Mr. THOMPSON. It got to the floor, so it couldn't have been scuttled in the committee. The committee wasn't sympathetic to it.

I might point out that the author of the Delaware River section of this report, of the Hoover report, was retired Adm. Ben Moreell, who is the chairman of the board of Jones & Laughlin. I might point out further, in the event that you're not aware of it, that the United States Steel Corp. is in the Delaware Valley now and others are moving in, and that it would hardly be expected of the chairman of Jones & Laughlin to do anything to assist the United States Steel in any

way.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Well, as far as you're concerned right now, you don't care to analyze the recommendations?

Mr. THOMPSON. I have analyzed them.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. And, in effect, you're saying that any recommendations in No. 1 are of no good whatsoever?

Mr. THOMPSON. No, I'm not; I'm not saying that at all; I'm just saying that we're taking the thing as a whole, was my understanding, that that's the purpose, and as a whole I think it's a very unsatisfactory philosophy expressed throughout the whole thing, except in the dissent.

There are lots of meritorious suggestions here. No. 1:

That water resources should be developed to assure their optimum use and their maximum contribution to the national economic growth, strength, and general welfare.

I think that, following that, we would develop the Delaware Valley, we would take procedures to institute flood control in the Delaware. Valley.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Do you think there should be local participation with the Federal Government or do you think it should be all Federal Government?

Mr. THOMPSON. In my statement I said, as regards flood control, that there should be a maximum possible participation from the municipal and State government levels, but I do not think that in the control of a river, an industry which in this case is a local corporate entity or individual, should contribute, should have to contribute. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Do you feel that the State of New Jersey is now making long-range water resources and power programs?

Mr. THOMPSON. They are trying their very best to. Unfortunately, the whole water situation in New Jersey is bogged down in politics at the moment. We have a Democratic executive and a Republican legislature. It has been a little more difficult in New Jersey with our Governor than it has been with President Eisenhower and the Democratic Congress.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You understand why I'm asking questions about the Hoover Commission report, because I consider it this subcommittee's duty to report back to the full Government Operations Committee on the Hoover Commission report.

Mr. THOMPSON. I do, sir, absolutely.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. And we can't determine here in this committee how a project should be built or financed or other things involved in Public Works and Interior and Insular Committee affairs.

Mr. THOMPSON. That's right.

Mr. REUSS. I have one question.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Reuss.

Mr. REUSS. If you are through, Mr. Lipscomb.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I'm through.

Mr. REUSS. Congressman Thompson, I call your attention to the letter of transmittal by Mr. Herbert Hoover, Chairman, dated June 27, 1955, which letter transmits the volume 1 of the Water Resources and Power Report that you have just been reading from. It is contained on page iii of the volume you have in your hands. I'd like to have you read the second paragraph of that, and then if Mr. Lipscomb wants you to read any other parts, he'll ask you to do that, but I wish you would just read the second paragraph, out loud, please. Mr. THOMPSON (reading):

The Commission has had the services of an able task force presided over by Adm. Ben Moreell, now chairman of the board, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. Their exhaustive investigation is embodied in the task-force report on this subject, which will be filed with Congress in the near future.

Mr. REUSS. And that is signed by Mr. Herbert Hoover; is that correct?

Mr. THOMPSON. That's correct.

Mr. REUSS. Well, in the light of the sendoff to that task-force report by Mr. Hoover, it would be ungracious, to say the least, of Congress if it didn't read the task-force report and attempt to evaluate it, would it not?

Mr. THOMPSON. I would think that in order to understand it, the Congress would have to read both the task force and the Commission report.

Mr. REUSS. That's all.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I think that is true of any member or any person either appearing or testifying before this subcommittee today. Also, on page X of that same report, that same volumeMr. THOMPSON. Is that Roman ten?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Roman ten. It also specifically says that the Hoover Commission "has committed itself only in respect to the recommendations it makes in this report," "in this report" meaning the Hoover Commission report, and not the task-force report.

