There are here, I should say in closing, some very pressing needs for the highway user from his standpoint and from the nationaldefense standpoint. I am personally convinced that the most effective approach to the solution of this and the other highway problems is the enactment of a bill similar to those now pending before your

committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have appended to my statement a supplement in the form of answers to some questions which have been suggested, and I would ask that they be incorporated in the record without my reading it.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I and my associates, Imight also add-the Under Secretary for Transportation, Mr. Rothschild, and our General Counsel, Mr. Philip Ray, are both here, and will attempt to answer any questions that you have.

(The prepared statement of Secretary Weeks, together with the supplement to his statement, are as follows:)

STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE SINCLAIR WEEKS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, I am happy to be here at your invitation to comment on the extremely important highway legislation presently under consideration by the Committee. I also wish to express my appreciation to you for changing the date of this hearing in order to make it possible for me to embark for Europe tomorrow to visit several of the trade fairs in which our country is currently participating. The invitation to testify which I received enclosed a memorandum setting forth certain questions which your committee desired to have answered. I have attached a supplement to my statement which replies to the questions, and I will be pleased to comment on them at the close of my testimony if you desire me to do so.

Before commenting on the bills before your committee, I should like to remind the members of the genesis of the legislation. Prompted by concern as to the importance of our highway system, the President extended to the governors conference last summer an invitation to work out a highway program for submission to the White House which would evaluate the problem and provide a realistic solution thereof, and set forth the respective responsibilities of the Federal Government and the States. Shortly thereafter, Governor Kennon of Louisiana appointed a special committee of governors to consider this problem. The governors' committee immediately commenced to function under the chairmanship of Governor Kohler of Wisconsin. These gentlemen will, I believe, appear before this committee presenting the conclusions of their respective groups, and their endorsement of the above mentioned bills.

Thereafter, the President appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Gen. Lucius D. Clay to study the highway problems and cooperate with the governors in developing, for the consideration of the President, a balanced program for their solution. The Clay Committee availed itself of the advice of all organizations interested in the highway field and obtained much statistical data from the Bureau of Public Roads and the American Association of State Highway Officials. In my judgment there has never previously been such a comprehensive study by any group of citizens in attempting to develop a realistic highway program. The report of the Clay Committee has been presented to the President and copies have been available to the Members of Congress and the public for some weeks. The President's highway message was delivered to the Congress on February 22, with a copy of the Clay report being attached to this message. The bills before your committee implement the recommendations set forth in the Clay report. They are identical except for the fact that H. R. 4364, introduced by Congressman Dempsey, authorizes the appropriation of certain funds, whereas the other bills appropriate such funds. I consider it a most unusual fact that the representatives chosen by the 48 governors, through Governor Kohler, concurred in the program which is now before you. Such widespread concurrence is, I believe, almost without precedent. Our growing population cannot enjoy the advantages that have been ours unless we substantially accelerate our highway construction to meet the needs

of an expanding population and economy. While other forms of transportation, namely, water, air, and rail, play a vital part in our country, the motor vehicle is becoming increasingly important. The use of these vehicles is predicated on the adequacy of our highway and street system. No one questions our need for an expanded highway program. The problem is to determine what highways affect our overall economy and defense to the greatest degree and are therefore of greatest national interest. Having made this evaluation, what is the extent of the Federal responsibility?

A substantial majority of the State highway departments have revealed the relative importance and needs of our several highway systems, and recommended that completion of the interstate system at the earliest possible date be given top priority. I feel sure no one can dispute that the 40,000-mile interstate system is the most essential to our overall economy and defense. This network is the backbone of our highway system and without question of greatest national concern. It should therefore receive the greatest recognition and priority in considering Federal highway legislation.

