having experimentation conducted all of the time in the kind of cover that will hold land of that sort. Of course, ultimately, you get down to the final problem of improvement in farming methods, which is obviously a very long, long job, and might have prevented, perhaps, some of the erosion that has taken place.

Mr. DONDERO. The thought occurred to me while you were speaking, we are going to vote a subsidy today of $500,000,000 in order to control production of crops, because we are raising too much in this country, and in this bill we are trying to set up a plan to bring into production further acres for crops.

Mr. VOORHIS. Well, you have reference to the soil-conservation program?

Mr. DONDERO. I am not against conserving the soil. You and I see that alike.

Mr. VOORHIS. I do not believe that the program of soil conservation involves restriction of crops. I think that it involves more diversification and better places to farm. I think that we have got to be continually developing better places for farm communities.

Mr. DONDERO. I agree with you.

Mr. VOORHIS. I am frank to say that I am trying to find the best way to do it.

Now if large numbers of farmers who are attempting to farm on lands where their costs, because of meagerness of the soil fertility, are unnecessarily high, and in places where we might be able to rehabilitate that soil if it were not farmed, if lands could be developed where they might go and settle such as we are trying to develop, I believe that the whole Nation would be benefited.

Mr. DONDERO. I agree with you that the farmers should have better places to farm. I am thinking of my own county 30 miles square, Oakland County, Mich., the garden spot of the whole State, with 25 percent of all of the farms boarded up with nothing but weeds growing on them; some of the finest soil in the United States, because farm prices were not sufficient to compete with industrial pay rolls. Father and son have gone to the factories to get $7 a day, which they could not make on the farm.

Mr. VOORHIS. Well, Mr. Dondero, we are getting into the question of our economic system. I could make a speech on monopolies perhaps at that point, and would like very much to do so, but clearly I

cannot.

But, the point about this is that the very question you ask seems to me to strengthen the argument which I advanced a while ago that we cannot be content with merely having one department of government carry on one kind of a program and another department do another thing, unless we have in connection with the conservation of natural resources which cannot be replaced the necessary information; unless we have an appreciation of the importance of that to the whole industry of the Nation, and that is the way I look upon

this bill.

Mrs. HONEYMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have had a good many witnesses who have spoken of the fact that this destroys States' rights and so forth; but do we not have to consider the fact, Mr. Voorhis, in your opinion, that these rivers are no respectors of State lines and that is really the important part of having a regional authority that takes into consideration the natural watershed?

Mr. VOORHIS. I think so; I believe that is one of the strongest arguments for the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Our navigation projects pay no respect to State lines; our flood-control projects pay no respect to State lines; our reforestation program of the Department of Agriculture pays no respect to State lines; our soil-erosion program of the Department of Agriculture pays no respect to State lines; our reclamation projects under the Department of the Interior pay no respect to State lines. Now, then, if those things are kept intact but coordinated so as to work to a common end, would there be any greater violation of State rights than we are practicing now in all these works?

Mr. VOORHIS. In my opinion, if I may speak to that point, I do not think there would be as much for the reason I suggested when I was speaking about reclamation-namely, that I believe that we would have a better chance to get a whole picture of these things than we do even at present.

Mr. DONDERO. I would like for some witness to come before this committee and tell us what subject is neglected that is included in this bill.

Mr. VOORHIS. All right, sir, I will be glad to do that.

The subject of what we are going to do about thousands of people who today are virtually homeless, not because of anybody's particular fault but because in many parts of our country men pursuing a perfectly normal impulse and desiring to increase their own incomes have found it more profitable to farm by machinery than by the use of people, the same as industry did long ago. What are these people who are being pushed off the land going to do? Here is a problem that involves humanity; it involves the movement of people from State to State; it involves agriculture; it involves soil erosion; it involves one hundred and one economic questions.

I merely cite that as an example of the kind of major problem that I think needs to be handled in coordinated fashion.

Another kind of a thing: Let us suppose we have a proposed project on a river some place. I think it is important to have somebody who can look at this project in the light of technical advice of people who can study the different possibilities existing there and who can make a recommendation as to just what kind of a project that ought to be. Otherwise, we have a pulling and hauling between different groups and sometimes we get one thing and sometimes we get another.

Each of these agencies and departments, as I said, would continue, with its work, but there would be a coordination of effort as the chairman has suggested.

Mr. DONDERO. You do not see this problem as the Governor of Wyoming and the witness before you yesterday?

Mr. VOORHIS. No, sir; I did not hear the Governor of Wyoming. Mr. DONDERO. Well, he took the same position Mr. Taylor did, or practically the same.

Mr. HAVENNER. I think, Mr. Dondero, the Governor of Wyoming did say that he recognized the necessity for some general plan with respect to water originating in his State. I do not think he claimed even on behalf of Wyoming, that the State should have the sole say with respect to those waters.

