ers of the respective counties, but the funds come from the State and the Federal Government. They get their allocations the same as the primary gets them, and they are going to continue to get them.

We of the Congress cannot earmark any future money during our term of office. In issuing bonds it is necessary to secure them. That is why it is recommended that so much of the gas tax essentially be set up to pay off the bonds. Otherwise we could not issue the bonds. However, it in nowise puts a restriction on the construction of secondary roads. As a matter of fact, in the years that I have been in Congress and I have been through three different adminstrations, I mean, the Roosevelt and Truman and Eisenhower administrationsit has only been very, very recently that there has been any recognition by the administrations that the gasoline tax had anything to do with those highways, because the States never got more than probably 25 or 30 percent of the amounts that were collected in gas tax.

Now it seems that we will get this entire amount. I assume in addition we will get whatever is necessary to do the job. I agree very much with your statement, but I do not share your fears that this would in any way affect the secondary road construction. I think the 1954 bill very vigorously recognized both secondary and primary road construction. As far as I am concerned, I am in favor of giving the States a more liberal authority for transferring from primary to secondary a greater percentage of the funds, because of this 40,000 miles of interstate roads which are going to be almost entirely financed by the Federal Government. To the extent that the States will not expend as much money on those 40,000 miles as they would ordinarily, those funds will be available for other purposes and they should help the secondary roads a lot. I am in favor of doing it.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. May I say I am pleased to hear your expression of confidence that there will not be a freezing. I do not think freezing is intended by the members of this committee or the authors of the bill. Mr. DEMPSEY. There cannot be a freeze by law.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. We hope there will not be.

Mr. DEMPSEY. We cannot freeze the future.
Mr. SEEGMILLER. Yes.

Mr. DONDERO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes.

Mr. DONDERO. There is one question I overlooked, Mr. Chairman. I underscored it in your statement as you were reading it. That was the statement to the effect that there were forceful elements in this country seeking to eliminate Federal funds for the secondary system. Do you mean that?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. I believe one national organization recommended that before the Senate committee 2 or 3 weeks ago, Mr. Dondero. Mr. SCHERER. What organization?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. If I am correctly informed, to the Farm Bureau Federation. I am not sure. I hate to identify it by name. I was told that information was given but unfortunately I was not present. Mr. FALLON. I happened to underscore the same sentence on page 2. I might say in the 11 years I have been on this committee I have never known of any testimony that I can remember that would ever do away with the secondary system, or even limit, or even cut down the funds for the secondary system. As a matter of fact, they have always been increased.

Mr. McGREGOR. Will the gentleman yield? There is at least one national organization that for many years has taken the position that no Federal funds should be used on farm-to-market roads. That is in the record. That organization has yielded somewhat now and is willing-in the 1954 act they said they recognized that the farm-tomarket roads were important and recognized them as a part of the Federal system, but for years there were a couple of organizations that did not see any use in spending Federal funds on farm-to-market roads and I certainly am not referring to the Farm Bureau-I feel certain they are in accord with a good road program.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. May I say, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Fallon, that I hope I am wrong in that statement. I hear quite a lot of comments around to that general effect and I hope that I am wrong.

Mr. DONDERO. I take the same position that our chairman does. I have been on this committee for a few years and it rather startled me to hear that.

Mr. GEORGE. I cannot conceive of the Farm Bureau opposing any kind of program that will help to build up the farm-to-market roadsystem.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. Perhaps I should amend my statement to say that I am not sure of that testimony.

Mr. McGREGOR. I think you should amend it and not name the organization.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. I will amend it. That was hearsay.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. George.

Mr. GEORGE. I want to ask another question or two. How many States now are having trouble matching their Federal aid on the farmto-market roads?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. Statewide I believe that there are none. A year or two ago there was some really serious trouble in Nebraska, but that has been cleared up. But as to individual counties, within a number of States they are having trouble. As Congressman McGregor said, they do not have much participation in Ohio, but those of them that do are hardly prepared to handle it.

