Mr. DU PONT. Senator Thurmond, I think we might go back to the days of Napoleon. I know we can all go back to the days of the last war when the Autobahns were built in Germany in anticipation of the war. Your statement is absolutely correct. Our military effectiveness is predicated purely on getting it where we need it. And I think it is a fortunate coincidence that that same system is the system which keeps our economy going that can support the military. In other words, our military is dependent upon our economy.

The same system that will serve the military, with the few exceptions that I mentioned, is the system that develops and makes possible the expansion of our economy.

I would like to give you one little illustration on the strangulation effect we get due to inadequate highways. On United States Highway No. 1, between Trenton and New York, it became so plugged with traffic that the flow became stagnant. Business along the highway deteriorated materially. It became a very annoying, a very acute problem. The State of New Jersey, in order to relieve this situation, commenced the survey and construction of Route 101, which parallels United States Highway No. 1. The State was not able to finance that project. Today this is the New Jersey Turnpike. It is about 118 miles in length. The construction of a toll road gave some concern on the part of the businesses along United States Highway No. 1 as to what the effect would be, but the situation had gotten so terrible they did not care. When the New Jersey Turnpike opened up, of course, you first had a surge of traffic much of which was prompted by curiosity. Depending on where a toll road is, and the season of the year, and other factors, you should not evaluate the success of such a road within possibly a year, because traffic will vary greatly and finally level off and then start upward as a rule.

Within 22 years the New Jersey Turnpike was carrying as much traffic as United States Highway No. 1, and United States Highway No. 1 had 5 percent more traffic than it did originally. In other words you had removed much interstate traffic and put it on a toll road; this made it possible for business to return to normal, and in fact increase along United States Highway No. 1.

It seems to me it is obvious that had that particular route or toll road not been constructed, or had not an interstate route of sufficient capacity been constructed, that area would have become stagnated because of lack of transportation. And you have the conditions which come with stagnation, reduction in property values, dwellings, and all that, and a moving away from that area. We can give you a number of similar illustrations. I think that illustrates the importance of the Interstate System.

And then you come to the problem of how much should a State invest in a highway when 90 percent of the traffic never stops in New Jersey, but comes on down through Delaware, Maryland, etc. I do not know where it goes.

Senator THURMOND. Do you feel that our national defense is definitely hampered unless we do build and maintain an effective and efficient highway system throughout the Nation?

Mr. DU PONT. I feel our national defense is predicated on our economic well-being. I believe that highways are essential for the expansion of our economy. Inasmuch as the national defense is predi

cated on that, my first answer is "Yes." Insofar as the extent to which the military needs are deficient, I must defer to those who know more about it than I.

Senator GORE. Senator Neuberger?

Senator NEUBERGER. You mentioned the Clay report several times, Mr. du Pont. I would like to ask you a few questions about the Clay report, if I may.

The Governor of my State came to my office very concerned about the proposal in the Clay committee report that special credit be given to toll roads. I come from a State with vast distances but only 1 percent of the national population. What is your feeling about that portion of the Clay committee report?

Mr. DU PONT. I think it will be quite controversial. There are many who believe in the toll facility. There are many who are opposed to it. Just what the superior judgment of the Congress may be as to the way to deal with them I am not at liberty to suggest. I have not heard. I believe there is a place in our economy for certain toll roads.

Senator GORE. May I suggest that the question of the Senator was with respect to credits allowed in allocation of funds.

Mr. DU PONT. I would prefer to defer that until it really comes up as a consideration for toll roads. I might even have an idea to suggest to the committee myself at that time. The toll roads are with us. We have them. What are we going to do about them?

Senator NEUBERGER. My Governor came in-not of my political party, but because I am on this subcommittee-very concerned about this. What I am interested in, Mr. Chairman, is this: Can we get some information from Mr. du Pont that will enable people who are relatively uninformed as I am to pass on this? If not, it seems to me this meeting is utterly useless.

My only experience until 6 weeks ago in politics, was in our State legislature. To show that there is no partisanship in my remarks: it is one of the most Republican legislatures in the Nation, General Martin. But we had people come in from the State highway commission or the State board of health and they did give us some information we could use to pass on State legislation.

I have gotten nothing today except some quotes from the President and some quotes from the Almanac about highway mileage. These are controversial things in my State, about the Clay Committee report, that you have quoted from.

Again I get back to my question. The Clay Committee report proposed certain financial credits to the States operating toll roads. Do you think that is advisable or inadvisable?

Mr. DU PONT. I am not prepared at this time to express my views because that is not the matter that is under consideration, and may not even be in the legislation.

Senator NEUBERGER. You have quoted from the Clay Committee report. If you have quoted from it in your previous statement, why can't you comment on other portions of it?

Mr. DU PONT. I simply say that that is one of the things to be considered. I would be very happy, when the program is developed by the committee, to personally discuss the matter with you or anyone else, or go to your State with your Governor.

61030-55

Senator GORE. You have always been forthright before this committee. I doubt if you want to assume the position of not wishing to even comment upon the Clay report which has been made public and which, as you say in your statement, has been widely circulated. Each committee has had a copy. The press has had a copy. All Members of Congress have had copies. You have had a copy. It seems in fairness to your own record that you might not hesitate to express an opinion, a personal opinion.

After all, you are not an employee of the Federal Government. You have had vast experience. You might be willing, it seems to the chairman, to express a personal view. If you do not wish to you will not be pressed.

Mr. DU PONT. I do not feel that this is the opportune time because this section may not even be in the bill.

