Page images
PDF
EPUB

In order to bring out the point concerning the conditions of the farmers in Minnesota I want to introduce this, due to the fact that they are still clamoring and anxious to get good roads in the State of Minnesota. The motor-vehicle receipts during the last three years averaged over $6,500,000. Last year it was $7,500,000, and this year they collected $8,000,000.

Now, I would like to stop and consider the number of automobiles, and I want to say that the farmers all own automobiles in Minnesota, and they use them in their business. They transport a great many of their products over the highways by motor truck. Just stop and consider what a saving it is possible to make to a community. We have half a million automobiles in the State, and a conservative estimate is that there is a $1,000 investment in each of them. That would be $500,000,000. Now, I know that you will consider it a conservative estimate of travel for each automobile at 5,000 miles per year. That makes, with 500,000 cars in Minnesota, 2,500,000,000 miles a year. At a cost of 10 cents a mile for operation, that means that they are spending $250,000,000 a year. If I could save them 1 cent a mile on their operation of their cars, just stop and consider the vast amount of money that would be saved. It would be $2,500,000 annually in the operation of those cars. And I think we are doing it in the State of Minnesota, and not only that, but I think they are doing it in every one of the 48 States in the Union. I think they are putting the money back into the car operators' pockets. There is no question about it in so far as the conditions that exist in Minnesota are concerned.

We have received our Federal aid; we have used it all, and we could use three or four times as much, but that has no bearing on the amount that we are asking for.

In the State of Minnesota, we are asking for and I think our Representatives and Senators will vote solidly for it, because they have always stood back of the roads program-$100,000,000.

When we made our campaign back in 1919 to put over the constitutional amendment providing for this trunk highway system, we did it with the view that we possibly could get an annual appropriation from the Federal Government of $100,000,000, which would give us $2,800,000 each year. We figured on that basis, and so it was talked all over the State. The people thoroughly realized it, and used it for the $100,000,000 appropriation.

Mr. MANLOVE. How much did you say you would get back from the Federal Government?

Mr. BABCOCK. Ours is 2.84 per cent of whatever allotment is made. If you make an appropriation of $100,000,000 our percentage will be approximately $2,840,000.

Mr. MANLOVE. Suppose you had spent all of that money in four years, or $25,000,000 a year. You would get back from the Federal Government about $10,000,000 or $11,000,000?

Mr. BABCOCK. We would get back whatever our percentage of the allotment was that was made.

Mr. MANLOVE. Yes; about $11,000,000. Now the question is going to come up before the committee, when we come to present it, of extending Federal aid to those States like Mr. Sears's State, Florida. Mr. Sears remarked the other morning that they handled it there under the provisions of their constitution; they raised the money,

and now the State has expended all the money, and for that reason they were not able to have any further Federal aid, and so they were without further aid. Now, if you were to spend your $100,000,000 in four years, and only got back a portion of it, maybe $10,000,000, what is your idea as to having a provision in the law to go ahead and spend all of the money right now and build your roads right now with that money, having an elastic provision in the law whereby you would continue to get Federal aid, notwithstanding the fact that you had put out all of your money at one time?

Mr. BABCOCK. I think they would be very much in favor of it. Mr. MANLOVE. It is my idea that the State that is voting bond issues and building roads right now in penalized, in comparison with the State that drags along and continues to get its provisions from the Federal Government, by having its appropriations matched by the Federal Government. I do not know whether I have all of the facts or not, but it seems to me as though a State which would build its roads now would have the benefit of having Federal aid continued. Mr. BABCOCK. You mean, in other words, to allow them to anticipate that, and have it returned as a credit to the State later on? Mr. MANLOVE. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. Has your State a constitutional limit on the amount of bonds that may be issued?

Mr. BABCOCK. We have not issued any bonds. We received approximately $8,000,000 from receipts of motor vehicle licenses and Federal aid. I will say this, that the constitutional limit is $10,000,000 a year, with a total outstanding indebtedness of $75,000,000 at any one time.

Mr. CANNON. If the State desired, then, to build a road, and you had already issued your $75,000,000 or $80,000,000 of bonds, you would therefore be in no position to match the Federal appropriation, and would lose it?

Mr. BABCOCK. It can only be spent in that time.

Mr. DOUGHTON. The committee will have to adjourn in a minute or two. If you have anything further, we will finish with you tomorrow morning.

Mr. BABCOCK. I am practically through now.

Mr. DOUGHTON. We do not want to stop you, but you may proceed to-morrow.

Mr. BABCOCK. I have nothing further to say, except this, that in Minnesota the limitations placed upon the amount of Federal aid that is permissible to use per mile do not affect us at all, the $15,000 per mile; but still we are heartily in favor of having that limitation removed, because it does affect the people in some of the western States, where they have to pay as high as $30,000 per mile in some sections for the clearing and grading of roads, to say nothing about putting the surface on them.

We are in favor of the removal of that limitation of $15,000 per mile.

Mr. MANLOVE. I would like to say to the gentlemen from Ohio, from Colorado, and Minnesota and elsewhere, that I think I am voicing the sentiment of the chairman and of the committee when I say that we have been highly entertained and appreciate very much the sentiments that you have brought from the different States, as diversified as they have been.

Mr. WARD. Yes.

Mr. DOUGHTON. I am authorized to say by the chairman that the committee will take a recess, and will meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock, without further notice.

We will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, March 13, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON ROADS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, March 13, 1924.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Cassius C. Dowell (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Colton is here this morning on a bill he has introduced relative to a change in the general law for Federal aid, and if there is no objection on the part of the committee we will hear two or three witnesses who desire to be heard on this matter.

