is that until this project is adopted we are standing still, and we can not afford to be. There is too great economic need for this thing in the whole northwest. We can not build to a 6-foot project, and we can not build to a 9-foot project.

Senator Jones this morning spoke of the desirability of the complete report. I do not quarrel with that. We know the value of it, and there is no doubt but what under ordinary circumstances every project of this kind should have as complete a report as possible. But I just want to call attention of the committee to the fact that in economic justification in the development of the project in what is termed the interim report, in every essential particular we have here one of the most complete reports that ever came before this committee, lacking only the final detailed costs. There are a certain amount of detailed costs, which I must say that, according to my experience, will never be known until the project is adopted and the actual work is commenced. There is not any possibility of knowing to the nth degree what this thing is going to cost until you get into the actual construction of it, and even then you will not know.

Why, on some of our projects on the Warrior River, for example, contractor after contractor went broke on his contract, and the Government had to take it up and complete it by force account. There was not the slightest knowledge of what the thing would actually cost.

Senator STECK. The Board of Engineers realizes the necessity for immediate adoption of a new project, because in their report they state, on page 49 [reading]:

This partial, interim report in the—

The one you have just been talking about

is made at this time because the board believes that immediate modification of the existing project is highly desirable and justified.

They give that as the reason for making the interim report, and that is the statement contained in their report. So the argument of Senator Jones, that we should await final survey and final determination of the exact cost and exact plans by this board, is vetoed by the statement of the board in its report.

Mr. BRENT. I want to call attention to this fact: For 15 years of my life of work with railroads in the Southwest, developing new lines, transcontinental and lines into the arid Southwest, preliminary report after preliminary report was brought up for certain expense and adopted by the board of directors. I can say to you that we have here before something infinitely more complete than any one of those prospectuses I ever had.

Take present conditions. We have before us the spectacle of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad before the Interstate Commerce Commission asking permission to buy up and build certain lines. They have been adopted by their board of directors and have committed themselves to the Interstate Commerce Commission to build a new line between New York and Chicago. It is adopted. It is going to cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars. They have not the slightest idea yet what the cost is going to be. They have asked for permission to buy the Pittsburgh & Buffalo Railroad. They got that. That gives them a hundred miles of their line. They are

now before the commission asking permission to buy the Buffalo & Susquehanna. They have not got control; they do not know what it is going to cost. That will give them 85 miles more. And after that they admit they have either got to get traffic rights or build about 85 miles more through one of the most difficult sections of Pennsylvania. They have not the slightest idea what that is going to cost, yet there is a great railroad corporation that has not only adopted this project by its board of directors, a much more expensive project than the upper Mississippi, but it has committed itself to the United States Government and the Interstate Commerce Commission to build this line, and yet it has not the slightest idea what it is going to cost.

Senator STECK. A comparison has been made with the Ohio River project. That was begun on a series of tentative plans which were changed many times over a period of many years before the final completion of the project; was it not?

Mr. BRENT. The special board of engineers says in this document that before the completion of their final report the project was changed from a 6-foot to 9-foot channel, and the first 6 dams below Pittsburgh were authorized several years before the final and complete report was made, and at that time, of course, nobody knew what it was going to cost. It cost a lot more before they got through. There are the most cogent reasons why this thing should be adopted at this time, because without it we can do nothing in the Northwest, and I hope that the gentlemen here will see the justice and wisdom stampeded on the cost, and once in awhile $98,000,000 looks awfully big. The Pennsylvania Railroad spent $120,000,000 merely to get an entrance into the city of New York. The Illinois Central is spending $45,000,000 to get an entrance into the city of Chicago. The Illinois Central is spending $45,000,000 merely to get a proper entrance into the city of Chicago. Your question of the matter of track elevation in the city of Chicago alone has cost in the neighborhood already of a half billion dollars.

Now, in the face of such costs, not involving growing traffic, but merely on improvement of existing conditions on known traffic, and with a project which has in it the possibilties of economic saving, not to the Northwest alone but to the whole country, because the joint rates on this line on the upper river will cover virtually the entire country.

