Mr. PARTEN. The Tinsley line, to Savannah or Charleston
Representative RIVERS. It is 1234 inches.

Mr. PARTEN. All right. If it is 1234 inches, we have here a calculation that shows that, without considering terminals, the steel efficiency in the delivery of that oil to Savannah would be about 0.86. The delivery of it to Charleston would be about 0.78. But at Charleston or Savannah you would have to transship, unless the Navy would use it all there. You would also have to have terminals, which would lower that efficiency figure.

Representative RIVERS. Anything we could get to the east, Major, would be a help. When the winter takes over in New England, it is going to be a serious thing. I think the War Department should bend backward to aid these people. No one group should bear the cost of this oil situation.

Mr. PARTEN. You say you do not know why we do not recommend this line. The Tinsley field today is making only about 68,000 barrels a day, and the figure is coming down daily. If you are going to build this line--if it has got to be built-it ought to originate somewhere in the Southwest where there is ample oil.

Representative RIVERS. Even that would be a good thing, because you said a while ago that there is plenty of oil on the Mississippi available for transshipment. When Senator Pepper was questioning you, you made that statement.

Mr. PARTEN. We can have many products on the Mississippi south of Cairo for transshipment, but there is no crude oil.

Representative RIVERS. Suppose you built the line to Tinsley but did not get an ample supply. There is no defense at all that you could not replenish this line.

Mr. PARTEN. If you are going to build a line there, you should go to an ample supply of crude. To do that you should go to east Texas and beyond. When you do that, you are going to decrease your steel efficiency.

Senator VANDENBERG. There are many lines you would like to build if you could?

Mr. PARTEN. Yes.

Representative RIVERS. The ones you want, you seem to be able to get, Major.

Mr. PARTEN. Thank you for the compliment.

Senator VANDENBERG. They are the ones he ought to get.

Senator BAILEY. Congressman Arnold, do you care to make a statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. LAURENCE F. ARNOLD, A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM ILLINOIS

Representative ARNOLD. I represent the district in Illinois where Salem is located. If increased production could be had immediately in the Illinois basin, would not that give immediate relief to the east coast through the Ohio River transportation and tank cars?

Mr. PARTEN. My opinion is that it could not be sufficiently increased, possibly, to do it before winter. On that particular point I should like to have Mr. Schilthuis, who is more familiar with the production phase of this than I am, answer that.

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. Illinois production is also on the decline, and it reached a second peak in the latter part of 1941. It was producing approximately 425,000 barrels daily at that time. Since then it has declined. In the last few weeks it has produced just under 300,000 barrels a day. It is our estimate that unless new fields are discovered in Illinois, the production will continue to decline.

Representative ARNOLD. Have not the known reserves of oil increased during the past year?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. The known reserves of oil in Illinois increased somewhat in 1941.

Representative ARNOLD. The decreased production is because of the fact that M-68 issued by the Oil Coordinator has restricted drilling, and hundreds of rigs are stacked in Illinois and are not working? Is not that the reason why Illinois went down?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. No; I do not think so.

Representative ARNOLD. If you do not have any drilling, of course, oil wells reduce their output; but with continued drilling, Illinois production would have increased rather than decreased?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. No; not unless new fields are found. Drilling has not been stopped altogether.

Representative ARNOLD. We find new fields every day when we are drilling, but when we are not drilling, we do not find them?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. But they can be developed.

Representative ARNOLD. You admit that the surface of Illinois has just been scratched when it comes to developing oil pools? There are small pools that have to be discovered by wildcat drillers?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. They have to be discovered by wildcat drillers; that is true.

