together with necessary dredging in the Thousand Island section. It also would maintain and operate, in conjunction with the Canadian agent, this portion of the seaway. Tolls would be set under negotiation between the Development Corporation and the Canadian Authority, and revenues would be divided in relation to capital investment.

The Development Corporation would be authorized to issue up to $100 million in bonds, such bonds to have a maturity not to exceed 50 years, and being fully and unconditionally guaranteed both as to principal and interest by the United States Government.

Under the Wiley-Dondero measure the Development Corporation would not proceed with construction until: (1) the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada provides satisfactory assurance that it will complete the Canadian portions of the project; and, (2) satisfactory assurances have also been received that the State of New York or some other licensee of the Federal Power Commission will concurrently complete the power project approved by the International Joint Commission in October 1952.

Since the Wiley-Dondero measure covers only the 46-mile International Rapids section, it would appear that Canada itself will have to construct the remaining 68 miles from Montreal to Cornwall, Ontario. It is estimated that the cost to Canada of this 68-mile section plus her share of the International Rapids section will be about $290 million. This, of course, excludes any consideration of the costs of the power phase previously alluded to.

On February 16, 1953, Senator Thye, of Minnesota, introduced into the Senate an amendment to the Wiley bill. The purpose of the Thye amendment was to expand our interest in the waterway beyond the 46-mile stretch provided for by the Wiley-Dondero measure. In an explanatory statement, Senator Thye expressed dissatisfaction with the Wiley-Dondero bill's omission of the interlake channels, contending that this would bring the seaway's services only to the Detroit-Pittsburgh area and that subsequent access to the upper lakes might long be delayed.

The Thye amendment would authorize the appropriation of an additional $100 million in order to provide a controlling channel depth of 27 feet through the Great Lakes connecting channels above Lake Erie, including the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, St. Clair River, the Straits of Mackinac, and St. Marys River. In addition to the Wiley-Dondero measure (which appears to have the most support among seaway proponents), several other bills providing for United States -participation have been introduced into the present Congress.

The most important of these are companion measures by Senator Lehman (S. J. Res. 45) and Representative Roosevelt (H. J. Res. 195), providing for United States participation in a complete waterway from Duluth to the Atlantic, 'as well as participation in the power project.

This dual-purpose proposal would sanction the construction of the connecting channels of the upper Great Lakes by some designated Federal agency, and would further establish a St. Lawrence Development Corporation to construct the International Rapids section of the waterway and the power facilities in that area. These power facilities, under the terms of the bill, would be transferred to an appropriate agency of the State of New York and the power to be marketed with preferential treatment for publicly owned bodies.

In order to finance these activities, the Development Corporation would be authorized to issue bonds up to $385 million, carrying the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Other measures providing for varying degrees of United States participation have been introduced by Representative Kilburn (H. J. Res. 2) and by Representative Dingell (H. J. Res. 3).

SEAWAY STILL UNSOUND

The current proposals, as embodied primarily in the Wiley-Dondero bill and in the Lehman-Roosevelt measures, reflect no significant arguments in support of our participation in the seaway that have not previously been advanced.

Essentially, the salient feature of the new proposals lies in the presentation of an alternate method of financing. It is suggested by proponents that through the device of a Development Corporation with the power to fix tolls jointly with Canadian authorities, and with the authority to issue revenue bonds, the United

Π

States share of the cost of the navigation phase of the project would be selfliquidating.

This, we assert, is an illusion. The mere establishment of a Development Corporation in no way alters the basic economic factors which make unwise any substantial investment in this waterway project; nor does the procedure of participating in the waterway project on a limited basis, as implied in the WileyDondero bill, change the underlying and unfavorable economic conditions.

Finally, and especially pertinent, is the fact that the revenue bonds of the Development Corporation would be fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States Government. Thus, in the event revenues from the waterway failed to be sufficient to meet bond principal and interest, the deficit would be met by the general taxpayer. It cannot, therefore, be too strongly stressed that, insofar as ultimate burden on the taxpayer is concerned, it is completely immaterial whether funds for our share of the cost are provided by direct congressional appropriation or by revenue bonds of the Development Corporation carrying the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

In its prior reports the chamber has demonstrated that our participation in the waterway project is economically unjustified and commercially unwise, that it is not a defense necessity, and that it is completely unrealistic to commit the United States to the joint construction of this effort on the basis that, if we do not join, Canada will undertake it alone.

In our opinion, it is unnecessary to summarize here all of the underlying facts and supporting information so adequately analyzed in earlier reports. But there is one factor which we believe cannot be reiterated too often, and that is the relative insufficiency of the navigation project, even if completed as planned. Approximately 92 percent of the vessels of American registry, for example, would be unable to use the seaway because of the limitations of the 27-foot channel. The 27-foot channel would indeed be, as some have said, outmoded before a shovelful of dirt is moved in its construction.

With respect to the power phase of the project, the chamber's position has been equally clear and firm. This organization has consistently maintained its opposition to public activities that invade the field of private enterprise.

