Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I know there has been an offer made to bring 60 witnesses here for this project from different parts of the country.

Mr. SMITH. I agree if you are going to restrict people if you can stop them in advance. But if they did come here with the understanding that they could testify, I think we should make some allowance for them.

Mr. BLATNIK. Could we agree perhaps this way: That we set a time limit, whatever Mr. Ellis has to present, of perhaps half an hour or whatever it may be, or an hour, whatever the committee wishes or at the chairman's pleasure, and let them file their statements and make a brief oral statement, only where there is no repetition, to point out how the impact of the project is important to their particular community? It may be different to the rural life of Pennsylvania than say up in Vermont.

Mr. DONDERO. Would half an hour cover it?

Mr. ELLIS. We will complete in that time, Mr. Dondero, if that is the time allotted.

Mr. DONDERO. I am only suggesting that to the chairman. That maybe would be a way out: to have 30 minutes for that group, and then file your statements.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, that would be about 4 minutes for each speaker.

Mr. ELLIS. We would try to work out some arrangement, Mr. Chairman, to not present that many.

The CHAIRMAN. We will try to arrange it so you go on the first thing tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. ELLIS. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing else, we will now adjourn. (Thereupon, at 12:55 p. m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Thursday, March 1, 1951.)

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1951

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:05 a. m., Hon. Charles A. Buckley (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting is called to order. The last witness yesterday was Mr. Ellis and associates, representing the rural electric cooperatives. Mr. Ellis stated that he had eight other witnesses here to testify. I understand that arrangements have been made that Mr. Ellis and the eight other witnesses could take up 4 minutes' time for each witness, inasmuch as they were to speak yesterday and we have other speakers scheduled for today to follow them. Mr. Ellis, you might proceed.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dondero.

Mr. DONDERO. The other day a question was raised as to whether or not this project had been voted on. I think my able friend from Ohio, Mr. McGregor, believed it had been voted on and defeated.

I had the clerk of the committee, Mr. McGann, look up the record, and he has given me this information in that regard. It is very short and I will read it.

The vote on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Deep Waterway Treaty in the United States Senate, March 14, 1934: Yeas, 46; nays, 42. Sce Congressional Record of March 14, 1934, page 4474.

The vote, including pairs, was 49 yeas to 43 nays.

On February 22, 1933, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, by a vote of 15 to 5, favorably reported the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Treaty to the United States Senate, and upon the recommendation of the State Department and the War Department, approved the proposed Federal-State accord. No other action was taken excepting that.

Mr. MCGREGOR. If I may interrupt, you are referring to the treaty. This is not a treaty, this is a resolution. At least, some people are contending this is not a treaty. If this is a treaty this committee has no authority to consider it.

Mr. DONDERO. I am not contending that this is a treaty or that this is a resolution. What I am contending is that this is an answer to your statement that this project had been defeated. It has never been defeated. A treaty requires a two-thirds vote, and for that rea son the treaty was defeated in the Senate, but there never was a vote in the House.

Mr. McGREGOR. Are you contending this is a treaty?

Mr. DONDERO. No.

Mr. McGREGOR. Then I still stand by my statement.

Mr. PICKETT. Was there not a proceeding in 1948 where the matter was before the Senate in the form of a resolution, and there was a motion to recommit offered, and the motion to recommit carried?

Mr. DONDERO. That is correct.

Mr. McGREGOR. That is correct; and it was sent back to the committee, which certainly defeated it.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear from Mr. Ellis now.

STATEMENT OF CLYDE T. ELLIS, EXECUTIVE MANAGER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we appreciate your hearing us in this regard.

First I want to call your attention to the fact that our people have consistently for several years voted to support the St. Lawrence development. Recently we had a national meeting of 4,000 of our farm leaders from throughout the country at Cleveland. That was last month. Senator Tobey, by the way, was there and spoke on the St. Lawrence. Our people again passed a resolution unanimously supporting the St. Lawrence.

