Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

ton-miles-per-gallon on waterways, and yet you have some environmental groups who have been co-oped by the railroads.

I understand the railroads. This is a competitive society and part of the competition is in the marketplace and part of the competition is in the Congress and you try to get your competition to improve it.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is what it is all about. I just think the railroads are dead wrong in trying to put waterways at a competitive disadvantage.

I think it is very much in the national interest to not only encourage the refurbishing of those waterways we have, but in some cases to build more.

Mr. Chairman, we have had all kinds of talks about studies that have been made in the past on different modes of transportation and how much the Government has invested directly and indirectly.

The fact of the matter is there has never been a multidisciplinary study which has fully analyzed the question of how much does the Federal Government do for highways, where are all of the direct and indirect subsidies for highways and for railroads and for waterways and for other modes of transportation. There is not one such study that covers the waterfront.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to get into the business of changing national policy, a national policy established for decades and if we are going to try to discourage waterways and really that is what user charges would do, then it ought to be done only after a full study of the matter.

This is what our bill would undertake, to have that kind of a study. A broad-range study has preceded almost every major change in policy that this country has undertaken.

Mr. Chairman, today I want to introduce a panel which is able to speak to that question of the study, is able to speak to that question of user charges and their effect on various segments of industry that are affected by it.

We have panel members who represent the coal industry, our leading shipper of grain by rail and water and we are able to speak on the effect of the steel industry on the Upper Ohio River.

Also, we will have an assessment of the problems the Nation's seaports have with cost recovery of port development and analysis of the shortcomings, most of them conceded of the studies on the user tax issue made so far.

Mr. Chairman, this is an outstanding panel, Mr. William J. Hull, vice president of Ashland Oil, Inc., Washington, D.C., who is counsel on the Water Resources Congress, will coordinate the efforts of this panel

I believe, Mr. Chairman, you wanted to defer their testimony?

Senator GRAVEL. We know the group that is representing the railroads had a timeframe problem. But I think they fully expected to be here for the morning. My thought is, since possession is ninetenths of the law and you have got possession of the main table, that we would accommodate the panel; then we would move right to the railroad panel. So we will put this testimony back to back.

Senator JOHNSTON. Very good, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRAVEL. I would be happy to have you introduce your panel. Then we will move forward.

Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. William J. Hull will introduce the panel. Mr. Chairman, I must go to OCS hearings.

Senator GRAVEL. You have got the same problem I have got. We understand.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Johnston, before you leave, let me tell you

Senator JOHNSTON. That you agree.

Senator DOMENICI (continuing). That I agree that this panel can proceed.

Senator JOHNSTON. I thought you were going to change your mind.

Senator DOMENICI. Not yet. You are overwhelming, but I haven't changed it yet. I just wanted to tell you, just so you understand the kinds of studies. Here is one, Senator Johnston. This one only costs $5 million and its water policies for the future; final report to the President and the Congress by the Water Commission.

I won't tell you about the time and who did the rest of these. But I believe, as they are looked at, that the intermodal and interdisciplinary evaluation has been done.

Senator JOHNSTON. Let me say if I may, Senator Domenici, I am familiar with that Waterway Resources Council study. I may say they come from an overpaid subsidiary.

Senator DOMENICI. They might have. I did want to also tell you that we didn't try to get old studies. These are since 1972, to put it into perspective what I have shown you.

I would also just comment on your concern about the competitive disadvantage that a user charge might put the bargeowners in. The Congressional Budget Office evaluated the subsidies as a percentage of industry revenues and a very current evaluation.

Here is what they found: Air carriers, 1974, 1 percent of industry revenues; 1975, 1 percent; 1976, 1 percent; railway freightand they took 1976, which had the biggest new package that has been passed-railway freight, 1974, 1 percent; 1975, 2 percent; 1976, 3. percent—that is a subsidy as a percent of industry revenues-inland navigation, 1974, 47 percent; 1975, 44 percent; 1976, 41 percent.

Senator JOHNSTON. The subsidies to the truckers, what did they count? What was it, 1 percent for truckers?

Senator DOMENICI. No; highway transportation, they were unable to put the package together, except for the year 1976, I apologize, they have highway transportation. They were able to put 1976 into the equation and it is 1 percent.

As you know, that is because they figure in the amount of tax they pay on their energy and other accessories.

I have heard you speak heretofore and I commend you for your position and for your forthrightness. But I want to suggest one other thing: When we talk about inland waterways being the most economic means of transportation, there can be no question that is true.

But the issue that is paramount now in our country is energy consumption. I want to share with you, because I heard you speak ton-miles-per-gallon on waterways, and yet you have some envi. ronmental groups who have been co-oped by the railroads.

88-866 0.77 - 18

I understand the railroads. This is a competitive society and part of the competition is in the marketplace and part of the competition is in the Congress and you try to get your competition to improve it.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is what it is all about. I just think the railroads are dead wrong in trying to put waterways at a competitive disadvantage.

I think it is very much in the national interest to not only encourage the refurbishing of those waterways we have, but in some cases to build more.

Mr. Chairman, we have had all kinds of talks about studies that have been made in the past on different modes of transportation and how much the Government has invested directly and indirectly.

The fact of the matter is there has never been a multidisciplinary study which has fully analyzed the question of how much does the Federal Government do for highways, where are all of the direct and indirect subsidies for highways and for railroads and for waterways and for other modes of transportation. There is not one such study that covers the waterfront.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to get into the business of changing national policy, a national policy established for decades and if we are going to try to discourage waterways and really that is what user charges would do, then it ought to be done only after a full study of the matter.

This is what our bill would undertake, to have that kind of a study. A broad-range study has preceded almost every major change in policy that this country has undertaken.

