Secretary WEEKS. No.

Mr. GENTRY. The people of the country do not owe it?
Secretary WEEKS. No, not in my judgment.

Mr. GENTRY. Where is the money coming from that is going to pay for it?

Secretary WEEKS. The people who use gas and pay a tax on it, to that extent, owe the money.

Mr. GENTRY. It comes from the people?

Secretary WEEKS. Those who drive an automobile or a truck.

Mr. GENTRY. Now let me ask you another question. I want to ask you some questions about your toll provisions. If your plan goes through, there will be toll roads left all over the country, will there not?

Secretary WEEKS. There is liable to be.

Mr. GENTRY. I am not asking you is there liable to be. I am asking you will there be and will there have to be? Secretary WEEKS. No. Not necessarily. Mr. GENTRY. How is it not going to be?

Secretary WEEKS. Under this program, under the plan as provided in the bill, if the toll road has been built as a State aid and it is in operation and has been for 3 years, we consider that as an integral part of this interstate system, and then the bill authorizes the Corporation in effect to buy the road and pay it to the State. The State receives that money and they can do 1 of 2 things.

Mr. GENTRY. Yes, but does not the toll stay right there and do they not levy tolls on it?

Secretary WEEKS. Not necessarily. The State can take the money and retire the debt and make it a freeway, or put the money into the system.

Mr. GENTRY. Does not your bill require that they have to build other roads with it in order to get money for the toll road? Does the bill not require it?

Secretary WEEKS. No, sir. It does not. That is correct, Mr. du Pont; is it not?

Mr. DU PONT. That is right.

Mr. GENTRY. Then I cannot read the bill.
Secretary WEEKS. They may do either.

course.

They may follow either

Mr. GENTRY. Do you not actually know that these bonds of most of these States cannot be retired if they do not provide for it, and that they cannot be paid?

Secretary WEEKS. I cannot answer that question.

Mr. GENTRY. That is a fact. You cannot retire the bonds even in New York State.

Will let me ask you this question: Does not the bill go further than that, and does it not permit States, immediately if we pass your law, to go ahead and build toll roads themselves on the interstate system? Does it not permit the States to build these toll roads, and then you have to pay them the money if you approve the toll road, and they take the money and then build other roads and still keep their toll road with the public having to pay tolls on it for 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 years? Is that in your bill?

Secretary WEEKS. It is possible, but

Mr. GENTRY. No. It is not only possible, it is actually in the bill? Secretary WEEKS. I say under the terms of the bill it is possible. Mr. GENTRY. That is right. Therefore under the terms of this bill, if we pass your bill, a State that wants to-and that is what the States would have to do, and it is the only thing they could do, is to start building toll roads.

Secretary WEEKS. No.

Mr. GENTRY. I want to read you something, Mr. Weeks. This is a statement by Mr. Fred R. White, of Iowa. Mr. White has been the head of the Iowa State highway system for thirty-odd years up to about 2 years ago. In my opinion he is one of the finest minds in the country, and certainly I consider him the finest highway mind in the country. He is discussing your toll-road system, and he says this: By and large the only type of project that a State could afford to finance on the interstate system is a toll-road project under the advisory committees recommendations and under H. R. 4261 and S. 1160, which are based on the advisory committee's recommendations. A State could set up a toll-road project on the interstate system and issue revenue bonds to pay for the project, build the project, use such reimbursement credit which you would pay the State to build a project or projects on some other Federal-aid road not on the interstate system, and then go on to the next 35 to 40 years more or less collecting tolls on the interstate-system toll roads to pay off the revenue bonds issued on account of such toll-road project.

Mr. White continues:

The evil potentialities of such a proposal are very great. A State could use that procedure to compel traffic on the interstate system to pay for building Federal-aid secondary roads in that State. Under such a program the interstate road system for the next 35 to 40 years more or less would be spotted with tollroad sections. Such a system would coerce the States into building programs whether or not the State wanted such toll roads. Inevitably such a procedure would lead to the building of some sections of the interstate system as toll roads which were economically unsound.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Gentry, could I interrupt for a moment? Mr. Secretary, it looks like we will have to continue. I thought maybe we could run through to 1 o'clock and let you go. Could you tell me if this will meet with your schedule? I have asked for permission to sit while the House is in session this afternoon. No doubt it will be granted. We could continue until 12:30 and come back at 2 o'clock, or we could run through to fit your schedule.