Mr. Colton, we will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON B. COLTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. COLTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I think I have already explained to the committee that this bill is the outgrowth of a movement which had its origin in New Orleans at the convention of road commissioners and engineers held there during the early part of the winter. You gentlemen are no doubt. familiar with the proposition involved.

The States east of the Rocky Mountains have a very comprehensive and complete road program that they have carried out and are being able to successfully finish. Then the roads west of the Rocky Mountains, particularly California, have also a full and complete road program practically finished, but the States between-from northern Idaho and Montana on the north to the southern part of Arizona on the south-have been unable and are unable to finish, in many cases, the transcontinental highways.

Now, it was thought and, I understand, practically unanimously agreed upon at the New Orleans meeting that if the Government were given the privilege of concentrating the Federal funds to a few of these roads that these transcontinental links could be completed. Of course I understand the Federal Bureau of Roads would not and could not act independently of the States roads commissions. In fact, the law in that regard is not changed at all by this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Federal bureau has nothing to say, that is, to initiate, the place where the Federal aid is to be placed in the States?

Mr. COLTON. None whatever.

The CHAIRMAN. That is up to the State highway commission.
Mr. COLTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The only power the Bureau of Roads has in the matter is a veto power of not accepting a proposition when it has been submitted by the State highway commission, as I understand the law.

Mr. COLTON. I think you are correct in that, Mr. Chairman, and the only purpose of this bill which we would be very glad to have incorporated in the general roads bill is to permit a concentration of funds on particular transcontinental highways, which will enable the roads to be built now instead of dragging the proposition out over a period of years. The bill does not attempt in any way to change the quotas of the States, the amount of money that would ultimately go to the States; nor does it increase in any way the amount of money that these particular States would receive. It is just a permission for the concentration of these funds on these roads now.

Now, I may say while I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, that I have a request from my own State that the bill be amended to include or to give the power to the State road commissioners to also select secondary roads that are transcontinental roads. Personally, I can see no objection to that kind of amendment.

Mr. ROBSION. I do not understand that "power to select secondary roads that are transcontinental roads"?

Mr. COLTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Your bill, as I understand it, authorizes the department in your State to use all of the funds of the Federal aid for the purpose of any project they may see fit.

Mr. COLTON. It would be limited to the primary roads.

The CHAIRMAN. I think possibly you have primary roads, but that is the only limitation.

Mr. ROBSION. Do you have the secondary roads that are part of the transcontinental system?

Mr. COLTON. Part of the transcontinental system; yes, sir. Mr. ROBSION. It seems to me that they would be primary roads. Mr. COLTON. They have not been included as primary roads. MacDonald would know more about that than I would.

Mr.

Mr. MACDONALD. That is correct in the Western States, on the basis of the total mileage of the system.

Mr. COLTON. I may also say that there has been a request from the Representatives of Oklahoma and they have prepared, Mr. Chairman, an amendment and gave it to me to submit to the committee, which I shall do, although I have not it with me--I was called here from another committee meeting permitting the application of this measure to cover a situation where the river bed is owned entirely by the United States Government. My understanding is that it would take care of the Red River situation in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma delegation would like to have that amendment to take care of that situation, and so far as I know it is the only condition of its kind in the United States.

Mr. ROBSION. Do you mean to build a road on the river bed? Mr. COLTON. It is merely, I think, to build a bridge across the river bed where the title is wholly in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, instead of building a bridge, to build a road across the stream?

Mr. COLTON. No. It is to build a bridge across the stream. Mr. McClintic submitted it to me and I told him I could see no objection to it.

Mr. COLTON. I am under obligation to bring that amendment to this committee's attention when you reach that point, having promised Mr. McClintic I would.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think the proper way to get that before the committee is when we get to that part of the bill for some one to introduce a bill taking care of that?

Mr. COLTON. Well, I am not sure but what you are right.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the general law provides that in a case like this we can not provide for any specific cases, but that it must come under a specific bill.

Mr. COLTON. Well, it would not provide for any specific case in terms, but in effect it would be applicable only to Oklahoma.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, my opinion would be that under the general law it would have to be introduced by a separate bill. I may be mistaken.

Mr. COLTON. In brief, that is all I have to say. I would like to hear from Mr. Leavitt, of Montana. I wanted to get this in a general way before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. What I understand you to want is that certain land States

Mr. COLTON. Public land States.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. May be permitted.

Mr. COLTON. That part of it is based upon the population, where the population does not exceed 10 to the square mile.

The CHAIRMAN. But it does designate the names of the States that come within your bill?

Mr. COLTON. Not in specific places, but it only applies to so many. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it does not in terms, but the department would so construe it?

Mr. COLTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What you want is not an additional appropriation to the allotment of your State or to any other States, but you want an amendment permitting these States to use any part of Federal aid up to 100 per cent, for the construction of any road differing from the law now which only permits you to use 50 per

cent?

Mr. COLTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBSION. You already have a right to use more than 50 per

cent.

Mr. COLTON. Yes. The per cent is based upon the ratio of public lands to privately owned lands in those States. About 90 per cent of the land in Nevada belongs to the Government.

Mr. ROBSION. What is the per cent ratio in your State?
Mr. COLTON. Seventy-four and twenty-six, I think.

Mr. ROBSION. This amendment, so far as your State is concerned, would only permit an increase of between 74 and 100, somewhere? Mr. COLTON. Yes.

Mr. BRAND. I have been away and I do not know exactly what has gone on. I would like to get clear on this proposition. What I understand is this, you want the privilege of using Federal aid without the State meeting it?

Mr. COLTON. That part that would be used in our State, but not otherwise. It permits the use of our allotment of the money on transcontinental roads.

Mr. BRAND. Is not that to use it without meeting it with State aid? Mr. COLTON. On those particular roads. Of course, we would have to make up our amounts later on on other roads, but it would

« PreviousContinue »