tion for a harbor which will serve primarily two prosperous private enterprises, both of which have expressed willingness to build their own harbor, at their own expense? Even if the foregoing question can be answered in the affirmative, other questions remain. For example, is it a justified use of Federal funds to create an additional facility, whose inherent nature is productive of pollutants, in an area which is already one of the Nation's most polluted? Again, if this question can be answered in the affirmative, still others remain. Every square inch of industrial development in this area results in the destruction of an equivalent area of natural recreational resources; most of which remain unspoiled to this date. Every inch of shoreline taken for industrial purposes moves the recreational facilities that much farther away from the vast urban population of the Chicago metropolitan area, whose need for such recreational facilities is self-evident. So, another question that must be answered is whether this proposed use of the land involved constitutes a use consistent with the national interest? Let us assume that the proponents of this harbor can convince you that you should answer each of the foregoing questions with, at least, a qualified yes. However, the affirmative answer which you may give to these questions is necessarily made with the knowledge that the alternative values implied in the questions must be sacrificed. This is why I said initially that the proposal poses problems beyond its economic cost. The authorization and construction of this harbor will sacrifice other values. With these other, noneconomic costs, in mind, there must be two basic conditions to your affirmative response: First: the final sacrifice and eternal abandonment of these other intangible but nonetheless important values should not be made unless such a sacrifice can be clearly justified in terms of real economic benefit. Do not subsidize a fifth public harbor for the State of Indiana unless you are convinced that the proposed port will be of real benefit to the citizens and taxpayers of Indiana. In making this determination, the Bureau of the Budget has laid down standards which it, after thorough investigation, considers to be minimal with respect to the economic productivity of the harbor. These conditions should be included as conditions upon authorization. Finally it must be guaranteed to all future generations that the entire Indiana shoreline will not be squandered. Some of this irreplaceable asset must be preserved for the recreational needs of the 10 million Americans who live in the immediate area of the proposed Indiana lakeshore. Only by planned, integrated legislation to assure planned, integrated land usage can the national and regional welfare be served. We urge this honorable committee to include in the text of the proposed authorization the following language: "Provided, That any funds appropriated for the construction of this project shall not be utilized until such time as the Indiana dunes have been preserved and protected as a national lakeshore by Act of Congress." Respectfully submitted. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. No questions? Thank you again for the splendid testimony you have given to this committee. And that concludes the hearings on the pending legislation. NICKEL PLATE BRIDGE Mr. DORN (chairman). The subcommittee will come to order. The next project is H.R. 6788, and the Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, our colleague on the full committee, Mr. Kluczynski. And I want to say that you are considered one of the most able members not only on the committee but the entire Congress, and it is a pleasure to recognize you and to welcome your great State of Illinois to the subcommittee. Mr. Kluczynski. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have that splendid introduction. I appreciate it. I also, Mr. Chairman, appreciate your courtesy, and the harmony it reflects, in granting me the privilege of joining you here this morning, We are all aware of the pressures under which you and your colleagues on the Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Subcommittees have been working, and the deadlines facing us. I will be brief. The Flood Control Act of 1962 authorized the dredging of the Calumet River to a depth of 27 feet. This depth is essential to the efficient, effective, and economic use of the river and the Calumet Harbor. The Nickel Plate bridge and the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway bridge, the subjects of the legislation before you, span the Calumet. Work on the dredging is rapidly approaching these two bridges, and when the dredging is done through them, these bridges will have to be reinforced. They cannot be held safe for use without reinforcement. The Chicago Regional Port Authority, the body which has assumed responsiblity for the assurances of the required local cooperation under the Calumet project, cannot finance the reinforcement of these bridges. The 27-foot channel is vital, not only to the Calumet Harbor but to a large body of varied and essential agricultural, commercial, and industrial interests in the heartland of the Nation, and to the Federal Government. The effective use of the large investment of Federal funds in the Calumet Harbor is at stake here, as is a substantial potential cash return to the Federal Government in seaway tolls. The total estimated cost of reinforcing these bridges $150,000 in the case of the Nickel Plate Bridge, and $200,000 in the case of the Elgin-Joliet bridge-is small indeed in relation to the tremendous benefits at stake. Many of the men who understand this situation best are here with us today. They come prepared to testify. I would like to introduce them to you individually because they are all my good friends and because they are all experts in their fields. To save time, however, we are going to hear from only three of them, the gentleman whose names appear on the agenda before you. The others will, with your permission, file statements for the record at the conclusion of this hearing. