improvement at present-day costs which is estimated to be around three hundred and thirty-million-odd dollars. I am just trying to justify the statement that my distinguished colleague has made, as to just how he can assume that Canada is going to have to pay a greater amount than the United States as disclosed by the figures of the Chief of Engineers, and as shown by the map on the wall. Mr. LUCAS. I think my colleague, Mr. Chairman, has already answered the question that he raised, in large part. The Canadians should be given credit for the work they have already done under the treaty which was initialed in 1932. They have been working on their side on this great project for several years. It would be unfair for us to measure what would be done in the future without giving them credit for what they have done in the past. We must remember, too, sir, that they constructed their part of the works when the dollar was much more expensive than it is today. While I agree that there is some question as to the exact value of the work that will be put into this by both the Canadians and the Americans, as to its true value, I am convinced from General Pick's testimony that the Canadians have already placed more than we have into it, and that their cash outlay will be greater than ours. Mr. LARCADE. Well, pursuing the matter further, and taking your statement that I have answered my own question, we will assume that credit will be given to Canada for the expenditures of $330,000,000 representing the present-day cost of that so-called half of construction costs of a joint project, and taking the figures as disclosed on the map, $251,269,000, and the cost of the building of the Welland Canal, $132,000,000, Canada will have actually only expended $383,000,000; $251,000,000, as shown on the map, and $132,000,000 of the original cost of the Welland Canal, which makes a total of $383,000,000, whereas, the United States portion would be $566,794,000. I never have been able to get that cleared up, and since this gentleman reiterates what that gentleman said, and which was made by previous testimony before the committee, I would like for somebody to show this committee how they arrived at the statement that the cost to Canada will be greater than that to the United States, when it is supposed to be a joint project on a 50-50 basis. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, may I add to the discussion, to see if I could contribute to the question raised? Am I correct in recalling that General Pick referred to some works that will be made necessary should this project be put under way, in which the Canadians will undergo all the expenditures? He referred particularly to a suspension bridge now across the river, near or at the site of the proposed power dam, which will have to be removed and a tunnel, a highway tunnel, bored underneath. The entire cost of that particular operation would be borne by the Canadians, and that is not included in the figures which the gentlemen from Louisiana just totaled up for us. Mr. LARCADE. I would like to make one other point. Even assuming that the Canadians would have to build a bridge, I do not think that even a bridge, and the tunnel, or other improvements that Canada might make, would offset the amount that Canada is short of paying, and that will be matched by the United States in this project. Certainly, a bridge and a tunnel will not cost $194,000,000. Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, suppose we direct that inquiry to General Pick and his staff, to supply the detailed information? The gentleman from Texas has only gotten composite figures that went into his statement. I am sure that he and no other Member of Congress would go to the extent of examining every figure that is submitted to him as a general proposition, any more than a lawyer would take a deed that is duly recorded and question the authenticity of the signer of the deed, for the simple reason it has been recorded by a notary public. Mr. LUCAS. I was merely making my conclusions from what General Pick testified here. Mr. LARCADE. I agree with the statement made by the gentleman from Alabama, that the witness is not an expert with respect to matters concerning the Corps of Engineers. However, he made the statement in his statement. I thought he had looked into the matter. I think it would be fair to him at this point that permission be granted so that he can obtain from the Corps of Engineers an explanation of the breakdown of the amounts to be paid by the Canadian Government and the United States, taking into consideration the differences which I have pointed out. Mr. LUCAS. If the gentleman desires that I do that, I shall be glad to do so. I understand that those figures have been presented to this committee many, many times before. Mr. LARCADE. There has not been any explanation made to my knowledge, Congressman. That is why I am trying to find out from someone about that statement. The members of the committee had repeatedly brought the matter up, but it has never been answered satisfactorily, certainly, not to my satisfaction. Mr. LUCAS. With leave of the chairman, I shall be glad to submit a more elaborate statement on this, sir. Mr. LARCADE. Thank you, sir. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas in bringing a rather clear statement to this committee. Can you conceive of any situation in which the Governments of Canada and the United States are jointly interested as they are in this one, without coming to a fair and a just agreement as to the cost and every other detail connected with it? Mr. LUCAS. No, sir. Mr. DONDERO. It is a 50-50 project. Both Governments are going to pay half. Canada has shown its faith and confidence in this long before the United States; in fact, more than a half of a century, because they have spent this money for the Welland Canal, and also for their own canal of 14 feet on their side, and as far as I know, never asked this country for a dollar for tolls on either one. And we are using them today. Your conception of the Nation-wide interest, I think, is excellent, and you brought one or two thoughts out here that are entirely new to this committee. I just wanted to commend you for it. Have you been up there to see it? Mr. LUCAS. No, sir. Mr. DONDERO. Well, if you did, you would want to come back here and perhaps use violent means against those who oppose it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Dondero, I look upon this project today as in about the same stage as the TVA was in 1930, just waiting for somebody to grasp the opportunity to materialize the great idea. Mr. DONDERO. Anyone who has ever seen this project will understand its magnitude. To see that water roll into the sea is almost terrifying to the human being. Mr. LUCAS. I think it is almost criminal to let that power wash down the St. Lawrence River without being utilized. Mr. DONDERO. When we need it so badly. Mr. LUCAS. True. Mr. DONDERO. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pickett. Mr. PICKETT. I have no question to ask Mr. Lucas. But I do not quite grasp the significance of the continued reference being made here to Canada paying half of the cost of the project. I take it that the committee is relying for the most part on the figures offered by the Corps of Engineers. According to the chart which has been referred to from time to time the cost of remaining construction for Canada is $251,000,000; of the cost of remaining work to the United States is $566 million. Now, then, if you add to it the cost of the work already accomplished, there is still a total cost to Canada of $383 million, and to the United States, $598 million. I do not see where you can get half and half out of that figure. Mr. LUCAS. Those are figures on the dollars as of 1950, Mr. Pickett. Mr. PICKETT. That is right. Mr. LUCAS. There is no way we can estimate how valuable the work was, in dollars, which was done in 1931, 1932, and later, by the Canadian Government. Mr. PICKETT. I am talking about the figures that are referred to here from time to time as the cost to the United States, and the cost to Canada as a 50-50 proposition. It just does not add up. Now, then, if you want to talk about the values of other things that are not used in the computation of the sum total of those figures, I think the United States can add a lot of values to it, too. I think those are nebulous things that we do not have to deal with here, and ought not to be dealing with here. It just interested me at the moment where we get the half-and-half proposition. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I will say to my beloved colleague from Texas that even if the United States were bearing three-fourths of the cost, I still would be for it. I think it ought to be developed for the use of all the people of the North American Continent. Mr. PICKETT. I have no questions. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. George. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman on the very excellent statement. As the gentleman from Michigan brought out, he gave us a refreshing, new view to look at, and to analyze it in the national interest. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baker. Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas upon what I regard as the strongest argument presented that I have heard in favor of the project. Mr. LUCAS. That is high praise, indeed. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. I would like to join in the commendation of the interest in this project that Mr. Lucas has shown. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blatnik. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I, too, join in the commendation. I wish I had the ability to state the case in the clear, concise, and forceful manner you have presented the case this morning. Mr. LUCAS. It is very fine and very generous of you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. (Mr. Lucas later submitted the following statement:) In my prepared statement I cited General Pick to the effect that (and here I quote from my statement) "this joint project will entail for Canada considerably greater outlays than for us, although this is not true of the works themselves." I was referring, of course, to General Pick's reference to the additional cost that the Canadians must bear because of the works made necessary by the project. These include construction of a tunnel to carry railroad traffic which now crosses the St. Lawrence over a bridge at Montreal and certain pretty substantial changes in numerous utilities serving that city. If we recognize the basic proposition that the project was and remains divided on approximately a 50-50 basis, then it is perfectly clear that the additional burden which is made necessary by the project, although it is not a part of the project, tips the scales against Canada. It seems to me that the project does remain equitably divided between the two countries. The fact that Canada will spend a total lesser amount of dollars needs to be judged in light of the fact that a large part of her share consisted of dollars that had greater purchasing value and that made a bigger dent in her budget at the time than the same number of dollars would do today. The