sources for our supplies we have been compelled to pay all the traffic would bear when an emergency arose, or we have been compelled to do without. Suppose we relied on Guatamala for our supplies, knowing as we do that the Communists are infiltrating that country. Are wo going to place the safety and security of the people of the United States on that source of lead and zinc? Suppose we look elsewhere and place our safety and security on minerals located in faraway places where they must be transported to this country by ship. Assuming that the Government stays stable, assuming that the Government is not overthrown, assuming that the mineral resources are not denied to us by any government which may be in power in a foreign country-is there not always the threat that these sources will be cut off when we most need them by the excessive operations of enemy submarines? Has this not been our experience? Look at the record. In all seriousness, these people have asked me to ask the Congress of the United States, "Is there a deep-seated plot to make the United States dependent on foreign sources for its raw materials?"? If so, then the record proves that everything in the book is being done to discourage, dishearten, and destroy the American miner.

How would you like to have the prices of the products produced in your business decreased almost overnight by as much as 40 percent-a drop from 191⁄2 cents to 12 cents and from 19 cents to 11 cents. Surely you would ask, "What caused this?" especially at a time when other lines of business in the United States are enjoying apparent prosperity.

We have suggested a solution to our problem. The adjustable tariff, with a base price of 15% cents, adjusted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Will the 151⁄2-cent price guarantee production in our marginal mines? It will not. In a great many of the mines of the West, as testified at the recent hearings of the Select Committee on Small Business, 172 cents is vital to keep our mines in operation. But we are asking that the average cost of production in the United States be used as the basis for our calculations. We are not asking the OPS ceilings of 19 and 191⁄2 cents, which would have been a fair price, because when these prices were established foreign producers were getting 32 to 36 cents for their metal, but we are asking 15% cents as a base to keep us in business on American standards.

Does the Congress want us to lower wage scales in the United States to those which prevail in foreign countries in an effort to keep our mines operating? Does the Congress want us to lower living standards in the United States by paying our miners such low wage scales that they cannot buy the automobiles, the machinery, the hundred and one items manufactured in plants throughout the United States? Does the Congress want us to deprive the farmers of this country of the domestic markets which the miners provide? Do the railroads want to give up the traffic which they gain when mines are in operation by taking metals from mines and returning machinery and equipment and supplies to mines? Do the communities in which these mines are operated desire to give up their sources of income and disrupt the entire economy of the area in question? How about the hundreds of other businesses which will be affected? Do they want the mining industry discontinued?

The answers are, apparently, negative, for community meetings have been held in many western towns and cities and the people are demanding that the Congress take action now to prevent complete destruction.

Here, we point out to the Congress that we don't have access to the printing presses of the Government of the United States which can get out elaborate reports at tremendous expense to the American taxpayers. We don't have access to the columns of the thousands of magazines published in the more industrialized sections of the country. True, we will have to cancel our subscriptions to these magazines if our payrolls are cut off, but the point is that we haven't an opportunity to tell our story as well as certain foreign groups areable to tell their story in the magazines of the country. We do commend the New York Times for its front-page article on the depressed condition of the domestic mining industry and we commend the Christian Science Monitor and others for giving our story prominent mention in their columns.

To delay consideration of our plea for a year is to destroy us. To tell us that the Tariff Commission is more favorable to our position means nothing. The tariff on lead and zinc, restored to its position prior to the passage of the Recip rocal Trade Agreements Act, would be as nothing under today's inflationary worldwide conditions.

If the industry were given the same kind of protection which the manufacturing industries of this country enjoy, for the most part, we would have no

objection. The French Government set the pattern when it increased the tariff on lead to protect its domestic producers-and did the stars fall out of the heavens? Were international conflicts inspired? Recently, the president of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers explained our problem to the Australians, who export great quantities of lead and zinc. Was he shot before he left the country? Instead, he was given the highest honors the country can give. Surely no country can be condemned for being realistic. Surely the President of the United States is sincere when he says he doesn't want men thrown out of work and that he wants a strong mining industry. Surely the Republican Party meant what it said in its platform adopted in Chicago and accepted by the President of the United States. Surely the people of the United States, if they knew the full story, would not stand for the destruction of the domestic mining industry.

