It is the balkanization of the authorization on the subject matter that creates some of the problems. But I suggest even a greater problem is the fact that in setting up a trust fund principle of expending money, and in setting up the program, we, to a large degree, effectively bypass the Appropriations Committees. The Appropriations Committees are really set up to do what we are really trying to do, to a degree, as the Ways and Means Committee. All these questions about expenditures I have posed is really a function of the Appropriations Committee. But the Public Works Committee, to which the chairman referred, is an authorization committee. It is not an appropriations committee. This committee, regrettably, Mr. Chairman, has to do the appropriations function. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask you questions as to whether or not $3 billion might be saved on the type of material used. Let me ask you a couple of questions on that point. Is there not a difference in maintenance cost in this kind of material and also in the life? Mr. BRAZELL. There certainly is, sir. The lesser cost material, asphaltic concrete, costs less to service. Mr. CURTIS. Do you mean the maintenance is less, too? Mr. BRAZELL. Yes, sir. Mr. CURTIS. How about the lifetime of it? Mr. BRAZELL. It is longer. Mr. CURTIS. Then the obvious question is, why is it that some States will not permit it to be used? Mr. BRAZELL. I don't know. I suppose they must have some good friends down there from the Portland Cement Co. Mr. CURTIS. That is another interesting situation. I personally will look into it a little bit more. Mr. BRAZELL. Sir, may I suggest that I would have the asphalt institute send to each of you gentlemen on the committee some very pertinent information on this subject. I am sure that you will receive it not later than tomorrow. Mr. CURTIS. I will be glad to get it. I will tell you what I will do with it. I will send it to the Bureau of Public Roads for their comments on it, and possibly to my own State highway commission, which is composed of some very capable people. Mr. BRAZELL. In your own good State, sir, Missouri, which my wife came from, she is a hillbilly from down in Monette, Mo., there was a modern heavy duty asphalt pavement, 2.7-mile section, of the Interstate System near Joplin, comparable in every respect to turnpiketype construction. This pavement cost Missouri only $2.65 per square yard, or $37,312 per mile. In this same area, at the same time, bids were received on slab pavement, that is cement, at $5.27 a yard, or $74,200 a mile, a little more than twice the amount. Mr. CURTIS. The other thing I might do, in fairness, is to get this material and send it-I can't think of any friends I have in the cement business, but I can probably find some-and send it to them for comment. I do think that these kinds of suggestions, very seriously, are very necessary. We will have to get into the expenditure side of this thing. I have about come to the conclusion that probably Congress never should deviate from our time-tested methods of authorization and appropriation, and let the committees that are experienced in their fields do the job. It seems to me every time we get away from that process we get ourselves into a problem like this. Thank you. Mr. BRAZELL. Mr. Chairman, may I direct one comment to Mr. Curtis in reply to his comment? I feel very definitely that you folks should impose some place a responsibility for the various States to take competitive bids. Whether they use asphalt or not is not important. But they certainly should find out whether or not it is going to cost more or less. Mr. CURTIS. In answer to that, I, myself, have been very strongly in favor, and I still am, of letting the States who have done good jobs in roadbuilding continue to do the job. But there is the danger of the 90-10 formula. If it were a better matching fund, then incentive on the part of the State to be looking after what they have to dig up would be a great deal more. This is not a question of anything more than well-meaning and well-intentioned human beings doing the best they can. But a system where $9 out of every $10 is somebody else's is certainly not conducive to good economical planning or spending, and I think there is where we made our error, our fundamental error. Though it will put a little more burden on the States, I hope the States in turn will think that thing over, as to whether or not it is in the good interest of themselves in the long run, of this Nation in the long run, for us ever to spend money on that basis, where $9 has to be raised by someone else, and they do not have the problem, and they are spending $10 only $1 of their own. Mr. BRAZELL. Spending $10 is pretty easy, is it not? Mr. CURTIS. It certainly is. If you figure on the payroll, for spending the $10 in your State, it will more than recoup the $1 out of that $10 that you have to dig up yourself. We have found in matching funds that 50-50 was what we used until we went to this 90-10. I think as long as we have a 90-10, 5 years from now we will have more trouble. Thank you. (The following material was received by the committee:) Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, NATIONAL PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Committeee on Ways and Means, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank you for the opportunity which your committee gave me yesterday to present the view of the oil-refining industry on the financing of the Federal highway program. I was