Mr. THOMPSON. It does say that and

Mr. LIPSCOMB. And that is what it means.

Mr. THOMPSON. You are to ask the questions. It might not be appropriate for me to do it. But, as just a matter of clarification aren't the Commission reports based on the recommendations of the task force and the work of the task force?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. That's right.

Mr. THOMPSON. They can't be separated.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. The recommendations contained in the commission's report must be backed up by the specific facts that refer to those recommendations in the task-force report: I mean, this subcommittee cannot survey the two recommendations without doing into that particular portion of the task-force's report. But, other than that, I feel the subcommittee has no duty.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Thompson, are you familiar with the public utterances of one Herbert Hoover?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I am.

Mr. JONES. And the speeches that he has made on the subject?
Mr. THOMPSON. I am.

Mr. JONES. Do you find that the public statements and speeches that Herbert Hoover has made throughout the country are at variance and different in philosophy and in substance from that contained in the task-force report?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't find much similarity, at all, in the utterances, at times, and other times they're exactly the same.

Mr. JONES. So that Herbert Hoover, the former President, and Herbert Hoover, the Chairman of the Hoover Commission Study, would be the same Herbert Hoover and I guess his public utterances would speak his own mind.

Mr. THOMPSON. I would certainly think so. Great weight is given to them in some quarters.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. He speaks for himself as much as Chet Holifield speaks for himself.

Mr. THOMPSON. That's right.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. And the various dissents in volume two indicate the members' various opinions and ideas.

Mr. JONES. It would be like saying Herbert Hoover is a man who has one philosophy for the task-force report and he has a different philosophy in making the Commission report. It would seem to me that President Hoover has a rather consistent position with respect to water resource development which should come as no surprise to anyone trying to ferret out the differences between the task force and the Commission's adopted report.

Mr. THOMPSON. I shouldn't think so. I've often felt that the former President, who is highly esteemed, and so on, really should be embarrassed by the fact that, following his utterances on this subject, that Hoover Dam is named after him, unless you would reverse the words.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I wouldn't go that far.

Mr. JONES. It isn't a question of political differences; it's just the idea of the issues and philosophy in back of it.

Mr. THOMPSON. I'm talking solely-since Mr. Hoover no longer aspires to any public office and actually is in semiretirement-I'm not disparaging at all. I think he's made a great effort in this thing, and the 82d Congress took cognizance of a lot of the recommendations of the Hoover Commission report and has done a lot about it. I think he's done a lot of very fine things. I have nine Hoover Commission suggestions in the form of legislation under my name. I have no brief with him; my brief with him ended in the 1930's. But certainly, with respect to his outlook on water resources and power. I don't know how I could express how violently I disagree. I have studied them just as I studied the things which I considered were meritorious enough to warrant introduction into the Congress.

Mr. JONES. On page 109 of the report, volume 1, the Commission goes into a discussion of subsidies paid by the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and establishes the 20-percent population figure, paying 29 percent of the taxes and receiving no Federal

power.

Do you sense that there has been an attempt to exclude the eastern part of the country, the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, from being beneficiaries of the development to obtain hydroelectric power?

Mr. THOMPSON. I wouldn't say so, Mr. Chairman. We look upon it this way-as I've said in my testimony-that this is one Nation; the economic well-being of one section or State or anything else is to the benefit of all of us. I don't think there has been any discrimi

nation.

Mr. JONES. As I recall, we've gone into-under the Defense Production Act encouraging the private utilities to expand their generating facilities to take care of the defense situation that has been quite serious.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. My recollection is that the private utilities have obtained tax-amortization certificates of $2,300 million. Do you know whether or not there was a design on the part of the Federal Government to exclude any private utility from any section of the country? Mr. THOMPSON. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. JONES. And that is a direct subsidy by the Federal Government; isnt' it?

