this system which you now propose to build in 10 years. I think it necessarily would be very much higher.

I understand we are killing more than 38,000 people a year on our highways today. That is based on reports by the National Safety Council. We are injuring about a million and a half people a year. How many less people would be injured if we had the interstate system completed? Also we are spending some $3 billion for property damages. That would be reduced if this plan were put into effect and completed in 10 years, as compared with being completed in 30. Secretary WEEKS. We think so.

Mr. DEMPSEY. It may take a little time to get the committee that information, but I think it would be very helpful if we could get it. Mr. FALLON. Gentlemen, could the chairman make an observation at this point? Mr. Weeks is only available for a short time today. He is going out of the country tomorrow. We have 34 members on this committee. I am sure each one of them would like to ask the Secretary some questions. So I think it is only fair to the rest of the members of the committee if each member would try to shorten his questions as much as possible and stay within the realm of this highway legislation.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I suggest because of the size of the committee and the time that can be consumed by one Member of Congress to the exclusion of the other 33, that the committee had better adopt a rule and limit the members so that everyone will have a chance. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Dondero, I am ready to do anything that the membership desires and that will be fair. I am ready to entertain any motion.

Mr. McGREGOR. I make a motion it be brought up in executive session.

Mr. FALLON. Are you finished, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. McGregor.

Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Secretary, I am not going to take very much time, but I do want to call attention to one statement you made regarding generalities. It was in respect to an inquiry made by a member of the committee as to whether or not the various States or the various subdivisions of the presently existing highway system were losing any money or jurisdiction by the passing of this bill. Is it not a true fact under the bill as it is written, a corporation is formed comprising 5 members, and those 5 members have a veto power?

Secretary WEEKS. That is correct.

Mr. McGREGOR. Under the existing law the Bureau of Public Roads has the power along with the highway departments. Is that correct? Secretary WEEKS. Yes.

Mr. McGREGOR. Then if this bill is passed as it is written this new Commission would have a veto power not only over the Bureau of Public Roads, but over the State highway departments as well?

Secretary WEEKS. Only insofar as the Interstate System is concerned, in the development of it.

Mr. McGREGOR. That is right but it is a part of this present law. Now I want to get back to my subject. I think we are all agreed that we need highways. I was very happy to hear you make that statement. I think all of us agree that we cannot build highways by talk

ing and we cannot build them by finding fault with legislation that has been introduced without substituting something different and better than that legislation. You have great faith, do you not, Mr. Secretary, in the Bureau of Public Roads?

Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir.

I

Mr. McGREGOR. Having sat on this committee for 16 or 18 years, have heard no one object to that Bureau. Such being the case, why cannot the Bureau of Public Roads handle this legislation without a new commission being established to handle it? Could you not have an interstate division in the Bureau of Public Roads set up which is accustomed to handling legislation dealing with highways?

Secretary WEEKS. Mr. Congressman, I do not think that is the way to do it. This Corporation of 5 members, consisting of 3 public members and the Secretary of Commerce, is so set up that in effect through the membership of the Secretary of Commerce, under whose general direction the Bureau of Public Roads operates, you have the representation of the Bureau of Public Roads in whatever decisions the Corporation members make. As I say, I would like to ask Mr. Du Pont to comment on this, but as I see it, as a practical matter, once the funds are allocated or, we will say, first paid to the Treasury by the Corporation and allocated by the Corporation to the annual portion of the overall program-after that is done the whole setup is exactly as it is today, and the Bureau of Public Roads would operate in cases where there is a possible difference of opinion between the State authorities and the Bureau of Public Roads perhaps. Then this Corporation would make a final decision in this field alone. However, I do not see that it trespasses on

Mr. McGREGOR. I think that statement is correct, that the Corporation will make the decision and it will be final regardless of State desires or other wishes of the Bureau of Public Roads. In order to save time and to expedite this I will refer the committee to pages 6 and 7 of the bill, which define corporate powers. It says:

may take such actions and exercise such other powers as may be necessary. That is the veto.

