new ones, it can only do so at the expense of a disastrous war with residual oil and other fuels a war which will not be won by anyone and most certainly not by the producers of coal.

So I say that there is no immediate justification for the hope that this proposal will increase the consumption of coal-the only ground upon which the sponsors of this bill seek to grant the power of eminent domain to slurry pipelines. On the other hand, there is ample reason to fear the dislocations these lines will cause and the impact they will have upon our economy and upon the welfare of our people. To understand the significance of the coal pipeline, you must recognize that it does not represent transportation as we generally understand it. It is curiously different from railroad and trucking and barge carriage and even oil and gas pipeline carriage. The coal pipeline cannot extend its appendages into the thousands of hollows and mountain areas where small outcroppings provide labor for displaced miners and sustenance for their families.

The coal must be brought to the pipeline and there it must be processed and pumped through the line. The radius of the area from which the coal can be drawn is strictly limited by the economics of movement, price, and demand. Once the coal is processed into slurry and is in the pipeline, it is not piped to a central point from which a great variety of consumers can acquire it.

The consumer of slurry must attach to the line and must have the type of furnace that can burn the slurry. In other words, not every consumer of coal will have access to the line. Only those specifically equipped will be capable of obtaining whatever advantage the pipeline can offer.

But something else special is required and this is what scares the people of Kentucky. This kind of thing can only be handled by big business-big coal business. It takes big money to build a slurry pipeline—even assuming Consolidation lives up to its promise to make its patents available.

For some years now big coal business in collusion with other selfish interests has waged a relentless battle to destroy the small coal operator. Thus far they have succeeded, through the Walsh-Healey device, in excluding the small mines from access to Government business. They continue to be unsuccessful though unrelenting in the fight to place the yoke of uneconomic and unnecessary alleged safety devices around the necks of the small operators in order to strangle them by regulation which they will dominate. In countless ways, they have employed great economic power to destroy the small coal operator through a process of attrition.

Now before us is a bill which asks the Government for the vast power of eminent domain to facilitate the construction of a slurry pipeline which, because of its cost and the nature of its operation, can only be utilized for the advantage of those who are seeking to destroy the small coal operator.

You are asked to support a private enterprise-an enterprise so private that it can consist only of a few goliaths in the coal industry, utilizing the patents of the largest among them-Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Co. (now aptly renamed Consolidation).

This bill would place this operation nominally under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior-which presumably means the Bureau

of Mines. The bill makes no provisions for regulation and supervision of the pipeline, so that there is no method whereby the public interest and the interest of the small coal operators can be protected. Certainly, no reliance can be placed upon regulation by the utility commissions of the State through which the lines are to be operated since their concern will be with their economies without regard to the general effect.

Similarly, no reliance can be placed upon the selfish groups who have already demonstrated their disregard for the interests of the coal miners and the small coal operators.

But, even if the bill were to be amended to provide for regulation by the Federal Government, should this power reside in the Interior Department? We say no. For we have watched the Federal Bureau of Mines as it has spoken with the authority of our Government and mouthed the words and pursued the policies of the self-seeking groups who seek to destroy the small businessman. Regulation of these pipelines-if pipelines there are to be-must be placed in the hands of the agencies of the Government competent to deal with pipeline transportation and free from the domination of any special interests.

These pipeline interests are exactly the same as those who, through automation, eliminated the jobs of thousands of coal miners without making the slightest provision for their employment elsewhere or for their retraining, or for the care of their families. The effect of automation or of the slurry pipelines upon employment of miners and the welfare of their dependents has meant nothing to these selfish interests whose sole concern is the enlargement of their coffers.

These are the people to whom we are asked to present the sovereign power of eminent domain so that they may continue their predatory treatment of our coal miners-the very same people who have shown their disregard and contempt for workers who have given their lives to the industry.

Our President speaks of conditions in West Virginia and the need to alleviate them. We are proud of his interest and his concern. But, let him look to the causes that have contributed to the degradation of our fellowmen and he will see in this pipeline venture the same elements-the same motivations-the same objectives-that have been instrumental in bringing the great State of West Virginia to its knees. We, in Kentucky, have heard our President speak of West Virginia and we have chosen to feel that he has used that State as a symbol of distress and that he is just as truly concerned with conditions in Kentucky and other States where unemployment, chronic and otherwise, has swollen our relief rolls.

