« PreviousContinue »
accountants, and, of course, Canal representatives, and they reviewed the 1921 capitalization and agreed to make no changes. It had actually thrown out the military items, which were one of the contentions of the steamship lines who were opposing an increase in the tolls.
There was only one item that might be questioned, and that was the cost of increasing the width of the locks, which was done at the request of the Navy. The original project called for a 100-foot width, and the Navy asked that they be made 110, and that was done, and it added about $5,500,000 to the cost of the Canal, or about a 1-percent increase in the capitalization. The board reported that that did not seem worth while to upset the accounts structure, just for that one item.
The report further stated that no provision had yet been made for amortization of this investment, but that probably in the next 10 years the 3-percent requirement would have been fully met as our tolls were increasing year by year.
Mr. FUGATE. You are speaking as of 1936?
General STEESE. 1936 or 1937, yes. The 3-percent requirement, which was purely voluntary on the part of the Canal, would have been fully met. They wanted to keep their books on a commercial basis. This money all went into the United States Treasury. According to the United States Treasury the Canal has been threefourths paid out, but they have figured that nothing has been paid out and they have paid interest on that capitalization. They figured that within another 10 years the 3-percent account should have been amply met, and then the question would come up for serious consideration of adding 1 percent more to amortize the investment over the next 100 years. I had quite a discussion with the Governor at one time when
that was up in connection with some other matters, and I said, “Well, all this third locks emergency construction and the amount of extra cost you are put to for military reasons, and so forth, must be computed. As soon as this smoke clears away we are going to have to have another board to review these accounts, throw out what should be chargeable to national defense, and increase the capitalization only by the improvements that were made of value as a commercial enterprise.'
Your resolution, as I understand it, takes the place of that. We would have had to do that for our own protection, but you are making it an official matter in Congress, which of course is the ideal way to handle it. What you are doing is what we anticipated we would have to do when this war was over.
I might say that the tolls, up to 1939, for a number of years--tolls and other minor revenues-had been running about $27,000,000 a year, all of which went into the Treasury of the United States, but against which Congress had to appropriate back for maintenance and operation around 8 or 9 million dollars. That left a net to the Treasury of about $16,000,000, which was 3 percent on the $500,000,000 capitalization. We were making the 3 percent the last year or two, but we averaged over the entire period a scant 3 percent.
So that is the point we have now reached, that your resolution calls for that reappraisal of the whole situation.
To go back to your original question, Mr. Chairman, from which I seem to have gone around in a way-if that principle or if that policy
is going to be the policy adopted or recommended by your subcommittee, then you have got to make that reappraisal of all the moneys that have been spent, throw out all the stuff that is chargeable to national defense because it was not necessary as a commercial enterprise to get the ships from one ocean to the other, and then decide what interest gives a fair return to the Government.
Those original Panama Canal bonds were issued at 2 percent. During World War I the cost to the Government was 474 percent to peddle its bonds. Recently they have been getting Treasury notes for seven-eights of 1 percent. We consider 3 percent as a fair average over that entire period. It was set at the time we were contrasting the original 2-percent bonds with the 4/4-percent Liberty bonds that we were all holding after World War I.
Mr. FUGATE. The entire issue covering the original construction cost is still outstanding? There have been no retirements with reference to the original cost?
General STEESE. I don't know whether there are any bonds outstanding. The Treasury actually appropriated something like $382,000,000. To that we add $128,000,000 interest, which they never appropriated, which would be half a billion dollars. Now, more than half of that money has been returned to the Treasury in tolls, but also an extra couple of hundred million dollars has been appropriated for operating expenses, so that on a cash basis, as of 1939, understandthis war stuff is all mixed up and has to be straightened out—just the cash that went out of the Treasury and the cash that went in, if you strike a balance you will find that about three-fourths of that original $382,000,000 has been returned to the Treasury in cash, but as an accounting matter we consider that that was just interest on the money and not amortization. In the Treasury, on a cash basis, they have gotten three-fourths of their money back as of 1939, and when these additional accounts are classified it will add, I believe, very little to that half billion dollar capitalization. In stead of making it 3 percent and over $100,000,000 in the hole on the basis of the 3 percent, with all this extra military cost in 3 years they did not make their operating costs, and last year they barely made their operating expenses, because the operating expenses, which used to be 8 or 9 million dollars, are now 18 or 19. That may come down a little bit as things get straightened out.
