Mr. BATES. But the facts are that we are paying today twice as much for the transportation of crude oil and gasoline, and light oils from the oil fields to the eastern seaboard than we would have had to pay through the pipe lines.

Mr. KELLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not informed on that, but I would be glad to get what information I can on that.

Mr. BATES. Please do that, and give it to me personally, and see how it checks with the information I got from other sources. Now, Captain Whitehurst, do you wish to be heard again?

STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. WHITEHURST, DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS, ENGINEER DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir. I have some documents that I would like to leave with you, and in addition, I would like to have you hear Mr. Harrison.

Mr. BATES. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITEHURST. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to file with the committee, so that there will be no misunderstanding of them having it, this statement which gives, on page 68, the immediate program and the postwar highway program which runs to 1949, together with the detailed list, and other schedules to the future, and attached on the last two pages, marked Exhibit A, is a list of projects beyond the post war years which we have labeled "1950 to 1955.”

(The document was filed for the information of the committee.) Mr. WHITEHURST. We also would like to file with the committee directly this statement of the Highway Department showing all of its financial transactions with a forecast of estimates including revenues and expenditures, through the year 1955.

Mr. BATES. This gives your estimates?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir, gives everything in there. There are several additional copies of this.

(The document was filed for the information of the committee.) Mr. BATES. I think you have probably provided us with the information, and it got into the hands of the Senate Committee, and I sort of lost track of it.

Mr. WHITEHURST. We would also like to file the action the Commissioners have taken on April 4 with respect to this highway program. I would like to leave two copies of that also.

(The document was filed for the information of the committee.) Mr. WHITEHURST. Now, while Mr. Keller and his associates seem to be excellent figurers, I am prone to say that I do not think that they thoroughly understand the situation.

He referred to not having taken a holiday during the war years in certain minor capital improvements, and the fact that we had so much money appropriated.

I would like to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the reason we had these balances that we carried over that Mr. Keller spoke of, was due to war work, which was authorized and directed by Congress in a supplemental estimate in 1941 and 1942, and the Highway Fund was in the red to the extent of very nearly $2,000,000. On paper, of course. We deliberately canceled the majority of the local improvements that Congress had authorized in the 1942 and 1943 appropriation bills.

in order to get this fund back into the black, and to be able to go through with the necessary war work.

The reason that we had the balances, we canceled over $700,000 contained in the 1943 act by specific items.

And when I say "canceled," I mean we did not actually perform the work, so that the money would be carried forward.

Now, Mr. Keller and his associates have very kindly undertaken, over a period of months, to tell us just how we should put our budget together, how we should make our revenue estimates, what kind of a budget we should have, but we do not think that the petroleum industry knows what is needed in Washington nor what the people

want.

However, as time went on, I rather lost confidence in the figures. He has read the fourth statement here today.

That is based on this same thing. The first statement that was put out by them came to us prior to the Commissioners' hearing on the increase. After we got hold of it, we marked it up with red figures which showed our official records as compared with what he had used.

For instance, he used, in 1946, $4,200,000 as the gas-tax income. Actually, the fiscal year having been completed, we knew exactly what we collected. We collected $3,684,925.

He showed under the registration fees and carrier fees $1,600,000. The actual was $1,161,858.

Well, prior to the public hearing, they revamped their statement and presented a statement in the public hearing which mathematically as to additions was very good, but we discovered, in analyzing it, that they had left out items over the 3-year period amounting to $7,250,000.

Well, quite naturally, they showed quite a substantial balance.

Now, this last statement that Mr. Keller so kindly furnished us several weeks ago-in effect, what they say is this: If you will hold your fixed expenses, your maintenance and operation, your minor capital improvements, at your 1947 level, there will be enough money left for major capital improvements. We do not deny that. But the fixed expenses have gone up mainly because of wage increases, coupled with the fact that the Commissioners and the Congress have authorized an enlargement of the personnel of the Office of Director of Vehicles and Traffic, long overdue.

We all know that maintenance expenses have gone up.

And while I speak of operations, I do want to bring this one point in-that there has been no increase in the statutory force of the Highway Department in 10 years, except for the new positions that we are carrying in the 1948 bill in order to enable us to cover the projections that we have projected and will have under construction.

