Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? I have the next time up. I am the next witness up. I do not presume to represent the State of Indiana, but since Indiana has been attacked, I am perfectly willing to answer it.

Mr. KIRWAN. Yes, sir, if you want to. I would like to know whether you want Federal aid or not.

Mr. BRAY. The gentleman knows from the very beginning of our country rivers and harbors has been a national issue. If you want to attack the State of Indiana, go ahead. I have never known you to take that attitude. I am a great admirer of yours. If you want to make it an issue about the State of Indiana, there is nothing I can do to keep you from doing it.

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.

Mr. KIRWAN. Before I cast a vote, I am going to find out whether Indiana wants aid or does not want aid. This is on the statute books of Indiana and they are recommending it be passed all over the United States, and that everybody in the Congress be billed with this Indiana resolution.

Mr. BRAY. I have not seen it. I could not comment on it.

Mr. KIRWAN. Here it is, passed in your State. I read it to you. It is a resolution of the State of Indiana.

The Governor signed it. They don't want aid. I let this thing die years ago. On March 24, this man in New York, Al Bradford, advised all of America to take the Indiana resolution and send it to every Member and Senator of the U.S. Congress.

Mr. EVINS. Would the gentleman yield further?

Mr. KIRWAN. Yes.

Mr. EVINS. The gentleman is a fair-minded man. What he is bringing up here is typical of many letters, resolutions and much information that comes over our desks almost daily. The chambers of commerce are resolute against Federal aid but when a chamber of commerce witness comes before the committee, they ask him, “Are you for this project or this bill?"

"Yes, we are against the resolution. We want the Government to spend money in our area."

He is illustrating what is frequently brought before our committee. They pass resolutions and make statements they are against these Federal aid programs but yet they come and plead for them. The gentleman is a fair-minded man and this committee has its responsibility to discharge and I am sure that we will discharge our responsibility.

Mr. KIRWAN. The point I am trying to get home is this: I am in sympathy with Indiana. I have never cast a vote against Indiana in my life and I hope I never have to, but I wish that the Indiana delegation would take this off the statute books out in Indiana, if they want the same kind of Federal aid the rest of this Nation is getting and they are entitled to.

Mr. BRAY. There is not one member of the Indiana delegation that is a member of the State legislature. We could not be according to the Constitution. I have never been in the State legislature. I was not in Congress at the time that was passed.

The wording may not have been proper. Indiana has been for a long time very careful about their requests and I think that no group has been any more careful than Indiana Flood Control and Water

Resources Commission. I do not know how we can have levees and other works on the Ohio or Wabash River that are on State lines without the authority and leadership of the Federal Government. I do not want the Federal Government to get to the place where it has to come down and furnish a police force or electric light system for any city in the State of Indiana. Furthermore, to show we do not talk out of both sides of our mouth, one program you have, the Salt Creek Reservoir is the only program where the State is putting up more money than the Federal Government. We are not talking out of both sides of our mouth.

There are certain things that are naturally the job of the State and certain others the job of the Federal Government. I do think if they were referring to flood control they certainly were in error.

I will say that. I do not know what they referred to. In fact, I have never read that.

Mr. KIRWAN. I will let you read it. If they had exempted flood control, I would not say a word, but they spelled out that they want Lo Federal funds. I will submit that to any jury in the United States and I believe they will agree. It is spelled out very plainly. If they had said that goes for everything except dire emergencies, floods or something like that, I would agree with you. But they said they want no Federal funds.

Mr. BRAY. If they said that, they plainly were in error. I have never read it.

Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, those of our group, who had desired to appear in person before the committee for the purpose of commenting on their oral statements, have done so. If it meets with the pleasure of the chairman, I would like to ask those who have either filed oral statements or have at least shown us the courtesy of joining with us today to stand and I will read their names, if I may.

Mr. CANNON. All those to whom the gentleman refers will stand and I will ask Mr. Hull to read their names to the stenographer. Mr. HULL. Those who have not already appeared, I will read: There is Mr. Alex Chamberlain, vice president of Ashland Oil & Refining Co., Ashland, Ky.; Mr. Robert Emison of Vincennes, Ind.; Mr. I. G. Morgan, representing Columbia-Southern Chemical Corp. of Pittsburgh; Mr. Douglas McDonald of Princeton, Ind.; Mr. Thomas Mumford of Griffin, Ind.; Mr. A. N. Prentice, vice president and general manager of the Ohio Power Co., Canton, Ohio; Mr. Raoul E. Desvernine, general counsel, Weirton Steel Co. Division of National Steel Corp., Washington, D.C.; Mrs. Chauncey Baldwin of Montezuma, Ind.; Mr. William P. Shepherd, Ohio River Sand & Gravel Co., Parkersburg, W. Va.; Mr. Arthur M. Brosius, assistant to the president, Union Bargeline Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa.

