Mr. WHITTINGTON. What do you say about the proposed increase from 50-50, Federal and State contribution, in view of the very large public debt of the United States?

Mr. BROWN. Well, the roads are an investment and not a debt, as I consider it. I think they give a good return on the money invested. Mr. WHITTINGTON. That would be true regardless of the contribution of the State and the Federal Government, would it not?' Mr. BROWN. I think so.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What sort of a surplus have you in your State treasury?

Mr. BROWN. We have at the present time about $11,000,000 that has been built up due to nonconstruction, that is, over and above present obligations. Our gas-tax reduction, that is, the return from gasoline and automobile registrations, has been less than we anticipated. If it does not increase too materially in this next year, I think at least this year that $11,000,000 should be considerably increased; that is, probably to $15,000,000.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Well, is that $11,000,000 surplus your accumulated surplus for the last 2 or 3 years? For the war period, I am talking about.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. You have not retired, except as it has accrued, your State indebtedness, so as to reduce that surplus?

Mr. BROWN. That is right; the bonds are not callable.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. In a word, how would the interregional highway system integrate in your State?

Mr. BROWN. Well, mainly, as it is now proposed, or from the maps that I have seen, at least, it will probably fall along three of our main trunk highways, one of which is US 63, which is the Chicago-South west route; US 40 or US 50, which is the east and west route, St. Louis-Kansas City; and then the route from Kansas City north toward Des Moines, Iowa.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What would be the argument for a change in the distribution of this tax, as presently existing, on account of population, as applicable to Missouri?

Mr. Brown. I do not believe I quite understand your question. Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is the argument for a change in the distribution, giving consideration to population, with respect to Missouri?

Mr. BROWN. Well. We have been prohibited from going within towns of over 2,500, as pointed out.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Do you know of any other State that has such a prohibition?

Mr. BROWN. Not that I know of.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Then your State would not be typical in that regard?

Mr. BROWN. That is one case in which it is not.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I say, then your State would not be typical. Mr. BROWN. It would not; not regarding that one item. No, sir. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am just confining my questions to the general principles of this bill, and not to the language or to the state

ment that the appropriations would be either made or expended with respect to the conclusion of the war, either in Europe or in the Pacific.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ELLIOTT. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. You may.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Brown, you spoke of $11,000,000 that you had on hand at the present time and that later on perhaps you might be able to build up to $15,000,000.

Fart of that build-up is due to your construction activities being lessened on account of material that has not been available?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. You see, we did not have any construction in the last 2 years except on roads that were necessary or in conjunction with the war effort, so with the exception of finishing some work, we have not expended any construction fund other than that required by the Defense Highway Act.

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. I just had one question, if I may, along the line of Mr. Whittington's. Suppose the committe should feel that instead of the Federal Government contributing 75 percent of this fund, it should only contribute 60, or possibly 50 percent. Is the State of Missouri in a position to match the amount contributed by the Federal Government?

Mr. BROWN. We could the first year, I am sure, but unless the revenues came back faster than I anticipate, I am afraid we would be in pretty bad shape the second year. We will build up at the end of this year quite a surplus. Based on the 75-25, the proposed formula, I would say we have a little more than $30,000,000. Well, that would require $10,000,000 to match it. We would surely have enough to do that, and on a 60-40 basis I think we could do it, possibly. However, it would be rather close to the bottom of our funds.

Mr. McGREGOR. Will the chairman yield?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McGregor?

Mr. McGREGOR. Do you believe that the over-all picture of the 75-25 distribution is equitable, taking the picture of all of the States into consideration?

Mr. BROWN. I do. Yes; I think that practically every State could comply with that, so far as I know, but some, or quite a few of them, I am sure, would be in a worse shape than we on a 60-40 basis.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You could do it if you increased your gasoline tax to 3 cents, could you not?

Mr. BROWN. Well, we have tried to increase it but have failed. We hope to, some day.

Mr. McGREGOR. Do you have diversion of any highway funds?

Mr. BROWN. We have no diversion on either our license fees or gas

tax.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any questions, Mr. Wolcott?
Mr. WOLCOTT. No; not right now.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions by any of the members of the committee?

Mr. McGREGOR. You spoke of taking over some county roads into your State system. Do you have additional funds for that purpose, for the reconstruction?

Mr. BROWN. In the constitutional amendment of 1928, to which I referred-before that the State fund had been set aside definitely for the main line or State system, as it was then called-it allowed the addition of roads, as I said before, by agreement between the county officials and the State highway commission, which the State built and maintained.

The location or the selection is made jointly, and then the State takes over from there on, and they have to be roads connected with the State system, as are the other roads, so it makes finally a very complete State highway system.

Mr. McGREGOR. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?.

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

We would like to have the Representatives present from Missouri stand up and give their names to the reporter.

Mr. COLE. William C. Cole, Third District, St. Joseph, Mo.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any statement to make at this time or would you prefer to make a statement some time later?

Mr. COLE. There is one thing that concerns me greatly, and that is the fact that St. Joseph is apparently bypassed by this proposal, and St. Joseph is the largest town in the Third District.

The CHAIRMAN. That presents a problem for Mr. Brown. He is the State engineer.

Mr. COLE. Then I will get after him.

Mr. ARNOLD. Walt Arnold, First District, Missouri.

We have always been bypassed, so being bypassed again does not concern us so much.

The CHAIRMAN. You gentlemen will understand that is a State problem, and I am sure if you take that up with Mr. Brown and your commission you will get splendid roads.

