Senator BURTON. You are not picking out principally the Arkansas and the White Rivers, but you say in general navigation should have priority?

Senator MCCLELLAN. I would think so, Senator. I was trying to come within the Constitution and the authority of Congress by writing the bill that way, and there are great navigation benefits on these streams. That is not of minor importance at all, but in the construction of these dams, why, I emphasize flood control. If the dams are constructed primarily for power, the flood-control benefits are irrevocably lost, because we must depend on these dams to make a contribution to the control of floods. It has been found that levees alone in most cases, or many cases, will not suffice. We just cannot build them strong enough to hold.

Senator BURTON. Is it not an established principle of law at this time that flood control and navigation are in class 1, and hydroelectric power and irrigation are in class 2?

Senator MCCLELLAN. No, sir; it is not. It is my understanding that it is not. I am not trying to deal with other streams. You might have streams and basins and there might be sections of this basin. where irrigation ought to come first. But down in our section of the valley certainly we want flood protection. In the upper regions, it has been suggested-Senator Johnson of Colorado in that connection has introduced an amendment to this bill in which he makes no changes in the bill as introduced by me except to make it apply primarily to the lower Arkansas River. He names it the lower Arkansas River Basin and would limit its application to all areas south or east of the one hundredth meridian. Personally, I don't know that I would have any objection to such an amendment. In that area they have too little water, and the more you can hold back up there the less problem we have, because our problem is too much water. I would not want this bill in any way to jeopardize the interest or harm the interest of those who depend on and need irrigation from these streams, but when you get down in my section, in my State, what we need is to keep the water out of us.

Senator BURTON. The point I wanted to get clear is that your bill is limited to two basins, and Senator Clark of Missouri recently stated he was going to introduce a measure comparable to this, applicable to the whole country.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, I didn't undertake, or try particularly to set up a program for the whole Nation. I realize what might serve one particular locality or one basin might not exactly fit another, but I do believe this bill deals with our problem as will best serve us and provide the greatest benefit.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to construct necessary transmission lines and facilities, and so forth, and also to sell and dispose of such electric power wholesale as is not necessary for it own use. I am attempting in this bill to set up a power policy. May I say to the committee that we have some projects down there under course of construction, the Norfolk Dam, for instance, which will soon be completed and ready to start generating power on the White River, and there is no policy, no legislative policy with respect to the disposition and sale of that power. It will be admin

istered when they begin generating it under an Executive order, but that Executive order only applies for the duration. They cannot make a contract for the sale of that power and distribution of it for a period of time beyond the duration of the war. Still, we are going to come to the end of the war some day without any legislative policy with respect to the distribution of power.

Senator BURTON. This is again limited to these projects in this area. The distribution of power would stand as a precedent, in many other cases, would it not? It would be difficult to distinguish one area from another?

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes, sir; I think it would somewhat set a precedent. There would be nothing compulsory about following it in other basins, but it does possibly set a precedent, at least for this particular basin, and as I have said in the beginning, I was not necessarily trying to place a control over other areas, but if they want to follow it, it will have my support.

Senator BURTON. But this would be rather a general policy to crowd into a flood-control bill. I can see why you have introduced it as a separate bill rather than tacking it on as an amendment to the flood-control bill.

Senator MCCLELLAN. When I introduced this I could not see what would happen with respect to the flood-control bill, but I have read the flood-control bill and I see no reason why this could not go in as an amendment.

Senator BURTON. Well, it would involve a debate on the floor of the Senate as to distribution of power from all power plants in the country.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It might to some extent, Senator. I can foresee that but, after all, if this is the way we want to handle our power down in that particular area, I don't see why possibly other sections of the Nation would particularly object to it when they still have the right to deal with theirs by legislation, as I am undertaking to do with this, in any way they want to. I think, however, this would have a good general policy for the whole Nation.

Second, to dispose of or sell at wholesale this electric energy to public bodies or cooperatives operating primarily for service to the public rather than for profit, particularly to rural cooperatives financed by the Rural Electrification Administration and to private corporations or persons, in that order of preference.

