Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Alger.

Mr. ALGER. I have no questions at this time. I want to digest what I have heard and wish to compliment the gentlemen on their presentation. I have not had a chance to read your answers to the questions attached to your statement, since I wanted to listen to what you were saying. Will Mr. du Pont be back?

Mr. DU PONT. Yes.

Mr. DONDERO. There is one thing omitted and I hope you will let me ask a question concerning it. Is it so that we are now destroying about $4 billion worth of property on the highways annually?

Secretary WEEKS. I know we are destroying a lot. I do not know what the figure is, Congressman. It shows here $725 million in accidents. Commercial vehicle time losses would not be property losses.

Mr. DONDERO. The property loss as a result of collisions and accidents on the highways is what I am getting at.

Secretary WEEKS. It says, traffic accidents, $725 million estimated per annum; gasoline and tires, $550 million; and commercial vehicle time, $25 million, or a total of $2,100 million per annum. These figures are very interesting and I am sure they will be presented by the association to the committee later on.

Mr. DEMPSEY: Mr. Hull.

Mr. HULL. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Schwengel.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would like to make this observation. I am from Iowa and I know Mr. White very well, having served with him 10 years, and I agree with what you say about his honesty and integrity.

Mr. GENTRY. I want you to tell Mr. Weeks he is a very strong Republican too. He is Mr. Weeks' kind of Republican.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I want to say this in all fairness in this hearing. In Iowa our people recognize Fred White as antitoll road, as has been noted here. I think he has a good reason for that and he has a right to take that position, but it should be noted.

I have some questions. 1. The 2-cent gas tax at the present time is on the books as an emergency tax.

Secretary WEEKS. It is an excise tax.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Originally it was and it is still enacted as an emergency tax.

Secretary WEEKS. Originally it was.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. If we pass this legislation it would become a permanent tax for at least 30 years?

Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir. Presumably.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is an area where the Governors and legislators for years have said it is an area that belongs to the States. Secretary WEEKS. Yes.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Have you explored every possibility of returning that 2 cents to the States and then obligating the excise tax on automobiles?

Secretary WEEKS. I do not know for a fact whether the excise tax on automobiles has been considered, but I know over the years since I have been here there have been some discussions on whether or not the tax should be yielded to the States, which, as you rightly point

out, most always regarded that as their field, so to speak. But I would say regardless of what happens in this particular bill, you will probably have a 2-cent tax allocated to roadbuilding in some

manner.

I would like Mr. du Pont to enlarge on those comments because he has been closer to it than I have been in that respect.

Mr. DU PONT. You are quite correct. The 2-cent tax was initiated in 1932 as an emergency tax, and it does require reenactment. It was extended last year and should become a permanent tax.

I think insofar as giving it to the States, there are only 2 States to my knowledge who, in anticipation of that possibility, have passed legislation which automatically would enact the 2-cent gas tax at the State level. Insofar as the States are concerned, I think the Governors who have formerly maintained the position that they should be given this field, reversed themselves for the first time at last year's meeting of the Governors at Boltons Landing. In my opinion, the States would fare not nearly so well, because first of all they must enact the tax, and secondly, they must dedicate it to highways. Third, at the State level you have the kickback to the farmers for nonhighway use. In a State like South Dakota, it runs to 30 percent, they would get that much less cash.

Furthermore, the present distribution of Federal highway funds is in accordance with a formula. About 12 States very materially augment the other States. So as a practical matter I cannot see why a majority of the States would prefer to have legislation under which they get less money than the are now getting.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. My point is, as I read your bill, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, and any of the States who may not build toll roads, might be penalized under the terms of this bill.

Mr. DU PONT. They might be penalized on the interstate system money, but not on the others.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Because you have the 3-year clause in there and you will give the State credit for building toll roads in the last 3

years.

Mr. DU PONT. No. The distribution of the interstate money is predicated on the needs as prepared by the 48 States. Obviously the needs on the interstate system in dollars are greater in those areas where there is a high concentration of population.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. And under the present setup they are paying for part of the roads in other areas?

Mr. DU PONT. That is right. A very substantial part; and will continue on the primary and secondary. But the interstate money is distributed among the States, predicated on their percentage of the estimated total need.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Are there figures available which will show how much excise taxes, automobile, gasoline, oil, and so forth, are collected by the various States?

Mr. DU PONT. I can give it to you for the total.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. You do not have it broken down by States?

Mr. DU PONT. I do not know. Do you know whether they are available by the States? Our counsel says they are.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Could you furnish the members of the committee with a copy of that?

Mr. DU PONT. The excise taxes?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes.

Mr. DU PONT. I presume you want lubricating oil and automobiles, and motorcycles, and trucks, and so on. Also parts and accessories, and tires and tubes.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. And the excise on the automobiles.

Mr. DU PONT. Automobiles and motorcycles are in one category. Mr. FALLON. I think the committee has the figures for which you are asking.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Fine. That is all.

Mr. FALLON. Does anybody have any more questions of Mr. Weeks? (No response.)

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Weeks, on behalf of the committee I want to tell you that we appreciate very much your appearing here and your interesting and comprehensive statement, and the intelligent manner in which you answered the interrogations of the committee. We do appreciate your coming, and wish you a very happy trip.