Secretary WEEKS. You say you can adjourn at 12:30?

Mr. FALLON. Yes, for lunch, and come back at 2 o'clock.
Secretary WEEKS. Or do what?

Mr. FALLON. Or run right straight through for a longer period of time.

Secretary WEEKS. It would be better for me, I think, if I were to to go through to 1 o'clock. I am due at 2 o'clock before the Appropriations Committee on my budget, Mr. Chairman. If you can get me relieved from that I will be glad to stay with you. I would rather go along until 1 o'clock, if I could, though.

Mr. FALLON. Very well.

Mr. GENTRY. Mr. Secretary, you made the statement that you do not think this road program will be built unless it is done this particular way. Let me say I am very much in favor of building these roads, but I want to know why you say you do not think it can be done, or will not be done unless it is done in this particular way. Now why do you make that statement?

Secretary WEEKS. Well, I make the statement because this is taking a real bite at the interstate highway system in an endeavor to get a job done in 10 years. It is a big program-a $27 billion program—and I do not think that handling the matter as you have handled road construction under the Federal-aid program will accomplish it unless it is done in some such fashion as this.

For the record I would like sooner or later to have Mr. du Pont answer that, who I think knows Mr. White very well.

Mr. DU PONT. Very well, and I agree with everything that Mr. Gentry said about him.

Secretary WEEKS. I would like to have him have a chance to look at the letter and at a later session comment on what Mr. White has said. Mr. GENTRY. You speak of this Corporation. It has been said here that it has a veto power. Actually in case of any difference of opinion it has an absolute power, does it not? It is not just a veto power. They have the absolute and complete power if there is any disagreement about what should be done. Is that right?

Secretary WEEKS. They have control of the purse strings.

Mr. GENTRY. I am not talking about the purse strings, but I am talking about something far more important.

Secretary WEEKS. They will not give them the money if it is not in accordance with the general program.

Mr. GENTRY. This gives them the absolute power over the right-ofway if there is any disagreement.

Secretary WEEKS. No, I do not think so. Mr. du Pont?

Mr. DU PONT. The selection of the right-of-way is in the State and it must be initiated by the State.

Mr. GENTRY. Let me ask you this: Just why do you say you need a corporation outside of the regular authority, Mr. Weeks?

Secretary WEEKS. I think you have to have a corporate setup to issue the bonds. The Corporation would issue the bonds and sell them. I think the legal staff who drew the bill worked out that procedure.

Mr. GENTRY. Would you object to the Congress putting up this money without having a corporation? Would you object to their just putting it up through the regular revenue in the 10-year period instead of having a corporation do it?

Secretary WEEKS. You mean to make annual appropriations?

Mr. GENTRY. Yes. They borrow money all the time, they borrow it every day, just like the Corporation would do it, except that they borrow the money cheaper.

Secretary WEEKS. No, I would not approve of that.

Mr. GENTRY. Why, Mr. Weeks?

Secretary WEEKS. Because in the first place I do not think it can be done.

Mr. GENTRY. Wait a minute. I did not say that. I said if the Congress were willing to do it, what would be the objection to it? The objection would be, Mr. Weeks, that you do not want to take the direct onus of raising the national debt limit, but this raises the debt just the same, even though it is by a circuitous route. Is that not the reason?

Secretary WEEKS. I do not agree to that.

Mr. GENTRY. Why would you object to the Congress doing it then? If Congress is willing to do this they should be willing to vote the money directly. What objection would you see to that?

Secretary WEEKS. As I say, I am sure that Congress would not do that.

Mr. GENTRY. Why do you say that? I am saying if they did do it. I do not know why they would not do that if they would do this. Secretary WEEKS. I prefer the revenue bond approach.

Mr. GENTRY. You just prefer it?

Secretary WEEKS. Yes.

Mr. GENTRY. Why?

Secretary WEEKS. I think it is the best way to do it.
Mr. GENTRY. I know you do, but tell me why.

Secretary WEEKS. Because I think you have a job to do here and should earmark the 2-cent gas tax over a period of years to do it.

