The local interests under the circumstances feel that they should be given some assurance of reimbursement for the money expended, because under normal circumstances if there were no emergency and the bill were authorized, the work would be done under the direction of the Army engineers, and the full amount would be paid for by the Federal Government.

In addition to the fact that this great facility is almost useless without this turning basin being dredged, there is the fact that Los Angeles Harbor is a very important harbor on the Pacific coast-the most important-and one of the greatest harbors in the United States, for that matter; and it is certainly admitted that it will provide additional facilities for defense purposes as well as for the normal operation of commerce in the Pacific area and along the Pacific coast.

I realize that this committee is considering those bills that it might include in an omnibus bill for the next session of Congress. I hope that you will recognize, since local interests have proceeded to spend their own money up to now, that this bill is in a different category than the average, which can wait for the time when you report an omnibus bill, and that the committee will see its way clear to report this bill out at this time and permit this authorization before the omnibus bill is prepared.

I am very certain that if the House did not take that action, that we would have favorable action on the Senate side, because companion bills were introduced on the Senate side by Senator Knowland and Senator Kuchel.

Mr. ANGELL. May I ask if the Senate committee has taken any action on these bills?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I do not know that they have done so. They have held a hearing on the bill under consideration and it is just a matter of when their Public Works Subcommittee may meet before they will take final action.

In connection with the Senate's attitude on this matter, I have received just before coming to the meeting here a letter from Senator Kuchel in which he states that he has been informed that this committee is today considering H. R. 3054 and H. R. 3086, and that he and Senator Knowland have introduced S. 1060, which is the companion bill on the Senate side, and he would like to indicate to the committee his full support of the measure before the committee with an appropriate amendment providing in substance that reimbursement to the city of Los Angeles shall be subject to funds being made available there for and shall not take precedence over any other pending projects of higher priority for harbor improvement.

Then he describes the purpose of the bill which I have just related to you. One of the objections, a slight objection in the original bill, was that the reimbursement may take precedence over other projects and thereby be given priority. We have considered that and we are proposing an amendment as indicated by Senator Kuchel that we are not seeking priority consideration for reimbursement; that we are willing to wait our time for reimbursement at the pleasure of the Congress, provided, of course, that we will not be down at the bottom of the list but that if there is any impression gained by the committee that we are seeking preference, we want to remove that thought. My attention was called to a public law-and I do not have the number-passed on March 3, 1925, section 11, which, if the amend

ment proposed is not satisfactory to the committee, section 11 of Public Law of March 3, 1925, might suffice to provide reimbursement in an orderly fashion to the people of Los Angeles who have advanced this money.

Another matter I think is very pertinent to this whole question, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the local interests have proceeded with the construction work. That is, the dredging of some 80 acres of lowland and shallow water adjacent to this new terminal.

As I said before, that would equal about one-half of the total improvement. Now, the condition of the subsoil in Los Angeles Harbor is sandy; it is marshland. It is not rocky and any dredging there may be of a very temporary nature because of wave action which might destroy the $450,000 worth of work that is being done.

In other words, if that equals half of the 80 acres cost of improvement and if wave action in the interim in shifting the subsoil so as to fill in that hole, then the cost would be increased when we get around to doing the whole job.

Furthermore, I am of the impression, although I have no authority to make this statement, that if the Congress would authorize this project with the work having been started, there would be encouragement enough to the local interests to proceed with the whole job with the anticipation of being reimbursed and thereby removing the possibility of the marshy land and subsoil and sandy soil filling in the hole that was dredged for this emergency.

Those are the pertinent facts, Mr. Chairman, and any questions the committee might have I would be glad to answer. However, I do want to impress upon you the urgency and emergency of this project. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions from members of the committee?

Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Scudder.

Mr. SCUDDER. Would the part of the dredging that has already been done, or is being done, permit the turning of one of the large liners in that area at the present time?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. As far as the actual area to be provided, the Army engineers determined in the first instance that 80 acres of shallow water would have to be dredged. I do not have the physical design in front of me, but I would say only one-half of the project would be provided with this much dredging. Normally and naturally I think it would provide to a certain extent a limited operation of the facility, but it would not provide the full, maximum possibility of its operation.

Mr. SCUDDER. But in the long run if only a part were done it would be filled in and further work would have to be done at some future time.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. That is right.

Mr. SCUDDER. Even to keep an emergency operation going.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. That is correct.

Mr. SCUDDER. It would be much cheaper if the whole project were done at one time instead of only a part and then have to go back and finish the job.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. That is right, because the contractor now operating would have to take all of his machinery off the job after he has

completed the present contract, and then have the expense of putting it back on the job and assembling a crew and going to work on it. Then in the interim the possibility of the dredging filling up because of a shifting of the subsoil is always present.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any further questions?

Mr. BECKER. Is that the triangular piece?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. That is right. You had the maps here when the Army engineers were here testifying. It is a triangular piece in Los Angeles Harbor that was laid out.

Mr. BECKER. We had the maps here.

Mr. ANGELL. Yes. It was explained to us at previous hearings.
Mr. BECKER. I just wanted to make sure which one it was.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, the deputy city attorney assigned to the Los Angeles Harbor Commission, Mr. Perkins, is here. He is very familiar with the situation and he may be able to add to my testimony.

Mr. ANGELL. In just a moment we will be glad to hear from him. Are there any further questions? Mr. Machrowicz, the gentleman

from Michigan?

Mr. MACHROWICZ. No, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Mack?

Mr. MACK. No questions.

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we will be very glad to hear the gentleman from Los Angeles.

Mr. Perkins, the committee is very glad to hear you on this bill at this time.

STATEMENT OF C. N. PERKINS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. PERKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee.

