protection, we need at least 31,182,000 acre-feet. With the experience of the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River-INCODELset up by interstate compact, and the efforts of New England States to handle such matters by compact, before us, we are convinced that the needed flood control in our State will be indefinitely postponed if the Hoover recommendations are adopted.

Navigation on the Ohio River and its tributaries has been a great factor in the industrial development of Pennsylvania and its neighbor States. And use of the river for carrying bulk commodities required by the industries of the basin continues to rise. These include coal, coke, oil, gasoline, iron and steel, sulfur, stone, sand and gravel, chemical products, and many other commodities.

In 1948 traffic on the Ohio River system was more than 63 million tons, which were moved 9 billion ton-miles.

And here I may note that it is the possibility of water transportation of coal which enables the power systems of the region to generate low-cost steam-electric power. This means that, if we can also develop the hydroelectric resources of the region and market the power in such a way as to establish strong public and cooperative rate yardsticks, there is no reason why the people of Pennsylvania should not enjoy as low electric rates as any other part of the country.

But the Hoover Commission recommendations would block us at two points in attaining this vastly important objective. For they would both discourage further improvement of navigation and throw the Federal electric rate yardstick policy, established by law for nearly 50 years, out of the window entirely.

The President's Water Resources Policy Commission report points out that the greatest immediate need, insofar as waterborne commerce on the Ohio and its tributaries is concerned

in the replacement of existing locks and dams in the Ohio River which are inadequate to meet the demands of modern water transportation.

The Commission points out that this would involve doubling the length of the present locks and continues:

Another feature is the tentative adoption of relatively high-lift non-navigable dams for the reach of the river between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. This would reduce the number of lockages, provide longer, deeper, and more stable pools, and would permit more efficient operation of vessels. It would also make possible the development of hydroelectric power at these high-lift dams.

Subsequently, in its consideration of the undeveloped hydroelectric possibilities in the basin, the Commission shows that at one of these possible high-lift dams 1,200,000 kilowatts of electricity capacity might ultimately be installed, capable of producing 8 billion kilowatthours of electric energy a year. Such a project would be nearly equal in magnitude to the great Niagara Falls project which we hope Congress will authorize for public development next year.

Two other projects would extend major extensions of the navigation system, including a big project for a connecting waterway between the Ohio River and Lake Erie. This would be a multiple-purpose project, including water supply, flood control, and navigation.

Such projects embody the vision which has meant so much to the development of our great American industrial system, offering the people full employment and high living standards. But the financing of such mighty works has always heretofore been undertaken as a

Federal responsibility, on the assumption that as the Nation's business expands everyone gains.

Speaking for the industrial workers of Pennsylvania, we are opposed to the Hoover Commission recommendation which would require payment of tolls for the use of such waterways. We are convinced that the net effect will be to cramp their future expansion and use. In discussing the effect of the Hoover Commission recommendations on the interest of the people of the region in low-cost electric power, I will turn first to the situation in the Ohio River Basin, then to the situation in all the rivers in Pennsylvania, then to the tremendous possibilities of the entire region. Finally, I will say a word about the very real interest of the coal industry in this program.

The Federal Power Commission estimates that, leaving out the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers where power has been developed on a large scale for TVA markets, the hydroelectric power potential of the Ohio River Basin totals 5,570,000 kilowatts, with a potential annual output of over 23 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy a year.

Of this total Ohio power potential, exclusive of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, about 5,200,000 kilowatts, or 93 percent remains undeveloped.

The President's Water Resources Policy Commission, on the basis of information supplied by the Federal Power Commission, listed 74 separate projects in the Ohio Basin, exclusive of the Tennessee and Cumberland, with potential hydroelectric power totaling 5,193,000 kilowatts. Fifteen of these potential developments are in the State of Pennsylvania, including the Montgomery and Emsworth projects in the main stem of the river with 24,000 kilowatts and 15,000 kilowatts of capacity, respectively; dams C, B, and A on the Youghiogheny with capacities of 15,000 kilowatts, 25,000 kilowatts, and 25,000 kilowatts, respectively; the Youghiogheny project on the same river with 24,000 kilowatts; the Kittanning and Kinzua projects on the Allegheny with 200,000 and 40,000 kilowatts, respectively; the Foxburg, Piney, and Mill Creek projects on the Clarion-a tributary of the Allegheny with 70,000 kilowatts, 9,600 kilowatts, and 100,000 kilowatts, respectively; and projects Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Beaver River Basin, with 45,000 kilowatts, 13,000 kilowatts, 25,000 kilowatts, and 17,000 kilowatts, respectively.

