Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9767, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Gibson, and reported favorably by the Committee on Roads, authorizes an appropriation of $2,654,000 for the relief of Vermont in the matter of highways damaged by flood. It is my purpose to outline briefly the reasons why representatives of Vermont are asking for this appropriation.

The newspapers have carried such a complete story of the flood which descended upon Vermont in November, 1927, that you are probably already somewhat familiar with the destruction of property which it caused and the toil of human life which it levied. The people of Vermont are now face to face with the difficult problem of rehabilitation.

The legislative reference service of the Library of Congress has compiled a list of the acts passed by the Congress for the relief of those who have suffered from calamities of various kinds. These acts go back to 1803 and revised to date would include (two Mississippi Valley flood relief) bill(s) passed in the opening days of this session of Congress…

If you will go through this list of acts, going back a century and a quarter, you will find none for the relief of the State of Vermont or of any political subdivision thereof. I believe that this is the first time that representatives of Vermont in the 136 years of its membership in the Union have appeared before a committee of Congress, asking for relief. Such calamities as we have had heretofore have been within the capacity of our self-reliant people to meet. I assure you that we appear there now only because a disaster has befallen our State so overwhelming that it is without parallel in her history.

We are accustomed these days to think of things in terms of size. Because of this the attention of the Nation is, and has been for months, centered upon the flood disaster in the valley of the Mississippi. I wish in no way to minimize the terrible disaster which has overtaken our people in the Mississippi Valley. Figures as well as pictures tell a story of appalling destruction there. Nor do I question their dire need of assistance nor the wisdom of an emergency measure which carried with it the expenditure of $7,000,000 in their behalf, but it does give me confidence to bring our needs to your attention, and it does give me the hope that in proportion as our needs equal theirs we may look for like assistance. Let us, then, in order to grasp the extent of the Vermont flood disaster compare for a moment the damage done to our little State with the damage done to the several States which suffered from the Mississippi flood. This comparison should, I think, be made in terms of relative population and wealth, so the problems presented to the people and the government of each of the several afflicted States may by comparison be made more clear.

The following table shows the relative population, area, and total flood damage done to the Mississippi Valley States and to Vermont and translates these losses in terms of their meaning to the persons involved and their ability to meet them:

State:	Pop.,1920	Area	Flood damage’27
Arkansas	1.7mil	53,335	37,948,919
Illinois	6.4	56,665	16,765,465
Kentucky	2.4	40,598	3,295,750
Louisiana	1.7	48,506	38,389,814
Mississippi	1.7	46,865	45,931,294
Missouri	3.4	69,420	7,691,265
Tennessee	2.4	42,022	5,958,950
Vermont	352,428	9,564	30,435,299

You will see from this comparison that only the three lower Mississippi Valley States of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana suffered a total flood damage exceeding that of Vermont. You will see also that the damage per person in Vermont was more than three times the damage per person in the average of the Mississippi States worst afflicted, and the damage per million dollars of State wealth, which means capacity to meet loss, in Vermont is more than twice that suffered by Arkansas, more than three times that suffered by Louisiana, and is more than one-half greater than that suffered by the State of Mississippi—the three States sustaining the greatest flood damage in the Mississippi Valley.

This, I think will make clear to the membership of the House what a flood loss of $30,435,299 visited upon a small rural State with a small population, means to the people of that State, and will explain why we, as representatives of that State, are here asking you to pass a bill which will grant help from the Federal Government to our people in meeting a difficult problem.

Relief Limited to Public Works

Our request for relief is limited to the rehabilitation of public works—namely, roads. Our losses to private property have borne heavily upon farmers, business men, and corporations. One of our main railroad lines is in the hands of a receiver and will probably not resume normal operations for months to come. Other lines have spent millions to repair damages. Many farmers and business men have lost their savings of a lifetime and are being assisted to carry on by the Red Cross, by private gifts, by loans from the Vermont flood corporations, from banks, and from various other sources. We are asking for no appropriation to help our people meet losses of this kind. You can readily see, however, that the tax-paying ability of our people is greatly impaired, and it is extremely difficult for a small State to meet the tremendous burden imposed and, for years to come, next to impossible for it unassisted to carry on its normal activities.

