The last census, I believe, shows Gunnison County as something like 5,800 population. The town of Gunnison has a population of 2,729 people. At the peak of the production of lead and zinc in Gunnison County Callahan Lead & Zinc had some 65 employees. The Keystone Mine at Crescent View, which is A. S. & R., employed something like 45 to 50 people. Mr. Simpson's mine employed something like 20 to 30 people. The combined payroll of these operations amounted to something like forty to fifty thousand dollars a month. That is being shown up in our overall business since the closing of those mines or curtailed operations.

At the present time we have something like 10 people employed in the production of these mines. Callahan Lead & Zinc has 2 and Keystone Mine is operating with 8 people. Simpson does not have any. He closed down entirely.

Now some figures. The independent stores during the month of January 1952 did $732,000 worth of business. In January 1953 they did $603,000 worth of business, a total loss of 18 percent.

The overall tax collection for the month of January showed a loss of 11.5 percent. During February 1952 we did $423,000 worth of business through independent stores. In February of 1953 we had a slight increase, $468,000, a gain of 10 percent.

However, during that same month, the chainstores showed a loss of 47 percent. The overall picture for the month of February 1952 against 1953, was a loss of 5.5 percent. That shows you, sir, that the closing down of lead and zinc production in Gunnison County is affecting the economy of our small community.

In view of that we would like to lend our support to the Simpson bill. We think that it would have a great bearing on the economics of Gunnison County and would put our people back to work, thus increasing the economy of Gunnison County and the welfare of our county.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

The next is a statement that is being filed in the record. I want Mr. Greenlee to stand and be recognized from the Resurrection Mining Co. at Leadville. I will just hand the statement to the secretary, and he will put it in.

(The material referred to follows:)

A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESURRECTION MINING CO., BY B. B. GREENLEE, GENERAL MANAGER

Resurrection Mining Co. operates a lead and zinc mine and a mill at Leadville, Colo., the total operation employing some 250 men and processing from 600 to 700 tons of ore per day. About 200 tons of this ore is custom and lease ore from small operators. Resurrection Mining Co. is a subsidiary of Newmont Mining Corp. However, we consider ourselves in the category of small producers and feel that we are dependent upon other small producers and development of the area for successful operation. In short, we feel that the health of the industry, both large and small, depends upon a healthy and vigorous climate in which the small operators can work. It would be foolish and suicidal for the larger corporations to attempt or succeed in forcing the small operators out of business.

This company wishes to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the Murray bill or any other plan involving a direct subsidy to nonferrous metal producers. We are opposed to this type of plan for the following reasons. First, we believe that such plans encourage the inefficient operator to the detriment of the efficient operator. Second, we feel that the creation of a bureau to admin

ister such plan would place the Government directly in the mining business and add to our already topheavy bureaucracy. Third, we believe that since a subsidy program involves such direct Government supervision, it is a large step in the direction of socializing the entire mining industry.

We also would like to comment concerning the apparent concern from some quarters relative to the standard of living for foreign workers. We agree that it is highly desirable to increase the standard of living of these workers, if for no other reason than for self-interest, in that they will be able to buy more American products. However, we doubt the wisdom or propriety of attempts by the American Government to force foreign governments or companies to grant wage increases to their workers as a condition for doing business with them. We believe that this is a proper function of the labor organizations which represent the foreign workers, and that attempts of this country to interfere in that respect would lead only to the nationalization and ultimate socialization of the foreign industry, and we do not believe that the American people desire this result. In short, we feel that such theories play directly into the hands of those who would undermine the American theory of government all over the world.

We believe that of all the suggestions and possible solutions offered, the most reasonable plan and one which the American people would accept would be that of the sliding-scale tariff as incorporated in H. R. 4294. We feel that this bill will have the effect of preventing extreme fluctuations in the market resulting from the dumping of foreign surplus metals. At the same time it will not operate to exclude foreign metals or to prevent the foreign producers from realizing a profit from those metals sold in the United States. In this respect, we agree with the testimony of Mr. Romney, Mr. Palmer, and others who have presented the facts concerning this bill in great detail.