Mr. Chairman, today I want to introduce a panel which is able to speak to that question of the study, is able to speak to that question of user charges and their effect on various segments of industry that are affected by it.

We have panel members who represent the coal industry, our leading shipper of grain by rail and water and we are able to speak on the effect of the steel industry on the Upper Ohio River.

Also, we will have an assessment of the problems the Nation's seaports have with cost recovery of port development and analysis of the shortcomings, most of them conceded of the studies on the user tax issue made so far.

Mr. Chairman, this is an outstanding panel, Mr. William J. Hull, vice president of Ashland Oil, Inc., Washington, D.C., who is counsel on the Water Resources Congress, will coordinate the efforts of this panel.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, you wanted to defer their testimony?

Senator GRAVEL. We know the group that is representing the railroads had a timeframe problem. But I think they fullv experted to be here for the morning. My thought is, since possession is ninetenths of the law and you have got possession of the main table, that we would accommodate the panel; then we would move right to the railroad panel. So we will put this testimony back to back.

Senator JOHNSTON. Very good, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRAVEL. I would be happy to have you introduce your panel. Then we will move forward.

Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. William J. Hull will introduce the panel. Mr. Chairman, I must go to OCS hearings.

Senator GRAVEL. You have got the same problem I have got. We understand.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Johnston, before you leave, let me tell you

Senator Johnston. That you agree.

Senator DOMENICI (continuing). That I agree that this panel can proceed.

Senator JOHNSTON. I thought you were going to change your mind.

Senator DOMENICI. Not yet. You are overwhelming, but I haven't changed it yet. I just wanted to tell you, just so you understand the kinds of studies. Here is one, Senator Johnston. This one only costs $5 million and its water policies for the future; final report to the President and the Congress by the Water Commission.

I won't tell you about the time and who did the rest of these. But I believe, as they are looked at, that the intermodal and interdisciplinary evaluation has been done.

Senator JOHNSTON. Let me say if I may, Senator Domenici, I am familiar with that Waterway Resources Council study. I may say they come from an overpaid subsidiary.

Senator DOMENICI. They might have. I did want to also tell you that we didn't try to get old studies. These are since 1972, to put it into perspective what I have shown you.

I would also just comment on your concern about the competitive disadvantage that a user charge might put the bargeowners in. The Congressional Budget Office evaluated the subsidies as a percentage of industry revenues and a very current evaluation.

Here is what they found : Air carriers, 1974, 1 percent of industry revenues; 1975, 1 percent; 1976, 1 percent; railway freightand they took 1976, which had the biggest new package that has been passed-railway freight, 1974, 1 percent; 1975, 2 percent; 1976, 3. percent—that is a subsidy as a percent of industry revenues—inland navigation, 1974, 47 percent; 1975, 44 percent; 1976, 41 percent.

Senator JOHNSTON. The subsidies to the truckers, what did they count? What was it, 1 percent for truckers!

Senator DOMENICI. No; highway transportation, they were unable to put the package together, except for the year 1976, I apologize, they have highway transportation. They were able to put 1976 into the equation and it is 1 percent.

As you know, that is because they figure in the amount of tax they pay on their energy and other accessories.

I have heard you speak heretofore and I commend you for your position and for your forthrightness. But I want to suggest one other thing: When we talk about inland waterways being the most economic means of transportation, there can be no question that is true.

But the issue that is paramount now in our country is energy consumption. I want to share with you, because I heard you speak to the subject and I went to try to find an answer to whether or not on just energy consumption per ton-mile; whether barges were, in fact, the most energy conservation mode of transportation.

88-866 0.77 - 18

I will read to you from a study that concludes that it is not. The "Energy Intensity of Barges and Rail Freight Hauling Study,' conducted by the Center for Advanced Computation at the University of Illinois, concluded that rail is 10 to 23 percent less energy intense than barges. This was based on average train movements involving few carloads, not necessarily moving in the most direct route, point-to-point unit trains are nearly twice as efficient as barge movements, energy only considered.

Another study showing shipments of unit trains and using the energy there concludes that moving from a single point of origin to a single destination would require 226 Btu's per ton-mile. That turns out to be about twice as energy efficient as truck-barge shipment over the same route.

Senator JOHNSTON. Would the Senator yield at that point? The figures that I quoted were, as I recall, barge transportation was something like 307 ton-miles per gallon, as opposed to rail, which was about half that

My figures were from a 1976 study of the Department of Transportation. I would think that that would have a level of dignity higher than the study from someone out there in Illinois Illinois is a fine State but the Department of Transportation is supposed to be the highest authority. But if it is not, that only illustrates the point. You have two different studies, one by the Department of Transportation saying it is twice as good as barge, and some college says: “No, it is only half as good."

I thank you for helping me make my point.

Senator DOMENICI. If you look at DOT's study. This is talking about point to point, and the other is talking about the circuitous type of routing or vice versa. Anyhow, I believe the Illinois study is authentic on point to point and distances.

I believe DOT is going to disagree when they testify. But we will share their testimony with you. I am sure you will get it when they come over and talk on the subject. Thank you very much.

Senator JOHNSTON. Thank you.
Senator GRAVEL. Thank you.

At this time, before we go to the panel, we have with us a Congressman to whom I would like to extend courtesies, Alvin Baldus. If you would give us the benefit of your wisdom, we will go forward.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALVIN BALDUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. Baldus. Thank you for your courtesy. I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to appear before you today to submit testimony into the record of Mr. Harvey Goodell, a civil engineer. His testimony concerns an alternative plan he has developed for replacing the locks at the existing facility, without causing a lengthy closing of the existing locks during construction.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »