the Congress decides to inaugurate such a program, must be safeguarded in some way.

Mr. DU PONT. There is no question the grant is conditional on certain statues with respect to weights and so on.

Senator GORE. What do you suggest in that connection?

Mr. DU PONT. I suggest this idea: It becomes a threat. I think that is desirable. In other words, it is a sort of a threat to the industry that if you don't police yourselves, or the States don't we are going to have to.

Then consider this other alternative of paying for the structures and have those automatic check points-checks and balances in the subsequent operation.

Senator GORE. Would you be available later on for consultation with the committee either in public or executive session?

Mr. DU PONT. I will make myself available at any time, sir. Senator GORE. It has been my plan, if it is agreeable with the subcommittee, to close hearings, at least temporarily, on Friday. But after we have analyzed the hearings and perhaps made a few trips, made personal observations, it is quite possible that the committee will want to confer with you and other people about the final decisions. If you would make yourself available it would be appreciated. Mr. DU PONT. I would be very happy to. I hope you are going to Boston on your trip.

Senator GORE. That is on our suggested itinerary.

Thank you, Mr. du Pont. This has been a very helpful meeting of the committee.

Mr. DU PONT. I am very happy to come here any time I can. Senator GORE. The committee will next hear from Mr. A. B. Gorman, president, Private Truck Council of America.

STATEMENT OF A. B. GORMAN, PRESIDENT, PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL OF AMERICA

Mr. GORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing here and setting forth the views of the Private Truck Council of America, Inc., on the highway question to be discussed on this occasion.

First, I would like to discuss certain aspects of bill No. S. 1160. In section 2 it says

It is hereby declared to be in the national interest to foster and accelerate the development of a modern, adequate, safe, and efficient system of highways deemed essential for the expansion of the economy and the changing concepts of the military and civil defense of the United States.

It is hard to imagine a statement that more nearly indicates the interest of the average citizen in a highway program. The development of this modern, adequate, safe, and efficient system of highways is described as essential for the expansion of the economy and the changing concepts of the military defense. All citizens, therefore, have a monetary interest in it and a security interest in it.

As a proposal which has such vast coverage that every citizen is affected, then it is obviously more than a particular matter just for the highway user. Certainly he must pay for the benefits of the use of it, but the bill states it has economic and security values for everyone, and, therefore, whatever money is spent on it by the Federal

Government should come from general revenues of the Federal Government and not, as proposed, specifically from Federal automotive excise taxes.

Is it necessary in order to keep our highway system modern that we call upon the Federal Government to assume so much responsibility for highways as this bill requires? Let us examine the record. The highway system of the United States was built by the 48 States with some help from the Federal Government. There has been a great deal of talk going around in the last 2 years about the inadequacies of our highway system.

True, there is congestion in spots. True, also, that many of our highways need to be replaced or modified, but nevertheless, it is without the remotest challenge, the greatest highway system the world has ever known. Roman roads were superior to ours in durability and load-carrying capacity, but our system from the point of view of service to a population over a vast area is incomparable.

This system of highways was built by the States with Federal aid in the short span of 35 years. Total investment for highways for the years 1921 to 1953 inclusive was about $48 billion for construction of which the Federal Government, exclusive of WPA and PWA, contributed about $7 billion. The reference to that can be found in the Bureau of Public Roads as compiled by the National Highway Users Conference, Washington, D. C.

In addition, the States and their subdivisions have spent about $30 billion for maintenance. So, while the Federal Government has contributed about 15 percent of the investment, our system of highways has been built and maintained by State, city, and county governments. They have shown that they can decide what they want and generally have been willing to provide the funds to pay for what they

want.

Certainly, if we are to get the best value for the money we spend on highways, the situation should be left pretty much as it is. We can get the most for our money when the people who are going to use the roads either for local or State use or for ingress and egress, and who are going to pay for the roads, do the spending and the building.

The Private Truck Council believes it is not necessary for the Federal Government to set up any such machinery as contemplated in bill S. 1160 in order to have an adequate highway system in this country. We should bear in mind that the States, with their regular expenditures and their toll-road expectations and normal Federal aid are already prepared to spend about $50 billion over the next 10 years, and we are convinced that the States and private enterprise, and some relinquishment of taxes on the part of tthe Federal Government, can provide this country with the highways it needs.

Before getting further into this part of the problem, there is one aspect of the situation I want to discuss. The emphasis in the bill is placed on the Interstate System of 40,000 miles. The intent apparently is to spend $27 billion on this all-important Interstate System; $25 billion is to be furnished by the Federal Government and raised under bill S. 1160 through the machinery of a Federal corporation, and the other $2 billion is to be furnished by the States.

It seems to us an oddity that only $12 billion is to be spent on those sections of the Interstate System outside the urban areas, but $15 billion is to be spent within urban areas. We realize that section 202

of the bill states that urban feeder, distributing, and circumferential routes may be included, but nevertheless, it is difficult to understand the preponderance of urban expenditures in an Interstate System.

The axiom of an Interstate System is that it serves interstate commerce. What kind of an Interstate System is it that requires $15 billion to be spent in cities and only $12 billion outside of cities? It seems particularly odd in view of estimates that trucks handle 75 percent of all the tonnage moved in this country and that about 85 percent of the ton-miles involved in the movement of that tonnage is rural mileage as against 15 percent for urban mileage.

Senator GORE. Did you say 85?

Mr. GORMAN. Of the ton-miles involved.

Senator GORE. Eighty-five percent?

