sponsibility, in terms of energy, hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas-I mean in terms of the resource as a resource, we have always had in terms of our relationship with the industries, our studies and the facts available, in terms of where these resources are, we have had the primary responsibility. And it seems to me logical that the making of this threshold determination, whether a certificate should issue, whether this is in the national interest, whether there is a matter of convenience and necessity, that it is logical that we should make a determination of this kind. The regulation phase of it, which would then begin, should be done by the regulatory agencies. But take the Department of Commerce, for example, without demeaning their function, all of the facts and the data and the day-to-day matters which concern energy, we are dealing with this day in and day out, and they have other responsibilities and other functions that don't relate at all.

Senator MORTON. Well, in the case of gas or oil, on the original determination of whether or not a pipeline should be certified, did your Department have a voice in that?

Secretary UDALL. Well of course as far as petroleum is concerned, the petroleum people don't have this type of thing. They started out in a different way and they got State laws that were favorable and they have acted in that capacity. With regard to natural gas, this again began under different circumstances and the Federal Power Commission makes this finding in the case of natural gas.

I think there are circumstances that make this a reasonable thing under the circumstances.

Senator MORTON. What opportunity would be afforded the opponents of any particular pipeline to be heard on the question of public convenience and necessity?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, this is a very good question and I am glad you asked this so I can get something in the record on it.

I think we would follow, as any other agency would follow, the regular procedure under the Administrative Procedures Act, have a full-scale hearing, give everyone an opportunity to be heard. In other words, this is not going to be anything arbitrary; we would not make it behind closed doors. It would be made with a public record and in the usual way that administrative agencies operate.

Senator MORTON. In the same connection, the Interstate Commerce Commission recommended that the finding of the Secretary of the Interior be one of "public purpose" rather than public convenience and necessity. Would you have any comment on that observation? Secretary UDALL. Well, I don't-this gets into a matter of words, I don't know what it is we are talking about. It does seem to me that some basic finding has to be made, whatever you call it, it has to be a determination that this line is in the national interest and that it meets certain criteria, and I don't know that I would argue with that statement, but I would think maybe following the traditional pattern would be the wisest pattern to follow.

Senator MORTON. In other words, you think it is more a matter of words here?

Secretary UDALL. Yes.

Senator MORTON. Finally, Mr. Secretary, as a matter of interest, does your Department know-perhaps Assistant Secretary Kelly can

answer this-whether it is technically and economically feasible to make a slurry of fuel oil and coal, rather than water and coal?

Mr. KELLY. The Office of Coal Research, Senator, right now has a project going researching into that question. They are going beyond the point of making a slurry composed of ground coal plus fuel oil. They are trying to figure whether or not coal can be transported in its own juice, in other words, extract the liquid components from coal and then recombine them and transport them that way.

So Interior is at the present time, both in the coal research and Bureau of Mines, studying this point. We see no reason why technically coal cannot be transported in another type of juice, rather than

water.

Now, when you go into the economics, you would have to probably extract it out and you have an economic question there. But we are making a study at the present time of that.

Senator MORTON. Thank you very much.

Senator MCGEE. I think perhaps it would be appropriate to put in the record here a piece that was just handed to me from Traffic World, on a page entitled "Transportation Week," April of this year, in which it discusses the integral train concept you made reference to earlier in one of your questions, Senator, as a competing factor to the slurried coal operation. I will ask unanimous consent that we put that in the record.

(The article referred to follows:)

[From Traffic World, Apr. 7, 1962]

"PENNSY" ANNOUNCES ANSWER TO PRESIDENT'S COAL-SLURRY PIPELINE: "INTEGRAL TRAIN"

A new concept of rail transport which "assures great economies in the transportation of bulk commodities such as coal and oil," was announced April 1 by the Pennsylvania Railroad as a counterproposal to the coal-slurry pipelines which President Kennedy has asked Congress to authorize (Traffic World, pp. 15 and 43).

Allen J. Greenough, president of the Pennsylvania, said that as a result of negotiations with the Pennsylvnaia Power & Light Co., a large producer of electricity in the State, coal would be moved from a mine in Indiana County in western Pennsylvania to the power company's plant at Martin's Creek in eastern Pennsylvania in special trains which will operate as units carrying 6,000 tons of coal on fast schedules between mine and plant.

