(The statement referred to is as follows:)

It is estimated that the total cost of shipping 30,136,000 metric tons of coal to France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the French dependencies would be the equivalent of approximately $331,000,000 not all of which would involve dollar expenditures.

The estimates before the committee assume that only $22,000,000 of freight charges for all commodities including coal would be financed by ECA.

NECESSITY OF SHIPPING COAL TO CERTAIN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask one question to cover every one of these items and I shall ask you to supply the answer for the record, because I do not think we ought to spend any more time on this coal picture now. We are not getting as good information as I had hoped we might.

We have asked the question about the Netherlands. I will start with Norway. There you indicate a larger percentage of coal than prewar. One of the things that we ought to know is why we are going to do that.

In your picture here you have a lot of coal set up to go to Portugal. That is another case where the amount available is to be double what it was prewar. It does not seem as if that were a prime necessity. I do not know why you have that in there on any such basis. Now we have Sweden and they have importations of coal involving 6,933,000 tons, nearly as much as the prewar set-up. As I understand, they could pay for it but nevertheless, with the shortage in coal through the world, it would seem that that was a liberal figure.

Then we have Switzerland, with the same figure set up for next year as prewar and practically all imports; 700,000 tons more than last year. I would like to have you answer why they have to have so much.

For Turkey there is none. For the United Kingdom there is none. The amount available for their own use is 16,000,000 tons above prewar consumption and 10,000,000 tons above the 1947 figure, which was padded on account of the extremely cold weather.

Western Germany shows imports of 8,465,000 tons as against none in the prewar period. You do have 30,000,000 tons of exports, but it does not seem as though that import figure was necessary.

I am going to leave it to you to answer that for the record,

I want to finish with this coal picture tonight.

(The information is as follows:)

SELECTED INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY REQUIREMENTS IN 1948-49

because

Norway. The requirements for Norway are shown in tables 1 and 2, attached. In 1929 Norway consumed close to 3,000,000 tons; in 1938, 3,100,000 tons; and in 1947, 2,400,000 tons. The requirements for Norway for 1948-49, at 2,550,000 tons, are substantially below those of 1938 and slightly higher than consumption in 1947, which was below requirements owing to the coal shortage. As Norway's population has increased by approximately 250,000 since 1938, her per capita requirements for coal are proportionately lower owing to the development of hydroelectric power. The end uses in which hydro power has made the greatest inroads are public utilities, railroads, and domestic heating.

Portugal. The data for Portugal are shown in tables 1 and 3. Table 3, in addition, provides a break-down of prewar and postwar requirements by end uses. Portugal's requirements over all are expected to be some 300,000 tons higher than 1938, a 25-percent increase, and roughly 500,000 tons higher than

1947. As population in Portugal has increased by 12 percent since 1938, the over-all increase in Portugal's coal requirements in 1948-49, as compared with prewar, is 13 percent on a per capita basis. Railroads and bunkers account for the major part of the increase in requirements.

Sweden. Data on Swedish requirements are shown in tables 1 and 4. Sweden's total requirements in 1948-49 are estimated to be over 1,500,000 tons lower than prewar supply. This is attributable to the displacement of coal by hydro power in industrial activities other than iron and steel and in domestic heating. Requirements for coal are lower in spite of a projected general increase in industrial activity.

Switzerland. Data on Switzerland are shown in tables 1 and 5. Swiss requirements in 1948-49 are 3,300,000 tons as compared with a supply of 3,800,000 tons in 1938. As in the case of Norway and Sweden, coal requirements are lower in spite of a rising level of industrial activity owing to a more than proportionate increase in hydro power, which is displacing the use of coal in the gas and railroad industries and in domestic heating.

United Kingdom.-Data on the United Kingdom are shown in table 6, which shows end-use requirements in both the post and prewar periods. These data indicate that the gas works, railways, electricity, and iron and steel industries are to consume larger quantities of coal than in the prewar period. The use of coal for electric power is 16,000,000 tons above 1938, a 100-percent increase, which is to be attributed to the steady increase in the consumption of electricity, a development common to all European countries owing to the displacement of steam by thermal power and the use of greater quantities of electricity in the home. Iron and steel are expected to consume about 4,000,000 tons more than prewar ; the gas works and railways each about 2,000,000 tons more than prewar, and general industrial activities about a million and a half tons more. A substantial decline is expected in consumption of coal for overseas bunkers and for domestic heating. While requirements in 1948-49 are 16,000,000 tons above 1938, they are 10,000,000 tons above actual supply in 1947, a year in which Britain experienced a severe coal shortage and in which production was consequently lower than it might have been. Britain is a case illustrating the need for greater industrial production to permit her to export greater quantities of goods and services to overcome the reduction of external income from the loss of overseas investments. TABLE 1.—Available supply of coal for selected countries, prewar, 1947 and 1948–49 [Thousands of metric tons]

TABLE 2.—Norway: Coal requirements, by end use, 1948–49

1 The supply in 1947 was below requirements owing to the shortage of coal; therefore, 1947 should not be considered a guide to postwar requirements.

Gas works.
Railroads.

Electricity
Industry.

Bunkers.

Domestic.

Total

Gas works.

