the current short-term financial crisis be handled by some form of credit financing. In our testimony in support of the 1956 act, we pointed out the possibility that the revenue accruing to the highway trust fund would in future years increase at a greater rate than shown by the official Government estimates. For the fiscal years 1958 and 1959, the highway trust fund receipts were, in fact, greater than the estimates made in 1956. This occurred despite the general economic recession of 1958. We are still of the opinion that those 1956 estimates were conservative and as more of these highways are completed, permitting greater automotive travel, the revenues from highway user taxes will be further increased. Therefore, any form of credit financing to be repaid from future trust fund receipts will in our opinion be a sound financial arrangement. Credit financing through "repayable advances" from the general fund will, of course, affect the budget and impinge upon the national debt ceiling. Of all the Federal outlays, this one would have assured repayment, being unlike most of the other enormous Federal spending programs. As an alternate to "repayable advances" we understand that a mechanism could be established permitting the sale of short-term revenue bonds with future highway trust fund receipts as collateral, which would not affect the Federal budget or constitute a debt or obligation of the United States. Any interruption or delay in the completion of the Interstate Highway System will in our opinion result in an economic loss to our Nation of such magnitude as to fully justify a sound credit financing program. We recommend the adoption of a short-term program of credit financing based upon future highway trust fund receipts, and delaying the final decision on long-term financing until 1961. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D.C., July 14, 1959. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: It has come to our attention that your committee will hold hearings beginning July 22 on the proposed Federal motor fuel tax increase and other methods of financing the expanded Federal-State highway program. While we do not request time to appear before your committee, we respectfully request that this letter be included in the record of the hearings. On June 30, 1959, Alan T. Rains, executive vice president of this association, sent you the following telegram: "We understand your committee is giving active consideration to the tax increases on gasoline. We want to reiterate our opposition to any increases in gasoline tax which would add further financial burden to producers and distributors of fresh fruits and vegetables who are large users of motor vehicles in the transportation of their products. We believe additional moneys temporarily required to keep the highway program on schedule could come from the general funds of the Federal Government or through repayable advances. We respectfully urge your committee to reject this or other proposals which would increase the present tax on gasoline." We wish to state once again that our position has not changed, and, accordingly, we urge the rejection of any proposals which would increase the tax on motor fuels. Sincerely, BERNARD J. IMMING, Secretary. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY G. C. STEWART, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL Statement of the National Safety Council in Response to a Request From the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives for an Expression of Views With Respect to the National Highway Construction Program The National Safety Council is restrained by the letter and spirit of its congressional charter from becoming involved with the legal, financial, or political aspects of specific legislation. For this reason, our statement is directed only at the accident-prevention aspects of the matter the committee has under consideration. The Council is disturbed by the prospect that there may be a delay or stretchout in the national highway construction program, because we believe that such a delay or stretchout will result in more traffic accidents than would occur if construction were completed on schedule. Controlled-access highways of modern design have proven their potential for reducing traffic accidents. As immediate proof, we cite the recent Memorial Day weekend, when "immediate" motor vehicle deaths totaled 310, a new high record for this holiday weekend. During this same weekend, 16 major turnpikes set a new low record. These 16 turnpikes handled nearly 5 million vehicles, which traveled 150 million miles, without a single fatality and only 3 serious injuries. Even more significant is the record for the entire year of 1958, when there were 7.3 deaths per hundred million miles of travel on rural roads, while on turnpikes the rate was only 2.8. This comparison indicates that the accident rate on highways of the interstate type is little more than one-third the rate on rural roads generally. Taking into account this far better safety record on controlled-access, moderndesign highways, the National Safety Council's statistical staff has investigated the safety consequences of any delay in the Interstate Highway System construction program. Their analysis reveals some very significant facts which are appended to this statement for inclusion in the record, the committee so agreeing. In brief, the facts are 1. Controlled-access, modern-design highways already in use are reducing traffic deaths 700 a year below what they would be without these highways. 2. With each year's extension of the system, scheduled for substantial completion by 1970, there will be additional lives saved which, during the period 1960-70, will accumulate to a total saving of 30,000. 