commissioners of States to determine without giving the property owners any chance at all to deny those determinations? It raises a question as to what we mean in this act by "off-street facilities." The court might not interpret that the same way a highway commissioner does. I surely do not advocate that we turn over to the State highway Commission, or to the Public Roads Administration, or to the county commissioners, or anybody else, the authority to determine in peacetime proceedings all of these questions I have mentioned above. The constitutional rights of property owners would have to be reviewed in court. There are legal questions involved that the court must decide.

Mr. WHITMAN. You are raising legal questions which are a little bit beyond me as an engineer. Whether or not those things are legally possible or legally attainable I do not know.

Mr. WOLCOTT. What do you mean by "off-street facilities for parking of vehicles"? What limitation is there on that? What if the traffic in Baltimore justifies it and the chamber of commerce or the board of trade, or some other powerful organization in Baltimore, decides you have got to have places downtown for people to park, and if it was not for the highways leading into Baltimore, there would not be congestion and so forth? Then they put heat on the State highway commissioner. Would it be considered that facilities for the off-street parking of vehicles was within the meaning of the law, and as the result could you condemn a couple of city blocks for the purpose of parking vehicles in the downtown area of Baltimore?

Mr. WHITMAN. I must say that is something we have never run up against. The insertion of this provision was looked upon as a desirable thing. You have got to have some place for vehicles that come into a city to stop.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Put it this way. Do you want the power, in this act, to condemn property within cities, to provide parking facilities for shoppers?

Mr. WHITMAN. I would like to have the power to have parking facilities. I think it is desirable. Whether it is legally possible or not I do not know.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Do you want the power to condemn property for the purpose of creating parking facilities in the city for downtown shoppers?

Mr. WHITMAN. I think it would be a desirable thing. Mr. WOLCOTT. I want your answer whether you want that power or not. As a State highway commissioner do you want that power? Not that you would use the power, but do you want the power to do that?

Mr. WHITMAN. You are putting up a proposition to me that I have not thought of.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Of course, I am not asking you to embarrass you, but more to bring out what I think.

Mr. WHITMAN. I think there are a lot of headaches in it.

Mr. WOLCOTT. There is power in the bill which you have to give some thought to. What are "transportation terminals" as applied to highway transportation?

Mr. WHITMAN. Transportation terminals? I suppose that means where the cities of Washington and Baltimore would both be terminals. What page is that on?

Mr. WOLCOTT. Page 6, line 16. It reads:

* * * and the construction of highway facilities to give access to and between transportation terminals,

* *

Mr. WHITMAN (reading):

* and the construction of highway facilities to give access to and between transportation terminals,

*

* *

Frankly, Mr. Wolcott, I do not know just exactly what is meant by "highway terminal facilities" in that case.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Now, would you consider flight strips to be "highway facilities"?

Mr. WHITMAN. Flight strips for landing airplanes?

Mr. WOLCOTT. Yes.

Mr. WHITMAN. I would not consider them a highway facility; no, sir.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Is it possible under this act to condemn land for flight strips? You know what we mean by flight strips in the commonly accepted meaning?

Mr. WHITMAN. I know what you mean.

Mr. WOLCOTT. It says:

The term "construction" means the supervising, inspecting, actual building, and all expenses incidental to the construction of a highway, including locating, surveying and mapping, costs of rights-of-way, and elimination of hazards at railway grade crossings.

So, because it includes the "elimination of hazards at railway grade crossings" and also "locating, surveying, and mapping, costs of rightsof-way," it very obviously under the law and all court decisions does not include flight strips.

Mr. WHITMAN. I do not think it does.

Mr. WOLCOTT. The court would say if you intended to include flight strips you would have included it, because you have included "hazards at railway grade crossings" and included "locating, surveying ***" and so forth. You usually learn that in the freshman year. Sɔ, I think we can assume that we cannot construct flight strips under the terms of this bill, could we?

Mr. WHITMAN. I do not see anything in the bill which gives us the right to construct flight strips. I do not know, though.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Now, what is meant by "highway facilities to and between transportation terminals"? It says in section 9 on page 7:

By agreement with the State highway department of any State, such new or additional rights-of-way, lands, or interest in lands in such State as may be required for any project unauthorized by this Act, may be acquired by such highway department

* * *

So, inasmuch as the bill itself provides that the Federal Government can condemn this property for the projects authorized by the bill, and as the bill does not include flight strips as a part of the construction of a highway, even if it might be authorized under other than existing law, we preclude, as I understand, the use of Federal power to condemn to be used in the acquisition of flight strips. Is that your understanding of it? We allow the power of the Federal Government to condemn for the project authorized by this bill. I think we can. always agree that we do not authorize the construction of flight strips. Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not agree with you.

Mr. WOLCOTT. And so, therefore, we preclude the use of this power to condemn property for flight strips. Why do you not agree with me, Mr. Randolph?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Because, section 8 sets forth that you can construct facilities "to give access to and between transportation terminals." Well, we do not set out what those terminals are. They might be rail centers or they may be airport centers.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if we could not discuss those points when we go into executive session.

Mr. WOLCOTT. I am trying to develop these points. I do not want to take up any more time.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Wolcott says we are all agreed and I interject that I did not think we could all agree on that interpretation.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Do you think that the language, "to and from transportation terminals," is broad enough to include flight strips?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I do; yes, sir; and in executive session I will be glad to enlarge my viewpoint on that.

Mr. WOLCOTT. That being the interpretation of "transportation facilities," we could take Chicago and New York as terminals and anything between them would be between "transportation terminals." Mr. RANDOLPH. I think so, by the language.

Mr. WOLCCTT. Why cite the bill? Why not shorten the bill and just use the term "between transportation facilities” and let it go at that, if that is the meaning of it?

