each year. As of May 31, 1959, it had 12.9 percent of the total program actually committed and paid. The most expensive right-of-way has been acquired and the most expensive part of the system is now complete or under contract. As an example: From Little Rock southwest through Benton, Ark., 25 miles, the system is complete with perhaps a few miles of service roads to be completed. There are seven overpasses on this stretch and two more to be built. The complete stretch is bordered with concrete service roads and the main four-lane road is concrete. This particular stretch of the Interstate System has been in the building stage over 2 years and was built in stretches of approximately 10 miles of two-way slab concrete. After the concrete was poured it was months before traffic was allowed on it. Already this concrete slab has been repaired in several places and only last week exploded in one place. Had this road been built with asphalt, which is certainly more desirable and less expensive for this State, it would have been finished months ago. Traffic could have been moved on it the day after it was poured. The same principle could be applied all over the country, with substantial savings to the taxpayers. Certainly the least the States should do is to take competitive bids on all interstate paving contracts and then decide, on the basis of costs and the proven merits of each paving material, whether to use concrete or asphalt. We find no evidence that contractors' costs or bids are responsible for the Federal highway trust fund deficit, and the completed contracts will bear out this statement. We do find instances of delay in completing contracts. This is by no means meant as criticism on either the Arkansas Highway Department or Arkansas contractors. We are proud of our highway commission and its accomplishments the past several years. Our contractors are rated the best in the country, and are giving the people the best possible competitive bids. Therefore, with this brief statement it seems it would be well to take stock at this time and examine all the factors and circumstances surrounding the high cost of this huge Interstate Highway System before tapping the American motorist for more gasoline taxes. In conclusion, we suggest that Congress give serious consideration to supplementing the highway trust fund with other Federal highway users taxes now going into the general fund, and set up a real watchdog committee to check on its expenditures. CASPER, WYO., July 10, 1959. WILBUR MILLS, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR SIR: At a highway users conference meeting held in Cheyenne last December, among the many topics on the agenda was that of future highway financing. It was general knowledge that present allocated Federal funds would not fulfill the needs of the stepped-up program. After some discussion, one definitive stand was taken, i.e., that the highway users of the State of Wyoming were against any further increase in a Federal gas tax. This motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was well attended and I believe fairly well represented a cross section of people of the State of Wyoming. It is my understanding that you are now having hearings on this subject and I should like you to enter this information on the record. Sincerely yours, H. E. STUCKENHOFF, Chairman, Highway Users Conference, State of Wyoming. FLORIDA RURAL LETTER CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In regard to the hearings scheduled to begin July 22 on methods of raising funds for financing the Federal road system please note the following resolution passed at the annual convention of the Florida Rural Letter Carriers' Association at Tampa, Fla., July 7, 1958: "Resolved, That this association go on record as opposing any increase in the present Federal tax on gasoline or any compromise which would result in an increase of the gasoline tax." Kindly enter the above into the records of your committee hearings and thank you for same. Yours very truly, GEORGE M. WIGGINS, President. BRUNSWICK, GA., July 15, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.: We note that hearings will be held on financing Federal highway program July 22. Georgia Rural Letter Carriers Association adopted the following resolution today: Be it resolved, That the Georgia Rural Letter Carriers' Association oppose any increase in the Federal gasoline tax, and that the Georgia congressional delegation be urged to oppose any additional highway use taxes. Please enter this telegram as an exhibit in the records of these hearings. President, Georgia Rural Letter Carriers' Association, Rhine, Ga. Mr. LEO H. IRWIN, SOUTH CAROLINA RURAL LETTER CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, Dorchester, S.C., July 20, 1959. Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR MR. IRWIN: By way of introduction, please permit me to say that I am president of the South Carolina Rural Letter Carriers' Association, representing 720 members, composed of regular, substitute, temporary, and retired carriers. Information has come to me that your committee has scheduled public hearings, regarding the proposal to increase the Federal gasoline tax by 12 cents per gallon, both from immediate and long-range needs. The rural carriers of this State are finding it exceedingly difficult to operate their vehicles on the amount of equipment allowance granted them by the Post Office Department at 10 cents per mile, considering the type of roads which we must travel to deliver the mails. A very high percentage of rural routes in this State still have as much as 50-percent dirt roads. Any increase in the gasoline tax would bring about a financial burden to our group and perhaps would cause the operational costs of the carriers to exceed their allowance. Therefore, please permit my group to go on record as being opposed to any increase in the gasoline tax at this time. It will be highly appreciated if you will present this statement to your committee for consideration. Respectfully submitted. J. RICHARD MOORER. THE TENNESSEE RURAL LETTER CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, Chairman WILBUR D. MILLS, Washington, D.C. July 21, 1959. DEAR MR. MILLS: The Tennessee rural letter carriers would like to urge your committee to defeat any proposal to increase the Federal gasoline tax. In Tennessee, the Interstate System will consist of approximately 1,000 miles, and this leaves some 65,000 miles of other roads in the State. Most of these roads are traveled by our members, therefore, we are one of the few groups that will derive no direct benefit from the superhighways; although, our organization is wholeheartedly in favor of the system and its resulting benefits to other motorists. Our State gasoline tax is already 7 cents a gallon and in addition to this, we must pay six-tenths of a cent per gallon inspection fee, and this makes our cost of operating cars much higher than most States. The average auto tax burden in Tennessee amounts to $150 a year. In the case of rural letter carriers it would be much greater than this because of the greater mileage we travel. In addition to gasoline, because of the rural roads we travel, our purchases of oil, parts, and accessories are greater and the Federal tax on these items is not going into the highway trust fund. As the committee knows, the expense allowance of the rural letter carrier is specifically set out by law, and any increase in the gasoline tax would cut into this allowance and there would be no way, in our case, to pass this added expense on. Yours very truly, ROY MCPEAK, Road Representative. MASSACHUSETTS RURAL LETTER CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, Representative WILBUR MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, July 2, 1959. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MILLS: I am taking the liberty to send to you herewith, in the belief that it would be of interest, an excerpt from a resolution adopted unanimously by the Massachusetts Rural Letter Carriers' Association at its recent annual convention in Springfield. We believe the action taken by our association to be very timely as we have since been told that there may yet be efforts made at the present session to increase the rate of the Federal tax on motor fuels. Please note that the resolution is opposed to any such increase and urges instead the suspension of the Byrd amendment so as to permit appropriations from general revenues. Following is the excerpt from our resolution: "FINANCING OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM "The Massachusetts Rural Letter Carriers' Association, assembled in annual convention, hereby resolves that: "1. We favor new legislation proposed by the House Public Works Committee rejecting the demands of the national administration for a further increase of 11⁄2 cents per gallon in the Federal tax on motor fuels and suspending for 2 years (fiscal 1961-62) the pay-as-you-go amendment to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. This will enable the Federal-State highway program to be carried on by appropriations from general revenues and without increase in present rates of Federal taxes levied on highway users. "2. We oppose new legislation proposed by the same committee to reimburse the States for toll and toll-free roads designated as part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways-at least until this 41,000-mile system of limited access highways has been completed." Respectfully yours, JAKE W. STOтz, President. ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: It is our understanding that beginning July 22 you will conduct hearings on the proposal to increase the Federal gasoline tax. Our Farm Bureau policies say, in part: "We are opposed to any increase in the Federal gasoline tax or other Federal highway user excise taxes for roadbuilding and to the financing of the Federal share of the highway program from general tax funds. We favor an extension of the construction period for interstate highways so that Federal expenditures can be placed on a pay-as-we-go basis. Farm people have a very direct interest in building and maintaining good roads. But we do not believe that the completion of the Interstate System by any particular date is important enough that they want to increase taxes to accomplish this purpose. An increase in Federal gasoline taxes would increase the cost of machinery, fertilizer, and everything else the farmer and rancher has to buy. It would also increase his marketing costs on everything he sells. And, of course, this would materially intensify the already severe cost-price squeeze affecting all of agriculture. We urge that no additional highway user taxes be imposed at this time, but rather that the highway building program be stretched out to fit the contemplated revenues under the present schedule. We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record of the gasoline tax hearings. Very truly yours, WILLIAM C. DAVIS, Congressman WILBUR D. MILLS, Executive Secretary. MACON, GA., July 15, 1959. Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I understand that hearings will be held beginning July 22 to determine ways to finance the Federal highway program. It will be impossible for us to state our position in person, however we would like to be recorded at these hearings as opposing any increase in the Federal gas tax or any compromise that might result in additional highway use taxes. Mr. LEO H. IRWIN, JOHN P. DUNCAN, President, Georgia Farm Bureau Federation. IOWA STATE GRANGE, Newton, Iowa, July 15, 1959. Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. IRWIN: We note that hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee on the Federal highway program will begin July 22. It would be very desirable to have the opinions of the major highway users groups of Iowa, presented to the committee. I am sure that you have been contacted by many of the groups, and by others, on the current financing problem. Highway users groups are unalterably opposed to any increase in Federal highway users taxes, including of course the proposed Federal motor fuel tax increase, on a temporary or any other basis. Users believe the program should be kept on schedule with outright appropriations from the general fund, if possible, since users now are paying about $2 billion in special Federal excise taxes, that go into that same fund to finance general governmental functions. The majority of us feel that as a possible alternative, short-term revenue bonds could be issued and repaid from future trust fund receipts to finance the program. It will be impossible for most of us to appear personally, because of time and expense. We would appreciate it if you will see that our thoughts are presented to the committee, and made a part of the public record. Respectfully yours, LOREN MURPHY, Chairman, Highway Users of Iowa. NEBRASKA STATE GRANGE, Hon. WILBUR MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, DEAR SIR: The Nebraska State Grange in its annual convention in October 1958 adopted as a part of its policy statement the following: "We are opposed to any increased taxes on highway users at this time. We urge that the Federal-State highway program, including the interstate highway program enacted in 1956, be kept on schedule with appropriations from the general fund if additional funds are needed." The National Grange in its annual session in November 1958 adopted a policy statement with reference to the interstate highway, which appears on page 32 of the "Summary of Legislative Policies and Programs of the National Grange, 1959," as follows: "A sharp and continuing increase in highway construction costs make it appear that revenues programed for the 41,000-mile Interstate System will not be adequate. Among the several alternatives suggested are (1) an increase in Federal tax on gasoline and/or the automotive excise tax and (2) an allocation from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. "We oppose the first and look with favor upon the latter alternative." Our opposition is based on the belief that increased taxes for the highway trust fund will be inflationary and that larger revenues for the interstate highway construction will be canceled out by rising costs. We respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the record. Sincerely yours, G. A. SPIDEL, Master, Nebraska State Grange; Chairman, Session Transportation Committee, National Grange. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. WILBUR MILLS, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR MR. MILLS: Please find attached hereto a telegram received from Mr. Martin J. Byrne, president of the Kansas Farmers Union, Topeka, Kans., in opposition to the proposed increase in the Federal tax on gasoline. I would appreciate having this communication made a part of the hearing record. With cordial good wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, J. FLOYD BREEDING, TOPEKA, KANS., July 7, 1959. FLOYD BREEDING, 'House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We understand there is a measure pending in Congress that would raise the Federal gasoline tax. Believing that the trust fund orignally set up is adequate if properly used and that the increased revenues will further guarantee sufficient funds, we oppose any increase in the present gasoline tax rate and ask you to use your influence in opposing such increase. KANSAS FARMERS UNION, NEW JERSEY FARM BUREAU, Trenton, N.J., July 14, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: It is our understanding that the House Ways and Means Committee, of which you are chairman, is planning a public hearing in connection with the possibility of increasing the Federal gasoline tax. We would ask that you kindly consider this letter as a part of the record in connection with this hearing. At the annual meeting of the New Jersey Farm Bureau in November 1958, the organization, through its delegate body, went on record as opposing any additional Federal gasoline tax. I know that you are well acquainted with the sound way that Farm Bureau policies are developed and that you will appreciate that this opposition accurately represents the opinion of farmers in this State. The policy as developed by the delegates is as follows: |