For the record, I would like to quote the costs paid for power by REA co-ops to private power companies in the Northeast and the Southeast States during 1949, as follows:

Mills per
kilowatt-

Mills per

kilowatt

Could we in Pennsylvania have purchased our power at the Georgia figure of 6.3 mills per kilowatt-hour, we would have saved $634,500 during 1950. This saving would have more than paid our amortization payments to the REA for the year.

Now, we in the Pennyslvania association, know that we are securing areacoverage, rural electrification for our State by our cooperation and through the REA program. We are determined to complete this program, to amortize our loans in full, and to secure better electric rates for our members. To do this, as we see it, it is necessary to provide large blocks of low-cost hydro power in our part of the Nation. We feel certain that the development of the St. Lawrence power project will break this monopoly by putting a large block of cheap power in the hands of the people of the area.

Three of our cooperatives should benefit directly by securing their entire supply of power from the St. Lawrence project. We believe that all 13 of our co-ops will, along with all residents of the Northeast, benefit from this vast source of cheap power. We therefore respectfully ask your favorable consideration of this project at this time.

Thank you.

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, you and the committee have been more than liberal with us. In view of the agreement we had yesterday that we would not take more than 30 minutes, we are going to offer to close our presentation at this time.

We would like to ask your permission to insert into the record the statements of the other witnesses. They are all short. I think none exceeds two pages.

The CHAIRMAN. How many more are there? Three?

Mr. ELLIS. Three, I believe, sir. We expected two from New England who did not get here. I guess their plane is grounded, or something.

The CHAIRMAN. They may insert their statements in the record. Mr. ELLIS. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Give me the names of those witnesses.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes. Mr. Thomas, Mr. McKinley, Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Dassance, and Mr. Smith, who have prepared statements. The CHAIRMAN. They may present their statements, and they will be inserted in the record.

(The statements of the above-mentioned witnesses are as follows:) STATEMENT OF ALFRED J. DASSANCE, MEMBER, STEUBEN RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, BATH, N. Y.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here as a connected member of the Steuben Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., of Bath, N. Y., and as a representative of the other 1,300 members of this cooperative. We are all in hopes that you will see fit to develop the St. Lawrence power project so that we may expand our use of electricity without the cost of the electricity being a hardship to us. At the present time we are paying considerably more for the same amount of electricity than the consumers of other electric utilities in this area, while at the same time receiving only the same price for our products as customers of other electric utilities.

I feel sure that if the St. Lawrence project could be developed and the cost and the amount of our electricity available could be in line with the other utilities, we could expand our use of electricity to the advantage and benefit of everyone of us now connected members and could extend the electric service to some of our neighbors that the scarcity and cost of the electric power now prohibits. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF W. J. MCDANEL, BUTLER COUNTY, PA., DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PARKER, PA.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I own and operate a 240-acre farm in Butler County, Pa., and am in beef and pork production, now having 70 Hereford cattle and 45 Berkshire hogs, and have for the immediate 30 years past operated my farm in dairy production.

In 1934 I tried to secure electric service from existing power company's present line to my farm, a distance of 1.4 miles, and found that I must guarantee the then prohibitive rate, for me, of $30.50 per month for 7 years.

After 3 years of fruitless effort to get this lowered, during which time REA was born, I turned to cooperative efforts and secured it, serving since that time as a director in our cooperative and helping many of my neighbors to secure service not considered feasible to existing utilities.

We purchase wholesale power from existing power company's generation and while our consumption has increased, so has our power cost. From a layman's viewpoint I have always believed that with a major increase of power consumption such as ours, we should have lower power cost for so has been our national average, though to our disappointment this has not been our condition, and with this in view we are determined to find a lower source of power cost, even to securing funds for generation and transmission, and to that end have formed a State-wide generation and transmission cooperative for this purpose.

We are exploring a number of these possibilities and are deeply interested in the development of the St. Lawrence hydro project, that while we may not be direct purchasers of kilowatt-hours from it, in event of its construction we believe that its development may prove an incentive to utilize our presently wasted natural resources of hydro power within our own State, not to the extent of discouraging private power interests, as I believe this generation will never see a surplus of power to that extent, but as proven in other areas, give our industries better opportunities for further expansion and give us farmers a better future market for our production.

Therefore, gentlemen, we strongly urge the Public Works Committee to render a favorable report on this measure.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. MCKINLEY, MANAGER, CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PARKER, PA.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am William C. McKinley, manager of the Central Electric Cooperative, Inc., located at Parker, Pa. I have been associated with the cooperative in various capacities since March 9, 1938, and have helped to develop our enterprise from one pole to 1,668.78 miles of distribution line which is located in the counties of Butler, Armstrong, Clarion, Venango, and Forest. We are serving approximately 8,000 homes in this rural area, which never enjoyed the benefits and conveniences of electric service until rescued through their own initiative by securing electric service for themselves in securing a loan from the Rural Electrification Administration.

