new automobiles, parts, accessories, etc. were to be specifically earmarked for highways, an additional Federal levy might not be necessary. If it developed that these additional funds were insufficient, why wouldn't it be possible to change the timetable on the program? There is no great life-and-death urgency about rushing this superhighway to completion. Construction schedules can and should be adjusted to match the rate at which the funds are provided to pay for them. In conclusion, may I say that we oppose any increase in the Federal gasoline tax and recommend that a termination of diversion of highway-users taxes, which I mentioned earlier, and a stretchout of our highway program will prove to be a solution to our fiscal problems. May I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present this statement. ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX., July 2, 1959. Congressman WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Please insert into hearing record on proposed gasoline tax increase reiterated opposition of 26 member groups comprising the New Mexico Highway Users Conference. M. H. ROMNEY, Chairman, New Mexico Highway Users Conference. NEW HAMPSHIRE HIGHWAY USERS CONFERENCE, Manchester, N.H., July 15, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: In behalf of the affiliated organizations of the New Hampshire Highway Users Conference, and at their request, I am writing to you at this time to ask that the conference be recorded, at the public hearings your committee will conduct starting July 22, as firmly opposed to any and all proposals to increase the rate of the Federal tax on motor fuels. Respectfully yours, NATHAN A. TIRRELL, Chairman, New Hampshire Highway Users Conference. STATEMENT OF JAMES C. PARK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ARKANSAS OIL DEALERS ASSOCIATION This written statement is made on behalf of the Arkansas Oil Dealers Association, which represents the petroleum industry in its governmental and public relations affairs in Arkansas, opposing further increasing the Federal gasoline tax, including comment and suggestions for alleviating the financial dilemma the Federal Government finds itself in and also including some Arkansas highway information. We wish to make it clear that we are not opposed to reasonable highway users taxes to build roads and we endorse the theory of pay-as-you-go for both State and Federal road spending. Highways are essential to the economic welfare and national defense of our Nation and, therefore, must be regarded as a continuing public responsibility. Adequate highways benefit every community and every citizen; therefore, the cost should not be considered an exclusive responsibility of the individual motorist. They should be viewed in proper relationship with other vital public tax-supported services. Our association has always advocated that sound engineering, sound financial practices, and sound management are essential elements of a good and adequate highway program. These practices eliminate bottlenecks, both physical and financial, give motorists more roads for the tax money-and most of all, help to keep tax rates within reason. We simply call attention to the grave danger of overspending anticipated high tax revenues and not receiving full value in roads for our tax dollars. Somewhere down the line, the States (at least the highway officials in Arkansas) were led to believe that the Federal Government would not run out of money to give the States for a highway program. And, of course, the present shortage in the Federal highway trust fund could have been avoided if sound procedures had been followed. In the first place, Congress should not have transferred almost $2 billion of apportionments made under previous Federal highway acts to the trust fund when it was created back in 1956. These apportionments were a proper charge against the general fund of the Treasury and were so intended to be when they were first authorized by Congress. Secondly, the Federal highway trust fund was, in our opinion, unfairly charged with supplemental highway apportionments of $1.2 billion under the 1958 Highway Act. These apportionments were intended primarily to provide jobs and to help stop the general business recession. Therefore, we submit, they, too, should be met out of the general revenues of the Treasury. The Arkansas Legislature was asked this year to increase the State gasoline tax from 6 to 72 cents per gallon in order for the Arkansas Highway Department to match anticipated future Federal funds. This bill was introduced in the senate for the highway department and on a rollcall vote there were 32 votes against with 1 vote for the bill. Yet, despite this, the Arkansas Highway Department later decided it could get along without the additional tax and proceeded to let more and bigger contracts than ever before. It now has larger monthly cash balances, which shows good fiscal practices. It, nevertheless, geared itself for the anticipated big Federal granted by securing passage of appropriation bills that almost stagger the imagination. We submit, for the record only, the following table of appropriations, actual and anticipated income and expenditures of the Arkansas Highway Department for the fiscal years 1957 through 1961: 1 1956-57 and 1957-58 are actual figures. Other years are Arkansas Highway Department estimates. As you can see from the tabulation above, we are now spending a tremendous amount of money on our State highways, and we will be spending double that amount by 1961 if we carry out the projected schedule. It seems that the question right now is the soundness of taking any more money out of the economy for roads, keeping in mind that the taxpayers have to pay for all these functions of the Government. We feel the time has come to put a ceiling on taxes so that instead of hurting the motorists, we will be helping them. No doubt Congress has similar figures from the other States. We merely call the committee's attention to this in order that it might give proper study to the actual needs as compared to the requests of the entire roadbuilding setup. We wish to point out here an on-the-spot observation-as far as Arkansas is concerned, there should be adequate funds to finance the interstate program as well as the regular Federal-aid highways within the scheduled time period without any additional highway users taxes for the Federal or State level. To further justify our contentions, the total final estimated cost of constructing the 525 miles of the Interstate System in Arkansas was $401,267,000. Total funds available through fiscal 1960 are $109,092,983, or 27.1 percent of the total program. From here on, we should see 7.7 percent of the program completed 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.O.: 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. CAREY W. HILLIARD, 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 12 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. STOTZ, 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 |