Gentlemen, the situation is serious-it requires your immediate attention. If you have any doubt as to the seriousness of the situation, may I respectfully call your attention to the recent factual investigations made by the Select Small Business Committee of the House of Representatives in its tour throughout the Western States. Here, please keep in mind that while we in the West are vitally concerned with this problem, many Eastern and Southern States are equally affected, for mines have closed down and are closing down in those sections as well.

A realistic approach to a vital problem is highly essential. We urge, with all the strength at our command, immediate action on the part of the Congress to relieve a very serious and critical situation.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, it was my privilege at the suggestion of Mr. Hill to hear the witnesses who appeared before the Small Business Committee throughout the mining States. I wish to say that without exception their testimony was in line with the testimony which has been presented to your committee.

I wish at this time, on behalf of the smaller segment of the mining industry of the United States, to express our sincere thanks to this Congress for sending this committee to investigate the exact conditions of our industry in the field. Without exception, the members of that committee suggested that something be done to help our industry.

Some of the members of your committee are aware of the fact that we representing the mining industry have appealed to the Congress to help us meet the competition from abroad on former occasions. During the 80th Congress we made a strong appeal, and an answer was given in the form of the Allen bill which was vetoed by the then President of the United States.

We then appealed to the various departments and agencies of our Government for consideration, and a half-baked measure in the form of Senate bill S. 2105 appeared, which was defeated by a few votes in the House.

There has been some criticism of the present approach as included in the Simpson bill, in that it is stated that it will not grant relief to the marginal segment of the mining industry. In that I wish to concur, for the testimony brought before the Small Business Committee showed conclusively that there are marginal mines in the United States which cannot produce metals profitably at the base price as established in the Simpson bill. Therefore, it is with a great deal of sorrow on our part that we have to sacrifice that segment of the industry in order to support unanimously throughout the industry a measure which we believe will do more to stabilize the metal markets in the United States than any other measure which has been suggested.

I make this statement because seldom has the smaller segment of the mining industry been heard in mining councils or before the major committees of the Congress of the United States. The smaller segment

of the mining industry is perfectly willing to unite in this major program, in this all-out program to save the entire industry from destruction.

There was one statement made this morning which I would like to take a minute to comment on, and that is Congressman Dingell's question with regard to the mechanization of foreign mines.

We have made a pretty thorough investigation of this question because a great deal of mining machinery is manufactured in Denver. A great deal of the most modernized, finest equipment made in the United States, which American ingenuity can manufacture, has been sent into foreign mines. Those who have visited foreign mines have given us information to the effect that in many instances those mines are better equipped with finer equipment than a great many American mines.

Furthermore, this is happening: We have in the State of Colorado the Colorado School of Mines. There are other technical schools through the country, and a great many of the graduates of those schools are going into foreign mining operations, where greater opportunities are being afforded to train workers in those mines abroad. Therefore, it is my humble judgment, Mr. Chairman, based on many years' experience in the mining industry, that if Congressman Dingell or any other member of the Committee will thoroughly investigate conditions in foreign mines today, they will find: No. 1, that the average grade of ore found in foreign mining operations is higher than the average grade of ore being found in the United States. This statement was recently made by the now president of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers at Denver.

I think this might help to clear up any misunderstanding which may exist in the minds of any Members of Congress as to the kind of competition which we in the mining industry are at the present time confronted with.

I sincerely trust, Mr. Chairman, that the findings of the Small Business Committee will be made available for each member of this committee, because I can say to you without any fear of contradiction that they made a very thorough and careful study of our industry. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a copy of that?

Mr. PALMER. I understand that the committee's printed report has not as yet been made available, but will be made available shortly. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. How much of a report is it? How many pages?

Mr. PALMER. The detailed information taken at the hearing would cover many volumes of printed matter, but I understand it will be briefed and made available in brief form for members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you would have no objection if we were to hold in abeyance the question of making it a part of the record. It is very expensive, you know, to print these things in the regular report. I imagine it is too large for that; is it not?

Mr. PALMER. The only reason I mention it is that those of us who have been studying this problem at length, trying to help the industry out West, have read volumes of printed literature evidently compiled by economists who have not seen our mining operations

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

32604-53-99

Mr. PALMER. Who have drawn conclusions other than those which we believe are being drawn by a committee which actually has gone into the field and made investigations of exact conditions and which will probably make recommendations.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. statement?

Does that conclude your

Mr. PALMER. That concludes my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Mr. Palmer, for your contribution to the committee.

