Mr. EKWALL. I am not familiar with the Alaskan coastline, either. It is about 3,000 miles from the Canal to the Aleutian Islands, by the most direct route.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I ask is because the whole coastline will be involved in the event of any emergency.

Mr. EKWALL. Absolutely. There would be fully 3,000 miles that would be involved there and, of course, if you were to take it away up to the northern parts of Alaska, probably it would be 4,000 miles altogether. So that there is a considerable coastline involved.

The CHAIRMAN. And an adequate supply of shipyard facilities, in the event of an emergency, you think would dispense with the necessity of building shipyards over night, as we did in the World War?

Mr. EKWALL. Absolutely. And it is, of course, a well-known fact that many of these merchant vessels are built with the idea they can be converted into auxiliary cruisers and transports and can be used in many other ways. We probably should not talk in terms of war, but we have always to anticipate that sometime or other we might be in trouble.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not anticipating or expecting it, but just recognizing it as a contingency.

Mr. EKWALL. That is correct. But aside from the ever present danger of war, it seems to me the Pacific coast is entitled to considerable recognition; because a great deal of the shipping of the future will be on the Pacific and our ports will necessarily be involved in all of that shipping. The transportation business of the port of Portland, Oreg., which is in my district is one of the major factors in the economic life of that city and if you were to take the water shipments away from Portland, Oreg., it would be a serious economic blow to my entire district and the Pacific Northwest. We have to depend upon our harbor and necessarily the only way you can justify the keeping up of a harbor is to have plenty of shipping. And when we can build our ships on the coast, as we have in years gone by, it seems to me that it falls naturally into the proper channel and I do not think we need to consider the fact that we will actually be in competition with any other part of the country. We won't be; because it is an absolute fact which has been proven time and again that, where one section of a country is prosperous in a particular line, it inures to the benefit of the entire country as a whole. And I think we ought to approach this, as I am sure the committee will, with the idea of the broad aspect of the rights and the good to the entire country. I am sure the Pacific coast is not asking anything unreasonable when we seek to get back a portion of the shipbuilding which in the past we had; and, as Mrs. Kahn has very ably stated, the quality of the shipbuilding on the coast has been of the very finest and I am sure, with reasonable help, we could rehabilitate our shipbuilding yards there and could again reinstate ourselves in that line. I think we are entitled to serious consideration under all of the existing circumstances.

The CHAIRMAN. And in the development of foreign commerce, I suppose you consider, as certainly I do, that we are in a much better position to build up our trade with our own delivery wagons than we are by using the delivery wagons of our competitors?

Mr. EKWALL. I think that all of our goods ought to go out from our ports in American bottoms. I think we ought to build every ship

we need to export all of the goods from this country. I also believe it will stimulate business all over the country if we can get our reasonable share. We do not want it all, by any means; but we do want a reasonable chance to build ships there on a parity with the rest of the country. And I think we can if we are given a little help, and I ain sure this bill will be just about the help we need.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS F. FORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it seems to me this amendment is in absolute harmony with the philosophy of the bill and for this reason: The President has stated that he wishes to subsidize the merchant marine openly and fairly and honestly, so that everybody may know exactly what we are doing. This subsidy is for several purposes; one being to take up the difference in the cost of construction here and abroad, in addition to the cheap labor and all that.

Now what we are asking in this amendment is not to equalize for us, so as to counteract the effect of cheap labor on the east coast, but merely to take up that stretch of a long transportation haul. And if we are going to develop this country in a balanced and even way, it seems to me every part of the country that has the genius and the skill to perform any type of service effectively and efficiently ought to be given an equal opportunity with every other part. This is what Mr. Welch's amendment would do for the shipbuilding industry of the west coast.