Now getting back to the other question-I think we all agree that most of our controversy relative to this legislation is coming from the various groups who feel that they are going to be hurt. The farm group wants more money; the urban group wants more money; the primary group wants more money; and the interstate people want more money. Why would it not be possible, Mr. Secretary, to bring this legislation out as an emergency for the Interstate System, and the Interstate System alone? Then it would be known as a civilian defense and military defense highway bill, and it would leave your Intrastate System as now constituted by Public Law 350, completely alone. We would not be changing the formula of the existing law, but this would be an emergency law for a period of some 5 or 10 or 15 years, if you please, and finance it as this committee would deem advisable, but leave the existing law alone and give it a chance to operate. We passed Public Law 350 last year and we thought it was a good one. Now before we have an opportunity to see it go into effect we are coming along and incorporate a new idea and do away with the old law.

Secretary WEEKS. I think that is just a question of point of view. I do not think the final net effect is any different in either case between your suggested method or what we suggest.

Mr. McGREGOR. It is a suggestion which I am submitting to you and to the committee with the idea that you think it over. Maybe it will not work, but I want to see highways built. In my humble opinion the way to build them is not to have controversy and so much muddy waters that we will not get anything accomplished. I am afraid we will not get any legislation if we have that.

If we can get a bill through I will support it, but it seems to me if we can have the Interstate System separate and distinct from the intrastate system as it is now affected by Public Law 350, you could put on an additional tax and leave the 2-cent gas tax revenue going back to the intrastate system as it is now, and we will have $175 million more for the urban, primary and secondary roads and no system of roads now in operation will be hurt in any way.

Secretary WEEKS. That is a thought which I think is not antagonistic to the general objective at all. As I say, I think it is a question of point of view. I am naturally for this bill, but we do not come here in any dogmatic frame of mind. We brought up something which we think will solve this problem in the best way, but as far as the administration is concerned, certainly it is your job, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to write the bill, and we want to be helpful to you in doing that.

Mr. McGREGOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Kluczynski.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. My questions have to do with financing, so I will take that up with Secretary Humphrey. I would like to give the Secretary an opportunity to pack up and be ready to leave tomorrow on his trip.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Mack.

Mr. MACK. Just before Mr. Auchincloss left he asked if he might have and I would like to have it too-a map of the primary highway system involved.

Secretary WEEKS. The Interstate System?

Mr. MACK. The Interstate System.

Secretary WEEKS. We have that.

Mr. MACK. I have not seen it, and Mr. Auchincloss has not seen it. Mr. DU PONT. We will supply as many as are necessary.

Mr. MACK. Like Mr. Kluczynski, I will defer my questions, which have to do with financing.

Secretary WEEKE. We will see that the members of the committee have some copies of this.

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Steed.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Secretary, so much has been said about the cost of the proposed project and so much has been said about the inadequacy of our present road system and the fact that it is going to be more inadequate in the years ahead, and in view of the fact that you made some comment about the cost of doing business in a plant which is outmoded or antiquated, would you care to comment now on how much it is going to cost the people of this country if we fail to do something with this road system of ours?

Secretary WEEKS. We have a booklet here where that point was raised by Mr. Dempsey. It demonstrates what the cost of inadequate highways is.

Mr. STEED. Do those studies indicate that it is going to cost the people of this country more not to build roads than it is going to cost them to build them, even under this plan?

Secretary WEEKS. I think this brochure here is designed to indicate that it will cost more if you do not build the roads than if you do build them. That would come about through the time and the safety factors, and every other factor involved. The sheet I am looking at is entitled "A High Price To Pay for Inadequate Highways."

Mr. STEED. So when we speak of the cost of the program before us we are actually speaking of a wiser course of placing the cost on the people of this country, which cost is going to be there anyway.

Secretary WEEKS. I think so, sir. Mr. du Pont says the charts will be submitted later by the Association of State Highway Officials. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Scudder.

Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Secretary, as I understand it, the testimony on the bill is to the effect that you contemplate taking all of the gas tax money now collected for the financing of this plan?

