It is rather difficult to see the advantage of building new toll roads if legislation similar to S. 1160 passes, making possible the building of the entire Interstate System, free of tolls, in a 10-year period of time. Senator BUSH. Mr. Chairman.

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Bush.

Senator BUSH. Why wouldn't it be just as well to go ahead where you have a plan for a toll road of say, a hundred miles, even if you thought S. 1160 were going to pass, because under S. 1160, as I understand it, you get reimbursement for approximately 90 percent, which gives you that money to use elsewhere.

So that you get an advantage both ways. You would have a selfliquidating road on the one hand, or you have the advantage of picking up the out-of-State money, so to speak, that is going into New England on vacation or maybe the State of Washington on vacation,. and on the other hand you get the credit to apply elsewhere in the State.

Why isn't that all right?

Mr. BALDOCK. The personal objection that I would have to it would be this:

That the motorist traveling on one of the more important roads of the State and there will be very many of them-would be required to pay exorbitant rates for that road use in order to finance some road that he may never go on at all.

I don't thing it is a fair method. It is taxation without representation, so to speak.

Senator BUSHI. That is an interesting observation.

Senator NEUBERGER. Will you continue?

Mr. BALDOCK. The matter of reimbursement of a State for which credit has been established for prior work done to acceptable standards on the Interstate System, whether for a toll or a free highway, is ambiguous and should be clarified.

It appears that if the Federal Government is to build the Interstate System that there may be some justice in considering the work that has been done before in the way of reimbursement.

But the statement that is made in S. 1160 is very difficult to understand.

In reviewing S. 1048, we believe some clarification should be made as to how it affects the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954.

Does it supplement the funds provided in the current act, or is it the intention to substitute the proposed amounts in S. 1048 for those funds authorized at this time for the fiscal years of 1956 and 1957? In closing I wish to express my pleasure in being here and having the privilege of appearing before this committee.

I trust that in your considered judgment you may be able to bring forth legislation within the next several months that will make possible an augmented highway program, to the end that we may keep highway building in pace with the expanding economy of America. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Baldock.

Are there any questions?

Senator Martin.

Senator MARTIN. As I understand, Mr. Baldock, you are entirely in accord with this enlarged road program with the plan in some way to complete it in approximately 10 years, and that you want the con

struction and then, we will say, the policing which includes the size, weight, and speed of motor vehicles, to be controlled locally?

Mr. BALDOCK. By the State.

Senator MARTIN. Is that about your plan?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir. In other words we think that on account of the importance of the Interstate System to the national economy and the national defense, that the Federal Government should bear a very large portion of its cost.

Senator MARTIN. What percentage do you think the Federal Government should pay?

Mr. BALDOCK. Under the terms of S. 1160 the Federal Government is paying about 95 percent. It is my opinion the States should just pay a token portion of that bill and should bear 50 percent of the cost of the other Federal-aid systems.

Senator MARTIN. Then you would favor the States administering and paying for the repair and upkeep and policing of the system after it is completed?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir; and also the States designing and building the system, letting the contracts and all, subject to the approval of the Bureau of Public Roads as we do now.

Senator MARTIN. Something similar to what we have now?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes.

Senator MARTIN. Does that also apply to the width of rights-ofway?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir.

Senator MARTIN. And access and so on?

Mr. BALDOCK. The determination of those things could be made as nearly as they are now. We have gotten along very well.

Senator MARTIN. I don't know how it is in your great State of Oregon, but in the East, we have a very serious problem now.

We build, we will say, a 4-lane divided highway and then people start to build up along that, and then they ask to limit the speed to 35 miles an hour or 25.

Who is to control that?

Mr. BALDOCK. On this Interstate System, if it is built according to the standards that I think should be imposed, there would be complete control of access to that so that at no time would it suffer from functional obsolescence.

Senator MARTIN. Who would control that?

Mr. BALDOCK. That would be controlled by the States.

Senator MARTIN. In Pennsylvania we have a situation where we built a road, the Federal Government assisting, and the county assisted and the city of Pittsburgh assisted, and there is already a move to limit the speed to 35 miles an hour.

It is awfully hard for local people, local authorities to make a decision against the local people who use that road.

What I am getting at is whether or not that ought to be in the control of the States or whether it ought to be in the control of the Federal Government.

I am asking for information. I am not taking a position one way or another.

Mr. BALDOCK. It is my opinion that when the States surrender their police powers they will cease to be an autonomous State; their local police powers.

Senator MARTIN. That is all that I have.

Senator NEUBERGER. Are there any other questions?

Senator Case?

Senator CASE. Mr. Baldock, I would like to ask one question.

If it was asked before I was able to come you can advise me and disregard it.

Would the State of Oregon be in a position to match a larger allocation of funds in all categories of Federal aid?

Mr. BALDOCK. The legislature of the State of Oregon is in session. now. It is standing by, so to speak, on road legislation waiting to determine the requirements under a Federal-aid bill.

The leaders of the legislature have told me that they stand ready to initiate legislation to match whatever Federal funds are provided. Senator CASE. When does your legislature normally adjourn? Mr. BALDOCK. Probably in April.

Senator CASE. What is the amount of your gasoline tax at the present time?

Mr. BALDOCK. Six cents.

Senator CASE. What would be required in terms of a gasoline tax if you were to get allotments on the basis of S. 1048?

Mr. BALDOCK. As I remember I figured out before I left that it would be a little less than a cent.

Senator CASE. Another cent would permit you to match on the full scale of S. 1048?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes.