3. Delays or stretchout in planned construction will result in unnecessary loss of life. For example, if no additional highways were built in 1960, thus delaying completion of the entire system for 1 year, about 5,700 more deaths would occur by the time the system is completed than would have occurred had the system been completed on schedule. We face the fact that the return of better economic conditions this year has brought a greater than average increase in motor vehicle travel. No one regrets such a manifestation of better times, but certainly no one wants to pay for it in terms of human life. The situation calls for stepped-up accident prevention measures by all public and private agencies. Since experience has proven conclusively that accident rates are substantially lower on the types of highways being constructed for the Interstate System, and since these lowered rates will save human life, prevent suffering, and reduce social and economic costs, the National Safety Council believes it to be in the best interest of our people that there be no delay or stretchout in the construction program of our Interstate System of highways. HOW MANY LIVES WILL CONTROLLED-ACCESS HIGHWAYS SAVE? Projection of recent urban and rural trends in motor vehicle death rates, including the contribution from the very low rates on toll roads and other controlled-access highways, indicates that by 1970 the national rate can be as low as 3.7. This requires, however, that vehicle mileage on controlled-access, moderndesign highways increases as rapidly as the planned construction program will make possible. Commissioner Armstrong of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads estimates that if the construction of the Interstate and Defense Highway System continues according to plan, most of it will be in operation by 1970, and it will then be carrying 20 percent of the national total of vehicle miles, or about 200 billion. In 1958, toll roads recorded a fatal accident rate of 2.8 per 100 million vehiclemiles approximately one-third of the death rate for all rural highways in 1958. While the experience on some toll roads-particularly in New Jersey and New York-is considerably better than this, a conservative assumption for the Interstate and Defense System Highways as a whole is that they will have an average rate of 2.8 each year to 1970. The recent trend of the rural accident death rate indicates that the rate for other rural roads will decrease from about 7.4 in 1959 to 6 in 1970. With these trends, the lifesaving capability of controlled-access, modern-design highways during the 12 years 1959-70 can be measured. Less lives saved by continued use of Interstate System roads already built. Lives which can be saved by travel on Interstate System roads if completed on 7,300 30, 500 The effect of a delay in the Interstate and Defense Highway construction program can be determined from this table. For example, if the whole schedule of work were delayed 1 year, it can be assumed that the accident experience of 1960 will be similar to that of 1959, and the record for 1970 will be similar to that of 1969. In that case, the estimates of lives saved in each year would be as follows: Less lives saved by continued use of Interstate System roads already built 7, 300 Lives which can be saved by travel on Interstate System roads 24, 800 Lives saved during the 12 years 1959-70 would thus be reduced 5,700 by a one year delay in the construction program. This reduction in lives saved would never be made up, for in the years after 1970 the number of lives saved would be the same with or without construction delays in the years 1959-70. Other assumptions regarding delay in the construction program will yield different amounts of reduction in the total of lives saved. Approximations can be made from the table which, in most cases, will be satisfactory for judging the effect of the delay. ALABAMA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: As president of the 30,000-member Alabama Federation of Women's Clubs, I respectfully express my organization's unqualified opposition to any Federal gasoline tax increase. Our federation is composed of approximately 600 clubs in most of Alabama's 67 counties. We realize from reading news stories that the interstate highway program as planned must be in difficulty; however, we feel this Federal project and others should stay within its income just as we do in running our households. Judging by the very high gasoline taxes we pay in Alabama, there must be billions collected to build highways. Therefore, we are absolutely against any more tax on gasoline, which item is a necessity to carrying out our home-schoolchurch-club activities. I am enclosing a copy of our press release sent to all Alabama newspapers and radio and TV stations. Thank you for whatever consideration you can give to the Alabama Federation of Women's Clubs stand on this vital matter. Very truly yours, Mrs. J. F. MCVAY, President, Alabama Federation of Women's Clubs. THE ALABAMA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS AGAINST ANY FEDERAL GASOLINE TAX INCREASE Mrs. J. F. McVay, Jackson, Ala., president of the Alabama Federation of Women's Clubs, said that members of the federation are unalterably opposed to any increase in gasoline taxes, Federal or otherwise. Mrs. McVay, who is leader of 30,000 clubwomen in Alabama, said that the present proposals to increase the Federal gasoline tax should be rejected by Congress because gasoline taxes already are cutting deeply into household budgets. "We pay our own expenses to and from our many federation meetings, and we object to having additional taxes taken from our limited personal funds." "A tax rise would undoubtedly contribute to higher costs for products delivered to our homes. Food costs would be among the first to go up since 89 percent of all farm produce is transported from farm to market by truck," Mrs. McVay said. She added that higher delivery costs for department store purchases, cleaning, fuel oil, and other necessities for the home would