We anticipate that our ultimate system will consist of 1,900 miles of distribution line, and serving 10,000 members. As a system, we anticipate buying three times as much power as we do today. From the very beginning the cooperative's power cost has been the largest operating factor, and one of our major problems. Our cooperative is served by the utilities which are located in the area of the best coal deposits in the United States, therefore we should reasonably expect to secure wholesale power at a rate considerably less than the average (9.6 mills) charged by utilities not so favorably located.

During the year of 1946 the cooperative purchased 7,676,000 kilowatt-hours, and for the year of 1950, 17,539,600 kilowatt-hours were bought, which represents an increase of 130 percent.

The average monthly consumption per member for 1946 was 101 kilowatthours. The consumption per member for 1950 increased to 192 kilowatt-hours, or an increase of 91 percent per member.

The average cost per kilowatt-hour to the cooperative from 1946 through 1950 has increased 48.6 percent. Kilowatt-hours purchased for 1950 alone meant an increased cost of $52,618.80 to the cooperative.

In the year of 1946, the power supplier was paid $47,546.26 for wholesale power as compared to $161,630.48 during 1950, or an increase of $114,084.22, which is nearly two and one-half times more.

Being located in the great industrial area of the Northeast, where we have one of the largest undeveloped sources of cheap hydroelectric power in this country, I feel that our wholesale power rates are excessively higher as compared to the cost of wholesale power available from similar projects which have been developed in other areas of the United States.

In view of the fact that a cheap source of power could be made available which would mean so much to our rural and urban people, and also for industry old and new. I sincerely hope that the committee and Congress will give this matter favorable approval.

STATEMENT OF WESLEY S. THOMAS, MANAGER, SULLIVAN COUNTY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., FORKSVILLE, PA., AND SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Wesley S. Thomas, manager of the Sullivan County Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., located at Forksville, Sullivan County, Pa. My tenure with this cooperative covers a period of 13 years, dating back to the early development of rural electric distribution lines in the area. In addition, my activities as secretary to the Pennsylvania Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives have given me an opportunity to witness the growth of rural electrification in the Keystone State and adjacent

areas.

The cooperative area which I represent can be considered as submarginal when compared with the national average of agricultural economy. In fact, Sullivan County's agricultural economy is rated as 25 percent of the national average. However, we do have a limited number of highly productive dairy farms and considerable acreages producing high-quality potatoes, together with poultry and eggs helping to bolster farm income.

The electricity made available by the Sullivan County cooperative, together with that from two other electric cooperatives in northeastern Pennsylvania, has contributed much to the agricultural stabilization of the area. Electric power is purchased by the three northeastern Pennsylvania cooperatives from the Northern Pennsylvania Power Co., Towanda, Pa. This is not a generating company, but they purchase their requirements and wholesale needs from the New York State Gas & Electric Co., who in turn purchase about 40 percent of their energy from Niagara-Hudson, with 60 percent of its supply steam- and Diesel-generated by its own facilities.

This method of supply is creating a wholesale cost to the northeastern Pennsylvania cooperatives of 14.4 mills per kilowatt-hour, which stands unusually high as compared with wholesale electric rates in the Tennessee Valley and the southwestern and northwestern areas of the United States.

We in northeastern Pennsylvania are within feasible transmission distances of the much-needed St. Lawrence River hydropower project. This power can be made available to the various load centers for less than 6 mills per kilowatt-hour. The St. Lawrence supply would have saved my co-op over $26,100 during the past year alone.

The cooperatives in this area have endeavored to carry out the spirit and intent of the Rural Electrification Act as provided by Congress, but they face many problems in their efforts to make electricity available to unserved areas. Forests, rough terrain, high cost of materials and labor, together with the low consumer density per mile of line, makes economic justification in many cases impossible.

My own area at this time is only 75 percent electrified. Continued extension of electric service, if provided on a sound basis, will be contingent upon a lowering of electric power costs. The St. Lawrence River holds a firm flow of water capable of supplying a tremendous volume of inexpensive electrical energy for the powerdeficient New England area and the ever-increasing demands of agriculture and industry in the northeastern United States.

81181-51-pt. 1-26

The national security and economy would be substantially and materially improved by the construction of the St. Lawrence project, and in behalf of the area and the interest I represent I sincerely recommend that the committee and Congress give this matter favorable consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stong.

