Mr. WOODWORTH. No.

Mr. TUCKER. It does use diesel fuel primarily for engine operation? Mr. WOODWORTH. That is correct. This tax, if I recall correctly, was placed on trucks as a part of providing for the highway cost at that time.

Mr. TUCKER. Would you like to see a tax imposed on all diesel fuel? Wouldn't that be a simpler way of handling this?

it

Mr. WOODWORTH. I think that it would be appropriate to place

Mr. TUCKER. You already have the 4-cent tax on highway.

Mr. WOODWORTH. What we are really talking about are taxes in the nature of user charges and if you think

Mr. TUCKER. But you don't want it to go in a trust fund, you want this to go into general revenue.

Mr. WOODWORTH. I realize this. But we are still trying to get a matchup between the costs involved here and the beneficiaries insofar as the waterway program is concerned. I don't really think that you even begin to face that issue when you are talking only about a 4 or 8-cent-a-gallon charge because those charges are so far below the cost of the waterway program.

Mr. TUCKER. There has been a great deal of talk about users fees and clearly wehave some precedent in this area.

My time has expired, but I would like to make this observation. It has been stressed by the Secretary and by others that we are trying to deal with a competitive national waterway transportation system. I could not agree more. Throughout the United States we have dealt with individual projects, schemes that had nationwide impact. The same is true of our waterway system. But the rule has been, with relatively few exceptions, that when you are creating projects of nationwide importance and impact that helps glue together the economy of the Nation as a whole, you do not attempt to have simply one area or one particular segment of the economy.

I am not sure that any great case can be made that we should depart from that general principle to follow the rules that we adopted for the highway trust fund system or for the airway trust funds. The water projects that the President now appears inclined to sign-nine of them-I voted against all 18 and I am very disappointed that the President has now decided to apparently approve 9 of those projects.

But, at any rate, I can tell you for certain that one of the projects in my State, which I think is a mistake, is not going to impose upon landowners along that project any user fee to pay the cost of that $94 million project.

The same is true with the vast number of other public works projects throughout the country. The reason we draw on the general revenues is because they are for public benefit and it strikes me that the waterway system of this Nation in terms of irrigation, flood control, transportation, alternative modes of commerce within the Nation, having historically been recognized as having broad national benefit.

We would not discover the interior of this country or be able to develop it without the utilization of our waterways, and I would wish very strongly that the administration would reconsider this

approach and would at least delay until we have some comprehensive recommendation from the study commission on the subject.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Secretary, we thank you and your associates for coming before the committee.

The committee will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock.

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 p.m.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. BURLESON. The committee will come to order.

We have with us our distinguished and able colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Bill Alexander; we will be very glad to hear you. We appreciate your being here.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent that my prepared text be submitted as is for the record and I will refer to it in my comments.

Mr. BURLESON. Your full statement will be included in the record, without objection.

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL ALEXANDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My views on the waterways industry are well known to my colleagues. Unlike Mr. Pickle, my district and State are particularly dependent upon the transportation provided by the Mississippi, the Arkansas, the White, the Ouachita and the Red Rivers, and my objectivity is somewhat narrowed in my focus and presentation of my views as a result. In fact, you may not have heard of the institution but the National River Academy, which trains both pilots and personnel in the waterways usage, is located in Arkansas, just north of the confluence of the Mississippi and the Arkansas Rivers.

By coincidence, it happens to be located in my congressional district. As you can see, that too does not permit me to adhere to the Pickle rule on objectivity. But my purpose here today, this afternoon, is not to argue the merits or the defects of the particular proposals which may be brought before this committe. Rather my view is that it is much too premature to consider the various proposals on taxes and/or levies or tolls that are being considered at the behest of the administration as articulated by our good friend Brock Adams.

We do not have a full awareness of the effects of alternate policies, nor do we know how taxation of one particular transportation mode will affect others, particularly the highly competitive waterways industry. I believe that a much wiser and more effective way to approach this issue would be to await the report of the National Transportation Policy Study Commission, which is presently analyzing our national transportation needs and policy alternatives. The 94th Congress created the National Transportation Policy Study Commission and gave it a mandate to evaluate all our transportation systems including the inland waterways. As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee during the time this proposal was con

sidered, I was a vigorous supporter of the establishment of the National Transportation Policy Study Commission. I learned from service on that subcommittee and from at least a decade of interest in the transportation field that there is no national transportation policy in this country. The transportation policies that we do have developed independently of and not interdependently with one another.

The railroads do not work with the waterways, and the waterways plan for structure of port facilities without knowledge of highway development, and highway development is planned without regard to the needs of the railroads. And the airways seem to operate in a category all unto themselves.

Now, that is why we established the National Transportation Policy Study Commission. I would like at this point to ask unanimous consent to include in the record as a part of my statement an excerpt from Public Law 94-280, section 154 (A) (1) and (2) which read as follows:

(1) There is hereby established a commission to be known as the National Transportation Policy Study Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission."

(2) The Commission shall make a full and complete investigation and study of the transportation needs and of the resources, requirements and policies of the United States to meet such expected needs. It shall take into consideration all reports on national transportation policy which have been submitted to the Congress including but not limited to the national transportation reports of 1972 and 1974. It shall evaluate the relative merits of all modes of transportation in meeting our transportation needs. Based on such a study, it shall recommend those policies which are most likely to insure that adequate transportation systems are in place which will meet the needs for safe and efficient movement of goods and people.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that is exactly the intent of Congress. I would conclude that the proposals that have been brought here by the Secretary of Transportation, though well intended, do not take into consideration the broad scope that is envisioned by Congress when we created the National Transportation Policy Study Commission. The Commission study is to be completed and a report is due to be presented to the Congress on or before December the 31, 1978. I strongly believe, I am convinced in fact, that we should await that report.

I spoke yesterday to our colleague, Congressman Bud Shuster, who is chairman of the Commission, to inquire as to the progress that it has made up to this date and time. He informed me that it is moving along well, and that all research and other data needed will be completed by the end of this winter. The report will be in the drafting stage by this time next year. He agreed with me that action at this time to impose taxes on our waterways users without knowing all of the consequences and terms of competitive relations between alternate. modes of transportation could very well be undesirable and could very well, potentially, require later corrective action, even by the Congress and certainly by the administration.

Therefore, I believe that the wisest course for the committee and for the House is to await the final report of our Study Commission. On too many occasions we as a body are criticized by the media and by our own people for acting without sufficient information to make

decisions in the public interest. Here is an opportunity for us to act based upon information we have asked for, and indeed we have paid for, and will continue to pay for, and which will assist us in designing a comprehensive, national transportation policy which does not in fact exist today.

If necessary, we can later include a system of fees and/or tolls and taxes that will be applied equitably to all modes of transportation and which can return whatever portion of the public's investment we choose to find appropriate, once we have the Commission's findings. Any other course is bound to be short-sighted, inequitable, ultimately self-defeating and unfortunately consistent with our past actions which have resulted in a nonpolicy of transportation decisionmaking practice, which has produced the dilemmas that we face today. It can only produce unanticipated consequences and harm that we do not intend. It can only demonstrate ineffectiveness in bringing together our information-gathering and policymaking processes to produce beneficial and equitable laws.

I thank you for your attention and I stand ready to answer any questions which you might like to offer at this time. [The prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL ALEXANDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to testify regarding the proposed adoption of taxes to be applied to users of the inland waterways. In addition, I am particularly pleased to be able to appear, thanks to the decisive action you took last week in defending the prerogatives of the House on revenue raising matters. The approach taken by the other body with regard to this issue showed neither the deliberation that they are reputed to utilize nor the procedures outlined by the Constitution. No matter what action is taken on this issue, proposals designed to impose charges on waterway users certainly qualify as taxes and should be considered at the appropriate time by this committee first. Hovever, in my opinion this is not the appropriate time.

My views on the waterways industry are well known to many of my colleagues. My district and my state are particularly dependent upon the transportation provided by the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers.

I have long been involved in addressing the needs of our inland waterways and in providing whatever assistance I can to defend the water resources of this country. I plan to continue to do this.

Furthermore, I am particularly proud that the National River Academy, which trains barge operators for work on our inland waterways, is located in my congressional district.

However, my purpose in being here this morning is not to argue the merits or defects of particular proposals which may be brought before this committee. Rather, my view is that it is much too premature to consider various proposals. We do not have a full awareness of the effects of alternate policies nor do we know how taxation of one particular transportation mode will affect others, particularly the highly competitive waterways industry.

I believe that a much wiser and more effective way to approach this issue would be to await the report of the National Transportation Policy Study Commission which is presently studying our national transportation needs and policy alternatives.

The 94th Congress created the National Transportation Policy Study Commission and gave it a mandate to evaluate all our transportation systems, including the inland waterways. I was on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee which originally approved funds for the study and gave it this important mandate.

The Commission's study is to be completed and a report is due to be presented to Congress by December 31, 1978. We should await that report.

I spoke yesterday with Congressman Bud Shuster who is chairman of the Commission to inquire as to the progress of the study. He informed me that it is moving along well and that all research and other data needed will be completed by this winter. The report will be in the drafting stage by this time next year. He agreed with me that action at this time to impose taxes on our waterway users without knowing all the consequences in terms of competitive relations between alternate modes of transportation would be undesirable and would potentially require later corrective action.

Therefore, I believe that the wisest course for the committee and for the House is to await the final report of our study commission. On too many occasions, we as a body are criticized for acting without sufficient information to make decisions in the public interest. Here is an opportunity for us to act based on information we have asked for and which will assist us in designing a comprehensive national transportation policy. If necessary, we can later include a system of fees and taxes that will be applied equitably to all modes of transportation and which can return whatever portion of the public's investment we choose to find appropriate, once we have the Commission's findings.

Any other course is bound to be shortsighted, inequitable, and ultimately self-defeating. It can only produce unanticipated consequences and harm that we do not intend. It can only demonstrate ineffectiveness in bringing together our information gathering and policymaking processes to produce beneficial and equitable laws.

Thank you.

Mr. BURLESON. Well, Mr. Alexander, we appreciate very much your statement. I was interested in what you said about that academy. I thought I knew a good deal about Arkansas, but I didn't know about the academy. How is it supported?

Mr. ALEXANDER. The National River Academy is an academy that is supported by the industry itself. It may be interesting for you to note that at one time we considered, in establishing the academy, obtaining Federal funds with which to continue its operation. But, we decided that it could be operated more efficiently without Federal funds. There was enough need and enough interest and enough support within the industry to collectively support its own institution for training purposes, which is done on a voluntary basis, membership basis. Of the graduates that have been produced from the academy since 1970, 99 percent of the graduates have found jobs within the industry.

The cost per training unit is among the most efficient in the Nation. If it would please the committee, I would be glad to furnish a copy of the annual report, together with a description of the services offered as a part of my testimony.

Mr. BURLESON. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Mr. Cotter.

Mr. COTTER. No question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Gradison.

Mr. GRADISON. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Gephardt.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Just one. Representative, maybe you heard the testimony, I think maybe of Mr. Woodworth, in which he said that the study which you are talking about wasn't directly focused on the waterway user issue. Could you respond to that?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I didn't hear Mr. Woodworth's testimony, but I know something about how the Commission came to be, because I supported that effort during the last Congress. One of the reasons