GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM RETAILERS, INC., Hon. ERWIN MITCHELL, DEAR SIR: This association urges immediate use of your influence to oppose any compromise contemplated by the House Ways and Means Committee that would result in an increase in taxation on gasoline. This association speaking for its 3,600 members in Georgia vigorously oppose any additional Federal tax hike on gasoline. Respectfully, Congressman WILBUR D. MILLS, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: H. FRANK BERRY, President. PROVIDENCE, R.I., July 27, 1959. The Oil Dealers Association of Rhode Island, Inc., representing retail fuel oil dealers in Rhode Island, wish to be recorded as opposing any increase in the Federal gasoline tax. We respectfully request you to oppose any proposed increase in a tax which combined with the State tax now totals nearly 50 percent of the retail price of the product. WALTER J. HERNANDEZ, President, The Oil Dealers Association of Rhode Island, Inc. NEW JERSEY GASOLINE RETAILER'S ASSOCIATION Mr. WILBUR D. MILLS, AND ALLIED TRADES, INC., Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLS: My name is John Dressler. I am executive secretary of the New Jersey Gasoline Retailer's Association with headquarters at Marlboro, N.J. I want to record with this committee the opposition of the New Jersey Gasoline Retailer's Association to any additional taxes on gasoline. The motorist in the State of New Jersey is now paying approximately a 45 percent sales tax when he purchases gasoline. This percentage is determined by the fact that regular gasoline, which is by far the largest seller, is now posted at an average of 26 cents per gallon and the State and Federal taxes equal 8 cents per gallon. When all the taxes imposed on the motorist are added together, they represent a burden far in excess of any other taxpaying group, and it is our belief that any further taxation on this commodity will cause it to be priced out of the motorist's reach. This overtaxation of a single commodity such as gasoline is destructive and demoralizing to an industry that has served the motorist well. While the cost of living has risen considerably in the past 10 years, the actual price of gasoline to the motorist has gone down but the constant increase of taxes leads the motorist to believe that the gasoline retailer is making high profits. We sincerely hope that your committee will not permit the increase in gasoline taxes as presently proposed. The following telegrams have been sent to all Congressmen from the State of New Jersey. Very truly yours, JOHN DRESSLER, (The following letter was received and forwarded for inclusion in record by both Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator from the State of Minnesota, and Hon. Fred Marshall, Congressman from Minnesota :) KOPPLIN OIL CO., Litchfield, Minn., July 17, 1959. I understand that hearings will soon be held in the Ways and Means Committee on the subject of providing financing of the Federal highway program. The reasons that we oppose any increase in gasoline tax are many, and I feel sure that you have heard them all, so I will not impose on you by enumerating them further. I wish you would oppose any increase in tax as gasoline now carries over 60 percent of the cost of the product. From what I have read on the subject it appears that, in spite of widespread objections, there may be some increase. If that is inevitable, we wish you would support the inclusion of the provisions of the Harrison bill (H.R. 101), which would change the level of imposing the gasoline tax from the time of sale by the manufacturer to the time of sale by the wholesale distributor, in any final financing bill. Thanking you for your consideration of this request, and with best personal regards, I am, Yours truly, E. H. KOPPLIN. (The following communication for inclusion in the record was received by Hon. Glenn Cunningham, Congressman from the Second District of Nebraska, and Hon. Donald F. McGinley, Congressman from the Fourth District of Nebraska :) NEBRASKA PETROLEUM MARKETERS, INC., Lincoln, Nebr., July 15, 1959. The enclosed article is an editorial which will appear in the July issue of the Nebraska Oil Jobber, the official publication of the Nebraska Petroleum Marketers, Inc. It supplies much food for thought concerning financing of the Interstate Highway System and it is with that thought in mind that the article is being sent to you. I would also like to point out that Nebraska has $61 million as of May 31, 1959, in Federal highway moneys that is unobligated and unprogramed. This is by no means a situation unique to Nebraska. All other States are in the same category, as no State has ever matched all its Federal-aid allotments. Since the 1956 Highway Act anticipated a shortage of funds in 1960, and thus provided for this shortage by permitting a repayable advance from the general fund, it is beyond the comprehension of this writer how the same legislative body could now use this same argument to add additional inflationary taxes onto an already overtaxed commodity, just because it is easy to sell to the consuming public. I am, today, representing the nearly 1,000 oil jobbers in Nebraska who, through no fault of their own, must pay in advance to their suppliers, who are in direct competition with them, the Federal gasoline tax of 3 cents per gallon. These same suppliers have, in turn, 90 days to pay the U.S. Treasury. Consequently, a 1-cent increase on top of the already 3-cent Federal gasoline tax would mean you are imposing on this small businessman a 33-percent increase in capital outlay of Federal tax he must pay to run his business, in direct competition with the giant oil companies who not only have the use of his money for 90 days but will not