not know, but drafted apparently to carry out the recommendations of the Clay committee, that the Secretary of Commerce or General Clay should come and make a presentation of the bill.

The bill should be interpreted by those who had something to do with its drafting. I have no hesitancy in stating that I presented the bill to the Senate yesterday in behalf of Senator Martin at his request, and that Senator Chavez and I joined in the introduction of it in order that the proposal might be in printed form so that the committee might know about it.

I did not receive a copy of the draft of the bill to introduce until a very few minutes before the Senate met. I had no opportunity to read the bill actually. The printed copy came this morning. The few mimeographed or processed copies which were available yesterday afternoon were gathered by up representatives of the press and so forth, so I did not even have one in the office.

Had I had an opportunity to go over the draft of the bill I am sure there would have been several suggestions that I would have made in it, and in fact when I presented the bill to the Senate yesterday in behalf of Senator Martin and Senator Chavez and myself, I stated at that time that I felt that each of us was reserving rights on it with respect to its text.

The paragraph to which you directed attention on page 8, subparagraph (b) of section 105, is, as you mentioned to me earlier this morning before the committee met, clearly not a proper paragraph to be consdered by this committee for under the experience which both the chairman and I had in the House of Representatives and as members of the Appropriations Committee, we would strenuously object to a legislative committee reporting a bill which would say that there are hereby appropriated and there shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury any amount whatsoever.

That would be an appropriation bill and could not properly be reported from this committee. It would be subject to a point of order. To avoid the parliamentary situation that could be amended to make it read "There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury," or something like that. It could be an authorization for appropriation.

The committee, if we were to report this bill, could appropriately modify the language to make it within the jurisdiction of this committee. However, I do say that for myself I want an opportunity to study the bill. I do not think that any member of the committee, so far as I know, is prepared to explain or defend the bill.

I do not know of any member of the committee who has had an opportunity to study it. It illustrates the value of having consultation on draftsmanship as well as with regard to objectives of a bill.

The senior Senator from South Dakota stated yesterday in presenting the bill that I had some ideas that I would try to incorporate later. Over the weekend I shall try to do that. Either by way of a separate bill or by way of amendments I shall try to bring some of the points to the committee.

Senator GORE. I am sure the committee will welcome the introduction of a bill by Senator Case or any other Senator, and the committee will consider all bills, so far as I am concerned, the committee will consider all bills and then we will try to arrive at the best possible highway bill.

If there is no objection the Chair will instruct the staff of the committee, in accordance with the suggestion of Senator Case, to make an analysis of this bill and submit copies to each member of the committee.

If there is no objection the Chair will write to the Secretary of Commerce inviting and requesting his appearance before this committee to explain the bill, and to respond to certain questions which the committee may wish to submit.

The Chair will withhold writing the letter until tomorrow in order that any member may add any specific questions that he particularly may have in mind at this point.

Senator Bush?

Senator BUSH. Has the chairman invited General Clay to appear before the committee? Is that contemplated?

Senator GORE. It is contemplated with the permission of the committee. I had thought that since General Clay is without official responsibility in the Government, and since so much of this authority is delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, that an official spokesman who would be primarily responsible for the program should be first, and then perhaps General Clay next. That was my idea.

Senator BUSH. I think that is very appropriate. I do wish to suggest that I think it would be highly desirable to have General Clay appear. That is all I wanted to find out, whether you had that in mind.

Senator GORE. I do; yes, indeed.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I was about to ask the same thing, or ask if you wouldn't include in your invitations one to General Clay to appear.

Senator GORE. I had intended to do so. I do believe it would be proper for the official spokesman who has responsibility in the Government and to whom the authority is delegated to be first to appear. I believe that would be proper.

I have one more question of the witness and then I shall desist and let others ask questions.

You expressed apprehension about a declining rate of participation by the States. Do you believe that we should continue the system of matching as now exists between the Federal Government and the States, or do you persist in contending that there should be no increase in the amount of Federal contribution on the Interstate System?

Mr. TRIGGS. The second position which you stated, we favor no increase in the Federal appropriation on highways, is our basic position. We have felt that the Federal money should be matched by the State governments, without having defined or crystallized this too definitely.

I think we also concede, assuming the Federal appropriations are increased to a very large extent, and the matching provision is included, that this does involve more and more the Federal Government telling the State governments what they must do. We are also concerned about this aspect.

Senator GORE. The two bills pending before the committee at this time would increase the Federal share of the Interstate System. Both bills would leave the matching formula the same-50-50-with respect to the secondary, urban, and primary. But both bills would increase the Federal share on the Interstate System.

S. 1048 would make it a 2 to 1 share-2 for the Federal Government and 1 for the State. The new bill, the administration bill, would propose 90 percent by the Federal Government and 10 by the State, I believe.

Senator CASE. That is on right-of-way, but 100 percent on con

struction.

Senator GORE. Senator Case makes a correction. Those are all the questions that I wish to submit.

Senator Case?

Senator CASE. Mr. Triggs, when you appeared before this committee last year we had some discussion of the fact that there was no refund of gasoline taxes that were used for nonhighway purposes, and I asked you:

Has your organization made a study to determine to what extent State laws provide for refunds of gasoline taxes which are used for nonhighway purposes? Your answer at that time was:

Hardly in the form of a study. From what I have heard of the matter, it is my impression that somewhere in the neighborhood of 44 or 45 States provide for a refund of part or all.

Have you pursued that matter any since then?

Mr. TRIGGS. Only in the way of asking individuals. I understand now that 46 States provide for a refund or exemption of part or all of the State gasoline tax.

Senator CASE. So that with the exception of two States, the States do authorize a refund of the State tax on gasoline used for nonhighway purposes?

