We in the shipbuilding and ship repair business in Baltimore are proud of the growth of our port and are happy with the part we have had in its accomplishments. The two major shipyards in Baltimore provide the finest facilities on the east coast for the repair and servicing of merchant ships. If Baltimore is to continue to grow as there is every reason to believe it will, it must of necessity provide the facilities for such growth in the form of more and better berthing areas-which you have been informed are being provided through the efforts of our port authority-good land transportationboth rail and truck-good labor and perhaps most important of all, channels of sufficient depth to enable the new and larger ships to make Baltimore a port of call. It is with the expectation of the continued growth of our port that our company is constantly improving our facilities, having spent over $7,500,000 on such improvements during the past 10 years. We believe the shipyards of our city must be given the opportunity to be competitive in all respects with those of other major ports. The 42-foot channel is an absolute necessity to assure handling the many larger tankers and bulk carriers now operating and those to enter service in the near future. If because of inadequate channel depth our shipyard potential declines it will likewise cause a decline of a very important defense potential. It is our confident expectation that shipping in the port of Baltimore will continue to increase with its resulting benefits to those who provide port facilities and we look forward to our share of increased business which should result from the arrival of more and larger ships which can be accommodated with a 42-foot channel. STATEMENT BY G. H. POUDER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, BALTIMORE I am G. H. Pouder, executive vice president of the Baltimore Association of Commerce, and I am offering this testimony in behalf of the 2,300 members of that organization. The port is the greatest single contributor to our economy and to the job security of the 600,000 people employed in the Baltimore area. It is a prime factor in the industrial employment of 190,000 and annual payrolls of a billion dollars. Baltimore is a large and strategic industrial harbor, specializing in bulk cargo movements which involve the largest freight vessels afloat in the carriage of ores, oil, and other commodities. Over a third of our total industrial employment is in the 61 waterfront industries, which employ 65,000 persons and pay $332 million annually in wages and salaries. This employment depends on the safe and expeditious movement of deep-draft ships. The world's largest steel plant, one of the largest sugar refineries, and extensive shipbuilding and repair facilities are included in the waterfront industrial complex. In all, Baltimore's direct port-dependent employment averages 80,000, with annual wages and salaries of $400 million. The beneficial effects of this port employment are felt by the whole area population of 1,600,000. Revenue from the servicing of the 6,000 deep-draft ships and 50 million tons of cargo which use the port each year represents over $150 million annually to the area's economy. The business interests of Baltimore and Maryland earnestly request the committee to approve the allocation of $7 million so that work may be started on the authorized Baltimore project for deeper and wider main port channels. We consider this to be in the national interest as well as the local interest. In the 35 years during which the Association of Commerce has worked for navigation improvements in Baltimore Harbor and adjacent waters, on a factual basis, the predicted ratio of operating savings and benefits to cost has often been exceeded by actual experience when projects were approved and carried out. We are confident it will be so in this case. STATEMENT BY JOHN L. KRONAU, CHAIRMAN OF MARYLAND PORT AUTHORITY AND PRESIDENT OF THE PATAPSCO ENGINEERING CO., INC., BALTIMORE, MD. My name is John L. Kronau. I am chairman of the Maryland Port Authority and president of the Patapsco Engineering Co., Inc. The authority strongly urges this committee to give their approval and support to the $7 million appropriation being requested here today. The Baltimore port and business interests represented here all believe that we are being conservative in our request since the need for improved channels at Baltimore is immediate and the request is not a matter of planning for future needs. The Congress recognized this need when in 1958 it authorized a deepening of the main channel in Chesapeake Bay and Baltimore Harbor from 39 feet to 42 feet and the branch channels leading to large ore piers and oil piers in Baltimore Harbor from 35 feet to 42 feet. This authorization also provided for the widening of all the channels by 200 feet to permit the safe maneuvering of the large bulk carriers serving this port. The seriousness with which the problem at Baltimore is considered is indicated by the status of the representatives who have either testified here today or were present to lend their support. These representatives are the senior executives of all facets of port and business interests. As other witnesses have stated, Baltimore is noted as the principal bulk port on the eastern seaboard and, as such, has the greatest demand for service to the large supercarriers now existing and now also under construction. Because of the limiting depth in Baltimore Harbor channels, which is less than any other major seaport on the seaboard, these large carriers can only enter the