District of Columbia, to any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or to any foreign country, any article or commodity, other than timber and the manufactured products thereof, manufactured, mined, or produced by it, or under its authority, or which it may own in whole or in part, or in which it may have any interest, direct or indirect, except such articles or commodities as may be necessary and intended for its use in the conduct of its business as a common carrier.

At this time the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers has made no attempt to ascertain whether the restrictions mentioned above and generally referred to as the "commodities clause" may be necessary or proper; however, those restrictions upon railroads, and the services of the employees of the railroads, appear to merit some thoughtful consideration when we witness upon the walls of this room some rather large-sized photographs of barge tows and note that at least some of these appear to be owned and operated by certain large industrial firms.

If it is proper for one group to transport its own manufactured articles, why shall it be declared unlawful for another industry to do so?

Again, in House Document No. 486, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, which contains a letter from the Secretary of War transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, in relation to the proposed waterway connecting the Tennessee and Tombigbee Rivers, at page 29, there appears, in part, the following [reading]:

80. WATER CARRIER RATES.-Estimates of navigation benefits are based on a comparison of the transportation charges now paid, or transportation costs now available to shippers with the probable transportation charges on prospective waterway traffic. Most of the prospective tonnage is bulk freight, which does not usually travel by common carrier waterline but rather by contract or industryoperated barge service, for which there are no published rates.

In other words, the estimated "savings" must include the proposal that there shall be legal restrictions against permitting railroads to transport any materials, except those mentioned above in the "commodities clause," but "industry-operated" barges shall be provided free use of a governmental subsidized, communized, socialized, right of way, and with the continued governmental subsidization that there shall be no taxes paid by those who operate over this Governmentowned, Government-operated project for its use and that there shall be no taxes paid upon the "right-of-way" itself, even though it may be necessary to condemn and purchase property upon which taxes have been paid in order to secure control of the property considered best suited for the project.

Again, the report referred to above refers to the proposed or estimated tonnages of petroleum products, and I am sure that this committee understands that these barge movements are made by the barges of privately owned petroleum corporations, with no payments or taxes to be paid for the use of the right of way.

Is that fair? Is it really right?

Next there appears the necessity of suggesting that attention shall be given a very well covered reference, at page 42 of the report, under the paragraph No. 111, "Water requirements," as follows [reading]:

One of the chief advantages of the route via Yellow Creek divide out is that it permits the diversion of water from the Tennessee River to supply the necessary water for lockages and various water losses in the waterway.

I mention this because, when this proposed project was before previous Congresses there appeared statements that this water, which it was proposed would be diverted, had a value of some $100,000 per year for hydroelectric purposes, and I find no proper references made to those conditions in the Report of the Engineers. Those conditions should merit attention and some really thoughtful consideration.

It is suggested that the addition of those "under cover" costs be added to present cost estimates.

Because of the many conditions presented in any proposal to socialize a portion of some industry, there appears the necessity to suggest that before any final disposition or decision on such proposed transportation projects as is presented in the proposal to authorize the construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Canal every possible effort should be made by the committee and the Congress to provide all governmental agencies dealing with the handling or administration of transportation agencies some proper opportunity and there should be the demand that each and all of those agencies should provide statements as to their estimated effects of the proposed project upon existing forms of transportation.

If we may take the present proposal, there should be a statement from the Interstate Commerce Commission and from State Commissions as to the condition of existing transportation agencies in the territory involved, in immediately nearby territories, and throughout more distant territories; and the estimated effects upon transportation in those territories, upon the employees of the transportation agencies now serving those territories, together with estimates as to the adverse effects the diversion of business to the proposed subsidized agency may be expected to have, not only upon the employment of present employees, but also upon the wages which may be paid, the taxes to be paid upon the expected wages, and some proper proposal to protect the interests of those employees, possibly as a part of the proposed subsidization of the new proposed project; and that possibly through conferences between the Interstate Commerce Commission, the administrative board of the proposed waterway project, the Board of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors, the Railroad Retirement Board, and the Bureau of the Budget, there may be some data presented which may show the actual effects which may be expected, if and when the project is approved.