We feel, however, that the Simpson bill will not provide a complete answer to the ailments now afflicting the industry. It is our opinion that if the industry is to survive as a healthy part of our economy, it must take bigger steps to help itself. We believe that the producers and workers are now beginning to realize the bad state in which the industry finds itself, and that it is only through a complete understanding of the problems facing the industry by all concerned that any progress can be made. In this respect we feel that under the circumstances both the workers and the producers must be willing to make sacrifices in order to pull the industry out of the slump and place it on a healthy basis. We feel that two of the most important basic causes of the situation in which we find ourselves are: First, that the industry has failed to develop new and expanding markets for its products. Whereas other basic materials have shown a great expansion in uses, the consumption of metals produced by this industry has been relatively constant. Second, the industry as a whole has failed to increase its productivity per man-shift to keep pace with other comparable industries in efficiency of operation. While other major industries have over the past 15 years made sensational increases in productivity per man-shift, our industry, despite vast advances in mechanization and installation of many laborsaving devices at huge cost to the producer, has decreased in productivity over the same period. For example, the figures compiled by Mr. Miles P. Romney, who has previously appeared before this committee, for the base-metal underground mines, excluding copper, in the State of Utah, reveal that the productivity in 1939 was 450 tons of ore per man-year, and this productivity has gradually decreased until in 1951 it was 322 tons per man-year. The principal causes for this decline have been slowdowns instigated by labor organizations, together with the complications resultant from job classes. We feel that these conditions are fairly common throughout the industry. It is obvious that in order to correct these two basic causes of our depression we must have sincere cooperation between the producers and the workers and their representatives, so that our operations will directly reflect honest labor and efficient management. In addition, industry must assume more responsibility for research and the selling of their product.

In conclusion, we feel that the Simpson bill, which would protect our local market against extreme fluctuation in prices, together with renewed efforts of industry and labor to increase productivity and expand markets, is an answer to our dilemma which will provide a strong, active industry in a free economy. Mr. GREENLEE. Do you want me to comment at all?

The CHAIRMAN. The record will show that you told us this, and we are glad to get it.

STATEMENT OF B. B. GREENLEE, GENERAL MANAGER,
RESURRECTION MINING CO., LEADVILLE, COLO.

Mr. GREENLEE. I do not want to take up any more time. I would like to very briefly state that we are in agreement that the Simpson bill as discussed yesterday is the best solution that has been offered here. In other words, we are opposed to any substitutes whatsoever. I would like to state that some of the basic causes for our sick industry, I believe can be divided into two parts.

The first part is that the consumption of lead and zinc in the United States has not increased as other commodities have. In other words, there are new markets for all these other basic products, but lead and zinc is just standing still, relatively. We either have to go ahead or backwards. So we must find new markets for lead and zinc.

The other ailment is the fact that our productivity in the lead and zinc industry has not gone up as the productivity in other industries throughout the United States. I believe that in the overall picture in the United States that the productivity has gone up at a pretty good pace whereas it is not true in the overall picture of lead and zinc. Now, if we are going to cure this and make our industry sound, it has to be wholehearted, sincere cooperation on the part of the workingman and their union organizations and industry to increase our productivity. We have not had the sincere cooperation from the unions in the past.

There have been some statements that have said that our added machinery, modernization, and mechanization, have increased our productivity. I would like to quote Mr. Miles Romney, who appeared here yesterday, on productivity in Utah, which reflects, I think, the condition throughout our industry.

For base metal mines, underground mines, in Utah—

this is exclusive of copper mines and open-pit mines

it is revealed that the productivity in 1939 was 450 tons of ore per man-year, This productivity has gradually decreased until in 1951 it was 322 tons per man-year.

That is quite a drop. During this 15-year period, I know personally that all these mines have spent considerable sums of money, large sums of money, in mechanization; and even with all of these laborsaving devices and mechanization, the productivity in Utah has dropped from 450 tons to 322 tons per man-year. That is one of the reasons we have a sick industry. At the same time, the wages have gone up almost double, I would say.

The reason why this productivity has dropped-one of the main reasons-is the fact that the unions have encouraged slowdowns and the complications resulting from job classes have all tended to make our productivity go down even though we have mechanization that should increase it. Other industries have increased their productivity and we have not.

I will just sum it up by saying that we are behind the Simpson bill, but we think we have to have more than that. We have to increase the uses of our metals by research to find new uses and to sell our product. We have to cut costs. We have to have the wholehearted cooperation and sincere cooperation of the workingman and the labor organiza

tions, the unions. If we don't have that cooperation, we are all going to sink.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Greenlee.

If my list of witnesses is correct, we have finished on the lead and zinc.

We will be

Now, if there is anyone else who wants to make a short statement on lead and zinc, you may prepare it and hand it to us. glad to put it into the record.

