Page images

fact-a statement as to the total sinkings up to that time, which had reached 191. Now there are 320.

This, Mr. Chairman, is not a cure-all; it is not a panacea for this very serious situation with which we are confronted, but it will make a very definite contribution toward its solution.

We have in the Southwest, Mr. Chairman, war materials and heavy commodities, not only petroleum and its products, but sulfur. Certainly there is no raw material, no commodity, more essential to the war effort than sulfur; and I would like at this moment to give the committee some information, if I may, entirely off the record.

(The witness made a further statement which the reporter was directed by the chairman not to record; after which the following proceedings took place :)

Senator RADCLIFFE. Would wooden barges be entirely satisfactory for transporting sulfur!

Mr. MILLER, Entirely so, for until very recent years all of the barge equipment in the inland waterways of Texas, Louisiana, and the South was wood. Of course, they are not as desirable as steel barges. But I think this statement can be made without fear of contradiction, that there is not a commodity which will use these inland waterways which cannot be transported satisfactorily by wooden barges, with the possible exception of gasoline.

In that connection, Mr. Chairman, the railroads are doing a splendid job. I notice, from some Government report which I read this morning, for the week ending June 30, the railroads transported 731,000 barrels of oil and gasoline a day to this area.

Senator LEE. You are not proposing to stop using any other means cf transportation, are you! As I understand it, you just propose

? to use this inland waterway as another means of transportation ?

Mr. MILLER. Every means that can possibly be devised will not meet the situation, Senator.

There is one other point that I would like to address myself to, off the record.

(The witness made a further statement which the reporter was directed by Senator Bailey not to record; after which the following proceedings took place :)

Senator BARBOUR. Mr. Chairman, is this part of Mr. Miller's statement to be on the record ?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman; this may be on the record.

I say to you, in all sincerity, that what we are asking for here is the completion of the great inland waterways system, an integrated, connected system, which when it is finally completed will reach from Maine to Mexico.

I should like to say to the Senator from Michigan, in this connection, that I appeared before this committee some 4 or 5 years ago in support of the Florida ship canal. Senator, this has nothing whatever to do with the Florida ship canal. If that bill were before your committee now, I would appear here in opposition to it. There are no conditions at the moment justifying a ship canal across Florida. But, Senator, the need for this exists.

Sentor VANDENBERG. That shows some progress in your thinking.

Mr. MILLER. If we had the free use of our seas, Senator Vandenberg; if we had 90,000,000 tons of commerce moving in and out of Gulf



ports, which could be advantaged by a ship canal across Florida, I would be here now advocating it. But those conditions do not exist, and it would be an unwise expenditure of public funds to build a ship channel at this time.

I am advised by the engineers that those who fear that this is a stepping stone or an entering wedge for a ship canal across Florida may find comfort in the fact that there is no possibility of turning this high-level lock canal into a ship channel. So I hope that I am not going too far when I express the hope that the old bugaboo of a ship canal will not be brought into this discussion; it is not here.

Furthermore, gentlemen, this is a matter which requires the promptest kind of consideration. If it takes 15 months or if it takes 3 years, and the war is over before the canal is finished, we can thank the good Lord for that. If I were a member of this committee or a Member of the Congress of the United States and I had an opportunity to do something that might offer some measure of relief in this very serious situation that now confronts our country, even though it might be 3 years before it is accomplished, I would have, I hope, the nerve, the courage, the patriotism, and the foresight to do something which, as against that day 3 or 4 years from now, may provide our salvation or better still, would provide a great facility which would assist in the economic rehabilitation of this country when the war is over.

Gentlemen, with the burden of the greatest weight of taxation ever known by any country in the history of the world, there is only one way in which we can meet it when the war is over, and that is to do everything we can to make America a richer and more productive country. It does not make any difference what your overhead is if your income is, sufficient to meet it. Projects of this sort are the things which are going to save America when this war is over.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for having taken so much time, but I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Senator VANDENBERG. I want to ask only one question in connection with another section of the bill. As I understand your statement before the House committee, you concede that no further legislation is necessary for the purpose of building pipe lines?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. That is all.

Mr. MILLER. You will find in my statement that I said that the pipe line is merely a device which will enable us to get the quickest possible use out of these two waterways.

