This association represents the largest group of Federal employees who would be affected by any increase in highway user taxes. Our 31,411 regular rural carriers and their substitutes drive over more highways of the Nation each day than any other group of employees. The daily travel totals approximately 1,800,000 miles, which amounts to approximately 550 million miles per year.

While the need for additional revenue to continue the rapid construction of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, as well as the annual requirements of other Federal-aid highways, is evident to anyone who has studied the financial history of the highway trust fund, there are a number of methods of meeting this need, and it is our position that the proposal to increase the Federal gasoline tax by 112 cents per gallon is the least desirable of these methods and would result in further inequities in the assumption of the costs of the Federal highway system by the highway user, as contrasted with other beneficiaries of the proposed improvements.

It should be noted first of all that the entire cost of the Interstate System has been borne by the highway user, although there are many ways in which other segments of our economy will benefit. There is also the overall benefit to the national welfare with respect to the defense of our Nation. This is recognized by the full title of the so-called Interstate System which is the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

Manifestly the defense needs of our Nation have played a great part in the location of this Interstate System, and in determining clearance heights for underpasses and other technical specifications. The added burden of paying for highways located for defense needs and more expensive structures to meet the same needs has contributed substantially to the increased estimates of the cost of completion of the system. Yet apparently no one in authority has proposed that this added cost be assumed by the Federal Government, rather than the individual or firm who must travel the highways of the Nation to earn a livelihood, or as in our case, to perform our official duties as rural carriers delivering the U.S. mail.

Contrary to the belief of some, it is required that rural carriers furnish their own equipment and pay for the cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of the same. Our travel includes a great deal of unimproved roads as well as roads of average type and condition, but rarely, if ever, do we travel the limited access highways, such as will comprise the Interstate System.

Our gasoline consumption is very high due to the type of roads traveled, the number of daily stops, and other factors which tend to increase its use. A conservative estimate of our average mileage would be about 10 miles per gallon. The total gasoline consumption, based on 550 million annual miles, would then be about 55 million gallons, and the proposed increase in our Federal gasoline taxes would amount to about $825,000. This is in addition to the numerous increases already enacted by the various States.

We would thus be contributing nearly a million dollars annually largely for the benefit of a system of highways over which we would not travel in the performance of our official duties.

Other witnesses have cited the fact that there are already certain excise taxes paid by highway users on automobiles and trucks, now

going into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, which would be more than adequate to make up the deficiency in the highway trust fund.

Without discussing the merits of these taxes, the fact of their existence appears to us to be sufficient justification to ask that the further needs of the highway system be met within the scope of existing taxes through advances from the General Treasury to the highway trust fund, which could be met and repaid through extension of present taxes over a longer period of time, rather than increasing the already burdensome tax rates now in effect. This could easily be accomplished by a further suspension, or elimination of the Byrd amendment so that the original intent of the 1956 Highway Act could be carried out.

Part of the existing situation came about because the Byrd amendment was suspended for a 2-year period as an antirecession measure, but at the end of the 2-year period the amendment will come back into play retroactively for that period so that immediate repayments of any advances must be met before further apportionments can be made. This would indicate that the Byrd amendment should be eliminated permanently, or at least suspended until some more definite and equitable method of financing the highway program can be established.

Summarizing our position in this matter we feel that :

(1) Some part of the cost of highway improvement, particularly with reference to the Interstate System, should be met by the General Treasury of the Federal Government, and we would urge that careful study of this matter be made with a view to basic changes in the long-term financing of the highway program.

(2) Until this is done, it is our recommendation that the Byrd amendment be suspended so that advances can be made from the general fund to keep the highway program on schedule, and that no additional or higher taxes be enacted at this time.

(3) While some have suggested the alternate form of financing through issuance of special revenue bonds, it is our belief that this would add appreciably to the cost of the program through higher interest rates than that paid for other bonds, and we would, therefore, not recommend such financing.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to present the views of our association on this most important matter of financing the Federal highway program, and sincerely hope that this committee will in the course of its deliberations arrive at a suitable solution to the financial programs now facing our Nation's highways.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larson, we thank you, sir, for your discussion of the views of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. We appreciate your coming to the committee.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. MASON. My thoughts, Mr. Larson, go along with your thoughts. Mr. LARSON. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again, Mr. Larson.

