(The document is as follows:) Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut. Georgia. State motor-fuel tax rate per gallon on Dec. 31, 1945 [Compiled for calendar year from reports of State authorities] 1 Rate changed from 5.1 cents to 5 cents Feb. 21 and to 6 cents Mar. 16. 2 Rate changed from 3 cents to 4 cents July 4. Special county taxes of 3 cents per gallon in Hancock County and 2 cents per gallon in Harrison and Jackson Counties, amounting to $304,000 in 1945, are imposed for sea-wall protection and are not included in this table. Includes the proceeds of the regular 3 cents per gallon motor-fuel tax and the 1 cent "liquid fuels tax" which applies to practically the same gallonage. Liquid-fuels tax collected on gallonage to which regular motor-fuel tax was not applicable ($7,000 in 1945) is not included. 5 Rate changed from 5.5 cents to 7.5 cents Apr. 16. Amounts given do not include $4,000 in Rhode Island and $613,000 in West Virginia collected and refunded for Diesel fuel used for nonhighway purposes. 7 Weighted average rate. Mr. WHITEHURST. I think, also, Mr. Chairman, you asked the other day about another gas-tax bill that had been introduced in Congress. That bill was introduced by Congressman Springer. Mr. BATES. Yes. Mr. WHITEHURST. In the March 12 Congressional Record, in the appendix, there is a statement by Mr. Springer that I think would be of interest to the committee. Mr. BATES. Was it a statement on local information? Mr. WHITEHURST. We had nothing to do with it. Somebody brought it to me. Mr. Fowler handed it to me. He cut it out of the Congressional Record. Mr. BATES. Thank you, Captain. (The excerpt is as follows:) [From the Congressional Record, March 12, 1947] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GASOLINE TAX (Extension of remarks of Hon. Raymond S. Springer, of Indiana, in the House of Representatives, March 12, 1947) Mr. Speaker, early in this session of the Eightieth Congress, in fact on the first day of the session, I introduced H. R. 148 to raise the present gasoline tax 4 7.5 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 52 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% cents per gallon. I mention these rates in this connection because some irresponsible businessman inferred that 51⁄2-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 Cominissioners 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. For myself and I believe that I have the same attitude on this subject as many Members of this House-I do not intend to so "supposedly equalize this Washington tax problem as to make Washington a haven for tax dodgers. There is a constant and ever-present disposition on the part of groups of the kind I am discussing here to "mooch" on the Federal Government in the question of tax adjustment, which probably accounts in a large measure for the lack of action by Congress on the supposed question of tax-burden equalization. There is broad room for argument as to whether Washington citizens are carrying a share of the tax burden comparable to that of citizens of the various States. The tax burden should be so adjusted as between our constituents and the District citizen that each will carry his fair share of the tax burden of the Nation's Capital. However, the Washington taxpayer is not entitled to pay less than our constituents for the same service. When it comes to road improvement taxes the problem is much simpler, as it is simply a numerical comparison of tax rate per gallon. If we are partners in Washington, then Washington citizens should do as much for their local tax problem as our constituents do for their tax problem. Washington has no right to levy only a 3-cent gasoline tax when it needs 4 cents, or even more than that, then "weep great tears of begging" for Congress to contribute more to District expense budgets, when their partners in my State pay for all their road and highway improvements with a much higher gasoline tax than_the_ District. Consistency is as much a tax jewel as it is in any other life relationship. If this group of disgruntled so-called businessmen do not want to bear their just share of the general tax burden and feel that they can relieve it by so doing, they should move out of Washington. When this bunch of self-righteous figure jugglers do so move out, they will find there is no place they can go where they will pay as low a gasoline tax as they do here. Their next stop will be in a 4-cent gasoline tax State, or from that on up to 7 cents. As for me, I am not going to be a party to a program of contribution to the District of Columbia budget that will result in District residents paying less taxes than my constituents pay. I do not believe that Congress will do that either. Taxes are a painful experience in any event, and should be evenly distributed where that is possible. After reading these newspaper accounts of these supposed businessmen's groups, I am convinced that they desire and intend to "mooch" all they can from the Federal Government without regard to what is their fair share of the tax burden. That is a desire which manifests itself too frequently in this city, and as a Member of Congress I am becoming disgusted with it. Congress desires to be fair to the residents of the District of Columbia, but it gets no help from such selfish groups as I am discussing now. So far as I am concerned, what they say will be entirely disregarded by me until they can analyze facts and