While conditions in the coalfields of West Virginia are extremely bad, they are hardly worse than those in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and parts of Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, and Alabama.

West Virginia has 14 areas declared distressed and comprising 34 counties; Kentucky has 9 such areas comprising 36 counties; Pennsylvania, 19 areas, comprising 22 counties; Virginia, 1 area, comprising 3 counties; Ohio, 4 areas, comprising 12 counties; Tennessee, 1 area, comprising 2 counties; and Alabama, 2 areas, comprising 2 counties.

These States have a large number of counties where the income is low and unemployment is persistent (West Virginia, 10; Kentucky,

24; Virginia, 7; Tennessee, 23; Alabama, 26; Pennsylvania, 22; Ohio, 3).

Although West Virginia is now more heavily unionized than Kentucky, the unemployed coal miner in these States and in others, has foraged for himself, and by doing so, has been able to keep his head above water. He has leased small tracts of coal land in remote and relatively inaccessible areas and, together with a few neighbors or members of his family, he has mined coal and trucked it to the market-usually a tipple or processing plant located at a railroad siding. It is estimated that there are over 7,000 of these operations (Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, 1960, p. 23).

In Kentucky alone, there are more than 2,600 of these small mines. It is impossible to count mines where diggings are moved often in order to take advantage of more readily accessible outcroppings. Thousands of people are fed in this way. They are kept off relief rolls and they preserve their dignity as freemen.

Until we remedy conditions in the coalfields, the economic welfare of our people rests squarely upon these small mines. To add to the burden of these distressed areas is unthinkable. It is my considered judgment that the development of the slurry pipeline will magnify the distress of these areas and render any possibility of restoring their economies virtually hopeless.

Certainly, I do not advocate a further extension of Federal control, but this is a Federal problem just as much as the gas and oil pipelines, railroads, trucking and bargelines are Federal problems. The slurry pipeline adds another complicating factor to the enormous transportation mess that besets the country. In his transportation message, the President deplored the piecemeal treatment of transportation.

We believe that encouragement to slurry pipelines is a piecemeal contribution to the chaos that has been perpetrated by years of maladministration. It is a dangerous and ill-considered effort by the Secretary of the Interior to seek to alleviate a condition for which other solutions must be found.

I urge that this committee reject this bill in its entirety. Should it feel, however, that there is a place in our economy at this time for a pipeline that will carry slurry, I urge that the committee recognize the hazards of creating a new form of common carriage and that it provide adequate safeguards to protect the public interest and the welfare of those who will never have access to the use of such a pipeline but will nevertheless be affected by it.

Senator MORTON. Thank you very much, Governor.

I might say for the record that Governor Chandler has twice served as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, one of the leading coal producing States of this Nation. He has also served with distinction as a Member of the U.S. Senate.

I know of no man in Kentucky who has a more comprehensive grasp of our problems. He points out correctly that we have 2,600 small mines that are giving a dignified living to any number of families, how many we don't know, and without this operation, these people, many of them, would have no choice but to go on the relief rolls, the already overswollen relief rolls of eastern Kentucky, the coal-producing sections of Kentucky, as well as to a certain degree, western Kentucky, where we also have substantial coal production.

Thank you very much for coming up, Governor. We appreciate your testimony.

Senator Scott?

Senator SCOTT. Governor, I am very happy to see you here and have your testimony. I would ask you only one question and that is, Would you elaborate what you have in mind by the last sentence of your statement, that is, that you urge the committee to recognize the hazards of creating a new form of common carrier and to provide adequate safeguards to protect the public interest and welfare of those who will never have access to the use of such a pipeline but nevertheless will be affected by it?

Do you have any suggestion, Governor, as to what form such adequate safeguards should take, should there be such a bill?