"Hauled by powerful diesel electric locomotives, these train units of large capacity, heavy-duty gondola cars of modern design will not be yarded or switched en route and will be especially maintained for the service," Mr. Greenough said. "Newly designed facilities at the mine and at the powerplant will speed up loading and unloading time and provide for storage in volume. The trains will be loaded at the mine in 3 hours."

As the first implementation of the integral train concept which the eastern railroads had been studying, Mr. Greenough said "this 'flexible fuel line on rails,' moving coal in large volume on fast schedules and at low cost, should beat coal pipelines in every factor of service and economics and sound the death knell to the grandiose plans being made in some quarters to take almost half the railroads' coal business away from them."

RATE CUT PROPOSED

"We propose, in the service to the Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., to cut the rate per ton on this movement of coal from western to eastern Pennsylvania by $1.04 under the present temporary rate and by $1.26 under the normal rate," he added.

He stated that the low rate could be offered by reason of the substantial economies resulting from this type of operation, the cooperation of all con

cerned, and the fact that the power company would own the cars to be used. "The integral train concept, as exemplified in this first move, has tremendous possibilities for the Nation economically, the national defense, and for the railroads themselves," Mr. Greenough said. "We can haul oil and its products in tank cars in this 'flexible fuel line on rails' just as we can haul coal, and many other bulk products which lend themselves ideally to the service.

"It is true also that with this new transportation tool we can haul not only these commodities faster and at lower cost but we can make possible the development of many new channels of commerce in areas and for commodities not adaptable to present facilities."

Mr. Greenough said that developments indicated that integral trains in the "reasonably near future," would be moving such products in specially designed cars, permanently coupled, with modern motive power throughout the train. These trains, in large numbers, would not only shuttle between mines and powerplants, and between oilfields and refineries and consuming centers, but would be moving back and forth all over the country carrying all kinds of bulk commodities in great volume, on fast uninterrupted schedules, and at low cost, he said, adding:

"One of the great advantages of the integral train to shippers, railroads, and the general public is the fact that it preserves the railroads as common carriers for general public use. Unlike the coal pipelines now proposed, the railroads can have, with the profitable operation of integral trains, the money to spend in service and facilities for shippers in general, especially small producers whose volume may be in carloads rather than train lots. All of this, too, means the preservation of railroad jobs and eventually, I believe, a very substantial increase in railroad employment throughout the country." Senator MCGEE. I think the point the Secretary makes here is one that certainly squares with my philosophy and I think ought to square with the national interest; namely, that the real nub of this is the impetus and the drive that can be given to resource development around the country. If we are ever going to broaden and deepen our economic base, our national muscle, it has to come in resources development, more resource development, and this is triggered by energy, by power, in whatever form, and too often, if I may observe, and it has cropped out a time or two here in these hearings and those a year ago, we get reversed in our attitude, that we are more concerned with who divides up the pie, in what proportion, where we were yesterday or where we are today, rather than getting enough energy available to move ahead fast enough tomorrow. And I would hope if we make any mistake, we make the mistake of getting too much energy, rather than not enough.

Mr. Secretary, I certainly applaud your contribution here to the deliberation of this committee and our comments today. If there are no more questions

Senator MORTON. I would like to make one more observation, Mr. Chairman, and I won't hold up the Secretary for this, but I think few of us realize what the coal industry, the miners and operators and the transportation people, what a tremendous job they have done in the past 14 years. I don't think the price of coal in this country at the mine has gone up appreciably since 1948, nor has the cost of transportation.

Senator MCGEE. I think the testimony here shows it has even gone down.

Senator MORTON. Yes. And when you consider the fact that we can put coal in Genoa, Italy, cheaper than the Italians can put it and pay our miners eight times what the Italian miners get; we can put coal in Britain cheaper than the British; we can put coal in Germany cheaper than the Germans; and, of course, they keep complaining

about having a shortage of coal miners, importing miners from Italy, but if they would change their restrictions and buy a little more U.S. coal, we would be better off in West Virginia and Kentucky and many other places. But I think it is a great contribution what they have been able to do in coal.

Senator MCGEE. I think the only complaint we have in my county

Senator MORTON. You have got a lot of coal, but it is too far from where you burn it.

Senator MCGEE. No, we have found the cost of keeping it in the ground should not be a factor. This is the cheapest of all, in terms of using coal. We would like to add a little cost to it and get it into the open, where it can be utilized. We have the largest reserves left in these parts. California has been taking all of our water. We would like to ship a little coal along with that water. If they can separate it at the other end, we might kill two birds with one

stone.

