under recommendation No. 1 would have drastic effect upon the TVA. Item (h):

That all Federal agencies administering revenue-producing water resource and power projects should pay all cash revenues to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, and receive an annual appropriation for cash operating expenditures— is the first of these. You folks are perhaps more familiar with the effect of this provision on the TVA than I am. But I will point out that as you know it would be destructive of all Government corporations, and the TVA in particular, for these entities were set up for the very purpose of delegating administrative authority to hands devoted to the specific task. The effect of this item would be to place Congress in the business of administering not only the TVA, but every other Federal corporation. Members of Congress would be excessively burdened and it would be indeed an impossibility for them to adequately inform themselves to intelligently administer the affairs that would thus be brought before them. Moreover, it would open up the TVA and other Government corporations to a paralyzing interference on the part of anyone in either House of Congress who, for whatever reason, might want irresponsibly to throw a monkey wrench into their operations.

Item (i):

That regulation of rates for sale of electrical energy by all Federal agencies be vested in the Federal Power Commission.

That is a serious mistake, we think, and a pious disguise for the real pocket picking planned for the people of this country in this Hoover report. This item is a respectable and indirect fashion of getting at the real purpose, aim, and intention that animates the task-force study and report. Item (i) is unmistakably aimed at the removal of the "resale clause" from the TVA Act, and thus to remove from the American scene the idea of public yardstick power production and effective regulation for the rates of the public utilities of this country.

Now, members of the committee, if anyone has any uncertainty about the intention and the significance of that language, let me refer him to the key, the pony, the jack that translates it into more specific and meaningful terms. I refer to volume I of the task-force report on water resources and power. And in that report I will cite the 13th recommendation, the part designated 13.7. I quote:

That the Congress enact legislation to repeal the so-called preference clause from all legislation wherein it appears, and substitute a provision that no purchaser of federally generated power shall receive more than a fair return from the resale thereof, and further enact legislation to prohibit Federal agencies from fixing resale rates except to the extent that these may come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission.

In other words, prohibit the TVA resale clause. The proposal is arrogant and ridiculous.

Members of the committee, in recommendation 13.7 an effort is being made to turn back to a period which saw not only the people, fate, and fortune turn against the political leadership, but 20 years of history itself recorded proof of the error. In this action you have the nurtured wound of a group who would turn back the clock in a fantastic effort to rub out the past and pretend that it never happened to rub out the proof of the mistakes that they are still unwilling to admit were made.

These recommendations are aimed at bringing to an end 20 years of national progress under the inspiration of the TVA idea that has brought to this whole country an average reduction-to this whole country, and not to the TVA area alone-in its electric rates of 60 percent; but there had to be a yardstick by which the reduction could be measured and to inspire it in the first place, a reduction accomplished in the face of inflation and a generally increasing range of prices. These recommendations are aimed, blindly or not, at an era of low-cost and abundant electric power.

Members of the committee, the age we live in bears a complex appearance and I was about to add, sometimes a counterfeit one-for we know that in much that appears to us on the official face of things there is deception.

Impressive entitlements, scholarly language, and distinguished format in the presentation of congressional reports are no proof of worthy public purpose and no security against the machinations of devious, selfish interests in this country. We are none so simple that we do not know that entrenched predatory interests may parade before us in imposingly respectable literary habiliments. At all events, to reach a realistic opinion of the validity of any report presented to the Congress by a putative research and study group it is profitable to have firsthand knowledge of the way in which the examination was conducted, and information on the interests and prejudices of the individual men who make up the group reporting.

I say this with this understanding, talking to an honorable group representing the United States Congress: Even if you should agree 100 percent with the report which was brought in by that group because of some honest conviction on their part that that is what should be done, I ask you to search your conscience and your mind and sense of fair play as we look at the task force itself and its membership.

Some 17 months ago the water resources and power task force of the Hoover Commission made their appearance in Chattanoga, Tenn. Although I am happy that this testimony today will be made available to the entire group individually and collectively, I wish to remind you as a matter of ethics that I stood before that group, as I am before you today, and testified. I told them what I thought in as courteous a manner as I could--they were meeting in my State-of the fact that we were not represented and I did not think the people were represented on their group. So this will come as no surprise to the task force that I feel this way, since I told them that face to face.

