If preference is to mean anything, or if the Bonneville Power Administration is to have any authority to purchase surplus power for the benefit of the region and the Bonneville system, we provide for a continuing fund, which Bonneville can use for the purchase of power. As I understand it, the two Senators from Washington seek by the language of their amendment to provide Bonneville with such authority.

Therefore, we come to grips with the question whether it will be necessary for Bonneville to come back each year to Congress for an appropriation to buy surplus power from this dam. If we subject Bonneville to that political requirement each year, then we might as well turn over this dam to the private utilities now. In my judgment, the opposition to this amendment is part of the private utilities program. It is an attempt on the part of private utilities to put themselves in a position to buy the power at dump prices. I believe that is what will happen. We shall end up with a great block of power which will be surplus power. That will pave the way for an intensive drive by private utilities to buy the power at dump prices, and the blocking of the Federal Government, by political votes within the Congress, to the purchase of the power by Bonneville. Unless we agree now as a matter of policy that Bonneville shall have a continuing fund from which surplus power from this dam can be bought for the benefit of the Bonneville system, in my judgment, the situation will be such that there will be another handout to the private utilities.

I believe the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] is right when he points out that the purpose of the amendment is to put Bonneville in such a position that it will be on a competitive level with private utilities and in a position to buy power at reasonable costs for the use of the Bonneville system. There is no question about the fact that my colleague is right when he points out that the bill contains language which inaugurates a new policy, as, indeed, the whole bill does. That is why I am against the whole bill. The new policy is bad.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I invite attention to the fact that while the language of this amendment provides for the sale only of power surplus to the licensee and surplus to other agencies who might buy for resale, they expect to have the contract with Bonneville made before either has an opportunity to purchase anything, because there must be a contract in being if we are going to finance a project running into hundreds of millions of dollars. Consequently, the purpose of the committee amendment is to permit the licensee to take a license from the Federal Government, get a contract for the sale of the power to Bonneville, and use that as security for the bond sale. Yet the language provides for power surplus to the licensee and other agencies, public or private.

That indicates the basic purpose of the amendment. I have said, Mr. President, that I shall not oppose the amendment. I had no idea that it was going that far, but I shall not oppose it. I urge, again, the adoption of the amendment which

I have offered to take out the continuing funds. Senators talk about the sale of power to Bonneville at a reasonable price. Anyone knows that the power must be sold to Bonneville at a rate which will permit the retirement of the bonds. That means that when we talk about the price being not more than the price at which the licensee will sell to other marketing agencies, it means at that price. This is true because if they did not get that amount, the amortization, maintenance, and depreciation could not be met. Consequently, there can be no diminution in price, and Bonneville will be paying as much for the power as will the marketing agencies who are brokers of power.

The only way Bonneville can sell the power is to pay a premium when it buys the power and lower the price by spreadthe power and lower the price by spreading it among other agencies. That is what is intended to be done under the amendment as it stands. The continuing fund, Mr. President, was not intended for this purpose, and it should not be used for this purpose.

Mr. President, I submit the balance of my time.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE].

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I believe the difference between the two Senators from Oregon is over the question of the power of the licensee. I think I understand the bill. I hope my understanding of the power of the licensee is correct. If it is not, then the bill is even worse than I thought it was, and it is bad enough. As I look upon the power of the licensee, it will be not only for the needs of its immediate consumers of the Grant County Public Utility District, but also those with whom it makes contracts for the sale of power. If it does not mean that, then the bill is even worse and even more confused than I thought. The licensee who builds the dam may find itself with a considerable block of dump power. I think that it what it will have for a good many years. It will have quite a bit of dump power.

I raise the question as to what is to be done with the dump power. I wish to see Bonneville placed in such a position that it can get that dump power for the benefit of the whole Pacific Northwest, and throw it into the Bonneville pool. I wish to see it in a position where it can protect the purposes of the Bonneville act and take the power for regional integration purposes.

