CHART D.-EFFECT OF INCREASE IN BUNKER OIL PRICE ON CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

Scattered throughout the State of Rhode Island there are over 40 charitable institutions which use bunker oil in their heating plants. Such institutions as the Bradley Home, Home for Aged Women, L'Hospice de St. Antoine, St. Elizabeth's Home, St. Vincent de Paul Orphan Asylum, and many others. While we list below an oil-consumption figure which represents only a part of the sum total it, nevertheless, will show what a serious situation the increase in price would bring about in these charitable institutions.

CHART E.-EFFECT OF INCREASE IN BUNKER OIL PRICE ON SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

Many of the larger schools are heated with bunker oil. The new high school in East Providence, the new schools in Warwick and the new schools in Cranston are all heated by heavy oil. There are 5 schools in Pawtucket and 8 schools in Providence, and 2 in Woonsocket which are heated with this grade of oil. Both Providence College and Brown University use this type of fuel. In total about 90,000 barrels of bunker oil are used in our educational institutions. below the impact the increase would have.

We list

Mr. GILL. If the increase reached $1 per barrel, the increased cost to us would be about $8,500,000 for fuel. Would this increase cost affect only our local residents? Certainly not. Anyone who did business with Rhode Island industry-if there was any left--would have to pay a higher price for whatever he bought.

At this time I would like to highlight a few specific cases of the effect of such an increase as $1 per barrel for resídual oil on Rhode Island economy.

1. Everyone realizes the importance of our local State government's esponsibility to take care of the mentally sick, physically sick, and so forth, people of the respective States. Do you realize what $200,000 ncreased fuel cost would do to our State budget?

2. City of Providence already has voted an increase of $3 per thouand in the tax rate. Where would the $78,000 in additional fuel cost come from?

3. It is indicated from just a partial analysis of the charitable intitutions in our State that their fuel bill would be increased approxinately $62,000. Who would contribute this additional sum?

4. Providence College and Brown University, who, to a large exent, depend on endowment money to keep on the right side of the ence, financially speaking, would be hit with an additional cost for uel of approximately $50,000. Endowments, as you know, are not as eadily available today as they formerly were, so we ask, Where would his additional money come from?

Due to this shortage that we think would be created, and due to the lmost certain increase in cost of all types of fuel, it is our firm belief hat the living costs in all necessities of life would spiral in direct roportion to the increased cost of fuel and power. Increased costs of oil, coal and natural gas would demand increased cost in electric power, domestic gas for cooking and heating, food processing, textile lants of all kinds, dyeing and finishing plants, and last but by no neans least, cost of municipal, State and Federal Government operaions. It is inconceivable to me that the Congress of the United States would consider favorably legislation such as this.

It is not our intention to engage in any sectional or factional wrangle, and we would like to believe that no thoughts of this kind are inolved in this piece of legislation-but it is rather hard to reconcile he principles that apparently underline this fight with the best inerests of our country as a whole. If it is the intention to make people ourn other kinds of fuel by law, please allow me to give you a little history of my experience in this regard.

During World War II, I was a member of the Governor's Fuel Commission for our State. In line with National Government policy, we were responsible for converting a large percentage of oil-burning installations to coal. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent installing automatic coal equipment. I would like to inject, Mr. Chairman, that one company alone spent $41,000 to convert from oil to coal, and the result will follow. My own company lost about 75 percent of its industrial oil business. We accepted this result with patriotic understanding as necessary in time of war and reconciled ourselves to the loss of this business for years to come and perhaps forever. We of the fuel commission did everything in our power to arrange adequate coal supplies for our own oil customers and, likewise, did everything we could do to secure sufficient oil for those who could not convert to coal.

I regret to say that those who were selling this competitive automatic equipment did not acquit themselves with too much glory, customers had to get service from outside our State, jobs were shut down;

and altogether, results were not too creditable. Believe it or not, every job we lost through conversion to a competitive fuel requested immediate reinstallation of their oil-burning equipment within 90 days from V-J Day.

Apparently fuel oil was necessary to keep these industries in a competitive position in our complex industrial economy of today.

Let's take a look at the physical structure of many of the plants office buildings, public institutions, and so forth.

1. A great many of them have no space in which to store coal; they were built to burn oil and their storage facilities are underground outside these buildings.

2. Rent-paying space in buildings where available would have to be sacrificed and turned into coal bunkers.

3. In manpower shortage areas, where would the men be recruited to handle some other fuel and the ash residue after it was burned? 4. The decreased efficiency of other fuels would increase costs substantially, regardless of the base cost of the fuel involved. All in all, it is not a pretty picture to be faced with.

Gentlemen, if a Congressman, Senator, or businessman from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, or any other coal-producing State, would like to see everyone burn more coal, I, for one, certainly would admire him for his local pride, for his interest in his home State economy, but I refuse to believe that he would want something that would be good from a purely local viewpoint and bad for the country as a whole. Don't allow yourselves to be misled into believing that our residual oil users are the cause of the troubles of any other fuel industry in other parts of the country.

If you were faced with this kind of a critical economic crisis in your particular section of the country, would you stand idly by and allor your industrial structure to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, or would you try honestly and sincerely to present a truthful picture of devastation and ruin?

Gentlemen, we are fighting for our economic salvation. Millions of men and women just like you and me are looking to us to carry their fight. It is not our fight alone. This is not sectionalism-this is nationalism. You have a big stake in this issue, and we feel confident that our case is in good hands, your hands, gentlemen.

My sincere thanks go to you for the privilege of being here today to present our case. My presentation probably has not been too brilliant, but it has been sincere.

Mr. GOODWIN (presiding). Thank you very much for your presen"ation, Mr. Gill.