Thus, Pennsylvania's portion of the Ohio River Basin offers potential hydroelectric power totaling 647,000 kilowatts. And projects: just outside the State's borders on streams joining the Ohio within the State would raise the total to at least 1 million kilowatts.

The President's Water Resources Policy Commission pointed out. that in the tributaries—

power generation is related usually but not always to construction of multiplepurpose reservoirs.

It continued:

On the main stem of the Ohio power potentials are related to improved and modernized navigation facilities and dams higher than at present in order to make power production possible.

The annual report of the Federal Power Commission placed the total undeveloped hydroelectric power in Pennsylvania, including the several river basins wholly or in part within the State, at 3,141,000

-kilowatts, with a potential annual output of about 634 billion kilowatthours of electric energy.

The development of this power, however, will be possible only through multipurpose development of the rivers as part of a Federal flood-control, navigation, and power program.

Pennsylvania people have indicated a desire to share in the low-cost power which will be developed at Niagara Falls. New England has also indicated an interest in obtaining low-cost power from both the St. Lawrence and Niagara projects.

These two projects are base-load projects and should be supplemented by other power stations carrying the peak loads.

According to Federal Power Commission estimates, development of peak-load hydroelectric power in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania, through Federal multipurpose programs could add about 7,374,000 kilowatts of capacity, with an annual output of 18,617,000,000 kilowatt-hours of electric energy, to the 2 million kilowatts and 15 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy which will be developed from the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers.

This means that the people of New England, New York, and Pennsylvania have a hydro potential of about 9.4 million kilowatts, with an average annual electric energy output of about 33 billion kilowatthours if the full possibilities of public multipurpose river-basin development are undertaken in the region. This is about 10.5 percent of the undeveloped capacity and nearly 9 percent of the undeveloped hydroelectric energy of the entire country.

In terms of the special interest of the people of the State of Pennsylvania, I would note the undeveloped waterpower of the following river basins which are wholly or partly within the State: Delaware River Basin, 1 million undeveloped kilowatts; Susquehanna, with 2,124,000 undeveloped kilowatts: Monongahela, with 960,000 undeveloped kilowatts; and the Allegheny, with 420,000 undeveloped kilowatts.

There is no question as to the need for some supplement to ordinary utility regulation to bring about lower electric rates and larger use of electricity in this northeastern region. A glance at the Federal Power Commission report, Typical Residential Electric Bills, 1954, shows this clearly on a map of the United States with the average electric bill for 250 kilowatt-hours of monthly residential use indicated on each State.

In this map, the States with the highest residential bills are shown in black, those with medium bills in gray, and those with lowest electric bills are shown in white.

A glance at the map shows New York and all New England States in solid black, with the State of Pennsylvania escaping the black class by just 16 cents a month. And I regret to say that of the 24 States shown in gray, only 2-Arkansas and New Mexico have higher electric rates than my State.

In comparison, the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, influenced by the TVA public power yardstick system, as well as the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, similarly influenced by the Federal Bonneville Power Administration system, are all solid white. The only other States in this low-rate class are California, where important municipal electric systems, together with

the Federal Central Valley hydro system, have been an effective influence, and Nebraska, which is wholly served by publicly owned electric systems.

In general, the Federal Power Commission map shows clearly that residential bills become higher and higher as the distances from the influence of the TVA in the Southeast and the Bonneville system in the Northwest increase.

Thus, moving northeastward from the TVA, the bills average $4.92 in Tennessee, $6.47 in Kentucky, $7.23 in West Virginia, $7.81 in New York, and between $8 and $8.85 in all the New England States except Connecticut, where the average is $7.63.

Moving northwestward from the TVA, the bills average from the $4.92 average in Tennessee to $6.59 in Illinois, $7.97 in Iowa, $7.74 in Minnesota, and $8.46 and $8.28 in South and North Dakota, respectively.

Time does not permit me to go into greater detail to show the importance to the workers of my State in continuing and extending the Federal power policy, associated with multiple-purpose river programs, which produced these results.

But I cannot refrain from giving you a few specific examples of typical comparisons which convince us that no drastic changes in that policy must be permitted.

The workers whom I represent look across the Canadian border to Ontario, Canada, and see homes paying $4.69 for a monthly use of 387 kilowatt-hours in Toronto; $4.03 for a monthly use of 504 kilowatthours in Ottawa; $3.64 for a monthly use of 343 kilowatt-hours in Guelph; and $4.08 for a monthly use of 382 kilowatt-hours in Kingston. And then they find that they are getting considerably less than a third as much electricity for about the same monthly bills in their own State. Let me cite a few Pennsylvania bills for only 100 kilowatthours monthly use, and you will get the point.