If we do not place Bonneville in the position to use continuing funds for that purpose, then it will have to come back to Congress where, by political juggling, the decision will have to be made whether funds shall be available for that purpose. But, in the meantime, the private utilities will demand an opportunity to take the power, and the argument will be, "Here are the private utilities; they are perfectly willing to take the power." The argument will run. about like this: "They want the power, and they should be allowed to take it at the dump price." In my judgment, the people of the Northwest will suffer as a result of that kind of a program because the private utilities will buy the power cheap and sell it dear. Bonneville will

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Had the Senator from Oregon yielded his time? Mr. CORDON. Yes, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I shall not object-on this quorum call I understand that the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON]

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Chair advises the junior Senator from Oregon that the question is not debatable.

Mr. MORSE. A unanimous-consent request was made, to which I reserved the right to object. Certainly I can speak under that reservation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can again suggest the absence of a quorum, but he cannot debate this question.

Without objection, the unanimousconsent request is agreed to.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon reserved the right to object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. question is not debatable.

The

As I pointed out on Saturday, I think several serious problems are raised by this particular preference clause. As stated by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BUSH] this dam is to be built by private dollars, not public dollars. This dam is not to be financed by the taxpayers and when self-liquidated be owned by the people, the United States. This dam involves a private investment. As I said last Saturday I think that fact creates many problems and handicaps that will result in a tremendous amount of litigation.

Nevertheless, the matter of public preference is, in my opinion, so vital to the development of private industry in the Pacific Northwest that I shall vote for the amendment, here on the floor of the Senate.

I desire to take a minute or two to discuss the so-called "shibboleth" of the public preference referred to in the argument of my senior colleague. Instead of public preference being a shibboleth, it has been a great protection to the people in the development of the great multipurpose dams in the Pacific Northwest. In my judgment, it has been the greatest guaranty of any feature of the whole Government-power program, for the expansion of private enterprise in the Pacific Northwest. As I have pointed out, our private utilities in the Pacific Northwest distribute the power which they obtain from Bonneville.

I agree and I have said this for years—that within the public-preference pattern, our private utilities ought to be given reasonable contracts for a reasonable period of time for the purchase of power; but I certainly do not go along-and although this is not the time to discuss it, yet I shall always be willing to discuss it—with the McKay 20-year contracts that were negotiated with five private utilities.

In my judgment, private utilities are not hurt by a public-preference clause; but the people are greatly benefited by the public-preference clause. When public dollars are being invested in the power program, in my judgment, the contracts certainly should contain public-preference clauses. That point goes back for a great many years, in the power program of this country.

As I said on Saturday, I think a legal problem is involved in this case. That That is another reason why I think the bill is a hodgepodge. Nevertheless, I believe that the principle of public preference should be written into the bill for the protection, through the public-power yardstick of the industry and consumers of the region.

Mr. President, under the bill we have no assurance that the dam will be controlled by a public body. It is quite possible that the public-utility district may not be capable of financing the dam. But it does not follow that a private agency may not be able to do so in a manner which meets the loose requirements of the bill under which the private utility could control disposition of the power.

What disturbs me is that we are proceeding with a bill for the construction of a dam, in order that a great power resource may be developed at the site,

but the language of the bill is ambiguous in many respects. I should like to have the power available for integration and pooling, and I should like to have us write public preference into the bill so that this bill cannot be used as a precedent for undermining the first claim of public bodies to so-called partnership dams. Do not forget that all of the people own the water in the first instance that makes these dams possible. stance that makes these dams possible.

I think the amendment of the Senator from Washington makes clear the intent of Congress to continue the objective of public preference, and I shall tive of public preference, and I shall vote for it.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield several minutes to me?

Mr. BUSH. I yield 2 or 3 minutes, if needed, to the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. CORDON].

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I think the average Member of the Senate is a little handicapped in dealing with a question like this unless it is possible for him to know something about the laws which apply in the States concerned. In this case we have a public-utility district created in the State of Washington. What are its powers, or the limitations under which it operates, I do not know,

Mr. President, it is immaterial to me whether power is generated by a private or by a public body, so long as it is generated on a basis of reasonable cost from the standpoint of capital structure and is sold at reasonable rates, considering is sold at reasonable rates, considering the cost of operation and the other factors involved in making up the rate structure. There is no sanctity to public power, in my opinion; and, equally, there is none to private power. I am looking to the outlet, to the use of power by people; and it is immaterial to me who does the job of producing the power.