impressed by the study that you and other members of your committee are giving to this problem. You will recall that, during my appearance before you, several committee members asked questions about my statement that we could save $3 billion a year in highway costs if there was free competition among different types of surfacing materials. At that time, I offered to supply the committee with some specific examples showing savings that could be made when free competition is permitted. Enclosed is an exhibit marked "Appendix A," which contains such information. I will appreciate it if you will include this letter and the exhibit as a part of my statement in your printed record. In submitting this information, I want to reiterate that we are not asking any preferential treatment for asphalt. We realize that this is a matter which will be decided by the State highway departments. We are confident that asphalt will hold its own, not only in original cost but in maintenance cost as weil, in any engineering test. We are also aware of the fact that other committees of Congress are concerned with the operation of the highway program. The important thing, however, is that the Federal Government is paying most of the cost of the highway program. Certainly the taxpayers are entitled to insist that the money be spent so that we get the most roads for our money— and this means that there should be no artificial barriers to competition between all types of surfacing materials. Very truly yours, APPENDIX A REID BRAZELL. The following are a few selected examples of the savings that can be made when free competition is permitted among various types of surfacing materials. A complete brochure on each of the cases described below, as well as other detailed information on the comparative cost of asphalt versus other types of paving material, is available from the Asphalt Institute, Campus, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 1. West Virginia The State of West Virginia has the rare distinction of being the only State in the Nation whose officials have seen fit to eliminate asphalt-pavement competition on its interstate highways by administrative decision. The result has been that West Virginia is paying $8.33 per square yard, or $234,572.80 per mile, for paving with concrete slabs its portion of Interstate Route 81 across the eastern panhandle of the State. At the Maryland line, West Virginia Interstate Route 81 will connect with Maryland Interstate 81a modern, heavy-duty asphalt pavement let for $4.63 per square yard, or $130,493.44 per mile. At the other end of this costly stretch of slab pavement it will connect with Virginia's Interstate 81-another modern, heavy-duty asphalt pavement being built at an average cost of $4.34 per square yard, or $122,298.88 per paved mile. West Virginia is paying $104,079 per mile more than Maryland and $112,273 per mile more than Virginia to accommodate the same type and volume of traffic on the same general terrain. This is a prime example of extra cost dictated by decree. 2. Missouri Despite visible evidence of asphalt durability and records of asphalt pavement economy, Missouri has indicated a reluctance to consider asphalt pavement for its 1,000 miles of interstate roads. Incredibly, Missouri is following this policy in spite of the fact that she already has demonstrated that she can save as much as 50 percent with asphalt construction. Last year Missouri began work on her first modern, heavy-duty asphalt pavement, a 2.7-mile section of the Interstate System near Joplin. Comparable in every respect with turnpike-type construction, this pavement cost Missouri only $2.65 per square yard— or $37,312 per mile. In the same area, at the same time, bids were received for a slab pavement to cost $5.27 per square yard-or $74,200 per mile. Missouri's own contractors, in free competitive bidding, have shown how millions of dollars can be saved on the State's Interstate System. 3. Maryland While Maryland uses both asphalt and concrete, full advantage is not being taken in designing with asphalt. 4. North Dakota Here is a State with very little experience in heavy-duty asphalt construction. Consequently, her people fell easy prey to the siren song of the concrete-pavement promoters, clamoring for these blamour pavements which would cost them only 10 cents on the dollar. The State officials succumbed and favored concrete for the State's 600 miles of interstate roads. This action was taken in spite of the fact that the State has many paving contractors ready and able to build modern asphalt pavements-and very few equipped and qualified to build concrete slabs. An example of the potential savings that could be realized by paving the bulk of the North Dakota Interstate System with asphalt is shown by a case study on U.S. Route 10 through Valley City. Here are 13.1 miles of concrete slabs abutting 12.1 miles of modern-design heavy-duty asphapt pavement, one of the few examples of this high-type asphalt construction in the State. The cost of the concrete section, for a 10-inch-thick slab and 3 inches of subbase, was $87,358.87 per mile of two-lane roadway. The asphalt pavement, 5 inches of asphalt-concrete base and wearing surface on 12 inches of gravel subbase, was $39,010.70 per mile. Here is a demonstrated asphalt saving of $48,348.17 per mile of two-lane roadway. If applied on North Dakota's 600 miles of interstate roads, a substantial part of which will be four-lane divided highway, the potential saving to the taxpayers of North Dakota and the United States might run as high as $30 million. 