be hit by this increase of capital outlay. I ask you, Is this good legislation? We intend to publish a copy of this letter in the next issue of the Nebraska Oil Jobber along with comments to your replies thereto. Very truly yours, GEORGE L. WATTERS, Secretary. There has been a lot of political, fiscal and publicity hocus-pocus out of Washington about the shortage of money to keep the interstate highway construction going ahead at full steam. The Washington bureaucrats rent the air with loud wails about the highway trust fund being depleted, but nary a one will refrain from bellyaching long enough to give the public the facts. The highway trust fund was created by Congress in 1956. Federal taxes on gasoline, diesel motor fuel, tires, tubes, retread rubber, trucks, buses, trailers, and the truck-use tax were poured into the fund from which expenditures were to be made for Federal-aid highway construction and for no other purposes. From the effective date of the law to June 30, 1958, more than $32 billion was dumped into the fund. Wouldn't it be lovely if the Washington bureaucrats would tell the suffering taxpayers where the $3 billion went? For instance, how many millions or hundreds of millions-went to consulting engineering firms and for reimbursing public utilities for moving their wires, poles, or pipes from highway rights-of-way which they have been using rent free for years on end. What are the reasons for the deficit in the highway trust fund? For some strange reason the causes have not been fully revealed to the public. Since June 30, 1956, millions in tax dollars have been poured into the fund daily. The first charge against the fund amounted to nearly $2 billion. This mere trifle was set aside to meet the demands from the various States on their unmatched and unobligated Federal-aid highway funds dating, in some cases, as far back as 1916. This charge was a pure and simple move to relieve the general fund of an obligation of this amount. The Congress not only permitted this budget-juggling move, it suggested it. The 1956 Highway Act was drafted and enacted into law with the clear knowledge that the receipts of the highway trust fund would be insufficient to meet expenditures during the early years of the authorized highway building program. The House committee report stated that this condition would exist in the period 1960-68 and that repayable advances would have to be obtained from the general fund. The highway trust fund was not designed with the idea of being able to support the intended program on a pay-as-you-go basis. The law specifically provides that the fund may borrow from the general fund to insure the keeping of the highway building program on the intended schedule. And to guarantee that the general fund would be reimbursed for all such borrowings the excise taxes were imposed for a period of 3 years after the program was completed. Congress anticipated the current deficit in the highway trust fund and made provisions for short-term borrowing from the general fund. Why then does the administration demand an increase in the Federal gas tax instead of following the law? And why don't Members of Congress read at least some of the laws they have passed? The answer is simple. It's easier to hang more gas tax on the meek, docile, and gutless owners of motor vehicles. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLS: The attached communication from R. H. Tallman, of the Tallman Oil Co., Fargo, N. Dak., arrived in my office this morning, and I am sending it on to you with the request that you bring Mr. Tallman's views on the Federal gasoline tax to the attention of the members of your committee when considering relevant legislation. Mr. Tallman has requested that his letter be made a part of the hearings, and I hope that it will be possible for you to include his communication in your committee record. With kindest regards, I am DON L. SHORT. TALLMAN OIL CO., Hon. DoN SHORT, Fargo, N. Dak.-Moorhead, Minn., July 23, 1959. Representative from North Dakota, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR DON: I am writing to you at this time to express my views on the subject of increasing the Federal gasoline tax. I am opposed to the increasing of this tax for several reasons, and among them the following: 1. The taxing of gasoline and diesel fuel has long been a taxing power of the States. The Federal Government with the present 3-cents-per-gallon tax has already infringed too much on this source of revenue. 2. I am advised that of the total gasoline and diesel tax now collected, plus the excise tax on automobiles and on tires, that only 58 percent of this total revenue is now channeled into the highway program. It's obvious that if the balance of this tax revenue or even a part of it was channeled into roadbuilding, no increase in fuel taxes would be necessary. 3. On our present market here in Fargo, for example, 40 percent of what you pay for a gallon of gas is tax. Certainly this product is already bearing more than its share of the tax burden. 4. When gasoline was first taxed many years ago, it was a luxury item. As we all realize, gasoline and diesel fuel are a necessity to our present way of life. Thus an increase in the tax on these items is bound to create many hardships on persons not able to bear these hardships. I certainly am against any curtailment of the Federal roadbuilding program. I feel that the roadbuilding program can be carried out without curtailment by financing it in the following manner. Channel the above-mentioned revenue (on gasoline, diesel fuel, automobiles, and tires) into the roadbuilding program. Reduce general expenditures by curtailing such paternalistic and socialistic programs as Federal housing, urban renewal, our present farm program, and the many other programs of this type. I am writing a letter similar to this to Quentin Burdick, with copies to Senators Young and Langer. I would appreciate it very much that this letter be included in the records of the hearing on this issue. With best personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours, R. H. TALLMAN. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is self-explanatory letter received from Mr. N. R. Paschal, containing a request that the letter be included in the record of hearings on the subject of the proposed increase in tax on gasoline. Your consideration of his request will be appreciated. Thanking you, I am, Sincerely yours, JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Member of Congress. Hon. JAMIE WHITTEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. GRENADA, Miss., July 18, 1959. DEAR SIR: This letter comes to you with reference to the proposed increase in Federal gasoline and diesel taxes. Those who propose this legislation indicate that this is necessary for the financing of the deficit in the Federal highway program. Anything that proposes any new taxes on a product that is so heavily laden already, could not meet with the approval of the people who handle these commodities. In the first place, Mississippi has 7 cents State tax on gasoline, 3 cents Federal tax, 3 percent State sales tax, plus one-half of 1 percent municipal tax in the city of Grenada. Mississippi already has the highest tax on gasoline of any State in the Union. Yet, on July 16, 1959, there is a writeup in the Commercial Appeal headlined Jackson, Miss., "Mississippi Sells Additional Bonds-Gasoline Revenue Issue Goes for $5 Million.-The new bond issue bring to $73,202,000 bonds outstanding. Under a new statute the former $60 million ceiling on outstanding gasoline revenue bonds has been upped to $85 million." In the discussion before Congress they mentioned about how many men will be idled by stopping the Federal highway program. Let me state right here, that if there are any additional taxes levied on this product there will be more service stations closed on account of this fact which means there will be more unemployed by the oil industry than there is by the stopping of the highway program. There are four service stations in the city of Grenada that represent an investment of $100,000 that are now closed. There are more service stations in the city of Grenada that are now operated by the oil distributors and commissioned agents than there has been since the end of World War II. This has been brought about by the fact that rentals on service stations have been increased by the inflationary costs of producing service stations, with increased taxation, employment taxes, and increased social security taxes, property taxes, etc., whereas the margin of profit on a gallon of gasoline has actually decreased during the past 5 years. A friend of mine recently made a vacation trip to Michigan and he told me that on his visit to Detroit it looked as if half the service stations were closed. Another point I would like for you to take time to read-about the amount of money going into the Federal till-that during the past fiscal year the Federal automotive and motol fuel taxes yielded $3,589 million, ending June 30, 1958. Of this amount $1,510 million, or 42.1 percent, was diverted for nonhighway purposes. These taxes are more than sufficient to pay for the present Federal highway system. The fact is, Jamie, in our opinion the Government is actually leading the parade in inflationary trends as well as performance. Another point I wish to mention as a final matter is that in our own State every newspaper is continuously bragging about the increased revenue from every type of tax that they have learned how to levy. This brings about a misconception of Mississippi's prosperity. Many people, however, will tell you that Mississippi is a poor State. Mississippi is a rich State; it is just the people that are poor. And it has been proven through the last quarter century that if a tax ever goes on, it never comes off. There must be a stopping point on this ever-increasing burden or else the Government will be taking over the operation of the few items that they now do not control. I am appreciative of the time you have taken to read this letter and would thank you if it could be included in the record of the hearings of this issue. Yours very truly, N. R. PASCHAL. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, DEAR WILBUR: Enclosed is a copy of a telegram I received today from the Yellow Cab Co., and the Badger Cab Co., of Madison, Wis. The taxi companies request a specific exemption from any proposed increase in the gasoline tax because they say they already pay a disproportionate share of the tax. I would appreciate your making their views a part of the hearing record on this matter. With kindest personal regards, Sincerely, ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MADISON, WIS. DEAR SIR: We request specific exemption in proposed legislation increasing gas taxes on the ground that as primarily nonhighway users we already pay a disproportionate share of the present tax. Other nonhighway users now have such exemption we have not. Because of local licensing and rate-setting regulations we have no way of passing on this adidtional expense. We therefore respectfully request your support in presenting our request. Respectfully yours, Hon. R. WALTER RIEHLMAN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. YELLOW CAB Co. THE ATLANTIC REFINING CO., MY DEAR MR. RIEHLMAN: As you can see from this letterhead, I am an employee of the oil industry and as such I am becoming increasingly alarmed over "luxury" taxes being imposed upon one of our principal "necessities”— gasoline. |