Senator GORE. We are not talking about the bill. We are talking about the Clay report. I have a few questions that I want to submit to you with respect to the Clay report. But if you take the position that you do not wish to discuss the Clay report, then of course you will not be pressed.

Mr. DU PONT. I appreciate it. I will be very glad to discuss anything in the Clay report at what I consider the opportune time-in other words, after it is a matter reduced to legislation because I feel that a number of recommendations there will not be in the legislation. Senator GORE. You do not think it is proper for this committee to take cognizance of the Clay report until it has been approved or not approved by higher authorities?

Mr. DU PONT. I think it is entirely proper to discuss any of the factual data. I do not think it is proper to discuss the policies that may be included in the legislation that may be presented.

Senator GORE. Thank you, Mr. du Pont.

The committee will now hear Commissioner Curtiss. Mr. Curtiss, this is your first appearance before this committee. You are here in the capacity of Commissioner. I wish to congratulate you upon your promotion, upon the position which I think you honor. Will you, since it is your first appearance, identify yourself as to the status of your citizenship and the experience you have had in this particular field?

STATEMENT OF C. D. CURTISS, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC ROADS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. CURTISS. My name is C. D. Curtiss and I am Commissioner of Public Roads. I have been with the Bureau of Public Roads since July of 1919, about 351⁄2 years. Prior to that time I had service with a highway unit in World War I. Previous to that I was with the Iowa Highway Department and for a time with the Michigan State Highway Department.

Senator GORE. You do not have a prepared statement?

Mr. CURTISS. No; I do not have a prepared statement. I have several exhibits which I wish to submit for the information of the committee and for the record if you choose.

Senator GORE. The committee will be pleased to receive from you whatever information you desire to submit, bearing upon the need of the country for more highways.

Mr. CURTISS. I would like to mention first the way in which up to now the Congress has been meeting the ever-increasing demand for more highway improvements. The 1948 Federal-Aid Highway Act authorized $450 million for each of 2 fiscal years. The 1950 act increased that to $500 million. Neither of the two acts carried anything specifically for the Interstate System. The 1952 act was increased to $575 million for each of 2 fiscal years, with $25 million of this amount authorized specifically for projects on the Interstate System.

The 1954 act, which authorized appropriations for the fiscal years 1956 and 1957, increased the amount to $875 million, of which $175 million was specifically authorized for the Interstate System.

S. 1048 would increase the total authorization for those 2 years, 1956 and 1957, to $1,600 million, of which $500 million would be for the Interstate System. The chairman has already placed in the record the apportionment among the States of the authorization under the 1954 act for the fiscal year 1956; also a tabulation showing by States the approximate amount which each State would receive if S. 1048 were enacted.

Senator GORE. With respect to those apportionments, Mr. Commissioner, do you think the formula developed through the experience of the Congress and the Bureau of Roads in cooperation with the State highway departments is a reasonable, equitable formula?

Mr. CURTISS. I think they are with respect to the three what you might call, regular programs the primary, secondary, and urban funds. If it is the wish of the Congress for improvements to proceed on the Interstate System at a reasonably uniform rate, a formula based on population would come more closely to meeting that situation than where the other two factors of area and post road mileage are used. That is a recommendation that we made when the 1954 act was under consideration.

Senator GORE. S. 1048 would make two changes in the Interstate System to which you have just referred. It would increase the Federal authorization from $175 million to $500 million per annum, and it would change the matching formula from a 60-40 basis to a 2-1 basis, the Federal Government providing two-thirds of the cost and the States providing one-third of the cost. What was your reaction upon this suggested amount and method of matching?

Mr. CURTISS. In the absence of a report by the Department I do not think I am in a position to comment on the amount further than to say that with an estimate of $23 billion to bring the system to an adequate standard in the next 10 years, that the $500 million would provide with State matching funds about $730 million a year for the Interstate System, which would mean it would take, with those funds, uch longer than 10 years to bring it to an adequate standard.

Senator GORE. S. 1048 would approximately double the present highway program for the next 5 years. Would you be in a position to comment as to the adequacy of materials and construction facilities to expand to that extent during the next fiscal year, and the succeeding fiscal year?

Mr. CURTISS. Based on studies that were made for the Clay committee by the American Road Builders Association I think that there is adequate capacity to provide material and equipment to handle a program of that size.

Senator GORE. Heretofore there have been suggestions that a doubling of the present highway program would severely tax materials and construction facilities. Do you think that those facilities are available?

Mr. CURTISS. If they are not immediately available I am satisfied that they would be by the time such a large program could be brought into being.

Senator GORE. Do you think that those facilities would be available for the next fiscal year and the following fiscal year in larger quantities than a doubling of the program?

Mr. CURTISS. I think they would toward the end of that period. Perhaps not immediately.

Senator GORE. Toward the end of the second fiscal year?

Mr. CURTISS. Yes.

Senator GORE. Would it be your opinion then that we should have a program that would gradually increase in amount, a program that would progressively accelerate the building of highways.

Mr. CURTISS. I think the advantage of your 5-year program is that it gives notice to those concerned with the production of materials and equipment and the contractors that there is a program of some length on which they can count in making plans to provide for it. I do not think it would be necessary to move into it slowly by reduced authorization.

I have a chart here (fig. 1) that I want to show the committee which shows how we are moving into the program that was authorized last year. There are six steps in our Federal-aid program procedure following the authorization by the Congress and apportioning among the States of the funds. On this chart are shown the six steps.

The vertical component is in millions of dollars and the horizontal component is time in months. Each chart shows the progress in ad