There is another phase of it that appeals to me; that is, in the event of an emergency and if there were no shipping facilities on the Pacific coast, no building facilities, and for the time being they had to be conducted on the east coast, there would be that long trip to get the ships around there where they were needed. That would be a very important factor in case of an emergency. Whereas, if built on the coast, they would be there and would obviate the necessity of the trip not quite as long as the Oregon made, because of the Canal having cut off some of the distance-and I mean now merchant ships-but one almost as long. So that is a factor, it seems to me, that ought to be given every consideration by the committee and I am sure it will be.

But the thing that appeals to me the strongest is that the amendment is absolutely in harmony with the philosophy of the bill; because it attempts to do in America, between the different geographical divisions, what we are trying to accomplish with reference to other countries. The bill gives this country an even break with the others. Mr. Welch's amendment gives the west coast an even break with the east coast. The bill makes it possible to loan our shipbuilders money and to give them a rate of interest that will enable them to compete. And if we are going to do that for the whole country in reference to Europe, or any other part of the world that is building ships, why not do it to the Pacific coast with reference to the Atlantic coast on absolutely the same principle? I do not believe any member of the committee will disagree with me that that is sound as regards the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. And you think it would give you a stabilized class of employees and officials, draftsmen, and so forth?

Mr. FORD. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Who would be there in event of emergency and we would not have the conditions that existed during the World War, when some of the men were drawn from the East, from the shipyards; then, when the emergency ceased, they lost their employment there and they were permanently out.

Mr. FORD. They were stranded.

The CHAIRMAN. Which embarrassed the yards in the West in getting the best type of draftsmen and skilled mechanics and employees? Mr. FORD. Yes. And I notice there is a clause in the amendment which seems to be eminently fair; that is, that in order that we not appear as attempting to take from the east coast anything that is their right and properly their province, we have stated in this amendment that these ships shall confine their activities to the Pacific coast and western waters and, whenever they cease to do that, whenever they leave their home port, then the rate of interest, which we are asking as a differential, three-quarters of 1 percent, shall cease to operate. That seems to me to make the thing eminently fair.

Now there has seen some statement made as to the commerce on the Pacific coast. Foreign trade happens to be one of my pet subjects. It happens that this has been the problem I have paid more attention to than any other subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Just on that line, may I ask you this question, which I have thought about very seriously quite often: Should not we really have a committee in this House devoted particularly to foreign trade.

Mr. FORD. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN To foreign commerce, and devoting its efforts and energies to the building up of the foreign commerce of this country? Mr. FORD. We absolutely should, and it seems to me the Congress or the leadership has been remiss in not having done that long before. We have a great Department of Commerce, many of whose activities are connected with foreign trade; but, of course, it takes in a number of other things. But I just want to make this statement; I think it was Theodore Roosevelt who, in a speech at one time, pointed out the steps by which commerce had developed-in the Mediterranean first and then the Atlantic. And now we are coming to the Pacific and, in the next hundred years, that probably will be the great theater of the commerce of the world; because on the other side of the Pacific there is that tremendous and ever-increasing population. Our commerce with oriental nations has given them a larger purchasing power. On the other hand we have increased their demand, not only for their necessities, but for the things that the western civilization produces and they are becoming educated up to that point where their standard of living is gradually rising. And a very small rise in the standard of living in the oriental country, with its teeming millions, means a tremendous increase in commerce. It has been said, if we added 2 inches to the tail of a Chinaman's shirt, it would keep all of the spinning mills in America busy 24 hours a day-just that small addition,

We are sending a great deal of machinery to the Orient now. It is true we are probably doing what Europe did when they built up America we are building a Frankenstein; but that will be a long time in the future And it seems to me in order that that commerce may be developed we should have our own ships and those ships should carry our commerce and see to it that it is delivered and that no other nation is given possession of information that enables their commercial agents to compete with us in an unfair way. That has been one of our troubles in the handling of our foreign commerce.

Mr WEARIN. And in all probability the oriental market is the most fertile field for the disposition of American products at the present times?