The proponents of the seaway have insisted that it is necessary for us to join Canada in the development of the hydroelectric resources of the St. Lawrence because the State of New York and New England were experiencing a power shortage which was impairing our national defense effort.

This contention was refuted by the chamber in its analysis of the power situation, when it concluded that: "There is no power shortage in the Northeast region, and plans call for increasing the present margin of reserves to over 3 million kilowatts for the yearly peak of 1953." This analysis also indicated that the total amount of power promised from the St. Lawrence would constitute only a small fraction of the present and planned power resources of New York and the northeastern area.

The current plans for development of St. Lawrence hydroelectric power under public auspices, offer no reason for a change in this chamber's opposition to participation in the power development of the St. Lawrence, whether such efforts be undertaken by the New York State Power Authority, or some other entity of the State of New York, or some branch or agency of the Federal Government. The committee on internal trade and improvements and the committee on the harbor and shipping have examined the current proposals for United States participation in the St. Lawrence seaway project, both with respect to navigation and power. We find nothing in the current proposals which would warrant any modification of the long-standing position of the chamber. Consequently, we strongly recommend that the chamber reaffirm its opposition to United States participation in all, or part of the "Duluth to Atlantic" navigation project, and in the development of St. Lawrence power: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the New York Chamber of Commerce urges the Congress not to consider favorably legislation which would commit the United States or any agency thereof to engage, independently, or jointly with Canada in the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project; and be it

Resolved, That Congress also be urged to withhold approval of any program which would permit a State, or any instrumentality of a State, to join with a Province of Canada in the construction of public hydroelectric power facilities in the St. Lawrence River; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution and report be sent to all Members of Congress.

Respectfully submitted.

Attest:

FLOYD W. JEFFERSON, Chairman,

JOHN F. GARDE, Jr.,

GEORGE L. BLISS,

WILLIAM WHITE,

Of the Committee on Internal Trade and Improvements.

NEW YORK, April 2, 1953.

JAMES A. FARRELL, Jr., Chairman,

LLOYD H. Dalzell,

RALPH KEATING,

FREDERICK R. PRATT,

FRANK W. SPENCER,

Of the Committee on Harbor and Shipping.

GEORGE H. COPPERS, President.

B. COLWELL DAVIS, Jr., Executive Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. M. VASHTI BURR, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of Hon. John S. Fine, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, this statement is submitted in opposition to enactment of the legislation proposed in House Joint Resolution 104 and other pending proposals relating to the St. Lawrence seaway.

Proposals relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway project have been consistently opposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as appears in the records of testimony at the many hearings heretofore.

I am authorized to call particular attention to the 1951 hearings before the House Committee on Public Works, 82d Congress, 1st session, wherein, at the request of Hon. James E. Van Zandt, Member of Congress from the 22d Congressional District of Pennsylvania, there was incorporated, beginning at page 1412 of part 2, a document entitled "Minutes of a Public Meeting to Discuss the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project-House Caucus Room, the Pennsylvania State Capitol, March 8, 1951," containing verbatim minutes of a meeting under the sponsorship of the Department of Commerce of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including an opening statement by Governor Fine objecting to the then pending proposals. Also included, at the end of that document, was the text of a resolution in opposition to the proposals, adopted at that meeting and signed by officials of the Commonwealth and certain of its political subdivisions and by representatives of labor, industry, agriculture, and commerce in Pennsylvania. Following the document, in the 1951 hearings, appear the testimony (statements) by Hon. Richard Maize, secretary of mines, and Hon. Andrew J. Sordoni, secretary of commerce, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

It is requested that those statements and the document to which I have referred be considered as incorporated by reference in the present hearings and applicable to the proposals here under consideration, and that this present statement be included in the record of these hearings.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. SEIBERT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA AND THE INTERESTS OF SUCH STATE

I am commerce counsel for the State Corporation Commission of Virginia at Richmond, Va. I have been during the whole period of employment by the commission in the transportation division and was previously director of transportation.

I speak for the interests of the State of Virginia and more particularly do I speak for the port of Hampton Roads.

The St. Lawrence project has been before the Congress many times and the interests of the State of Virginia have repeatedly opposed the United States taking part in the building of the seaway. In order that we may again express our opposition this statement is made.

37338-53-26

The project is not new; it has come before the Congress in many phases and it appears that each time the proponents of the seaway find that the majority of the people of the United States oppose it they retire and present the proposal in another form. The new form merits no better consideration than the old form. One of the reasons the advocates now advance is that if the United States do not join, our good neighbr to the north will construct the canal by its own efforts. That project is one that might well be done by Canada if it so proposes, but the credit of the United States should not be used to further the interests of a particular area to the detriment of the other areas, even if there were real merit in the proposal.

The construction of the waterway will injure greatest the eastern seaboard points of the United States. It is intended to provide a canal from the Great Lakes, but not to any United States port, but to Canadian ports. It is a canal which is subject to immediate stoppage during the time of war by one wellplaced bomb. It is a waterway which can be used only 7 months in the year. It is assumed that the rest of the time the eastern ports of the United States will then take care of the waterway traffic, but in the meanwhile they will suffer.