Are there any questions? I hear none.

Is Mr. W. Lunsford Long in the room?

I am asking the indulgence of some of the other witnesses. Mr. Long, who wishes to catch a plane to go to his home in North Carolina, would like to have an opportunity to make that plane.

Mr. LONG. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you are a friend of Mr. Doughton, our former chairman, are you not?

Mr. LONG. Yes, sir; I have that distinction.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you see him occasionally?

Mr. LONG. Yes; I see him occasionally.

The CHAIRMAN. You might take the regards of the committee to him.

Mr. LONG. Thank you, sir, I certainly will.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will give your full name and address, and the capacity in which you appear, we will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF W. LUNSFORD LONG, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, HAILE MINES, INC., TUNGSTEN MINING CORP., AND MANGANESE, INC., WARRENTON, N. C.

Mr. LONG. I am W. Lunsford Long, of Warrenton, N. C. I am vice president and general counsel of Haile Mines, Inc., Tungsten Mining Corp., and Manganese, Inc.

From the titles of the companies with which I am connected, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, you can observe that I am in the strategicmetals business. Our business is limited at present to the production of tungsten and manganese, and as the representative of our company and the industries producing tungsten and manganese in this country, I am appearing here to ask you to do what I have asked this committee to do several times in the past, and that is, in considering the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Treaty program, to put in any bill looking to that end that your committee may see fit to recommend for enactment, a provision excluding from its operation the strategic and critical metals necessary to the defense of this country as certified by the Munitions Board, or whatever agency of the Government is currently in charge of that certification.

I do that for this reason: I am very certain that any cut in the strategic metals tariffs today would be disastrous. I do not think the Congress of the United States ought to delegate to any administrative body, for any reason, the right to bargain with respect to the national security which is involved in the production of these strategic metals. We have had a hazardous life, as this committee well knows, not only in manganese and in tungsten, but in chrome,

in antimony, in vanadium, in all the strategic metals-prices ranging up and down; Government policies changing; industry opening and closing; tremendously high prices; and inconceivably low prices. There has been no stability of any policy with respect to the production of these metals, which was small in dollar volume but indispensable in the economic life of our country, whether we are at peace

or at war.

I plead for those metals, Mr. Chairman, that you will consider them as a thing apart in your deliberations, and that you will not empower anyone to deal with the tariff reduction on them without your specific approval. The Congress of the United States should reserve to itself and keep in its hands that question.

In 1945, I recall that an amendment looking to this very end was offered in the Senate Finance Committee by the late Senator Bailey of North Carolina, at my instance. That amendment came within one vote of adoption in the Senate Finance Committee at that time. It failed to be incorporated in the law.

At the request of Mr. Will Clayton, then Under Secretary of State of the United States, who said, in response to the argument of Senator Bailey, that the State Department could be trusted not to barter away the national security, the Congress of the United States trusted them not to do that. And yet, within 4 months after that date, we were put on notice in the tungsten industry that a tariff cut was under consideration.

We came from Nevada, from California, from North Carolina, from Idaho, and appeared here before the Committee on Reciprocity Information, a panel to conduct an inquiry to advise whether a tariff cut should be considered in tungsten. We laid our case before this panel. It took all day. It was after 6 o'clock in the afternoon when we finished.

Appearing in favor of the reduction of the tariff was the American Iron and Steel Institute. Appearing against it was every producer of any size or consequence at all in the tungsten industry.

When we finished the hearing that day, the chairman of that panel said: "Gentlemen, I would like you to wait a minute.”

He conferred with his associates, consisting of six other men from various departments of the Government, and then said to us: "Gentlemen, I am doing an unusual thing. I want to say to you that this panel is unanimously of the opinion that the tariff on tungsten should not be cut, and I want you to go home and go to work, confident that you will be taken care of, and I want you to go ahead happily with the prosecution of your business of producing this strategic metal."

We went home, lulled into security by that honest statement. There wasn't any duplicity on the part of those gentlemen. They meant every word they said, and their recommendation was to that effect. But notwithstanding that, the State Department cut the tungsten tariff.

As a consequence-I say "as a consequence"; certainly soon thereafter, every tungsten mine in the United States was closed except the one with which I am connected, and if we had not been diehard southerners and bullheaded and willing to borrow money and assume the risk, we, too, would have shut down, because we were losing money from our operations. But we stockpiled this strategic material.