Mr. SCHERER. I would like to make one observation before you adjourn, in connection with the testimony today. The testimony has been that if this system--the Interstate System-was built as provided by this legislation, that the operating costs of passenger vehicles would be reduced by 1 cent a mile. As I understood Mr. du Pont, he stated that there are 500 billion miles of traffic by motor vehicles over all of the highways.

Mr. DU PONT. Half a trillion.

Mr. SCHERER. That would be 500 billion. That would mean on the Interstate System since it carries one-seventh of all the traffic you would have about 71 billion miles, and if the saving was 1 cent it would amount to $710 million a year saving to the public as a minimum. That is because, as you point out, much of that mileage is trucks, and the saving on trucks is 4 cents a mile. So you would have a saving of around $850 million a year if the Interstate System as proposed were to be built today.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you very much.

Mr. WEEKS. Could I say that while I am away Mr. Rothschild, the Under Secretary for Transportation, joined by Mr. du Pont and our counsel, Mr. Ray, will be available at any time you want them.

Mr. FALLON. I would like to make an announcement. Tomorrow at 10 o'clock, Mr. du Pont, we would like to have you here, and Mr. Curtis. Also if it is possible for Mr. Rothschild and Mr. Ray to be here, we would appreciate that, so tomorrow can be spent with your Department and the Bureau of Public Roads.

With no objection, the committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Tuesday, April 19, 1955.)

NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM

TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1955

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:15 a. m., in room 1304, New House Office Building, Hon. George H. Fallon presiding.

Mr. FALLON. Gentlemen, this is a continuation of the hearing on H. R. 4260.

We have with us today as witnesses Mr. du Pont, Mr. Curtiss, Mr. Rothschild, Mr. Ray, and Mr. Turner, who will be prepared to answer any questions on this bill that the members might want to ask.

I have two reports here, one from the Treasury Department and one from the Bureau of the Budget. Without objection I would like to have them put into the record at this point. (The documents referred to are as follows:)

Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY,

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington 25, D. C., March 28, 1955.

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request of February 24, 1955, for the views of the Treasury Department on H. R. 4260 and H. R. 4261, bills to create a Federal Highway Corporation for financing the construction of the National System of Interstate Highways.

The financing plan of the bills embodies the general financing principles contained in the Clay committee's recommendations, and we believe that this is a feasible plan. The approach used in the bills is fully consistent with our belief that funds for highway purposes should be provided out of highway-user revenues. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to your committee, and that enactment of the bills would be in accord with the program of the President. Very truly yours,

G. M. HUMPHREY, Secretary of the Treasury.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington 25, D. C., March 21, 1955.

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of February 24, 1955, requesting the Bureau of the Budget to comment on H. R. 4260 and 4261, to create a Federal Highway Corporation for financing the construction of the National System of Interstate Highways; to amend and supplement the FederalAid Road Act approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented, and for other purposes.

In his highway message of February 22, 1955, to the Congress the President emphasized that the Federal Government should give top priority to completion of the National System of Interstate Highways. With respect to financing, he recommended "planned use of increasing revenues from present gas and diesel oil taxes, augmented in limited instances by tolls."

Since the above principles are embodied in H. R. 4260 and H. R. 4261, I am authorized to advise you that enactment of either bill would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Dondero.

HAROLD PEARSON, Assistant Director.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the discussion on the bill I made the statement that the American people are now suffering about a $4 billion loss annually through accidents and otherwise on our American highways. An answer came back, either from Mr. du Pont or one of the other members of the delegation, to the effect that it was $2,100 million, or only half as much.

This morning, when this brochure was handed around, I noticed that the $2,100 million applied only to losses on the Interstate System and not to the rest of the highways of the United States.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALLON. Our first witness this morning is Mr. C. D. Curtiss, Commissioner of Public Roads. I notice the members all have a copy of Mr. Curtiss' statement in front of them. Mr. Curtiss, you can go through your statement entirely, or highlight it and leave your complete statement in the record as you wish.

STATEMENT OF C. D. CURTISS, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC ROADS, ACCOMPANIED BY LOUIS S. ROTHSCHILD, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR TRANSPORTATION; FRANCIS V. DU PONT, SPECIAL CONSULTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE; PHILIP A. RAY, GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (RESUMED); AND F. C. TURNER, ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS

Mr. CURTISS. Very well.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, H. R. 4260 and the several other similar bills before you for consideration (H. R. 4261, H. R. 4364, H. R. 4518) are indicative of the nature of activity in the highway field since the Bureau of Public Roads appeared before this committee last year. At last year's session of the Congress this committe held extensive hearings following which there was authorized by the Congress the largest Federal-aid highway bill in our history, the Federal-ad Highway Act of 1954.

STATUS OF THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM

The 1954 act authorized $875 million of Federal-aid highway funds for each of the fiscal years 1956 and 1957. The funds authorized for the fiscal year 1956 were apportioned to the States effective July 1, 1954. The 1957 fiscal year funds must be apportioned not later than January 1, 1956.

Funds apportioned for the fiscal year 1956 were immediately available for use by the States, and many States were in position to initiate