Administration makes a commitment and that becomes a contractual obligation of the Federal Government, then we are not in a very good light. We either have to repudiate that contract by specific legislation, or it results in a congressional investigation over the misuse of certain funds. We are not dealing in this bill with any small program of $100,000,000 to be distributed; we are distributing $3,000,000,000. Those things are bothering me. So far we have not got the answer to it. I do not know that there is any answer to it; but unless we find an answer we have got to make a different approach to this problem. Mr. SOURS. I may say as a general proposition that I do not think there will be much disagreement among the highway people, that is, the State highway officials, and local and county municipal groups, as far as carrying it back to the States is concerned. I do not believe there will be much disagreement in the proposal to have 2 separate items of the whole, and 2 separate formulas, either the formula in the present proposed bill or the old section 21, and a separate formula for allocation to the States; not to the cities direct, but allocation to the States for urban development based on a population of 10,000 or over. I do not think there will be much disagreement on that. The question that will have to be decided, and one which I cannot answer is: How much of the total shall go for each of those two speci fied purposes? When it comes to the State level itself, just how to carry it from there on down is not definitely, in our own minds, decided. I think, as far as the urban part is concerned, population within the State should be the principal determining factor. When it comes to the counties, possibly some part of it on a fixed Nationwide formula, some part of it on a formula which the State and county officials could agree upon, and then have approved by the Federal Government-something similar to what was discussed by Mr. White the other day-due to the widely varying conditions in the different States. That is merely a suggestion. I am not sure that it would be the answer. Mr. WOLCOTT. Let us exaggerate the situation to bring out the point. We will say that the Public Roads Administration enters into agreements with the States for the use of $3,000,000,000. That becomes a contractual obligation by the Federal Government and must be paid by the Federal Government when and if the moneys are available. Assuming that immediately following the war the States are in a position where they cannot participate; that the Federal Government is in a position where it cannot participate; that the contractual obligation continues until they are both in that position: Now, when that time arrives there might develop an economic condition where there is not any particular need for this legislation, from the standpoint of relieving unemployment. Do you not think that it would be advisable to put some time limit on these contractual obligations so that the Congress will have an opportunity, without having to repudiate the obligations—and, of course, we have that authority; we can repudiate contracts, and the States cannot; the Federal Congress can repudiate contracts and will, and we have done it, but we don't like it-to obviate the necessity of doing that, do you think it would be advisable to put some time limit on to the effect that they expire not later than a certain date unless continued by the Congress? Mr. SOURS. I would see no objection to it if there were sufficient reasons for it; in other words, if the conditions had changed so there might be a different type of contract that you would want to enter into. Mr. WOLCOTT. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I see that we have Senator Burton, of Ohio, with us. Senator, we are very glad to have you here, and if you feel like participating in this discussion we should be very pleased to have you do so. STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD H. BURTON, A SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Senator BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I might make just one comment on this question. I am much interested in what this committee has been doing on this subject. I think it is a constructive and vitally important part of our post-war program, and I was anxious to hear what Mr. Hal Sours had to say, both on account of his relation to Ohio and as a representative of the association. The thing that I am particularly impressed with is this-and I see that the recommendations as he expressed them are in line with it-that our recovery is going to depend upon our being able to move traffic in the recovery period. And this is going to require communications by way of roads. There will be a considerable amount of development needed, because we have created new communities and new industries, and therefore there will be a new volume of traffic. If we are expecting to move into a recovery program without a depression in between, or any interference in between, it is vital that we anticipate the need of this preliminary planning which to a large extent has already been done. So it seems to me that it is vitally important to avoid a gap which might be in the nature of a bottleneck in the recovery program. In connection with the urban part of that program, I know well, and, of course, you gentlemen know well, that a bottleneck may very well arise in the urban areas. At the same time you may run into a situation, because of State laws, where urban areas are unable to bear the cost of the financing which they have undertaken, unless there is some measure taken to anticipate that need and to recognize the interest of the Nation in the urban fraction of the problem as well as in the rural fraction of it. In the past there has sometimes been an omission of the urban section, with the result that there is a bottleneck. And the whole traffic is stopped at the very point where it should be able to move on through. I think the leadership that is coming from the Public Roads Administration and from the Congress will result in the cities and the States doing their full share. But it is absolutely in need of that leadership to back it up. The same thing is true of the secondary roads, where new areas have become industrial all of a sudden during the war period. Therefore, I am very much interested in the suggestion of Mr. Sours that there be a direct recognition of this part of the problem. I think it is vital to our program. What we want these things for is for recovery, and not for made work and not for unemployment relief. I am glad to see the committee taking the constructive attitude it has toward the problem. But I am also in sympathy with limitations on it. The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your statement, Senator. I believe your thoughts are clearly in line with the thoughts of this committee. and also of the State highway officials. STATEMENT OF H. G. SOURS--Resumed Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Sours, if I understand your suggestion or proposal it is that this committee write two formulas, one directing the States, with reference to the money that will be authorized to go to them, how to divide the money among secondary roads, and the other how to divide the money among the municipalities. My question is: What would be the difference if we wrote that into the bill or if we set up a formula directing Mr. MacDonald, as Commissioner of Public Roads, to follow the same formula and pass the money out direct to the municipalities and the counties? Mr. SOURS. I think you come pretty close to the same thing. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You are asking us to write into the bill wording to the effect of saying to you, as director of highways of the State of Ohio, "Here are so many millions of dollars. We trust you to spend this money, but we do not trust your judgment and your fairness in allocating it to the municipalities or subdivisions of your State." Is not that really what you are asking us to do? Mr. SOURS. As far as I am personally concerned, as I expressed myself awhile ago, I do not think we will have any difficulty in my own State. I am not speaking for the other highway departments. But, to be perfectly frank about it, some of the counties and cities, quite a number of them, feel that they might not be able to have a reasonable and fair allocation within the several counties and within certain cities. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, the authorities do not trust you? Mr. SOURS. Mine do. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Are you speaking for the benefit of other States? Mr. SOURS. No, sir. I am only repeating, Congressman, the argument which has been presented to us by a number of those who represent the local subdivisions of their States. They question-and they recite past experience in justification-as to whether or not they would have a sound and equitable distribution without some such proviso. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My last question is this. Do you think that this committee can set up a formula or set up formulas for all of the 48 States in one bill that will do justice and equity as well as you and your department can do it for your own State, or Mr. White or any of the other gentlemen for their States? Mr. SOURS. I would say, as far as my own State is concerned, we could handle it ourselves. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Don't you think the others feel the same way? Mr. SOURS. I hardly know how to answer that. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think we are getting right down to the root of something here. Mr. SOURS. I merely repeat what the objections on the part of a number of counties and municipalities have been, and in some cases their objections are founded upon their past experience. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Of course, this committee has not had as much experience as you gentlemen have had. Mr. SOURS. Bear in mind, I am merely repeating what I heard. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have one other question that is a little beside the point, but I would like to ask it. In changing from the one-third to one-half in the formula in, for instance, a State like Wyoming that has less than half a million population and a sizable area, how would that change affect that State? Would it be to its betterment or to its detriment? Mr. SOURS. That would reduce the amount it would get. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Or take the State of Utah. They do not have so many people out there, but they have a lot of wild land and wild horses. Mr. SOURS. Unfortunately they do not use very many roads. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? Mr. McGREGOR. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the director of highways coming before us this morning, and I want to concur in his statement that we from the rural sections of Ohio do trust our highway officials. And that trust has been strengthened by our experience with them, because this gentleman has given us every recognition, and I feel that it is entirely within the power of the other highway directors to get that same trust from their rural areas as we in Ohio have in Director Sours. I am not going to take up any more time, except to say that back in Ohio we know Hal Sours, and I wish it might be possible for all of you to visit our State and see his organization and the efficient manner in which the director and his coworkers are handling the highway system. We have here some members of the Ohio delegation. Some are busy and cannot get here because of other committee assignments. But we do have Congressman Ramey, from Toledo; Congressman Carson, from Canton, and Congressman Lewis, from St. Clairsville. The CHAIRMAN. I will ask those gentlemen to stand up so that you will know who they are. (The Congressmen referred to stood as requested.) Mr. WHITTINGTON. There are several here from South Carolina when we get to them. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions you care to ask Mr. Sours? [No response.] I will say that I am very glad to have the invitation for the committee to go to Ohio. We have also received an invitation to go to California, and to Missouri. It would be very helpful if we could get around to see their needs at first hand. Do you care to ask any questions, Mr. Bonner? Mr. BONNER. No; I think not. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fisher? Mr. FISHER. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BONNER. If the gentleman would not mind, I would like to ask one question. What States are having this difficulty in dividing the fund up? Mr. SOURS. I should prefer not to answer that. Mr. BONNER. It might be interesting, if that is a fact. Mr. SOURS. I think that some of the local officials will testify before the committee a little later. 98217-44-vol. 1- -9 Mr. BONNER. It has happened that I could not attend all sessions of the hearings, and I am curious to know just why, since you made the statement, you desire the distribution of this money in two ways. I would like to know why. The CHAIRMAN. I might say this, Mr. Bonner, that the American Association of State Highway Officials has requested that someone from each State appear and testify before this committee. So I take it we will have that information before we are through. Mr. BONNER. We will come to that question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I think it is a very vital question, and I believe it will be answered before the hearings are concluded. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Sours, if I understood you correctly, you said that a majority or some of the members of the association favored this proposal of yours on formulae. Are they unanimous? Mr. SOURS. You are speaking of the two formulae to allocate back to the State level, not after you get below that? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I mean down to the municipalities and the counties. Mr. SOURS. No. I do not know how they rank on that. Mr. SOURS. I will put it this way. I was referring to statements which have been made at different times by local, county, and municipal public officers. They are representatives of organizations. They have said it would be highly desirable, as far as they are concerned, to have some kind of formula which would carry the allocation down below the State level. Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is about as far as you have got. Outside of population, you do not have much to say about the make-up of that formula; do you? Mr. SOURS. No, sir. Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. J. S. Williamson who is now the chief highway commissioner of South Carolina. He is also former president of the American Association of State Highway Officials and is a member of the association's executive committee. We will hear from him now. STATEMENT OF J. S. WILLIAMSON, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS, AND CHIEF HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH CAROLINA Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this committee has been very patient the last few days in listening to the distinguished highway officials from the East, the Midwest, and the West. This morning we move to the sunny South. It is a good morning to move. I have been assigned a subject about which, I have noticed in the last few days, a good many questions have been asked. I do not know that I have all the answers, but I will do the best I can. Section 5 of this bill provides: "The Federal share payable on account of any project provided for by the funds made available by this act shall not exceed 75 percent of the cost thereof. * * *99 This provision of the bill is somewhat of a departure from previous legislation for regular Federal aid to States in the construction of |