Now, maintenance costs have gone up more than any other cost. They have gone up to such a startling amount that we are right now in a very extended study, to see what we can do to combat the situation.

So that these two statements are naturally a little odd. Until I thoroughly explore them, I do not have much faith in the figures, and you can do anything with figures that you want to do with them, depending upon how you set them up.

Now, to take the current situation, which is probably the most enlightening, we talk about the gas-tax increase or the gas-consumption increase.

We used, as a basis of our estimate for 1947, 160,000,000 gallons of gas. Up to the first of the last day of last month, we were running at a rate of less than 145,000,000. Now, if we do not exceed 145,000,000, our revenue estimate for 1947 based on the 3-cent tax, will be $450,000 short of what we anticipated. That is one thing we are face to face with right now.

There is a great deal more, Mr. Bates, that could be said and information I could furnish in detail.

I have read a prepared statement before your committee; I have filed various documents with the committee; and I am prepared to file any other information that the committee wants in a break-down of cost, personnel, need, or to discuss the various projects that are included in the postwar program or in the projected program.

You will find in one of those documents justification and the reason for the inclusion of each and every project that is in there. It may be that the committee, in time, will want further statements in regard to that.

But the statement that was furnished us quite recently-when the petroleum committee put this information out to the gas stations, and by mail and otherwise-Mr. Keller very kindly furnished us with a copy of his statement. The pamphlet that they distributed showing all these figures, and so on, a copy of which came into the hands of Commissioner Mason-and he turned it over to Mr. Harrison, who is here today, and who is in charge of our Finance and Administrative Section of the Highway Department; he has had these things analyzed and the statement they put out had 13 reasons why the gas tax of the District of Columbia should not be increased.

Well, we only found 2 of the 13 statements to be totally correct. There is one other that may be true. The verbiage used was an inference that made it incorrect.

However, I would like to have Mr. Harrison present this, because I think it is important.

Because Mr. Keller has left the impression here-endeavored tothat the District Highway Department has been extravagant and careless in its accounts and does not know exactly how to put its budget and its revenue statements, and so forth, together.

I might call the committee's attention to the fact, before I turn it over to Mr. Harrison, that the question of gas-tax increases has been up his winter in 22 states. Just what the status of all this legislation is, I am not prepared to say, except in connection with the State of Maryland, where they have increased it from 4 to 5 cents.

I would like to file with the committee for their information the latest statement of the Public Roads, which is for 1945. The 1946 statement has not come out yet. This shows the gas-tax rate in all of the States of the Union. This is the State rate and does not include the Federal rate.

I think maybe someone might want to refer to this. It is in the first column, Mr. Chairman.

in order to get this fund back into the black, and to be a through with the necessary war work.

The reason that we had the balances, we canceled over contained in the 1943 act by specific items.

And when I say "canceled," I mean we did not actually the work, so that the money would be carried forward.

Now, Mr. Keller and his associates have very kindly und over a period of months, to tell us just how we should put ou together, how we should make our revenue estimates, what 1 budget we should have, but we do not think that the petro dustry knows what is needed in Washington nor what th want.

However, as time went on, I rather lost confidence in the fi He has read the fourth statement here today.

That is based on this same thing. The first statement that out by them came to us prior to the Commissioners' hearin increase. After we got hold of it, we marked it up with re which showed our official records as compared with what he l

For instance, he used, in 1946, $4,200,000 as the gas-tax Actually, the fiscal year having been completed, we knew exac we collected. We collected $3,684,925.

He showed under the registration fees and carrier fees $1 The actual was $1,161,858.

Well, prior to the public hearing, they revamped their st and presented a statement in the public hearing which ma cally as to additions was very good, but we discovered, in a it, that they had left out items over the 3-year period amou $7,250,000.

Well, quite naturally, they showed quite a substantial bala Now, this last statement that Mr. Keller so kindly furn several weeks ago-in effect, what they say is this: If you v your fixed expenses, your maintenance and operation, you capital improvements, at your 1947 level, there will be enoug left for major capital improvements. We do not deny that. fixed expenses have gone up mainly because of wage increa pled with the fact that the Commissioners and the Congr authorized an enlargement of the personnel of the Office of of Vehicles and Traffic, long overdue.