The objective of the bills to immediately undertake the construction and completion of an interstate system of highways within a period of 10 years justifies unusual procedure and credit financing. In order to complete such a system it is essential at the outset that the program and the financing thereof be assured. It is necessary that the financing be provided, and that the legislation include control of standards which would assure uniformity of necessary design characteristics throughout the Nation. H. R. 4260, 4261, 4364, and 4518 place the major responsibility for the financing of the interstate system and urban extensions thereof on the Federal Government because of the overall importance of this system of highways to the national economy and defense. At the same time, regular Federal aid is continued on the other systems with the exception of the reduction in the urban funds from the amounts set forth in the FederalAid Highway Act of 1954, which reduction is compensated by the urban road construction involved in the interstate program. The authorizations in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 are, incidentally, the highest in our history and substantially exceed the authorizations of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952. Under H. R. 4260, 4261, 4364, and 4518, regular Federal aid would continue except as noted above, and the Federal Government would in effect augment the present program by enlarged grants to the 48 States of approximately $21⁄2 billion per annum for 10 years, in accordance with their deficiencies and needs, in order to bring the interstate system up to adequate standards. The matching amounts for the interstate system would be the same as provided in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954, and would aggregate $116,666,000 per year. There would be no change whatsoever in the procedures for the construction of this interstate system, nor in the subsequent ownership, operation, and policing of the completed facility.

The Clay Committee suggested that the financing of the program be so designed that the objectives could be attained within the present tax structure and without pledging the Federal credit. The method employed is quite similar to that employed by many of the States where the motor vehicle fuel revenues or a portion thereof are specifically pledged to service bond issues, and constitute the sole basis for interest and amortization payments.

May I emphasize the importance of an expanded highway program. I emphatically state that it is my opinion that the solution of the highway problem, and particularly the construction of the interstate highway system, is imperative for our economic well-being and expansion. The improvement of the interstate system also is extremely important from a defense angle. It is interesting to note that since World War II American industry has invested $205 billion in plant, and is expected to invest $27 billion in plant in 1955. Thus, private industry is spending for capital improvements each year approximately as much as the Federal Government would be spending under these bills in 10 years for the vital interstate roads system. The magnitude of the task is difficult to comprehend. It is by far the largest engineering and construction program ever undertaken during peacetimes. By way of comparison, the Panama Canal cost less than one-fifth of the annual expenditures contemplated on the interstate system. This undertaking will require the closest cooperation between the 48 States and the Bureau of Public Roads over a period of 10 years. A project of this magnitude cannot be undertaken successfully on a piecemeal basis anymore than it would be possible so to undertake a project such as the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway in the absence of a definite program and financing. This

project is a relatively small undertaking as compared to the construction of the interstate system.

Under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954, I was instructed to make an evaluation of the highway needs throughout the United States and to report thereon to the Congress. This study and that of the Clay committee cover not only immediate highway deficiencies but the needs for the future as well. In evaluating the interstate highway problem the estimates are based on bringing that system up to standards which will be adequate for at least 20 years after the completion of any given section thereof. In obtaining the detailed estimates the Bureau of Public Roads was dependent on the cooperation of the 48 States.

On the basis of these estimates, the total cost of the completion of the 37,600 miles of the interstate system now designated is estimated at $23 billion. Provision has been made in the statute for completing the designation of the balance of the system, namely, 2,400 miles. This mileage is being reserved for the extension of the system in the urban area. H. R. 4260, 4261, 4364, and 4518 require the allocation of these 2,400 miles promptly, and the States have already been asked to submit their recommendations. For these extensions an estimated figure of $4 billion has been provided, making a total of $27 billion for the entire interstate system and the extensions thereto. Of this $27 billion, States and local governments would be expected to contribute $2 billion, which leaves a balance of $25 billion to be provided under these bills.

It is estimated that there will be 81 million vehicles on the road in 1965, 40 percent more than at present. In the next 10 to 15 years our population will, it is estimated, increase about 30 million. Our roads are a vital part of our programs for commerce, trade, transportation, and defense. The basic issue before the Congress is the need to obtain in 10 years an interstate system adequate for the next 20 to 30 years. To the extent not needed, the program involved in the pending legislation can be automatically adjusted downward. We believe the need fully exists and that these bills provide a sound way in which it can be accomplished with a minimum of uncertainty in planning and engineering.

