in expending the $3,000,000,000 as an economic proposition. I have already suggested to you that during the last 25 years the people in this Nation have rebuilt their whole lives around the proposition of highway transportation, and if we do not provide the roads on which that transportation can be maintained, then we must go back the other way, which in my opinion-I do not pretend to be an economist, Mr. Wolcott-but in my opinion that would result in a dislocation and disorganization of the economy and lives of this country which we cannot measure. At least I cannot.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. White, you will pardon us for picking on you while you are on the stand, but you have made a pretty deep study of this and know whereof you talk, and can better take care of yourself than anybody I know.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. One question, Mr. White. The first question asked you by Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Wolcott was with respect to the term "construction," and you responded that in your opinion, under the general law, that construction embraces reconstruction. I call your attention to the term "construction," whatever be its ordinary definition, as defined, first, in section 2 of the Federal Highway Act, 1921, and I quote:

The term "construction" means the supervising, inspecting, actual building, and all expenses incidental to the construction of a highway, excepting locating, surveying, mapping, and costs of rights-of-way.

That was the meaning of the term "construction" until the act of July 13, 1943 (Public Law 146), and the first section of that act is as follows:

That the definition of "construction" in section 2 of the Federal Highway Act approved November 9, 1921, is hereby amended to read as follows: "The term 'construction' means the supervising, inspecting, actual building, and all expenses, including the costs of rights-of-way, incidental to the construction of a highway,"

leaving out reconstruction altogether.

Now, this bill comes along without attempting to amend anything. With all due deference to the author of it, it is loose language without even mentioning the definition in the act of 1943. It says, "The term 'construction"" and so forth. It uses the term "construction" and it cannot mean anything else but what it states. The fact that we left out reconstruction in amending it in 1943, and leave it out now, shows conclusively it does not embrace reconstruction.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Especially in view of the fact that we included it in the original act, indicates the fact that we intended to leave it in.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Is it your thought, Mr. White, that reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing highway could properly be called the construction of a new highway? Suppose you take up 10 miles of "30," and tear it up and rebuild it. That would also be reconstruction. But wouldn't it also be construction of a new road?

Mr. WHITE. Yes; that could also be called construction.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Much of the money collected in some States, for instance, like Florida, Colorado, California, is paid by vacationists; that is, much of the Federal tax is paid by nonresidents of the States in which it is collected, so I think your point that the State does not contribute anything to the Federal Government, but rather the people from over the United States generally, is correct.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Cunningham, take the Union Pacific Railroad. The eastern terminus of the Union Pacific Railroad is at Council Bluffs, Iowa. All its railroad tracks and facilities extend from there on west to the Pacific coast, and yet it has its financial headquarters in New York City, and it pays its income tax to the Collector of Internal Revenue in New York City. Now, who pays what?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you know of any instance, Mr. White, where a State has been penalized for failure to maintain a Federal-highway system?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir: I do not.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Cunningham, I might say there have been some threats for diversion.

Mr. WHITE. And there have been some actual penalizings for diversion. New Jersey, I believe was one.

Mr. WOLCOTT. You wouldn't consider the flood-relief bill in the Des Moines River of some years ago contributing to the highway, would you?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. WOLCOTT. You know what I refer to?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. WOLCOTT. That's all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. White. I think we will be entirely up to date tomorrow. We will hear officials from Oregon, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Michigan, and Colorado. We will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee adjourned to 10 a. m., Thursday, March 9, 1944.)

FEDERAL AID FOR POST-WAR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1944

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ROADS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable J. W. Robinson (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The first witness this morning is Mr. Hammond of Louisiana.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR B. HAMMOND, GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF LOUISIANA

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and the position you occupy with the State of Louisiana?

Mr. HAMMOND. Arthur B. Hammond, general counsel, department of highways, State of Louisiana.

The CHAIRMAN. You are general counsel?

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does Louisiana have a road commission?

Mr. HAMMOND. Louisiana has a department of highways. It is composed of one man who is the director and an advisory committee which advises the director.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this one man elected?

Mr. HAMMOND. No, sir; he is appointed by the Governor.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are the general counsel?

Mr. HAMMOND. I am general counsel of the department.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show that Representative Larcade is present.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harry B. Henderlite, chief engineer, is also present.

Mr. CANDLER. The secretary to Mr. Domengeaux is also present. Mr. HAMMOND. I have listened to the very interesting presentations that have been made to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and I feel, with time creeping up on us so close, that there is very little now that Louisiana can add to the entire subject matter, and therefore, with your permission, I am going to be very brief.

We have in Louisiana about 40,000 miles of roads, which may be called public roads of the State, and of these about 14,000 are under the jurisdiction of the State highway department. Of that number about 2,600 or 2,700 miles are hard surfaced heavy-duty highways, about 1,700 medium surfaced, and about 10,000 miles of gravel roads. We have authority under our State statute, however, to take into the State highway system any of the public roads of the State. That

is, they can be added to the system at any time to meet the requirements.

In our preparation for post-war work, we find it divided into two classes; one, the rehabilitation of those roads which have deteriorated structurally during the past few years, and, two, of course, betterment and new construction to meet future needs.

We contemplate that the cost of the rehabilitation work will be approximately $49,000,000, which is divided into 2,000 miles of hightype surface roads, 1,500 miles of medium-type, and 5,000 miles of gravel-type surface. And then we pass to the bridges, and I might say, although I suppose you probably all know it, we have more bridges than the law would allow any State to have. We have about 16,000 bridges over our various streams and bayous, and various things of that sort, of which about 6,000 are being maintained by the State highway department itself.

Then, as to the new construction work or betterments, we have before us all the time the very important factor of safety that presents itself so acutely to all of us at this time. The staggering losses on State highways in the past few years, both in life and physical property, has been something that has put our engineers very much on their toes. Our roads are narrow; they were built about 18 feet wide and have to be widened to 24 feet to provide this greater factor of safety. Shoulders in some cases are very narrow and steep; the bridges are narrow, so that the betterment work alone to take care of that situation we have will cost us in the neighborhood of $50,000,000. Our total betterment program, including urban projects which require tremendous expenditures for new bridges across the Mississippi, across Lake Charles, and others, for widening, for adding two additional lanes where we have only two, and building new twolane highways, will run the total program to approximately $197,000,000.

This means that we contemplate an expenditure in order to bring the road system of Louisiana up to the point of efficiency where it should be a total expenditure of approximately $250,000,000.

I might say to you that we, in our department, favor this H. R. 2426. We think the method of apportionment of the program outlined will contribute greatly both in economic value to the Nation and safety and traveling comfort to the public.

Gentlemen, I don't think there is anything more I need to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hammond, is your State in a position to take advantage of the bill, if passed, so that you could immediately start construction work on highways that will be available to the Nation?

Mr. HAMMOND. I believe we can, Mr. Chairman. We have authorized by the constitution and unused at the present time about $10,000 000 of bonds, which would tide us over if it were necessary during the period of readjustment on the use of gasoline until our revenues again pick up. As a rule, our revenues from our gasoline tax, which is a dedicated tax under our constitution, together with the automobile licenses, amounted to $18.000,000 a year. That has dropped now to $13,000,000 or $14,000,000. We come next to our bond service, which is the highest this year it will ever be. Next year it will drop off a million from what it is this year. It is in the neighborhood of $9,000,000 this year, and next year will be $8 000.000,