Governor CHANDLER. Senator, I hope the committee will reject the bill, because I think we are embarking upon a new field and the value of it is doubtful, the cost is tremendous. I think that if we undertake to do it, I say it will affect thousands of our people adversely, and I don't think they need it, I don't think they want it, I don't think the expenditure of public funds is justified.

But if you do, goodness knows, I hope you will find a place to reside the power, rather than the Secretary of the Interior, or the Bureau of Mines. I think that would be up to you to find a place where it can be given. This power of eminent domain of course is an awesome power and if it is resided in the hands of the Bureau of Mines, I just-we are very fearful about what would happen to us. Now I think the expenditure, so large an expenditure, almost for the benefit of one large operator, and his associates-and it is bound to create a monopoly, and almost a private monopoly, because they have patents, Senator Scott, that may be made available to other people but they may not be.

I think it will virtually destroy the majority of these little 2,600 small mine operations I have talked to you about and they never could connect with it, never could get any benefit out of it at all, no benefit at all, because you can't run these pipelines back in the hollows, you know, indeed you can hardly find them. It is almost as hard to find them as it used to be for the revenuers to find the stills down there.

Senator SCOTT. The Governor says "as it used to be"-in other words, the Governor knows the Secretary of the Interior is an expert on underwater matters, and I believe opened a national park under water, and there is a temptation here to consider the possibilities of the Secretary of the Interior personally exploring a slurry pipeline from the inside. [Laughter.]

Governor CHANDLER. I have encountered a great many experts in my time and I think the best definition of an expert I ever heard, was a fellow away from home and they say the further he gets away from home, the more expert he is.

Senator SCOTT. The Secretary is a long way from home.

Governor CHANDLER. Thank you for your courtesy and kindness and it was a pleasure.

Senator MORTON. Thank you very much, Governor.

Senator MORTON. The next witness, Mr. Julian H. Singman and Mr. Thomas B. Ratliff, representing the National Independent Coal Operators Association.

STATEMENT OF JULIAN SINGMAN, WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THOMAS B. RATLIFF, RATLIFF-ELKHORN COAL CO., PIKEVILLE, KY., FOR THE NATIONAL INDEPENDENT COAL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. SINGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Julian H. Singman; I am an attorney in the law firm of Landis, Cohen & Schwartz with offices at 1832 Jefferson Place NW., and appear here today representing the National Independent Coal Operators Association with a membership of thousands of small coal producers in the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, South Dakota, and Utah. We appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to appear once again before your distinguished committee to give you the views of our association.

I might say at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, that I regret that my statement is not quite as short and concise as the Secretary's was this morning, for which he was commended by the Senator from Texas, but we felt there were so many important points to make and they are in here.

While we are not opposed to the idea underlying S. 3044, and its basic purpose, we nevertheless consider that the bill contains serious defects. We urge that it be amended in several particulars to protect more adequately the public interest.

The bill being considered today has a simple and laudable purpose. It is aimed at facilitating technological advances in the transportation and usage of coal so that our vast coal reserves may be better utilized and so that the coal-producing areas of our country, where there is persistent and stubborn regional unemployment and economic depression, may be assisted to a new economic renaissance. Such purpose is sound, desirable, and one that all Americans agree upon. It is, however, the method by which the bill proposes to realize that purpose to which we object here, a method that without substantial amendment would have the effect of promoting limited private gain, and not the general or regional economic assistance we hope for. S. 3044 proposes to give impetus to new developments for the transportation of coal slurry through pipelines by granting to coal pipeline companies the right of eminent domain, but it does so, in our judgment, without the adequate and necessary precautions for protecting the public interest.

We hasten to add at this point, Mr. Chairman, that we are fully aware that the chairman of this committee introduced this bill "by request" in conformity with his responsibilities as chairman of this distinguished committee and therefore he takes no responsibility for its wording. We hope to be able to convince the chairman and his colleagues, however, that those who were responsible for drafting this bill did not think through many of the problems raised by its provisions.

The right of eminent domain is one of the most powerful of all incidents of sovereignty. This right gives to the sovereign-either the U.S. Congress or the various State legislatures-the power to assert eminent or final domain over any private property and to convert it