Mr. ARNOLD. I would like to ask the committee-or the chairman— a question, if it is in order, and that is, if you increase this appropriation to 75-25 what do you say to the Congress about raising this extra money to pay for these roads? How will the Government pay it?

The CHAIRMAN. That is entirely up to the Ways and Means Committee. I suppose they will find a way.

Mr. ARNOLD. This committee does not have any recommendation in mind?

The CHAIRMAN. No; none at all. We do not have any jurisdiction over that matter. Any other Members here from Missouri?

Mr. McGREGOR. Congressman Bennett just went to the telephone. He was here just a few minutes ago, and so was Congressman Elmer. The CHAIRMAN. All right. The record will show that they were present. Our next witness is Mr. White. I will say this: Mr. White needs no introduction. He is the dean of road engineers. And I think is likely one of the best-informed men on road problems in the United States. He has always been very cooperative, and we appreciate having him here. Now, if you gentlemen have some problems on roads, and I know you have, I am sure you can get some help from Mr. White.

STATEMENT OF F. R. WHITE, CHIEF ENGINEER, IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the topic assigned me is Secondary and Feeder Roads. The term "secondary and feeder roads" as used in this discussion is defined to include and refer to:

(a) Rural roads not on the Federal-aid road system;

(b) Roads and streets in municipalities having less than 10,000 population and which roads and streets are not on the Federal-aid road system.

The total mileage of public highways-roads and streets-in continental United States is approximately 3,308,000 miles.

This mileage is divided among three groups or systems as follows:

Federal-aid system.

Urban roads and streets.
Secondary and feeder roads.

Total____

Miles 236, 000 133, 000 2,936, 000

3, 308, 000

Thus, the secondary- and feeder-road group is by far the largest of the three groups. In fact, 88.8 percent of all our public-highway mileage is in the secondary- and feeder-road classification. The Federal-aid road system includes 7.1 percent of the total mileage. The remaining 4.1 percent of the total mileage is in the urban-road classification.

It should be understood that the above mileages are approximate only. They represent the best obtainable data, and are believed to be substantially correct.

The total mileage given for the Federal-aid system-236,000 miles— includes 222,000 miles outside of municipalities, and 14,000 miles inside of municipalities of all sizes.

The total mileage given for urban roads-136,000 miles-includes only the mileage within the corporate limits of municipalities having a population of 10,000 or more.

The total mileage given for secondary or feeder roads-2,936,000 miles-includes 2,781,000 miles outside of municipalities, and 155,000 miles within municipalities having a population less than 10,000.

There are no clearly defined boundaries of the areas or population groups especially served by any one of the three classes of roads mentioned herein. All areas and all population groups derive some service and some benefit from each of the three groups of highways. It is apparent, however, that people living outside of any municipality and people living in municipalities of less than 10,000 population, are especially interested in the improvement of secondary and feeder roads. That is where these roads are located.

It is, therefore, of interest to note that the 1940 population of continental United States is located as follows:

In municipalities of 10,000 population and over.
In municipalities less than 10,000 population__
Outside of municipalities____

Total----

98217-44-vol. 1——————4

62,716, 000 21, 050, 000 47, 903, 000

131, 669, 000

Thus 68,953,000 people, or 52.3 percent of the population of continental United States, are located in areas where the secondary and feeder roads are located, and would receive a large measure of direct benefit from the improvement of these roads.

The 2,781,000 miles of secondary and feeder roads located outside of any municipality, constitute the life lines for 92 percent of the 6,100,000 farms in this Nation.

44,000,000 people live on these rural secondary roads and have a direct interest in their improvement. That is 33.4 percent of the population of this country; and all the rest of us are interested, too, for we all must eat.

Traffic studies for 1941-the last year before the war-indicate a total of 310,832,000,000 vehicle-miles of traffic per year on all public roads and streets. This annual traffic is divided among three classes of highways, as follows:

Thus, measured in vehicle-miles, the secondary and feeder roads carry 34.5 percent of the Nation's annual highway traffic.

And I would like for you to keep that figure in mind for the moment-34.5 percent.

Statistical data showing the present condition of improvement of the secondary and feeder roads are not available. Some States have such data, but in most of the States, since these roads are not under the jurisdiction of the State highway department, no record of the secondary road condition is available for the State as a whole.

It is known that in some States a very considerable percentage of the secondary and feeder road mileage has been improved and surfaced in some manner. For example, in the State of Iowa, 46,970 miles, or 50 percent, out of a total of 93,900 miles of rural secondary roads have been surfaced in some manner; 99.8 percent of this surfacing is light, cheap, topsoil, gravel, or crushed stone. Only two-tenths of 1 percent of this surfacing is pavement or treated with bituminous material. A very large percentage of this surfaced secondary road in Iowa must be completely reconstructed, regraded, and resurfaced before it can be presumed to meet present-day secondary road traffic requirements. Many thousands of miles of these surfaced secondary roads never were graded to established grade and standard cross section. They were simply crowned up with a blade grader to get the water out of the middle of the road, and a light layer of gravel applied, in a thrifty effort to get a maximum mileage out of the mud with the limited funds available. Doubtless the story in other States is much the same as in Iowa.

From the limited information available, it is believed that approximately 5 percent of the mileage of the secondary and feeder roads in all the States are paved, 38 percent are surfaced with other materialmostly topsoil, shale, untreated gravel, and crushed rock-and the remaining 57 percent of the mileage has no surfacing of any kind. The 5 percent of the mileage which is paved is located mostly in municipalities of less than 10,000 population.