been rejected many times as being unnecessary for either power or

commerce.

This joint resolution in its title calls for the building of the St. Lawrence seaway "in the interest of national security." It seems to me that we have read of this same term more than once in relation to this proposed legislation and you will have noticed that the term referred to in previous bills and resolutions was "National defense and continental defense of the United States and Canada." The fact that we have been able to build up our defenses and win wars without the St. Lawrence seaway has evidently taught the proponents of this measure to change their window dressing, but as yet the term used in the present resolution is just as misleading and erroneous as the reasons assigned in the rejected bills and resolutions over the past number of years.

In my judgment the building of the St. Lawrence seaway is not in the interest of national security. For instance, it has been estimated that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a greater volume of national-defense industries than any other State in the Union. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is opposed to the building and development of the St. Lawrence seaway, the principal reason being that it would be harmful to the economy of Pennsylvania. When you couple Pennsylvania with States like New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia you have a combined territory which in reality is the heart of national security insofar as defense productive enterprises are concerned. In fact, many of these States produce the basic materials that go into manufacturing and production in other States dependent upon these basic materials for their prosperity.

It seems to me that the proper term which might be used by the proponents would be to call for the passage of this resolution on the basis of being in the best interests of certain business and financial interests, giving them competitive advantages especially in steel and other industries located in the Great Lakes section of our country. In other words the movement of iron ore from Labrador over the contemplated seaway with the possibility of getting some cheap power at Government expense in some of the sections involved seems to be the principal reason and the main objective of the advocates of this legislation. In support of this statement, I refer the committee to an editorial appearing in the March 28, 1953, issue of the Buffalo News. This editorial quotes General McNaughton, Cochairman of the National Joint Commission, speaking in Ottawa before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. General McNaughton's statement in part quoted as follows: "*** the principal commodity moving by this route [the seaway] will be iron ore headed inland from the Labrador field and for this service special vessels are being designed."

To get Labrador iron ore to Seven Islands requires the building of a railroad through the wilderness for a distance of approximately 350 miles. When this railroad is constructed the people back of the Labrador iron-ore project hope that the taxpayers will build a waterway and extend the Great Lakes system to enable them to take this iron ore to the steel mills in the Middle West thus enabling them to assume a better competitive position than steel companies located elsewhere.

It is estimated that at least 200 cars of coal per day are shipped from the United States into the Province of Quebec. My understanding is that these are hopper cars that would be capable of hauling iron ore. These cars are returned empty to the United States. If iron ore from Labrador comes from Seven Islands to Quebec on the St. Lawrence Bay, it would be a simple matter to transship iron ore from Quebec to the steel mills of the United States in these 200 hopper cars that now come back empty.

Former Congressman Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, pointed out in a statement made in the House of Representatives on February 5, 1951, "this whole project looks like a competitive problem and has no relation to national defense and is not of national importance."

One would think after reading the statements of those favoring the seaway that the only iron ore on the Northern American Continent is located in Labrador. They ignore the existence of tremendous beds in west Ontario such as Steep Rock and other recent discoveries which are located less than 200 miles from Port Arthur on Lake Ontaria, with railroad facilities to Duluth. Roughly, the steel mills of this country consume 100 million tons of iron ore annually. Approximately 80 million tons were shipped over the Great Lakes in

1950.

If the ore beds are depleted in the Mesabi Range, there is no question but that the Steep Rock ore could very readily make up the loss many times over; and this, together with the additional tonnage from the fabulous Venezuela deposits, will adequately take care of the steel needs of our Nation for many years to come. Another point to be remembered is that Labrador ore would have a sea outlet from Seven Islands regardless of the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. Seven Islands is located on the Gulf of St. Lawrence and iron ore from Labrador could be taken from Seven Islands down along the coasts of Nova Scotia to ports on our eastern seaboard. By the same token, iron ore from western Ontario could be taken down the Great Lakes to reach the middle-western steel centers.

Of course, there is another reason for the building of the St. Lawrence seaway not specifically advanced by the proponents of this measure now, but nevertheless correct, and that is the building of hydroelectric plants on the St. Lawrence principally for the benefit of western New York and for use in Ontario where a shortage of power now exists. The building of these plants naturally affects adversely the coal industry, both bituminous and anthracite, and a considerable loss of tonnage not only affecting the economy in the coal industry but likewise creating unemployment in the coal and railroad industries. It has been estimated that every 2,000 kilowatt-hours produced by hydroelectric power will displace 1 ton of coal, and for every ton of coal displaced one man loses a day's work. Our Canadian neighbors who are in favor of the seaway are not unselfish in their general attitude. They want more electric power and they are not adverse to us helping them get it. In the Matawaska River section of Ontario, about 80 miles north of Ottawa, surveys have been made for a number of years by the Ontario Power Authority for the building of a hydroelectric plant on the Matawaska River near Black Donald, Ontario. This project has been held up and inquiries made in this section indicate that it has been held up awaiting word or official action by the

37338-53- 34

Congress of the United States on the building of the St. Lawrence seaway, and its collateral objective, the building of hydroelectric plants on the St. Lawrence.