Senator VANDENBERG. What I do not understand is why you approved a provision of $13,000,000 to build a pipe line when legislation already exists permitting the construction of a pipe line without any appropriation at all and it is proposed to proceed in that fashion. Why is not that satisfactory?

Mr. MILLER. Senator Vandenberg, I will say this, and I make the answer for myself and not for anyone else: I feel that in view of the fact that this authority to build pipe lines has existed for a long time

Senator VANDENBERG. Since 1941; not so long.

Mr. MILLER. A year's time, and we have not had many pipe lines until quite recently-we do not have them yet--I feel that anything Congress can do by legislative enactment or otherwise to increase the

pressure or possibly put the authority somewhere else—this is already vested in the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers

Senator VANDENBERG. So the chief advantage you see in it is to take this away from Mr. Ickes and to give it to Mr. Stimson?

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. That is your conclusion; it is not mine.
Senator VANDENBERG. I thought that was what you just said.
Mr. MILLER. No; I did not say it; you just said it. [Laughter.]

I would say this: That in a matter of this kind I would be willing to trust the engineers and the Secretary of War as I completely trust the Petroleum Coordinator; but I think, based upon the results that have been obtained, it might be just as well to take the chance and give as many people as we can the opportunity to build pipe lines.

Senator CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Miller, what would be the difference in the time necessary for the construction of this canal from Corpus Christi west to the Rio Grande Valley and the time necessary for the deepening from Corpus Christi east to the coast?

Mr. MILLER. Senator Clark, that would, of course, be merely a question of the availability of dredging equipment.

Senator CLARK of Missouri. Of course, it would take a good deal longer to build the new portion than to deepen the old portion.

Mr. MILLER. That is a question that is difficult to answer, because the route of the canal south of Corpus Christi—I think you have been down in that country-goes around the Laguna Madre, where there is very shallow water. The amount of dredging is not very great, and there are no other difficulties anywhere throughout the Gulf coast territory. Hydraulic dredges are used to spill out the earth at great speed. Some idea of the time necessary would be indicated by the cost.

Senator RADCLIFFE. Is there any amount of rock?
Mr. MILLER. None whatever. The amount of money it would cost

. to build that canal—127 miles from Corpus Christi to the valleywould be nearly $2,500,000. It probably would not take more than a million dollars, Senator, to make it 12 feet while they are digging.

Senator CLARK of Missouri. Something was said by the chairman about the length of time required to transport these commodities by water as compared to transporting them by rail. As a matter of fact, when once you get your waterway system established, the time actually consumed in transporting from point of origin to point of destination is not nearly so important when an operation is once started as the constancy of flow and certainty of delivery?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Senator CLARK of Missouri. In other words, when once you get the thing in operation, get it started, it is the constancy of flow rather than the length of time that is important.

Mr. MILLER. It is like the case of the wise merchant who anticipates his needs in time to get his supplies. He orders them in sufficient time to get them; but once the flow starts, it is constant.

Senator RADCLIFFE. The problem, then, is one of motive power ? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Senator BARBOUR. May I ask the witness what the difference in cost is between rail and this other method ?

Mr. MILLER. Senator, you will find in the record here some figures which I placed in it which were provided by the Chief of Engineers.

Senator BARBOUR. Approximately, what is the difference?




Mr. MILLER. The cheapest transportation cost is by tanker, the next is by barge, the next is by pipe line, and the fourth is by rail. The cost of rail transportation compared with barge transportation is approximately four times greater. I think that is a conservative statement.

The CHAIRMAN. And six times greater than by tanker? Mr. MILLER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. On that point, however, here is the statement of Major Parten, who represents the Petroleum Coordinator:

If we took all of the steel barges of which there are about 851 today, petroleum, if you took all the steel barges with all of them equipped and put all of that equipment into a single service from Port Arthur, Tex., to Pittsburgh, they would only deliver 136,000 barrels of petroleum a day to Pittsburgh, or about one-tenth of the east coast demands.

There are 851 barges; that is the point. I think there is something more than continuity of flow. A snail has continuity of movement, but it does not deliver.

Mr. MILLER. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we concede that there is a question as to the facilities.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you say to that statement—that 851 steel barges going from Port Arthur to Pittsburgh, all of them operating in a single service, would deliver only 136,000 barrels of petroleum a day?

