the AMVETS this morning in favor of this proposition? They are very much interested. That is one of the great veterans' organizations of this country. Mr. LARCADE. Without objection, this will be filed preceding the appearance of Mr. Voorhis, if that is satisfactory. Mr. DONDERO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. (Letter referred to, signed by Mr. Rufus H. Wilson, acting legislative director, AMVETS, Washington, D. C., dated March 2, 1951, addressed to Hon. George A. Dondero, is as follows:) Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO, AMERICAN VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN DONDERO: AMVETS are very gratified that the House Public Works Committee has been conducting extensive hearings on the proposed St. Lawrence seaway and power project. As you know, we have for a considerable period of time been intensely interested in the eventual passage of the bill now before your committee. As a veterans' organization we are vitally interested in any proposal which might result in greater security for our Nation. We are convinced, after quite careful investigation that the project will be a decided asset to the United States in time of emergency. The military leaders of our Nation have been unanimous in their endorsement of this proposal. We think that it would be folly to fail to act on any proposal which they so actively recommend. We think that the cost of the project in conjunction with our other defense financial outlays is not so great as to preclude starting immediate construction. In view of the fact that there is every likelihood that there will be a serious shortage of iron ore in this country in a relatively short time unless drastic steps are taken to curtail such an eventuality, we feel very certain that it would be in keeping with an adequate defense preparation to have the House of Representatives immediately adopt the joint resolution proposing the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. Sincerely yours, RUFUS H. WILSON, Acting Legislative Director. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Voorhis is a former member of the House of Representatives, a colleague I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with, who was considered one of our most able and conscientious and hard-working members at that time. As a matter of fact, he was a member of the old Rivers and Harbors Committce prior to the Reorganization Act in the Seventy-sixth and Seventy-seventh Congresses. You may proceed, Mr. Voorhis. STATEMENT OF JERRY VOORHIS, SECRETARY, COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. VOORHIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is kind of a pleasure to come back to this room under any capacity. I might wish I were on the other side of the table, but fate has decided otherwise and so I am on this side. I would like, first of all, Mr. Chairman, to read three telegrams, if I may, in support of this project, the first of which comes from the Central Cooperative Wholesale at Superior, Wis., which reads as follows: We want to again give full suport to proposed St. Lawrence waterway legislation as per our official stand adopted at our 1947 annual meeting: "Whereas, the economic welfare of Midwestern States, particularly Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, is bound up with the development of transportation between this area and other parts of the world, and "Whereas, the proposed St. Lawrence waterway would provide a tremendous boon to the agriculture and industry of these States: Therefore be it "Resolved, That the delegates of this annual meeting of Central Cooperative Wholesale hereby favor the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway and urge the Congress of the United States to take immediate action on pending legislation to make such construction possible; be it further "Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to all Representatives and Senators from this area. I might say that that organization, Mr. Chairman, is composed of about 75,000 members, the bulk of whom are farmers in that area. Mr. LARCADE. From whom is this telegram? Mr. VOORHIS. From the Central Cooperative Wholesale at Superior, Wis., which serves a number of cooperatives in the northern part of Minnesota and Wisconsin and upper Michigan. The second telegram is from Midland Cooperative Wholesale at Minneapolis and reads as follows: At our last annual meeting in March 1950 the delegates approved the following resolution relative to the St. Lawrence seaway: "Whereas there is now pending before Congress a bill providing for action on the long-awaited St. Lawrence waterway project, "And whereas the general welfare of hundreds of communities in the upper Midwest will be improved by the completion of the project, "And whereas it is of vital importance to the whole Nation that the economic prosperity and progress of this section of the country be stimulated and improved: Therefore, be it "Resolved by the delegates here assembled at the twenty-fourth annual meeting of Midland Cooperative Wholesale, representing 240,000 families residing in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and northern Iowa, That the Congress of the United States be urged to take favorable action on pending legislation immediately; be it further "Resolved, That copies of this resolution be mailed to the Members of the Congress from the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa." Our organization in expressing this opinion in the foregoing resolution believes that the time is ripe for action on the St. Lawrence waterway proposal because of the necessity of consolidating and improving the economy of this section of the country as well as for reasons of national defense. The specific reasons for the support of this resolution by our organization were stated in a letter dated March 8, 1950. I might say that those are cooperative organizations which pay every tax anybody else does, including Federal corporation income tax. The final telegram is from the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation as follows: Recognizing its importance to a balanced world-wide exchange of goods and services, to the more economical movement of farm commodities and Labrador ore, and as an additional source of power, we urge that everything be done to bring about the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, those are not just telegrams from officials. Those represent the real action of about 400,000 people, and I can document. that and show you that it does represent really the opinion of those people. Most of them are farm people. About 95 percent of them are farm people. One reason they are concerned about it is because they believe on the basis of Department of Commerce figures that the cost of the shipment of grain out of the Great Lakes area will be probably reduced by 5 or 10 cents if this seaway is constructed. They believe that would be good for them and good for everybody else. In the second place, I would just like to point out that understandably enough the discussion which I have had