This group, headed by Adm. Ben Moreell, held a hearing there lasting 2 days. I was one among the 35 or 40 witnesses appearing before this group. A number of other witnesses from the valley were also sympathetic toward the TVA and presented facts to support our position. There were others present from outside the valley who were openly hostile toward the TVA. This, of course, was not unusual. The unusual circumstance in the situation was in the open disaffection and even hostility toward the TVA evidenced by Admiral Moreell and many other members of the task force.

We felt like a prisoner must feel on trial, being tried for something he does not feel he is guilty of, and facing a jury picked to try him and facing 12 men

Mr. JONES. Governor, have you seen the news report of the admiral's speech over at White Sulphur Springs, in which he said that public power was a fraud and a delusion?

Governor CLEMENT. Yes, sir. I was not surprised at it and at his attitude, but I think it is shocking proof of the very thing I am trying to prove here today, Congressman Jones. As I said, I think we felt like a prisoner of this public power shortage-a prisoner who feels he is innocent and asks only a fair trial and sits there and watches the prosecuting attorney keep moving around the courtroom until they have 12 people who are pledged to convict. That is just about the way we felt at the hands of this task force.

I will say this for their honor. They made no secret of their attitude, as I am going to show here in a minute. They were asked to serve on a group, and this group is one group that you have to give credit for this. They may have made their report in a devious way, but they certainly did not take their seats as members of this task force with any deception surrounding them. The world knew where they stood. That attitude became explicable to us, however, upon examination of their background. We found that various members of the task force had openly spoken their opposition in previously uttered public statements.

To begin with, it would be well to remember that Mr. Hoover, the Commission head, as President of the United States in 1931, vetoed one of the early TVA bills. And just before he accepted the chairmanship of the Commission in question he said in a public speech assailing public power, and I quote:

The object of the whole proceeding should be to get the Federal Government out of the business of generating and distributing power as soon as possible. And in doing this, he then set forth his blueprint, of which the Commission in question and the task force were to be an important part.

Moreover, the head of the task force, Admiral Moreell, said on November 10, 1952, in an earlier statement than that which the Congressman just referred to, in an address entitled "To CommunismVia Majority Vote," and I quote him:

The policy is now for Government to take land from private owners, and in strict accord with Marx's doctrine, to use it for public purposes. The public purposes may be an irrigation or flood-control district, a Tennessee Valley Authority, or a Bonneville power project, forest land and oil reserve or any one of a number of others.

I am sure you can understand how we felt with the head of the task force looking in on our problems to see what he could do to help us and saying that we are proceeding in the TVA strictly according to Marx's doctrine. There you have some revealing words from the admiral relative to his attitude on conservation in general as well as public generation of power.

Other members of the task force have indicated their prejudices also. Let us look at a few of them.

W. W. Horner, in a paper in the Journal of the American Water Works Association, July 1946, said, in speaking of the TVA act— I quote, and with implications which I am sure will be apparent to

you:

The other provisions of the bill seem to have been based on assumption that the Tennessee Valley had a degraded population, one incapable of looking after

itself and probably incapable of improving its condition even in the light of the development proposed.

I do not think that the people of New England are a degraded population. I think they are as fine a people as there are on the face of the earth. They do not have a TVA and may not want one, and I am not suggesting they should have one. But I do But I do say this-and we are sorry to have to say it-their homes have been flooded recently, but they are not a degraded people now because their homes were flooded and they were not able to do something to prevent it.

Governor Bracken Lee, of Utah, in a statement introduced before the Senate Committee on Public Works on proposals for a Columbia Valley Administration, declared:

Utah is definitely opposed to a Columbia Valley Administration, or any other such form of authority.

I respect the Governor's right to feel that way, but am merely citing this statement in the light of his statement.

