ury to make up a deficit in the highway trust fund created by an acceleration of the highway program that Congress directed.

I do not want us to give the impression that every time the program gets in a hole, the Congress will rush out with a new tax in order to make up the deficits. I would rather see a practical approach and live within the agreement as originally made.

I would like to have any comments that you care to make, or you may just consider that a speech on my part and let it go into the record.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mason.

Mr. MASON. I want to follow up Mr. Simpson's line of questioning.

The fact that we speeded up last year from our standpoint does not mean that we believe that this should be carried on indefinitely, but we realize that in the very fact that we forced a speedup, that you set machinery into gear, that now if the following year that machinery is held up it will cause a tremendous amount of serious damage to our economy and to the highway program.

So that means that we are not increasing the total amount, and this $12 billion deficit that we envision is not a result of that speedup or had nothing to do with that speedup. It is a result of the underestimate made in the first place and the increased costs and so forth, so that now we know it is going to cost $12 billion more and we must face up to that $12 billion increase.

Perhaps we can face up to it more intelligently after we get the 1961 report so that we will know just where to place that additional burden, and upon what sections of our economy, or sections of our population the additional burden must be placed.

I feel that we just have to keep this program going, after putting all this machinery into gear, so as not to lose the benefit of this speedup. But I do not see that we want it to cost any more or to extend the program or any of those things.

I think we have to make some temporary arrangement for carrying on the program about as it is going now, and then we must spread this additional load as equitably as we can upon the different sections of our economy and the different groups of our population.

That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baker will inquire.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Bartelsmeyer, referring to page 6 of your testimony, the second and third paragraph, you state:

In recent days, however, an interpretation of the Commerce Appropriations Act of 1960, Public Law 86-88, indicates that the current trust fund shortage will cause the States to be delayed in receiving prompt Federal reimbursement for contracts already underway. It is anticipated that this delay would start this fall and continue into the spring of next year.

That is the meat of the coconut as of the moment. Let us see if you agree with me that the present situation is as I shall undertake to state it.

Section 209, subsection (d), of the Highway Act of 1956, Public Law 227, simply states:

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the trust fund as repayable advances such additional sums as may be required to make expenditures referred to in subsection (f).

That is the authorization to appropriate money from the general fund into the trust fund. We agree on that so far, do we not? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Yes.

Mr. BAKER. Referring to the specific reference you made to the Commerce Appropriation Act of 1960, which I have before me, page

12

for carrying out the provisions of title XXIII, United States Code, to remain available until expended, $2,840 million or so much thereof as may be available in and derived from the highway trust fund.

In the debate on the Senate floor, it was said:

Amendments to the Federal-aid highway trust fund to more clearly pinpoint the deficit in the highway trust fund, from which these highway funds are to be appropriated.

To me, that simply means that the Commerce Appropriation Act of 1960 did nothing that is not already existing law.

Do you agree with me on that? That is, it will still take an appropriation, the appropriation process, to take any money from the general fund and put it into the trust fund, just as contemplated in the act of 1956?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is correct.

Mr. BAKER. I can see no question but that is the situation.

So then what happened a few days ago simply pinpointed that that has to be done by appropriation process. You both agree on that? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Yes.

Mr. BAKER. I have one question and then I am through.

This being the last day of the hearings, it seems to me, and I would like your comment, that to meet the temporary emergency, regardless of long range, if you eliminate bonds, you must either increase taxes to some extent or avail ourselves of section 209 of the Highway Act by transferring money from the general fund to the trust fund, or a combination of both. Is that right?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is right.

Mr. BAKER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Bartelsmeyer, let me get into this record, if I may, just what we did in 1958 since reference has been made two or three times to the 1958 act.

As I remember, we increased the total authorizations for apportionments to the Interstate System from $24,825 million which was in the 1956 act to a new total of $25,625 million by increases of this sort.

For fiscal year 1958 we authorized an increase in apportionments from $2 billion to $2.2 billion. In 1960, we authorized an increase in apportionments from $2.2 billion to $2.5 billion. For 1961 we authorized an increase in apportionments from $2.2 billion to $2.5 billion.