Representative ARNOLD. At the very time when the oil situation is so very serious in the East a restriction issued by the Oil Coordinator's office has stopped drilling in the area nearest the east coast?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. No; it has not stopped drilling.
Representative ARNOLD. It has restricted it?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. It has restricted it simply because the drill-steel available for drilling throughout the country is not available for carrying on development drilling to the extent that it has been in the past. Representative ARNOLD. Of course, your Office made a survey and we made a survey, and they show there is enough machinery in the drillers' hands to last more than a year at the rate they were going in 1941?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. That steel, of course, is our bread box, and we must use it in the most advantageous way; but we must continue wildcat drilling in order to find new oil fields throughout the country.

According to information we have from the War Production Board with reference to our future supply of steel, it will be rather scarce. It is our position that every bit of steel we now have must be used most advantageously with reference to the discovery of new fields, new reserves, and the proper development of them.

Representative ARNOLD. But you say the reserves increased in Illinois in 1941?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. They did; not greatly.

Representative ARNOLD. Production could be increased largely if unlimited drilling could be indulged in?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. No.

Representative ARNOLD. It could be increased?

Mr. SCHILTHUIS. It could be increased to some extent. With the drilling that is going to continue new production, they will find additional fields.

Representative ARNOLD. That is all I wish to ask.

Senator BAILEY. Mrs. Caraway, do you have some questions?

Senator CARAWAY. We have some oil wells, but I am not saying anything about them. [Laughter.]

Senator BAILEY. We have reached the lunch hour, 1 o'clock. I wish to finish with these gentlemen from the Department, mainly because I imagine they have a great deal of work to do in their offices, and I do not wish to bring them back.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. ALLEN. I should like to interject at this time, further along the subject of the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois, that that particular matter is by no means confined to the State of Illinois; it likewise affects Michigan, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, and Kansas. It is a national problem.

If it is the desire of this committee to hear further upon that subject, our office will be glad to have representatives present at such time as you desire them.

Senator BAILEY. We shall let you know if the matter is pressed. So far it has not been pressed. We have been concerned thus far mainly with the shortage of oil and gasoline in the eastern territory, due to transportation difficulties.

Have you gentlemen anything further to say?

Mr. PARTEN. No, sir; we have nothing to add unless there are some other questions.

Senator BAILEY. You are going to file a schedule?

Mr. PARTEN. Yes, sir; we will file a schedule showing the effect of this whole program.

Senator BAILEY. We thank you for giving us this information. It has been very helpful to us and has been presented in a very intelligent way.

I think I state the judgment of the committee-and I should not be surprised if I stated the judgment of the Congress-when I say that we want you gentlemen to build these pipe lines just as fast as you can in order to relieve this situation before winter sets in. We will help you in any way we can. You say you do not need any legislation. However, if there is anything you need from us up here to bring about the completion of the pipe-line development which you have in mind or other pipe-line developments, with a view to relieving this situation in the eastern terrtory, you will have the support, in my judgment, of the entire Congress. I know that you will have the support of this committee, because I have heard the expressions. I think you have the applause of the whole country.

We want to see the pipe lines laid. If you need any help, we will file any petitions you want to have filed. If you wish us to go down to see the President, I think we will go down to see him. We want to get this job done. It is a very serious thing, and the people of the entire eastern seaboard know that when winter comes it is going to be very bad.

Senator PEPPER. I suppose it would be proper to include in that statement also that we back him up in the provision of any other facili

ties that are part of a well-ordered plan, such as the building of barges?

Senator BAILEY. Oh, yes; I am for anything, I will say to you, that will solve this problem. I do not think that anything that is going to take 2 years or 3

Senator VANDENBERG. Let us not go into that before lunch. [Laughter.]

Senator BAILEY. All right.

Mr. ALLEN. We thank you most heartily for your support.

Senator BAILEY. The committee will stand in recess until 2:30 this afternoon.

(At 1:05 p. m. a recess was taken until 2:30 p. m. of the same date.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The subcommittee reconvened at 2:30 p. m., on the expiration of the recess.

Senator BAILEY (presiding). The subcommittee will come to order. I agreed before lunch to hear Congressman Peterson of Georgia.

Representative PETERSON. I will let Mr. Rankin speak first, if you do not mind, sir.