That preference is by the act fixed now as a matter of policy.

I want to call your attention to this, the importance of the construction of these projects from the standpoint of flood control. According to the best information I have, the projects now authorized by the Congress when completed would refute the flood hazards of these two streams approximately 50 percent; and, with other projects in the comprehensive program that is anticipated to be made later, if approved by the Congress the reduction in flood losses will probably amount to from 80 to 85 percent.

Now, with respect to the bill, reports have been filed by the Secretary of War, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Federal Power Commission, and by the Budget-the Secretary of the Budget. I will not go into great detail regarding these reports. Some amendments are suggested, but I have looked at the reports of the Army

engineers. They returned a copy of the bill with some-one particularly suggested amendment, and I would have no objection to that amendment. It deals with the storage for irrigation and navigation purposes. Then they suggested one or two amendments, which are just a change of wording, and which are all right. The Secretary of the Interior recommends the bill and I quote from his report:

I recommend that the bill be enacted

and further, in commenting on the measure, he says

it seems appropriate for me to state that I consider the basic plan and objective of the bill to be timely; the bill would provide a policy and a framework for the prosecution of an integrated efficient program of water control and utilization in the basins of the White and Arkansas Rivers.

Senator BURTON. Of course, he was writing of a separate bill. He didn't have the issue before him of whether it should be put in as a separate flood-control bill. He didn't attempt to cover that point? Senator MCCLELLAN. No; that point is not covered in any of the reports. Usually if they approve the principles of the bill it indicates they would have no objection, whether the bill was enacted as an amendment or a separate flood-control bill. It would have no effect on any other projects in the bill.

Senator BURTON. It might hold up all the other flood-control projects.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I don't see why it should. No construction is going to be done until the appropriations are made by the Congress. Senator BURTON. I meant because of its controversial character. Senator MCCLELLAN. Its controversial character? Senator BURTON. And its widespread application.

Senator MCCLELLAN. My thought is this: Some day Congress ought to take responsibility for settling some policy. We are authorizing millions of dollars on all the streams of the Nation and nobody knows today who is administering these projects; we are generating power but we cannot make contracts

Senator BURTON. I am not disputing that point. I was just trying to feel my way along as to its effect as an amendment to a floodcontrol bill such as we have here.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes, sir. The Secretary of Agriculture is very favorable in his report on the measure and they point out the benefits that agriculture will derive from it. The Federal Power Commission will request certain amendments. They rather favor the policy or idea of establishing an authority over each of these streams. Well, I point out again that the purpose of this bill is not to establish a new agency of the Government or a new authority, but to try to do this job within the existing executive branches of the Government, agencies already established that are permanent. I may be wrong in that theory, but I am not seeking to set up any new authority. I am trying to avoid it. Now, other recommendations of the Federal Power Commission are, with respect to certain provisions of the Federal Power Act, sections 301, 302, and 303 of the Federal Power Act, that they be made applicable. I have no serious objection to that.

Senator OVERTON. Will you file their communications with your statement?

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, they are on file with the committee. I was just making brief comments. The Federal Power Commission further recommends that section 3 of the bill be amended to provide

that rates and schedules shall be based upon allocation of costs, to be made by the Commission as between production of electric energy and other purposes such as flood control, navigation, and irrigation.

I have no objection to such an amendment. I think it is proper. The bill is not perfect.

Senator OVERTON. You have no objection to allocation of costs being made by the Federal Power Commission?

Senator MCCLELLAN. I don't care what agency makes it, whichever one Congress is willing to make is satisfactory to me.

Senator OVERTON. But they want to make that allocation?

