« AnteriorContinuar »
vanian sitting in one of the chairs up at the table. I don't know whether it is a friendly face, but at least it is a familiar one. Senator Scott. It is more than that, it is a very openminded
face. Senator THURMOND. I might say to you Pennsylvanians, I am a Democrat, and the chairman is a Republican, but he is a very able Senator.
Senator Scott. I appreciate that. The Senator from South Carolina has the experience down here to be regarded by all of us as an expert.
Mr. MACHAMER. Gentlemen, I have a prepared statement which I have submitted to the committee and at the risk of being repetitious, I would like to read the statement into the record in its entirety, to give the members of the committee an opportunity to inquire on any portions of it and possibly make some corrections where I and my limited ability may have erred. Senator Scott. You go right ahead, Mr. Machamer.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to leave. I just want to say to the witness I am going to take his statement and read it carefully. It seems to be a very fine statement.
Mr. MACHAMER. Thank you very much. On the front page, “Statement of Independent Miners & Associates and the Anthracite TriCounty Independent Miners, Breakermen & Truckers Association." In regard: Proposed amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act to grant any carrier of coal by pipeline, subject to any of the provisions of part I of the act, the right of eminent domain, and for other purposes.
Filed with the Commerce Committee of the Senate of the United States, May 21, 1962.
To the Honorable Warren M. Magnuson, chairman, and members of the Commerce Committee of the Senate of the United States.
Your committee is presently conducting hearings on S. 3044 wherein it is proposed that the Interstate Commerce Act be amended to grant the right of eminent domain to certain people aspiring to build a pipeline to carry a coal slurry to certain areas on the eastern seaboard of the United States initially from a proposed introduction point somewhere in West Virginia.
My name is Clyde L. Machamer. I am president of Independent Miners & Associates and also the Anthracite Tri-County Independent Miners, Breakermen & Truckers Association. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here before this committee and make a statement in opposition to the passage of this proposed legislation in the hope that your committee will give this statement complete consideration.
The independent mining industry, in the anthracite regions of Pennsylvania, has heavy concentration in the counties of Dauphin, Schuylkill, Northumberland, and Columbia. This industry embraces men mining anthracite, men trucking anthracite to preparation plants, and men engaged in the preparation of anthracite for market. The industry provides employment for approximately 7,000 workers and represents an industry in the counties mentioned grossing approximately $50 million annually and produces and markets in excess of 4 million tons of coal annually. This production, 95 percent-plus deep mined, has a tremendous effect on the economy of certain areas of Pennsylvania on the asset side and it must follow that the income realized has a decided impact at State and National levels. No one else has been authorized and can speak in their behalf.
In view of the possibility of detrimental effects of the proposed legislation, S. 3044, upon small mines we must vigorously oppose this legislation. In recent years those proposing the coal-slurry pipeline have tried, with some small success, to get the right of eminent domain passed in several State houses. Despite evident tremendous pressure in some of the State houses the attempt to have this right granted to a select group of individuals has not proved successful. Several of the State houses, in their wisdom, have given serious consideration to the measure and have disapproved the granting of this right. It should be clearly evident that the State houses not granting this right have weighed the asset and liability side of the question and must have concluded that the liability side far outweighed the asset side and thus did not pass the measures. Certainly the wise people holding office in the several States took into consideration the matter of jobs and economics before making any decision. This committee can do no less.
The right of eminent domain grants (right to appropriate property necessary to public use with reasonable compensation) to the builders of pipelines, electric lines, railroads, et cetera. The granting of eminent domain in the instance proposed in this particular legislation in our estimation would be an abuse of this right. Abuse of the right because in this instance it would be granted to a select few producers who would transport a slurry solution to a small captive market. Certainly there is no provision in the proposed legislation that gives guarantee to all producers of coal the right to use the line as proposed. If this is true, and we believe it to be, this would have a serious regressive effect on areas that can stand no more backward steps in an area of employment or business. We believe this committee must give this the most serious consideration. We further believe the committee must refuse to grant this right under the system of conditions as proposed.