Mr. GORMAN. Rural.

To get some idea of what $15 billion for the urban portion of an Interstate System means in terms of highways, we go to Los Angeles for experience. In that city and county a number of multilane highways have been constructed or are under construction for the purpose of ingress and egress principally of passenger-car traffic between suburban and urban Los Angeles. One of these is known as the Harbor Freeway. Its length when finished will be 7.2 miles. Its anticipated investment for construction will aggregate approximately $18 million. The investment in right-of-way, $40 million. The total investment is about $58 million. Notice that 70 percent of the total investment is for the right-of-way, not for the construction. This is probably a typical example of the kind of urban development contemplated. The price is fantastic, about $8,100,000 per mile.

To finance the Interstate System with these expensive urban developments, bill S. 1160 proposes the formation of a Federal corporation which would be authorized to borrow, according to section 105 (a), $21 billion. The Private Truck Council does not favor the creation of such Federal debt for highways. On the other hand, it believes that highways should be constructed, improved, and maintained from normal revenue sources to the fullest possible extent. Term financing may be justified where normal revenue funds are inadequate to provide urgently needed high-cost facilities, but these would be the exceptions. It is possible from the foregoing the notion might be formed that we are not interested in adequate roads. Quite the contrary.

Senator GORE. We have been operating informally and I would like to ask a question. I have been impressed by the figures that you gave on the top of page 4, where you say that 70 percent of the total investment of this particular project would be for right-of-way. Mr. GORMAN. That is right.

Senator GORE. You then proceed to express the opinion that this is probably a typical example of the kind of urban development contemplated. Would you elaborate on that?

Mr. GORMAN. I inquired about Los Angeles because in that city there has probably been the greatest development of this type of urban expressway. They have four of them out there, and the figures that I got from people in Los Angeles pertain to this particular one. I don't have the figures on the other three. But this was the sample that they gave me of what was being done in Los Angeles.

Senator GORE. Under the bill the Federal Government would pay 95 percent of the cost of the right-of-way.

Mr. GORMAN. Under what?

Senator GORE. Under the bill, S. 1160, the Federal Government would provide 95 percent of the cost of the rights-of-way.

Mr. GORMAN. If that is the case then they would be paying roughly 65 percent of the total investment of this road, because 70 percent of the price of this road is in the right-of-way.

Senator GORE. You may proceed.

Mr. GORMAN. I doubt if anyone is more interested in having good highways than are the members of the Private Truck Council of America. Our members are the people who handle their own goods or perform their own services with their own trucks. Eighty-seven percent of all the trucks in the United States are in that category. Our council represents the truck fleets of industrial, commercial, and agricultural concerns, hauling their own merchandise from their own places of business to their own customers. We must have good roads, and they should become increasingly substantial in the matter of load-carrying capacity.

Because the operation of trucks is a cost in any business and can have an effect on prices, and because the highway situation has an effect on the operating cost of trucks, we are interested in the highway situation. We must have good roads to expedite our business, but to get good roads we do not want a wasteful or excessive program. Such a program will increase our costs through taxation and, in due time, the burden will fall on the consuming public.

The Private Truck Council feels that the States and private enterprise, with some change in the Federal tax requirements, can take care of the highway situation. The first and most necessary thing in this is for the Federal Government to get completely out of the Federal automotive excise-tax field and leave it to the States. In 1953 the Federal Government collected $2,165,944,000 from gasoline and other excise taxes on automotive equipment. It returned to the States as Federal-aid apportionment only $849,521,000.

Such a move will accomplish three things: First, it will keep the facts relating to these expenditures where the people of the States can give them close observation. In a matter such as highway construction, programs are more responsive to the wishes of the people in our judgment if they are handled through their State and local governments on a close-to-home basis than if they are handled through a Federal system.

The second thing that the relinquishment of Federal automotive excise taxes by the Federal Government would do, would be to destroy the myth of Federal aid from Federal automotive excise taxes. The total Federal automotive excise taxes collected in 1953 by States versus apportionments to States under the 1954 Federal Aid Act are included herein, and they show that only five States received back from the Federal Government more than their citizens paid into the Federal Government in the form of these excise taxes.

In round figures, Montana received back about $2 million more than its citizens paid in, Nevada about $4 million more, North Dakota about $1 million more, South Dakota about $1 million more, Wyoming about $1 million more. That is all.

This is Federal aid with a vengeance. By contrast, the citizens of California paid in Federal automotive excise taxes $138 million more than the State received back as Federal aid, Illinois $92 million more

than it received back in Federal aid, New York $99 million more, Ohio $82 million more, Pennsylvania $95 million more than it received back.

The third thing that will be accomplished by having the Federal Government vacate the automotive excise tax field, is that it will make available to the States increased tax sources for highway use. As of today I think there are 18 States that have bills in their legislatures for increasing gasoline taxes.

For the years 1946-54, inclusive, total expenditures were $2,100 million per year over the 9-year span. The States, with toll-road additions and normal Federal aid, are already planning to spend about $5 billion per year for the next 10 years. Besides, more and more States are planning to stop diversion of highway-use taxes.

As of now there are 10 States that are proposing amendments to stop the diversion of highway-use taxes. I am interlining here.

Senator CASE. You mean constitutional amendments?

Mr. GORMAN. Yes.

Senator CASE. Some of them already have.

Mr. GORMAN. Twenty-five have, and 10 more are considering them right now.

These sums can be substantial and make it possible for the States to increase their expenditures considerably above $5 million per year, should they so elect.