get nearer to the truth. Now let us see what are the facts: The Poage report discloses that the highway fund never has been sufficient to meet the street and highway needs of the city of Washington. In fact, this record shows that the highway fund "mooched" on the general funds and the Federal Government to the extent of $42,035,447 from the time this fund was established in 1924 to and including the fiscal year of 1941. The policy of spending more for street improvements than the highway fund produced was discontinued in 1938, and since that time needed work has been delayed until funds are available. This has resulted in much needed street repairs being delayed beyond the time when they are badly needed in many instances. A reference to this report will also disclose that although the population of Washington has practically doubled since 1924, that the highway department has little more funds available per annum now than 20 years ago. In 1941 the District Director of Highways requested that the District gasoline tax be increased to 4 cents per gallon and a bill to that effect passed this House. In the meantime, war was declared, and the Senate cut the tax back to 3 cents, where it is now, on the excuse that wartime restrictions would curtail street repairs and capital improvements and the money would not be needed. This is now recognized to be a false economy, as the streets continued to deteriorate and capital improvements piled up on us with no accumulated backlog of highway funds in the District treasury to meet this accumulated need. This condition bas been called to the attention of the Congress and the public by District officials so often that it would seem that its truth should be self-evident. There is another phase of this subject which further reflects the ignorance of these groups. The District of Columbia along with the several States is entitled to share in Federal highway funds to the extent it is able to match dollar for dollar the amount allocated under the terms of the Federal statute. No funds are available except upon a basis of investment of an equal amount by the State or District. The Highway Department of the District of Columbia has repeatedly called attention to the fact that its participation in this fund is being jeopardized by lack of sufficient funds. However, I assume that this danger does not concern these business groups if they can mooch a little more from the Federal Government. I am astounded that irresponsible business groups would be willing to jeopardize the larger program in order to save momentarily. There is no excuse for the statement that these groups have figures showing that the present gasoline tax income is sufficient to meet the needs of this city.. I assume that the city could exist without any gasoline tax and allow the streets to remain as they are, and we could probably travel them in some fashion for considerable time. The proper method is to keep these streets in current repair, and make capital improvements when they are needed rather than to allow these things to accumulate until they become a collosal burden. The old adage might be pertinent to this situation, "figures do not lie, but liars figure." Leaving all of this argument about gasoline tax income and needed street repairs out of our consideration for the moment, the man in the street knows that when you compare the street requirements of 1924 to 1933 with that of the present time, that the requirements of Washington are or should be much more, if proper consideration is being given to needed improvements and repairs now. This man in the street also knows that when we have a highway tax situation now which provides very little more revenue than was produced in 1924 to 1933, that something is wrong with the conclusions of these pseudo business groups. Either they are grossly ignorant, or they want to bleed the Federal Treasury for every dollar they can get without regard to fairness. If I were convinced that this is the attitude of any considerable number of the citizens of this District, I would be opposed to any tax relief for them until they changed their minds. There may be some room for difference of opinion as to what is a fair share of the real or personal tax burden but there can be no room for argument on a gasoline tax. The taxpayers of Indiana pay a 4-cent State gasoline tax, plus a 12cent Federal gasoline tax, and that adds up to 5% cents total gasoline tax as it now is proposed for the District of Columbia. A representative of the Federation of Business Men's Association "bellyaches" about a like tax for the District because it amounts to a 40 percent gross sales tax. Whatever it amounts to it is the same in Indiana and many other States of the Union, and in many of them more up to 72 cents State and Federal. If the money is needed for good streets and highways, we either levy it or do without the improvements. The people who use and wear out these roads and streets pay this tax and they are willing to pay it out in the States to have good roads. In fact they are willing to pay it everywhere else but here in the desired haven for tax dodgers. Is a 52-cent gasoline tax any more burdensome on District residents than on Indiana residents, and that of many other States? Or 62 cents in Virginia and West Virginia? Or 51⁄2 cents for Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland? Or in some other States 72 cents? It is no less anywhere than 5 cents