I have worked for 10 years on the Appropriations Committee, and I know what it means to try to obtain funds to what it means to try to obtain funds to construct these projects. We in the Pacific Northwest have been reasonably successful, and I am most grateful to my successful, and I am most grateful to my colleagues on the Appropriations Comcolleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the way they have loyally assisted. But I also know we have never been able to keep up with our growing needs with appropriated funds from the Government, and I sadly fear we never shall be.

In my judgment we should be glad to accept with open arms any source to which we can turn to obtain money with which to construct power projects and which to construct power projects and put power on the line.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] for himself and his colleague [Mr. JACKSON].

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

the Senate, aside from the Senators from Washington or members of the subcommittee who worked on the bill, would know.

It seems to me that we are here presented with exactly the same kind of issue as was presented in connection with the Niagara power bill a short time ago. The question is, Shall we attach a preference clause to a license for the development of hydroelectric power granted by the Federal Power Commission to a local body? In the case of the Niagara bill, it is assumed that the Power Authority of the State of New York will be the authority which will seek the license, and which, under the Federal Power Commission law, will receive the license. In this case, as I understand the bill, the license would probably be obtained, and would be granted by this bill, if enacted, to a public-utility district operating in the State of Washington, under the laws of the State of Washington. I would assume that both a public-utility district in the State of Washington and the Power Authority of the State of New York would be friendly toward disposing of their power through public bodies and cooperatives.

Whether that be so or not, the particular body, the Power Authority of New York or the Public Utility District in the State of Washington, has the responsibility of financing and managing the project. It seems to me, then, that it is unfair for the Congress to attempt to dictate to a public body within a State how it shall dispose of the power it generates, particularly as this amendment

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded,

I do not know whether the Public Utility District of the State of Washington has authority which permits it to

there discriminate in the sale of power.

In any event, it definitely seems to me that administrative problems would be presented. When it comes to the preference clause, I am in favor of the preference clause when the project is developed and financed by the Federal Government.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CASE. I should like to yield, but I have only 3 minutes.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I will give the Senator some of my time.

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Chair is informed that the Senator from Washington has no time left.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I spoke for only about 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that the time was yielded back when the quorum call was made.

Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes additional time be granted, to be divided equally between the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] and myself.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from South Dakota may proceed.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield to me?

Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Let me say to the Senator from South Dakota that this is an unusual situation. We have in my State public-utility districts which more or less accord preference to public bodies. Other States where the power might be sold do not have such a condition. We were only trying to protect the sale of power in those other States. That was the only purpose of the amendment. If the operation were confined only to the State of Washington, there would be no problem whatsoever.

Mr. CASE. The Senator says that the public-utility district, operating under the laws of the State of Washington, would give preference to other public bodies. I do not know why any amendment would be necessary.

Mr. MAGNUSON. It is necessary because other States may not have such preference protection.

Mr. CASE. But the power would be sold by the public-utility district of Washington, would it not?

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is correct. Mr. CASE. I should think, then, that whatever principles and practices the State of Washington prescribes for the public-utility district would guide it in its operations. It seems to me that it is fundamentally bad principle

Mr. MAGNUSON. Normally it would be so guided, but there have been too many instances of such bodies not having been so guided. In this particular case the power question in the area has become so important that we do not know just what the public-utility district would do. We wanted the power spread out, so that everyone would have equal opportunity.

Mr. CASE. It seems to me to be fundamentally bad principle for the Congress of the United States to say that when a public body organized under the

laws of any one State is granted a license for the development of hydroelectric power, and is left with the responsibility, the obligations, and the risks of financing and then administering a power project, the Federal Government should then step in and attempt to prescribe for that public body to whom it may sell the power.

The Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] is absent by leave of the Senate, attending the Sixth Pan-American Highway Congress at Caracas, Venezuela.

I announce further that on this vote the Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND]. If present and

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will voting, the Senator from Missouri would the Senator yield?

Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I merely wish to have the Senator yield to me long enough to ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

The PRESIDING

OFFICER. The yeas and nays are demanded on the pending amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CASE. When the Federal Government finances and develops a project I favor the Federal preference clause, as set forth in the Flood Control Act of 1944.

If the situation were applied to my State, and my State created an agency which was to develop hydroelectric power under a license granted by the Federal Power Commission, I would not want Congress to come into the picture and tell the power body of my State to whom it should sell the power, or prescribe any other conditions, other than with respect to the conservation of resources, as set forth in the Federal Power Act.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

vote "yea," and the Senator from Florida would vote "nay."

I announce also that on this vote the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUM-. PHREY], and the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY] would each vote "yea." The result was announced-yeas 29, nays 45, as follows:

Cooper

Martin

Cordon

McCarran

Crippa

SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote! The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SCHOEPPEL in the chair). The question Dirksen is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] on behalf of himself and the junior Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON].

The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the Secretary will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE] and the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] are absent on official business. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER], the senior Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. HENDRICKSON], the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER], and the junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. MCCARTHY] are necessarily absent.

Mr. CLEMENTS. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BURKE], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. KERR], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MAYBANK], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCLELLAN], the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY], and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Texas [Mr. DANIEL] is absent by leave of the Senate.

Bricker
Burke

Capehart

Daniel
Douglas
Eastland
Ellender

Hendrickson

Millikin

Mundt

Purtell

Reynolds

Robertson

Saltonstall

Schoeppel

Smith, Maine Smith, N. J. Stennis

Upton Watkins Welker Williams

NOT VOTING-22

Hennings

Hill

Young

McCarthy

McClellan

Murray

Holland

Humphrey

Pastore

So the amendment offered by Mr. MAGNUSON on behalf of himself and Mr. JACKSON was rejected.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was rejected be reconsidered.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I move to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from Oregon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] to lay on the table the motion of the Senator

from Oregon [Mr. CORDON] that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the amendment of the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] was rejected.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I move to recommit the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator require? Mr. MORSE. Two minutes, Mr. President.

I have no intention of repeating the long argument I made on Saturday afternoon. In my judgment, the bill should be recommitted because I think it is only

one of a series of bills which have many common principles which should be considered carefully and exhaustively during the congressional recess. They require hearings in the field, because the hearings on this bill were exceedingly brief. All that Senators have to do is to consult the RECORD in front of them, and they will find that a great many organizations and a great many experts who should have been heard by the committee were not heard. In my judgment, the bill has so much in common with other bills which involve the so-called partnership principle, a principle which, in my judgment, jeopardizes a Federal power program of this country of many years' standing, that I think we should go slowly and should act only after we have a composite record of hearings involving all the so-called partnership bills. I think the only sensible thing to do is to send the bill back to the committee and let it rest there until Congress reconvenes in January, after we have been able to conduct comprehensive hearings on this bill and the other partnership bills.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield for a question?

Mr. MORSE. I wish to summarize my argument against the bill, and then I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

In my judgment, Mr. President, the Federal Government should build this dam. The dam should be built and made an integral part of the great multipurpose-dam system of system of the Pacific Northwest. It should be built with its flood control storage facilities included at the time it is built. As I pointed out on Saturday, General Itschner, of the Corps of Engineers, testified in such brief hearings as were had on the bill that the total cost of flood control would be greater as a result of building this dam on the installment basis. Flood control is of vital importance to the entire area of the Pacific Northwest. The flood-control potentialities of this dam are very important and should be developed now.

Furthermore, Mr. President, I think the bill in its present form will undermine a great principle of power development in the Pacific Northwest, namely, the principle of public preference. I think it will add to the administrative complexity in the administration of our power resources which will eventually result in higher cost power.

I do not think this is the way to get cheap power into the Pacific Northwest. I think the proper way to get cheap power into the Pacific Northwest is for the Federal Government to continue with the comprehensive multi-purposedam system, built by the Federal Government in keeping with the objectives of the so-called comprehensive report 308. I see in this bill, and in similar partnership bills, the beginning of the undermining of the great comprehensive program on which I thought we had unanimity in our area of the country. I look upon this bill, as I said on Saturday, as a legislative stick of dynamite, which, when the fuse goes off, will do

great destructive damage to a Federal power program of many years standing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an additional minute in order to answer a question of the Senator from West Virginia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator this question: While the bill affects the Pacific Northwest, is it not a fact that due to droughts and changing weather conditions, the same situation could affect the entire United States of America?

Mr. MORSE. There is no question about that. The position I take with reference to this bill is the same position I take on the development of power anywhere in the United States. We living in the Pacific Northwest do not own those rivers in the Northwest. They do not belong to the Pacific Northwest or to any State in the Pacific Northwest. They belong to all the people of the United States, just as other rivers do. When we are urging, as we have been for so many years past, the building of a comprehensive program such as is advocated by comprehensive report 308, we are really urging the development of economic potentialities of tremendous value to every citizen of the State of West Virginia or of any other State represented in this body. I have no illusions, Mr. President. I am perfectly aware of the position in which those of us who are fighting for Federal development of power find ourselves in the Senate of the United States today. But there will be another day, and I raise my voice in warning today only to make the record; and I make my record by moving that the bill be recommitted.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I had

not finished.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I withhold my motion not only to give the Senator from West Virginia an opportunity to ask a question, but to welcome debate by the majority leader, or any other Senator who wishes to comment. I shall make my motion when the debate is concluded.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield to me for a question?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. KILGORE. The question of multiple-purpose dams goes to such matters as, for instance, flood control and irrigation. It goes to everything from which tion. It goes to everything from which power might be produced, and to the surplus water which might be either impounded or utilized for other purposes. Is not that correct?

Mr. MORSE. That is correct.

Mr. KILGORE. Inasmuch as all the people of the United States are subscribers, shall we say, to the basic common stock of the power developments, by reason of the fact that the basic capital, even though it be repaid later, is purchased by all the people, a comprehensive study should be made before bills are passed which would deprive the people of their rights, or which would reduce the number of activities in which, if proper study were given, the people might become interested.

Mr. MORSE. I wish to say in complete fairness and to make it very clear to the Senator from West Virginia that this project differs somewhat from the type of program to which he alludes, because the project which is proposed in the bill will not be constructed by the taxpayers of the United States through the Federal Government. It will be built by a separate entity, not representing the Government of the United States. That is one of my objections to the bill, but it illustrates the Senator's point. I agree with him that a very thorough study should be made of all the so-called partnership bills before any vote is taken in the Senate.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. KILGORE. The point I was leading to is this: Water rights and power

and conservation rights in water are not

limited to individual States. In practically all cases they cover many States;

and the effect of an abridgment of such rights or a granting of them to any select group takes away from the citizens of not only the area affected but also of other areas which might be served by the products of the immediate area their rights to such development, which, by reason of the natural formation of this continent, accrue to all the people. Is not that correct?

Mr. MORSE. I completely agree with the Senator from West Virginia. That is why, on Saturday, I said a policy question is concerned which involves all the people of the United States. This is a regional problem, so far as the direct need for the power is concerned, and the direct need for the flood-control

benefits which should be built but in all probability will not be built under this bill. But the public policy issues are, of course, national in scope and interest, and I think the whole question must be examined from the national standpoint. That is why I urge that this bill go back to committee and that hearings be held in the field this fall on all of the partnership bills such as Cougar, Green Peter, John Day, and this Priest Rapids bill.

Mr. KILGORE. I know of cases in my own State in which private power companies have developed dams which can be used only for peaking power. Not only are the dams not susceptible of flood control but they have made the rest of the river unusable and, incidentally, have created, at times, periods of drought, when manufacturing plants have been shut down by reason of a lack of water.

The only hope we have, as has been well demonstrated in the case of a dam in West Virginia, is to provide for Federal control, which will allow for a constant flow beyond a designated point.

That is one reason why, despite the fact that in West Virginia power is developed completely by private sources, with no public power being produced in the State, I am very much interested in seeing that the people retain their rights to the power accrued by the streams, so that the streams may be properly developed for the greatest benefit of all the people.