The next witness, Mr. Andrew J. Kaelin, international vice president, Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. KAELIN, VICE PRESIDENT, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND COORDINATOR OF ITS RAILROAD DIVISION, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. KAELIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Andrew J. Kaelin, I am a vice president of the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Coordinator of its Railroad Division, with headquarters at 210 West 50th Street, New York, N.Y.

The Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, vigorously opposes S. 3044 and has authorized me to make this statement in opposition.

The Railroad Division of the Transport Workers Union includes employees of the Pennsylvania Railroad, New York Central Railroad, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad, the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, the Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Erie Railroad, the Aliquippa & Southern Railroad, the Donora & Southern Railroad, the Youngstown & Southern Railroad, the Jersey Central Railroad, and various others. Of the 160,000 members of the TWU about 20,000 are in the railroad division.

We are primarily concerned with the effect of this proposed legislation on our members, their families, and communities in West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia.

If S. 3044 becomes law it would create additional unemployment in the railroad industry in those eight States and elsewhere, it would impose serious hardship and distress on those workers and their families, it would bring economic distress and even ruin to many, many communities in those States, it would compound the distress in areas already recognized as distressed areas.

Our appearance, however, before this honorable committee in opposition to S. 3044 goes beyond our desire and obligation to protect

our own members. We believe the law would gravely impair the national interest. Nor are we a lone voice in the wilderness crying out against a threatened injustice. The fact is all of organized labor has unanimously joined in opposition against the exercise of the right of eminent domain to construct a coal pipeline from West Virginia to New York or any other State. The AFL-CIO convention meeting in Miami, Fla., December 1961, considered this very matter and unanimously decided. I have attached to the statement the resolution in full that was adopted in the Miami convention in 1961 of the AFLCIO, that represents some 13 million workers across the country. The resolution follows:

RESOLUTION No. 149: OPPOSITION TO PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION OF COAL

Whereas Consolidation Coal Co. has combined with Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., a pipeline company to construct a pipeline intended to transport coal in a slurry mixture from West Virginia to certain public utilities along the Atlantic seaboard in the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York areas, this coal pipeline to be approximately 400 miles in length and designed to transport up to 8 million tons of coal annually; and

Whereas this project, tending to monopolize the carriage of up to 50 percent of coal moving from the largest commercial coal producing company in the world to a relatively few of its largest customers, will deprive the railroads of the transportation of this coal tonnage, resulting in substantial and serious losses of revenues, and consequently extensive railroad labor unemployment estimated up to 3,000 persons, in already depressed areas; and

Whereas the operation of said pipeline can be constructed with a minimum of employees in no way comparable in number to the displaced railroad employment, as is evidenced by the fact that less than 3 cents of each pipeline revenue dollar represents wages as compared with more than 48 cents of the railroads' revenue dollar; and

Whereas the loss of these revenues to the railroads will undoubtedly result in higher transportation costs on coal moving to other markets and other commodities, with resulting higher prices to consumers, all to the serious disadvantage of the economy of the State of West Virginia and other States to be served by the pipeline; and

Whereas the operation of such a pipeline will encourage similar wageless and jobless carriage of coal and other commodities to other markets, resulting in further distress to the railroad industry and already seriously depressed areas mentioned aforesaid; and

Whereas a major decline in railroad operations, such as this portends, would adversely affect employment in steel and related industries due to a decline in railroad purchases; and

Whereas Consolidation Coal Co. and Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., in order to construct said pipeline, must obtain from the several States through which the line will pass the right of eminent domain for the acquisition of their right-of-way and has sought such right in the State of West Virginia; and

Whereas this legislation will not be limited to only the particular pipeline involved, but will be available to any other similarly conceived enterprise: Now, therefore, be it,

Resolved, The AFL-CIO in convention assembled, does hereby oppose this proposal and authorizes and directs its national officers and its affiliated organizations to vigorously oppose the proposed legislation in West Virginia and any similar legislation that might be introduced in any other State.

At that time legislation to the same effect was being currently considered and rejected by the State legislatures of Delaware and Pennsylvania. Now, your committee and the Congress of the United States is being asked to approve a law to shove a coal pipeline up to New York through communities, areas, and States where it isn't wanted. Check the record: Who would derive immediate benefit from the adoption of this legislation? There is the primary beneficiary, the