Route 40 seems to more nearly meet our needs. I haven't my notes on this, but it is my recollection that Route 40 connected up Denver and Salt Lake City.

Governor JOHNSON. It does, and of course Highway 40 is a splendid highway. But so is Highway 50. And so is Highway 6. Highway 6 is a splendid road that crosses the whole of the United States. All of these highways do.

Senator MARTIN. 6, 40, and 50, and 30 cross the entire United States? Governor JOHNSON. That is right.

Senator CASE. Are all three of those splendid highways in Colorado east and west: 40, 50, and 6?

Governor JOHNSON. I will name the highways east and west across the State of Colorado. Beginning with Highway 160, then 50, and 40, 24, 34, and 6. We are building those highways as fast as we can and as well as we can. We are trying to make them just as good highways as we can construct. But what Colorado needs is an interstate highway that will be up to the standard that will be used in building highways, competitive highways, in other States.

You are going to build a four-lane highway through Wyoming. You are going to build two 4-lane highways through New Mexico and Arizona. Colorado needs to be able to compete with our neighboring States. We do not want to take anything away from them. We do not want them to get way out ahead of us, either, because these interstate highways are going to be very attractive highways for the East and West to travel on.

We want to be able to compete with them on even terms. We are asking for one improved interstate highway across the State of Colorado. Since all the other States in the Union, with the single exception of North Carolina, have been given those kinds of highways, we do not think that our request is in the slightest degree unjustified. We think it is completely justified.

Senator GORE. Senator Case has a question.

Senator CASE. Governor, what is the ratio of matching in Colorado when you are given credit for public lands in Colorado?

Governor JOHNSON. Thirty-five percent of the area of Colorado is in public lands. Our ratio on Federal-aid roads, therefore, is 44 to 56-44 State, 56 Federal. That is the rate that we have been given because the Federal Government owns 35 percent of the area of the State of Colorado.

Senator CASE. With 35 percent-you are sure that is what it is, 56-44?

Governor JOHNSON. That is what it is, 44 and 56. And it is approximately 35 percent. I think my figures are approximately correct.

Senator GORE. Then this becomes increasingly important, I take it, to State governments as the Congress increases, if it does increase, the Federal contribution to the interstate highways?

Governor JOHNSON. That is correct, because the Federal Government is building boulevards through our competing States to the north of us and to the south of us. Our tourist trade in Colorado is a very important industry. It is our second most important industry. Our first industry is agriculture which produced $440 million in revenue last year; and our tourist industry produced $298,400,000. So we are dependent upon industry. If the United States Government is going to go in and build boulevards through Wyoming and

through New Mexico which will attract the tourist travelers traveling east and west, Colorado is being dealt a very severe injustice.

It is a whole lot like the man who was praying about the bear. He said, "If you can't help me, don't help the bear." That is about our situation. If you cannot help us, let nature take its course. Colorado will do all right.

Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this comment: There are so many different groups that are opposed to paying for these highways and for new methods that I am afraid the good Lord will be needed to help everybody.

Governor, you have made a very careful study of these things. What would you think of a toll road starting at the Pennsylvania Turnpike, east of Pittsburgh, running practically parallel to Route 40, which would go a little north of Columbus, Ohio, Indianapolis, Ind., a little north of St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Salt Lake City, and on to the west coast? Would your people object to a toll road? Governor JOHNSON. No; I do not think they would object to it if the bonds could be sold to build it. Then people would travel it if it was a competitive road with the other highways.

Senator MARTIN. The free road would be Highway 40. It would be an entirely new road, just as we have done in Pennsylvania. We have as a free road Routes 22 and 30. I have just gone into it. The truck travel in the last 5 years has multiplied by 4. I thought if we could work out a plan that would get us one road clear across the continent. We certainly need it. We need it from an economic standpoint, we need it from the military standpoint, because we do not have railroad stock enough in the United States to carry troops from one coast to the other if it is necessary to do so. You have to depend on roads for that purpose.

