The Honorable Rodney Slater
Secretary of Transportation
400 Seventh Street SW
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Secretary Slater:
We are writing to express our firm opposition to a proposal in the Administration's FY1998 budget to implement a "fee-for-servce" for domestic icebreaking by FY1999.
As you know, annual domestic icebreaking occurs almost exclusively on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes region encompasses nearly half of America's industrial and agricultural output and roughly one-third of our population. Without seasonal icebreaking by the Coast Guard, every winter several feet of ice would choke off our nation's heartland and disadvantage America's steel mills for lack of iron ore, restrict shipments of low-sulfur coal to public utilities, and interrupt the vital flow of Midwest export grain to the world market.
The economic impact of icebreaking cannot be readily measured, nor can the benefits derived from a full shipping season be attributed to a specific company or municipality. Because icebreaking is a national need, imposition of a "fee-for-service" would impact far more than those directly charged. Indeed, since the Great Lakes states produce more than 70 percent our of nation's raw steel, imposition of prohibitive icebreaking fees would have an adverse impact on the entire regional, as well as national, economy.
Further, this proposal would disadvantage Great Lakes industry, ports, and longshore labor. The Coast Guard provides numerous services to commercial navigation along the other Coastal ranges and the inland river system. To our knowledge, however, there is no effort to recover costs from users of Coast Guard services in these regions. Since Great Lakes ports compete directly with East Coast, Gulf of Mexico and inland river system ports, imposition of an icebreaking "fee-for-service" could create an unfair economic incentive for shippers to move cargos by alternative transportation routes, further undermining the regional economy.
Despite the apparent short-term attractiveness of "fee-for-service," the economic consequences of an icebreaking fee would be widespread and severe. We strongly urge you to reject the "fee-for-service" recommendation.