Mr. THOMPSON. It is, indeed. We have built some of our greatest industries under the tax amortization.

Mr. JONES. Now, the people of the Tennessee Valley, which they talk about as being the beneficiaries and somebody else paying the bill-we don't get any tax amortization; do we?

Mr. THOMPSON. No; not that I know of.

Mr. JONES. We are paying back the full bill to the Federal Government.

Mr. THOMPSON. You are, that's right.

Mr. JONES. $220 million, earning 4 percent, better than 4 percent, generating almost 60 percent of the entire production of hydro and thermo power going into defense plants, of which the Federal government is reaping enormous benefits of low-cost electricity, and yet they are not getting a single penny of tax amortization for companies operating in that area.

Now, wouldn't it be fair to assume that if the shoe fits on one end, it ought to fit on the other, and by taking the position that we could not encourage the Federal government to construct a comprehensive program on the Delaware River, simply because of private utilities in this area being subsidized by the Federal Government, don't you think that is a rather shortsighted view on the part of the people?

Mr. THOMPSON. I certainly do. I think that is entirely unfair. Mr. JONES. So, after all, it more or less equalizes itself as far as opportunity is concerned. There is a Federal responsibility to see that the flood-control problems in this country are resolved by the Federal Government, because the Constitution places that responsibility on the Federal Government.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is my view.

Mr. JONES. And the only thing that we should be primarily concerned with is that we make wise and prudent investments to see that the maximum benefits of the properties owned by the people of this country are developed in all the areas of the country.

Mr. THOMPSON. I agree thoroughly with what you said, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I would say you are a friendly witness.
Mr. THOMPSON. I would hope that I am.

Mr. JONES. Any other questions?

Thank you again, Mr. Thompson; it's a pleasure to have you today. Our next witness is the Right Reverend Msgr. Thomas J. Rilley, of the National Catholic Community Service, of Philadelphia.

We are glad to have you. I'm sorry that our schedule is little

bit behind.

STATEMENT OF RT. REV. MSGR. THOMAS J. RILLEY, DIOCESAN DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Monsignor RILLEY. You won't be behind when I finish. It will be very short.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to be here. My report necessarily will be short, because of the limited area that was affected concerning us.

In the archdiocese of Philadelphia we are concerned with the 12 southeastern counties of Pennsylvania. The great damage was done in Riegelsville, Easton, New Hope, Yardley, and Neshaminy— Yardley and Neshaminy receiving the greatest blow in the floodthat is, total loss of food, sickness which followed pollution of wells, and so forth.

Under the direction of the archbishop, a fund was established for food, clothing, furniture, medicine, and the like, but we found there was a great dissimilarity of work among both the local and national organizations. Manpower had to be supplied from every source possible. The greatest thing to come out of the flood, as far as we were concerned, was the proper coordination of interested agencies, whether they be National, State, or local agencies, and particularly the indoctrination of people that are living in the flooded areas.

Sometimes in thinking about these things we don't realize that they have assumed the risk themselves in living in these areas which might be affected. However, that does not take away the responsibility of the local people or the State or the National Government in protecting people in such areas.

There was a great deal of concern in the West and the Midwest about the floods and flooded areas and the amount of money that was spent, the majority of it given by the people in the eastern part of the country, to alleviate the sufferings in that particular part of the country. It was only recently that the spotlight was put on the East, and I don't think the people were indoctrinated or could even imagine some of the things that were going to happen.

The needs of the victims could not be known immediately. In talking about the flood you'd ask a man how much damage he received or what his property losses were, and he was unable to tell you. So that somewhere along the line there must be some planning so that these people can be met with, say, 90 days after the flood is over, 90 days after they have dug themselves out, and then evaluate their losses and find out how they feel about flood control, watersheds, and the like.

I think the Hoover Commission missed a great point in not dealing with the national organizations, such as the Boy Scouts and other organizations which are doing conservation work. They were not