Leslie A. Miller, of Wyoming, in Reader's Digest, August 1950, in an article entitled "What Does CVA Mean to You?" and subtitled "Prime Example of Creeping Socialism," contends that CVA (Columbia Valley Authority) is

just one more step in an ambitious effort to socialize the electric power industry as a big stride toward socialism.

Harry W. Morrison, of Boise, Idaho, said in the monthly publication of his big contracting firm:

The Interior Department of the Truman administration, backed by political pressure of those who long have urged the imposition on the prosperous Northwest of a CVA patterned after the dictatorial and tax-free TVA that destroyed private-enterprise power interests in Tennessee and neighboring States, while creating a degree of sectional prosperity at the expense of all the Nation's taxpayers.

He did agree, whether he meant to or not, that we had enjoyed some prosperity with TVA.

Harry E. Polk, of Williston, N. Dak., in a speech at the meeting of the National Reclamation Association at Amarillo, Tex., in 1951, in speaking of "the threats of valley authorities," declared there that advocates of an MVA (Missouri Valley Authority) had introduced three bills

seeking this dictatorial scheme of control of all the water resources of a great river basin

and warned against substitutes, saying:

While called by some other name, they are not less socialistic in their aim. Arthur B. Roberts, consulting engineer, of Cleveland, Ohio, in the January 1935 issue of the Electric Light and Power, wrote an article purporting to show that the TVA rates applied to Tupelo, Miss., did not produce sufficient revenues to cover costs if applied by public systems in Seattle, Wash., and Cleveland, Ohio.

I know that Tupelo had not even completed a full year's operation when the article was written. If the gentleman had only gone on a little further and corrected himself he would have found that it did make a profit the first year.

Robert W. Sawyer, of Bend, Oreg., appeared several times before. congressional committees in opposition to bills providing for CVA and MVA.

William D. Shannon, Seattle, Wash., in the Principle of Sound Water Policy, along with the other engineers on this task force who were members of the task committee on hydroelectric power set up by Engineers Joint Council, expressed the view that

Federal power in excess of the needs of the Government, itself, should be marketed only at wholesale.

And

such power should be sold without priorities or preferences, in any respect, to any purchasers, consumers, or class thereof.

And, to show you we are trying to be fair about it, it was Charles L. Andrews of Memphis, Tenn.'s lone representative on this task force, who said at the time of his appointment:

I am a strong advocate of free enterprise and feel that TVA has gone too far afield.

And later:

I have always felt the principle of TVA is wrong; it is socialistic in that it is Government in business interfering with private enterprise.

To you distinguished Congressmen we speak of majority rule or, even if you want to put the majority in the minority, we speak of just representation. Mr. Charles L. Andrews is a very fine man, I am sure, but he is a member of one of the smallest minorities you can locate in Tennessee. You cannot find any minority group in Tennessee that is as small in comparison to the whole as those who agree-just straight out agree that TVA people are socialistic. Yet we were very generously provided with a representative on this task force Commission. By looking over the State delicately they found him.

I want to congratulate whoever selected people like this from our State. Again I say Mr. Andrews is a fine man and a man who will stand up and say what he thinks. However, whoever did the selecting ought to be put to work for the FBI, because they are detectives, being able to find people like this.

Our people in the vast majority are not of that opinion. You have to hunt in Tennessee to find people who are just openly against the TVA system. They hunted and found somebody and put him on the task force to represent us and 31% million Tennesseans. And they talk about majority rule.

I am addressing myself now to you folks with your understanding. I know some of you are bound to have some very definite tendencies toward the substance of the report, but let us just look at who made up the group that made this report and at how well we were not represented.

Mr. JONES. You want the jury polled?

Governor CLEMENT. I will tell you this: There was no need of finding out before the jury took their seats what the poll would show, Congressman. There was no need for a poll.

And on the other side of the question, members of the committee, diligent search has not revealed that any member of the task force has ever spoken publicly sympathetically about TVA—or even understandingly about TVA-and again I told them so in Chattanooga. I felt it was only fair to do so.

These facts become even more relevant in view of the recent comment by the Chairman of this Commission, the Honorable Herbert