physical job remains equally divided and the real burden of doing it remains equally divided. We must not let the dollar figures mislead us on this score. General Pick has been kind enough to furnish me a detailed statement on this entire subject. This statement is as follows: STATEMENT BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS On March 21, 1941, the Governments of the United States and Canada entered into an agreement providing for the construction of dams and power works in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River, and for completion of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence deep waterway. The terms of the agreement contemplate that it shall be made effective by concurrent legislation of the Canadian Parliament and the United States Congress. Articles II and III of the agreement spell out the works to be accomplished by both countries. As to remaining works: Canada is to provide primarily (a) necessary works in the Canadian section of the St. Lawrence River, (b) deepening of the Welland Canal, and (c) works in the International Rapids section allocated to it. The United States is to provide primarily (a) necessary works in the Great Lakes system above Lake Erie and (b) those works in the International Rapids section allocated to it. This division of work in essence was contained in the 1932 treaty concerning the same project. In both instruments the combined work, completed and remaining, from the head of the Great Lakes to Montreal, was divided between the two countries so as to be essentially on a 50-50 basis. This is shown by the cost estimate summaries presented during the June 1941 House committee hearings on then pending legislation to authorize the project, viz: 1 Later recalculation reduced this to $132,370,000, which reduction does not change the percentage distribution shown. As indicated, Canada has completed a much greater share of its allocated works primarily the Welland Canal-than the United States. The Welland Canal, an integral part of the seaway, affording the connecting navigation channel between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, was officially opened in 1932. The bulk of its construction was accomplished during the 1920's, when construction costs were low in comparison with the present-day value of the dollar. Costs of completed work by Canada ($132,672,000) far outweigh accomplished work by the United States ($17,105,485). In 1941, the cost of remaining work to Canada stipulated in the 1941 agreement was estimated at $144,418,000, and to the United States, $285,056,515. On December 1950 levels, for the same physical work items, the cost estimates have increased to $251,269,000 and to $566,794,000, respectively. Thus, the United States has been the victim of spiraling costs of recent years to a much greater degree than the Canadians, since we have a much larger amount of work remaining to be accomplished, viz: The Welland Canal is maintained in excellent condition by Canada as is the completed MacArthur lock by the United States. The intrinsic value of the completed works, though built during low-price periods, remains unchanged. Canadian authorities estimate that if the Welland Canal (built between 1913-32) were constructed today, it would cost $350,000,000 or more. Correspondingly, replacement now of completed United States work would involve a cost of the order of $78,000,000. Thus if the present-day reproduction costs for the completed facilities be inserted in the foregoing tabulation, the over-all division of cost to both countries would reassume the percentage relationship indicated in the first summary tabulation above. While the total project cost to the United States at present-day cost levels exceeds that for Canada for the reasons indicated above, the Canadians will have to assume auxiliary costs made necessary by the construction of the seaway, particularly in the vicinity of Montreal, which are not reflected in the foregoing tabulation. These include the construction of a tunnel to carry railroad traffic now crossing the St. Lawrence River over a bridge, and adjustments in numerous utilities including water supply lines, sewer lines, etc., made necessary by the new Lachine canal which will skirt the Montreal water front from the vicinity of Victoria Bridge to the vicinity of the upper end of the present Lachine canal, a distance of 10 miles. The new Lachine canal would cross the river connection of the existing Montreal aqueduct. The Chief of Engineers considers the 1941 agreement, and the cost distribution between the two countries thereunder, to be a fair and equitable arrangement between the two countries. A misunderstanding seems to have arisen to some, namely, that Canada is to be credited with the present-day reproduction cost of the Welland Canal, or even be given a reimbursement for the difference between the present-day cost of that canal over the actual completed cost. No such reimbursement whatsoever is intended, as is evident from a reading of the 1941 agreement and the authorizing legislation the House Public Works Committee is considering. The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from our colleague, Mr. O'Brien, of Michigan. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. O'BRIEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I appear today in support of a bill I introduced, House Joint Resolution 122, approving the agreement between the United States and Canada relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin, with the exception of certain provisions thereof; expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to |