STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, A SENATOR IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, it is a very great pleasure to be before you this morning. Senator COTTON. We appreciate having you here, Senator. Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir, I shall attempt to repay your courtesy by being brief. I have a formal statement which I would appreciate having filed in the record at the conclusion of my verbal testimony. Senator COTTON. Certainly. Senator CLARK. I would like to associate myself with the testimony just given by Congressman Flood, who has stated very well indeed the case in support of S. 2378. I might perhaps note two points: First, that yielding to no one in my respect for Congressman Flood, but representing the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as I do, I should not like the record to show any slur whatever on bituminous coal, which is very good coal, too. And further, that it is not only Congressman Flood's district but a number of the surrounding counties which are afflicted with this depressed area situation by reason of the inability of the anthracite industry to keep up with competition of other fuels. With respect to the bill itself I would like to make only a couple of minor points; the rest are covered in my statement. Senator COTTON. You are referring to- Senator CLARK. S. 2378. My bill would not restrict the ships to the port of Antwerp; it would make any ports in the Low Countries-Belgium and the Netherlands-available as the European terminus for voyages. It does restrict the American terminus to Philadelphia. I should point out that, in addition to helping the anthracite industry, this bill, if enacted, would be of substantial assistance to the railroads in Pennsylvania, which, frankly, are in need of help, and to the port of Philadelphia, which has already become the largest port in terms of gross tonnage if not in terms of dollars of any of the ports of the United States, is growing rapidly, and this would be a great boon to our port. So the benefits of this bill are not confined merely to the anthracite industry, but spread wider to transportation by rail and by water. Senator COTTON. May I interrupt you at this point? Senator CLARK. Yes, sir. Senator COTTON. Did you happen to read an article in Nation's Business in which the statement is made that every 10,000-ton coal ship sailing for Europe means 100 days' work for 10 miners at an average of $2,400 for each, $70,000 for coal at the mine, and $40,000 in railroad transportation? Senator CLARK. I have not, Senator. I am happy that you called it to my attention. The need for these ships is due to the fact that the ocean freight during the period that some of this coal has been sold to these Belgian businessmen has varied from $7.50 to $17.50 a ton; largely, I imagine, because during the wintertime it is very hard, indeed, to get shipping which will be willing to take this coal. The normal liner which operates under American registry or the normal liner which es passengers under foreign flags is not willing to take the coal, the great benefit of this particular legislation is that it will le the freight rate to be stabilized at the price which will permit Belgian businessman to vastly increase the amount of tonnage h would be available on this deal with the anthracite mines. or the laity, and I think also for some members of my own proon, I might explain that the words "as is" and "where is" on line 8 age 2 of the bill mean that the ships will be bought where they n the condition in which they are. That, if I may be permitted as iladelphia lawyer to say, is legal gobbledygook which I think aps should be c. plained by the record, and similarly the rather are clause (e) on page 2 is intended to mean that the United es will get a first lien on these ships for the amount of the rage. It would be a little difficult to determine that by merely ng the language. ally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that this bill, in dgment, gives complete protection to all conceivable interests of United States by requiring consultation with the Secretary of and the Secretary of Defense and by determining the price in dance with the Merchant Ship Sales Act. Congressman Flood has pointed out, there is no competition enered with American-flag vessels because they are just not in this . Chairman, I hope very much your committee will see fit to pass ably on this bill. nator COTTON. You are specifically interested in the export of o Belgium and the Netherlands? ator CLARK. That is right, sir; and these five Liberty ships for purpose. ator COTTON. How do you feel about the bill that some of us New England introduced that had to do with carrying coal to Germany? ator CLARK. I would support that, too, sir. I understand that are enough Liberty ships to go around, so that there is not a on of having to choose between them. May I say that West an deal would also be of substantial benefit to the bituminous of Pennsylvania, and I therefore would support it, also. ator COTTON. Thank you, Senator. Any questions? LUCKEY. No questions. ator COTTON. Thank you very much, Senator; glad to have ith us. Your prepared statement will be incorporated into the at this point. e prepared statement of Senator Clark is as follows:) ENT OF HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Chairman, I am appearing before this committee today in support of S. bill to authorize the sale to Belgium or its citizens of five GovernmentLiberty-type vessels. While I understand that the authorization to purhese vessels is substantially in the interest of the Belgian people, it is priin the interest of the people of Pennsylvania. statistics compiled by the Department of Labor establish that for the past s the anthracite coal region of the State of Pennsylvania has been the No. essed labor market in the entire United States. The general well-being eople of this area is dependent to an almost exclusive degree on its ability ice and sell anthracite coal. once prosperous area of Pennsylvania, which supplied much of the coal - to heat American homes, has today lost most of its domestic market. It has been unable to compete in the home-heating market with oil or gas. It has not been able to develop an export market for its product which could even in small measure absorb its loss in the domestic market. In 1955 the principal coal importer in Belgium and the Netherlands came to Pennsylvania with his experts for the purpose of working with the coal companies located in the anthracite region, to determine the feasibility of producing a high-grade anthracite for export to Belgium and the Netherlands. This coal would be blended with coals produced in Belgium, Russia, and Wales. The studies and experiments which have been carried out have proven the idea to be sound and in the interest of the anthracite region and the people of Belgium and the Netherlands. As a result of these studies an open-end contract was entered into between the Belgian coal importer and the anthracite-producing mines in Pennsylvania whereby the Belgians had the right to purchase at agreed-upon prices almost any tonnage which they desired, but they were not obligated to purchase even minimum tonnage. Under this arrangement, in 1956 the Belgian importer purchased from our anthracite mines approximately 290,000 tons, and