Any and all employees adversely affected should be properly and fully provided for and their positions, if made less desirable or less remunerative, should be "made hole," entirely at the expense of the Government, as a part of the costs of the proposed subsidization.

There appear no proposals by the proponents of this proposed project to provide proper relief or remuneration for the employees of the existing forms of transportation who may be adversely affected if this proposed project might be approved.

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers respectfully requests that no favorable consideration shall be given this proposed project under present conditions.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to have deleted from the record the part that the gentleman from Mississippi has objected to.

Now there are one or two points that I would like to clear up in the statements of previous witnesses.

The reference was made by different groups to rice as being brought up into the North for, we will say, human consumption. That is not

entirely correct. Rice is brought to the North for the purpose of making beer. The malt from rice has been used in some places, and I mention the State of Wisconsin, to some extent, so that some years ago the State of Wisconsin, I believe, passed an act which forbids but a certain amount of rice malting being used for beer purposes in that State. I mention that especially because my Christian friend from Mississippi, I know, is not in any great hurry to get rice up there for that particular purpose.

There was reference made to the value of electricity in the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway. It does not appear, apparently, in the report of the Engineers, but previous testimony given in Congresses of previous years, I believe, was that an estimated loss of approximately $100,000 would be created by the diversion of water from the Tennessee River to the Tennessee-Tombigbee Canal.

In connection with the recreation part, I must return to that again. I am quite familiar with the possibilities of recreational facilities along the Illinois waterway. Now I am not going to make any critical or sarcastic remarks about it, but I would be willing to pay the fare of any member of the committee if during the summer he would go and camp close to the Illinois waterway, some 30 or 40 miles below Chicago, and come back and say he enjoyed it.

Mr. RANKIN. It is 12 o'clock and the House is now in session. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Without objection the gentleman's statement will be extended in the record.

Is there any other witness?

Colonel FERINGA. If I could I would like to have one or two minutes to sum up.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. All right.

Colonel FERINGA. First of all, I thought seriously of what Mr. Dondero said yesterday, and thought about it last night and this morning. This is a new report, Mr. Dondero. It presents new information, and as such I think we have been benefited by many of the observations you made in the past.

Our estimates are not exaggerated. I showed at the beginning of my testimony to this committee when we talked about the Red River, when we talked about the other rivers, I cited six cases, complete evidence with graphs, showing where we had told this Committee that a certain amount of tonnage would pay off these waterways, and that tonnage has been exceeded many times over. I gave the committee as samples the Gulf-Intracoastal Waterway, the Illinois River, the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, the Cape Code Canal, on which were conducted the same type of studies and on which we had the same type of statistics that were produced for this report, except that we have gone into this report in a greater amount of detail.

I think we show in this report clearly and without any equivocation that there is no robbing of the Mississippi to pay the TennesseeTombigbee, that we only included additional savings which would not accrue to the Mississippi but which were made possible only by the slack-water route.

In all our figures we included maintenance costs to the United States; we included maintenance of locks; we included amortization. Therefore, when we told you that project is economically justified, we did not saddle the people of the United States with those maintenance costs. They are paid out during the years to come in increasing measure as waterways are used, and in the transit curves we

have presented show an upward trend; and, again, we are required by law to keep those figures. They are not wishful thinking; they are facts and we can substantiate them.

Based upon the increased use of waterways, we have now presented to you a project with much larger locks than we had previously presented.

Again, Mr. Dondero, this is a new project. There are larger locks; the benefits are much greater, because the means that we offer will grow also.

I scribbled this down; In regard to the water loss from TVA, the best authority on that subject is the TVA itself. In this report you will find the statement by the TVA that they recognize there is a loss of water of so many cubic feet. They also state that in their opinion the value of that water for this waterway is far greater than even the value of it for the manufacture of hydroelectric power.