Secretary WEEKS. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. SCUDDER. In the last few years the moneys that we have authorized from this committee for highway matching funds have been geared very largely to the receipts of funds from the gas tax. Last year we authorized practically all of the gas tax money collected from highway users, farmers, airplane and motorboat transportation, and so forth, and it amounted to something in the neighborhood of $1 billion a year. We gaged our authorization on that basis for matching State moneys for primary and secondary highways throughout the country.

It seems to me that there is a duplication. We will have to come to the general Treasury for matching moneys for the Federal system on our primary and secondary systems; is that not true?

SECRETARY WEEKS. No.

Mr. SCUDDER. It seems to me you would if you are taking all of the gas tax money for this financing.

Secretary WEEKS. No. You first take out the $622 million, which covers the secondary and primary systems in the present 1954 act. It is estimated that the 2-cent tax on gasoline and special motor fuels will provide sufficient revenue to keep up the present secondary and primary road program at the present rate, which is the highest rate in our history. Additionally, over a period of 30 years it would service the bonds which are issued under this program. If, in any given year, or let us say 5 years from now, the country got in trouble or in war, or what not, and there might be a curtailment of gasolinetax revenues from this 2-cent tax, then the Secretary of the Treasury each year reviews the requirements, and he would not authorize the sales of any bonds and there would not be as much paid to the Corporation in that year. But if the country goes along under peacetime conditions and under normal conditions, then the use will build up and this 2-cent tax, as I say, is estimated to carry the present primary and secondary program, and to service the bonds put out to pay for this 10-year interstate program.

Mr. SCUDDER. We appropriated, did we not, some $200 million to the interstate system last year?

Secretary WEEKS. How much?

Mr. SCUDDER. About $200 million.
Secretary WEEKS. $175 million.

Mr. SCUDDER. That was the amount of money we authorized last year for interstate. What was the amount we authorized for primary and secondary highways?

Secretary WEEKS. Last year?

Mr. SCUDDER. Yes.

Secretary WEEKS. $622 million. The total program was $875 million. It is the first year in which we have had linkage, so to speak, where we have in effect taken the whole tax.

Mr. McGREGOR. Linkage is a bad word, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Secretary, what is the contemplated gas tax for the ensuing year?

Secretary WEEKS. About $1 billion estimate from the 2-cent tax for gas and special motor fuels.

Mr. SCUDDER. And the balance you feel is sufficient to finance this program over a 10-year period?

Secretary WEEKS. I did not understand that last question.

Mr. SCUDDER. The balance of the receipts from the gas tax, less the $622 million a year, you feel will take care of the Federal participation over a period of 30 years?

Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCUDDER. That is all.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Gentry.

Mr. GENTRY. Mr. Secretary, if your bond plan, which you support, goes into effect, immediately when it does go into effect the bond debt and the public debt of the people of this country through Washington will go up from about $279 billion to approximately $300 billion. Is that correct?

Secretary WEEKS. Not as I see it.

Mr. GENTRY. Let me ask you the question again. If this plan goes into effect just as you recommend it, will not the debt owed by the people of this country coming through Washington, through the Government, by act of Congress, be raised from $279 billion plus to approximately $300 billion?

Secretary WEEKS. I would not agree with that statement, no. Because these are in effect revenue bonds and are outside the debt limit? Mr. GENTRY. I did not say anything about the debt limit. I know you are evading the debt limit, but I am asking you if the debt of the people of this country through Washington is automatically raised if you get your program through from $279 billion plus, as it is at this time, to $300 billion, at that very minute?

Secretary WEEKS. Only to the extent that the 2-cent gas tax does not render revenue to pay for it.

Mr. GENTRY. I did not ask you that at all. I asked you the question, does not the debt owed by the taxpayers of this country, if your program is adopted as it is recommended this morning, go from $279 billion plus, as it is this morning, to $300 billion?

Secretary WEEKS. My answer is "No."

Mr. GENTRY. How do you say that? Do the people of this country owe this?