Mr FORD That is absolutely ture, and there are reasons for it: They do not owe us any money, and the balance of trade is not so badly out of line. Of course so long as the situation exists in Europe with our being creditors of Europe to the extent we are, it is going to be impossible to do much business there; unless, through the medium of our reciprocal treaties, we develop a certain amount of balanced trade. But I am perfectly frank to say that from the standpoint of sound economics it is impossible for us to develop very much more trade in Europe until this cloud of debt that hangs over and is always bearing down on the exchange possibilities is removed in some way other than by cancellation.

Now we have in the Orient this great opportunity with ships carrying things back and forth, and we could commence building those ships today on the Pacific coast without in any manner injuring any other part of the United States. In fact, such a program will have a tendency to stimulate business; because, if we get Government money out there to build ships, there will certainly come a time in the very near future when private money will go into it, and that will draw from the East and other parts of the country large quantities of steel and other materials that we have to have to fabricate those ships. And not only would it be an advantage to us, but it would be a tremendous advantage to them, because it would give them a new market for their products on the west coast.

I certainly thank the committee for its attention, Mr. Chairman, and I hope you will favorably consider this amendment and consider it in the light that it is absolutely in harmony with the philosophy of

the bill.

Mr. LEHLBACH. When you establish those yards, you won't try to build any more concrete ships out there, will you?

Mr. FORD. Well, I do not believe we will go as far as that. [Laughter.]

Mr. LEHLBACH. You did during the war, you know.

Mr. FORD. I know; but that was one man's idea and every man who had an idea in those days had a hearing on it.

The CHAIRMAN. That was a day of emergency ideas.

Mr. FORD It was, and everybody was frightened to death. Now let us develop our shipbuilding, so that if an emergency arises we won't have to go into a panic about it.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT E. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as was suggested by your chairman a few moments ago, I believe the best trade ambassador that this Nation can send into the foreign ports of the world is a well-equipped, modern, American merchant marine. That is the way we are going to get the business, and we are not going to get foreign business by having two-thirds of our own goods carried in foreign bottoms and distributed about over the world.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say, Mr. Carter, our record here shows that Great Britain carries 61 percent; I think, Germany, 61 percent; France, 64 percent; Japan, 76 percent, while the United States has 35 percent. Mr. CARTER. Well those figures tell the story. I believe this legislation is very timely, because I think we must modernize the American merchant marine, too; if we are going to compete with other modern ships, we cannot use those old vessels that burn twice as much oil and fuel as the modern vessel. Therefore, a rebuilding of the American merchant marine is necessary.

Now I am one of those from the Pacific coast who happens to have some shipyards within my district. We have not done much in the way of building out there in the past number of years. We have done some repair work. We did, in one particular yard, build a few ships for the Coast Guard; but the shipbuilding has been at a very low ebb. There has been some number of ships; I think approximately $150,000,000 has been spent in merchant marine construction under the present act; but that has been spent in yards on the Atlantic coast. And I have no particular quarrel with that, except we would like to get a share of it out there and we feel, in the interest of national defense, in the interest of building up a substantial merchant marine, that we must have a shipbuilding industry on the Pacific coast.

I am very much in sympathy with the suggestion of Mr. Welch. In fact, for a number of years, I introduced a similar bill-not exactly the same rate, but a similar bill-but it was never enacted into law, and so I am here to endorse the suggestion of Mr. Welch and trust this committee, in the interest of the country generally, in the interest of our merchant marine, in the interest of national safety, will incorporate it into the bill. I thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. MOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have a meeting which I have to attend. I just want to put the State of Oregon and particularly the First District, which I represent, on record as being in favor of Mr. Welch's suggestion.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARION A. ZIONCHECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. ZIONCHECK. Mr. Chairman, I can say we are all back of Mr. Welch's proposal out in the State of Washington, and we could stand a little shipbuilding too.

The CHAIRMAN. You believe it would help to stabilize the industry and help your commerce?

Mr. ZIONCHECK. I do that.