Mr. MILLER. Of course, Mr. Chairman, our position is as I stated it a while ago, namely, that wooden barges can be used satisfactorily for the transportation of every commodity which we move over this waterway, with the possible exception of gasoline.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are dealing only with gasoline; we with other things. We are dealing here mainly with the Petroleum Authority. There may be a general transportation difficulty that the Petroleum Authority has.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a good deal of confusion, not so much in the minds of the Members of Congress but in the mind of the public generally. When we talk about petroleum, I think that the average person thinks of gasoline. Gasoline is only a minor part of it. There are also crude oil and fuel oil.

Senator PEPPER. What are the normal daily requirements of petroleum?

Mr. MILLER. It was testified before the House Committee by Mr. Robert E. Allen, who is Deputy Petroleum Coordinator, that the normal petroleum use in the area which is now being rationed is 1,600,000 barrels. It was stated, however, that 1,200,000 barrels represented the minimum requirements.

Senator PEPPER. Let us take the figure of 1,200,000 barrels, which is the minimum you mention, Mr. Miller. How much of that would normally be what we call gasoline, and how much would be fuel oil ?

Mr. MILLER. Senator, we have a gentleman from Texas who is an experienced oilman. I should prefer him to answer that.

Senator PEPPER. Very well.

Mr. MILLER. In conclusion, Senator, on that point, there is a refining capacity along the Atlantic seaboard, in the rationed territory, of 714,000 barrels a day; It is as important that those refineries continue to operate as it is that you think about the movement of gasoline. As I visualize it, Mr. Chairman, the great value of this waterway and the pipe line across Florida is that they will be used permanently for the transportation of crude and fuel oil, of which there is great need. To whatever extent you provide pipe-line facilities and barge facilities for the movement of crude and fuel oil, to that extent you release these tank cars for the transportation of the higher-priced commodity, gasoline, which went up 242 cents a gallon yesterday,

Senator RADCLIFFE. The difficulties in getting steel barges are very obvious. Is there any practical or feasible method by which wooden barges can be treated so that they can be made adaptable for the carrying of petroleum?

Mr. MILLER. As I say, Senator, they are used for everything except the movement of gasoline.

Senator RADCLIFFE. I know they are objectionable for that, but is there any method of treating the wood or coating it which could minimize the dangers and make possible the use of wooden barges?

Mr. MILLER. We have, Senator, a practical oil man from Texas, who will testify later about that. I have an opinion about that, but I do not know very much about it.

Senator LEE. If according to the chairman these steel barges could deliver only 140,000 barrels of gasoline a day

The CHAIRMAN. That is according to Major Parten; I do not know a thing about it. I just read from Major Parten's statement.

Senator LEE. If, according to the statement of Major Parten, which the chairman read, these steel barges could deliver only 140,000 barrels of gasoline a day, that would be 140,000 barrels more than would be delivered without this canal, is not that true!

Mr. MILLER. I think, Senator Lee, that it is perfectly patent that it is going to require all of the vision and ingenuity of all of us, and I mean the public as well as the Members of Congress. It will take vision and ingenuity to utilize every opportunity and every device which will make some sort of contribution to the solution of this problem.

As I said before the House committee--and I reiterate the statement here—this proposal is not offered as a cure-all or as a panacea, nor is it offered, gentlemen, in competition with any other plan that has been presented. You are going to need them all, and then you will fall short.

Senator LEE. Then, Mr. Miller, if in addition to the 140,000 barrels of gasoline a day that could be delivered in steel barges we could deliver a great quantity of petroleum of other grades of refinement in wooden barges, and in addition deliver great quantities of other strategic war materials which it is necessary to bring, it seems that it would be a wise thing to develop that canal.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you assuming that we could take all the 851 steel barges and turn them over at one time? These steel barges are now being utilized.

Senator LEE. Whatever we took would be that much more than we now have.

The CHAIRMAN. I doubt if you could get any of them now. I was giving you this statement to show you the limitations upon barge transportation on the inland waterways. It appears that there are 851 steel barges, which could deliver 136,000 barrels a day from Port Arthur, Tex., to Pittsburgh, Pa. That is a pretty good distance, but it is comparable, at any rate, with the distance up the Atlantic coast.

« PreviousContinue »