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I hope my witnesses will be able to testify after the first witness you have from the Department of the Army. Mr. DORN. Mr. Kluczynski, please feel free to take time to introduce to the subcommittee any of your distinguished constituents that you might have here. We will take time to do that, and you go right ahead. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. To introduce them now? Mr. DORN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Michael Cassady, Mississippi Valley Association, St. Louis, Mo.; Riley O'Brien, district 8 chairman of the Mississippi Valley Association, and chairman of Harbors and Waterways Committee of the Chicago Association of Commerce & Industry, Chicago, Ill.; Mr. Gene Graves, director, Department of Business and Economic Development, State of Illinois, Springfield, Ill.; and Ben W. Martin, Export Advisory Committee, State of Illinois, Chicago, Ill.; William B. Miller, Greater Chicago Port Development Association, Chicago; William J. Kuhfuss, president, Illinois Agricultural Association, Bloomington, Ill.; Carl Lessing, Chicago Board of Trade, Chicago, Ill.; Martin Oettershagen, Chicago Regional Port District, Chicago, Ill.; Abraham A. Diamond, U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association, Chicago, Ill.; G. E. Franzen, director, Transportation Division, Chicago Association of Commerce & Industry, Chicago; and Mr. S. H. Shepley, chief engineer, Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co., Joliet, Ill. Mr. Chairman, as I said, there will only be three of them testifying, and the others will file their statements. on. I may have omitted one or two, but I will mention their names later Mr. DORN. Mr. Kluczynski, if I may, I, of course, want to thank you for introducing all of these men here to the subcommittee, and congratulate them on having the good judgment to share your talents with us. But before we hear from any of your witnesses, I would like to have the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Alfred B. Fitt, appear. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLAUSEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. DORN. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. Before our friend, Mr. Kluczynski, leaves the table, I think that the record should certainly state that, as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Roads, I want to personally go on record as thanking him for the extraordinary amount of interest that he has shown in the problems of the floods of the Northwest. He went out to my district and certainly any project that Mr. Kluczynski recommends to this committee is certainly going to have more than the ordinary consideration. Mr. DORN. I agree. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I want to thank you. Mr. DORN. Mr. Fitt, Special Assistant to Secretary of the Army for Civil Functions, you go right ahead. STATEMENT OF ALFRED B. FITT, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL FUNCTIONS Mr. FITT. My name is Alfred B. Fitt. I am General Counsel of the Army, and also Special Assistant to Secretary of the Army for Civil Functions. I am appearing here today in the latter capacity. I do not have a prepared statement, but I would like as I understand it, the committee would like me to discuss the Department of the Army position on the two bills which affect two different bridges, one at ea h end of this 6-mile dredging project. The first bill, H.R. 6788, was introduced by Mr. Kluczynski in connection with the Nickel Plate Bridge which is the innermost bridge on this 6-mile channel. It is the farthest from the lake outlet. This bridge, at the time the project was authorized in 1962, was already the subject of a Truman-Hobbs order which required altera tions of the bridge and its modernization. The expectation of everyone concerned was that the Nickel Plate Bridge would have been altered before the dredging approached that part of the channel. The fact of the matter is that the alterations of the bridge are not now scheduled to be completed until the late spring of 1968. In the meantime, the dredging of the channel, although not its widening, is scheduled for completion in June 1966, so that the problem that is presented is that the Nickel Plate Bridge must be stabilized, strengthened and stabilized, in order to make sure that the deepened channel that will be going under the bridge will not cause a failure of the bridge structure. The problem is who is to pay for that additional work on the Nickel Plate Bridge. It was not anticipated, as I say, at the time the project was authorized. The purpose of this bill is to authorize that