Governor JoHNSON. I would prefer that kind of a road than a general bond issue to build a military road. I think that a road in which the motor vehicle user would pay for it through tolls would be much better than selling general bonds and building such a road through the country.

Senator MARTIN. There is not any question but that the road would pay as far west as Kansas City. I have gone into it enough that I feel confident that it would liquidate itself that far. Then of course it would liquidate itself from San Francisco over into Nevada.

That other section across the mountains, which would be very heavy construction, would have to depend on the traffic from the East and the West that would want to push across that.

You have given a lot of thought to these things. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for bringing that up, but this is an American proposition. We have got to build these roads someway. There is opposition to a new corporation; there is opposition to funded indebtedness; and there is opposition to almost everything we suggest. But we have to come to some conclusion one of these days because we are at least 10 years behind in building roads in the United States and we have the opportunity of hearing from you fine people from Colorado who have given a lot of thought to these things."

That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, that I am bringing it up here. I was criticized about 3 weeks ago when I brought out, I believe to you, Governor, whether or not we should add another cent to the gasoline tax. My gracious alive, I got letters from all over the United States

as to what a terrible thing that is. Everybody seems to want the roads but nobody seems to want to pay for them.

Governor JOHNSON. I thank the Senator for his inquiry and for his statement. I would like to say one more thing and then I will desist.

If you will look at the map you will notice that the largest area in the United States without an interstate highway is that area between Salt Lake City and Denver and Pueblo. That area is the largest area in the United States without an interstate highway.

You might think from that situation that that area was a desert, and that it was not worthy of having a highway. Quite the contrary is true. It is probably the richest area in the United States so far as natural resources are concerned. It has tremendous deposits of coal; it has tremendous deposits of oil shale; it has gas wells and oil wells to the north, in the middle of it and to the south, in the State of Colorado.

Congress is dealing at the present time with the upper Colorado River development, and 72 percent of the water of that river originates in the State of Colorado. It is a great tourist mecca. It has the finest scenic attractions-I ought not to say the finest but some of the finest in the United States. It is a very fine area, and Colorado, by the way-I do not suppose this is bragging-Colorado pays into the Treasury of the United States nearly $700 million a year in income taxes, which is quite a considerable amount of money to pay.

Colorado is one of the live States of the West. We want to continue to grow. If you give us this highway and give us equal treatment with Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona, our adjoining States with Montana, I think you will find that Colorado will measure up and will not disappoint you, not only in Federal taxes but in the development of the Colorado Plateau, the source of our uranium, which is in this area, too.

It is a very important area so far as the military is concerned, so far as all development is concerned, and there is going to be a tremendous increase in population in that area east of Salt Lake City and west of Denver and Pueblo.

As you may recall, they have a great steel mill, the Geneva Steel Mill, in Utah. That is in that area. This is a really important area of the United States. Looking at this map you would think it is nothing but a Sahara Desert, and it is anything but that.

Senator GORE. Senator Case?

Senator CASE. Having raised the question of the percentage of cost of Federal-aid projects paid by the Federal Government, I should like to insert at this point a table which the clerk has handed me which gives the percentage for the several States that have public lands. I would like to point out in that connection that the State of Utah gets 73.78 cents on the dollar for Federal-aid projects. That is, they could get that on a primary system.

The State of Colorado does get 56.60 cents, as the Governor has accurately pointed out.

Arizona gets 71.95. New Mexico gets 64.02. My own State of South Dakota gets 56.13. But I think that is a point that ought to be kept in mind when you are considering what Federal aid means in building roads in Western States.

That has some bearing upon the percentage of cost. If the Federal Government is going to pay 100 percent of cost of the Interstate System, that has a great deal of significance for States which match on a straight 50-50 basis.

