Northwest Ordinance exactly as it had been passed, containing the same provision about the free use of our streams.

Mr. JONES. You recall George Washington himself advocated Federal expenditures in the Internal Improvements Act for the construction of navigation features.

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. Later Congress gave added emphasis to these acts when, in the River and Harbor Act of 1882 and in the act of 1884 it provided that:

No tolls or operating charges whatever shall be levied or collected from any vessel, dredge, or other watercraft for passing through any lock, canal, canalized river, or other work for the use and benefit of navigation now belonging to the United States, or that may be hereafter acquired or constructed.

These sagacious acts of our forefathers have contributed immeasurably to the growth and development of this rich country. Settlers followed the rivers and their tributaries into the continent's interior. Great manufacturing and trading centers of today had their origin in this manner. Not enough public leaders over the years, though, have shared the vision of our Nation's founders. Too few river improvements have been attempted and too many that were made have been later neglected.

In 1908 Theodore Roosevelt aptly described the situation when he said:

The rivers of no other country are so poorly developed, so little used, or play so small a part in the industrial life of the Nation as those of the United States. The failure to use our own rivers is astonishing, and no thoughtful man can believe that it will last. The great return from the development of the inland waterways will come from increased commerce, growth, and prosperity of our people.

The President might very well have added the generation of power too, because it was under his program that a Federal power program really started as a part of the reclamation program.

By the way, I might point also to another provision of congressional enactment-in 1944, I believe it was, in the Flood Control Act, in which added emphasis was given to the preference of power users. All of this would be destroyed by the adoption of the recommendations made under this study.

Mr. JONES. Senator Sparkman, the preference clause, as you well know, would be placed in jeopardy by the Hoover Commission report, together with all of the acts that include a preference clause in them. Every act since Theodore Roosevelt, including the Federal Power Act, the Reclamation Act, the TVA Act, the Bonneville Act, the Flood Control Act of 1936, the Flood Control Act of 1944-in fact, every act for resource development where power was to be produced at federally installed projects had a preference clause in it. That even includes the Atomic Energy Act, which we passed the year before last. It was in every one of those acts.

Mr. Hoover, when he was President of the United States, never advocated the abolition of the preference clause in the various acts that were existing at the time he was President.

Senator SPARKMAN. He did not, but his report does; or at least the practical effect of it would be to destroy all of those preference acts, as I construe it. Personally, Mr. Chairman, since you mention it, in the discussion of the preference in the sale of Federal power they make a point of the fact that the Tennessee Valley Authority has

increased sales to preference customers from 18 percent in 1938 to 68 percent in 1953. They do not take the trouble to remind the readers that one of the great preference users is the United States Government itself, and that the greatest part of that 68 percent is made up of the United States Government itself.

I noticed in the power report that was given just the other day, the greatest sales that TVA has had during the past year-the greatest of any time, amounting to, I believe, $69 million in power sales of that amount a little more than 50 percent went to the Federal Government and its various agencies. The Hoover Commission does not take the trouble to explain there that this great percentage of sales to preference users is primarily to the Federal Government itself.

Mr. Chairman, there are many things that I should like to discuss. I think sometimes we may overlook some of the things that are done in TVA. For instance, take this question of navigation. I saw in the Florence Times just a few days ago this little item, which is a very brief paragraph that I shall read:

Estimated Tennessee River freight traffic for September reached approximately 810,400 tons and 129,573,000 ton-miles, TVA said today.

During first 9 months of 1955 an estimated 7,333,000 tons and 1,162,339,000 ton-miles of freight were carried, or 16 and 27 percent, respectively, greater than the totals for the same period last year.

Mr. JONES. That is about 32 times more than the original amount of tonnage at the time the dams were completed.

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. And it is many, many times more than that prior to the improvement of the river when, as you know, there were times when boats could not get up and down this river at all. You and I know what a tremendous asset this river was back during the war. You and I saw oceangoing boats built just a few miles from here which floated down the river to the Ohio and down the Ohio into the Mississippi, and down the Mississippi, and out into the gulf, and across the ocean. We know of many other giant defense installations that were made possible by reason of this development.