work to be done at Federal expense. About $29,000 is the cost of additional dredging outside of channel limits, and $121,000 would be involved in actual bridge protection. This bill was reported to the committee by a letter of July 14, stating the position that the Department of the Army is opposed to the enactment of the bill. The reason for this is that the project as authorized requires assurances from local interests that they would provide "such bridge protection as may be required." At the time the project was formulated there were 14 bridges in the area covered by the project: 7 railway bridges, 6 highway bridges, and 1 pipe and conveyor bridge; 3 of those bridges, 3 of the 14 bridges, were subject to a Truman-Hobbs order, leaving 11 bridges which would be subject to a strengthening requirement. As a matter of fact, only 7 of those 11 bridges were expected to require any stabilization; 3 highway bridges and 4 railway bridges. The assurances, as required by the project document, were given by the Chicago Regional Port District, by a resolution adopted December 13, 1963. In that resolution the port district undertook to provide "such bridge protection as may be required." At that time the question of the Nickel Plate Bridge was still not present in this project. However, 6 months later it was sufficiently present to lead to the introduction of a bill, in June 1964, which would accomplish the same purpose that H.R. 6788 would now accomplish. We don't oppose the strengthening of the Nickel Plate Bridge for this extra channel dredging. In fact, this is very much to be desired if the project economics are not to suffer during the 2 years that the dredging will be completed before the new bridge replaces the present Nickel Plate Bridge. The only problem is, who is to pay for it? I had something to do with the development of the Army position, and in analyzing the problem I asked: If this question had been anticipated at the time the project was formulated and presented to the Congress, who would have borne this burden? The answer was that the local interests would have been required to bear this burden. This bridge in that respect is no different from the other bridges, the other seven bridges which were mentioned in the project document. Therefore, we concluded that the proper position to take was that the local interests should be expected to carry out the assurances which they had already given without qualification, to be responsible "for such bridge protection as may be required." This bridge protection is required. It is a responsibility of the Chicago Regional Port District, in our view. Mr. Chairman, that really completes my discussion of the Nickel Plate Bridge. But, if you wish, I could go on and talk about the Mr. DORN. Please do. Go right ahead." Mr. FITT. I can talk about quite a different problem with respect to the Elgin-Joliet Mr. DORN. Just one minute. It might be best if you waited a little bit on this one, because they are a little bit complicated. It might be confusing to the committee. Any questions? Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Yes. Mr. Fitt, as I recall, the Corps of Army Enginers has OK'd that Nickel Plate Bridge. Haven't they authorized it? In other words, they said it was all right? Mr. FITT. I am sorry, sirMr. KLUCYZNSKI. I say, the Corps of Army Engineers has given a favorable report on the Nickel Plate Bridge, on their original draft. Mr. FITT. Do you mean in the comments on your bill, sir? Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Right, sir. Mr. FITT. Well, I checked into the history and development of the Army position last night. My recollection is that the district engineer suggested that this be acted on favorably, or reported on favorably. The division engineer pointed out that this would be quite a departure from the regular practice and that there was no precedent for Federal assumption of this cost. Therefore, he took no position on the bill. He preferred to defer to higher headquarters. When the matter came over to me, it was drafted as you suggest. I then asked the question I mentioned, which was: Who would have borne this cost had it been anticipated? The answer, as I say, was that the local interests Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Brennan? Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Fitt, I think the point that Mr. Kluczynski is evolving here is the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers as it first came over to us. Is he correct in this assumption, that that recommendation was favorable? Mr. FITT. I don't remember ever discussing this with the chief. Mr. BRENNAN. With General Graham, or whoever it was? Mr. FITT. I don't remember just how it came over. This was originally worked up nearly a year ago. I think it was in September when we were commenting on the identical bill which had been introduced in last year's session. I don't know just who sent it over, but there was no formal position developed. That is why it was being sent to the Secretary of the Army. Mr. BRENNAN. Do you recall, Mr. Fitt, that in your earlier paper or earlier recommendation, when it went to the Secretary of the Army-whether you were there or not I don't know-and it then went to the Bureau of the Budget-do you recall the views of the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. FITT. May I consult with some of the corps people? |