Senator MCCLELLAN. They do. I think the Federal Power Commission does make it now under some of the acts of Congress with respect to other basins. As far as I know I don't have any disagreement with the Federal Power Commission on this, except I don't want to set up another authority or another agency. You remember bills have been introduced in past sessions of Congress to establish an Arkansas Valley Authority. I believe we can do this without establishing a new authority. I woudn't have any serious objection to an authority bill, but we run into opposition to turning over our streams to an authority, whereas I rather think it is better to keep your established streams like this, where there are many levees and projects, and so forth, under the Army Engineers. I think it is better to keep the jurisdiction and the authority and the responsibility under the established agencies of the Government.

The Secretary of the Budget apparently approves the measure in his report, subject to the amendment, subject to making sections 301, 302, and 303 of the Federal Power Act applicable. He further recommends a slight modification in section 6 which is not objectionable.

Now, Mr. Chairman, sometime after I introduced this bill I received from the President of the United States a letter dated January 14, 1944, which I would like to read into the record at this time:

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAND,

United States Senate.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washngton, January 14, 1944

MY DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: I am very much interested in your bill, S. 1519, relating to the construction and operation of water control and utilization projects in the basins of the Arkansas and White Rivers. Enactment of the bill would be an important forward step in effectuation of the policy of multiplepurpose development of our great river basins and the prudent conservation of our vast public resources.

I feel certain that the people whose homes are in the basins of the Arkansas and White Rivers and the soldiers who will want to return to the area and to work and make homes there would be deeply grateful if the Congress were to pass S. 1519. The benefits that they would derive from a well-coordinated program for the prevention and control of floods, the improvement of navigation, the disposition of low-cost electric power, and the irrigation of fertile lands would be of incalculable value. I am particularly pleased that the direct and more tangible benefits from power and irrigation would be made available in accordance with the sound principles of public benefit that the Congress has previously laid down.

Sincerely yours,

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the courtesy of the committee in permitting me to appear and present in a general way this measure, and I respectfully request that the committee hear representatives of the different departments. I believe I see a member of my State flood-control commission present, Mr. Caudle, from Russellville, and I would like to have him testify on this bill while he is in the city. I believe I can say the bill has the approval of the floodcontrol commission of my State. I believe they have passed resolutions

Senator OVERTON. Senator, before you finish I want to ask a few questions.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I would be very happy to try and answer them, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERTON. I think this committee would like to work into the House bill such provisions of your bill as they approve of, and are not already covered by the House bill. My impression, as I stated to you at the outset, is that many of the provisions of your bill are already covered by the House bill. I may observe, in addition, that the power provisions contained in your bill have been thoroughly studied by this committee in the river and harbor bill; they have recommended an amendment to which I will call your attention in a few minutes. Now, you take section 1 of your bill. The general principles and purposes therein set forth are practically the same as those set forth in H. R. 4485.

Senator MCCLELLAN. No; I don't think they are set forth as soundly and as vigorously in the House flood-control bill.

Senator OVERTON. Well, the main purposes of flood control and the main purpose of a project of this character are set forth in this section 1 of the bill.

Senator BURTON. Section 2 of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERTON. Yes; I mean section 2. I was talking about section 1 of the House bill; section 2 of your bill, section 2 of S. 1519 is practically the same as to the general purposes to be served as that already contained in H. R. 4485.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, then, if that is correct, this bill as an amendment, with respect to these two particular basins, would do no violence to the general principles of the flood-control bill.

Senator OVERTON. Well, there is no necessity to repeat the provisions, because we are taking up projects in a certain prescribed way and if they are already covered there would be no necessity of repeating them.

There is, however, one provision that you have in the bill that is contrary to the general provisions of the House bill and that is, these projects in the Arkansas and White River Basins shall be initiated as expeditiously as practicable and in any event not later than immediately following the cessation of hostilities in the present war. The purpose of the flood-control bill is to establish a backlog of projects and no appropriations are to be made for these projects until 6 months after the cessation of hostilities. Now, we cannot very well make a distinction between the projects in the Arkansas and White River Basins and projects in the other areas of the United States. We either have to adopt your language and make it apply to all of them, or else stand upon the provisions of the House bill in that regard.