Our next witnesses are Mayor Ben West and Mr. Richards for the American Municipal Association.

STATEMENT OF GLENN RICHARDS, OF DETROIT, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CHAIRMAN OF THE HIGHWAY COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Will you identify yourself for the record? Mr. RICHARDS. I am Glenn Richards, of Detroit, Commissioner of Public Works, and Chairman of the Highway Committee of the American Municipal Association.

Mayor West was supposed to give the main testimony and present the official testimony for the American Municipal Association. He has not arrived yet, because he is appearing before another committee. I would like to take a few minutes to talk to you about how cities. feel about this program.

I have a brief statement which I would like to put into the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be included. (Prepared statement of Mr. Richards follows:)

TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY GLENN C. RICHARDS, CHAIRMAN OF THE HIGHWAY COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION AND COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE CITY OF DETROIT

From the time the first Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed in 1916 until the act was amended in 1944, cities had provided a large share of the funds appropriated by Congress for the improvement of State highways. During this period these funds could only be spent outside of cities. During this period cities were required to pay all of the cost of the cities' streets and highways in addition to a substantial part of the trunklines through cities. During this time more and more of the Nation's population moved into cities and the increased use of our streets and highways by increased traffic put a very heavy burden upon cities to meet the growing needs for better transportation.

In 1944 we appeared before Congress and pleaded for help, pointing out the fact that Federal and State monies had done a good job of getting the farmer out of the mud and it was high time that Federal and State Governments assisted cities in getting city people out of the traffic muddle. Congress recognized the merit of our request and did, for the first time, allocate a substantial share of the Federal appropriation for improvement of State trunklines through cities. The limited funds which were available from 1944 until 1956 only scratched the surface of meeting the State trunkline needs in cities. The Interstate System had been approved for some time, but no money had been provided to help build the system through cities. The report submitted by the Clay committee for the first time produced a program that would meet the needs of cities on the same basis as the needs for the rural areas were being met. Congress, in its wisdom, provided a national highway program with an adequate financing plan to make this program possible. Cities enthusiastically supported the effort of Congress and put much effort into selling this program to the various highwayusers groups, who were called upon to pay the cost. I doubt if any group put any more effort into selling the Federal-aid highway program of 1956 than city officials. For the first time we felt that we were being treated equitably and fairly. Congress, itself, indicated in its report on the legislation that half of the needs for the systems were in cities and that cities should be given equal consideration to the rural areas in carrying out this program.

Much has been accomplished since 1956. Some areas have done better than others. Some cities have been given more consideration than others. Some States have recognized for the first time their responsibility to carry the State trunklines through the cities as well as up to them. Some States have even made an attempt to understand the cities' problems and to design their highways so as to meet the approval of cities. While progress has been slow in many cases and while many State highway departments have not fully met their responsibilities inside of cities, we feel that progress is being made and we are hopeful that more and more State highway departments will recognize their responsibilities and more nearly give equal consideration to cities' highway problems.

We were particularly pleased at the straightforward and bold action taken by this committee in proposing and fighting for the necessary tax increases to make the program possible in 1956, even during election year. We had great hopes for the future. Cities are on record opposing any stretchout of the program. In fact, we have testified that we believe the program should be accomplished in 10 years rather than 16 or 20 years. The great effect on our economy alone dictates that the program should be accelerated. But, even more, the saving in lives and serious accidents made possible by the modern, safe Interstate Highway System makes it almost unthinkable that we should let anything stand in the way of an early completion of the program as planned. I am sure that the people themselves, who are paying for the highways, although in favor of reduced taxes, would almost unanimously agree that the money they are putting into our highway system through the increased taxes is money well spent and they would not want the program reduced in any way.