We believe these bills represent the best practical way to finance this program on a long-term basis out of gasoline and special motor-vehicle fuel-tax revenues. Based upon the assumption of a $48-million annual increase in the revenues from gasoline and special motor-vehicle fuel taxes, the Treasury Department estimates that the aggregate revenue from these taxes during the fiscal years 1957 through 1988 would be approximately $37 billion over and above the amount of $623 million per year needed to continue other highway aids at the present levels. Thus, it appears feasible, through the medium of the proposed Federal Highway Corporation, to allocate these revenues as provided in the bills.

In closing I should like to reiterate my statement with respect to the importance of promptly initiating a program to solve our highway problem, which I consider one of our most pressing domestic needs. I have mentioned the importance of the defense aspect of the highway program, and all of us are concerned with the matter of defense. In order to protect our country, we are expending annually an amount which is the equivalent of the highway program under these bills for the next 10 years. I am in favor of spending whatever is necessary for our defense. I hesitate to think of the casualties of another war and the effect on our economy and future. Yet 100 homes daily are deprived of loved ones. Another 3,000 individuals are injured each day in fighting traffic on the highways. It has recently been brought to my attention that the accident rate on the New Jersey Turnpike is one-seventh of the accident rate in the State of New Jersey.

Gentlemen, we can do something about the horrible carnage to which we have become so calloused. Our involvement in another war, and all the suffering that such a conflict would generate, is dependent on others. The carnage from motor-vehicle accidents which we see and read about daily in our own country is within our hands to correct. A great deal can, and must, be done. I am convinced that the most effective approach to the solution of this and other highway problems is the enactment of a bill similar to those now pending before your committee.

SUPPLEMENT TO STATEMENT OF HON. SINCLAIR WEEKS

The questions contained in the following portion of this statement are those contained in a memorandum in the letter of March 28, 1955, from the chairman of this committee to me. Since these questions cover a wide range of matters having to do with H. R. 4260 and similar bills, I believe it would be appropriate to include the questions and answers as part of this statement:

Question No. 1

To what extent should emphasis on the national system of interstate highways go in comparative relation to the regular Federal-aid primary and secondary system?

Answer. The national system of interstate highways is composed of about 37,700 miles of highways, 33,300 miles of which are rural and 4,400 miles in urban areas. This system, which by law is limited to 40,000 miles, forms the most important transcontinental network of highway routes within the United States. While it embraces only about 1 percent of the Nation's total highway mileage, it carries more than a seventh of all traffic. It joins 42 of the State capitals and 90 percent of all cities having a population of over 50,000. Aside from serving as a backbone to the general economy of the country, the national and civil defense aspects of the system are of the utmost importance. The system serves as a main trunkline for the transportation of men and material between our major population and industrial centers and seaports. By reason of the high design standards being established for this system, including the matter of control of access, the system affords a much greater degree of service than any other system in the efficient and rapid movement of the increasingly heavier type of military equipment being manufactured. The National Military Establishment has gone on record as recognizing the system as representing the routes of greatest strategic importance. With respect to civil defense, the system, which is composed of the main arterial routes leading out of our major cities, would undoubtedly be of inestimable value for most rapid and least congested evacuation from urban centers. It is expected that there would be many other civil-defense advantages to the system in such matters as clearing debris, logistical supply, removal of casualties, dispersal of industrial plants, and circumferential movement around cities. These factors, together with others pointed out in the recent highway study transmitted by the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress, indicate the need for emphasis on the national system of interstate highways.

Question No. 2

Should the Federal-aid primary and secondary system programs be accelerated along with the special emphasis on the Interstate System? If so, to what extent and by what means?

Answer. In view of the emphasis to be given to the Interstate System, no specific acceleration should be given by the Federal Governmnt at this time to the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems. These systems are far from adequate, but the present authorized Federal aid is the largest ever granted by the Federal Government. This aid should be continued at the existing rate with the hope that State and local governments will not only be able to match the Federal share but, as their revenues increase, to expend more sums on these systems without additional Federal aid. If Federal aid for these two systems were increased at the present time, it is doubtful that all of the States would be able to match such increases. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the funds now being spent on the primary system are for projects located along interstate routes. Consequently, substantial funds will be released to the States for construction of projects on the primary system when they are no longer required to expend primary funds on projects located along interstate routes. Question No. 3

Should a definite period, such as that proposed in H. R. 4260, be fixed for the completion of the National System of Interstate Highways, or should construction be accelerated or decelerated according to the availability of motor fuel tax revenues?

