DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 279

which is to say that if all of the tankers that went from Atlantic to Gulf waters
and vice versa in 1981 had used the canal, it would have accounted for two-
thirds of the hypothetical normal advantage to be gained by spending $150,-
000,000 upon this project; but when we asked the oil-tanker operators what
they think about it, the oil-tanker operators uniformly say that they would
not use the canal, and when they make that statement, I am quoting the fol-
lowing oil-tanker operators which represent the chief operators in those waters:
Sinclair Navigation Co., Gulf Refining Co., Socony Vacuum Oil Co., City Service
Transportation Co., Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, Texas Co., and Sun Oil
Co. of Philadelphia, which represents the major oil transit of these waters.
 Now, when you confront the proposition that those for whom it is expected
this canal will be built, uniformly testify that they do not expect to use it,
and do not consider that it is economically justified, I submit that the hypo-
thetical calculation goes out the window.
 But even if you rely upon the hypothetical calculation, which according to
the Department of Commerce is a navigation saving of $6,000,000, I want to
know 4f $150,000,000 investment figured at the average cost to the United States
Government over the years of SY2 percent on money, plus $1,000,000 for mainte-
nance and upkeep, plus a reasonable amortization fund, if you are going to
pay the money back in 100 years, would not substantially exceed $6,000,000.
 Now, there is one other argument they make in favor of it. They say, well,
we do not depend exclusively upon economics. Be humane and consider what
a saving of life this will be to provide a means to avoid these dangerous Florida
waters.
 And when I asked the United States Coast Guard just how dangerous these
particular waters have been, I am amazed to be told that just one passenger in
16 years has lost his life in the waters particularly affected by this transit.
 Now, in the face of cold, hard, unanswerable facts of that character, I sub-
 mit that the Congress cannot fulfill its responsibility to the country at a time
 when it is asked to raise $1,000,000,000 in taxes, and when the Budget is out
 of balance by many more billions, that it cannot justify a commitment of $150,-
 000.000 to a waterway which has never been affirmatively approved by Congress,
 which has never had a conclusive final report from the Board of Rivers and
 Harbors Engineers, and which has no tangible economic justification whatever,
 and that is my story, and I am going to stick to it.
 Senator FLErcnCHm May I say just a word there? I am not going to prolong
 this debate, because we" will have to go into that before we get through after
 the hearings on concrete?
 Senator VANDIBanDo. That is right.
 Senator FLNTCHEB. I want to call the Senator's attention to the situation in
 connection with these letters which have been produced.
 These are the letters in reply to the questionnaire sent to the authors?
 Senator VANDWNBEBG. No; these are in reply to letters that I wrote.
 Senator FLmromH Mr. Buckman produced letters from the very same ship-
 owners, very same operators, favoring the canal.
 Senator VANDENBEaG. Senator, if you will excuse me, those 1933 letters to
 which I just referred said that nine of them in 1983 said yes, and the same
 nine, when they had this thing actually in hand, said no in 1935.
 Senator FLmBHEB. The whole situation is that these same people wrote the
 Chief of Engineers one way and later on they wrote the Senator in another
 way, and it simply shows that letters from shipowners and operators are not
 to be a controlling factor in determining the economic value or justification for
 a canal. They are liable to change their minds, write one thing one day and
 another thing the next. It shows that they are really of no value. They are
 contradictory.
 The question is, What is the benefit to commerce and trade; what will it
 mean to the Gulf; what will it mean to the Atlantic; what will it mean to
 foreign trade? This is a facility for the benefit of commerce which can be
 passed upon by engineers, without regard to communications from shipowners,
 who vary their views from time.to time, as you can see from these communica-
 tions which have been submitted, Mr. Chairman, that they contradict them-
 selves, which shows that their statements are worthless in that connection.
 Then, with regards to the hazards, I may say this: Last September, just a little
 before the work was begun on this canal-I was down there when the explo-
 sion was set off by the President from Hyde Park-the Dixie, a magnificent
 ship operating between the Gulf and the North Atlantic ports, I think, a
 ship costing some $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 at least, and 450 passengers were
 thrown upon a reef just below Miami and lay there for 4 days. No lives were