that I supported it was because there was no integrated national transportation policy that took into consideration all of the various components of transportation, highways, waterways, rails, air and pipeline, in the formulation of that policy.

In fact, we have four or five separate component policies that are developed without regard to one another except economic considerations, to force some competitive deliberations in formulation of policy. I believe that the Study Commission will take in consideration. waterways and will take in consideration the competitiveness of the waterways as it relates to other competing forms of transportation. The Commission should take into consideration whatever imposition of taxes would have on that competitiveness.

We heard this morning the Secretary say that there could be a displacement of transportation modes up to as much as 100 percent, depending upon the amount of taxes that were imposed. Those kind of considerations can ruin an industry unless they are entered into deliberately and as a part of overall national policy which I hope that this committee will have the benefit of, because it imposes taxes on any one industry.

Now, I heard the gentleman's statement this morning that what's fair is fair, and what's right is right. I subscribe to that policy. If the waterways industry needs to pay some taxes for using the waterways for operating and maintenance or construction of future facilities, so be it. But I don't think that those kinds of consideration can be made in a vacuum, without the benefit of a national transportation policy and the overall impact that this one tax policy could have on that national policy. I think it is getting the cart before the horse, and we would say in Missouri and Arkansas, or "allowing the tail to wag the dog."

Mr. GEPHARDT. I appreciate the gentlemen's testimony. I would ask one other question. If it is the sense of this committee to impose a nominal tax of 4 cents or some tax of that kind, with the idea that a study in 2 years would bring us back to reconsider the issue and do what is fair, would you support such an effort?

Mr. ALEXANDER. There is a division within the industry that generally divides the regulated carriers from the nonregulated carriers. Regulated carriers can pass on a tax to the consumer without too much difficulty. The nonregulated carriers, which I primarily represent as a parochial Representative from Arkansas, although I consider myself a representative of the waterways industry at large, cannot pass these taxes on to its customers as easily because in most instances those customers are farmers and transportation costs as a rule must be borne by the producer or the carrier and not necessarily transferred to the ultimate consumer, in this case which would be the users of farm products.

So my initial position would be they would not support the 4-cent tax without the overall consideration of the impact of any change in the past procedures on the overall industry.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Thank you very much.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Frenzel, do you have any questions?

Mr. FRENZEL. I do not, but I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for as usual good testimony and I hope that we will be able to make some sense out of what we are doing here.

Mr. BURLESON. Again, Bill, it was nice to have you before the committee.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. May I ask unanimous consent in case I didn't get it a minute ago, to include as a part of my testimony some of the data relevant to the National River Academy, which might be beneficial to the committee in understanding the scope and width of this issue that it is considering today. Mr. BURLESON. It certainly will be interesting, and without objection that will be included in the record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you very much.

Mr. BURLESON. Again, thank you very much. [The material follows:]