Mr. GENTRY. Let me tell you what the 2-cent gas tax does. You are taking all revenues up to 1987. The Pennsylvania Turnpike has been built for 10 years and already they are having to do a major overhaul on it. Now what will happen in 1964, 1968, and 1970, when this tremendous Interstate System needs repairs? Where is the money coming from? It is all obligated. That is where the question of disposing in interest payments of $12 billion in gasoline-tax receipts comes in. They are gone. You are paying it out in interest. This looks like you have your cake and eat it, too, but you have a high interest rate there from 1955 to 1987, and there is no provision for taking care of any major repairs to be done on the Interstate System. It looks good and everybody wants to build these roads, but what are you going to do about that? What about 1964, and 1970, and clear up to 1987 ?

Now let me call your attention to one thing. You have already called our attention to it also. We had 30 million cars on the road in 1945. In 1955 we have 58 million. You tell us that in 1965 or 1970 we will have 81 million and in 1987 we will have 100 million cars, possibly. What about using all revenues now that will be taken in up to 1987? No provision is made for reconstruction here. It is just left suspended in midair. The only reason why I question you on it, Mr. Weeks, is you obligate your entire gas tax up to 1987. It looks slick and it looks good, but you are leaving something that is undone and unsaid, and that is, What you are going to do to keep going on the Interstate System all of these years up to 1987?

Secretary WEEKS. I would like to ask Mr. du Pont to answer that question. There is an answer, and I think he has it available.

Mr. DU PONT. Congressman Gentry, first I would like to refer to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which you criticized.

Mr. GENTRY. No; I do not criticize it. I approve of it.

Mr. DU PONT. As to its deficiency. I grant you it is deficient. That particular highway would not be accepted. The subgrade on the entire Pennsylvania Turnpike is inadequate as to drainage. That facility was originally built with a PWA grant, you may recall, when some $30 million was given to take over an old railroad bed of a defunct railroad and build a turnpike on it. It was financed during those years of the depression by the RFC at a high interest rate, namely, 44 or 412 percent, so we have a project here where the engineering was entirely inadequate.

If any interstate highway were built today with Federal money like that highway was, I think you ought to close up the Bureau of Public Roads.

So much for my views as to the inadequacy of this particular road. Now, why is it necessary? Could you build the Panama Canal on an annual appropriation from Congress? No. Did they? No. Could you build the St. Lawrence seaway on an annual appropriation from Congress? You could if one knew the appropriations would be continued. But in order to undertake a project of this magnitude, in order to have industry, and to build up the engineering, it seems to me you have to have a setup like the Panama Canal or the St. Lawrence seaway to handle this and to have the economy geared for it.

Now, what happens in 20 years? I do not know what will happen, but what will happen in the meantime? Obviously, you face a situation in the meantime where there will presumably be more people, and they will need more facilities. In the meantime, you have not drained off or siphoned off funds at the State level, who, after all, build 70 percent of the highways, and they are free to go ahead and build other systems. If you are too hard pushed, you raise the taxes. Mr. GENTRY. But is it not true that the highway-system needs of the United States of America are almost without limit, and will they not be almost without limit on and on? It is a tremendously growing thing.

Mr. DU PONT. I hope so.

Mr. GENTRY. I know it has got to be. Let me call your attention to one thing. That is why I criticize this bond plan. The Christian Science Monitor-in my opinion, the greatest newspaper in the United States the next day after this thing came out had an article in it by Joseph C. Harsch, I believe it was, who is one of their writers, and a very fine writer. He said in speaking of your proposal why not have this same thing for the billions needed for education? He said it would be a little bit different, but only a step from one to the other. Mr. DU PONT. I do not think you can measure the proficiency of those who would be educated.

Mr. GENTRY. I call your attention to that because he is a learned man and he made that suggestion. He thought possibly this was all right, but he suggested why not do the same thing for that. Where does it lead us to?

Mr. DU PONT. We have no immediate revenue from the schools that we build.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. du Pont will be a witness tomorrow, Mr. Gentry. We do want to get finished with the Secretary.

Mr. GENTRY. All right.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Would you keep those questions until tomorrow then?

Mr. GENTRY. Surely. I will be glad to.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Becker.

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Secretary, one question seems to pop up here constantly. I am sure I have the answer. There will be no bonds issued until the bond needs are ascertained?

Secretary WEEKS. That is correct.

Mr. BECKER. In other words, as the money is expended the bonds will be issued. So there will be no bonds issued until the money is needed to do the work?

Secretary WEEKS. That is correct.