total, Federal and State, so what is the matter with Washington? The principal thing which these groups have done is to show their ignorance of this subject and demonstrate their prejudice and "mooching" tendencies. In brief, here is their idea of fairness. They are willing for my Indiana taxpayers to pay a gasoline tax of 5% cents per gallon-that is, 4 cents State and 11⁄2 cents Federal-to keep up Indiana State roads, and they want to pay a less gasoline tax than that and have Congress donate $8,000,000 or more to the District of Columbia budget, and transfer whatever is needed from the general fund of the District to the highway fund of the District, and thus accomplish by indirection the tax fraud of having Indiana taxpayers keep up Washington streets because Washington fails to pay its share as demonstrated by the average of the Nation. If 4.6 cents State tax plus 11⁄2 cents Federal, or 6.1 cents per gallon, is the average, what are these so-called businessmen kicking about? If Congress were asking the District of Columbia motorist to pay more than the lowest figure among the States, these whimpering tax dodgers might have something of which they could complain. The highway fund is now inadequate, and they know it; if they want to be fair, they should not object to a gasoline tax the total of which will be six-tenths cents below the average. If these said businessmen's groups were considered to be right, then everyone else who has ever studied this problem is wrong. All of the States of this Union, Congress, District Commissioners, citizens' groups are out of step but these small-visioned, selfish business groups. That is why there is so much criticism leveled at groups of this character. They are so blind they can only see their side of the problem. This problem has two sides, that of the taxpayer in my State and other States of this country, and the District taxpayer. When the District taxpayer pays less than his share, the Indiana taxpayer pays more than his share. The thing Congress tries to do is balance the tax load, but it seems we get very little help from these businessmen's groups. The District taxpayer should not be overloaded, nor should the District taxpayer mooch on the Federal Government. We may have some difficulty with this balancing problem, but its complexity should not cause us to shrink from our duty. However, the duty to honestly tackle this problem rests alike on the citizens of Washington and Congress. The problem is not solved by such foolish enunciations as came from the groups I have mentioned. A gasoline tax for road improvement and maintenance of 4 cents District and 12 cents Federal is no more burdensome in Washington than that same tax in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, or the higher gasoline tax in Virginia and 10 other States. The gasoline-tax money is used for no purpose except highway improvement, and right now is badly needed here in Washington. Do you "bellyaching" businessmen want to pay less for roads than the rest of these United States? If you do, you are going to get badly fooled and not only that, you jeopardize your whole problem of equitable tax distribution. If your reasoning is so much in error when plain comparison of numbers is involved, how do you expect Congress to give any weight to your reasoning on complicated real estate and personal property taxes? Possibly what Congress should do is hike your general tax rate, and make you carry the load and like it. No, Congress should not be unfair just because you are unfair. Congress should quickly adjust the District gasoline tax of 4 cents for District use, as the District needs the money for its highway program and necessary maintenance. I respectfully suggest to my colleagues of this Eightieth Congress that we do not permit an unfair burden to remain on our constituents in order to favor selfish groups who desire to evade their share of their just responsibility. I appeal to you to enact H. R. 2283 into law at the earliest possible moment. Mr. BATES. Mr. Harrison, do you wish to add to your testimony? STATEMENT OF S. R. HARRISON, DEPUTY ENGINEER OF STREETS, Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I would like to, sir. Mr. HARRISON. The Petroleum Industries Committee has recently published a brochure which I would like to discuss. Also the Petroleum Industries Committee has said to us and also to the public generally that they have used our figures in their computation. The results have a ring of plausibility, but the figures have been used in such a manner that we thought it necessary to present you with this part of their brochure. The Petroleum Industries Committee has recently published a brochure entitled "Is an Increase in the District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Necessary." In their reasoning the committee has excluded from consideration important factors which are so well known that it is evident the omission has been made knowingly in an attempt to portray a picture of the situation satisfactory to them but which will mislead the citizens of the District of Columbia. The Petroleum Industries Committee has economists at its command to whom the factors referred to are well known and no other conclusion can be reached than that their calculations have been designed to result in a given and preconceived answer. This is especially true in that their representative was assured on two separate occasions that the government of the |