We have some testimony concerning the mining of uranium. would like to have Mr. McNichols, take witness chair. Will you give to our reporter your name and address.

We

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. R. McNICHOLS, DENVER, COLO., ON BEHALF OF THE INDEPENDENT URANIUM PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. McNICHOLS. My name is Stephen L. R. McNichols. My address is 728 Simms Building, Denver, Colo. I am representing the Independent Uranium Ore Producers Association which consists of a membership of over 300 persons. I would like to make a brief statement here.

Mr. Ebbley, Norman Ebbley, will submit a report, a full report, to the committee. In the interest of conservation of time I will just give you a brief summary of this matter and what we feel its importance to be.

Mr. Haldean, Everett Haldean, the president of the association, is in attendance here also.

This, as you know, Congressman, is a relatively new industry. Uranium is not new, but its uses since 1939 have become apparent to everyone. There are many hundreds of small independent uranium miners, and we feel it is an especially important industry because of its close association with the security of the country for uses in atomic energy, for both war and industry purposes.

This industry is not exactly a free industry, a competitive industry, because of the large amount of control that the Atomic Energy Commission exercises over it. The Atomic Energy Commission tells us that we are a competitive industry. However, they set the prices that will be paid for this product; they license those who can process it, those who can dig it and produce it.

The Government of the United States owns title to all fissionable material, and on any materials that are produced from Governmentcontrolled lands, from the public domain, and the Government exercises the right to direct that ore produced by the independents to whatever mills they so desire.

There are a number of inequities that have cropped up throughout the history of this new industry, largely because there was no time, presumably, to plan it out. Uranium had to be produced, it had to be produced fast, and little attention was paid to the economic consideration as well as to legal considerations."

One of the basic troubles in the industry today is the conflict between the uranium claims, the mining locations, and oil and gas losses on the western plateau. This affects not only the independent uranium producers in Colorado, but also those in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this on Federal land? Mr. McNICHOLS. Yes, this is all on Federal land. The basic conflict between the oil and gas people and the mining industry is briefly where oil and gas losses were filed; subsequently to the filing of these oil and gas losses, mining locations were made upon these lands. Probably the basic reason for the conflict is the fact that there are no Federal statutes concerning that. A man going out locating a claim goes to the local courthouse in which the claim is located, and there are no records of gas and oil leases. The records are in the Bureau of Land Management, which might be in Salt Lake or Denver. So anybody locating a claim would be obligated to come in to Denver to search the records or go to Salt Lake or Denver. Likewise, there are no records in the Bureau of Land Management of any mining claims. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say they can file a mining claim on the Government land and the Government does not know anything about it?

Mr. McNICHOLS. That is true. There is no record of interchange of information, so that a person going after an oil and gas lease does not know about a mining location and vice versa. But the situation that is eminent now is the legislation that is pending in the Congress, this Senate bill 1397, I believe, and House bill 1444, which is a bill which would validate those locations made on oil and gas leases whether they were made prior subsequently to the passage of the law. The CHAIRMAN. Are both bills alike?

Mr. MCNICHOLS. Both bills are identical, one by Aspinall and the other by Senators Johnson and Millikin. That, of course, is something that has got to pass or it upsets the whole mining location system over there.

The Government says the Atomic Energy Commission initiated the request to the Bureau of Land Management to issue decisions and to find out whether or not these claims were valid or invalid. The Bureau of Land Management issued a series of decisions stating that these claims filed by the miners were void ab initio, because of the ground that at the time it was not available for mineral entry. So you have the rather paradoxical situation of the Government wanting uranium, licensing people to go out and prospect for it, and produce it, and on many occasions granted them loans for exploration, and in other instances requiring them or encouraging them to spend large amounts of money in the development of these claims, and then coming along and pulling the rug from under the miner and saying, "You don't own anthing because it was not available for mineral entry."

The Government was a party to this business. The Atomic Energy Commission was a party to this business. Some of these operations involve a quarter of a million or half a million dollars, some of the larger ones. There are not many of those, but most of them are small, independent producers. This legislation would correct that.

We have other very important points that will be brought out in the paper which Mr. Ebbley wrote and will submit to the committee, giving the committee a résumé of the sampling practices on the plateau.

The association was very instrumental in getting all the mills on the plateau, both Government and privately owned mills, to correct their sampling procedures. Assaying and umpiring is still a matter that has to be worked out. The Atomic Energy Commission regrets

34376-53-11