The CHAIRMAN, I will say to the Senators that are being called that they are being called in the order in which they filed their applications, without regard to seniority, and things of that kind-the speed with which they filed applications to be heard. Do you agree with that, Senator?

Senator WILEY. I agree with that; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moody, of Michigan.

STATEMENT OF HON. BLAIR MOODY, SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Senator MOODY. Mr. Chairman, as I see it, there is only one real issue before this committee. That is whether the Members of the Senate are to be given an opportunity to cast their votes for or against a project that has been before the Congress for more than a quarter of a century, which has been endorsed by every President of the United States of both parties in that time, and which is now declared to be a vital segment of our national-defense program by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and every civiilan official charged with responsibility in the defense of our country.

Knowing the fairness and public spirit of the members of this committee, I am confident that no member of it-whether he be for or against the seaway-will, if he considers this matter carefully, cast his vote in such a way as to deny his fellow Senators their right to express themselves on this great issue.

CANADA'S ANNOUNCED INTENTION TO BUILD SEAWAY WITH OR WITHOUT UNITED STATES

This, in all probability, will be the last chance the United States has to participate in this project. If we do not build the seaway, Canada will. If we do not develop the power which is now bleeding out through the St. Lawrence rapids and rushing away to the sea, Canada will not be so shortsighted.

Those who have sought to block the seaway in what they have misconceived to be their own interests have now lost the fight. The seaway is going to be built. The question is whether the United States is to share in its control, in the setting of tolls, in the distribution of power, or whether the real authority over the this great project. will lie with our neighbor to the north.

EFFECT OF SEAWAY ON UNITED STATES ECONOMY

This reminds me of the time when forces in the United States fought the Panama Canal. It reminds me of times when special intrests fought the development of our country by the extension of the railroads. This is a project which not alone will open the great agricultural Midwest to direct shipments overseas. It not alone will give the great industries of the heart of industrial American an opportunity to send their products directly abroad. It not alone will give a direct and cheap route for the import of high-grade iron-ore resources from the newly developed Quebec-Labrador area. It will not alone provide the vast power necessary for the great northeastern section of our country, which needs only such power for a magnificent new development.

It will add spirit to the entire economy of the United States, just as every other great development has been a step forward in the development of our country.

SEAWAY INDICATIVE OF UNITED STATES IMAGINATION

Gentlemen, the St. Lawrence project is the sort of enterprise_embodying the sweep of expansion and imagination which has been characteristic of our country from the first moment a few men started hacking away a place to live out of the wilderness of Massachusetts and Virginia.

America has never been a country which has boggled and balked because some small segments of special interest, or some real or imaginary sectional shortsightedness, has tried to block progress. We have had that sort of thinking in America before, but almost always it is overruled by the good sense and the will to progress of the majority of the people.

RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST SEAWAY

Two arguments have been raised against construction of the seaway, by the organized opposition, which directly concern my State and which I seek the privilege of answering.

One has been that the seaway will be icebound for 3 or 4 months of the year. This same is true of the Great Soo locks, which carry more traffic in tonnage volume than the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, and the Kiel Canal-combined.

So, the ice argument is relative and academic.

The other has been that the seaway locks will be vulnerable to enemy action or sabotage. Of course they will be, as are any of the great works of man.

Mr. Chairman, so are the Soo locks vulnerable to enemy air action and sabotage, perhaps more so, if one considers the transpolar line of aerial approach to our continent.

But no one ever has suggested abandoning in panic the Soo locks.

Furthermore, if the Soo locks are vulnerable-and I recently visited the Upper Peninsula air defenses and have some opinions on this subject then it is all the more imperative that a second waterway be provided for the transport of iron ore to the steel mills of the Great Lakes industrial triangle, in my judgment.

By building the seaway, we will be cutting in half the chances of losing to enemy action our flow of ore. We will be doubling our chance of survival. What more worthy defense investment could there be?

SELF-LIQUIDATING PROJECT

The only objection that can be raised at this time which might seem valid in the development of the St. Lawrence is that it would cost money. Engineers, accountants, and transportation experts have given assurances that from the tolls and power income this project will be completely self-liquidating; it will never cost the taxpayers of United States or Canada one cent. And to reassure anyone who

may doubt this, to make certain that there can be no questions of Government economy raised against the seaway, three of my colleagues and I-and we invite others to join us have prepared a proposal under which the seaway would not alone be self-liquidating but would never appear in any tax item in the Federal budget.

QUESTION OF SENATE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON PROJECT

This proposal will be presented by our colleague Senator Aiken, from Vermont, in a few moments.

In closing, I would like to restate what I believe to be the principal issue before this committee: Whether the Members of the Senate will be given an opportunity to vote once and for all on whether the United States is to share in this project, or whether the committee is to deny an opportunity for all the Senators to record their views. Knowing the members of this commmittee from many years of observation of their fairness, I cannot believe that any one of them, whether he be for or against the seaway, would attempt to prevent the full Senate from making a decision.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions of the Senator?