TABLE 3.-Portugal: Coal requirements by end use, 1938, 1948-49

TABLE 4.-Sweden: Coal requirements by end use, 1938, 1948-49

TABLE 5.-Switzerland: Coal requirements by end use, 1938, 1948-49

TABLE 6.-United Kingdom: Coal requirements by end use, 1938, 1948–49

THE IMPORTATION OF COAL INTO WESTERN GERMANY

The tables showing commodity requirements by country indicate that western Germany, comprising the bizone, French zone and the Saar, expects to import 8,465,000 tons of coal in 1948-49 in spite of a substantial volume of anticipated exports. About 61⁄2 million tons of the 8,500,000-ton figure refers to the volume of interzonal trade, or to the shipments of coal from the British zone to the French zone, from the French zone, including the Saar, to the United States zone, and from the United States zone to the British zone. The three zones as a whole are not likely to import more than 1.5 to 2 million tons in 1948-49. This will consist principally of coal from the Soviet zone to the United States-United Kingdom zones. Coal is imported from the Soviet zone to the United States-United Kingdom zones in order to save transportation. The consuming areas are closer to the Soviet zone than they are to the coal fields in the United States-United Kingdom zones.

EFFECT ON UNITED STATES ECONOMY OF PROPOSED COAL SHIPMENTS ABROAD

The CHAIRMAN. I have one other question I want to ask and I should like to have Mr. Boyd answer it, if possible. Do you think that we are going to be able, without upsetting our own economy, raising the price, or limiting the use by our own people, to supply the quantity of coal that you have indicated would be exported in each of the years 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, and 1950-51 to Europe? Do you believe that we can do that?

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, provided coal production is maintained without work stoppage, we can do that. We exported more than the amount which is the figure for 1948-49, last year, in 1947, without serious disruption to our own coal economy here. The figure for next year will be less than that.

The United States coal production capacity is in excess of the coal that we have produced in the past. The limitation on production last year was in coal-car supply and we understand that that will be considerably improved next year. So that the adjustment should be better next year than this year, 1948-49 against the 1947 period.

The CHAIRMAN. Are we getting an increased domestic demand? Mr. BoYD. We produced last year more coal than in any other year but one in our history. There seems to be an increasing demand for coal. That, of course, is partially attributable to increased exports, because we did export over 60 million tons last year. We exported to Europe over 40 million tons.

The CHAIRMAN. Your exports were a good deal more than 40 million tons altogether; were they not?

Mr. BOYD. 70 million tons, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is more than you ever exported before? Mr. BOYD. That is right. We normally do not export to Europe, but we have other countries that have always taken our coal. The CHAIRMAN. And domestic consumption was larger? Mr. BOYD. And domestic consumption was larger.

PRICE OF COAL TO ITALY

Mr. CASE. How did the price of coal delivered in Italy compare with the price of coal delivered from Germany?

Mr. BOYD. I could not give you the exact figures, but I am quite sure that it was considerably higher, because of the transportation costs. Mr. MAHON. Which are approximately $13 a ton?

Mr. BOYD. Yes; $13 a ton. The cost of the coal at the pit heads in this country are in the order of $5 a ton, or a little over.

The CHAIRMAN. The coal that the Italians carried to Italy themselves did not cost as much as the other; I mean, the transportation charge is not as heavy as ours?

Mr. LISTER. The coal moving from Rotterdam to Italy is about $6 a ton payable in sterling.

Mr. CASE. That is the transportation cost only?

Mr. LISTER. Only the transportation cost.

Mr. CASE. The cost of the Ruhr coal was originally about $10 and then was raised to $15?

Mr. LISTER. The Ruhr coal averages $15 f. o. b. at the German border.

The CHAIRMAN. I have not yet received an answer to the question I asked; perhaps I did not ask it clearly enough.

Mr. NITZE. The cost of shipping coal in Italian vessels is zero in dollars except for the port expenses of the Italian ships. From the dollar standpoint it is an entirely different thing from shipping in United States vessels. I believe the rates that are charged by foreign vessels in this trade are fixed competitively, so that they are about the same.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean that we have to pay those rates?

Mr. NITZE. No. If the Italians ship coal to Italy in Italian vessels, that is an Italian transaction in toto.

The CHAIRMAN. And it is a transaction that does not go through our books or that we have to pay for?

Mr. NITZE. That is correct..

The CHAIRMAN. If they carry coal from here to Italy, the Italian Government pays for that transportation, or somebody in Italy pays for it; we do not?

Mr. NITZE. That is right. Only the bill provides that at least 50 percent of the volume of commodities shipped under ECA must be in United States bottoms. That was an amendment introduced in the Senate and adopted in the House.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions on coal, at this point?

PERCENTAGE OF UNITED STATES PRODUCTION EXPORTED UNDER PROGRAM

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, there is one question I would like to have answered. It may be answered in these voluminous reports which we have before us, but it is obvious that it would be impossible for me, and I think for any other member of the committee to learn the details of this whole program in a short time. The economic system of Europe is highly complicated. I think it would take years for us to become fully familiar with it.

What I would like to know is this: For example, with respect to coal, what percentage of our production will be exported under the ECA program? I would like to know what part of our production will be exported other than through the ECA program. That would give me a picture so that I can compare the ECA program with the normal program which is financed through normal channels of trade.

I would like to have the percentage of our production represented by those shipments through ECA and otherwise, so that we could just look at it and see what the picture is over-all.