April 1, 1980
Page 7293
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the legislation before us, S. 1946, the Railroad Transportation Policy Act, embodies a comprehensive revision of the framework for regulating our Nation's railroads and is described as part of the effort to reduce Federal regulation of the transportation network in this country. I am concerned with the impact of this proposal on shippers in my State and will vote against the bill because of those concerns.
The Maine poultry industry in particular is entirely dependent on rail shipments of grain from suppliers in the Midwest and is extremely vulnerable to increases in rail rates for grain shipments which place them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis poultry growers in other regions who are less dependent on rail, have access to competing transportation modes, such as water transport, and therefore enjoy more favorable rates. Maine's poultry industry has suffered under the existing regulatory framework and could be fatally injured by higher rates possible under this scheme.
This legislation will expose Maine's poultry industry to increased rates without review by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Rate increases which may be unjustified, will be inflationary, will increase the competitive disadvantage for the Maine poultry industry, and potentially sound the death knell for the most vulnerable members of an industry which is already weak.
Shipment of feed grain into Maine constitutes a major portion of our total rail traffic, second only to paper industry traffic; yet because no alternative transportation modes are available, the Maine poultry industry has not been able to negotiate rates which would permit multicar shipments or unit train shipments, an arrangement which could provide efficiencies to the railroads and rate advantages to the poultry industry.
I am concerned that the legislation before us does not address this "best efficiencies" issue to encourage railroads to negotiate with shippers for multicar rates or unit train rates which would offer increased efficiencies to the railroads and lower rates to the shippers.
Our poultry industry, under present circumstances, is close to an ideal client for the railroads. As captive shippers with limited storage capability, poultry growers are steady, predictable customers. There is little incentive for the railroads to negotiate with grain shippers under these circumstances and efforts to negotiate unit train rates have produced no results to date and offer little promise of success. This legislation contains nothing which will encourage such negotiations in the future. So our most vulnerable shippers face the prospect of higher rates, with no promise that cost-saving measures will be adopted.
I am also concerned, Mr. President, about the provisions in the bill which allow for expedited abandonment procedures..
Our experience in Maine under the airline deregulation bill has not encouraged me to approach other deregulation proposals with enthusiasm. We have lost major air carrier service to Presque Isle which was previously provided by Delta Airlines. The replacement carrier has encountered difficulties obtaining the fuel necessary to provide direct service from Presque Isle to Boston, yet it does not appear under this deregulated framework that the CAB is prepared to act to assure adequate service.
Rail line abandonment presents problems perhaps more severe than those experienced when our major air carrier cancelled service to northern Maine. We have lost rail lines under the present abandonment procedures and I am not persuaded we should allow for more expedited procedures.
Finally, Mr. President, I am concerned about the immediate and direct inflationary impact of this legislation. While the long-range picture is uncertain, it is clear that the immediate effect of this legislation will be higher rail rates which, of course, will be passed on to consumers in the cost of goods and commodities shipped. At a time when we are exercising restraint in Federal spending programs where we know we shall have to spend more to get less in the future in order to control inflation today, I am concerned that in this bill we are allowing inflationary increases now in the hope of saving money in the future. An approach which may not be appropriate to our times and is certainly contrary to painful measures we are taking elsewhere.