STATEMENT OF BENTON J. STONG, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Mr. STONG. My name is Stong. I am chairman of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Chairman, since I prepared this brief statement, there was an editorial cartoon in the Washington Post on the farm topic which I want to discuss, and I have attached a copy of it to several copies of the statement which will be distributed to the committee.

The Farmers Union is for the St. Lawrence seaway. Our representatives have testified for it on a number of occasions, and I shall not repeat all the testimony but confine myself to a very urgent matter.

As of January 31 of this year our great Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association at St. Paul, Minn., reported 350 country elevators in its territory as plugged full of wheat, unable to get boxcars to move the wheat out to terminal elevators, and consequently unable to receive wheat from farmers who are holding it on the farm in inadequate storage.

The boxcar situation has been more critical this year than ever before. Wheat has been longer moving to market. Unfortunately, the movement of wheat was behind schedule this winter when it became necessary to move corn of high moisture content, which must be handled during cold weather to minimize spoilage, further delaying wheat movement.

In addition to whatever savings it may bring to the wheat producers of the spring-wheat area, the St. Lawrence waterway is urgently needed to help provide more adequate transportation facilities for the movement of the grain. The completion of the St. Lawrence waterway should bring considerable relief in this situation, permitting boxcars to be routed from the wheat area to lake ports and returned immediately to the wheat area instead of some of them moving on to eastern markets. It should also decrease the requirement for cars for grain at Buffalo, where many lake barges are now unloaded, their cargo transferred to rail and shipped on east.

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Agriculture, in compliance with our mobilization requirements, has asked the spring-wheat farmers of this Nation to increase their acreage this year, 1951, by several million acres over 1950. The exact figure on that, Mr. Chairman, is that in 1950 our spring-wheat acreage was 18,905,000 acres. In the 1951 Guide it was announced by the Department of Agriculture as 21,400,000 acres, or an increase of approximately 2,500,000 acres. That has been requested of farmers in the face of this transportation situation.

Mr. DONDERO. Is that because of the shortage of wheat?

Mr. STONG. Because of inadequate supplies for prospective demand as a result of mobilization.

Mr. DONDERO. The reason I asked that is we are asked to ship 2,000,000 tons of wheat to India.

Mr. STONG. I think unquestionably an increase in acreage was requested because of the need for wheat for that type of foreign aid.

Unquestionably there will be many farmers who will hesitate to expand their wheat production because of lack of adequate transportation facilities to move their grain to market. In the past few years many thousands of farmers have taken their wheat to the local elevator and found it plugged and unable to receive their grain. In thousands of instances there was nothing to do but put the wheat on the ground and take a loss. Inadequate transportation is consequently a bottleneck of wheat production at a time when we need all-out production. Farmers need assurance that if they increase plantings they can get their product marketed. Increase in the rate of building of new boxcars has not kept up to schedules indicated to farmers. We were promised 10,000 new cars a month by last fall, but production had reached only 5,900 in January.

Obviously, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway will, by providing improved transportation facilities to the Atlantic, help to break this bottleneck in critical agricultural production. Authorization of the project will be assurance that this relief is on the way.

Farmers are, of course, interested in the low-cost electric power which may be developed from the St. Lawrence and in the transportation made available for ore. They are concerned that this Nation be made as strong and productive as is possible. We have discussed those matters, tolls, and other phases in previous statements to the committee, and I shall not now repeat.

We urge you to approve the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larcade.

Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman one question in respect to the statement which he presented to the committee. That is, is it not a fact that inadequate storage facilities also contributed to the situation that you mentioned in your statement with respect to wheat?

Mr. STONG. Yes. More adequate storage facilities and community elevators and terminal elevators would be quite helpful. The Department of Agriculture has had a storage program. I think you will recall the Eightieth Congress liquidated a great many of the grain bins. Storage would help to solve the problems. Storage would help to solve the problem of the movement of the wheat east also. Mr. McGREGOR. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. LARCADE. Yes.

Mr. MCGREGOR. Is it not a fact that at the time you mentioned, in the Eightieth Congress, the Agriculture Department was selling to anyone who wanted to buy corn bins and wheat bins? Many were purchased in my home community.

Mr. STONG. I suspect they were selling some. They were eliminating some inefficient locations, but it is my recollection that there was what amounted to a congressional instruction to dispose of most of the storage space.

Mr. McGREGOR. Is it not also a fact that the Congress has granted the money that was requested by the Department of Agriculture for elevators and bins and, in fact, the location of bins where the local farmers could use them in order to take care of local and immediate needs?

Mr. STONG. That is correct. We are catching up.

Mr. McGREGOR. You are a representative of the Farmers Union, and I believe you are associated with the CIO. Is that not correct?