be provided with that service without having to pay a fare. We don't advocate that. We think the public is willing and will pay a reasonable fare if they are provided with safe, economical, and fast equip ment. If the railroads are permitted, as they are doing at the present time, to systematically discontinue passenger service, particularly commuter service, and when they do that they tear up the tracks, stations, and by the time we find that, in the near future, that our cities. will be strangled by buses, trucks, and cars, and that the only solution is rail rapid transit, then we have to rebuild those tracks, rightsof-ways, acquire the property. Senator WILLIAMS. Los Angeles went through the abandonment, scraping, pulling up the tracks, and now what they are talking about is a billion dollar expenditure. Mr. SKUTT. That is right. It will cost many billions of dollars to replace these needed services. And we believe firmly they will have to be rebuilt. And I think your point is well taken, Senator, that in California we have a good example of that right now. And it is running into the billions of dollars. You mentioned this as being not a big city bill. I agree with you, Senator. I live 65 miles out on Long Island, and contrary to the generally accepted ideas, all of the people that live in Nassau and Suffolk Counties are not wealthy and they don't have two cars. Senator WILLIAMS. What city is that, 65 miles out? Mr. SKUTT. I live in Oakdale. Senator WILLIAMS. Served by a commuter railroad? Mr. SKUTT. The Long Island Railroad, yes, sir. I know many of my neighbors who don't have a car, and those who do have a car, certainly could not afford to use it to go to their place of employment in the city, and most of them work in the city. When you consider the tolls, the gas, the oil, maintenance, and the wear and tear on an automobile, which would be worn out inside of 18 months, if you drove 65 miles each way to work, 5 or 6 days a week Senator WILLIAMS. Tell me, the State has developed an authority to take over the Long Island Railroad? Mr. SKUTT. That is right. But that railroad, as you know, is 65 years old and many of their cars are almost that old. Senator WILLIAMS. Tell me, what happened to the brotherhoods, for example, in that change of ownership? Mr. SKUTT. We have no problem, Senator. The authority has agreed with us to continue the collective bargaining arrangements and we are working with them, trying to build a better Long Island Railroad. But it is going to take a lot of money. They are going to have to electrify certain branches, in order to eliminate the bottleneck which you know exists in Jamaica, where hundreds of trains come into one point and passengers all have to change from diesel and steam, where they have steam, to electric, because there are no provisions for taking diesel through the tunnels into the city. So you have to change there. And that is a bottleneck, if it could be eliminated, would eliminate a half hour from a 65-mile trip such as I have to take from Oakdale. I would say if the Long Island Railroad continued to deteriorate as it was, that most of the people in my town would have had to forfeit 62-551 0-66-pt. 2-21 their home out there and move to the city, if they could find an apart ment that they could afford, because they just couldn't afford to drive an automobile that distance. As you know, automobiles are made today to last a maximum of about 3 years. And if you drive them daily to work, they will last about half of that length of time. And the average man could not afford to use a car, which is a luxury, in getting back and forth to work. I want to say, too, buses are not the answer. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the situation in New Jersey. If you take 10 trains a day with 10 cars on a train, it would take 300 buses to carry that number of people. And if you put 300 more buses on the highways of New Jersey, you would bring them to a standstill. Economically it wouldn't work, because you would have to have 300 busdrivers, where you would have 10 crews on 10 trains to move the same number of people. It is undisputed that rail rapid transit, rail passenger service, is the cheapest way of moving masses of pepole. And I think that you, in particular, with your mass transit bill of 1964, have proven that where services were improved by purchase of new cars and other improvements, that people will go back to the railroads. They have proved that on the Reading, as you heard here. We have proved it on the Path, which has improved their services. We proved it on the Long Island, where people did come back and ride the Long Island, when we got new equipment. The Congress, in passing the Interstate Commerce Act, has charged the ICC with the responsibility of protecting the public interest and public need in considering applications by railroad companies for the abandonment of rail service. We respectfully suggest to your colleagues in the Congress, and that doesn't apply to you, because I think you are more aware of this than any of us, that if the railroad doesn't have the money to continue the operation of their passenger service, the ICC realizes that there is a need for that service, they are going to say, well, where is the money coming from? And I think in all due respect to the Congress, that the Congress itself must look to itself to provide the financial means of continuing this public service. And I think the ICC then will insist that that service be operated. But when you are given a choice of a pauper running a railroad, I don't think the ICC has too much choice. I