General Brown spoke of it yesterday in connection with the Erie Canal. We have ample justification there. The amount is not large when you consider it in relation to the great value that comes to the public.

Senator VANDENBERG. Is that the only justification you have for the Erie Canal?

Mr. BRENT. Oh, no, Senator; though I think that is really very much justification.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, before you take your seat, will you not? I have just one question I would like to ask of you.

Mr. BRENT. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. In reading the report of the House I observe that the House committee states that the full report of the board of engineers will very likely be completed by December, 1930. Am I correct in that, Congressman?

Representative HULL. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And the House, therefore, thought it appropriate in this bill to advocate adopting the authorization which would increase ultimately the appropriation of $98,000,000, until that report shall have been completed. What is your view in regard to that?

Mr. BRENT. My view simply is, Senator, as I have stated, that we have here the most elaborate justification for this project. There will be nothing in the detailed report which will be any more enlightening, any more supporting to this committee, when they get it, than what we have to-day. It may cost $5,000,000 more, it may cost $5,000,000 less. You will know seemingly a more definite figure, but to say when the final report is in you will have the actual cost of the project is to write something contrary to history. But if we wait and do not get into this bill, we have perfect knowledge that we only get about one river and harbor bill in every Congress, and we are going to go on indefinitely without any knowledge of what we can do.

The detailed report is all right. But you did have exact data, as you have got before you now-data equally as good as that upon which the Ohio River was started, data infinitely more complete than that upon which the upper Mississippi River was started; data so complete that the only thing you will finally have will be to say that "This dam will be located at mile so and so," while to-day it may be located anywhere within the region of 4 or 5 miles, because after you are all through you are going to know about as much as you do now. But we, on our part, must go on with an uneconomic system of transportation in a territory which needs good transportation; we must go on with a pindling line carrying 150,000 tons which has 10,000,000 tons to offer, and we can not do anything else. We must go holding up the development of terminals; we must go on with something which is futile, and we do not know when we will get into another bill. We hope we will not get up against that.

The CHAIRMAN. You hold we have a substantially full report? Mr. BRENT. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. And that upon that substantially full report now before us we may act just as intelligently as when the report ultimately is filed by the engineers?

Mr. BRENT. I believe this fact confronts us, that when the new report is in it will justify that statement.

Senator STECK. May I interpose a question? In paragraph 606 of the report of the engineers, they state-just a short paragraph and I will read it:

The estimates have been prepared without detailed surveys, and are therefore general in character. The locations are tentative. No details of the project should, if this report is adopted, be regarded as fixed. On the other hand, the costs have been checked, item by item, against corresponding costs of recent work in the lower Ohio River and at Hastings Lock and Dam. It is believed. therefore, that however much the cost of ind vidual items of work may differ from those set forth above, the cost of the project as a whole, based on 1929 prices, will not vary materially from the total given above.

Mr. BRENT. That is the statement I referred to.

Mr. LAMBERT. This situation in the final report is taken care of in the proposed amendment [reading]:

The Chief of Engineers, upon further surveys and with the approval of the Secretary of War, is hereby authorized to make, within the estimated cost of

the mod fied project, such changes in the type and location of the permanent structures recommended therein as, in his judgment, will more effectively meet the requirements of modern navigation: Provided, That all locks below the Twin City Dam shall be of not less than Ohio River standard dimensions. The CHAIRMAN. That is in the proposed amendment? Mr. BRENT. That is in the proposed amendment.

Senator STECK. May I ask one of the witnesses a question? Is it not true that all the cities of any considerable size on the upper Mississippi River are just awaiting the approval of this 9-foot project to build the terminals which, as you say and which we all know, are so necessary to the transportation on the river?

Mr. BRENT. There is no question about that. They begin to realize the value of the transportation which can be developed, but we can not stop these boats where there are no terminals.

Senator STECK. Unless this is authorized and these terminals begin, these cities will have to take the matter in their hands and start building necessary terminals?