My testimony at a previous hearing is fully set forth in the record, and the members of the committee have heard to a very great extent all of the testimony that we feel we could offer or would be helpful to the committee's deliberation at this time, except to say that our Board of Los Angeles Harbor Commissioners were in what you might call a state of extremis in that they had constructed this huge terminal over a period of some 20 years and they have it standing there and not usable for the full extent and full purpose to which it was to be devoted because of the lack of sufficient width of channel to take care of the deep-water traffic that would use the terminal.

For that reason we have pressed our aims and desires as far as Federal participation in this dredging work is concerned, to the extent that we have felt necessary in order to get some assurance of authorization. We do not expect to get money now, but we do wish to be protected by legislative enactment to authorize what we feel was a necessary effort on our part to get the thing done in order to have this terminal available at the time it is completed, that is, July 1.

In order to meet the possible objections that may be raised from a priority standpoint I have endeavored to work out with Congressman McDonough and Senator Kuchel and others some language in the proposed bill that would obviate the so-called priority element that might be considered to be a prior claim by the local interests for being

reimbursed for the amount of money they have thus far spent. The language which Mr. McDonough has read into the record is included in this proposed amendment which I have typed on the face of the bill.

I would like to read the language for the record and hand this to the reporter, if I may, to be included in the record.

First we have included the language proposed by the representative of the Chief of Engineers, in line 5, so it will read:

with the plan and subject to the conditions contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 23, 1953 **

We have included the number of the House Document which has since been published, House Document 161 of the 83d Congress, which contains the Chief of Engineers' report.

In line 2 on page 2 we have added so that it will read:

That such reimbursement shall be subject to appropriations applicable thereto or funds available therefor and shall not take precedence over other pending projects of higher priority for harbor improvement: Provided further, That such payment shall not exceed the sum of $896,500.

That is the figure that the Army engineers have estimated.
Mr. ANGELL. What is the total cost of the project?

Mr. PERKINS. $896,500 as per the Chief of Engineers' report.
I will hand this to the reporter for inclusion in the record.
(H. R. 3086 with the amendments referred to is as follows:)

[H. R. 3086, 83d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize the improvement of East Basin, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the project for improvement of East Basin, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California, is hereby authorized in accordance with the plan and subject to the conditions contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 23, 1953, printed as House Document Numbered 161 of the 83d Congress, at an estimated cost of $896,500: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to reimburse local interests for such work as may have been done upon this project subsequent to April 1, 1953, insofar as the same shall be approved by the Chief of Engineers and found to have been done in accordance with the project hereby authorized: Provided further, That such reimbursement shall be subject to appropriations applicable thereto or funds available therefor and shall not take precedence over other pending projects of higher priority for harbor improvement: Provided further, That such payment shall not exceed the sum of $896,500.

Mr. PERKINS. On the matter of the partial accomplishment of this project now being undertaken by the local interests

Mr. ANGELL. Is it actually under construction now?
Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. How far has it proceeded?

Mr. PERKINS. It was commenced April 17 and is due to be completed, that is, this first half of the work, on July 11. It will include about 60 percent of the total amount of dredging recommended by the Chief of Engineers in the sum of $457,000 as against $896,500 contained in the entire project.

The Board of Harbor Commissioners has, in conformity with the public method of calling for bids, entered into a contract on a stepdown basis for this first unit of the work at a single net unit price of $457,000, which will cover about 45 acres of the total 80-acre area to be dredged.

The balance of the work could be done on this same contract at a reduced unit price by reason of the volume. The cost of bringing in the dredging equipment from elsewhere, and setting it up, and getting the spoil-disposal pipeline laid and the spoil area distributed, would be greatly reduced if the whole work were done at the same time.

I am told that it costs about $50,000, and that is just a round figure, to lay the pipeline from the dredging area over to the spoil-disposal area, and then taking it up and removing it. If only half the work were done, we would have to pay a larger unit price from the smaller area. In addition to that, we would have to pay the contractor's cost of laying and removing this pipeline through which the spoil is pumped. If the balance is done later on then that additional expense will have to be gone into again, plus the higher unit cost.

Mr. ANGELL. So that out of the $86,000 total cost, $50,000 is for laying and taking up pipe?

Mr. PERKINS. That, I understand, is included in our present figure of $457,000 for half of this area; that is, the cost of laying and removing the spoil pipeline. Yes, sir. As far as the actual physical situation out there is concerned, I am sure the members of the committee are well informed on that.

We have pictures on the wall here and we distributed the annual reports. If there are any questions on that subject I would be glad to try to answer them.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions from the members of the committee on my left?

Mr. BECKER. As I understand it, this bill calls for $896,500, which is the total cost of the entire development?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. BECKER. I thought there was something that came up at the time of the hearing to the effect that the board of commissioners or the city was paying a part of the cost.

Mr. PERKINS. There is. I should amplify that. There is an additional expense which is not part of the dredging but which is the cost of relocating certain sewer lines and also removing some smallboat moorings, totaling about $305,000. The local interests are taking care of that, or have already taken care of that themselves. That sewer line is being extended out beyond this spoil-disposal area, and what small-boat moorings have to be moved are in the process of being moved. So the local interests have already absorbed that, you see. Mr. ANGELL. Any further questions?

Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Mack.

Mr. MACK. I fully appreciate the urgency of this project and the necessity for it being undertaken in the reasonably near future. It seems to me, however, that the committee will probably face a legislative difficulty in getting the bill enacted this year. As I understand the purpose of the legislation it is to have the project authorized now so that next spring you can approach the appropriations committee for the approval of funds to carry out this project.

We have scores of rivers and harbors projects and flood-control projects that each Congressman thinks are of great emergency. I think the committee believes that these projects should all be placed in the rivers and harbors bill which will be presented to the Congress