For 100 kilowatt-hours per month our families must pay $5 in Bethlehem, $4.90 in Johnstown, $3.78 in Philadelphia, $3.95 in Pittsburgh, $4.50 in Scranton, and $5 in Wilkes-Barre, to mention some of the larger industrial centers. Or consider a few of the smaller industrial towns where we find bills for 100 kilowatt-hours running at $3.90 in Bangor, $5 in Berwick, $3.95 in Clairton, $5 in Harrisburg, $4.52 in Pottstown, and $3.90 in Reading.

To buy the 504 kilowatt-hours per month which the home in Ottawa gets for $4.03, the home in Scranton, Pa., would have to pay nearly $11. considerably more than 21/2 times as much.

Similarly, the people I represent can look to the Tennessee Valley and see electric bills of $5 a month for 250 kilowatt-hours in Knoxville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Nashville, and the other cities distributing TVA power; or to the Pacific Northwest where bills for the same service run at $4.40 in Seattle, $4.61 in Spokane, $5.25 in Portland, Oreg., and $3.20 in Tacoma, Wash.

Then they compare their own bills for 250 kilowatt-hours running at $8.50 in Bethlehem, $8.40 in Johnstown, $6.48 in Philadelphia, $6.95 in Pittsburgh, $7.97 in Scranton, $8.50 in Wilkes-Barre, $8.50 in Harrisburg, $7.52 in Pottstown, and $6.90 in Reading, and they are further convinced that nothing must be done to Federal water resources and Federal power policy which will prevent the ultimate

extension of the advantages of a Federal flood-control, navigation, and power program to their region.

And, of course, low rates mean larger average use of electricity, which means more conveniences in the home, more economical farming, and a broader market for electrical appliances and equipment. Thus, in both the TVA market area and in Ontario, the average residential use of electricity is about double that in Pennsylvania.

Thus, for 1953, the latest Federal Power Commission figures, we find average residential use of 2,323 kilowatt-hours in Bethlehem; 2,176 kilowatt-hours in Johnstown; 2,048 kilowatt-hours in Philadelphia; 2,059 kilowatt-hours in Pittsburgh; 1,537 kilowatt-hours in Scranton; and 1,501 kilowatt-hours in Wilkes-Barre. In comparison, we find the following averages in the TVA and Bonneville power areas: Chattanooga, 7,020; Knoxville, 6,234; Memphis, 2,249; Nashville, 6,863; Seattle, 6,486; Spokane, 6,401; Tacoma, 7,244; and Portland, Oreg., 5,642 kilowatt-hours.

These figures make it very clear the kind of advantages that may be expected to flow from hydroelectric development in the Northeast as part of broad multiple-purpose river basin programs, with power marketed under the Federal power policy which prevailed from 1906

to 1953.

There has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the effect of a sound Federal program of hydroelectric development on the coal industry. The President's Water Resources Policy Commission, in its analysis of the Ohio River Basin program, recognized that there was opposition to such hydro development from the coal and rail interests.

The Commission points out in its report, however, that the history of electric energy consumption is one of expanding growth. It goes

on:

In the Ohio Basin, as in most other regions, the total available hydroelectric power never can supply more than a part of the total regional load. For example, development of the ultimate hydroelectric potentialities in the watershed would not supply more than one-quarter of the electric power needs anticipated by 1970 in the area including the basin and extending to the Great Lakes.

The Commission points out that the greatest value of the basin's hydroelectric power will be realized by its coordinate use with steamgenerated power and that the Ohio Basin is well adapted to such a combination. It adds:

Opportunity, therefore, exists in the basin for developing large blocks of economical power for which there is pressing demand from industry, REA electric cooperatives, and others.

Specifically, the Commission says that most of the available hydro is most suitable for carrying the peak-loads of the region, with big steam stations operating nearly 24 hours a day carrying the base loads.

The Commission then calls attention to the effectiveness of such a combination in the Tennessee Valley, with resulting economies of operation. It says:

Such savings passed on to the ultimate consumer would result in greater use of electricity, thus increasing demand for coal for steam-power production.

This is just what has happened. The following figures, taken from the Federal Power Commission annual statistics of Consumption of Fuel for Production of Electric Energy (1952) tells the story. They