The rural electrification program is having its hardest struggle in the St. Lawrence area, and that includes, as we term it, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England. The hardest struggle in American for rural electrification is there, partly because the rates are so high. We are having to pay 13% mills for wholesale power by comparison with about 8.9 as an average throughout the United States. Several of our cooperatives are in very bad shape because of that high rate.

Assuming that we might get a rate as low as the TVA rate if St. Lawrence became a reality-and the TVA rate is higher than we pay for Federal power on the average in the country-our systems in the St. Lawrence area would have saved the farmers $1,130,000 last year. Thirty-six percent of our systems in the St. Lawrence area know that they do not have enough power in sight now. Fifty percent of them report they have restrictions on the use of the power they do buy. The companies tell them to whom they may sell it, or limit the amount which they may sell.

Nationally, 85 percent of the farmers now have electricity. In the St. Lawrence area in the areas that we serve only 73 percent of the farmers have electricity.

Once, when this program started, we stood near the top of the list in this area, but now the program is lagging.

Now, gentlemen, that is all I want to say at this moment.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Chairman, May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Angell.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Ellis, you say your organization favors this project. Are you in favor of section 5 of the resultion which turns the facilities over to New York State?

Mr. ELLIS. We are not happy about that, Mr. Angell. We would rather have it with that than not to have the St. Lawrence.

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two when it comes my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larcade.

Mr. LARCADE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pickett. Mr. PICKETT. There is evidence in the record here that the estimate is the St. Lawrence power project will produce about 700,000 kilowatts of continuous power. I think that is a correct statement of the record. In your survey of the situation, to what extent would that amount of power reduce the rate to the consumer in the area to be served by that power?

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Pickett. I believe our people would prefer Federal transmission lines, because we have had better success with getting rate reductions with them, but, with or without them, the rural electric systems would be preference customers, I assume, under the law, as has been true throughout the basic laws of the various projects. To that extent there ought to be very substantial rate reductionswe have been hoping for more than 50 percent for the rural electric systems. That would still be a relatively high rate in the country.

Mr. PICKETT. Of course, I certainly would join you in the hope you would arrive at a 50-percent reduction if it is constructed, but I have in mind that Mr. Burton of the New York Power Authority on yesterday testified that his estimate would be a 10-percent reduction in cost to the consumer over the area if the systems were all integrated. I just wondered if your cooperative group had made a study in order to make your own estimate as to what the reduction would be?

Mr. ELLIS. No, sir, Mr. Pickett. There would be several factors that would have to be applied, but we think our experience is probably as good as anything we can rely upon. In my State of Arkansas and your State of Texas, and other States, the rates came down very substantially; in my own area more than 50 percent when this Federal power became available there.

Mr. PICKETT. Of course, that would be true, Mr. Ellis, and I think we all recognize that. That was controlled largely by the amount of new power that was made available in proportion to the amount that was in existence previous. Is that correct?

Mr. ELLIS. I concede that that is a large factor.

Mr. PICKETT. And with 700,000 kilowatts of power added to an area that has as great a demand as this one, it would not be a materially great addition to the power demand, would it, Mr. Ellis?

Mr. ELLIS. Well, it would not be as great as it is in the Southwest, for instance.

Mr. PICKETT. Yes.

Mr. ELLIS. But the fact that the rural electric systems would be preference customers, we hope would tend to offset that.

Mr. PICKETT. Now, under the theory that has been advanced by the New York Power Authority, which I understand to be that they would purchase, own, and operate the generating facilities and, of course, the delivery or transmission of the power would be under their direction if section 5 is adopted-under that theory as I recall it, it would not be done under the Federal Power Act. Were you present when he testified?

Mr. ELLIS. I was.

Mr. PICKETT. Am I correct in my recollection of the thesis on which he proceeded?

Mr. ELLIS. I believe that is the way I understood it.

Mr. PICKETT. Then the availability of this power would not mean that it would be given to you folks under the preference that the Federal Power Act gives you, does it, Mr. Ellis?