the pleasure of listening to in the last hour has revolved pretty much around Labrador ore. But this project is by no means concerned only with Labrador ore. It is concerned with the shipment of many different types of goods. into the interior of America, and at a cheaper cost, we believe, than would be the case otherwise. We should like to point out that should war come it would be perhaps more important that there be protected interior routes than any other types of transportation might be. We would also like to point out that the plan to charge tolls for the use of this seaway would, it seems to me, be potentially an answer to any competitive inequalities that you might be concerned about in the matter. I believe myself that under whatever circumstances it might be done, Mr. Scudder, and I do not presume to say what those circumstances would be, it is my opinion that the power development would be an important feature of this project. I think that New England, northern New England particularly, has been short of power. I think it will be short of power in a more serious way in the future. And I think this power is needed. I am impressed by testimony that is repeatedly brought before us not only in Congress but elsewhere to the effect that certain power developments will be needed, but I am even more impressed by the fact that whenever they are built demand almost always exceeds available supply in a very, very short time. Now, it seems to me that the committee has to consider this matter from the point of view of the general national interest, Mr. Chairman, especially at this time, and I can hardly conceive of a great Nation like ours hesitating for any length of time, at least not longer than you need to be sure you have a thing on a sound basis, to develop a great interior Mediterranean, which is what is really involved here. In fact, I am surprised we have not done it sooner. What really is involved is the increase of the coast line of Americathat is in effect, the ocean coast line-by about 4,300 miles, which is a longer mileage than the whole Pacific coast is actually at the present time. Finally, I would like to say that in the present world situation it seems to me important for us to build such ties between our country and other free nations as we can, and if there be one such nation to which we have the greatest affinity and with which we have the greatest amount of common interest certainly that nation is Canada. So I think that is not an inconsiderable factor that this is a project that could be jointly undertaken with that great country that lies to the north of us. Maybe I took more than 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman, but I did not take much more, and I am through. Mr. LARCADE. That is perfectly all right. Have you completed your statement? Mr. VOORHIS. Yes, sir. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Davis? Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Blatnik? Mr. BLATNIK. No questions, but will you permit me to make a short comment? Mr. LARCADE. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Voorhis, I liked your very good statement. I am very pleased that the officers of the Central Cooperative Wholesale in Superior, Wis., which serves my area in northern Minnesota as well as Wisconsin, have sent in their support. Believe me, when those people support anything they mean it, and they mean it only after they have gone into it most thoroughly and carefully. Their public record in that area has shown they have served the best interests of that area and not only themselves. They have promoted the resource use program. They have helped develop and raise the economic levels of that area which during the depression was part of one of the eight major depressed regions economically in the United States. Mr. VOORHIS. That is true. Mr. BLATNIK. They have done a terrific job in raising the standards of production and purchasing power of the farmers and contributing to the improvement of business all down the line. I am very happy to have their wholehearted support here in behalf of this project. Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, I presume I can leave these telegrams with the clerk? Mr. LARCADE. They will be included in the record without objection. Mr. Scudder, do you have any questions? Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Chairman, as long as Mr. Voorhis mentioned my name regarding the power, I would like to make a statement. I am not objecting to the power development. Mr. VOORHIS. I quite understood that. Mr. SCUDDER. I am going on the assumption that the great Northeast, who are in need of this power-and the power can be developed I believe cheaper than any place else in the country-are willing to build the facilities there to take care of it. Now, why should all the people in the country be called upon to do that job for that area that will develop power at a very low rate? Why should we not let them assume the cost of the construction of the power facilities at this location, thereby reducing the cost to the Federal Government? All the people I believe would be interested in the construction of the canal. I think it is a pretty good deal if they can do the prime work that is going to be necessary for the operation of the canal. Why should the Federal Government be called upon to pay the excessive cost of developing the power and then give it back to them? Mr. VOORHIS. Well, Mr. Scudder, I quite understood your point. The only reason I mentioned your name was because I wanted to make it clear that in advocating the power development I was not personally presuming to say under exactly what circumstances it should be done, because I do not think I know enough to do that. I would think that there were parallel considerations in the matter. If the people in the immediate area pay for the power development, they, of course, will own the facilities. If the Federal Government pays for it, the Federal Government would own the facilities and therefore would have a source of revenue therefrom. I do not know how that would balance out. Mr. SCUDDER. That is not contemplated in the bill. It is contemplated in the bill when their portion has been repaid, then the Government turns that over to them, and, therefore, if they are going to get the benefit from the project they should pay a chargeable price and thereby relieve the taxpayers of the country as a whole of that excessive cost. Mr. VOORHIS. Well, I just did not want to enter into that question. Mr. SCUDDER. That is all. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Baker, any questions? Mr. BAKER. No questions. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Voorhis, we are glad to have had you appear before our committee and to have had you visit with Members of Congress again. Mr. VOORHIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LARCADE. Without objection, the committee will stand adjourned until Monday morning, March 5, 1951, at 10 a. m. (Thereupon, at 12:40 p. m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Monday, March 5, 1951.) |