So that is a purely technical accounting proposition.
Mr. THOMPSON. Apparently that will be one of our jobs, to figure out a proper accounting method.
General STEESE. Your job is primarily an accounting job.
The United States Treasury never sets up amortization. When the money is gone it is gone, and on that basis the Treasury has gotten back about three-fourths of its original cost. On a commercial accounting basis they have gotten nothing back, but they have had almost 3 percent on the total amount, not only on what they appropriated but on the interest that accumulated during the construction program, which they never appropriated.
I do not know whether I have confused you.
General STEESE. There are those two standpoints, which are a technical matter for the accountants.
Mr. THOMPSON. I am very much interested in setting up some kind of recommendation that will hold for all time to come. As I gather from, I guess, previous conversations with you and some others, there will have to be some rather extensive improvements to that Canal and they should be contemplated right away. One school of thought holds that it can be done for, oh, perhaps another half billion dollars, and that includes the widening and simplifying of the lock system on the Pacific end.
General STEESE. The third locks project, of course, was to build a third set of locks merely bypassing the present locks. After further studies of that it seemed desirable that the Pedro Miguel locks be abandoned and all three locks be put at Miraflores with a high-level anchorage basin there similar to what we have at Gatun. If that were done, a large part of that, of course, would be for the benefit of commercial shipping, and would add to the capitalization.
Mr. THOMPSON. Where is the new terminal lake?
General STEESE. That is the present Miraflores Lake raised 30 feet higher. The Pedro Miguel lock would be taken out after the third lift had been put in at Miraflores. That would lift the Miraflores Lake up 30 feet.
Mr. THOMPSON. That is the one I am thinking about.
Now, whatever plan we finally recommend ought to take into consideration that the capitalization of the Canal is going to be materially increased in the next 10 years, so whatever we do should be flexible enough to take that into consideration.
Then there is the other plan, the so-called sea-level-route plan, which, as I understand it, is strictly a national defense project.
General STEESE. Yes, sir.
Mr. THOMPSON. It is not necessary to have a sea-level canal to handle the commercial traffic now or in the foreseeable future, is that correct?
General STEESE. That is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. THOMPSON. Then let me just suggest this, that if they ever go to a sea-level canal, it should be done as a national defense project, and not as a commercial canal to handle the ocean traffic.
General STEESE. Yes. In fact, the Governor, in his last recommendation of conversion to sea level states in there that all of that except a very small amount is for national defense, and should be so considered.
If you retain a lock canal, there are certain improvements that can be made to the existing locks that will shorten the overhaul period and thereby greatly increase its traffic and postpone to some extent the time at which a third lock will be absolutely required by the commercial traffic. The third lock was being built not only in anticipation of the needs for commercial traffic around 1960 and 1970, but also to get a wider lock, to give a little more margin for the fleet. That would have to be evaluated. Part of that is for commercial use and part of it is purely for the convenience of the fleet. So that would be a question of division. In your capitalization you would not want to set it all up against the steamship lines, to make the tolls pay the interest on that. That would be a question to be determined after the fact, when you have the figures in.
Now, if a couple of generations later they needed a fourth lock, that would be a mere matter of moving over and putting a fourth lock in.
When I say a fourth lock, I mean a fourth flight of locks. We at present have two flights of locks. The third lock is a complete flight, making one more channel, It would be three lifts, but only one right-of-way.
Of course in later studies they have been planning on a two-lift lock; instead of three lifts averaging 28 feet each to get up to 85, have two lifts of about 42 feet. But those are engineering technical details that do not concern you at all.
Mr. FUGATE. They concern us only to the extent of their cost, do they not? If we contemplate any change in the policy, that is their concern to us?
General STEESE. The cost would have to be analyzed and divided into two parts.
Mr. FUGATE. They would concern us to that extent.
Mr. THOMPSON. That is true, but not whether it is a three-lift or a two-lift set of locks.
General STEESE. At least to the extent of setting forth your formula according to the policy that you believe should govern.