We all know that maintenance expenses have gone up.

And while I speak of operations, I do want to bring this o in-that there has been no increase in the statutory force of th way Department in 10 years, except for the new positions tha carrying in the 1948 bill in order to enable us to cover the pr that we have projected and will have under construction.

Now, maintenance costs have gone up more than any ot They have gone up to such a startling amount that we are ri in a very extended study, to see what we can do to con situation.

So that these two statements are naturally a little odd I thoroughly explore them, I do not have much faith in the and you can do anything with figures that you want to do wi depending upon how you set them up.

in the District of Columbia to 4 cents per gallon. This would adjust it nearer to the average of the several States, which average is 4.6 cents per gallon. The Federal Government also has a tax of 1% cents per gallon, which would make the total gasoline tax in the District of Columbia 511⁄2 cents per gallon. The gasoline tax in the various States ranges from 4 cents per gallon to 7 cents per · gallon, plus the Federal tax of 1% cents per gallon, which makes the rate in the various States range from 5% to 8%1⁄2 cents per gallon. I mention these rates in this connection because some irresponsible businessman inferred that 5%-cent gasoline tax in the District was far above anything in existence.

A few days ago H. R. 2283 was introduced by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen].' It proposes to accomplish the same result which I had in mind, except that this bill would make this 4-cent-per-gallon District tax permanent. I feel that this is the proper and necessary thing to do, and I am in full accord with making this tax permanent. A 4-cent gasoline tax for District purposes has been approved by various citizen groups, the civilian advisory group appointed by the District Commissioners, and others, and is strongly and vigorously supported by the District Commissioners and Captain Whitehurst, of the Highway Department of the District.

This money which an additional 1 cent of gasoline tax will produce for the District of Columbia is urgently needed and has been earnestly requested by the Highway Department for a number of years. In fact, as early as 1941 Captain Whitehurst strongly recommended this additional tax. Highway improvement work is badly needed and much capital highway improvement is necessary. The city is growing and expending, new streets are being opened and improved, and the need is becoming increasingly critical. Nevertheless, whenever Congress suggests fair and appropriate action on any subject vital to the District of Columbia, various reactionary and selfish agencies in this city begin a program of misrepresentation and vilification. Of course, by doing so they emphasize their unreliability and unfairness, but as a Member of Congress I am becoming disgusted with this kind of disservice to the District of Columbia and the confusion such misconduct creates. If these incompetent organizations will investigate the facts they will easily ascertain their own absurdity.

The most comprehensive study ever made of this District of Columbia gasoline tax subject was that made by a subcommittee of this House under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poage]. This report was the result of extensive hearings, consultations with highway officials of the States of Maryland and Virginia, and the compilation of information secured from the District Commissioners and the Highway Department of the District of Columbia. It was filed early in 1941. It has never been refuted or disproven by any of the agencies now attacking this proposed gasoline tax of 4 cents per gallon. Nor has it been disproven by anyone else who has made a careful study of this subject.

The city newspapers carried a news story purporting to quote representatives of the Federation of Business Men's Associations and the District Petroleum Industries Committee, both organizations of persons in the District of Columbia, in which they denied the need for any more highway funds in the District of Columbia. Men of this class would be presumed to have more common sense than was exhibited in this instance. If the newspaper quoted them correctly, they demonstrated superlative ignorance of this subject and shocking unfairness in their approach to this subject. These statements were prompted either by ignorance or fraud. They were not based upon a true analysis of this subject, and these men should have known it or have kept still. Their statements do no credit to their intelligence. The trouble with these groups is that they have no desire to be fair or state the truth, and they represent or misrepresent a very small segment of Washington citizenry. I would be keenly disappointed if a very considerable segment of Washington citizens were guilty of this kind of misstatement. I would be convinced of their unfairness where they make such ridiculous statements, on the one hand, and, on the other, ask Congress to make a larger contribution to the District of Columbia budget.

Such attitudes as this, backed by such irresponsible statements, has caused the defeat of proper legislation on this subject of congressional responsibility to the District of Columbia in the past, and it will continue to bar such legislation in the future. Congress has a desire to be fair with the District of Columbia when citizens of the District assume an attitude of fairness and honesty with Congress.