Mr. BETTS. I do not think the benefits would apply, but the result, there might be some results farther down the river. I am not too well acquainted with the Corps of Engineers plan. I think that is the reason that the city of Findlay would like to have the opportunity to study, to give this alternative proposal under 566 further study. The Blanchard River drains Findlay, Ohio, into the Auglaize River, and the Auglaize drains into the Maumee. And whether or not this proposed floodwall would in any way affect any other congressional district, I do not know. It is in Hancock County. Hancock County is in the northeast corner of our congressional district. And so the next county beyond Hancock County would be in the Fifth Congressional District. I doubt I am sure it would not affect-well, I say I am sure—I should not say that; but I do not believe it would affect any congressional district upstream, because the Blanchard, I believe, ends in the seventh district shortly over the district line. Mr. BALDWIN. Your recommendation basically is, therefore, that this committee simply not act upon this project at this time? Mr. BETTS. That is correct. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. Mr. ROBERTS. I will say to our colleague, Mr. Bert Bandstra is here, and if you wish to file a statement on the Ames Dam and Reservoir project, Mr. Bandstra, we would like to have you. STATEMENT OF BERT BANDSTRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. BANDSTRA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know how valuable the committee's time is, and I do have a prepared statement which I would like to have inserted in the record immediately following the testimony of our colleague, Congressman Neal Smith, who represents the area in which the dam would be located. Mr. ROBERTS. Without objection, the statement will be filed following Congressman Smith. Mr. BANDSTRA. The proposed dam would be built in his district, but the Skunk River flows through the Fourth Congressional District which I represent, and we are very much interested, and I am very much in support, and the people in my district are in support, of this project, not only for the flood control benefits but also as far as the minimum flow is concerned. A number of the cities depend on their water supply from the Skunk River, and it has broad support in the Fourth Congressional District. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you very much for appearing, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Yesterday I asked unanimous consent that a letter which had been sent to the chairman of the Flood Control Subcommittee, Mr. Jones, by Mr. Albert A. Cree, chairman of the Electric Coordinating Council of New England, answering some questions I had asked during the hearing on the St. Johns project, be given permission to be inserted in the record. I now find that there were two letters sent in answer to questions asked at that hearing, that there were also questions asked by Congressmen Harsha and Kunkel which were answered in a separate letter signed by the same man, Mr. Albert A. Cree, chairman, Electric Coordinating Council of New England, in a letter dated August 16, 1965, addressed to Hon. Edward McNeal, chief clerk, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives. I ask unanimous consent that this second letter addressed to the chief clerk, dated August 16, also be given permission to be inserted in the record. (Previously inserted in hearing.) Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROBERTS. This concludes the testimony today, and we will stand adjourned to tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, August 25, 1965.) OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS AND FLOOD CONTROL BILLS-1965 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ray Roberts presiding. EAST RIVER, N.Y. Mr. ROBERTS. The subcommittee will come to order. We are honored this morning to have the dean of the delegation of New York State, our distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Celler. Mr. Chairman, will you take the stand? The project is the East River of New York. Mr. CELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. CELLER. I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to be heard by this subcommittee, which has been laboring for some weeks on the ramifications of a very complex bill which requires a thoroughgoing evaluation of many projects that affect communities in diverse areas across the Nation. I wish to outline briefly for you and underscore the merits of the project, which is of vital concern to the city of New York and its citizens. Let me emphasize that my proposal requires no expenditure whatsoever of Federal funds. It requires only the removal of the technical impediment to action by legislative amendment that can be initiated here. This would provide the so-called green light so that necessary financial arrangements can go forward to make possible a challenging waterfront development that holds great promise for alleviating in a unique way some of New York City's urgent needs. The companion problems of urban renewal and metropolitan housing shortages that beset the Nation's major cities are nowhere more critical than in the city of New York, my own city. Therefore, proposals are being considered to construct a series of housing and other facilities along a limited portion of the so-called East River-it is really not a river; it is a stream-running from 17th to 30th Street in the Borough of Manhattan, where the river widens creating a portion of the waterfront beyond the line set for navigation. In other words, the area to which I invite your attention is not used for navigation because of the bend in the contour of the shoreline. The plans, that have been enthusiastically endorsed by the mayor of New York City and other responsible leaders, contemplate that this area along the waterfront will be improved by structures that would include such facilities as the following: (1) Housing for medical personnel and the resident staff of Bellevue Hospital, with which I am sure most of you are familiar. The present hospital dormitory for interns is overcrowded. In addition, there is no housing nearby for the specialists which Bellevue uses. Most of these doctors and nurses now live in outlying boroughs where it is more difficult for them to stay on call. Rents in the proposed housing would average $45 per room per month and go as low as $30 per room per month, which would be within the budget of the hospital interns. (2) There will be a school for children of the United Nations personnel. Their present school is an 84-year-old building which was condemned by the board of education several years ago. The United Nations authorities have the funds in hand from responsible donors to build a new school but have been unable to find a suitable site. The site over the water is within a few blocks of the United Nations at the 25th Street pier. New York city officials have proposed that the United Nations international school be erected on a platform to be built on piling extending about 550 feet into the East River, no farther than the present pier line. It would not go beyond, in any sense of the word, the so-called pier line, and therefore would not interfere with navigation. When completed, the proposed four-story school building with all necessary facilities would accommodate over 500 pupils from the families of the United Nations delegations and staff as well as the local community. (3) A very substantial number of other middle-income housing units with adjacent grounds to include new shops, restaurants, a marina, and other facilities for citizens of New York City who at the present time, unlike the citizens of other large cities, are cut off from the shore of the rivers bounding Manhattan by express highways. This project would pioneer the shoreline to urban living. In terms of the lasting benefits that inure to New York, which I need hardly remind you is a sorely pressed metropolis, Mayor Wagner, the mayor of our city, puts it this way: The project commends itself to us because it is a way to add to the city's stock of housing and its tax base without tearing down existing structures and relocating citizens. That is one of the perplexing, very vexatious difficulties we have in starting new housing. We have to tear down the old and try to make a place for those tenants who are evicted. That creates very, very serious problems. And in the interval until the new houses or new developments are completed, the difficulty is that people are more or less homeless and shifting from one place to another. We would not have that situation here, because there would be no buildings to tear down. You must remember that New York is only a |