To substantiate our claims that the proposed legislation would favor just a few producers and consumers this committee need only refer to previous testimony as to just who will build the line and where the line will go. Initially the line is proposed to be started in West Virginia and to traverse from there to the eastern seaboard. Initially, and, we believe permanently, the line as proposed is intended for the transporting of a pulverized bituminous product. I think this statement can be borne out if this committee will refer to page 37 of the voluminous book published by the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives of the 87th Congress, 2d session. At this particular portion of this now public matter a Mr. George A. Lamb, Director of the Office of Coal Research, stated thatslurry pipelines were under research but utilization of the same on behalf of anthracite although being considered is not settled because of additional grinding problems. We believe that the proposed line is furthest from the minds of Mr. Lamb and the vested group proposing the same not only because of a pulverizing problem but also because of the fact that there is no centralized control of supplies. There is also another point that must be stressed before this committee and that is the abrasive qualities of anthracite that has never been solved. Certain large producers in the anthracite areas have many years ago tried to introduce the anthracite product to consuming areas via a pipeline, but, they were unable to contain anthracite in pipe systems in a form that was nonabrasive enough to warrant the building of such a line. Thus this legislation, as proposed, would have the same effect as the indiscriminate use of a headsman's ax in eliminating the countless thousands of fine Americans engaged at work in the independent mines in the anthracite and ultimately the bituminous areas.
This is power politics at work, pure and simple, and will be opposed bitterly by all small producers, and rightfully so. These gainfully employed workers have every right to fear the results if this legislation is passed. We are aware, as we have previously stated, that the proponents of this legislation were unsuccessful in their attempts to acquire the rights, now proposed, in the houses of several States, and that they have now shifted their battleground to the Federal level with the feeling that their pressure groups can secure a more willing ear at this level, and, if successful, will supersede all State regulations.
It is easy for the anthracite people to project their thinking into the future and make a good guess as to just what the consequences could be if this legislation is enacted into law. In anthracite today the finer sizes of anthracite produced is sent to steel companies, power companies, zinc companies, American Cyanamid, and numerous other industrial plants? The amounts marketed annually in these areas will run into a figure of about 2 million tons. If the anthracite area were to lose this market it could mean the loss of many jobs that our areas can ill afford to lose today. It is not too hard to imagine that, if the proposed lines were built, certain consumers now using these fine sizes of anthracite presently, would, if the slurry pipeline were to materialize, immediately contract to purchase this material. Thus, we would see a further loss of market to anthracite and the further wholesale loss of jobs. In addition railroads and trucking firms now hauling this anthracite to these markets would automatically suffer loss of business and thus further unemployment would accrue to them as it would to businesses furnishing them with supplies and equipment. This would be at complete variance with the principles espoused by the incumbent administration, which has implied that all assistance must be given to areas of chronic unemployment in order that they might improve their position economically. It would be at variance with the incumbent administration's releases, inasmuch as it would in effect take food out of the mouths of people in other areas. This will not answer the problem in the light that it must be met. To give this right and boost the economy
in certain areas to the detriment of other areas that need help to the greatest degree is unfair, unwise, and inhuman.
This industry is not antagonistic to progress. Progress has been the keynote to the advances made by the independent mining industry in the anthracite and bituminous areas. Progress, and, looking to the future, has provided the independent mining industry with the incentive to produce coal and market it after proper preparation, to a consuming public at prices that make it competitive to any other fuel. Modern mining methods, modern transportation, and the most modern preparation facilities are all assets that the independent mining industry makes use of and in a large sense have brought into being. The independent mining industry has regenerized areas that were long ago left desolate and, as some thought, worthless. The independents have with initiative and perseverance and an intense belief in the future of our coal areas revitalized the areas in which they work. They have the ability and know-how and applied themselves diligently to the job of making a living in areas that were ravaged and depleted and left in a state of despondency and decay. We are amazed that individuals who previously wrote these areas and these people off their books would now try to further deter these areas by pressing for legislation that could do them further harm.