Thank you all very much.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to express our most sincere appreciation for the opportunity to present our program and to file for the record statements by a number of witnesses who had

hoped to come. I won't burden the committee's time by reading the list now, since we have already, I am afraid, imposed on your hospitality, but I will leave the list with the stenographer and ask that the list be incorporated in the record and the statements of the various witnesses.

Mr. CANNON. The list and the statements will be made a part of the record.

APRIL 6, 1960.

CANNELTON LOCKS AND DAM

WITNESS

HON. WINFIELD K. DENTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. CANNON. The Congressman from Indiana, Congressman Denton.

Congressman Denton is a member of the Committee on Appropriations. We will be glad to have you come forward.

Mr. DENTON. After all this talk about Indiana, I am coming on at a very good time. I share the views of the gentleman from Ohio. I would like to comment on that briefly after I make a rather short

statement.

I have a written statement I would like to file for the record. Mr. CANNON. It will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement follows:)

I am Congressman Winfield K. Denton, of the Eighth District of Indiana. I wish to thank the subcommittee for permitting me to appear here today in support of the proposed program of various navigational and flood control projects in the Ohio River Valley.

I am especially interested in the proposed program to recanalize the Ohio River. Under such a program, within the next decade or so, 19 high-level dams with 1,200-foot locks and 600-foot auxiliary chambers will replace the present 46 dams. The new dams, six of them already under construction, will increase the channel of the Ohio River, thus permitting the use of deeper draught barges and decreasing the locking time of a long tow from 2 hours to 20 or 30 minutes. Since the present locks were completed in 1929, traffic on the Ohio River has increased about 400 percent. During 1957, 81.5 million tons of goods were transported on the Ohio River, amounting to more than 19 billion 200 million tonmiles. The traffic on the Ohio River is 12 times that of the Panama Canal, and 50 percent greater than the expected potential capacity of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Its ton-mileage is double that handled by the Rhine River and the canals serving the Ruhr River Valley. This vast traffic on the Ohio River reflects the vast postwar industrial growth, representing an investment of some $15 billion since 1950, along the banks of the mainstream and its navigable tributaries-which has been mainly the result of low-cost transportation provided by the river. The utility of the Ohio River to modern industry is demonstrated by the fact that its traffic in coal, steel, chemicals, and petroleum has increased at rates far greater than national production of these vital commodities. The traffic on the river was by packet, the picturesque side and stern-wheeler. at the time these locks were completed, but now almost all traffic is barges towed by towboats, which are sometimes 1,000 to 1,200 feet long. You can see that the greater length of barges and tows makes it difficult and time-consuming to lock traffic through the old canals. Such obsolete locks are also very expensive to keep in repair. Reliable estimates show that further growth of traffic will be cut off by the mid-1960's unless existing facilities are replaced. Such a ceiling on traffic growth discourages industrial growth and stifles the economic development of the Ohio River Valley. Thus, a grave threat is posed to continuation of the historic role of the Ohio River as a major force stimulating private invest

ment creating more job opportunities, higher income standards for areas chronically depressed, a broadened tax base, and dispersion of defense industry. For these reasons, I fetl that it is imperative that we accelerate the Ohio River modernization program.

As I mentioned before, six projects in the program are already under construction, but if budgeted funds for these items are appropriated, two-Greenup and New Cumberland-will be completed in 1961. Although Congress provided for a new planning start for the Belleville project in fiscal 1960, the President's fiscal 1961 budget makes no provision for any new planning or construction starts. I consider such an omission a serious one, and in view of the expected completion of Greenup and New Cumberland in 1961, it clearly indicates a diminishing rate of construction for the Ohio River program. I urge this subcommittee to remedy this deficiency by recommending appropriations in line with the capabilities of the Corps of Engineers for efficient utilization of funds.

In regard to planning funds, I believe it essential that we have a complete and orderly planning of improvements in the Ohio River Valley. The planning work for these locks is going to be completed anyhow, and it is important that we have a backlog of fully planned public works programs, ready for action when economic conditions of the country make their construction desirable. It is imperative that industry desiring to locate in the Ohio River Valley know what the Government plans; and the momentum of the program must be maintained.