think the ICC is becoming more aware every day of the need for this passenger servcie. And I think and hope the Congress is becoming more aware of it. I know the public is, that this service is necessary and it must be paid for and although we dont' always agree with the railroads, as you probably know, and we dont' agree wholeheartedly with their allocation of losses to passenger service, we are realistic enough to recognize that where you have a morning and afternoon peak service and very little service in between those hours, that that service in between, although necessary, cannot be operated at a profit. In that respect we wholeheartedly support the legislation which you have introduced. and which you have worked so hard for and we will do everything in our power to see to it that that legislation passes and we think that if it does, it will at least keep what service we have. And in that respect save the Government and people an awful lot of money, because certainly they will have to replace the services that are destroyed or eliminated and it won't be too many years before that will be almost an unpayable bill. And we add our voice to yours, Senator, and hope that Congress will see the necessity for this legislation and pass it promptly. Thank you. Senator WILLIAMS. Well, that statement concludes our hearing of witnesses, and we couldn't end on a better note. We are grateful indeed to you, Mr. Skutt. I have this statement for the record. STATEMENT OF HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Senator WILLIAMS. These hearings will provide a record, I believe, which will persuade the Congress that this legislation must be enacted this year. Almost unanimously, the witnesses made these points and documented them convincingly: Commuter transportation is vastly cheaper, more efficient, and less destructive than highways for carrying people back and forth to work, The fare box can no longer finance the total cost of building and operating commuter facilities, The Federal Government, because of its concern that tax dollars be spent in the most efficient manner possible, and because of its vital stake in the preservation and growth of our cities, has a rightful role in preserving and improving our commuter facilities. And that this legislation, while not endorsed in every particular by every witness, is, generally, the right way in which to proceed. The most encouraging single thing in this hearing was the testimony of commuter railroad executives. Belying the impression that the railroads have no interest in the commuter business except to get out of it, they supported this legislation in the strongest terms. They expressed the firm belief that commuters can be lured off the highways-and in one notable instance demonstrated it. And they stated in no uncertain terms their willingness and their ability to make this legislation work. We will keep the record open until May 7 for additional statements and there is no announcement on when the subcommittee will meet to consider the bills. Of course this is the end of the 2 weeks of hearings on the various general urban and housing bills. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.) (Following are the bills pending before the Housing Subcommittee together with the reports from various agencies.) 89TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 1850 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES APRIL 29, 1965 Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. HARTKE, Mr. NELSON, and Mr. HART) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency A BILL To authorize disaster loans under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, including refinancing. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That S. 1354 be amended by inserting on page 57 after line 4 8 the following new subsection 901 (c): 5 "Section 501 of such Act is amended by adding the fol 6 lowing new subsection 501 (e) : 7 "(e) In connection with any loan made or insured 8 under this title for the repair, reconstruction, or replacement 9 of any building damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster, 10 the loan may include funds to refinance any existing indebt11 edness against the damaged or destroyed property."" Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, U. S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will reply to your request for a report on S. 1850, a bill to authorize disaster loans under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, including refinancing. The Department recommends favorable consideration of the bill. During the past year extensive damage has been done to homes and farm service buildings in rural areas as a result of natural disasters that included hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and forest and brush fires. Families whose buildings are damaged or destroyed by such disasters frequently are indebted on their property. Unless they have adequate insurance coverage, this indebtedness may preclude their being able to repair or reconstruct the buildings. The authority to refinance existing debts against damaged or destroyed property will be useful in helping many of these families arrange payments on their existing debts and the additional debts they may need to incur to replace or repair the damaged buildings within their debt-paying ability. It is suggested that the bill be amended so as to refer to the relevant section of the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public Law 89-117) rather than S. 1354. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary. |