List of projects that will be affected by funding suspension—Continued Primary-Continued Project description 13 miles north Monticello to north_ Big Spring Wash to Icelander Wash_. South Carbon to Emery County line north to Price_‒‒‒‒ Subtotal__ Secondary: Lehi east to U.S. 91____ La Sal to Northeast Utah-Colorado line___ Manila West and North to Utah-Wyoming line. West of Nephi to Jericho___ East American Fork to junction, to west State road 146_. State Road 80 North to Alpine... Neola to White Rocks Road.. Moab to Castleton___ Northwest of Beaver to Millard County line.. Blue Creek North to Idaho line---- Ogden River Bridge and approaches_. Utah-Colorado line west to La Sal_ Balance of contractual obligations as of June 30, 1959 116, 435 35,946 432, 300 1,348, 003 15, 212 189, 408 19, 803 97, 903 18,821 41,865 99, 315 71, 506 19,822 43, 478 114, 060 92,875 197, 765 Scofield to Clear Creek.... Hyrum to Blacksmith Fork Canyon__ Hanksville West-- 122, 494 Urban 13th south to Simpson Ave. on 7th east SLC, subtotal__ 53, 385 65, 044 170, 254 188, 484 2,262, 225 OFFICE MEMORANDUM, STATE ROAD COMMISSION OF UTAH JULY 21, 1959. To: Elmo R. Morgan, Director of Highways. Fund available Sept. 30, 1959, if we continue as planned at present: Cash balance as of July 1, 1959. Revenue from Bureau of Public Roads, July 1, 1959, to Sept. 30, 1959__. Additional revenue (other than Federal) Estimated gas money, July through September----. Total revenue__ Estimated expenditures, July 1, 1959, to Sept. 30, 1959: Federal construction__. State construction___ Budget_ $378, 253 19, 856, 360 140,000 4,851, 874 25, 226, 487 17, 445, 255 1, 414, 091 Noncontract items_. Total expenditures____ Cash position, Sept. 30, 1959_. Obligations as of Sept. 30, 1959: Interstate.. Primary. Secondary. Urban_-_ D projects-- State construction____. Subtotal construction___ Budget Oct. 1, 1959, to June 30, 1960___. Grand total_ 2, 232, 950 238, 972 21, 331, 268 3, 895, 219 10, 281, 831 4,418, 921 1,805, 059 26, 682 122, 263 628, 062 17, 282, 818 6,698, 850 23, 981, 668 LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY FUNDING SUSPENSION (THOSE From near the Utah-Wasatch County line northerly for 3.1 miles____ $1, 268, 743. 42 658, 146. 99 436, 505.85 Roosevelt and Duchesne, on U.S. 40 from Roosevelt easterly to the Uintah River-on State Route 88, junction of U.S. 40 to Fort Duchesne__. 876, 937. 09 2d west to State St. on 4th south-Nine east to Hemstead Road-13th E St. from 4th to 6th south__. Interstate: Interstate Highway 15 from 18th to 28th in Salt Lake Delle Toward Knolls___ Between Pintura and Anderson's Junction Between Howell and Blue Creek----- Secondary: State Road 21, Beaver southwesterly 10.6 miles toward 493, 908. 64 2,814, 112. 41 14, 631. 71 45, 270. 91 38, 406. 50 Junction of State Route 22 and State Route 62, northerly toward angle.--. 383, 545. 23 206, 748. 52 Total___. 7, 236, 957. 27 HAWKEYE OIL CO., INC., Marshalltown, Iowa, July 30, 1959. Subject: Federal motor fuel tax, H.R. 1343 (Schwengel bill), H.R. 1253, S. 1083 (fair trade). HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: May this letter serve to inform you that, as a petroleum jobber, I am very strongly opposed at the present time to any increase in the Federal motor fuel tax imposed upon the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, and special motor fuels. I am convinced that a substantial part of the motor fuel tax moneys has been detoured from use in the Federal highway program to defray expenditures as general fund, for which some other kind of tax revenues should be used. In my opinion, the motoring public should not be penalized for this misuse, at least in part, of motor fuel tax money. Furthermore, I feel that such an increase n the Federal tax on gasoline would be detrimental and work a hardship on my business by absolutely destroying the incentive for the average consumer to buy and use gasoline for pleasure driving. If, however, irregardless of my objections, there is an increase in the Federal motor fuel tax, then feel that it is imperative that such a bill providing for tax increase include the provisions of the Schwengel bill (H.R. 1343), 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. Also, I wish to make known my objections to two fair trade bills, namely H.R. 1253 and S. 1083. I feel that the passage of either of these bills can only mean higher prices for consumers, and, rather than subjecting me, as a petroleum distributor, to Government control, would in reality subject me to complete price control by my supplier, a large integrated oil company. Therefore, I urge you to vote against these bills. Please include this letter in the record of the hearings on these issues. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, F. A. BOGAERT. ELMIROL CORP. Elmira, N.Y., July 16, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, DEAR SIR: As a local gasoline distributor in New York State we would like to state that we are strongly opposed to any increase in the Federal gasoline tax at this or any other time. Taxes on gasoline at present constitute 30 percent of the retail price in retail stations. We have been the victims of an unprecedented 50-percent increase in State taxes already this year. Any further increase which has to be passed on to the ultimate consumer will seriously affect our area economy. Consumers will use less gasoline and thus will remain at home, rather than ride the new highways under construction. Will not your very purpose of highway con struction then be defeated? We strongly urge that an alternative for funds can be found in economizing in Government operations. Perhaps the Air Force Academy can do without thousands of dollars of new curtains; perhaps congressional junkets can be cut to a minimum (including visits to Russia); perhaps price supports to marginal industries can be removed; perhaps your Government payroll could be reduced by reducing the number of employees and increasing the efficiency of the existing output. We are an independent distributor who would like to stay in business. As you increase your taxes, you are necessarily reducing our margin (pennies per gallon) and public consumption. As we see it, if this procedure continues, you will eventually push the small man out of business. We can then