Secretary CHAPMAN. Not by our Government or theirs, so far as I know.

Mr. MCGREGOR. It is a legal question that has not been settled as far as I know-and if I am in error I want to be corrected. But let us have the proof.

Mr. DONDERO. I notice that all those lines stop down in the State of Ohio, Mr. Chapman, the State of my good friend here to the left. Mr. McGREGOR. That might determine my interest in this case, I might say to the gentleman from Michigan.

Secretary CHAPMAN. I do not know what the legal determination is going to be, but Canada today is making plans and drawing plans. and charts to build it already.

Mr. McGREGOR. Of course they constructed the Welland Canal a long time ago. Under this contemplated agreement she is going to charge us 400 or 500 million as a proportionate part of the costs as her share of St. Lawrence seaway. She is going to make a profit as the canal only cost Canada about 130 million. That is what Canada will do; is it not, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary CHAPMAN. Canada has been making a profit, but what she has been making is a drop in the bucket compared to what she is going to make if she builds this. This is tremendous. Canada is today drawing plans to build that project.

Mr. MCGREGOR. We have been drawing plans in the United States for this project for the last 40 years.

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right. These plans have been presented to the Congress but they have not had approval. I think Canada is on the other side of the receiving line, though, where in the financial interest to her Government and her people Canada would build it.

Mr. McGREGOR. Of course, there is a difference of opinion.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Even leaving that out entirely, we ought to build it for our own sake.

Mr. DONDERO. We have just heard the voice of one reason why it has not been built.

Mr. MCGREGOR. I appreciate the compliment. I feel we should know by written agreements just what we can expect from Canada before we agree to this legislation. The American people are entitled to know all details before the project is started.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Secretary, we have been spending a great deal of our time on the discussion of the iron-ore situation. Now with reference to power, leaving your direct statement, you said that some 1,800,000 kilowatts could be produced if this project is constructed. Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right.

Mr. ANGELL. And, of that, 1,400,000 was firm power?
Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes; approximately that.

Mr. ANGELL. And that is the total capacity of this proposed plant?
Secretary CHAPMAN. Of firm power; yes.

Mr. ANGELL. What is the potential of the entire St. Lawrence area? Secretary CHAPMAN. That would depend upon how many of these possible projects you would build in addition to the Niagara. At this time we are not asking for projects not in the plans at the moment. I do not know how many possibilities of power development would be in that area, Congressman.

Mr. ANGELL. Have you any estimate of the total possible power capacity of the St. Lawrence?

Secretary CHAPMAN. We are stating as of this moment that the American side and the American interests would receive approximately 940,000 kilowatts.

Mr. ANGELL. That is this project. I mean the total capacity of the river if it were all developed-the potential power.

Secretary CHAPMAN. I do not have the estimates on that total, Congressman, but in terms of kilowatts it would be fantastic-the numbers—if you produced the entire potential of the river.

Mr. ANGELL. How does it compare with the Columbia River? Secretary CHAPMAN. Now, this is purely a guess, but I would say it is considerably larger in productive capacity and potential than the Columbia River.

Mr. ANGELL. The St. Lawrence?

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes.

Mr. ANGELL. Well, I would like very much if you would present the figures for the record on that.

Secretary CHAPMAN. I will get that. I will get those figures.

Mr. ANGELL. Only 10 percent of the Columbia River power is being developed at the present time or is developed.

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right.

Mr. ANGELL. And Grand Coulee and Bonneville alone will produce as much power as this project.

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right.

Mr. ANGELL. So the potential of the Columbia River is far in excess of the potential of the St. Lawrence since the potential power in the Columbia area is 34 million kilowatts.

Secretary CHAPMAN. What I was talking about when I compared the St. Lawrence with the Columbia was that I was thinking about the present capacity of production of the Columbia as against the potential of the other. I was not comparing the proper figures. That is not proper in that statement because I was comparing the production in one case with the potential of another.

Mr. ANGELL. So that this project, aside from the transportation and ability we will have to get access to iron ore, has the power facilities as really a major factor in the whole project?

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right.

Mr. ANGELL. Now, your Department, Mr. Secretary, has charge of hydroelectric power in the United States.

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right.

Mr. ANGELL. What is the fact with reference to the present development of hydroelectric power and other power in the United States in proportion to the needs of the country?

Secretary CHAPMAN. In proportion to what?

Mr. ANGELL. The needs; our needs.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Congressman, it is so often you hear people say there is a shortage of power. Sometimes, especially some of us crusaders on public power have often said it in the past and I think it is quite a mistake to generalize on the point that there is a shortage of power everywhere you turn. Now, you have to measure that by the actual facts with which you are faced in an area. Sure, in one area over here there is a shortage of power. If you need it to produce or to locate a plant in a given area, you could not do it because there is not enough power to produce in that area. We have that in many sections of the country today. There are sections of the country where

you have a slight reserve of power; meaning, of course, that you little more than your demand is using up at the moment.

have a

For our defense, it is going to take all the power that the private utilities of this country and the Federal Government and the municipalities can develop and produce. It is going to take all the power they can produce in the next 10 years. Now, I say "all they can produce. Why? Because the facilities to produce it are going to be limited for them so they will not be able to get all the materials they need. Across-the-board requirements of the private utilities today, which they have projected for the next 3 or 4 years, call for about 6 or 7 million kilowatts. That takes an awful lot of material to build that much capacity. That is the kind of a thing that you run across.

In one area you will find the cost is too high for a defense plant to locate in that area. Aluminum plants have been difficult to locate in this last 5 months because of the cost of power in some areas, and they had to look immediately to some other areas to find where they could get a cheaper cost in order to produce aluminum at the costs that they were paying.

Mr. ANGELL. It is true, is it not, there is a dearth of hydroelectric power and other electric power in the United States today?