Senator BAILEY. We have Mr. Swann, of Dallas, and Rear Admiral Hottell. I have made some agreements. How long will you take, Mr. Rankin?

Representative RANKIN. Ten or fifteen minutes.

Senator BAILEY. Suppose you take Congressman Peterson's place. Representative RANKIN. I am a member of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, which had this proposition before it.

Representative PETERSON. I wanted to say something, but I do not want to speak before Mr. Rankin speaks. I have one witness whom I have brought along with me.

Senator BAILEY. Suppose you go ahead, Mr. Rankin.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E, RANKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Representative RANKIN. I will take only a very few minutes, Mr. Chairman.

It is my hope that the committee will report this bill as it came from the House, which provides for a pipe line across the Florida Peninsula, and also for a barge canal across Florida, as well as for a pipe line from the Tinsley oil field in Mississippi to the Atlantic seaboard.

There is no question but that one of the most serious problems with which we have to deal is that of the shortage of oil and gasoline along the Atlantic seaboard. The shortage amounts to 600,000 or 700,000 barrels a day.

Someone has spoken of building a pipe line from the north Texas oil fields to Philadelphia, Pa. That would take at least a year, or probably 15 months, and even then it would not supply the demand. Besides, it would have to go through the Allegheny Mountains, where the cold weather would slow down the flow of oil in the wintertime.

The objection to this Florida canal has been raised largely by the

railroads. They have been fighting it for a long time. I suppose that is generally understood.

Senator BAILEY. No; I had not understood that.

Representative RANKIN. That is my understanding.

Senator BAILEY. No railroad people have appeared here.

Representative RANKIN. They usually play the hand of Esau and the voice of Jacob. They did not appear in person, but they are the main influence behind the opposition to that waterway development. I will come to that point right now.

The information that we had before our committee was that a barge canal from Jacksonville, Fla., on the Atlantic side, to Port Inglis on the Gulf side could be constructed within 15 months. I believe that we can throw enough material in there, hydraulic dredges, and so forth, to shorten even that period.

I know that the question has been raised about the length of time it would take to build this canal on to Port St. Joe. It is not necessary to build this barge canal up to that point, for the simple reason that from Port St. Joe down to Port Inglis, while that is in the open Gulf, the water is sufficiently deep to permit the passage of these barges, but it is too shallow for submarines to approach within attacking distance.

We went into that matter thoroughly on the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors. Therefore these barges would be safe from attack from submarines down to that point. They would only be interfered with about 15 days out of the year by storms on the Gulf of Mexico. So that you might say that all but 15 days of the year they could travel unmolested.

If we had this barge canal across the Florida Straits, connecting with the intracoastal waterway from the west coast of Florida clear around to the borders of Mexico on the west, and with the Intracoastal Waterway on the Atlantic seaboard from Jacksonville to the coast of New Jersey-if we had this little stretch across the Florida Peninsula completed, all the oil barges in America could go through that waterway. There is no question about that.

We went into that matter with men who knew what they were talking about before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. They tell you it will take 3 years. This is the first time I ever heard the 3-year statement. It might take 3 years if you built this barge line clear around to Port St. Joe; but witnesses testified before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors time and time again that the barge line from Jacksonville to Port Inglis could be built within 15 months.

We are providing for the construction of a large number of airplane carriers. They are needed. We have to have them. It will take about 2 years to build one. In other words, it will take longer to build one of those airplane carriers than it will take to build this barge canal to supply the oil that will be necessary to operate the airplane carriers. So that this hue and cry about the time element, in my opinion, is beside the mark entirely. If we pass this bill now and put these men to work and supply them with all the hydraulic dredges they need and all the other machinery they need, in my humble opinion they could have barges going through that canal within less than 18 months; I would say, within 12 months.

Again, no matter how long it takes, we are going to have to have that connection. It has been testified that we only have 45,000 railroad oil tank cars. They are absolutely inadequate to supply