My distinguished colleague mentioned the fact that, as the chairman well knows, flood damage, so far as the TVA area is concerned, is virtually a thing of the past. Under the tremendous system for controlling the flow of the waters undoubtedly millions and millions of dollars worth of property have been saved for the people of this area, just as is done in many other river areas by flood-control projects, often imposed as a single project rather than a unified program, as has been done in the Tennessee River.

The question of power, I think, has been adequately covered. Water for industrial uses and the conservation of the resources of this area generally; the stepup in our agricultural production; better farm methods; and so many things that could be brought out are all under the unified program under which the Tennessee River has been developed, which I think is the finest example of a complete river development that we have had anywhere in this country, and perhaps anywhere in all the world.

I was interested in the question that the distinguished Congress, woman from Michigan asked Senator Hill a few minutes ago, about the future extension of TVA. I have often thought that certainly if we gave more attention to the adoption of a unified program made to fit each river system, just as the TVA fits the Tennessee River

system, that this Nation as a whole would benefit and would benefit greatly.

By the way, something has been said here about the situation at New England. I was at one time a member of the Public Works Committee. At that time I served on a subcommittee that made a study of the waterways of New England in trying to develop some kind of unified coordinated system for the development of those streams. New England is about the last part of the United States to have great, fine, magnificent undeveloped waterways. Power could be generated in tremendous amounts if full use were made of the waterpower resources in New England. Yet we see a situation there in which the people of New England suffer terrible tragedies in the form of floods and enjoy virtually no navigation, and also pay the highest rate for electric power of any section of the United States, and simply because full use has not been made, as was contemplated from the earliest days of our Republic, of the power and resources contained in these wonderful navigable streams that flow to the seas.

I want to comment briefly upon another thing that was criticized in the Hoover Commission report. That had to do with further powerplants. Of course, it is a well-known fact that for the last several years our hardest fight with reference to TVA has been to provide adequate additional generating capacity to take care of the needs of normal growth in this area. It is not, as so many people think, the result of the TVA expanding its operations. As a matter of fact, there has really been a contracting of TVA power in that the Federal Government itself required more and more of the power that is generated in the TVA area.

My colleague made reference to the act of 1939. He had come to the Senate at that time and I had succeeded to the place he vacated on the Military Affairs Committee, as it was called then, of the House of Representatives, which committee had jurisdiction over the Tennessee Valley Authority. It was on that committee that my colleague was able to do such distinguished work in getting the original TVA act through.

I think it is interesting to recall that he was not chairman of that committee at the time. The chairman of that committee, a very distinguished, honest, and honorable Member of the House, was not in favor of TVA. He passed the burden on to the next ranking member of the committee, who was Senator Hill, at that time a Member of the House of Representatives.

Some of the most interesting reading that can be indulged in is the debates in the House, particularly on the presentation of the House rule, the burden of which was carried by my colleague. But after he went to the Senate, I went on the Military Affairs Committee. It was my honor and my privilege to introduce the bill that became the act of 1939 that drew a line dividing TVA territory from the private utilities.

Now, it is not actually written into the law that the TVA shall not go further than this and that private utilities will not go over into TVA territory. Yet all of the testimony deals with this, if you go back and read the hearings. The principal witness was the late Mr. Wendell Willkie, who came in and asked for this particular legislation. As I said, while it was not written specifically into the law

70818-56-pt. 5- -3

that this line was drawn, for all practical purposes it was, because it was tactitly agreed to.

Just a couple of years ago the chairman of this subcommittee and my colleague will remember we had testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee. The president or the chairman of the board of the Alabama Power Co., I believe it was, in testifying before that committee, made reference to the fact that this agreement had been lived up to. Of course, since that time there has been a change, and apparently some people do not believe that agreement ought to be lived up to any longer. However, it was virtually established in that act that the TVA would serve the particular territory it was serving at that time.

By the way, you will find in that act the specific territory in Alabama named. The counties are named one by one, plus the cities of Bessemer and Tarrant. Since that time TVA has not gone out one single mile. Also since that time neither have the private utilities come into the TVA territory, although we know in the last session of Congress a tremendous effort was made and, except for a most stubborn fight on the part of the people who believe in TVA and the integrity of TVA, the territory might have been invaded.