Mr. GEORGE. How many counties or States would be in a position to match the Gore bill if it should become law?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. Fewer than those that are now matching it. It would impose an additional burden.

Mr. GEORGE. It would be less than half, or about half?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. It would go no more than half. If I were to make an estimate I would say a third rather than a half. Possibly a third. It would increase the burden on those that are having trouble bearing it now.

Mr. SCHERER. Will you yield?

Mr. GEORGE. Yes.

Mr. SCHERER. You mean a third would not be able to match under the Gore bill, or a third would?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. A third would not be able to.

Mr. GEORGE. I think it would be half.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. I am giving an estimate. I do not have exact figures.

Mr. BECKER. Was it not established in the record the other day that 29 States would not be able to match?

Mr. FALLON. I think so.

Mr. BECKER. That was in the testimony given the other day in a factual record.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. I would yield to a factual statement. I do not have the figures.

Mr. BECKER. 29 States was the figure.

Mr. GEORGE. 29 States on the whole Federal-aid system. But several States have different methods of financing their farm-tomarket road system. Some of them require the counties to put up the money and it does not come from State gasoline revenue. On that basis those counties would run into more trouble than your State would, even matching the Federal funds that are set up under the Gore bill.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. With authority in the State highway departments to transfer the secondary funds there is considerable flexibility, and in some States where certain counties have not been able to match they have been able either to transfer to State secondary roads or other counties. I believe that flexibility would tend to prevent an actual lapsing of a large amount of money, but it would impose a burden on particular counties quite heavily that they could not meet.

Mr. GEORGE. Many States are transferring their funds to the State secondary road system.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. A good many of them are. Oh, yes.

Mr. GEORGE. In reality that defeats the purpose of the county integrated system, which ties in all of the small towns and smaller cities with the State highway system. Because each State is limited in the miles they can have on their State secondary road system.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. It may tend toward that, but I think it ought to be qualified with this explanation. State laws vary quite widely in the relative responsibility of State and county governments to secondary roads. In some States where the major responsibility for secondary roads is State, then the major portion of the money goes through State channels and the actual result on highways works out just as well. In some States, where the major responsibility for secondary roads is counties, most of the money will go through the counties, and if it does not, then we are defeating the purpose.

Mr. GEORGE. The State of Kansas assumes the responsibility by imposing a 1-cent gas tax for matching Federal money on the county secondary road system. However, we are having trouble with the boards of county commissioners and county engineers in programing projects fast enough in order to use up even the present funds. So it is not due to lack of funds, but due to lack of advance planning in being able to stay ahead on the program.

I think we have possibly one of the better farm-to-market road systems in the United States for a State of 2 million people. I am worried if we expand this program very much on the farm-to-market road system, and out in the strictly agricultural areas which it is primarily set up for, as to whether it will not fall on the States, and they will not be able to perform satisfactorily. What do you have to say about that? Mr. SEEGMILLER. Our association would not ask for any expansion, or at least any substantial expansion of Federal-aid secondary appropriations at this time, or even for next year.

Mr. GEORGE. Under this reasoning you know of no reason why we should not go ahead with the present program proposed now, which

is primarily to take care of the strategic network in the United States? Mr. SEEGMILLER. No. My original point on that was we can see this year and perhaps next year and 2 or 3 years, but we cannot see for 30 or 40 or 50 years from now. But my only point was to warn against freezing for that time. If we were sure for 30 or 40 years we would have no other needs then we would have no objection.

Mr. GEORGE. Then we should not go on the assumption that the Members of Congress are going to stay static as far as future legislation on highways is concerned?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. We would like to have Congress have a free hand every time the question comes up, to give us whatever we need. Mr. GEORGE. We do have it every time a new session comes up. Mr. SCHERER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE. Yes.

Mr. FALLON. I would like to have us proceed in the regular order. If there are any questions, the members might wait their turn, because in that we will save time. There are many members who have not had their turn. If you wait until the others have asked their questions then we will come back to you.

