connecticut to raise the additional funds to match and implement S. 1048 and S. 1160. At that time I was unable to supply you with an official estimate of the amount which Connecticut and local governmental units within the State would be expected to spend on highways during the next 10 years by the Clay report. I now have that estimate. It is $1,398,000,000.

In view of the specific information now available with respect to the Clay plan, the committee would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to advise us of the ability and present inclination of the State of Connecticut to raise funds to match the additional funds provided in S. 1048 or to implement the plan proposed in the report of Gen. Lucius D. Clay.

As you must know, we are earnestly trying to develop a sound program and the information here requested will be very helpful. Sincerely,




Hartford, March 24, 1955. Hon. ALBERT GORE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR AL: Thank you for your letter of March 21. I am turning your letter over to the State highway commissioner for answers to the questions you hare asked. Sincerely,

[Signed] Abe.
[Typed] ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Gorernor.


Hartford 15, Conn., March 30, 1955. Hon. ALBERT GORE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR GORE: Because the questions which you have raised directly affect the highway department, your letter of March 21, 1955, to Governor Ribicoff has been referred to me.

It is believed that an expanded highway program is essential in the interest of safer and more economical transportation, civil defense, and the economic development of the entire Nation.

The chief interest of the Federal Government is in the improvement of the Interstate System and therefore the Federal Government should bear a greater share of the cost of improving this system of highways than it has in the past. However, it is recognized that the individual States and local communities will be benefited substantially by the improvement of this system and therefore should contribute to the cost of the program.

Connecticut favors an expanded program of federally financed interstate highway construction which will make available to the State the largest possible Federal grant obtainable within the ability of the State to furnish its share of matching funds without the necessity of reducing its program of other highway improvements or increasing current taxes.

It is also desirable that the Federal Government continue the Federal-aid program, other than that for the Interstate System, substantially as constituted under the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1954.

Connecticut would not be able to match with present revenue the Federal-aid funds to be apportioned under S. 1048, but could meet the matching requirements set forth under S. 1160.

It is our understanding of S. 1160 that Connecticut's matching requirement would be approximately $61 million over the 10-year period. It is realized that this $61 million would not be the total required to construct Connecticut's needed highway improvements and additional State and local funds will be necessary to finance the program.

Connecticut's general assembly is currently considering the budget for the next biennium together with legislation proposed for financing improvements to the highway system. Pending determination of such financial legislation, it is not possible to indicate the availability of funds to implement an accelerated highway program in Connecticut.

Because of Senator Bush's interest in this Federal highway legislation, I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to him. Very truly yours,


Dover, March 9, 1955. Hon. ALBERT GORE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Roads, Committee on Public Works,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR GORE: In reply to your telegram request concerning the highway bill now pending before the Congress, I wish to endorse President Eisenhower's highway recommendations as spelled out in more detail by the Clay committee report. It appears to me that President Eisenhower's recommendations fully visualize the importance and need of the interstate comprehensive road program and also by such program more adequately permit the States to meet their local road requirements.

It is iny belief that the State of Delaware has the ability and present inclination to meet this problem in matching funds and implementing legislation necessary to carry out an overall adequate far-reaching highway-improvement program.

In fact, our present planning and long-range proposal before the general assembly of the State recognize the need and the ability of our State to meet this need in cooperation with the Federal Government.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the plan for Delaware highways which has been submitted to the general assembly.

Again, I want to strongly endorse President Eisenhower's recommendations as covered by the Clay study and report. Sincerely yours,

J. C'ALEB BOGGS, Gorernor.

« PreviousContinue »