Mr. DONDERO. His last statement was that he saw no necessity for this bill.

Mr. HAVENNER. I think he probably said that.

Mr. SEGAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be excused to go to the House.

Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of inserting with my remarks a short statement here that includes some facts about financial matters connected with public power and Boulder Dam? Mr. DONDERO. It is your own statement? Mr. VOORHIS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that will be all right for you to include that in your statement.

Mr. VOORHIS. Thank you.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. VOORHIS

Under contracts made as the result of the Swing-Johnson Boulder Dam Act the power contractees, the principal one being the Bureau of Power and Light of Los Angeles, pay 1.63 mills per kilowatt-hour for falling-water energy.

Under the provisions of this act and the present construction thereof by the Bureau of Reclamation the 1.631-mill charge per kilowatt hour will do the following:

1. Amortize the investment by 1975.

2. Pay 4-percent interest on residual investment balance.

3. Pay operating expense.

4. Pay Arizona and Nevada 18 percent each of the net income after deducting amortization, interest, and expenses from the gross income. This payment is in lieu of local taxes.

5. Pay off the entire $25,000,000 of flood-control expenditures.

6. Provide a separate fund for the benefit of the Upper Basin States, which in the 50 years following the amortization period would reach an estimated total of around $60,000,000, or about 50 percent of the entire first cost of dam and power project.

All of this is accomplished under a falling-water charge of 1.63 mills per kilowatt-hour.

To convert the falling-water energy into electrical energy requires generators, electrical equipment, and operating expenses. This the Bureau of Power and Light does at a cost of about 0.62 mill per kilowatt-hour. The total over all delivered cost at Boulder is then about 2.25 mills per kilowatt-hour.

This bureau at is own expense has constructed two 287,000-volt transmission lines each about 270 miles long at a cost of $23,000,000. All the costs and charges on these two lines run about 1.5 mills per kilowatt-hour.

The delivered cost of current at Los Angeles is therefore about 3.75 mills per kilowatt-hour under present application of law.

A competitive steam plant burning gas under the boilers can be constructed about 25 percent less in first cost than a coal-burning plant on account of the expensive coal-handling apparatus. Furthermore, the gas fuel is extraordinarily cheap compared with coal. A fair estimate of the best results of a gas steam plant with gas wells near the boilers is about the same as present delivered Boulder current. But gas wells deplete in a comparatively short time, so utilizing Boulder current is both an economic and conservation measure.

To produce the current with a modern high-pressure plant connected to a distribution network would cost under estimates of private power agencies and the New York Power Authority the following in mills per kilowatt-hour:

The prorate power estimate is a gross understatement as was pointed out in detail in the report recently sent your committee by President Roosevelt. It is obvious that Boulder Dam current even when delivered 270 miles from the dam is far cheaper than any coal-producing steam plant could be expected to be.

Just recently the Bonneville financing plan was announced as 32-percent interest and 40-year amortization. Under similar charges Boulder current could be reduced to perhaps 3.4 mills.

Thus by this power development at Boulder Dam we have accomplished the purposes of flood control, irrigation, and water conservation and have sharply reduced electric rates to southwestern consumers, all at no cost to the Government. Without the power development there would have been a very great cost sustained.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, are there any further questions? If not, Mr. Voorhis, we thank you very much, sir, for your statement. Mr. VOORHIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. It is now nearly 20 minutes after 11, and I think that we will have to adjourn until 10:30 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 11:20 a. m., the committee adjourned to meet the following day, Friday, December 10, 1937, at 10:30 a. m.)

REGIONAL CONSERVATION AND DEVELOMENT OF

THE NATIONAL RESOURCES

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1937

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, Hon. Joseph J. Mansfield (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. AIKEN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF VERMONT

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, we have so few members present, would you rather wait a few minutes or go on now?

Governor AIKEN. That is just as you wish, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The House meets in 15 minutes and I expect we had better proceed.

Governor AIKEN. I will file this with you anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will be pleased to hear from you. Governor AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing for Vermont on H. R. 7365, and with your permission I will read this short brief.

Mr. BEITER. Did you say Vermont; is that a Territory or a possession of the United States. [Laughter.]

Governor AIKEN. Vermont is the remains of the United States. Mr. BEITER. What?

Governor AIKEN. Vermont is the Union.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the Republican Party ought to be proud of Vermont and Maine.

Governor AIKEN. I think that the whole country envies Vermont a little.

H. R. 7365: The so-called regional planning features of this bill are confusing or rather the bill itself sets up the confusion by including planning and development of public lands and resources with the planning and development of private lands and resources under the jurisdiction of a planning agency responsible solely to the Chief Executive.

If you will restrict the activities of the proposed regional planning agencies to planning and development of the public domain, navigable waters, and the natural resources to which the United States has title there could be no objection.