12
CANAL TRAFFIC AND TOLLS
Our budget for fiscal year 1980 is based on a forecast of oceangoing transits of 13,765 for the year or 37.6 daily and tolls revenue of $299.6 million. For 1981, the budget predicts a 1.9 percent increase in oceangoing transits, or 14,020, with tolls revenues of $313.9 million.
Our estimates of North Slope Oil movements in the current fiscal year projected shipments averaging 400 thousand barrels per day during October and November, increasing to some 500 thousand barrels daily during the remainder of the year. The forecast for 1981 assumes continuation of the 500 thousand barrels level predicted for 1980, combined with some growth in other segments of traffic.
Tolls revenues through the first eight months of 1980 are short of budget targets by about $6 million. Nearly $4.3 million of the shortfall can be attributed to lower than expected shipments of North Slope Oil during this period. For the past four months, however, shipments of North Slope oil have risen sharply, and during April and May have slightly exceeded the budget targets. Most other elements of traffic remain near budget levels. Our budget estimates of costs and revenues for 1981 indicate that existing tool rates will be adequate to cover all costs of operations of the Canal as required by law. Detailed descriptions of the operating and capital programs for the Commission for fiscal year 1981 are included in the justification booklet previously furnished to the Committee.
Before leaving the subject of Canal traffic I would like to mention one significant trend which is impacting on operations and makes the need for Canal improvement more compelling-that is the increase in the size of ships transiting the Canal. A decade ago, only about 12 percent of transits were by vessels having beams in excess of 80 feet. This past year, vessels of this size accounted for more than 42 percent of all oceangoing transits. Moreover, the growth in transits of the largest vessels-those having beams over 100 feet-has been more impressive. While in 1969 such vessels accounted for about two percent of oceangoing transits, today they account for over 15 percent and further increases are expected to occur. This shift in the size of ships is being taken into account in our capital program.
HOUSE ACTION ON AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION
The House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has reported on H.R. 6515, the authorizing legislation for the Commission in 1981. Certain provisions of that bill, if allowed to stand, will adversely affect Canal operations and employee morale.
CAPITAL PROJECT COST INCREASES
Subsection 2(d) of H.R. 6515 provides the Commission with authority to increase expenditures for approved individual capital projects so long as such increases do not exceed the dollar limitation placed on the capital category to which the project belongs, or the appropriation total itself. However, the Commission's Board must have approved such increases and so notified the appropriate committee and subcommittees of the House and the Senate. The purpose of this authority is to permit the Commission to accommodate to individual instances of cost escalation, changes in project scope, or other unanticipated cost increases, and yet remain within specific limitations on project groupings and total fund availability. The bill provides the additional stipulation, however, that any of the Committees or Subcommittees may disapprove the increases in expenditures proposed by the Commission.
It is requested that this provision allowing committee or subcommittee disapproval be deleted. In reality, this would constitute a second approval of capital projects previously authorized by the Congress. Its effect could be to defer or suspend work on a capital project until the prospect of disapproval was removed. In the case of work in progress, the delay could be considerable and adversely affect the orderly execution of the capital program. It will introduce inefficiencies in capital construction efforts and equipment acquisition through delay and uncertainties, and conceivably result in abandonment of some projects partially complete, with no offsetting advantages occuring in terms of fund control or existing expenditure limitations.
NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS
The House bill does not allow the Commission to initiate work on capital projects which were not included in the originally approved budget program. The need for such authority often becomes vital, such as in the event of marine accidents,