Mr. DONDERO. But it limits the amount that the Treasury can possess at any one time to $5 billion. In no case, General, can the United States Government hold more than $5 billion of these bonds. Is that not correct?

General CLAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DONDERO. I can see the reasoning of your committee as to why they put that safety valve in there, so to speak, in case the bonds are not sold as readily as it was intended. In that case the Treasury could come to the rescue of the construction program so that it would not lag.

General CLAY. It could come to the rescue to that extent and if by that time the bonds were not marketable or Congress were not provided appropriations to sustain them then the program could be cut back.

Mr. DONDERO. One other thing Mr. Gentry called my attention to is the fact that the people are paying considerable amounts of money now in using toll roads, far and above what an ordinary user does. You pointed out that it was a matter of choice. But, is it not a fact that for that extra cost you and I pay--and I also use toll roads-we are compensated or rewarded in return by safety in driving, more comfort on the highways, and accelerated speed which gets you to where you want to be quicker than you would get there otherwise? In the case of trucks, they use the highways for the purpose of saving time in the delivery of their product to the market. If it is vegetables, the foods will be fresher when they get there.

So those are rewarding items, it seems to me, that overshadow, or at least pay back to the user more than the user pays in the extra toll he pays on the toll roads.

Was that not a part of the consideration of your committee in the recommendation you made and the statements you made in your report to this committee? Is that not the basis for your statement?

General CLAY. Yes, sir. We believe where there is a satisfactory alternate route and you provide a luxury transportation route, that people will be willing to pay for it because of the benefits which they get.

Mr. DONDERO. I do not want to take too much time, but there is one other thing. I raised this question on the first day.

General Clay, I do not recall just what the explanation was for that period of time of 20 years between the time when construction will be completed, at the end of 10 years, and the time when the bonds will be liquidated. In other words, construction is to be finished in 10 years, and the bonds will run for 30 years. There is no provision in the bill as I read it which would provide in the 20-year period for money to be expended on the Interstate System, except maintenance by the States.

But, suppose that that system were to be enlarged, or money was to be expended on it, is there any provision for that in that period of time?

General CLAY. No, sir. If that were done it would have to be done because of the increased revenues available to the Government from other sources.

Mr. DONDERO. I have other questions in mind, but that is all the time I will take now, Mr. Chairman. It is 12 o'clock.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Dondero, General Clay has agreed to complete his testimony today. If you have further questions or wish to speak to

him further, the House is not in session today, so I move that we conclude with General Clay in order that he will not have to return at a later date.

Mr. DONDERO. I want to commend General Clay and his committee of which he was the Chairman, for the work they have done. At least you come forward with a definite proposal. It may not be a perfect one, but I do not think anybody else has suggested any better way. think you deserve commendation and praise not only of this committee and the Congress, but of the American people.

(Applause.)

I

Mr. JONES. I am sure, Mr. Dondero, that you speak the sentiments of this entire committee when you applaud the work of General Clay and his fine committee. Mr. Gray.

Mr. GRAY. It is late, Mr. Chairman, and I will pass today.

Mr. JONES. Before you leave, General, I would like to announce to the committee that when we adjourn we will adjourn until Tuesday next at 10 o'clock to hear Mr. Keith L. Seegmiller, executive secretary of the National Association of County Officials and three other witnesses from his organization. Also, Mr. Auchincloss would like to call and invite the full committee to attend a hearing on the bill for the construction of additional buildings for the Smithsonian Institute, tentatively set for 10 o'clock on next Friday. We hope to conclude that bill and go into executive session in I day if we have the

time.

Without objection, a statement received from the National Association of Township Officials, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, will be included in the transcript at this point. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

From: The National Association of Township Officials, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors.

By: H. A. Thomson, national president, Pennsylvania State secretary.

We appreciate the opportunity of presenting to the membership of this committee the viewpoint of township government upon the road problem being considered by your committee. We might note that our townships are responsible for a tremendous road mileage about one-half million miles and are naturally interested in any road problem as a road-construction program at any governmental level must inevitably effect our township roads which are largely of the rural character.