Finally the project is indorsed wholeheartedly by the Board of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers, the Governors, and the TVA.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that other Members of Congress who desire to do so may extend their remarks in the record on this proposition.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Without objection all Members who desire to do so may extend their remarks in the Record in connection with this project.

Mr. Boykin submitted the following telegrams:

Congressman FRANK W. BOYKIN

FLORENCE, ALA., May 2, 1946.

House Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C.: Completion of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Canal is one of the greatest needs of the people in our section of the country. This canal will greatly stimulate commerce throughout this section of the southeast. Will be a boon to our foreign trade and of vast benefits to our southern agriculture and industry. We earnestly hope the Rivers and Harbors Committee will grant speedy approval for the immediate construction of this sorely needed project.

FLORENCE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
By C. H. JACKSON, Secretary.

SHEFFIELD, ALA., May 2, 1946.

Congressman FRANK W. BOYKIN,

Care House Rivers and Harbors Committee, Washington, D. C.

We respectfully petition the Rivers and Harbors Committee to grant approval for the immediate construction of the Tennessee-Tom bigbee Canal. The canal will be of great benefit to southern industry and agriculture and will greatly increase our foreign trade and commerce throughout this section.

SHEFFIELD BOARD OF COMMERCE,
C. L. BEARD, President.

(Mr. Peterson of Georgia submitted the following letter:)

Hon. J. J. MANSFIELD,

ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA,
Washington 4, D. C., May 3, 1946.

Chairman, Committee on Rivers and Harbors,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CHAIRMAN MANSFIELD: At previous hearings before your commitee, I appeared as a representative of the Order of Railway Conductors in opposition to the Tombigbee waterway project.

The Order of Railway Conductors has in no way changed its position with respect to the Tombigbee Project. I, therefore, desire to take this means of

reaffirming our opposition as shown in previous hearings before your committee. It will be greatly appreciated if you will have this letter incorporated in the hearings on this particular project.

We are now faced with a national debt of approximately $274,000,000,000, which must be paid when due in order to maintain the soundness of our financial structure. Taxation is our only source of income. Therefore, every effort possible should be put forth to eliminate the waste of Federal funds on nonessential projects such as the Tombigbee River. I trust your committee will render an unfavorable report on this project.

Most cordially yours,

Copy to Mr. H. W. Fraser.

(The following is the letter referred to on p. 186 by Mr. Peterson of Georgia:)

Mr. HUGH PETERSON,

Member, Committee on Rivers and Harbors,

PORT OF STOCKTON, Stockton, Calif., April 26, 1946.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PETERSON: At the hearing on the proposed Sacramento deep-water channel before the Rivers and Harbors Committee on April 10, proof was introduced by the opponents that the project would be uneconomic and unjustified because the ratio of benefit to cost would be less than unity. This negative ratio will be 0.75 to 1 in the opinion of engineers for the county of San Joaquin and port of Stockton. They advise and so stated to the committee that the project will cost $25,000,000 instead of the $15,000,000 estimated by the United States engineers on the basis of 1940 prices. The following specific job costs for recent similar dredging demonstrates that the Army engineers estimate of 9.7 cents per cubic yard is only one-half high enough:

COST OF RECENT PACIFIC COAST DREDGING WHERE LABOR AND PRICE CONDITIONS ARE THE SAME

I am enclosing a copy of the United States Army Engineers Geologic Profile 1 of the proposed dredging. It shows that there will be 26 miles of dredging across dry land, through hardpan, clay, and adobe which is very expensive material to move. The last 15 miles of the project will average 43 feet in depth as the land has an elevation of 13 feet.

We, therefore, join with the Bureau of the Budget in urging that the present cost of the project be accurately determined before the United States is committed to a large expenditure not economically justified and respectfully suggest that