Mr. TRIGGS. Let me make it quite clear that I am not testifying to this as a matter of fact. I understand this is correct but I have not checked into it that carefully. The great majority of them do. certainly.

Senator CASE. From the outset I say both to the chairman and to Mr. Triggs, where I have heard any discussion of this Clay report I pointed out that a dedication of the Federal gas tax to the construction of the interstate roads would encounter serious troubles in Congress.

In fact, I pointed out last year that the bill that was passed by the House did so dedicate the extended Federal gas tax of 2 cents per gallon to the Interstate System. The Senate bill did not, and the Senate view prevailed in the conference. Consequently, the Highway Act of 1954 did not peg the Interstate System to the continuation of the Federal gas tax at its present level.

I think that if it were to do that it would be

Senator GORE. Did you say it did not?

Senator CASE. It did not. The House accepted the Senate's position in that matter. This is a little different proposal than the Clay committee's bill in that they link the guaranty of $622,500,000 for the other highway system along with the Interstate System in the appropriation of all of the revenue.

Do you think, Mr. Triggs, that the farmers of the country would accept a continuation of the Federal gas tax at its present level for the primary purpose of building an increased Interstate System if they felt that the one was dependent upon the other?

Mr. TRIGGS. I can only say that our position, as determined by our official voting delegates, is that the Federal gasoline tax ought to be repealed, leaving this source of money available to the States. Our people express confidence that if the Federal Government did this, that the great majority-of course we cannot possibly know that all will do it-that the great majority of the States would immediately increase their gasoline tax in the same amount.

Senator CASE. For myself I cannot accept your conclusion in the matter because I have found in my own State at least that the very people that have plugged for the repeal of the Federal gas tax are the people who have opposed any increase in the State gasoline tax. Mr. TRIGGS. You might be correct.

Senator CASE. I have no further questions.

Senator GORE. Senator Kuchel?

Senator KUCHEL. I have no questions. This developed problem of reimbursement of gasoline taxes based on nonhighway use is an interesting one, but hardly the subject for great exploration by this committee.

We have these two pieces of legislation. We will have more. The questions I am sure must be geared entirely to whether or not there must be an increase in the Federal program of highway construction and, assuming that that is answered in the affirmative, how the money is to be raised.

Senator GORE. Thank you, Mr. Triggs. The committee appreciates your appearance and the contribution of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The committee will next hear Mr. Riley, of the American Federation of Labor.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Mr. RILEY. Members of the committee, I am George D. Riley, a member of the national legislative committee of the American Federation of Labor. I have a statement but it is nontechnical except for 1 or 2 main points. To conserve the time of the committee and allow other witnesses to come in, I would appreciate it if I may submit the statement as having been read and give a few informal remarks on it.

Senator GORE. Without objection the statement will be incorporated in the record.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I think we ought to applaud that witness for that suggestion and hope his example would be followed by others.

Mr. RILEY. I am sympathetic to the problems of the committee. (The statement is as follows:)

The 1954 convention of the American Federation of Labor recorded its position unanimously in support of the highway construction, together with inclusion of Davis-Bacon Act, fair-labor provisions in the building of roadways.

The convention called for the AFL to take "all possible steps to procure increased appropriations for this purpose" and added that "there is an obvious need for building many new highways and improving existing ones."

The peacetime demands for adequate vital arterial networks and feeder lines is proving increasingly acute. The recent Federal legislation in this field, though important, can only be regarded as a starter in the right direction.

Even the great revenue turnpike systems already laid out and others still being built and still others projected, constructed State by State and from State to State can, at best, be regarded as but the beginning of bigger and more capacious avenues to the systems of tomorrow.

Nevertheless, the tremendous success which these turnpikes have proved, the greatly increased revenues over estimated revenues demonstrate conclusively that much more of the same on an expanded basis is what is needed on which the transport of the Nation will have to move if the many millions of tons of merchandise and persons are to be taken from place to place.

With production of the 50 millionth automobile by a single company and with an industry output of nearly 6 million cars forecast for 1955, the demand just for noncommercial vehicle highway space alone will have to be reckoned with.

To meet this demand and the demand for space for the thousands and thousands of new trucks, Illinois has just approved a plan for $390 million in construction of nearly 200 miles of toll roads. South Dakota's governor stressed the great necessity for highways in his remarks to the legislature. West Virginia has just completed 88 miles of its turnpike at a cost of around $1,200,000 a mile. This is the road which was not "going anywhere" and which, because of difficulties of terrain, "could not be built."

Already the West Virginia Turnpike is planned to be linked to a north-south line out of Ohio and extending through Virginia and going south into Florida.

New Jersey, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Kansas, and other States already have comprehensive new highway systems or have blueprinted such with early building coming up.

There

America is on the move in all directions by motor transport. are more than 2,300,000 miles of roads and highways and almost 2 million miles of this total are surfaced in some degree. But 472,000 miles need improvement. This, briefly, is the picture of over-the-road facilities today.

It has been pointed out by Senator Potter of Michigan that one-half the roads of the United States are unfit for use. He had immediate reference to some 1,800,000 miles of hard-surfaced roads, exclusive of city streets, when he made this observation.

Thus, the job is one of extensive repair, reconditioning and construction as well as expansion and extension.

The need for farflung overland motor transport facilities is being felt by our State Federations of Labor. The Utah State Federation of Labor is an example of this statement. In Utah, our Federation regarded the problem so intensely that it has an active working committee which has even projected its thinking far out and onto a national basis.

Perhaps nowhere is the shortage of adequate highways more felt than along the Pacific coast, notably in California where some 6 million motor vehicles are on the move and where the population is grow

61030-55-7