The construction of this waterway can be of no benefit to the people of the State of Virginia, and can result in the taxes of these people being used to its disadvantage.

The General Assembly of the State of Virginia has appointed a commission to encourage the movement of traffic through the port of Hampton Roads and our people are making efforts and spending our funds to bring traffic to the port. This port is served by railroads reaching into the same territory which the waterway seeks to reach. The St. Lawrence waterway would be a detriment to the interests of the great port of Hampton Roads and to the other eastern ports of the United States.

The United States is to underwrite this waterway with the assumption that the tolls will pay the way. It is assumed that the waterway will be selfsupporting. This is highly problematical, but others with better knowledge of engineering and financial problems can answer this question, but an unbiased answer should be obtained.

At a time when the people are restless under the high taxes imposed for the upkeep of various governmental agencies and for the upkeep of the greatest military machine the United States of America have had, except in World War II, it is not the time to further pledge the funds of the United States in the interests of a waterway which can only be used during a part of the year and the taxes of the people of the State of Virginia and of the United States should not be used for this purpose and the United States should not underwrite any part of the cost.

In my personal opinion it is doubtful if the waterway will produce enough revenue from traffic using the waterway to pay the interest on the bonds which will be necessary to be issued for its construction. However, its construction would have a great detrimental effect on the eastern ports, including the port of Hampton Roads.

Nothing new has been brought forward which will in any way change the opposition of the interests of the State of Virginia to the St. Lawrence Waterway project and again we most earnestly urge the defeat of any measure which will result in the payment by the United States of America of one penny or an agreement to underwrite one penny for the St. Lawrence Waterway.

GREATER MIAMI TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION,
Miami, Fla., June 8, 1953.

Subject: House Joint Resolution 104, St. Lawrence seaway.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: The Southern Traffic League, a nonprofit corporation composed of the representatives of a majority of the commercial and industrial interests of the Southern States has previously gone on record as opposing the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. Specific reference is made to House Joint Resolution 337 of the 82d Congress and to the committee hearing concerning that legislation.

Our continued study of the potentialities and possibilities of the project in no way diminishes our opinion that such an undertaking would be impractical. We are strengthened in our belief that such a project would serve little or no public service and would be wasteful of taxpayer's money. Military strategists have consistently pointed out the fallacy of the proponents' claims of the nationaldefense factor. Major General Fleming submitted to the 82d Congress a study that shows that less than 10 percent of the United States merchant-marine fleet could utilize a 27-foot seaway. This fact would encourage the competition by ships of foreign registry with the larger ships maintaining the higher level of United States wages and the higher standard of living which characterizes the American way of life.

The Southern Traffic League cannot subscribe to the contention that this project will in any way contribute to the national defense. The waterway proposed would be extremely vulnerable to hostile military operations whether by open attack or submersive sabotage. Surely it is not in the interest of national defense to encourage commerce to become dependent upon such a transportation system only to have it rendered useless in the first military action.

The diversion of tens of thousands of tons of steel and thousands of barrels of cement and countless man-hours from the present national-defense efforts would so weaken our defense output as to jeopardize the safety of the entire Nation. An undertaking such as this is tremendous even during times of peace and normalcy. In such uncertain days as face us now, it would be foolhardy to divert these critical materials and even more critical manpower from our defense efforts into a senseless international pork barrel.

The Southern Traffic League respectfully requests that these views be accepted by the Public Works Committee as the opinion of the Southern Traffic League and that they be incorporated in the records of the public hearing on House Joint Resolution 104. In the event that the Public Works Committee desires further testimony or evidence or clarification of the statements contained herein, the Southern Traffic League will be happy to delegate one of its members to appear in its behalf before that committee. Respectfully submitted.

LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,

SOUTHERN TRAFFIC LEAGUE,
JOEL C. WILCOX, Chairman.

J. L. GILBERT,

Traffic Manager, Asbestone Corp., New Orleans, La.
W. A. GUNN,

Assistant Manager, Ralston Purina Co., Nashville, Tenn.

F. E. HARRISON, Jr.,

Traffic Manager, State Road Department of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla.

W. L. MURPH, Jr.,

Traffic Manager, Cannon Mills Co., Kannapolis, N. C.

J. M. SMITH,

Shippers Service Bureau, Washington, D. C.
O. H. WEAVER,

Traffic Manager, Pomona Products Co., Griffin, Ga.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for the purpose of the record, I am Congressman Cleveland M. Bailey, of the Third West Virginia District.

I appear in behalf of all the citizens of West Virginia to protest the approval, by your committee, of the pending proposal to provide for the construction of an all-water route to enable oceangoing vessels to enter the Great Lakes.

I have, as a Member of Congress, always favored river, harbor, and other waterway projects. I cannot be a party to any action that is certain to destroy the leading industry of my State.

Coal is king in West Virginia. We now produce 100 million tons annually more than is produced by any other State. Our total production exceeds 168 million tons. This industry is the major source of State and local revenue and yields in excess of $30 million annually in State taxes. It must be preserved in order to avert economic disaster. The jobs of 125,000 miners are at stake, to'