In other words, if we go through with our financing of the waterway and the hydroelectric plants, there will be no need for Ontario to proceed with its other contemplated plants on the Matawaska River. Another economic factor that prevails is the fact that western New York and the Province of Ontario have not done anything about building electric-energy plants for present and future power needs. They are waiting for the Government and taxpayers of the United States to do the job for them.

The opposite is true in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia where great electric-energy plants have been built and are being built to take care of present and potential requirements. Private capital has been doing this job and doing it effectively, while those advocating public hydroelectric power are resting on their oars waiting for the Government to do it for them. If the Government does do it for them, States such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia, which are progressive and looking forward, will suffer an economic disadvantage because of their foresight and initiative. Another reason advanced is that if Canada builds the seaway, we will be at their mercy regarding toll rates, etc. This reasoning is rather odd in view of the fact that so far we have not given up our rights on the Great Lakes. In fact, one lake-Lake Michigan-is completely American and in other lakes the channels are most invariably on the American side where we do all the maintenance and improvements. At the Sault Sainte Marie, indispensable to the Canadian grain movement, we own and operate 4 of the 5 locks. A fifth owned by Canada is practically obsolete and, as I said in a recent newspaper statement, the St. Lawrence River is 95 percent Canada. Why not let Canada take care of the river? We can take care of the Great Lakes.

In conclusion, I might say that all factors being considered, I think the same reasons exist today as have existed for many years which indicate that the sensible and proper thing to do in the interests of all the people of the United States is to reject this proposed legislation. In other words, special privileges and subsidies at the taxpayers' expense should not be accorded to a few States at the expense of others. Equal rights to all States and to their economy must prevail. There is no sound economic reason for the building of the seaway, and about the only reason for it I can think of is the fact that Great Britain and other European countries will stand to profit most by the all-water shipment of their exports (many of which will be subsidized) into the Great Lakes section of our country, in competition with American products. When and if that occurs, you will hear a mighty roar of protest, and we will meet ourselves coming back. Leave well enough alone, and my repeated suggestion respectfully submitted, is to reject this measure, and confirm the good judgment and common sense of past Congresses which refused to pass similar legislation.

Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I notice we have with us Congressman Thompson.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARK W. THOMPSON, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE NINTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of the committee. They know my opposition to the St. Lawrence seaway. I would like to file a brief in behalf of the Galveston Chamber of Commerce and Mr. F. G. Robinson, the traffic manager of that organization.

Mr. DONDERO. My colleague from Texas, I suppose you are opposed to it on the basis it will take traffic away from your part of the country? Mr. THOMPSON. Not alone that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DONDERO. But that is one of the reasons?

Mr. THOMPSON. That is a possible reason. I have never seen any testimony to the contrary, though; and I have also in mind the tremenduos cost.

Mr. DONDERO. If you could have heard the testimony as to the inadequacy of the 27-foot channel, you would have gone out of this room feeling very comfortable, because they do not think it amounts to anything.

(The statement of Mr. Robinson follows:)

STATEMENT OF F. G. ROBINSON

My name is F. G. Robinson. I am traffic manager of the Galveston Chamber of Commerce and the Galveston Cotton Exchange and Board of Trade. This statement is presented in opposition to the new disguised St. Lawrence seaway project in their behalf, also in behalf of Board of Trustees of Galveston Wharves, city of Galveston, Galveston County; Texas City Board of Trade, Texas City, Tex.; Texas City Chamber of Commerce, Texas City, Tex.; Southwestern Industrial Traffic League, and Texas Industrial Traffic League.

I am director of both the Southwestern and the Texas Industrial Traffic Leagues.

STATEMENT OF POSITION

Briefly our position with respect to the desirability of the proposed project and the establishment of a St. Lawrence seaway corporation is as follows:

1. Desirapility.-It is not desirable or necessary from the standpoint of national security and other considerations for the United States to construct any part of the St. Lawrence canals on United States territory and exercise joint control with Canada.