It has been my understanding, and if I am in error I want to be corrected, that that action was taken by the Congress, initially by the Public Works Committee of the House, because the States had been able to move forward with this program in its inception somewhat more rapidly than had originally been considered the States could. We thought when we passed the 1956 act it would not be possible for you to contract more than $2 billion in authorizations. The States

said they could manage $2.2 billion. So overall, the Congress was going along with the increased availability of the States to make

contracts.

Is that not true? We did not direct you to speed up any program. That was not your understanding of it, was it? You were the ones that were in the process of being able to utilize more money on the basis of greater progress made in the development of your plans, programs, and your projects.

We were trying to answer the needs of the States, as I understood, at the time for these increased authorizations for funds, that you could use them, in excess of what you thought you could at the beginning. Is that not the case?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Yes. The States were able to accelerate the program. On top of that, we were actually called before the Public Works Committee of the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. You were asked to see if you could accelerate?
Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true. I remember that. But the total result of this acceleration, from whatever cause it came, was $800 million for 3 years; is that right?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Well, it is in that vicinity.

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. It is the difference between $24,825 million and $25,625 million. That is the acceleration. You have said that in order to complete this program by 1975, there must be an authorization of at least $21/2 billion each year between now and then. Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that not true?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not see that we can expect during the period between now and 1975 to be able to reduce the authorizations and complete it by 1975. Is that true or not?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is true; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We just got into the realistic figure of what it takes to complete the program between now and 1975.

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And any reduction in that figure for any period of time means you cannot complete this system by then.

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Any reduction will extend the program beyond 1975, the completion date.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the issue, then. Do we want to spread it out by reducing apportionments until sometime in the future so that it will not be completed in 1975, but perhaps completed in 1980? That would be the result of this.

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the highway officials think it ought to be completed by 1975 or 1980?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. We think it should be completed in 1975. The CHAIRMAN. What difference does it make for that 5-year period! What is involved?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Well, for one, the intent of the Congress is to provide a facility for the year 1975.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the whole purpose of it, was it not, when we undertook it-to have it through by 1975?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The demands that we envisioned in 1975 require this system. The demands that we can envision today in 1980 are going to require more than this; are they not?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. There is no question about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, we thought we could complete it by 1972 and have it paid for, but the target date was 1975 all along, that we wanted to have everything completed in this program by that time. Isn't that true?

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. We fixed for 1972. The last apportionment was 1969, and we brought it up to 1972. We had to do that because of the amounts we allocated to it, to get the overall amount of money that we wanted. The actual target date is 1975. That is assuming we will complete it if we apportion no less than $2.5 billion in each of the years.

Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is right.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mason?

Mr. MASON. You have thrown light on this subject. I did not understand the speedup was as you have pictured it. If that is true, then we must not let this road machinery be dismantled or anything or we are not going to meet the target date, if we permit it to slack up any 1 year. So it is our job to keep it going to that extent in order to meet that target date.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson, will you do this for me: Will you provide for us, and we will include it in the record at this pointand I would like to have the charts by not later than 10 o'clock Monday morning-charts showing how apportionment should be made in the opinion of your experts in order for this system, costing $36 billion or $38 billion, or whatever it will cost, to be completed by 1975?

Mr. JOHNSON. It will be done.

The CHAIRMAN. Take the level of apportionments of $2.5 billion for each of the intervening years. My mathematics leads me to the conclusion that somewhere along the line some apportionments must be even greater than that in order to get all of it in and be assured of completion by 1975. Is that true? Will you get those charts up? Mr. JOHNSON. We will have that for you; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Show us about what would happen if we make apportionments of that amount over the period of this time, and also what our expenditures will be.

Will you prepare a chart that will have those lines on it?

Mr. JOHNSON. It will be here.

The CHAIRMAN. I know if you make apportionments this year, you do not spend it all in 1961, but you just begin to spend it in

1961.

Can you do that and have it in our hands by not later than 10 o'clock Monday morning?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

(The chart to be furnished follows:)