Mr. DONDERO. When you begin to figure the several means of transportation, did you take into consideration the disadvantages confronting the railroads, in that the Federal Government furnishes the highway for water transportation whereas the railroads must furnish their own highway and pay taxes. Did you take that into consideration? COLONEL FERINGA. We did not take it into consideration, Mr. Dondero, but we think in one case God furnishes the means or the waterways, the means of transportation, and only a very small amount of additional cost is necessary to fix up these God-given waterways so that transportation can be carried on. On the other hand you have a completely artificial means of transportation, so I personally consider the waterways as a natural resource that may, like some other natural resources, have to be improved in order that we can derive the full benefits therefrom. Mr. DONDERO. The point you raise is this, however: In determining the amount of savings of the waterways over the rail rates, is it fair to consider that degree of savings when, as a matter of fact, you are taking it away from the railroads. They have that much less revenue, and therefore pay that much less to the Federal Government in taxes. Colonel FERINGA. I think so, Mr. Dondero, because we make a report to your committee to show whether the project is economically justified. Therefore, we have to find the savings and real savings, not these imponderable ones that we talked about this morning, but the real savings in dollars and cents. Now if it costs less to move something by water than to move it by any other medium, I think we definitely should present those figures to you. Now on the question of the loss to the railroads, in this report we have brought out by this paragraph which I dave quoted, I believe and I know that it costs less to move products by water than by any other means. Mr. DONDERO. I believe that a natural resource like a waterway should be used to the fullest extent. I am just trying to get information. Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman, I think we could go on and on indefinitely. Mr. Prince could make a point and I could make a counterpoint. However, I would like to sit over here while you continue to take the testimony of other witnesses. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Suppose we hear from the next witness. STATEMENT OF E. R. ROBY, ASSISTANT FREIGHT TRAFFIC MANAGER, LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD, LOUISVILLE, KY. Mr. ROBY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is E. R. Roby and I am assistant freight traffic manager of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad stationed at Louisville, Ky. Well, when the railroads were served or obtained a copy of those recommendations of the Board of Engineers, of course they were quite concerned about it, and there was a meeting of about six or seven representatives of the different roads which parallel or intersect this same area where it is proposed to put this waterway. Now we were a group of traffic men and we devoted ourselves to a study of the alleged tonnage that is proposed to move over this new road, and we prepared certain exhibits; and I would like for the committee to have a copy of them because I am going to discuss each one of them. Mr. PITTENGER. How long did you have the report of the War Department. Mr. ROBY. I think, Mr. Congressman, we got it in March. Mr. PITTENGER. Of course, you had the advantage of their former reports. Mr. ROBY. Yes, sir. Mr. PITTENGER. You had gone over those? Mr. ROBY. Yes, sir; but this report differed so materially from the former report, and I am going to tell you about that if I may. It made an entirely new study necessary. To present a comparative picture of the tonnage and savings now predicted with the estimates in the former recommendation of the Board of Engineers, exhibit No. 1 has been prepared. The first and third column tabulations give the 1939 estimates, and when I refer to 1939 I mean the other House Document. The second and fourth column tabulations show the estimates in the latest recommendations.. The recapitulation to the extreme right column shows that between the current and preceding reports there is a net increase, roundly, of two and a half million tons in volume and three and a half million dollars in savings. Just several items of commerce are expected to contribute this substantial increase of tonnage and materially greater savings, and these commodities which now loom so big and important were either omitted from the previous report or were regarded as practically insignificant factors, as will be seen from the following tabulations. In regard to bauxite ore in the former report, that is of 1939, the estimated tonnage was given as 3,750, and in the 1946 report it is given as 678,000 tons; the predicted savings for bauxite ore were given in 1939 as $1,650, and in 1946 as $616,000. In regard to alumina, in the 1939 report there was no tonnage given and in the 1946 report 253,000 tons is estimated. There were no savings in the former report and the predicted savings were given in the 1946 report as $370,000. Fertilizer and materials in the 1939 report were estimated at 5,900 tons and in the 1946 report at 271,000 tons. The predicted savings in 