Certainly if the proposed slurry line would be of any great advantage to our country as a whole we would be the first to support such a proposal. However, we believe this committee must make a most thorough study as to the merits of this proposed line before they can conscientiously act upon it. We have many times urgently requested congressional investigations into the coal areas in order that the sage congressional people might enhance their wisdom and be enlightened into many of the conditions existing in the coal areas today that are kept from public attention. We reiterate this request to this committee here today and urge that the committee appoint a special investigating committee to delve into the coal areas and find just what effects good or bad the line as proposed might have. contend the statements of previous witnesses to the effect this line would be conducive to an expansion of coal's markets is erroneous, irresponsible utterances solely for the purpose of enlisting support.
Replacing a product in a market with a different but comparable one, produced in another area, other than the one now supplying a consumer, is simple displacement of jobs. Although it's doubtful whether more employment would be achieved in another part of our country with acquisition of the rights as envisioned there can be no doubt of detrimental effects on other areas. The opportunity for small independent producers to use the proposed line is about as remote as is the ability of any of the members of this committee, or myself, to pick up this building with our God-given physical strength and place it elsewhere. To deter, yes, to eventually eliminate, an industry which is a wonderful tribute to our American free-enterprise system and way of life would be to the everlasting shame of anyone contributing to that end. The independents are not now seeking, and never have sought, active Federal participation to increase our employment. This the independents have accomplished and expanded on their own. It is thus only fair that we ask the Federal Government not to condone a procedure, nor grant a right, that could eliminate employment, security, serenity of mind, and the sustenance for families that helps provide the bonds to keep them as one.
To summarize we could say:
1. The proposal at present could only help a few centralized producers.
2. Only a few restricted, but large, consumers would benefit. 3. The general public would not benefit. 4. All segments producing coal would not have equal opportunity.
5. Anthracite could suffer a disastrous blow.
7. Economy would not expand; gains in one area would be offset by another's loss.
8. Federal bureaucracy would be expanded against the wishes of individual States.
9. Dependent industries, such as railroads, trucking concerns, and numerous diversified business concerns providing suppliers or services would suffer a crushing blow.
10. A thorough study is imperative before hasty enactment and later sorrow.
These things are intricate parts of the issues involved, and, while not all-encompassing, give a general idea, and therefore, our prayer is for your earnest and humane consideration of this statement and that the proposed legislation be rejected.
I request this statement be recorded as being filed with the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the Senate of the United States and that the statement in its entirety be read into the record.
Senator Scott. That will be done, Mr. Machamer, and the committee thanks you for an excellent statement.
Mr. Baynton, do you have any questions?
For the record, at the request of Senator Lausche, a letter from President Sloan of the Oglebay Norton Co. of Cleveland, opposing the bill; and, at the request of Senator Keating, a statement from Leland D. McCormac, vice president of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., favoring the legislation.
Also for the record, letters from the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and Interior, and the Federal Power Commission, approving the measure, along with one from the Comptroller General suggesting technical amendments, a letter and resolution from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in opposition to the bill, a statement by Ray S. Walker, secretary of the Pennsylvania Open Pit Mining Association, and a letter from the recording secretary, Local 962, Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, Port Jervis, N.Y., to the same effect.
In addition, a letter from John K. Evans, executive director of the Independent Fuel Oil Marketers of America, pointing out that the coal pipeline would have a direct competitive effect on them; a letter from Mr. Oscar Chapman urging the bill be approved: and a letter from Mr. Daniel P. Loomis answering Mr. Chapman. (Documents referred to follow :)
OGLEBAY NORTON Co.,
Cleveland, Ohio, April 19, 1962. Hon. FRANK J. LAUSCHE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: S. 3044 which would grant to any carrier of coal by pipeline the same privilege of eminent domain that is now held by carriers of natural gas is scheduled for hearing before the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on April 18, 1962.
We are certainly in favor of any help for the coal industry by legislation or otherwise but we are opposed to this bill because we do not think it will accomplish its announced objectives. In fact, it will be harmful to the railroads and to all but the largest producers of coal. Apparently one purpose of the bill is to