Basically our position may be stated as being in general in favor of more and better highways but we do feel that the rather revolutionary method proposed in legislation before your committee may, in the long run, do more harm than good as under its policy it will strengthen and enlarge an already large Federal Bureau at the expense of State and local governments.

Road building is now and has been historically a State and local function and in the case of our townships one of the largest functions of our township government. We believe it is still true in this function as in other governmental functions that the closer you can keep the government to the people the better that government will be and we are firmly convinced from our experience in our respective States that at the township level the township dollar expended for these governmental functions is producing more value in cents than the tax dollars collected and spent at the higher governmental levels.

We are not financial or economic experts and do not wish to comment at length upon the financial aspects of this legislation. They have been commented upon by experts and I might note in that connection that we particularly admire the statements made thereon by United States Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia, but we do recognize the fact that any financing program such as is proposed here which must inevitably speed up and increase inflation will inevitably as well produce less roads per dollar in the final analysis.

We would call to this committee's attention that our township road system is entirely ignored in this legislation and also to the fact that while our township roads do not carry great volumes of traffic still the traffic over those roads is important enough to the economy of this Nation and of far greater importance than the traffic count would indicate. We are, therefore, pleading for more help for our township rural road system. If this cannot be done in the legislation before your committee then more consideration should be given in the regular Federal aid legislation also considered by your committee. Not only allocation to secondary roads but more particularly in the attitude of the Federal Bureau of Public Roads toward the improvement of these rural road systems. It is the opinion of our organization that the Federal 2-cent tax on gasoline should be repealed. It would undoubtedly be reenacted promptly by the various States where it would also just as inevitably produce a far greater value in road construction than it will in the Federal field.

Again recognizing that this legislation carries no recognition of the township road system but gives overriding attention to the Interstate System which we suspect has been strongly influenced by commercial interests interested in longhaul transportation. We would call to your attention that all highways must serve local as well as interstate traffic and should be given equal consideration. We, very frankly, feel that this equal consideration has been lacking at the Federal level.

We are opposed to that part of this legislation which earmarks the Federal 2-cent gasoline tax for Federal budgetary requirements for road bonds. We again recommend the repeal of this tax and its assumption at the State level. We see a real danger in the creation of the Highway Corporation in this legislation. It will greatly expand Federal power and authority and in the highway field at least it will be a start of the complete assumption of control by the Federal Government over the State and local governments. This is a blow at the fundamental principle of our Government that the foundation of democracy is at the local level and we respectfully call the attention of your committee to this angle of the picture.

There is a serious question involved in the carrying out of the program as contemplated under this legislation. It contemplates an extensive system of limited access highways and from our standpoint and experience the destruction of property value and the very definite lessening of taxable valuation in many cases becomes a serious problem to our township units of government. I would call to your attention the situation where a limited access highway will replace what is presently a main through highway. We have here the actual destruction of assessable and taxable value by reason of the condemnation of valuable ground for the limited access highway itself. We have this damage compounded by the lessening of value on the existing through highway with its many services already constructed underway and with a tangible tax return to the local unit of government.

We also want to call to the attention that this Corporation that would construct these interstate highways at the Federal level has no controls whatever over their authority to condemn, close, and relocate intersecting roads and we have already found this to be quite a problem in some of our States in the matter of limited access highway construction.

We

In summary we recognize the need and importance of more, many more, improved highways in this Nation. We do not believe that the methods outlined in the present legislation are the proper methods of achieving this result. recommend the repeal of the 2-cent Federal gas tax and its reimposition by the respective States. We recommend a continuation of the present Federal-aid law on the present matching basis in which the State and local governments do have a slight say and in this connection recommend more consideration be given to the township road systems of this Nation which are the farm to market roads and as stated above of great importance to the economy of this Nation. These recommendations would result in the retention of State controls, the stopping of the greatly increased Federal bureaucracy which is becoming a real danger to our Government. The stabilization of the financial situation of the Federal Government, the saving of billions of dollars in interest and the even distribution of road revenue over the future years to meet changing conditions in our highway systems.

Mr. JONES. General Clay, let me again thank you on behalf of the committee and the Members of the House. If there is nothing further, the committee will adjourn.

(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned until 10 a. m. Tuesday, April 20, 1955.)

NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 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. Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting this morning is called for a continuation of hearings on H. R. 4260. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Keith L. Seegmiller.

Mr. Seegmiller, would you give your full name and title to the reporter, please?

STATEMENT OF KEITH L. SEEGMILLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS

Mr. SEEGMILLER. I am Keith L. Seegmiller, executive secretary of the National Association of County Officials. Another witness for our association this morning, Mr. Chairman, dovetails his statement pretty closely with mine. If it is acceptable I would suggest he come up and sit at the table with me. In that way he would be able to help if there are any questions back and forth. Mr. MacDougall. Mr. FALLON. Just as you wish. I see you have two separate statements. Do you want the separate statements in the record?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. Yes. I think we would like to read the separate statements too, Mr. Chairman. They are fairly short. They are alike in some respects, but they lend a little bit different emphasis. Mr. FALLON. You may proceed, Mr. Seegmiller.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. I am Keith L. Seegmiller, executive secretary of the National Association of County Officials. Ours is a nationwide organization of individual county officials including most of the county supervisors and country commissioners of the Nation, as well as a large number of county engineers, attorneys, clerks, and other county officials. Our organization has been closely associated with the Federal-aid highway program for more than 10 years. We urged extension of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944. Then and at all times since then we have been keenly conscious of the importance of adequate highways to the American economy. We have been ardent advocates of adequate appropriations for highway purposes and that continues to be our position. Our basic policy insofar as present highway problems are concerned was set forth in formal resolution by our association in July 1953, as follows:

The National Association of County Officials recognizes the urgent need for great improvement of our interstate system of highways and that the Federal

Government's responsibility for that system is not being met under existing law. Therefore, this association endorses the campaign now being carried on for more funds for construction of an adequate interstate highway system; provided, however, that this resolution is not intended to restrict the general highway policy of the association favoring continuance, with possibly some increased appropriation, of present Federal participation in the secondary highway program.

This policy statement indicates our recognition of the need for and our enthusiasm for seeking greatly increased effort to improve the interstate system. It also indicates the reason why we qualify that enthusiasm to some extent and it is upon this qualification rather than upon the major premise that I would like to elaborate before this committee.

Initially, secondary highways were neglected in favor of primary thoroughfares. This was understandable and perhaps inevitable but nevertheless it presented a difficult situation for persons living on secondary and feeder roads, most of whom looked to the county courthouses for government leadership to provide better roads. We found that fine, hard-surface roads at some remote part of the State were of no value to us. A hard-surface road, 20, 10, or even 5 miles away, we found, could not be used by a farmer who could not get his automobile over the intervening 5 or 20 miles of mud. Despite our desperate plight there was continuing demand for still better main thoroughfares and we had difficulty creating real awareness of our rural needs. In 1944 we came to Congress dramatizing the situation with the plea "to get us out of the mud." The extension of Federal aid to the secondary highway system by the act of that year and the continuation of it from time to time since that date has constituted genuine and substantial response to our plea. Much has been done to get farmers out of the mud, to provide them farm-to-market roads and school bus and rural mail routes.

However, all this has not been accomplished without opposition. The secondary highway system has never been accepted by some as a proper area for Federal aid. From time to time, throughout the last decade, there have been and now continue to be forceful elements urging elimination of Federal funds for the secondary highway system. This we think is intolerable, and we feel that protection against it is the duty largely of county officials as the official group having the largest share of responsibility for the secondary system. Our plea is no longer literally that we be taken out of the mud, but figuratively it is the same. In relation to modern needs a road reasonably adequate only a decade ago leaves us today in about the same relative position as when we were in fact in the mud.

We think the analogy between the circumstances today and those of 11 years ago is very close. There was then a conflict between the demands of the secondary system and increasing demands of the primary thoroughfares. Today that same conflict exists. The need is heavy in both areas and the funds to meet the needs are limited. Tremendous emphasis has been given to the interstate system and in this we have joined. Yet our secondary needs are competitive with that emphasis. We are somewhat apprehensive that the build-up may overshadow the needs of the secondary system. Indeed we wish it were possible to consider the entire matter without identifying separate systems We have, in fact, only one nationwide system of