1939 were given as $4,715 and in the 1946 report as $589,000. In regard to sugar, in the 1939 report the tonnage was estimated at 70,821 tons, and in the 1946 report it was estimated at 461,000 tons. The predicted savings in the 1939 report are given as $45,182, and the predicted savings in the 1946 report are given as $388,000. As to phosphate rock, no tonnage was estimated in the 1939 report, and 250,000 tons was estimated in the 1946 report. There were no savings predicted in the 1939 report for phosphate rock, and in the 1946 report there were predicted savings of $313,000. As to asphalt, in the former report there was no estimated tonnage, and in the present report there is given 123,000 tons estimated. The predicted savings are none for 1939 and $184,000 for today. In regard to rice, the estimated tonnage in 1939 was 571 tons, and in 1946 the estimated tonnage was 98,000. The predicted savings in the 1939 report are given as $371 and in 1946 as $116,000. Mr. DONDERO. Is there any dispute between yourself and Mr. Prince that the rivers and waterways only carry about 8 percent of the Nation's commerce? Colonel FERINGA. No, sir, Mr. DONDERO. That is about right? Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. Now the next point that Mr. Prince made was that the benefits of this low-cost transportation enured, I think, to the few prime main shippers. We treated that in paragraph 144 of our report, where we stated [reading]: A considerable portion of the savings would doubtless be "pocketed" by the producers, if that were practicable, but because of the keen competition characterizing the other enterprises which will make use of this inland water route, the transportation savings will, in the final analysis, be reflected in the prices to primary producers and ultimate consumers, else the markets would be lost to competitors. I remember some testimony in the Senate in connection with the Missouri River where the statement was made by opponents of the waterway that the farmers would not get the benefit of that traffic, and Mr. Macleay gave figures which showed that the farmers within reach of the waterway shipping were about to get 3 cents a bushel more for their grain products. I believe Mr. Macleay would be delighted to come here and fill the record with similar statements. I believe if there is no expanded economy, if we are going to stand still, if we are not going to do anything else, there might be something to the thought that we might take away that 11⁄2 percent traffic from the railroads. I am positive, based on previous happenings, that low-cost water transportation will make that part of the country grow. You have all heard of the Houston ship canal, because that is a glowing example. Mr. Rankin pointed out Birmingham as another example. I believe that instead of the waterways taking traffic away from the railroads, that eventually you will find the railroads will find far more traffic available as a result of this waterway development. Again referring to the traffic curves which we have presented-and we are the agency which is required by law to maintain records on water transportation shippers do not willingly give us that information always, but they must do so; and when we present the traffic figures in the traffic curves to this committee we do so as your agents, and we are required to do it by law, and I think our figures are beyond dispute because when we say water traffic is increasing and has increased, that is a fact. Mr. DONDERO. In regard to transportation, do I understand you to say that the question of sand and gravel and logs was not considered as an expenditure to justify this project in your report? Colonel FERINGA. In regard to sand and gravel, I am coming to that point right now. In regard to sand and gravel, we knew that there will be a large amount of sand and gravel moving on this new route. However, we consider that local traffic and the benefits will be lost in the greater volume, so we did not bother to include that. If we wanted to evaluate everything we could bring a greater amount of benefits than we now included, so we of necessity could not include that. If we wanted to evaluate everything we could bring a greater amount of benefits than we now included, so we of necessity could not include every item. Then in regard to the item of logs, we have listed under the products of the forest poles and piling lumber and all others; and likewise in regard to asphaltic rock, on page 38 of the report we show that a considerable amount of asphaltic rock is carried. That is under the item, "Products of mines," and the second item is "Asphalt," and then the last item is "All others"; and it may well be that we have some other type of rock, but I do not know. Referring to logs, you will note under "Products of forests," we list 65,000 tons of poles and piling northbound and at a saving of $97,000. We also list 197,000 tons of lumber at a saving of $300,000, and then under the heading "All others," we list 40,000 tons at a saving of $49,000. I suppose "All others" means pulpwood. So we do include those items. Finally, I will dwell a little on what General Wheeler said, although he can state it more ably than I can. I believe what he was talking about is that the density of traffic on the waterways can be increased to an incredible amount without putting on any increased means of handling that transportation. In other words there is the water; it is there. The channel is available and you can put your barges on it to an incredible density, and you can thereby move tremendous quantities. That is what I got from his statement. He made it and I cannot argue in regard to it. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. While it is unquestionably true and an elementary fact that you can increase traffic on waterways, I think that everybody in American should recognize the tremendously fine job that has been done by the railroads during this emergency. They have demonstrated that they can increase their availability. General Wheeler did not mean to disparage the great work done by the railroads and the great value of their services in the emergency. It has been a great tribute to the railroads. Mr. PRINCE. Thank you. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I want the record to show that the railroads did a fine job. Colonel FERINGA. I think you are completely right, Mr. Chairman, but I think the point he was trying to make was that the saturation of existing waterways is far off. Now, finally, I would like to quote from General Wheller's opening statement which he made a couple of weeks ago to this committee, and which indicates the thought of our own economic research people about the type of traffic that will make use of the waterway, and he stated [reading]: The significant fact brought out by these records they are the records which we have presented to the committee, the graphs is that not only during the war period but in general throughout the preceding decades of unprecedented business depression, the inland and intracoastal waterways have continued in ever-increasing quantity to attract and build up a growing volume of barge-borne freight tonnage. The reason for this growth is that when reduced to the common denominator of cost, water transportation emerges as the best adapted and most economical agency among the several means of transport for the movement of our essential basic commodities meaning in the long run the waterways are sought by that class of traffic. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Now all of this data, the figures you used in arriving at this tonnage, are they available? Colonel FERINGA. Upon request, I think absolutely without any equivocation they are, except confidential data. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Now this gentleman says they are not available. There is something wrong here somewhere. Mr. ROBY. Mr. Congressman, we sent up there to get the breakdown of this estimate. As I have told you, there was a committee formed composed of six of us and we worked very hard in the last 3 weeks trying to figure out where this business would come from that would go up here [indicating on map] and go into here [indicating on map]. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Did you ask them for that data? Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You did not get it? Mr. ROBY. We may have gotten hold of the wrong man; we did not get the information we wanted. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You say you could not get the data. Colonel Feringa says all data used in arriving at the tonnage was available to the witness and the witness now says it was not available, Colonel, and he could not get it. Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman, as far as I know we have not had any requests from this witness. I can also say I have been in the Corps of Engineers for the Lord knows how many years, we have never yet denied access to any figures. Only once did we deny access temporarily, and that was in the case of the Interstate Commerce Commission waybill data and we wanted a letter from the Interstate Commerce Commission showing that they had no objection to our releasing it. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Who made the request? Mr. ROBY. We sent a man up to get the information, and apparently there was a misunderstanding. Colonel FERINGA. Where did you send the man? Mr. ROBY. We sent the man up to get the evidence of the source of this prospective tonnage. Colonel FERINGA. I would like to find out where your man went for that information. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I want to know if all the data you had and all the figures you used in connection with that data in arriving at this tonnage is available to Mr. Roby. Colonel FERINGA. It definitely would be made available upon request except as I have stated, confidential material. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Have you ever requested it? Mr. ROBY. I did, through our representative, and I understood that the Southern Railway asked to see the figures. A VOICE. I did not definitely ask for it. Mr. PETERSON. Has anybody requested it? Mr. RANKIN. The Army engineers have no interest except to give the facts. Colonel FERINGA. We only try to produce the facts. We have no secrets to keep from the railroads or anyone else. We produced the figures for the public good with public money. There is no reason for us to hide the figures. The only thing denied, until they showed evidence from the parent agency that they wanted us to show them, |