5. Pennsylvania There is ample documentation for the fact that Pennsylvania can save many millions of dollars if its design engineers are given a free hand to make greater use of modern asphalt pavement. For instance, two contracts were let within the same week in 1957 for adjoining sections of pavements on Traffic Route 31, an Interstate project in Westmoreland County. One was a contract for asphalt concrete on 4.38 miles and the other was for 1.88 miles of reinforced concrete slab paving. Bid price on the asphalt section was $2,877,091.41 ($656,870 per mile) and for one-third the mileage on the adjoining slab section the bid price was $1,555,926.51 ($827,620 per mile). This represented a comparative cost per square yard of $3.95 for asphalt and $6.00 for rigid concrete and a real saving, with asphalt pavement, or $170,750 per mile. The Pennsylvania Highway Department has just come under a new administration. Whereas the former administration was disinclined to consider the economy of asphalt pavement, the new administration is taking another look at the situation. 6. Michigan This State traditionally has long been regarded as "concrete" State. While using asphalt extensively on its secondary system and peripheral sections of its primary system, Michigan always has specified rigid pavement on its main highways. However, when roadbuilding costs began to climb, the highway commissioner promptly recognized the need to practice construction economy if he hoped to keep an ambitious road program on schedule. He instructed his design engineers to use engineering judgment in selecting pavement type on the Michigan Interstate System and other principal arteries. First effect of this directive was construction of a 6-mile dual expressway be tween Grand Haven and Muskegon, paved with asphalt concrete at a cost of $28,000 per mile below engineering estimates for rigid pavement. The commissioner promptly followed with an announcement that an estimated 192 miles of heavy-duty asphalt would be included in the State's 5-year construction scheduled on the interstate and main-line systems. 7. South Carolina By employing asphalt paving almost exclusively, the Palmetto State is in the happy position of being able to match, without strain, every penny of Federalaid money apportioned to it. Further, it is second only to Texas in the mileage of interstate projects under control while, at the same time, racing forward with a full-blown program of construction and reconstruction on its primary and secondary roads. It offers an excellent example of how a State can put all available funds to work with maximum effects by exploiting the versatile qualities of asphalt paving. This State has traditionally taken advantage of asphalt's economy and is now applying this policy to its interstate mileage. 8. Nevada Like South Carolina, the State of Nevada has consistently practiced asphaltpavement economy. Recently, under pressure of outside influences, the State took bids for concrete pavement on a section of interstate road. But the bids were too high in relation to what comparable asphalt pavement had been costing, so the State rejected the bids for concrete and readvertised for asphalt pavement. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions? If not, again thank you Mr. Brazell, for coming to us. Our next witness is Mr. Otis Ellis. Mr. Ellis, we recall you from previous appearances before the committee, but for this record, please identify yourself again. STATEMENT OF OTIS H. ELLIS, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL OIL JOBBERS COUNCIL Mr. ELLIS. My name is Otis H. Ellis, I am engaged in the general practice of law, maintaining offices at 1001 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C., and appear here today on behalf of and in my capacity as general counsel for the National Oil Jobbers Council. The National Oil Jobbers Council is in effect a federation of 32 State and regional associations of independent oil jobbers representing jobbers in 39 States. Following is a list of the membership of the National Oil Jobbers Council: Alabama Petroleum Association, Inc. Arkansas Independent Oil Marketers Association. California Petroleum Marketers Council, Jobbers Division. Colorado Petroleum Marketers Association. Connecticut Petroleum Association. Empire State Petroleum Association, New York. Florida Petroleum Marketers Association, Inc. Georgia Oil Jobbers Association. Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association Independent Oilmen's Association of New England (Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut). Indiana Independent Petroleum Association, Inc. Intermountain Oil Jobbers Association (Utah, Idaho, and Nevada). Kentucky Petroleum Marketers Association, Jobber Division. Michigan Petroleum Association. Mississippi Oil Jobbers Association. Missouri Petroleum Association. Nebraska Petroleum Marketers, Inc. North Carolina Oil Jobbers Association Northwest Petroleum Association (Minnesota and North Dakota). Oklahoma Oil Jobbers Association. Oregon Independent Gasoline Jobbers & Distributors Association. Pennsylvania Petroleum Association. Petroleum Marketers Association of New Mexico, Jobber Division. South Carolina Oil Jobbers Association. South Dakota Independent Oil Men's Association. Tennessee Oil Men's Association. Texas Oil Jobbers Association. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association. Wisconsin Petroleum Association. Wyoming Oil Jobbers Assocation. |