Answer. A definite period such as the 10 years proposed in H. R. 4260 should be fixed for the completion of the Interstate System. Paradoxically, no system of highways can ever be completed, but the plan to build the Interstate System in 10 years to meet the traffic needs of 20 years is as close to perfecting a system as can be devised. The whole concept of this plan is the completion of the

job. It is not based on an acceleration or deceleration of the motor fuel tax revenues. Estimates of these revenues indicate that they are sufficient to carry out the plan. The marshaling of the construction industry for this project can be done on a sounder basis with a definite period of time fixed for its completion. Furthermore, if the Interstate System is definitely planned and located within a comparatively short time, the investments of the persons owning land adjacent to the rights-of-way can be stabilized, and not subjected to the uncertainties of road location which now prevail. Prompt acquisition of rights-of-way under the proposed program should also be much more economical.

Question No. 4

Should the existing ratio of matching for the Interstate System be changed from 60-40 to 90-10, or some other ratio?

Answer. The existing 60-40 Federal-State participation ratio for the Interstate System should be changed in order that the Federal Government may bear a much greater share of the cost. Federal participation in the system should be increased as proposed in the Clay report and as provided in the pending bills based thereon. There is no direct relationship between volume of traffic and the percentage of the Federal contribution. If the Federal contribution were based on the traffic factor, the percentage of Federal participation would be a variable instead of a fixed figure for each of the States. The approximate -percent Federal contribution as proposed in the pending bills is fully justified by the national interest in the Interstate System as outlined in the reply to question No. 1.

Question No. 5

Should our present highway development procedure be modified in any way if the Federal share for the Interstate System is increased, or should all projects on the Interstate System be initiated and constructed by the State highway departments, in cooperation with the Bureau of Public Roads, as is the procedure at the present time?

Answer. There appears to be no need for making any substantial change in the procedures now being followed. It is believed that the States will cooperate with the Bureau of Public Roads as they have in the past in the initiation of highway projects. In the event that this belief proves to be unfounded, and a slowing down in the initiation of projects occurs, necessary modifications in the procedures could be made.

Question No. 6

Will the placing of special emphasis on the Interstate System adversely or beneficially affect the State's capacity to carry on an effective program of construction on the regular Federal-aid primary and secondary highway systems? Answer. Since the Interstate System is the system now requiring the heaviest expenditures for construction, the States are expending a substantial amount of their own funds for projects on this system in addition to the amounts which they use to match Federal-aid funds. To the extent that Federal participation is increased, the States will be relieved of these expenditures. Thus, funds which would be required for the Interstate System could be transferred by the States for improvement of projects on other routes. It would appear, therefore, that additional emphasis on the Interstate System, through increased Federal-aid funds and increased matching ratio, would aid the States in carrying on construction programs on other systems.

Question No. 7

Should the Federal contribution to the Interstate System be financed on a pay-as-you-go basis or a pay-later basis? If neither of these financing plans is deemed feasible, what is an adequate alternative financing plan to complete the Interstate System?

Answer. The need of this country for roads and for the completion of this particular system within a 10-year period is well known. Expenditure on the average of an additional $2 billion per annum over a 10-year period would involve an increase in taxes for the next 10 years of $2 billion per annum. It was not deemed wise to increase taxes at this time to such an extent, and it was decided that the necessary funds should be borrowed. Roads are a capital asset in a real sense, and it is a common practice for private individuals, and not unknown in the case of Federal Government, to borrow funds to finance the construction of capital assets. The Panama Canal, Union Pacific Railroad, TVA, Boulder Dam, and the St. Lawrence seaway are all examples of borrow