Now, if TVA is supposed to supply this territory with power, the power that it needs, then why are we not entitled to have additional generating capacity as our normal needs may require? Certainly we are growing in this area. While we are growing the Government likewise has expanded its facilities, because it does constitute such a fine area for defense purposes. The Government is using more and more of the power that otherwise would be used by our private industry which builds up in this particular area.

I think we are entitled to have that generating capacity. If the hydroelectric capacity is fully used up, then it is only logical to fall back on steam-generating plants.

Yet this report would provide that no further steam-generating plants could be built.

Mr. Chairman, I think sometimes there is a misunderstanding in Congress as to the extent of public power. I do not have the figures right at hand but they are easily obtainable. I have seen a figure which I believe to be correct, which states that for the last good many years there has been a rather consistent ratio as between public and private power. About 12 percent of our power for a good many years, I have been told, has been public power. I am certain that the figure does not exceed that at the present time.

I think it would be interesting to have those figures shown in order that the public may be acquainted with the fact that this Nation is not being overrun by public power. So far as I know, nobody is asking for it.

Mr. JONES. Do you know what percent of Federal power generated in this country is sold to private utilities?

Senator SPARKMAN. No, I do not know.

Mr. JONES. About 30 percent of all the power generated, I believe. Senator SPARK MAN. Is sold back to private utilities?

Mr. JONES. And they make a profit out of what the Government sells to them.

Senator SPARK MAN. Yes. I have seen the development of this valley and I have lived in this valley all my life. I know something

of the struggles to improve this river. Even after it was improved I know something of the fight with reference to power.

I noted a question a few minutes ago about REA. I can remember when none of these rural homes were lighted unless they had their own little individual powerplant.

Mr. JONES. Delco.

Senator SPARK MAN. A little Delco unit. I might give you an example, and I think this might be multiplied hundreds of times.

One of the best and leading citizens and one of the best farmers and businessmen, also a ginner and a merchant back in my county, told me this soon after TVA started putting in rural lines. He said that he had tried at one time to get the private power company that was serving that area to run a line out to serve his home. They would not do it unless he would agree to pay a certain amount for the extension of the line and then pay so much a month over and above the regular charge— a pole charge they called it--for the right to get the power. He did not do it. He bought a Delco system instead and installed his own.

Just a year or two later TVÅ moved in and started building some rural lines on the northwest side of the county. Then this private utility came back to him and offered to build a line out to him without any guaranty as to the amount of use, and without any line charge, and also to pay him in full for the cost of his Delco plant.

It was that kind of competition that developed back during those times. You can imagine from which one he took power. Of course he took the TVA power.

Back in that day my county was, I suppose, in the rural sections, 5 percent electrified. Perhaps not that much. Today under the distribution system which exists in my home town, which covers the entire county, power is available to virtually 100 percent of the people of that county. That does not mean they are all connected, but they are within distance. It is not a saturation. There is no such thing as saturation, because additional utilities and additional appliances will be brought in. But it does show the tremendous progress which has taken place in the development of power.

As Senator Hill pointed out in his paper, the private utilities have not suffered. I mentioned a few minutes ago this act of 1939, when Mr. Willkie, who then was president of the holding company for these power companies down here, testified on this act which he advocated our passing. I remember very well at that time the stock of the power company which served this area was selling for approximately 50 cents on the dollar. It would be interesting to know just what it is selling for today. But within a year's time after we had passed that act, that stock was up to par or better.

The private companies have profited by the example that has been set by the TVA in power operations.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we could go on on that quite fully. I would be very happy to take more time to discuss all of these things. However, you have been most generous with us. Senator Hill has covered the subject so adequately that I shall not take more of your time, except simply to say this: I am amazed that from an expenditure of $430,000 of the taxpayers' money this is what we get. I think, Mr. Chairman, that not only would it not achieve the purpose for which the Commission was set up, that is, bringing greater efficiency and