Thank you, Senator.

Senator MOODY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Aiken.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. AIKEN, A SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF VERMONT

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this committee has already heard so many volumes of testimony on the St. Lawrence development that it hardly seems necessary for me to elaborate on the matter at this time. I will simply point out to you two or three things which I think should be given consideration by the committee.

OPPOSITION FROM RAILROAD AND POWER INTERESTS

The opposition to this great international development stems from the railroads and power interests and financial supporters. They oppose the project on the ground that it would be harmful to them. So, Mr. Chairman, I think the committee should consider particularly three questions: First, have these public-utility interests ever offered the slightest bit of proof that they would be harmed by the development of the St. Lawrence River?

Second, if these utilities are affected in any way by the development, should we then take the position that the economy of the Nation and its 150,000,000 people should be geared to the desires of the railroads and power companies?

Third, if railroads and power companies are affected by the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, will they be any less affected if the locks and canals are built on the Canadian side of the river than they would be if the locks and canals are constructed on the American side of the river as provided for in the joint agreement between Canada and the United States?

96175-52-7

CONTROL OF NAVIGATION

If I were to add a fourth question for your consideration, it would be this: How will the economy and security of our own Nation be served by giving up the joint control of navigation from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean which we have held with Canada for 169 years and which we have so jealously guarded?

AIKEN AMENDMENT

I wish to say further, Mr. Chairman, that yesterday in conjuction with nine of my colleagues I offered an amendment to the pending bill which would provide for financing the United States share of the cost of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence development through the sale of bonds to the public, rather than by borrowing from the Treasury. I will not go into details on this amendment because of the shortness of time and because it is printed and available for members of the committee to read and study.

I hope that it will receive your earnest consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. I am sure the committee will consider that matter.

Senator WILEY. Senator, is that plan that you suggested substantially the same as is being put into effect in Canada?

CANADIAN ARRANGEMENTS FOR FINANCING PROJECT

Senator AIKEN. I understand that the Canadian act permits the Canadian share of the project to be financed either by borrowing from the Government, which has a surplus in their treasury, in sharp contrast to our own, or by selling bonds to the public. My understanding, however, is that they expect to finance it through the sale of bonds to the public rather than using money from the treasury.

NEED FOR ELECTRICITY IN NEW ENGLAND

Senator WILEY. I note that you said nothing about the development of the electricity and what it would mean to furthering the economic welfare of New England. You are part of that great section. Is there need for this additional juice?

Senator AIKEN. The whole northeastern part of this country is starved for electricity. The utility companies say there is enough to go around. There is enough to go around only by reason of the rates being so high that people cannot afford to use more. Even at that, in the northern part of my own State they have to take turns using it in certain periods of the year. They are very, very short of electricity. There is no opportunity to develop considerable mining interests up there to recover sulfur, which is very scarce, a byproduct of the copper mines, and developing other minerals. In fact, there is no reserve at all, as I understand it from Government organizations. The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Senator Aiken.

Senator Lehman.

STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN, SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator LEHMAN. This is the fifth time over a 12-year period, Mr. Chairman, that I have appeared before a congressional committee in support of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project.

For more than 30 years, long before I started to coming to Washington to testify before congressional committees, I have been supporting this project as a private citizen, as Lieutenant Governor and as Governor of the State of New York.

LAST CHANCE FOR UNITED STATES TO SHARE IN PROJECT

The hearings this week are quite different from any others in which I have participated. We have now come to the eleventh hour in our consideration of the St. Lawrence seaway. This time it is do or die. This will be the last chance this committee will have to act on this project as a joint undertaking with Canada.

HOUSE COMMITTEE HAS COMPLETE HEARINGS

The House committee has completed its hearings on this legislation. A favorable vote is expected. Now the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can place its seal of approval on a project clearly required to maintain our partnership with Canada, to protect and advance our national security, to expand our economy and to promote the general welfare.

SEAWAY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

I will not spend much time on the old but true arguments for this project. They were true 12 years ago; they are true today. This project is most desirable for the economic development of the Midwestern and Northeastern areas of our country. Both the seaway and the power are needed.

But today it is not just a question of the economic desirability of this seaway. Today we are in a national emergency. When I say "we" I mean both the United States and Canada. I mean, as well, the entire free world. This committee knows the facts about this emergency better than any comparable group of men in the United States and perhaps in the world.

This emergency may last for 10 or 15 or 20 years. It may intensify into general world war in 5 years or 10 years, or 15 years, or next

year.

No man, not even the members of this great Committee on Foreign Relations, knows the time table. We all know that we must prepare for both the short haul and the long haul.

This committee approved the historic authorization for the Marshall plan. This committee approved the authorization for the Mutual Security Program. The very heart of these programs was in the assumption that, by increasing the strength of the free world we, here, were increasing and continue to increase the chances, first, for