up to June 1, 1957. they have purchased approximately 180,000 tons. I am reliably informed that, in the event we are able to stabilize at a reasonable figure an ocean freight rate for this coal, the Belgian importer will purchase not less than 1 million tons of anthracite per year from our mines, and if market conditions in Belgium and the Netherlands will justify additional purchases, even more substantial sales might be anticipated. But even if the exports were to be 1 million tons per year it would produce significant benefits to this stricken area of my State. Our mines and the Belgian importer have been able to stabilize within reason all cost factors from the time the anthracite is produced in the mines until it is delivered in homes in Belgium and the Netherlands, with the sole exception of the ocean freight rate. During the short life of the contract between the Pennsylvania mines and the Belgian importer our coal has been shipped at ocean freight rates varying from $7.50 per ton to $17.50 per ton. It was only as recently as February of this year that this coal moved at ocean freight rates of $17.50 per ton, and we have no assurance that the ocean rate will not again be as high or higher by the time the next winter season commences. Generally speaking, I am in favor of any legislation which helps all or any segment of Pennsylvania, but I am particularly in favor of S. 2378 because it helps an important part of Pennsylvania-the miners, the mine-owning companies, the Pennsylvania and Reading Railroads, and the port of Philadelphia. And it would benefit our friendly allies of Belgium and the Netherlands. This bill does not harm the American merchant marine because there has never been a ton of anthracite moved to Belgium or the Netherlands on an Americanflag vessel, and I am informed that because of the cost differential it is highly unlikely that this situation will change. As a matter of fact, liner services, Sailing the essential trade routes, will not even handle this commodity. The ships which the Belgians seek to obtain by this legislation are deteriorating in the Maritime Administration reserve fleet at tremendous annual expense to the Government. The committee is well aware of all the arguments along this line, and I am sure I need say no more. I trust that the committee will see fit to report S. 2378 in its present form. Senator CorTON. Someone handed me a statement by Congressman John A. Blatnik, of the Eighth District of Minnesota. Is Congressman Blatnik in the room? Mr. SONOSKY (representing Congressman Blatnik). No; he has been detained at another hearing. Senator COTTON. Would the Congressman like this statement in the record at this point? Mr. SONOSKY. Yes, sir. Senator COTTON. We will be happy to insert it at this point. (The prepared statement of Congressman Blatnik is as follows:) MENT OF HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE EIGHTH DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Chairman, my name is John A. Blatnik. I am a Member of the House of esentatives representing the Eighth District of Minnesota. I appear today pport of Senate Joint Resolution 93 which is a companion bill to HouseResolution 330 which I have introduced in the House. In my opinion, e Joint Resolution 93 or my bill should be enacted, as it is necessary for stablishment of essential water transportation services for the Great Lakes Moreover, I particularly urge enactment of this legislation because of act that it involves no cost to the Government; on the contrary, it accoms a laudable purpose and at the same time will obtain substantial sums e Government for the vessels which have been in disuse since the war. th the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, new waterborne traffic ns in the commerce of the United States will undoubtedly be established. gn trade to and from the lakes is already underway: in the past several foreign lines using small vessels have been engaged in rapidly expanding operations preliminary to instituting full-scale service with large ships the seaway is open. In the field of foreign commerce, several American have indicated their interest in serving the Great Lakes/foreign routes in ent that operating-differential subsidy assistance can be obtained by them t they can compete with their low-cost foreign competitors. while foreign trade to and from the Great Lakes seems to be developing the necessary trade within the Great Lakes which this will develop and e has shown no sign of development. Equally important, trade by sea en the Great Lakes and the costal areas of the United States, which could p into a major shipping service limited only to American-flag ships, has handicapped and frustrated because of the inability to obtain vessels at that such a service would economically permit. The basic purpose of this. to make ships available to American operators for these domestic services a the Great Lakes, and for services connecting Great Lakes ports and ports · coastal areas, at prices which will enable them to begin such operations reasonabl expectancy of economic success. ctment of Senate Joint Resolution 93 would accomplish three purposes. rst of these is to provide a feeder service between Great Lakes ports so he cargo to be carried in foreign commerce can be delivered to and from ts to the terminal ports of the ocean carriers. second purpose is to provide service between the ports in the Great Lakes. i know, there was formerly a large volume of commerce in so-called packeight between Great Lakes ports. During World War II, the vessels in ckage-freight trades on the lakes were requisitioned by the Government ere not available for return to the lakes at the end of that conflict. Since me, the Great Lakes area has been deprived of the economies of waterborne ortation for general freight because of the lack of available ships. third purpose of the pending legislation is to permit the reestablishment le between the coastal areas and the Great Lakes. As you know, transport en the Great Lakes and ports of our east and gulf coasts can be handled y American-flag ships. I am informed that a substantial volume of comcould be developed between the ports on the east and gulf coasts and the Lakes. Both shippers and consignees, both on the lakes and on the would be given the benefit of low-cost waterborne service as well as the g rail and road service which is now the sole means of carrying their comes and our to their markets. will recall that when the Ship Sales Act was passed, no vessels were availor use on the Great Lakes. In the first place, the cost of bringing the oing vessels into the lakes was prohibitive. Secondly, the lack of a y limited the cargo opportunities for ships in the Great Lakes. As a rehe Ship Sales Act was useless insofar as Great Lakes operators were ned. You will recall that the only ships sold for use on the Great Lakes ix C-4 type vessels which were sold about 1951 under special legislation. certainly there was no desire or intent to treat Great Lakes operators any ntly than other American operators, the circumstances existing up to ne of the expiration of the Ship Sales Act were such as to preclude Great operators from participating in the ship-sales program. bill which is now before your committee would merely open the Ship Act to Great Lakes operators on a limited scale. Circumstances which 4693-57-12 |