For the States in the West, where there are some public lands and the aid is apportioned, it does not have quite the same significance. Senator GORE. Without objection it may be inserted in the record. (The chart is as follows:)

Sliding scale rates of Federal-id participation in public-land States effective Dec. 1, 1950

1 Area data as of June 30, 1950, furnished by Department of the Interior.

0.4390

71.95

.1657

58.28

. 1319

56.60

.2192

60.96

.1406

57.03

.6827

84. 14

.2803

64.02

.0553

52.76

.2422

62. 11

.1226

56. 13

Senator CASE. You mentioned the uranium deposits in western Colorado. Were there any access roads built to the uranium fields in Colorado from the access roads money?

Governor JOHNSON. Yes; that is correct. I do not remember the total but it is something in the neighborhood of $3 million, I believe, where they built roads out to these mines. As you know, the mines are located in very rough areas.

I cannot say what it is. Congressman Aspinall tells me it is nearer $4 million than $3 million.

Senator CASE. I know that is correct. I did not want to leave the impression that with the uranium fields there they were not accessible by highway, because the Federal Government has a system of roads there, built to the uranium fields.

Governor JOHNSON. Those roads built to the fields are simply to get the ore to the mills.

Senator CASE. I understand that. I think we have had about $200,000 worth of access road funds applied to the uranium fields of southwestern South Dakota. I think those were built practically 100 percent by the Federal Government. I assume the $3 million or $4 million that you have are the same.

Governor JOHNSON. They are mine roads in Colorado.

Senator CASE. Possibly on a 75-25 ratio or something like that. The Federal Government put up most of the money for it.

Governor JOHNSON. Colorado has helped with it. I do not know the amount. The Colorado Highway Department has built the roads

through contracts, and put something in. But I am not sure just how much.

Congressman Aspinall tells me that 90 percent of the access road funds are Federal, and 10 percent State.

Senator GORE. Governor, what, specifically, do you request this committee to do? Do you want us to write legislation in the bill designating this particular route as an interstate route? Do you want us to increase the mileage for interstate routes? Do you want us to examine the legality and justification for setting aside 2,400 miles for urban development? Just specifically what action do you request? You have made a very strong case for designation of this route.

Governor JOHNSON. Senator Millikin and other Senators interested will introduce a bill in a day' or two requesting and directing that this additional 500 miles east of the Rockies in Colorado and the area in Utah in the vicinity of Salt Lake City, be included in the 40,000 miles. I suppose if all of that mileage is designated it will be an increase above the 40,000. That is very definitely the request.

I hope that this committee will seriously consider the bill that will be before you in just a very few days. I hope that you may give affirmative approval to it and that it will be enacted into law and that this highway that we are talking about will be designated on the Interstate System.

Just one more thought: the Legislature of Colorado, the Legislature of Utah, and the Legislature of Nevada have all enacted resolutions urging that this highway be designated, roughly between Salt Lake City and the city of Denver.

The State of Kansas is very much interested in this designation. Their Highway 40 reaches a dead-end in Denver. Highway 6 reaches a dead-end in Denver. And the people back of both of those highways would like to have one or the other of those highways designated as interstate highways.

Highway 6 goes clear through the State of Colorado, but to Denver it is an interstate highway. Highway 40, from Kansas City to Denver, is an interstate highway, and that is the end of it. It is a dead-end. We want it to go on through so it can connect clear across the country and become a National Interstate Highway.

Senator GORE. Governor, the committee will inquire of the Department of Commerce when its witnesses appear Friday on the justification for the denial of this designation; the justification for setting aside 2,400 miles for future urban or circumferential route development. And as I have indicated in the letter which I have cited, we will inquire into the desirability and the recommendation of the Department on increasing the 40,000 miles limitation.

The Department has heretofore made a study as to the routes which would be designated if that limit should be raised to 48,000. The committee wants the most recent information in that regard.

So far as I am advised, the Congress has never designated-the Congress itself has never, by legislation, designated a particular road as an interstate route. The Congress may decide to do so. It would appear to the chairman of the subcommittee that perhaps your best chance of getting this designation would be within the present 40,000 or, maybe still better, through an increase of the 40,000 to 48,000 or 56,000, whatever the facts might justify.