2. St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.-The problems of financing the proposed project is not lessened or changed factually by the establishment of a St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The major reason is that no reliable actual study of the initial cost, maintenance, tonnage, and the economic effect on other areas-including gulf ports, etc.-and on existing transportation agencies has ever been made by the Army engineers and the Interstate Commerce Commission, as now proposed in Congressman Clark W. Thompson's bill, H. R. 3799.

GENERAL STATEMENT

The Galveston Chamber of Commerce and the Galveston Cotton Exchange and Board of Trade represents manufacturers and shippers in Galveston, including the board of trustees of the Galveston wharves, in all transportation matters, including legislation which affects the movement of commerce through Galveston. Our port facilities, known as the Galveston wharves, are owned by the city of Galveston and operated under the direction of a board of trustees, which organization is a constituent member of the Galveston Chamber of Commerce and the Galveston Cotton Exchange and Board of Trade.

The Texas City Board of Trade and the Texas City Chamber of Commerce, Texas City, Tex., represent similar interests in the city and port of Texas City, which is approximately 10 miles across Galveston Bay from Galveston, where several large refineries and chemical industries are located and are vitally

interested in legislation which in any way affects the transportation of commerce through Texas City.

The Southwestern Industrial Traffic League and the Texas Industrial Traffic League are voluntary organizations whose object is, among others, to advise and consult with the public shippers, etc., as to all transportation matters, especially legislation affecting transportation and to do whatever may be necessary to the betterment of the industrial and economic commercial conditions in the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. They are definitely interested in gulf ports, and would be injured should the steamship service through said ports be affected, which would be the case under the proposed project. Their membership includes chambers of commerce and port organizations in the larger cities in each of said States, including particularly the cities and ports of Beaumont, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Galveston, Houston, and New Orleans, La., also manufacturers, jobbers, etc., throughout the said States. The membership of the Texas Industrial Traffic League alone represents a total of over 7,500 shippers and receivers of freight in the State of Texas.

The membership of said leagues also includes grain producers and grain milling interests throughout the States named and their combined membership represents thousands of shippers and receivers of freight in said States. Attention is also directed to copy of Texas Senate Resolution No. 33, reproduced in appendix D attached.

My life's work has been devoted to transportation and legislation affecting transportation. Therefore, I believe I am familiar with the general trend of the movement of traffic and particularly the effects the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway would have upon the port of Galveston, including the grain and grain-milling interest, not merely for the benefits that flow to some certain interests, but primarily in connection with the employment of labor and various other businesses that in one way or another attach to and, in fact, exist from, the handling of commerce, particularly that which moves by water.

ARGUMENT AND FACTS IN OPPOSITION

The current bills

An analysis of bill House Joint Resolution 104 is practically the same as the Wiley bill S. 589, in connection with which we have already filed a brief in opposition at hearings held before Senator Wiley's subcommittee.

These bills support the proposed project. On the other hand, we stress the fact that Congressman Clark W. Thompson's bill H. R. 3799, omitted from the committee hearing, requires an impartial survey to be made before any further progress or action is taken toward the St. Lawrence seaway project. Such a bill is reasonable and is designed to determine certain important matters relating to cost and economic conditions by qualified parties so that the taxpaying public might be apprised of matters now lacking in all of the bills now pending before Congress, including those before the Senate. Moreover, his bill is justified by the fact admitted by General Pick, whose testimony is cited at page 6 herein to the effect that no actual study has ever been made by the Corps of Engineers. We therefore, urge the committee to consider and adopt bill H. R. 3799.

After all, the new bills are no different from those which Congress previously declined to adopt other than a change in facelifting designed to mislead the taxpaying public.

Other amendments now before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including the more recent announcement by the President and his Cabinet, indicate piecemeal construction. Such a policy is simply a means of sucking the taxpaying public into future construction of the entire project. That is what Congress did in piecemeal extension of the Intracoastal Canal from New Orleans, La., to Brownsville, Tex., as well as other inland-waterway extensions so as to satisfy competing localities. There is no doubt in our mind but that the proponents expect eventual construction of the entire St. Lawrence project from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. Obviously, such a project would build up the port of Montreal-by United States dollars—at the expense of United States ports on the Gulf of Mexico, etc., and, with serious injury to said ports, including many interior shippers, particularly those in the Southwest who must compete with those in the central Midwestern and Eastern States who are nearer the Great Lakes.

A significant fatal effect is the fact that not one of the bills contain any provisions for determining current costs of the proposed project, but blindly, we think, contemplates construction regardless of the cost or the injury to United States