Mr. BARRETT. I do not ask to interject their difficulties into this legislation. Still I do not want for 1 minute to let the record show that the gold-mining segment of our mining industry has been going a long time famously, because it has not. It is in a bad way in many respects and I think they have been discriminated against just about as badly as the submarginal mine operators in this country as a whole.

Mr. ENGLE. I want to concur with the gentleman and add this: That the difference between the discrimination against the gold miners in this country and the strategic miners is this: That after the premiumprice plan ended, there was nothing done to help the marginal miners of strategic and critical minerals and metals, but during the war they did have the premium-price plan to assist them.

On the contrary the gold-mining industry was closed down during the war under WPB Order L208, a discriminatory order issued against the gold mines for the purpose of testing the feasibility of closing down nonessential industries such as artificial flower makers and the manufacture of tombstones and things of that sort, resorts, and nightclubs.

The gold miners were closed down by specific order by WPB Order L208, which, so far as I know, was not duplicated against any other industry in the country.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MARSHALL. I assume we do have some stock pile of gold.

Mr. ENGLE. We have the gold in Fort Knox, yes, which is one of the things that makes the American dollar the stable currency it is throughout the world.

Mr. MARSHALL. In your legislation, it deals entirely with strategic minerals.

Mr. ENGLE. That is right. Inasmuch as gold was brought up, I was putting in my 2 cents' worth on it, representing as I do the major goldproducing area in the West, at least out of our side of the committee. Mr. BARRETT. I will accept your amendment to that.

Mr. ENGLE. We yield to the home State as having the biggest mine. There is no question about that.

Mr. PALMER. I would like to add to what Congressman Barrett and the chairman have said, that while our organization bears the name "Colorado," that includes most of the gold miners in your State and in the State of South Dakota as members of our organization and confer with us at our annual meeting in Denver, as has the chairman and other members of this committee.

I would like to concur fully with what the chairman has said with reference to the gold-mining industry. The largest custom mill in Colorado Springs is being demolished at the present time in an effort to cut costs. They are attempting to move it into the Cripple Creek district.

It is just a ramification of that unfortunate order which practically destroyed that industry within the State.

I would also like to add this, if I may: We are trying to coordinate the work of the various mining organizations in the Rocky Mountain region. I had the privilege of attending the New Mexico mining

meeting and can report that its resolution is within line on this subject with the resolutions that were adopted at Denver.

It is agreed, generally speaking, that if Congress in its wisdom finds that it is not possible to help the mining industry by the continuation of the premium price plan or some similar plan, that we are very strongly in favor of the exploration features and we would like to emphasize the importance of defining exploration to mean the extension of known workings, with particular reference to the smaller segment of the industry, if that program is evolved.

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Palmer, I notice you refer to a 50-50 matching on exploration, but stress the importance of giving special consideration to smaller operators. I assume, then, that if some program could be worked out whereby the smaller operator would have to contribute a smaller percentage than 50-50, that would be consistent with what you have in mind.

Mr. PALMER. That is right. That is based on the idea that the larger operator is generally mechanized and has the ability to cut costs. The smaller operator's costs, especially in exploration work, generally are higher. We would like to suggest a larger percentage in that instance. Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Chairman, would you yield a moment? Mr. ENGLE. Yes.

Mr. D'EWART. In your definition of "exploration," you state you would like to have it defined as "extension of existing ore bodies." You do not mean to eliminate the exploration and finding of new ore bodies?

Mr. PALMER. If I used the words "ore bodies," I did not mean to use that "known workings."

Mr. D'EWART. You wanted to define "exploration" as "extension of present workings."

Mr. PALMER. That is right.

Mr. D'EWART. In other words, you do not contemplate having this bill include search for new ore bodies; I mean, ore bodies not an extension of existing known ores?

Mr. PALMER. If I understand you correctly, we mean if you are working on an ore body in search of additional ore that should be included in the definition of "exploration."

Mr. D'EWART. As I understand your definition, you would confine this bill only to exploration of extension of existing known ore bodies. You would not permit any payments under this bill for the searching of ore bodies in new territories.

Mr. PALMER. If I gave that impression, I did not mean to give that. I meant to include in the word "exploration," a definition which would enable the small operators to receive assistance for exploration and development costs, even though they are working on present ore bodies or present extensions of present operations.

There was considerable discussion on that very point under the premium price plan, and under the administration of that plan and the smaller operators, as you well know, from your State are interested in the theory that ore begets ore and that continuation of ore bodies may open up new substantial ore bodies.

Mr. D'EWART. I think that is true in 95 percent of the cases. However, there are some bodies that not now mined that could be explored.

I would like to ask you one more question: Is your association on record as to revision of the present mine tax laws and as to revision of the regulations of the SEC?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. D'EWART. Both of them?

Mr. PALMER. Constantly, every year.

Mr. ENGLE. Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. ENGLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Palmer, for your statement. The meeting will stand adjourned until 2:30 this afternoon, provided the House is not then in session. If the House is in session, the meeting will adjourn until the next regular meeting of this subcommittee, at which time we will hear Mr. Adkerson and such other witnesses from the manganese industry as he shall wish to bring, and also those from the Government.

(Whereupon, at 12: 05 p. m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.)

NATIONAL MINERALS ACT OF 1949

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINES AND MINING,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Clair Engle, presiding. Present: Messrs. Engle, Baring, Marshall, Aspinall, Miles, Lemke, Barrett, LeFevre, D'Ewart, and Sanborn.

Mr. ENGLE. The committee will be in order.

We are proceeding on H. R. 976, H. R. 2031, and H. R. 2406, hear the balance of the industry witnesses.

to

Mr. J. Carson Adkerson is here. Will you state your full name, please, the capacity in which you appear, and whom you represent?

STATEMENT OF J. CARSON ADKERSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MANGANESE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. ADKERSON. My name is J. Carson Adkerson. I am president of the American Manganese Producers Association, Washington, D. C. I am a mining engineer, registered and licensed under the laws of the State of Virginia. I have been engaged in the manganese industry for more than 30 years.

Manganese first became the foremost strategic mineral at the beginning of World War I and it has always remained at the top of the strategic mineral list. It now overshadows all strategic materials needed by the armed forces, for the simple reason that manganese is used in the manufacture of steel. It is the starch in steel. There is no substitute for manganese in the manufacture of steel. Without manganese there can be no steel so, therefore, without manganese our national defense program would completely collapse.

During last year, we consumed about 1,600,000 tons of manganese ore. The total production in this country was 130,000 tons; 116,000 tons was used for metallurgical purposes. The balance of the 14,000 tons was used for dry-cell batteries, paints, bricks, and other products. We have offhand now a little more than a year's supply of manganese in all stocks. During 1948, industry stocks were dug into to the extent of about 300,000 tons, so instead of building up on our stock piles of manganese during recent years, particularly during the last year, we are digging into our stock piles. The situation in the United States is precarious from the standpoint of its manganese supplies. During last year, we had imports of manganese from foreign countries amounting to 1,256,647 short tons. Of that total tonnage, Russia furnished 427,000 tons; Union of South Africa furnished 216,000