point to Government and say that our own representatives caused our business to collapsea sad commentary about elected officials. We would like this letter to be made a matter of record for the hearings scheduled for July 22, 1959. Very truly yours, R. W. CORNELL, Secretary. SINCLAIR REFINING CO., Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As a commission marketer, an independent businessman, for Sinclair I feel strongly that further increases in motor fuel taxes will seriously affect the economy of New York State. I urge that you turn down the proposal for an increase in the Federal gas tax. Dealing directly with over 12 retail service station dealers, I know that they agree, also. I request that this letter be made a matter of record at the public hearings of July 22, 1959. Yours truly, ROBERT W. ANDREE. VOGT GAS & OIL, Dansville, N.Y., July 16, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. MILLS: Relative to the proposed increase in the Federal gas tax I feel that the present 6-cent State tax and the 3-cent Federal tax is high enough, and therefore am opposed to any further tax increase. I request that this letter be made a matter of record of the hearings. Thank you. Yours very truly, CHARLES G. MAICHLE. Representative W. M. MILLS, THE CRYSTAL FLASH PETROLEUM CORP., Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: We are most concerned about the current recommendations for increasing the Federal gasoline tax. We, in Indiana, are definitely against any increase in taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, and special motor fuels, whether it be temporary or permanent. We understand that Federal automotive and motor fuel taxes yielded $3,589 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, but that $1,510 million, or more than 42 percent, was diverted for nonhighway purposes. These taxes that are being diverted are more than sufficient to pay for the present Federal highway program. If, despite all of the objections that you and the members of the Ways and Means Committee are receiving, the Federal gasoline tax is imposed, then it is imperative that the bill providing for such increase should include 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. We sincerely believe that an increase in the Federal gasoline tax is unfair, unjust, and unneeded. Please enter this letter as part of the record at the Ways and Means Committee hearing which is to be held July 22, 1959. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Very truly yours, FRED M. FEHSENFELD, Vice President. K. C. JEFFRIES OIL Co., Hon. WILBUR MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: My complete organization and business associates are definitely opposed to any increase in Federal tax on gasoline, diesel fuel, and special motor fuels. Additional funds if needed for the highway program should come from general revenue. We feel like this is definitely an inflationary move to increase the gasoline tax as today we have evidence that the Government and business is trying to curtail the inflationary move with the position that "Big Steel" has taken today. If in spite of my objection and the objections of many others, the Federal gasoline tax is increased then it is imperative that the bill providing for such an increase include 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. Please have this letter included in the records of the hearing. Sincerely yours, K. C. JEFFRIES, President. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DICKEY & SHAVER, INC., Wayzata, Minn., July 16, 1959. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MILLS: I write this letter not only out of personal concern for the welfare of our own business but as an expression of the views of many members of Northwest Petroleum Association of which I am a vice president. Northwest is an organization of some 800 petroleum jobbers in Minnesota and North Dakota. It is our hope that your committee will see fit to not recommend an increase in Federal gasoline tax. An increase in the Federal tax would be a further encroachment on an area of taxation which has traditionally been a province of the various States. It would put additional costs on the already heavily taxed users of roads and we feel that a greater portion of costs of the Interstate Highway System should be borne out of general taxation on the basis that considerable import has been placed on the position of the system with respect to national security and defense. The level at which the Federal tax is assessed is a concern to us. Under present practice a jobber is billed for the tax on the invoice from his supplier and must pay the tax in order to avail himself of the 10-day cash discount provision on the invoice. This requires additional working capital on which the jobber must pay interest. Any increase in gasoline tax, regardless of the level, increases the burden of receivables except in those minority cases involving a cash sale. To many jobbers this is an extremely critical problem because very few of us are able to compete successfully against larger companies in all industries in the market for favorable interest rates on working capital The fact that gasoline is a volatile liquid and cannot be handled without product loss also adds a cost which is not presently recognized by the Federal Government. It is impossible to sell 1,000 gallons for each thousand we buy, yet we are required to pay the tax on the full thousand gallons. We feel that recognition should be taken of this and that an allowance should be provided to compensate for this problem of handling a volatile liquid. Despite all the prudence any of us are able to exercise in extending credit some credit losses are unavoidable. While we do not expect the Government to condone unwise credit practices we do feel that it should recognize unavoidable credit losses as a fact of business life and give the seller of gasoline some allowance in handling a tax which is humanly impossible to collect in its entirety. We were told about 2 years ago that the creation of the allowances which we felt were needed would create too serious a problem of mechanics within the Treasury Department. We think this is entirely beside the point and in this respect cannot resist comparison of the mechanics of handling the gasoline |