I am especially interested in the advance planning for the proposed locks and dam near Cannelton, Ind. The lock at Cannelton will create one of the largest pools on the Ohio River, extending 113 miles to lock and dam 41 at Louisville, Ky.; it will replace locks and dams 43, 44, and 45 and will serve one of the busiest reaches on the Ohio River where tonnage has been increasing at about 13 percent per year over the 30 years beginning in 1925. Major coal movements through this reach serve the vast electric power station at Madison, Ind., which provides half the electric power needs of the atomic energy plant near Portsmouth, Ohio. The Cannelton project has a benefit-cost ratio of 3.9 to 1. I urgently recommend an appropriation of $150,000 to initiate planning in fiscal 1961. There are both sound engineering and financial reasons to continue orderly planning and construction of this project. However, unless money is appropriated for planning on the Cannelton locks and dam project, there will be plans for only one lock and dam-at Belleville-when the two dams at Greenup and New Cumberland are completed in fiscal 1961. Failure to appropriate these funds for planning at Cannelton will cause a 2-year lag in the recanalization of the Ohio River and a hiatus in orderly construction. The Army Engineers consider the Cannelton project to be one of their highest priority replacements and the Corps and the Secretary of the Army have approved this project, making it an authorized one. The tragic floods which afflicted the Wabash River Valley and other regions of the Ohio River Basin last year warn of the urgent need for speeding protective works. I strongly recommend, therefore, that funds in the amounts indicated below be appropriated for flood control projects in Indiana. These amounts are, in each case, those which the Corps of Engineers advise they can employ efficiently. The budgeted amounts are set forth in a parallel column.

In general, I feel strongly that projects of proven value which ultimately must be built, should, in a period of rising costs, be begun as soon as possible. Delay is not only a false economy, it is also a gamble with the public safety. In this connection I invite the subcommittee's attention to the following excerpt from

the recent study by Dr. Joseph R. Hartley of Indiana University, entitled: "The Economic Effects of Ohio River Navigation." On page 36, Dr. Hartley states: "Another consideration far too often ignored in planning public investment is the secular inflation tendency that seems to be built into the American economy. Construction is unfortunately much more sensitive to inflation than many other types of industry. *** Rising government budgets are probably more attributable to natural difficulties of automating the building industry than to some mysterious, built-in inefficiency of any goverment effort. If a legislature correctly concludes that a public building is essential to perform a service for the public, the sooner it's built, the better. A delay of a few years to save tax dollars probably will cost the taxpayer double the original estimate."

And to substantiate our position further, I would like to make a part of the hearing record, this letter dated March 22 from Maj. Gen. Wm. F. Cassidy, of the Army Engineers.

Mr. DENTON. I just want to talk about one project and that is the Cannelton project.

As you all know, they are recanalizing the Ohio River. They are placing 19 new locks and dams in place of 42 old ones.

Six of those are now in construction; two, Greenup and New Cumberland, will be completed this year. There are no advance plans for work except at Belleville and I am very anxious that $150,000 be given for advance planning on the project at Cannelton, Ind. That is about 114 miles below Louisville. It is the longest pool on the river. It replaces three locks. I have a letter I would like to make part of the record by the Army Engineers who state it is of the highest priority. The work is going to have to be done sometime. It seems to me that it would be very bad to have a lag in this program. This program went ahead very expeditiously and was on time until we got down to this Cannelton lock, which is between Cannelton, Ind., which I represent, and Hawesville, Ky., which Congressman Natcher represents. It has been tied up now for 3 years and if this project is not approved, we will be 2 years behind on this Ohio program.

Last year a question was raised that this project had not been approved by the Secretary of the Army. It has been approved by the Secretary of the Army. It is an authorized project.

I would like to make this letter also a part of the record.
Mr. CANNON. That will be included in the record.
(The letter follows:)

Hon. WINFIELD K. DENTON,
House of Representatives.

HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, D.C., March 22, 1960.

DEAR MR. DENTON: Reference is made to your March 17, 1960, telephone request for information on the amount of funds the corps could economically use in fiscal year 1961 for the authorized Cannelton locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky. You also asked about the relative urgency of this project in our overall lock replacement program for the Ohio River.

From the strictly engineering standpoint, considering the Cannelton project by itself without reference to our overall program, our overall capability, or fiscal considerations, an amount of $150,000 could be utilized for this project in fiscal year 1961. As you know, no funds for the Cannelton project are included in the President's budget, so that no funds can be utilized for this project in view of overall budgetary considerations.

There are six Ohio River lock replacement projects currently in the 1961 budget for continuation of construction and one in the budget for continuation of preconstruction planning. The total amount proposed for apprpriation for these projects is $62,204,000, which is a substantial portion of our civil works construction request and will permit good progress to be made on the replacement program.