Vermont is, as you know, a mountainous State. Its river valleys as they cut across or run parallel to the mountain ranges are for the most part narrow and hemmed in by hills on either side. The main roads are located in these valleys and received the full force of the rushing water, which could be likened in its fury to a storm at sea. When the flood waters receded Vermont found herself practically without a road system in large areas of the State. Roads and bridges which it had taken a century to construct were destroyed in one short day. Photographs well illustrate this.

As soon as the extent of the damage was known the State highway department laid plans for making temporary repairs in order to make it possible to deliver the mails and to transport food and supplies to the towns and cities which were cut off from rail transportation. The cooperation of local town officials in this work was splendid. I heard an Army engineer pay tribute to the resourcefulness of Vermont town officials who in a remarkably short space of time threw temporary bridges of logs and plank across rivers and smaller streams and filled great gullies in roads so that traffic could get through. I am informed that the temporary road repairs along will cost nearly $1,000,000.

Then came the problem of permanent reconstruction…

Vermont’s Highway Problem

The highway problem in Vermont has been the subject of a recent cooperative study by the United States Bureau of Public Roads and the Vermont Highway department. This bureau in conjunction with the State Highway department made a survey of traffic on the Vermont highways in 1926. Upon this survey and upon predictions as to future needs, recommendations were made in a report recently released as to what Vermont should do in the way of future road construction. Up to 1923 roads constructed in Vermont were principally of gravel surfaces. They were not in all cases the best roads but they were such as we could pay for. It became apparent, however, that on our main routes, including the Federal-aid designated system and some of the State roads a surface superior to gravel was necessary. The report recommends a construction program for the years 1927-1931 of 275 miles of surface superior to gravel on the principal routes, which are Federal-aid routes, with a probable cost of another $12,000,000. The regular annual Federal-aid allotment for Vermont is $365,000. This 10-year program would cost a total of $24,000,000. This program of construction was entered upon by the Vermont Legislature of 1927, and during the last year 47.2 miles of hard-surface roads have been constructed at a cost of $1,877,247.

Now, this survey also shows that Vermont roads—and I presume this is true of the roads of all the States—have taken on an interstate and international character. It showed that on our Federal-aid routes and on nearly 1,000 miles of our State-aid system about 35.6 percent of total passenger-car traffic and 9.6 per cent of the truck traffic was foreign traffic…The burden thrown upon Vermont roads by this foreign traffic is indicated by the paragraph from the report:

The large volume of foreign traffic on Vermont highways adds considerable to the cost of providing highway service on the main routes of travel. This volume of foreign traffic, in addition to local Vermont traffic, results in increased maintenance costs on present improvements, which are loaded beyond their economic capacity, and makes necessary earlier improvements or reconstruction of these routes by the construction of surfaces superior to gravel. The present contribution of foreign traffic to Vermont highways revenue is limited very largely to that derived from the taxation of gasoline sold to operators of foreign cars, and it is doubtful if this revenue is at all commensurate with the increased cost of providing highway service caused by foreign traffic.

Now, Vermont wants to keep her place with her sister States in the line of progress. She wants to provide roads for foreign traffic as well as for her own people, and her policies were being formulated to that end before the recent disaster overtook her.

Vermont is a dairy State, marketing her products in the form of milk and cream. According to a recent survey, made by the United States Department of Agriculture, Boston depends upon Vermont for 62 percent of her milk and 50 per cent of her cream supply. Other New England cities and New York also obtain from our dairies substantial quantities. These products are perishable and must move from farm to market every day. Unless our roads are restored these cities will obtain with difficulty an essential food supply and the main business of our State will be disrupted.

From the figures presented as to cost of rehabilitating our highway system, you will see that the State of Vermont will have to pay more than seven and three-fourths millions of dollars for permanent reconstruction, in addition to nearly a million dollars already spent for temporary construction. This is more than a small State like ours can bear and expect to do anything in the way of new construction. Therefore we are asking the Federal Government in this bill to assume the cost of reconstructing that part of our highways known as the Federal-aid system.

Source: Congressional Record, 70th Congress, 1st session, 69:4880-4881.