Senator CASE. How are you situated from the standpoint of engineering capacity?

Mr. BALDOCK. We have been constantly recruiting young men and believe that we will be in a position to handle that program satisfactorily.

Senator CASE. I presume that you have already indicated in that regard whether or not you are in favor of a completely controlled access principle on the Interstate System?

Mr. BALDOCK. I think it is very essential.

Senator CASE. Have you examined the interstate designation for Oregon with respect to the current needs?

Let me phrase that another way.

The present Interstate System, as approved in 1947, was based on requests of the State highway authorities at that time.

If it were submitted to you today would you ask for designation in Oregon of exactly the same routes or between the same points?

Mr. BALDOCK. The two routes we asked for then are the routes we would ask for now.

Senator CASE. And you would ask for no changes?

Mr. BALDOCK. No, for one other reason: I think when any State starts to add to the Interstate System now it will destroy the whole concept of an integrated system of Interstate Highways over the Nation.

I might say in passing that presently we are building on a free basis 165 miles of the Interstate System to complete controlled access. Senator CASE. It happened that during the time the highway bill was up for consideration in the Senate last spring a Member of the Senate looked at the map with special reference to Oregon and said that he didn't believe that the designation of 1947 was in harmony

with the way the highway needs had developed in Oregon, and he suggested that there should be some change.

How well informed he was I don't know. That is the reason I am especially asking the question of you.

Do you think that it represents the best selection that you can make today?

Mr. BALDOCK. I would say, Senator, that there is no question but we would be pleased to get other roads on the Interstate System, particularly if the Federal Government were to pay its portion, but I don't think it would be to the interest of the Nation to do that.

The two we have on the system carry the greatest amount of traffic and are the two most important roads in the State.

Senator CASE. I haven't examined the map and I am not looking at a map. Let me ask you this: Does the presently designated indication for the Interstate System in Oregon give you a north-south crossing of the State?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir. From Washington to California on U. S. 99, and from Portland, Oregon to the Idaho line, east and west, on U. S. 30.

Senator CASE. So that the present Interstate System crosses Oregon both north and south and east and west?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes.

Senator CASE. Do you think that that would be a logical characteristic for the Interstate System for all States?

Mr. BALDOCK. I think so.

Senator CASE. And if States did not have any north and south route would you think that there should be a north and south designation?

Mr. BALDOCK. Not necessarily. It all depends upon the origin and destination of traffic, Senator, the concept being that these interstate routes would connect major city with major city throughout the Nation, the major centers of population.

Senator CASE. You have an east and west route?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir.

Senator CASE. Do you think it would be desirable for the States to have an east and west crossing of their State on an Interstate System? Mr. BALDOCK. Generally it is certainly desirable to have an east and west and north and south, and I think most States have.

Some are diagonal routes because that is where the traffic is and where the demands are.

Senator CASE. That is all. Thank you.

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Thurmond?
Do you have any questions?

Senator THURMOND. No, thank you.

Senator NEUBERGER. I have a question, Mr. Baldock. In the fourth paragraph of your presentation you said, "The additional funds required would equal the equivalent of about a 4-cent gas tax nationwide" and in answer to a question by Senator Martin you said that would be an additional 4-cent tax.

There has been a substantial objection that a substantial amount of the funds raised by S. 1160 would go into interest, rather than concrete, bridges, piers, and so on.

Do you think there would be any economic reason for the additional 4-cent gasoline tax and to pay for it as we went rather than to incur the debt with all the interest?

Mr. BALDOCK. On the basis of a business venture, I think it would be better to carry a portion of it on deficit financing so that the users 10 or 20 years from now would pay their share as well as the users today.

Otherwise the users today would build this great system in 10 years which would have a life of 30 to 40 years and probably longer than

that.

I presume that most of this system will be here for a hundred years or so. I believe it would be good business to do part of it, if you could, by current revenues and part of it by deficit financing.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sneed of the committee staff asked me to call your attention to one thing.

Under Public Law 350 of the last session of the Congress, where you mention that perhaps the forest highway allotments were left out of Senator Gore's bill, in section 3 it says:

For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of section 23 of the Federal Highway Act there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, (1) for forest highways the sum of $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1956, and a like sum for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957.

Mr. Sneed thought that perhaps took care of that and would not have to be repeated.

Mr. BALDOCK. Is that in S. 1048?

Senator NEUBERGER. No, in Public Law 350 of the previous session. Mr. BALDOCK. I may be wrong but I believe we would have to have another authorization.

You mean the previous session had it in there?

Senator MARTIN. This was enacted for 2 years.

Senator NEUBERGER. This enacted the Federal Highway Act appropriation for $2211⁄2 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1957. So perhaps for that reason it was not necessary for that authorization to be repeated in S. 1048?

Mr. BALDOCK. That is right. As you recall I said in reviewing S. 1048 we said some clarification should be made as to how it affects the act of 1954.

There has been a great deal of uncertainty about it over the country. It might be better clarified.

Senator CASE. Mr. Baldock, under the ceiling suggested in the bill S. 1160 for appropriations for the so-called regular features of Federal aid, a ceiling was suggested of $6221⁄2 million, I believe. That included $2212 million for forest highways.

If that particular approach should be used, wouldn't you think or would you think that the ceiling should be raised so as to embrace the amount suggested for national park highways as well as for forest highways?

Mr. BALDOCK. I think that would be very desirable.

Senator CASE. And also for the roads on Indian reservations?
Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir.

Senator CASE. That is all.

Senator MARTIN. May I ask another question?