The CHAIRMAN. I think we can work those things out pretty well when we consider the bill in executive session. We have one other witness to be heard. Are you committee members through?

Mr. McGREGOR. I have one question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whitman, do you feel that we should incorporate in this bill a paragraph making it mandatory for the Federal highway authorities to follow the suggestions of the State highway officials relative to the type of material used in any particular project?

Mr. WHITMAN. What is that again, please?

Mr. McGREGOR. Do you feel that we should have a clause in this bill making it mandatory for the Federal highway authorities to accept the recommendation of the State highway authorities relative to the type of construction or the material used in the particular project. In other words, if the highway department of your State recommends that brick be used, should you have the authority to insist that the Federal Government prescribe that brick be used in that project? I believe you and I will agree that cases have occurred where certain State highway commissions recommended that brick be used and the Federal Government came along and insisted that concrete be used. that was followed by the threat that the Federal funds would be withheld if concrete was not used. In other words, the Federal authorities in those cases were exercising arbitrary control, and I am wondering whether or not you think we should put in a clause in order to protect the opinions of our local State commissions on local projects. Mr. WHITMAN. That question has never arisen in Maryland because we have always been able to get together and agree with the Public Roads Administration as to just what should be done.

Then

Mr. McGREGOR. Then the Public Roads Administration has followed every recommendation of the Maryland highway officials? Mr. WHITMAN. Not every one.

Mr. McGREGOR. I mean, as far as the type of road is concerned.

Mr. WHITMAN. As far as the type of road is concerned. I do not recall having any disputes with the Public Roads Administration as to the type of road we should build. There may have been some back in previous years.

Mr. McGREGOR. But you do feel, because you know the conditions existing in the area in which your project is to be constructed, that your recommendation probably has more justification because of your knowing of conditions surrounding the production of this material, than one from someone over here in Washington. You feel, do you not, that your recommendations should be followed?

Mr. WHITMAN. I think they should be given very careful consideration.

Mr. McGREGOR. I take this position: Washington may say they have given careful consideration to your recommendation, but they decided it is improper and impracticable at such-and-such a point, and hence they make it mandatory that you follow theirs, with the threat that they will withhold funds if you do not. Now, I hold that if they are given that authority, what is the use of your department or some other department recommending, if the power rest altogether in the Federal Government?

Mr. WHITMAN. What we have been able to do is to go before them and convince them what we are asking for is the proper thing.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. We appreciate your excellent presentation and your frankness in answering questions. Our next witness is T. H. Cutler, State highway engineer of Kentucky.

STATEMENT OF T. H. CUTLER, STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER OF KENTUCKY

Mr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the desirability and urge the necessity of prompt action by this committee and by Congress on the proposed post-war highway bill. There are many reasons why this action is necessary.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have noted for the record that the following Kentucky delegation is present: Hon. Noble J. Gregory, Hon. Beverly M. Vincent, Hon. Emmet O'Neal, Hon. Chester O. Carrier.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to know, Mr. Cutler, that you have such a fine delegation present today.

Mr. CUTLER. To implement a highway-construction program promptly and efficiently, the answer to a number of questions must be known.

First, the amount of funds which will be available; second, restrictions in the distribution of funds among various types of projects— rural or urban, grade-crossing elimination or protection, interregional, and so forth; third, the amount of time required for preparation of surveys and plans; and, fourth, the amount of time required for securing of necessary rights-of-way.

The first two questions as outlined above must be settled before much work can be done on the latter two. These first two questions largely rest with the congressional action which we are now requesting.

Until a decision is reached as to the amount of funds to be made available, no State can go all-out in an effort to be ready with a shelf of needed projects, projects needed by the transportation units they should serve; projects needed also to give employment in every section and county of the country. The highway industry cannot assume its full responsibility without this knowledge. Highway departments, city departments, county departments, equipment manufacturers, material dealers, and contractors all must have this information at the earliest possible date in order properly to prepare for a program such as outlined.

Great danger lies in failure to realize the size of the job to be done. Our studies so far indicate that the construction cost of our presently needed highways far exceeds any sum now under consideration in this bill. The amount of funds made available will, in most cases, determine which ones, of the many needed projects, can be considered for immediate post-war construction.

The distribution of the Federal funds which we trust will be made available for the various types of projects, interregional, urban, and rural-if this distribution is to be directed by Congress-must be known by the highway departments. This bill as now drawn contemplates a certain definite distribution of funds between Federal-aid routes, municipal street projects, and secondary rural routes. Possibly changes will be made in this distribution. Other features may be added, such as railroad grade-crossing elimination or protection, access roads to airports, or flight strips. A requirement might be introduced into the bill that certain of these funds must be spent on the recommended interregional system. Again, in all probability the funds will have to be spent under regulations and specifications laid down by the Public Roads Administration.

All these qualifications must be known to the highway departments at the earliest possible moment. Otherwise, much time could be needlessly consumed in the preparation of plans which could not be used in this program. If the departments were fully manned, such extra preparation of plans might not be so serious. They could be used eventually, because we know now that highway facilities have not kept up with traffic demands, and there are any number of worthy and needed projects for which funds will not be available in the bill now under consideration.

With engineering staffs depleted as they now are, all our work should be concentrated on projects which will come under this bill. For these reasons an early passage of the bill is both desirable and necessary. With questions one and two out of the way, our highway departments can really get to work. I am sure that even the best-informed layman does not realize the time needed for the proper study and preparation of plans.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Pardon me. We provided for that. We arranged for your using your unallocated funds so that you can make your plans.

Mr. CUTLER. No, sir; you have provided certain funds, but we do not know the type of project to use them on. We could assume what the bill is going to be, and carry on the work, and then if it turned out to be something entirely different, where would we be?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Go ahead.