be sure to activate other price rises. More "An increase in the gasoline tax would also contribute to school costs. than 1 out of every 3 pupils in the United States travels to school by bus, while 500,000 students use private automobiles daily to reach classes. More expense every time the family car is used would be a certainty if the gasoline tax is increased since, in a recent survey, it was found that transportation costs were the third biggest item in all consumer spending. "In line with the General Federation of Women's Clubs the Alabama Federation at its board meeting in January passed unanimously a motion opposing any Federal tax increase on gasoline. We feel that special automotive taxes already paid by the motorist should be applied to the highway building program before additional burdens via higher taxes are placed upon the car owners." STATEMENT OF THE MICHIGAN READY MIXED CONCRETE ASSOCIATION ON PROPOSED 12 CENTS INCREASE IN THE GASOLINE TAX The Michigan Ready Mixed Concrete Association takes this opportunity to vigorously oppose any increase in the Federal gasoline tax at this time for the following reasons: HISTORY: Prior to 1956 when the President and others concerned explained this program to the people of the United States, it was reiterated time after time that everyone would benefit from the proposed highway program whether or not they were highway users; and it would have tremendous benefits from a national defense standpoint. The Michigan Ready Mixed Concrete Association concurs in those statements. The Federal highway program in 1956 was enacted, and in just 3 short years they are back in to tap the highway users some more. The Ready Mixed Concrete Association is not desirous of having the road program bogged down in any way; however, we would recommend one of the following alternate proposals for insuring the continuance of the long-range aspects of financing this highway program: 1. Recommendation No. 1, suspension of the so-called Byrd amendment; 2. Transferring monies from the general fund to the highway trust fund; 3. The issuance of a special class of bonds against the assets of the highway trust fund; 4. Extension of existing financing and construction periods; 5. As another possibility, it is my belief that the Congress possibly could change the formula on the State matching basis to require the States to put up more money to match the Federal money in order to keep this program going. Since it is recognized by the President of the United States and others concerned that everyone benefits from an accelerated road program, then let us all pay. Let's not saddle just the highway users for this privilege. It is my considered opinion that whether a person owns an automobile or not, if he is a consumer of products he benefits from good highways. We strongly urge this committee to reject any bill to increase the tax on the highway users. As we have stated above, there are other ways to continue our highway program. Submitted by, CARL S. BUCHANAN, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 1959. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I submit herein for the consideration of your committee my statement on the proposed increase in the Federal gasoline tax. I am a consulting engineer and economist who conducts highway financing studies for the States. I share the concern of the State Governors that further increases in the Federal gasoline tax will jeopardize State highway financing programs. As an alternative I urge the development of automotive excise taxes for Federal highway purposes. The States instituted the gasoline tax as a source of highway revenue some 40 years ago. Because it proved to be readily administrable and an effective measure of highway use it soon gained wide acceptance. Over the years it has developed into a major source of highway revenue for the States. Now, however, the Federal Government is encroaching upon and threatening to usurp this source of revenue. The Federal Government entered the gasoline tax field in the thirties with the adoption of a tax to provide depression revenues, then continued it throughout the war years to provide national defense revenues. In 1956 it increased the rate from 2 to 3 cents per gallon and earmarked the revenues for highway purposes. Enactment of these changes in the Federal tax has placed the Federal Government in competition with the States for this source of highway revenue. Enactment of the proposed increase of 12 cents, which would make the Federal tax 41⁄2 cents as against the average State tax of 5.6 cents, would stiffen that compe. tition. In fact, as often happens when two levels of government compete for the same source of revenue, the higher level might well preempt it. Obviously the Congress has difficult and immediate problems to resolve in financing its new Interstate System, but the fact remains that the States have continuing problems of far greater magnitude in financing their portion of the Nation's highways. In terms of traffic, the Interstate System is expected to carry only some 20 percent of total traffic, whereas other systems of highways, roads, and streets must carry the preponderant 80 percent of total traffic. The Federal Government has assumed on the Interstate System 90 percent of the construction cost, and on other federally aided highways, 50 percent of that cost; but it has left to the States construction costs of 10 percent on the Interstate System, 50 percent on Federal-aid highways, and 100 percent on all other highways. It has also left to the States the entire cost of maintenance on the Interstate System and all other systems of highways, roads, and streets. I would urge, therefore, that the Congress not encroach further upon the States' established source of highway revenue without looking carefully into the possibility of a source of revenue not readily available to the States. The 44357-59-29 |