port loaded to partial capacity. This is an uneconomical operation and one that is adverse to our national defense. Ore and oil are the primary commodities in the bulk trade, and these are the principal commodities on which our defense rests. A few simple statistics on the drafts of larger bulk carriers in existence in June 1958 will illustrate the point here being made. These ships now serving the Western Hemisphere would all use the port of Baltimore if maximum loading were possible. Other large carriers in this draft range of 34 to 40 feet, which is the critical range at Baltimore, have been completed since June 1958 and an evergrowing number are under construction. There are larger carriers in the world, but these generally do not serve the Western Hemisphere. In closing, I wish to thank this committee for the careful consideration which I know will be given to the facts presented by the Baltimore interests, and to again express our sincere hope that our appeal will be given favorable consideration. STATEMENT BY CARL R. BERGMAN, REGIONAL ENGINEER, PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD, BALTIMORE, MD. The Pennsylvania Railroad Co. has operating control of 19 berths for oceangoing ships, 9 of which can easily be made suitable for ships having a greater draft than the present channel which leads to them. In fact, we have recently increased the depth in the slips at our coal pier and a 1,100-foot merchandise pier, due to the draft of the more modern ships which are being handled at these points. With the proposed deepening of the channels in the Chesapeake Bay and the proposed new channel in the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, it is obvious that the entrance channels to the various rivers and the piers in them must follow. While it will require some dredging and the possibility of strengthening some structures, it certainly would be a mistake for any company to be so backward as to not follow the trend of the times to make cargo carriers larger and thereby reduce the cost per unit of measure for transportation. Baltimore, being the No. 1 bulk commodity port in the Nation, is due assistance in matters of this kind. We are contemplating the construction of additional pier facilities, and when same are constructed they will be so designed to accommodate the largest oceangoing vessels afloat, plus an allowance for future increased size. All modes of transportation are increasing in size, and it is necessary that waterways must be deepened if water-borne traffic is to keep abreast. Moreover, while it is not always possible to construct a new pier for additional space to dock ships, larger ships can be docked at existing piers and more cargo stored or unloaded in less time per unit than could be handled to and from the smaller ships. The deepening and widening of the main ship channel permits the port of Baltimore to be competitive to other ports; thereby, being of benefit to the whole Nation. As the representative of the regional manager of the Chesapeake region of the Pennsylvania Railroad, we respectfully request that the appropriation requested for beginning the Baltimore Harbor deepening be given the full consideration of this committee. It is urgent that the work be progressed immediately. SURVEY LITTLE NECK BAY, N.Y. Senator ELLENDER. At this point in the record I will insert a letter addressed to Senator Hayden by Robert Moses, commissioner of the city of New York Department of Parks. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEAR SIR: The Little Neck Bay Reclamation Council, of which Mr. Frank Turner, 143-07 Sanford Avenue, Flushing 55, N.Y., is secretary, is interested in the establsihment of a Federal project for the dredging of Little Neck Bay. For many years we have operated a boat basin at Bayside. The boats using this facility are anchored in Little Neck Bay. We are also interested in establishing a public marina at the head of this bay in Alley Park. The bay is becoming shallower each year and dredging will have to be done soon if we are to continue to use this bay for boating and to expand boating facilities as we plan to do. We believe the Council for Little Neck Bay reclamation and preservation's proposal should receive serious consideration. Federal Government will help the recreation Parks in New York City. Very truly yours, Any work done here by the program of the Department of ROBERT MOSES, Commissioner. WAPPINGERS CREEK, N.Y. Senator ELLENDER. I will insert at this point in the record, a letter from Thomas D. Mahar, supervisor of the town of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., relative to flood control on Wappingers Creek. (The letter referred to follows:) OFFICE OF TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE, SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, GENTLEMEN: It is my understanding that you are at the present time considering the allocation of funds for flood control. For many years the Wappingers Creek, which runs through my township, has been a source of considerable trouble, causing much damage during flood periods, and is a serious situation. It has been considered one of the most important projects of flood control in Dutchess County. I have been informed that your committee is allocating funds throughout the Nation for flood-control projects. It would be greatly appreciated if funds for this project could be allocated. Thanking you in advance for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter, I remain, Very truly yours, THOMAS D. MAHAR, Supervisor. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say in conclusion that all of the projects which we have recommended are feasible; all will serve rural electric systems, and we think that each will work toward the conservation of our natural resources. Thank you very much. Senator ELLENDER. I wish to thank you, and I am glad to see that my good friend Tom Venables is with you. Tom and I had occasion to travel together in Russia in 1957. We visited all over Siberia and all over southern Asiatic Russia and southern European Russia. Mr. ROBINSON. I thank the chairman for reminding me. I had intended to introduce Mr. Venables to the subcommittee. He is now a very valued member of the staff of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Senator ELLENDER. I made the remark some time ago that I am glad he is with you. Senator MONRONEY. I have looked over these projects, and I notice that you have included one large one in Oklahoma and several large ones in Arkansas. I do not know whether you were here or not when we were talking about the upstream projects which we feel that, while they may not fully comply with the present requirements of the Bureau of the Budget for hydropower, that there will be a vast amount of hydropower that can be economically produced in a very short power supply area in southeastern Oklahoma. Mr. ROBINSON. That includes the Little River projects. LITTLE RIVER AND MOUNTAIN FORK PROJECTS Senator MONRONEY. The Little River, and the Mountain Fork projects. They are roaring mountan streams, with a nice water drop and high banks for the reservoir. We feel that while we are esking for only a small amount for planning at this time that this will eventually also produce a large amount of hydroelectric power when the projects are finally equipped for generation of power. Mr. ROBINSON. Well, Senator Monroney, we were awfully disappointed to see the power features of those projects not meet the Bureau of the Budget criteria when the last omnibus bill was passed. We, in principle, support all multiple projects which are feasible and which will benefit our systems. I hope you understand that. Senator MONRONEY. Yes, we appreciate it, and you have been one of the strongest forces in creating a reservoir area. DARDANELLE AND EUFAULA PROJECTS Mr. ROBINSON. We are very disappointed, incidentally, with respect to the State of Oklahoma to see that the projects in the Arkansas Valley, such projects as Dardanelle and Eufaula-which have been started with funds provided by the Congress, despite Budget Bureau recommendations to the contrary-have not progressed as we think they should have. Our table shows that for both Dardanelle and Eufaula-only a small portion of the funds that have been appropriated by Congress for them over the years have actually been spent. When we recall that the President, in signing the initial legislation appropriating funds for these projects expressed his displeasure with them, we cannot but connect the two situations. Senator ELLENDER. That took place primarily because of relocation problems. If you notice, the budget has quite a nice sum, I consider, for the coming fiscal year. Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. We are very hopeful that these relocation problems can be settled soon so that they can go on and build the dams quickly. Mr. ROBINSON. We would very much like to see progress in these Federal projects speeded up, because when you get into construction schedules of 7 to 14 years, you are raising the unit costs of construction of your projects and extending into a period of increasing costs, the time during which commitments have to be made. Senator ELLENDER. These items were put in the bill several years ago and were not even budgeted at all. I believe that this action of the Congress as a whole has advanced the construction of these jects by a few years. If you had left it to the Bureau of the Budget to put it in, you might be waiting 3 or 4 or 5 years. Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir. For 7 consecutive years, the Bureau of the Budget has recommended no new starts on Corps of Engineers multiple-purpose projects. Senator ELLENDER. We did not pay any attention to that. Mr. ROBINSON. Were it not for the work of this subcommittee, we should be in very bad shape indeed. FORT RANDALL RESERVOIR Senator MONRONEY. I notice the Fort Randall Reservoir in the Dakotas, for example: you list it as 97 percent completed as of March 1, 1959. Being new on this committee, I should like to ask if, while the budget is only after $1,150,000, it would not be good to get that dam completed at the earliest possible time. Senator ELLENDER. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. ROBINSON. That particular project has been under construction for 14 years, which means it is a pretty stretched out project right now. Senator ELLENDER. I realize that, but remember the size of it and the cost. Mr. ROBINSON. The total cost is $193 million. Senator ELLENDER. You had Oahe and two or three others in that area that cost considerable money. I think we tried to put in all that the traffic would bear. Mr. ROBINSON. We are extremely grateful, and we have received unusual cooperation from this subcommittee. And let me say that if you did not increase the budget estimates one cent as we have suggested, we would still have the same respect for the subcommittee's integrity and good judgment. Senator ELLENDER. Thank you, sir. BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD. Senator Beall has requested permission to file his statement with 15 supporting statements with respect to the improvement of Balti |