Mr. FORAND. I want to compliment Mr. Gill for his presentation What he has told the committee here is something I know presonally to be a fact. We, in Rhode Island, have experienced some terrible times as a result of fuel shortage, and Mr. Gill and his commission did everything that could possibly be done to relieve the situation. The facts that he has presented here tell us graphically exactly what

it was.

My compliments to you.

the

Mr. GILL. You know, Mr. Congressman, we had even to stop public utility plants from burning oil up there, and make them go to coal, during this 1947-48 shortage, so that we could supply the ol

that they had in their tanks-took it away from them, gave it to the industries to keep the industries going.

Mr. FORAND. I know also that some of the industries had to shut down at various times, and department stores were closed on various days.

Mr. GILL. That is correct, sir.

Mr. GOODWIN. Thank you again.

Mr. Martin J. Ryan, of Bridgeport, Conn., is recognized as the next witness. Will you be good enough to identify yourself to the reporter, Mr. Ryan, and then proceed with your statement?

STATEMENT OF MARTIN J. RYAN, PRESIDENT OF BUCKLEY BROS., INC., BRIDGEPORT, CONN.

Mr. RYAN. My name is Martin J. Ryan. I am president of Buckey Bros., Inc., Bridgeport, Conn.

We are a locally owned and operated independent oil company. We have been marketers of petroleum products for a period of about 6 years. We distribute these products in an area covering about onehird of the State of Connecticut.

I have been asked by the jobbers of the State to represent them here. There are four jobbers and a half-dozen subjobbers in the State, all of thom are independent oil men.

Further, I have been asked by innumerable fuel oil consumers to repesent them here. We are opposed to this bill because it is an attempt o do by legislation what a backward coal industry has been unable to lo for itself. Connecticut is neither a coal or oil producing State. Therefore, I have no basic or congenital prejudices.

I am not familiar with any phase of this bill except the restriction hat would be placed on the importation of residual fuel oil. We were practically forced into the fuel oil business by the consumers in our ection of Connecticut. When we sought to obtain a supply of domesic residual oil from the major oil refiners in the East, we were inormed that there was insufficient domestic supply to meet the normal lemand. We were forced to obtain our supply from a foreign source; amely, out of the Caribbean from Venezuelan crude. We were furher informed that the yield of domestic residual oil was constantly eing reduced, percentagewise, and that at no time in the foreseeable 'uture would domestic supplies be available.

Therefore, we were forced to import all of our residual fuel oil. One hundred percent of residual fuel consumed in our area is imported; about 80 percent for Connecticut. The elimination of this ssential, competitive fuel by law, will create not only hardship but he highest prices this country has ever seen for coal. I have been so informed by coal men.

The condition that exists today on the importation of residual fuel s not a new one. People have been burning this stuff these many years. We, in the State of Connecticut, cannot comprehend why at his late date, the coal industry apparently has become suddenly aware of this.

Connecticut is a manufacturing State. In the Bridgeport district there are 637 factories; in the State of Connecticut there are 4,177 factories. There are not more than 2 or 3 of these factories in the whole State that could qualify as big industry. However, the volume of

goods manufactured by them last year amounted to $5,800 million. In Connecticut and New England, there are tens of thousands of these small factories and most of them burn residual fuel oil. Our manufacturers, I believe, like high tariffs. They don't like the dumping of foreign goods in this country when there are plenty of these com modities of American manufacture. They cannot understand why residual fuel is to be restricted when there is no domestic supply avail able. They do not like it, and they are vehemently opposed to the Simpson bill.

We are not interested in the battle of the giants-coal versus oil. We are interested in the welfare of the consumers we serve. The large percentage of consumers in Connecticut, and I believe it is true along the eastern seaboard, are those who consume less than 10,000 barrels of oil per year. These are made up of thousands of small laundries dairies, bakeries, and small factories. These people refuse to bur coal. The laundries cannot afford to have coal piles outside their windows to dirty up their clean shirts; nor can the bakeries permit cos dust in their bread and pies; nor the dairies in their milk and cream. You cannot give them coal at any price.

We have town and city housing projects who burn fuel oil. These projects each house hundreds of families. Some of these are city and town housing projectse and some are Federal projects. None of the have standby equipment that can burn coal. This is true also of the small factories and all of the larger industries that we serve. In many cases it would be impossible to convert; and for those who can, it would cost millions of dollars, which expense will have to be passed on in the form of increased cost to all of us.

It should be recognized that the large percentage of these consumers have added onto their buildings since the war, and today they haven't s square inch of room in which to store coal even if they selected coal a fuel. It is physically impossible to do so. Furthermore, the cost of converting many of these small businesses and factories would actually put them out of business. They simply do not have the finances accomplish this.

Let us look at what would be the position of the small-business mat and the small-factory owner of which there are tens of thousands o the east coast. These fellows do not even rate the status of smal business. These fellows are microscopic. Legislation of this kind wi unquestionably put many of them out of business. These are the fellows who employ anywhere from 6 to 60 people. It seems to Le that the millions of people who would be affected by such legislation should be the ones to be considered rather than a few thousand of those engaged in the coal industry.

I have discussed this bill with several hundred people and of great interest to me, and it should be to you, is the attitude of the public utilities. The one public-utility man that I talked with informed that under the public-utility regulations, they are required to burn the cheapest fuel to make power and light. If Congress makes it a la he stated, then there is nothing they could do about the selection of fuel. They are permitted, under the regulation, to pass the additio cost on to the consumer. My comment was that if the Simpson should be approved and enacted into law, that tens of millions of peop on the east coast will have pay more money for electric light ar power. He agreed sadly that this was the case. Therefore, you are