I do not look with favor at all upon the borrowing of money for this purpose to be paid back at some future date out of a fund that we know right now will not have enough in it to pay the bonds. I think we have to figure out some way to get some additional money for this program if the program is to cost $36 to $38 billion and is not to be curtailed or disrupted or slowed down. I appreciate the fact that you assure us that the American Municipal Association, made up of all of the fine officials of this country, will support the committee in its approach to that financing problem. Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. The mayors supported the Congress before in the increase in the tax rate, and I believe, sir, individually, that they would again if that is necessary. The CHAIRMAN. Would they go so far as to support the committee if the committee should decide that in this interim period, at least, it would be necessary to provide for some increase in the gasoline tax? Mr. WEST. I think so; yes, sir. I certainly do. I think if the Executive feels like an additional tax is necessary, the legislative furnish that and label it as such. The CHAIRMAN. Dedicated for this purpose of building roads? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir; I sure do. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the people that make up the cities where these problems are so great will go along? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir; if they are included in the program. The CHAIRMAN. Well, they are not going to be excluded, I am sure, because you recognize, I guess, and I know you do, that the majority of the House of Representatives is made up of people who come from rather sizable municipalities. Mr. WEST. I am certainly delighted to hear that, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The situation is not what it used to be when I first came to Congress, at least. The majority then of the representation in the House came from rural areas. The majority now come from Nashville and communities of your size. Mr. WEST. Well, I am certainly delighted to hear that. The CHAIRMAN. That is this increase in population that you have been talking about in the urban areas. I think the less you say about the rumor you heard of cities being cut out of this program, the better it will be. I am not on the committee that would have jurisdiction of that problem, but I daresay they are cognizant of the same facts that I am cognizant of. Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, we in the cities are very sensitive. We deal with 48 rural dominated and controlled legislatures. We are very sensitive about our role in the national economy and providing the money from the tax sources. But we also feel like we ought to be entitled to some consideration when it is spent. The CHAIRMAN. If you folks in the cities take the same position that you are taking here, I am sure the Congress will appreciate it. When we have to do something about the growing problems of urbanization that are so severe, you should take the attitude that you take today. That is, "If you get a program out, we are willing to pay our part of it." Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Mason will inquire. Mr. MASON. I want to say, Mayor West, as a representative from the rural areas and not the urban areas, that rumor of cutting out the urban areas from this road program is like Mark Twain's death; it is greatly exaggerated. Mr. WEST. Wonderful. And as your customers, your chosen customers, we hope, and good customers, we appreciate that. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baker will inquire. Mr. BAKER. I, too, welcome you to Washington, Mayor West, and before the Ways and Means Committee. I have known for many years of your great interest in this problem and of your active interest in it in Tennessee and throughout the Nation. I was interested in your observation about the urban situation because it has concerned me. As you know, I represent an urban area and also a rural area. This morning a ranking member of the Public Works Committee of this House presented six suggestions to this committee. Number four of the six was: Review the plans of the highway commissions in the various States to determine whether or not the proper emphasis is being placed on getting roads built between population centers or whether too much emphasis is being put on acquiring, planning, and doing engineering work on roads through communities which obviously will be taking care of local traffic now rather than interstate traffic. I think that almost supports the fear which you expressed. I think it is a great mistake. As you know, the legislature in Tennessee is fairly well dominated by rural representatives. This is no place to have that type of dissension. Mr. WEST. Thank you. Your distinguished mayor of Knoxville was in the conference the other day, I might say, and, of course, he is as apprehensive as I am. (The resolution of the City Council of Nashville, previously referred to, follows:) RESOLUTION 59-85 A resolution addressed to the Congress of the United States opposing the proposition of cutting urban areas out of the national highway program Whereas in an effort to solve the temporary financial deficit in the trust fund used for the construction of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, consideration is being given to the proposition of cutting urban areas out of the national highway program; and Whereas the House Ways and Means Committee is now conducting hearings on this particular proposition; and Whereas two-thirds of the people of the United States live in urban areas and generate 44 percent of the total traffic volume of the United States, and pay the bulk of the gasoline tax from which the highway trust fund is derived: Now, therefore, be it unanimously Resolved by the mayor and City Council of Nashville, Tenn., as follows: SECTION 1. That the adoption of this resolution be considered as a vigorous protest from the people to the House Ways and Means Committee, and to the Congress of the United States, against the cutting out of urban areas from the national highway program. SEC. 2. That the Congress of the United States be memorialized to devise some means other than the falsely economical and unrealistic elimination of urban areas from the highway program to cure the temporary financial deficit of the highway trust fund. SEC. 3. That this resolution take effect from and after its adoption, the welfare of the city requiring it. Introduced by: Chas. E. Riley, George W. Carlisle, Charles Bramwell, A. Wesley Dix- Recommended: BEN WEST, Mayor. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original resolution 59-85 of the City Council of the City of Nashville, Tenn. Witness my hand and the seal of the city of Nashville, Tenn., this 22d day of July 1959. [SEAL] W. M. CARR, Jr., City Clerk. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? If not, we thank you, gentlemen. Our next witness is Mr. Cox. STATEMENT OF WALTER A. COX, JR., MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE GRAND COUNCIL OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cox, will you identify yourself for the record, by giving your name, address, and the capacity in which you appear? Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Walter A. Cox, Jr. I make my home in Baltimore, Md. I am a member of the legislative committee of the Grand Council of United Commercial Travelers, to which I have belonged for 50 years and in whose behalf I am appearing today. It is the firm belief of the members of the United Commercial Travelers that any increase in the Federal gasoline tax, regardless of amount, would be unjustified, discriminatory, and inflationary. We have always accepted the principle that gasoline taxes and all other automotive taxes are levied as special taxes to pay for roads. After all, the people who use roads are the only ones who pay those taxes. Yet we are now paying nearly $12 billion a year in automotive taxes to the Federal Government that does not go for roads, as it should. Under the circumstances, we fail to see how any further tax increase can even be entertained. Moreover, no segment of the population is saddled with as many taxes as are motorists. These days, it seems, a man has to buy a tankful of taxes with his gasoline. And although those taxes may pay for the highways he needs, their weight now threatens to cut down the amount of driving he can afford. We are all agreed, I think, that highways are supposed to encourage growth and stimulate travel. In other words, everybody benefits from good road systems. Why then should not everybody pay a proportional share? To ask more of motorists than the staggering taxes they already pay is plainly discriminatory. Finally, gasoline and other automotive levies apply with equal rates to everyone. So when any of those taxes are increased, the low income and fixed income groups are hit the hardest. The flow of money into their families is cut down and there is no way to compensate for its loss. Their standard of living must, of necessity, be revised downward. While a lot of people talk about curbing inflation, tax proposals such as the one being discussed here today keep carving into the incomes of millions of people who are already laboring beneath the burden of spiraling prices. If I may, I'd like to cite myself as a prime example. I am now 82 years old and have been living on a limited retirement income for some years. That income is fixed and static. Yet in the last 10 years alone, prices on general consumer items which I need and use have risen more than 24 percent. My income dollar has therefore dwindled to 76 cents since 1949. More appropriate to the topic at issue, gasoline taxes themselves have risen some 37 percent in the same period. Gasoline prices I don't believe have risen anywhere near that amount. So it is clear that such tax inflation is another of the important factors that has reduced my real income and the limited incomes of others like me. It should be borne in mind that even with all the prosperity enjoyed by this country at the moment, per capita income in the United States is still in the vicinity of $2,000 per year. In addition, more and more people are reaching retirement age and living in a situation similar to mine. This Federal gasoline tax proposal, if enacted, will just take one more bite out of the foundations on which we have built our lives. It cannot do anything but abet other inflationary tendencies and could even act as a lever for gasoline tax increases at the State level. Unless such unjustified and thoughtless tax increases are curbed, I could well find myself with less practical mobility than my parents had when I was born in 1877. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views of the United Commercial Travelers on this important issue. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cox, for coming to the committee and expressing the views that you have. Our next witness is Mr. Koch. STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. KOCH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CRUSHED LIMESTONE INSTITUTE, INC. The CHAIRMAN. Would you identify yourself by giving your name, address, and the capacity in which you appear? Mr. Kocн. I am Robert Koch, executive vice president of the National Crushed Limestone Institute. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harrison, our colleague on the committee from Virginia, asked me to express his regrets at not being able to be here during your appearance this afternoon. He is greatly interested, he said, in what your organization has to say about this matter before the committee. He asked me to draw your attention to the testimony of certain witnesses yesterday who said that greater savings could be made in using asphalt concrete as opposed to slab concrete. Would you like to submit a comment on that point? Mr. Kосн. We would be glad to. The CHAIRMAN. In accordance with Mr. Harrison's request, you may include that. (Information referred to follows:) Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, NATIONAL CRUSHED LIMESTONE INSTITUTE, INC., Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1959. DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLS: In reply to the request from Congressman Harrison, which you presented to me in his absence, I am submitting the following supplemental statement to what I was privileged to present to you and your committee personally last Friday. First, I wish to make it very clear that members of the limestone industry furnish aggregates for all types of highway construction. In some instances larger tonnages are developed for our industry under flexible or asphaltic pavement construction and in others under rigid or cement pavement construction. However, in view of the Bureau of Public Roads letter of June 20, 1959, to the Asphalt Institute, copy attached, indicating that the Bureau has published no conclusions or findings on the maintenance costs per mile of different road types and in view of the savings in original construction costs as shown by the attached table, we believe competitive bidding should be thoroughly considered if not required. As we approach the problem of how to finance our expanded highway program it seems to me that we must at all times be in a position of defending our expenditures by being able to prove that we are buying the maximum construction possible per tax dollar expended. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, Washington, D.C., June 20, 1959. Mr. ARVIN S. WELLBORN, Chief Engineer, The Asphalt Institute, DEAR MR. WELLBORN: In reply to your inquiry of June 19, 1959, concerning published data on maintenance costs per mile, you are advised that the Bureau has never published and distributed any conclusions or findings of fact on the maintenance costs per mile of different road types. Numerous attempts have been made in the past to develop data on this important subject but no accurate or reliable results have so far been obtained. The material that was developed |