June 21, 1977
Page 20067
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, having offered my amendment, I have no desire to vote on it quickly. It is the pending amendment; and I am willing to allow the Senate to adjourn shortly, pursuant to the unanimous consent request made by the distinguished leader.
Mr. President, this amendment would basically incorporate into S. 1529 the provisions of S. 790 — both the construction of locks and dam 26 and implementation of waterway user charges — as reported to the Senate by the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
I am honored that I am joined in sponsoring this amendment by several of my colleagues familiar with the issues.
They are Senators ANDERSON, CHAFEE, CLARK, CULVER, GRAVEL, HUMPHREY, LUGAR, MCCLURE, MCGOVERN, MUSKIE, NELSON, PROXMIRE, STAFFORD, and WALLOP.
I believe this amendment, as does S. 790, represents a fair resolution to these issues. By offering this amendment now, we intend to give the Senate a chance to vote soon on these important issues involving national transportation policy.
Specifically, this amendment adds a title III to S. 1529. The new title would do three essential things:
First. It authorizes the immediate reconstruction of locks and dam 26, at an estimated cost of $421 million.
Second. It authorizes an administrative process to develop, subject to congressional veto, a system of waterway user charges to be phased in over a decade, beginning in fiscal year 1980.
Unlike the committee bill, this amendment also places a percentage lid on the user charge, even after the full, 10 year phase-in. I believe this is an important addition, one that I know concerned many of my colleagues. To allay concerns among consumers, farmers, and shippers, the new language at the end of section 303 (a) would prohibit any user charge exceeding 1 percent of the price of the commodity after shipment.
Third. It authorizes the development of a master plan for the upper Mississippi River system that is somewhat more comprehensive than the one in S. 790.
Mr. President, this represents a compromise. It is an effort on our part to develop an amendment acceptable to the Senate, and one that resolves these two, interwoven issues in a fair and reasonable manner.
I might note that the administration has made it clear that President Carter will veto the reconstruction of locks and dam 26 unless it is accompanied by a reasonable system of user charges.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. LONG. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I had written discussing the user charge issue to my colleagues and with my colleagues appear in the RECORD at this point. I will discuss the matter at greater length tomorrow.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the cosponsors of my amendment be made a part of the RECORD immediately following the letter of the Senator from Louisiana.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, D.C.,
June 21, 1977.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: There are several important reasons why waterway user charges should not be linked to the authorization for Lock and Dam 26.
For the bulk movement of cargo, water transportation is by far the most efficient. On a ton-mile basis, barge lines carry 16 percent of the cargo, and they use only 2 percent of the fuel required by the transportation industry. To shift a substantial segment of the barge traffic to the railroads would entail an enormous waste of fuel at a time when we should be seeking to conserve. We should be doing the opposite. Other arguments for tolls on the waterways will not stand analysis.
In many cases it is not made clear who the actual beneficiary is. For example, competition for cargo among barge lines is so severe that revenues per ton mile are minimal, and, if tolls were levied, the barge lines would be forced to raise freight rates. This means that it is the farmer shipping his grain or the consumer buying coal or other products who is the beneficiary of water navigation rather than the earner.
The charge that a subsidy is enjoyed by water carriers ignores the fact that far greater subsidies have been conferred upon the railroad industry, which is now seeking to place a toll on its competitors. Railroads have been the recipients of billions of dollars under the 1973 Regional Rail Reorganization Act, relief from passenger losses, last year's rail revitalization legislation, federal railroad retirement contributions, original land grants with all of their valuable mineral deposits, special tax concessions, and so on. To argue that federal assistance to the inland waterways (which from 1824 to 1975 totalled about $4.5 billion) jeopardizes the financial stability of the railroads (for whom last year's rail legislation alone carries a $6 billion plus price tag) is ludicrous. That the Senate understands the absurdity of this kind of reasoning is apparent from the last floor vote taken on user charges: 71 to 17 against user charges on August 3, 1976.
In addition to the provision of subsidies for our inland waterways, we also subsidize airlines and trucks. When a user charge finally was levied on these other two modes, it was placed on the ticket or on the gas pump. It was not imposed as part of a system of toll gates along the entire transportation network.
We will soon be considering an energy tax bill that imposes an energy tax on everyone. The entire transportation sector will be subject to this tax by virtue of the enormous quantities of fuel consumed. It is a far better approach to impose that charge on everyone rather than single out one kind of user for discriminatory treatment.
Unfortunately, the railroads are continuing their selfish, behind the scenes efforts to force up barge rates so they can raise their rates on cargo that railroads are presently carrying. We want to help the railroads modernize, but the answer is not to do it by the kind of cutthroat methods that have brought the railroads to their present predicament.
We hope you will join us in rejecting user charges in connection with the construction of Lock and Dam 26.
Sincerely yours,
Russell B. Long, John C. Stennis, Tom Eagleton, John C. Danforth, James O. Eastland, J. Bennett Johnston.
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
June 21, 1977.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: Today we introduced an amendment that we will present during the debate on S. 1529, the Omnibus Water Resources Bill. This amendment accomplishes three things:
1. It authorizes the immediate reconstruction of Locks and Dam 26, at an estimated cost of $421 million.
2. It authorizes an administrative process to develop, subject to Congressional veto, a system of waterway user charges that would be phased in over a decade, beginning in fiscal year 1980. There also is a specific limitation in the amendment stating that no user charge, even after the full 10 year phase-in, can be set at a level greater than 1 per cent of the delivered value of the commodity, a limitation that we believe protects shippers and consumers alike.
3. It authorizes the development of a master plan for the Upper Mississippi River system.
The interrelated questions of Locks and Dam 26 and waterway user charges need to be resolved. The transportation balance of this nation requires such a resolution. The Administration supports such a balanced approach. We believe that this amendment provides a fair and effective way to resolve these issues this year, providing assurances of the timely construction of Locks and Dam 26, while treating the American taxpayer and other modes of transportation fairly and reasonably.
We hope that you will support this amendment when it is raised during debate on S. 1529. We would welcome your cosponsorship.
Sincerely,
Dick Clark, Gaylord Nelson, Mike Gravel, Bill Proxmire, Robert Stafford, John Chafee, George McGovern, Pete V. Domenici, Wendell Anderson, Edmund S. Muskie, Malcolm Wallop, Jim McClure, John Culver.