NEW JERSEY MOTOR TRUCK ASSOCIATION, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLS: The New Jersey Motor Truck Association desires to be recorded in opposition to any increase in existing highway user taxes and respectfully requests that the association's opinion be included in the forthcoming public hearing by your committee on the subject of highway financing. The association's position is outlined in the following telegram which was sent July 10 to all Members of the New Jersey congressional delegation: "New Jersey Motor Truck Association, speaking for organized trucking industry in this State, strongly opposes new or increased highway taxes to finance completion of Interstate Highway System. "The Secretary of Commerce, at direction of Congress, is engaged in a study concerning the general benefits being derived from an expanded Federal highway program. Report of this study, due in January 1961, will enable Congress to review entire financing structure and make such permanent adjustments as may be deemed necessary. Any increase in present tax load on highway users pending completion of study would be manifestly unfair. "A solution to highway financing, keeping construction on schedule, was contained in House version of Highway Revenue Act of 1956. This provided for use of repayable advances chargeable against future tax revenues accruing to highway trust fund during later years of the program when revenues will exceed expenditures. "Alternative solution would be issuance of revenue bonds secured by highway trust fund receipts. This principle is incorporated in two bills pending before Congress, H.R. 7780, by Representative Ostertag of New York, and Senate Joint Resolution 109, by Senator Case of South Dakota. "A third approach would be allocation to highway trust fund of those excise taxes imposed against automotive equipment which presently go into general fund. "We respectfully request you consider one of above alternatives to interim financing of highway program without increasing present level of highway user taxes." Very truly yours, D. J. CRECCA, Executive Director. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, MONTGOMERY, ALA., July 14, 1959. Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: Our association including every type of commercial truck user requests to be recorded in the forthcoming hearing as opposed to any Federal gas tax increase or any compromise resulting in an increase we favor repeal of Byrd amendment to ease highway trust fund pinch. JAMES I. RITCHIE, General Manager, Alabama Trucking Association. Congressman WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, BOSTON, MASS., July 14, 1959. Understand the House Ways and Means Committee will hold public hearing on July 22 to consider a new highway-financing bill. This association, comprised of over 700 new-car dealers, in a wire to the members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation of June 30, 1959, noted its strong opposition to any increase in the Federal gas tax and requested that they make known our position to your committee. We respectfully ask that your committee note our objection to any increase in the Federal gasoline tax at this time and in view of the fact that it is not possible for us to attend the hearing we request that this wire be made a part of the official record of the proceeding of July 22, 1959. WM. A. PLUNKETT, Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association. THE ORDER OF UNITED Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, U.S. Representative, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MILLS: I recently wrote to you on the subject of financing of the Federal highway program and sent along an excerpt from a resolution pertaining to the subject as unanimously adopted at the annual meeting of the Grand Council of New England, United Commercial Travelers of America, in June. It is our understanding that your committee will conduct public hearings on the subject of the highway trust fund and problems of financing the Federal highway program, beginning on July 22. In this connection I have been authorized and directed to write to you again and request that our organization be recorded at these hearings as strongly opposed to any increase in the Federal tax on gasoline and as favoring suspension of the pay-as-you-go amendment to the 1956 Federal-aid Highway Act so as to permit appropriations from general revenues to help finance the Federal highway program. GENTLEMEN: We wish to go on record as being opposed to the proposed 11⁄2cent increase in Federal gasoline tax as a means of raising additional funds for the Federal highway construction program. Any increase in motor-fuel tax would further increase operating costs to the extent that rate increases would become necessary, thereby the cost would eventually be passed on the consumer. This would only add to the inflationary spiral which the present administration is striving to control. We trust that a favorable decision will be rendered on this proposal. FLOYD N. GORRELL, Controller. DALLAS LEASING CO., INC., Dallas, Tex., July 24, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR SIR: Our company wishes to go on record as opposing any increase in the Federal gasoline tax. Motor fuel already carries an unbalanced percentage of its cost in taxes and puts an added burden on this phase of the truck-leasing business. Ultimately these increased costs must be passed to the consumer and in turn do nothing but promote the spiral of inflation. Here, again, it is our firm belief that only through sincere efforts of our elected representatives to cut Government spending, control and appropriate money available more judiciously, will we ever have sufficient revenue needed for such programs as the Federal highway-construction project. Respectfully, C. L. BAKER, Jr., Executive Vice President. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLS: I shall appreciate your courtesy in including this letter in the record of the current hearings on the condition of the special trust fund of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The AFL-CIO consistently has opposed the imposition of excise taxes, including a tax on gasoline. On the contrary, the AFL-CIO has favored placing greater reliance upon the more progressive individual and corporate income taxes. While the deficits for the current fiscal year and fiscal year 1961 have been estimated at $496 million and as much as $800 million, respectively, it still is not clear exactly just how much additional revenue is needed, nor in fact whether an increase of 12 cents per gallon is actually required. It may well be that, at least for the present, a smaller tax increase might prove sufficient. The AFL-CIO takes this occasion to reaffirm its support for maintaining the carrying out, on schedule, of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways construction program. With respect to additional financing, the necessity for which may be demonstrated, it would appear preferable, in our opinion, that additional moneys with which to replenish the special trust fund be obtained through and from the general Treasury revenues. Thanking you for your attention in this matter, I am, Sincerely yours, ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, Director. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLS: May I ask your courtesy in adding this letter to the record of the hearings on the condition of the special trust fund of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, following AFL-CIO Legislative Director Biemiller's July 24 letter to you on this same subject. On behalf of the UAW, may I state that we wholeheartedly support AFL-CIO in this opposition to the imposition of excise taxes, including taxes on gasoline and its recommendation for greater reliance upon more progressive individual and corporate income taxes, also its recommendation that the highway construction program be continued on schedule, the necessary additional financing during the early years of the program to be derived from general treasury revenues as needed to replenish the special trust fund. This can be done by repealing or suspending the Byrd pay-as-you-go rider and by lengthening the financing period without lengthening the construction period. In addition, we join with others who are wholeheartedly opposed to any increase whatever in the gas tax and to any earmarking of any part of the excise taxes on cars, trucks or parts. Such an increase is not only regressive in general effect; it would be a direct blow against sales, production and employmenti n the U.S. automobile industry at a time when unemployment is still severe in many automotive centers throughout the country. In view of the fact that other and better methods of financing are available, we hope that you and other members of your committee will solve the financing problem during this interim period in a way that will not only continue the highway construction program without any slowdown in road building or employment, but also without handicapping other segments of our economy, such as those employed in the production of automobiles, trucks, oil, tires, parts and accessories. Sincerely yours, PAUL SIFTON, National Legislative Representative. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, INSTITUTE OF SCRAP IRON & STEEL, INC., Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLS: The Institute of Scrap Iron & Steel Inc. is the trade association representing the iron and steel scrap industry in the United States. We have approximately 1,300 member companies, mostly small dealers. Our industry over the past 2 years has been suffering under the impact of reduced demand for its product by domestic steel mills. In this situation, our members, particularly those in remote areas, have found that high rail freight rates for scrap have hindered their access to markets. In an effort to meet this competition and to lower their transportation costs, our members have increasingly turned to the use of trucks. In addition, as an industry, we use many trucks to haul iron and steel scrap from local industrial plants to our processing yards. Because of current difficulties in the industry, and the need to avoid cost increases wherever possible in order to retain our competitive position, we feel obliged to oppose vigorously the proposed increase in the Federal gasoline tax. We do not feel that road construction under the Federal highway program need be continued at the pace established last year as an antirecession measure. We feel that available funds should be used to their utmost, and that, if necessary, the program be phased out, rather than impose additional gasoline taxes on the general public and on business. We would request that this letter, as representing the majority views of one segment of the business community in opposition to the gas tax increase, be made part of the record of the hearing held by the Ways and Means Committee last week. Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR MR. MILLS: The Association County Commissioners of Georgia, an organization of county officials who by State law are charged with the primary problems of road construction and maintenance and the conducting of the fiscal affairs of their respective counties, have gone on record as opposing any increase whatsoever in the Federal gasoline tax. It will be appreciated if you will put in your records of the hearings to be held on July 22 on ways to finance the highway program, the position of this association in positive opposition of any increase of gasoline tax in any amount whatsoever. Thanking you in advance for your courtesy in this matter, I am, JAS. W. KEYTON, President. FINANCING THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM Statement of Ross R. Ormsby, president, the Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc., filed with the House Committee on Ways and Means, July 24, 1959 The rubber manufacturing industry, producing tires and many other products essential to automotive safety, has championed the cause of better, safer, and more efficient highway systems for more than 50 years. It was a leader in the "good roads" movement prior to World War I. After World War II, it joined with other like-minded groups in calling for an accelerated highway program to overcome the critical highway deficiency. Our industry strongly supported the Federal Highway Act of 1956 as the best means of providing an adequate highway system for our Nation. Every argument that was advanced during the lengthy House and Senate hearings of 1955 and 1956 concerning the needs for these highways is even more important today. The economic need for relieving highway congestion and improving the safety of highway travel is today of increased importance to the Nation. Our industry believes that of all of the Federal programs, the completion of the highway system authorized by the 1956 highway act will contribute most to the growth of our Nation's economy and the improvement of its standard of living. We strongly advocate that nothing be allowed to interfere or interrupt the scheduled completion of the Interstate and Defense Highway System. The financial crisis in highway construction now facing us could have been predicted when the 1956 act in its final form was approved into law. As finally approved, the financing provisions of title II were not balanced with the authorization provisions of title I. When the act passed the House, there was a balance between the authorized program of title I and the financing provisions of title II. However, by inclusion and acceptance of the so-called Byrd amendment, the balance was destroyed. The financial crisis now before us is of greater magnitude than could have been foreseen in 1956 because 1. The estimated cost for completing the Interstate System rose sharply after the States carefully and scientifically recalculated the cost. 2. An additional 1,000 miles were added to the system, bringing the total to 41,000. 3. The highway trust fund was required to pay for nearly $2 billion worth of highways that had been previously authorized before passage of the 1956 act. 4. The costs of the highways authorized in the 1958 act as an antirecession measure were charged to the highway trust fund. Prior to the 1956 act, financing of Federal-aid highways had always been accomplished through appropriations from the general fund. The 1956 act created the highway trust fund providing that some of the revenues of Federal excise taxes on highway users and automotive products would be used for financing not only the new Interstate System but also the normal and historical primary, secondary, and urban systems. Considering the cost estimates then before it, Congress dedicated to the trust fund only that portion of the tax revenues coming directly from special taxes on highway users as were considered necessary to finance the program. The rubber manufacturing industry supported the dedication of all revenues derived from the Federal excise taxes on tires, inner tubes, and tread rubber. Now before this committee are proposals for further taxes on the highway user, namely, an increase in the Federal excise tax on gasoline. At this time we wish to register our opposition to any increase in the Federal gasoline tax or any other change in Federal taxation of highway users and automotive products as inequitable and unnecessary. Our position is based upon the fact that Congress itself in passing the 1956 act admitted that the taxing provisions of that act required careful review to make certain there was an equitable distribution of the tax burden among highway users and other nonuser beneficiaries of the highways. Congressional doubt was expressed in section 210 of the 1956 act which requires careful investigation and subsequent report to Congress. This report is scheduled to be made to Congress in early 1961, at which time it has always been anticipated that Congress would make a decision concerning the equitable distribution of the tax burden and establish long-range financing system to assure scheduled completion of the Interstate System. We maintain that any change in current tax laws would be a prejudgment of the section 210 study and thus might compound the inequities. The engineers are designing the Interstate System to handle estimated traffic needs for 1975. These roads, being built to long-life, high standards, are one of the Nation's most important capital investments. We know of no other capital investment that would contribute to an expanded national economy as this urgently needed highway system. Therefore, until such time as Congress has the opportunity to receive and study the reports called for under section 210 of the Highway Act, we recommend that |