Mr. COLE. I know, but New York City, or Philadelphia, or any of those ports, have a tremendous amount of traffic, or New Orleans, that passes through. Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. COLE. Personally I believe that any charge levied on any major port would be extremely small and would still cover the costs. Mr. JONES. Whatever the charge is, whether it is high or low, you think it would only be fair to impose a toll on the harbor facilities provided by the Federal Government? Mr. COLE. That would be my personal reaction. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. In other words, the same toll rate, based upon the total investment in most of the ports which are maintained and operated by either a port authority, or a State? For example, in my State the capital improvements are made by the Federal Government. Then the State authority maintains those improvements. As you say, they would be lower in cost but they would have to reflect some return for the Federal investment, because if you did not then those shippers would be the beneficiaries of it, which is what is sought to be corrected by Recommendation No. 8 of the Hoover Commission report. Mr. COLE. My personal opinion is that whatever money the Government spends to assist commercial navigation in any way, whether it is a port or an inland waterway, should come back to the Government in the form of some kind of user charge. Mr. JONES. A revenue-producing operation? Mr. COLE. You may say a nonprofit organization. Mr. JONES. To produce such revenues Mr. COLE. As would be necessary to reimburse the Government for its costs. Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. I have one question I would like to ask you, Mr. Cole. There is pending at the present time in the House of Representatives-and the bill has already been passed in the Senate and there is general agreement in the House that it is going to be necessary to construct interstate systems of roads which cost approximately $24 billion. Of that $24 billion 90 cents out of every dollar of that $24 billion to construct those 40,000 miles of roads will be borne by the Federal Government. Following the same reasoning, do you not think it is only right and proper that those roads be toll roads in order to produce sufficient revenue to reimburse the Federal Government for that investment? Mr. COLE. Not necessarily through tolls. Through appropriate excise taxes on tires, for example and through ton-miles taxes possibly. But I think whatever the Federal Government spends on highways, if it is $24 billion, or whatever it is, should come back to the Federal Government from the users of that highway and in proportion to the use made of that highway. Mr. JONES. Suppose a fellow like Henry here lives off the road about 60 miles from any interstate system and he does not get on that highway system or the interstate system but only used the primary, the secondary and the urban streets. He is not going to find any satisfaction in paying a fee without ever getting on that road. What are we going to do about that kind of fellow? Mr. COLE. I am not really qualified to answer a complicated question of that kind. I think it is highly complicated and any kind of tax law is bound to do injustice to some people. In other words, there is no mathematical way of figuring out a method of collecting tax money or user money that will be exactly fair for everybody. Mr. JONES. That is all. Thank you very much, Mr. Cole. Mr. COLE. Thank you for letting me speak. Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. We are glad to have you and Mr. Cornelius. Without objection at this point the document submitted by Mr. Cole will be made a part of the record. (The document entitled "Computation of Annual Cost of Federal Aid to Navigation on Selected Inland Waterways, Year 1954," prepared by the Association of Southeastern Railroads, Washington, D. C., November 1955 is as follows:) COMPUTATION OF ANNUAL COST OF FEDERAL AID TO NAVIGATION ON SELECTED INLAND WATERWAYS, YEAR 1954 Association of Southeastern Railroads, Washington, D. C., November 1955 SCHEDULE I Summary of computed annual costs per traffic unit of Federal aid to navigation on selected inland waterways, years 1952 and 1954 NOTE.-1. Total annual costs used to compute the above unit costs for both years are for the year 1954 as developed for each waterway in the following scehdules. 2. For description of the method of computation see appendix A, hereto. SCHEDULE II Computed annual cost of Federal aid to navigation on the Missouri River, Computed annual cost of Federal aid to navigation on the Missouri River, year 1954-Continued 12. Capital costs: 13. 14. B. KANSAS CITY TO SIOUX CITY Federal cost of the new work to June 30, 1954 1. 15. Maintenance, 5-year average--- $114, 209, 461 4, 477, 011 4,032, 084 8,509, 095 1, 479, 499 31, 308, 047 $5.751 .27179 Source: Annual Reports of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army; Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1954, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. SCHEDULE III Computed annual cost of Federal aid to navigation on the Tennessee River, 1. Capital costs: year 1954 By Tennessee Valley Authority: Cost of navigational facilities including allocation of multiple-use facilities___. By Army engineers: Dam No. 1, cost of lock and dam_-_ $157, 985, 788 989, 215 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 17. Maintenance, operation, and care, 5-year average: By Tennessee Valley Authority: Study and development of river transporta- $2, 244, 236 above 1,796, 295 447, 941 20. Net expense of public-use river termi nal operations---. 13, 448 949, 809 48, 572 23. Administrative and general expense--. 86, 724 1, 335, 307 1 Represents the percentage adopted by the TVA with approval of the President of the United States, for allocation of multiple-use facilities to navigation. 2 See schedule VIII, allocation of capital cost of selected dams on the Ohio River to tributaries, year 1954. Computed annual cost of Federal aid to navigation on the Missouri River, year 1954-Continued See schedule VIII, derivation of cost of operation and care of Gallipolis lock and dam, Kanawha River project, year 1954. Source: Annual Reports of TVA, Annual Reports of Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army; Waterborne Commerce of the United States. Calendar Year 1954, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, and H. Doc. No. 159, 79th Cong., 1st sess., year 1944. SCHEDULE IV Computed annual cost of Federal aid to navigation on the Mississippi River from reservoirs at headwaters to mouth of the Missouri River, year 1954 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Adjusted cost of new work 1890 to 1939, before allocation 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Total capital outlay, years 1890 to 1954, inclusive__‒‒‒‒ 174, 968, 973 15. Annual capital cost at 5.92 percent---. 6,858, 784 17. 16. Maintenance, operation, and care, 5-year average: Reservoirs at headwaters_. $86, 002 3,916, 133 19. Less cost assigned to Illinois River 3. 133, 458 See table below (67.6 percent times $197,423). Source: Annual Reports of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army; Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1954, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, and H. Doc. No. 159, 79th Cong., 1st sess., year 1944. Derivation of cost of operation and care of dam No. 26 on the Mississippi River between reservoirs at headwater and the mouth of the Missouri River, year 1954 Computed annual cost of Federal aid to navigation on the Mississippi River from mouth of Missouri River to mouth of the Ohio River, year 1954 1. Capital costs: 2. 3. 5. 6. Adjusted cost of new work, 1890 to 1939, inclusive 1. Cost of existing project to June 30, 1954 $81, 033, 639 Total adjusted cost of new work, 1890 to 1954, in- 7. Annual capital cost at 3.92 percent- 8. Maintenance, operation, and care, 5-year average_. $28, 880, 666 32, 946, 058 48,087, 581 76, 968, 247 3,017, 155 1,321, 634 4,338, 789 17, 663, 048 2,657, 751, 304 $0.246 $0.00163 1 H. Doc. No. 159, 79th Cong., 1st sess., year 1944, p. 651. 2 Passenger traffic excluded. Source: Annual Reports of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army; Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1954, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. SCHEDULE VI Computed annual cost of Federal aid to navigation on the Mississippi River from mouth of Ohio River to New Orleans, La., year 1954 |