Mr. Steed?

Mr. STEED. I pass.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Becker?

Mr. BECKER. I would like to say just this. That the county organizations are the grassroots of our Nation and ought to be considered a vital factor. I take it from your statement that you are completely in accord with the program on the Interstate System proposed in this legislation.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. Yes.

Mr. BECKER. You have only one objection to one of the major factors, which is the financing, that is, the deficit financing.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. And the only element there we would warn against is the financing scheme that would either restrict our present program or freeze us for the future.

Mr. BECKER. But there is nothing in the bill that does that. I think the statement has been made at various times that there is nothing in the bill that does freeze it.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. I hope that is so. We are a bit apprehensive of the provision that would earmark all of the Federal gasoline funds. above $621 million, or whatever the figure is, for the highways.

Mr. BECKER. I think Governor Dempsey stated that there can be no earmarking except from Congress to Congress. The thing that is done in this bill, it is my understanding, is that the Congress today is stating if the gasoline revenue on the 2-cent level remains as it is in the next 30 years we would continue to pay the $623 million a year, as well as pay off these revenue bonds on this construction program. The construction program would last for 10 years and the bonds would be paid off over a period of 30 years. That is the intent of this legislation, as I understand it. All of the testimony from the departments has been to that effect.

So if that is the case, then there is no objection?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. If it works out as Mr. Dempsey and you have stated, Congressman, there would be no objection. We do think that the present earmarking of $623 million of the gasoline funds for the present State and primary and secondary systems has a tendency to

ward freezing us at that level. I do not think it would require it. We are a little apprehensive it may be so construed in the future.

Mr. BECKER. I can understand your apprehension, but in the road program last year, in the hearings conducted by Mr. McGregor, the $623 million which was granted was about the maximum that seemed to be determined upon at that time, taking into consideartion the ability of the States to match funds and to get construction done. It was not a figure that was picked out of the air where we just sat down and said it will be $623 million, which is what Congress will pledge. It was done on a very obvious basis, namely, that the $623 million had to be matched by the States or the counties in the States. Therefore the figure was arrived at after considerable hearings before this committee. I think those who sat on the committee will remember all of the details. It was not an arbitrary figure of $623 million and that is all that the Congress would appropriate.

Now the Congress in the 85th Congress can change that figure to $750 million, or they can reduce it to any figure they desire. There is no question as to how much that figure would be, but it is determined that at the present thinking that is about the figure that can be matched. Even under that figure, you have testified there are various counties and States that are unable to keep up with matching those funds. So how are you going to determine a fair figure and say that this is going to be it for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. May I say I appreciate your expression of confidence. I hope my apprehension is ill-founded, but I did want to bring that apprehension to the attention of the committee.

Mr. BECKER. My statement is not merely a statement of confidence, but it is a statement of the action of the House of Representatives in determining upon a figure based upon facts that came before us as to both the need and the ability to pay in regard to matching funds by States and counties on the secondary and urban systems.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. I think I missed one element of your question— the point on which I should have commented, perhaps. What you have said is exactly right and we all agree with you now. We are not certain that will be true 40 years from now. That is our question. Mr. BECKER. I will not be here.

Mr. SEEGMILLER. No, neither will I, but counties will, I hope. Mr. BECKER. There is one other factor I want to get at and that involves another question, Mr. Chairman.

What we are doing here in this piece of legislation, and I think you agree in your statement on this, is that the Interstate System now is becoming in this legislation, as it has before, the obligation of the Federal Government to build. We are all agreed that the Federal Government should do it and should pay for it with the cooperation of the States insofar as planning is concerned on the layout of the system. We are not obligating anything else as far as the secondary system is concerned. Nor are we obligating the States as far as the secondary system is concerned in this particular legislation.

The other legislation you are talking about is completely separate and aside from that. Is that true?

Mr. SEEGMILLER. From the point of view of this bill, yes. would hope it would be, if that is the concept.

Mr. BECKER. That is my thought.

We