Mr. BRENT. There is no question about that. Some of the cities have taken courage and put up money.

Senator STECK. Burlington, for instance.

Mr. BRENT. At Burlington and Dubuque, both, very adequately.

STATEMENT OF HERMAN MUELLER, TRAFFIC DIRECTOR, ST. PAUL ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, ST. PAUL, MINN.

Mr. MUELLER. Mr. Chairman and Senators, my name is Herman Mueller, traffic director, St. Paul Association of Commerce. As a member of the executive committee of the Mississippi River Shippers' Conference and a director of the Mississippi Valley Association, I am speaking for the shippers and business interests of the entire upper Mississippi Valley.

My assignment is "need for a 9-foot channel from the industrial and commercial standpoint" and "the transportation situation in the upper Mississippi Valley."

In our presentation before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in April, 1929, we proved the economic necessity of this improvement to the satisfaction of that board. This is evidenced by the fact that upon the showing of potential tonnage, the general transportation situation, and the agricultural and industrial depression existing in the upper Mississippi Valley, the board ordered that the physical survey be completed.

The special board of engineers, subsequently created to make this physical survey, and whose comprehensive report is before you in House Document No. 290 (71 Cong., 2d sess), has put its unqualified stamp of approval upon the project as being economically essential and fully justified.

In its report the special board dwells upon the national importance of these river improvements, and says:

Should the Mississippi be developed to the proportions of a trunk stream throughout it would tend to equalize the competition between our inland States and the agricultural regions of other countries more advantageously located near the oceans.

Further, the board notes the relative absence of industry in the upper river region and concludes:

Industries have not located in this area because transportation costs, both on raw material and finished products, have been so high as to dictate their location elsewhere. (Par. 105, p. 10 of report.)

In transmitting this report to Congress the Chief of Engineers makes this very pertinent and conclusive statement:

The improvement of the main stem of the Mississippi River as far north as the cities of St. Paul-Minneapolis goes logically in hand with the recently completed 9-foot project on the Ohio to Pittsburgh and the ultimate opening of the Missouri to the greatest feasible depth. It is an essential part of the Mississippi Valley system and part of the route from that system to the Great Lakes.

At the hearing before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors we presented exhibits to show the wide variety of commodities that are already seeking the water route to obtain the relatively small savings that are possible on our present inadequate channel. There seems to be a rather general belief that river transportation will attract only heavy and low value tonnage. This is not true. Everything imaginable is moving, and this fact verifies our contention that every class of shipper; in fact, the entire population will be benefited by the improvement of this river.

Our experience with the Federal barge line operation to date shows conclusively that the extent to which river transportation will be used is limited only by the facilities and service that will be provided, and these in turn will be limited only by the extent to which the channels are improved.

The benefits, of course, will not be confined to the cities on the banks of the river. You have wisely legislated to spread these benefits far into the hinterland, and under that legislation a complete structure of joint rail and barge rates will be provided.

The matter of agricultural relief from this improvement by reduction in transportation charges on grain and the restoration of competition between markets will be presented by other witnesses. There are, however, other means than by a reduction in the rates on grain by which agriculture in the upper Mississippi Valley will be assisted, as the farmer pays the freight on everything he buys as well as on what he produces. I will have time to mention only two or three items.

Take agricultural implements. The upper Mississippi Valley is probably the largest market for agricultural implements of any similar area in the world. The transportation charges on these implements go directly into the farmers' cost of production. These charges will be materially reduced by an improved and standardized channel in the upper Mississippi River. The principal points of manufacture of agricultural implements are so located that with an improved upper Mississippi, a very substantial portion of this agricultural implement movement will be via the water routes.

Another commodity peculiarly adapted to movement in barges is sisal, from which binder twine is made. This sisal is imported through New Orleans, and the river is its natural route to the upper Mississippi Valley where it is used in immense quantities, the conversion to twine taking place en route. With a 9-foot channel the entire distance from New Orleans to the Twin Cities, the cost of this commodity will be materially reduced and these savings will go directly to the farmers.