There have been rumors that there is some sentiment favoring diverting the moneys apportioned to cities to rural areas. I can't believe that anyone familiar with the traffic problem in cities, and the much greater need of highways in cities, would think seriously of slowing up the program in cities at this time. Recently, I heard it said that "all cities grow is taxes." That is certainly true and we have been the goose that has been laying the golden eggs for a good number of years and certainly we know that you are not going to give very much consideration to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Mr. RICHARDS. First, I am sure, we, as cities, want no stretchout program. I am sure we will support any program that this committee, your committee, works out for the financing, and we will show we enthusiastically support the committee.

You did a wonderful job in 1956 under very bad circumstances. You provided taxes to build a program on a pay-as-you-go basis, although at that time we, as an association, felt that we should use bonds. We supported the Clay program for bond financing, revenuebond financing, but we were very pleased to see that this committee did provide the funds to carry out the program.

Mr. West is here now. I would like to let him present the main testimony to you.

I would like to say one thing in behalf of Detroit and Michigan. That is that we have worked hard to get this program underway. From 1916 to 1944 there was no money provided for cities at all. A good share of it came from cities and was spent outside of cities by congressional action.

From 1944 to 1956, we were allocated some share of the collected revenues to be used in cities. Some progress was made. But not until this committee and Congress took the action in 1956 was the cities' position given real recognition.

When you realize the importance of cities to this Nation, to the economy of this Nation, they should be considered. Since that time we have made progress. We are not satisfied with the progress. We don't want to be stopped in any way.

I would like to emphasize one thing, however; that we certainly are very much opposed to diverting any of the funds that have been allocated to cities, or to change the formula in any way that would lessen the work in cities. I have heard rumors that there is some talk in Congress that they ought to curtail the work in cities and push the work outside the cities. We are 100 percent against that, and I am sure you will hear from us fast if any such step is taken.

I know in your wisdom you will not do that. It doesn't make

sense.

I would like to introduce Mr. West, who will give the chief witness testimony.

STATEMENT OF BEN WEST, MAYOR OF NASHVILLE, TENN., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Mayor West, from the great city of Nashville, Tenn., representing the American Municipal Association, we welcome you. We are glad to have you with us.

Mr. FRAZIER. I would like to have the privilege of introducing Mayor West, and to say to the committee that he is very interested in this program. I am sure his contribution will be very helpful to the committee.

Mr. WEST. Chairman Mills and Congressman Frazier, thank you very much.

I appear for the American Municipal Association, which represents some 13,000 cities, towns, and villages throughout the United States. It has been my pleasure to appear before congressional committees on the national highway program on previous occasions dating back to 1954 when the program was first conceived.

I am a past president of AMA, a member of its highway committee, cochairman of the Joint Committee on Highways of AMA and the American Association of State Highway Officials, and chairman of the National Committee on Urban Transportation. My own city of Nashville is engaged in an extensive highway and urban renewal program.

So I come before you, not as a highways expert, but as a mayor and politician who has literally lived with the problem of financing an adequate highway system at both the national and local levels.

To discuss financing intelligently, we must also think about the kind of a program that the Nation has committed itself to through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.

President Eisenhower set the goals for the program in 1954 when he called for

a grand plan for a properly articulated (highway) system that solves the problems of speedy, safe transcontinental travel, intercity transportation, access highways, and farm-to-farm movement, metropolitan area congestion, bottlenecks, and parking.

Following this call for a grand plan, the President appointed the so-called Clay committee, the President's advisory committee on a national highway program, which produced a recommended program that formed the basis of the ensuing legislation.

The striking feature of the 1956 act is its incorporation of a balanced program providing for a modernized network of streets and highways; Federal, State, and local.

The decision to develop a balanced program is demonstrated by the Clay committee conclusion and recommendation that:

the Federal Government assume primary responsibility for the interstate network *** to include the most essential urban arterial connections.

Today we have a national highway program that provides for a National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, the Federal primary and secondary systems and their urban extensions, and that vast system for which States, counties, and cities are alone responsible.

We are pleased with the balanced program concept and the way it is being carried out by the Bureau of Public Roads and the State