The Panama Canal is a great military asset, of course, it is like the highways and railroads of the United States, but its immediate function is to get ships from one ocean to the other, and its defense, like the defense of the railroads or the city of Washington, is an over-all governmental responsibility:
Mr. MEADE. General, is it the idea of the sea-level canal to take the place of the present Panama Canal, or to add as an auxilitary canal?
General STEESE. To replace it.
Mr. MEADE. And in the event it were built, the present canal would not be used as such for commercial purposes?
General STEESE. No. The Gatun Lake would be drained, and ships would go through at sea level. The existing canal would be maintained in operation while the conversion to sea level was taking place. That introduces a lot of difficulties, but they have been solved. Then the lake would have to be lowered. It could be lowered in stages, but the recommended project is to lower it all at once, after getting the full depth for the new canal or for the converted canal. The converted canal would utilize parts of the existing project eventually, but at the low level. Culebra Cut would be greatly deepened and greatly widened.
Mr. MEADE. But in the final analysis there would be only one canal in operation and only one canal capable of operation?
General STEESE. One canal, and that so-called sea-level canal calls for a tidal lock on the Pacific end, on account of the great disparity in tides. There is a 22-foot tide on the Pacific, and a 22-inch tide on the Atlantic, so there is a maximum difference of level of about 12 feet up one time and down again, so there would be currents running through there if it were an open waterway. There would be currents running in one direction for a while, and then reverses four times a day.
Mr. DREWRY. You would have to have at least one lock.
General STEESE. A good many engineers have figured that they could operate with an open channel. Full powered ships could stem that current. But I do not think they would want to risk some of the big battleships and aircraft carriers, and some of the underpowered warcraft. It could be used as an open canal for a considerable part of the time, especially when the tides were not excessive at certain
times of the year, so they have a flexible set-up that they could have it open when the currents were not too bad, and then close it and use the tidal lock when the currents were considered dangerous. That would be a varying period throughout the year.
Mr. FUGATE. The change in tides would be based on depth. The present canal is about 41 feet deep, is it not?
General STEESE. The present canal, on the sea level sections, is dredged so that they will have their 41 feet at low tide. At high tide, of course, they have on the Pacific side a great deal more than that.
Through the cut and through the lake, with the lake at 85 feet and the bottom of the cut at 40, they have 45 feet, but that is in fresh water, where a ship has an extra foot and a half or two feet of draft. When the lake goes up to 874, as we try to get it by the end of the rainy season, you have an extra 2% feet of depth, but at the end of the dry season, when that water has been used up for lockage, we try to let the level not go below 83. If it goes to 83, then you have 43 feet less the extra foot and a half of draft and less about a foot and a half resurgence through the cut.
Mr. Thompson. These are matters that are extremely interesting. General STEESE. They are a little foreign to your experience.
Mr. THOMPSON. We will have to study these things in that capacity, as well as the financial structure.
Mr. FUGATE. I was going to ask the General about his recommendations, if he has such in his mind, with reference to a policy.
Mr. Thompson. The toll policy?
General STEESE. Well, you have this situation: The steamship lines are well organized. They maintain a powerful lobby, and they insist
. that the Panama Canal be purely for national defense, and it ought to be free just like the other arms. The railroads, of course, want to see the steamship, companies socked enough to give the transcontinental railroads the business. So you have, fortunately, two lobbies there that are opposing each other and that helps you carry the middle ground.
I think that the Panama Canal is a grand commercial institution; that ships are getting a marvelous service there as compared to going around the Horn, and they ought to pay for it and they can well pay for it. The tolls must be reasonable, of course, and also as a taxpayer I think the people are entitled to at least get interest on these vast sums that have been put up to provide this not only to American coastwise shipping, but the shipping of the world. I do not see why we should have these great big German lines that are competing with us, and the French lines and the British lines, or whatever they are, get a free ride through the Panama Canal.
Mr. DREWRY. And I do not think the American steamship lobby is in favor of that, either.
, General STEESE. No, but they always will kick on tolls. Of course that is an American characteristic. Even in your own home, as to anything you buy, whatever you pay for it is too much, and whatever your salary is, it is not enough. That is just human nature.
Mr. Thompson. Do you happen to have in your mind the comparison between the cost of going through the Suez Canal and going through the Panama Canal?