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes.

Mr. ANGELL. There is not a sufficient amount to take care of the industries we now have. Is it not also true that the Government is having difficulty in finding power for the development of the additional aluminum plants necessary to carry on our war effort?

Secretary CHAPMAN. We have pooling arrangements in a given area that are worked out by the grid system, as you know. We have a pooling arrangement whereby we will pool all the reserve power that each company may have in order to throw it into a defense plant if we need it in an area. When we estimate what these pooled reserves would amount to, we can tell whether we could locate a plant in a given area or whether we have to start in to build power plant before we can put the location of the defense plant there.

There are cases in which we will have to build the power plant before we can build a defense plant.

Now, to say that the country at this moment is not producing enough electricity to meet the present need would not be quite accurate. It would only mean this: We are not producing enough to meet the potential requirements of the people as they grow day by day.

Mr. ANGELL. I note in the press, Mr. Secretary, that there is an embargo being considered in your Department against locating any additional war plants in the Columbia River area by reason of the fact that there is a dearth of power.

Secretary CHAPMAN. I have not approved that yet, Congressman. Mr. ANGELL. I hope you do not.

That is all. Thank you.

Mr. LARCADE. A very large aluminum plant has just been established near New Orleans in Louisiana due to the fact that they had all the natural gas that was necessary to provide the power necessary, where other parts of the country were not able to do so.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Of course, you have there one of the greatest potentials of power in this country-from the basis of your energy of gas. And when we settle our discussion about tidelands

Mr. LARCADE. That should not take but a few moments.
Mr. McGREGOR. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. LARCADE. Yes.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Is it not true, Mr. Secretary, if private capital is given the materials or the right to purchase the materials they have the means to produce all the power that will be necessary now or in the immediate future?

Secretary CHAPMAN. If they were given the equipment-otherwise the materials

Mr. McGREGOR. That is right.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes; they could very easily do so. But in the past they have not always done that.

Mr. McGREGOR. Sometimes because of regulation of the Federal Government they cannot get the material.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes. When you created the Federal Power Commission you gave them pretty strict powers.

Mr. McGREGOR. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Auchincloss.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Secretary, I think you made a very informative statement, and I appreciate it myself very much because it has given me a great deal of information. But there are some gaps there that I would like to ask some questions about.

Secretary CHAPMAN. All right.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Who owns this deposit in Labrador?

Secretary CHAPMAN. It is owned by a combination of Canadian people and an American interest known as the National Steel Co. in America.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Who makes up that company?

Secretary CHAPMAN. Now, I asked the same question. I asked the same question of the Bureau of Mines people to see if the present steel companies owned it. As I understand it, they do not own it-not the United States Steel Corp.

Mr. BLATNIK. This is Labrador ore you are speaking of?
Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Well, I would like, Mr. Chairman, for the record, if the Secretary could furnish a complete history as to who does own this property and how it was acquired.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Well, I may say that the M. A. Hanna Co. is the name of the company that actually owns it. It is an American company. They actually own it. They are not a part of the United States Steel Corp. as far as I know.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Have they partners in their ownership? Do you know?

Secretary CHAPMAN. I do not know whether they have or not. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Will you try to find out?

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes; I will try. As a matter of fact, I have been trying to find out, and it is a little difficult. You cannot always get that information easily.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. If we could get it by Monday it would be fine. Mr. PICKETT. Would you yield to me a minute, sir?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I do not want to yield except for a question.

Mr. PICKETT. I want to help answer the question if I can.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I will yield for that purpose.

Mr. PICKETT. In the record of last year's testimony on page 237 Mr. Humphrey testified:

81181-51-pt. 1

Recently a group of midwestern steel companies, including Armco, National, Republic, Wheeling, and Youngstown Sheet & Tube, have joined in further exploring this region and preparing for commercial production.

Now, that might be of some help to you.

Secretary CHAPMAN. I think so. I think that is really the answer as to who owns it. I think that is the real ownership.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. The ownership rests in American companies? Secretary CHAPMAN. Principally, yes.

(Subsequently the Department of the Interior furnished the following data:)

The following stockholders in the Iron Ore Co. of Canada, who will operate the Quebec-Labrador deposits, were shown in the November 16, 1950, issue of the New York Times. You will note that the seven American interests are independent iron-ore and steel producers in the Great Lakes area. They all own and operate iron-ore mines on the Mesabi or Lake Superior district but, nevertheless, are seriously developing the Quebec-Labrador iron-ore deposit to supplement their dwindling Lake Superior reserves:

CANADIAN COMPANIES

Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines, Ltd.

Hollinger North Shore Exploration Co., Ltd. 25 percent.
Labrador Mining & Exploration Co., Ltd.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. The next question logically is: What contract, if any, have they got with the Canadian Government controlling this ownership? It seems to me it would be very interesting to find out just what that relationship is, if any.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Well, Congressman, in the first place, the mining laws of Canada are very similar to our own mining laws, and they have simply gone in and acquired concessions, just like a Canadian could acquire concessions in one of these ranges of ours on the same basis. They can go in and purchase it. They would not have to have a contract with the Government per se.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Well, the International Nickel Co. has certain obligations and contracts with the Canadian Government.

Secretary CHAPMAN. That may be true in nickel.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. And I assume that if any other great development of Canada's resources by American interests were undertaken, they would have some kind of arrangement with the Government. I think it is very pertinent to this whole question, just what arrangements they may have made and just what are the facts in this situation. I do not mean to infer there is anything sinister about it. Secretary CHAPMAN. No, no.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. But I am certainly interested to know the facts. If you can furnish us as best you can what information you have, I think we would appreciate it very much.

Secretary CHAPMAN. I will be glad to furnish you that, but may I make this suggestion? I think the most accurate information could