Mr. FLOETE. Yes, sir.

Senator BIBLE. Now, if this committee were to appropriate a sufficient amount of money, $23 million, and make a directive, either in its report or in the course of legislative history during consideration of the bill on the floor, would General Services follow that directive?

What if you were directed in the report to continue this program in existence and $23 million was appropriated for that purpose, would you follow that directive?

Mr. FLOETE. Well, I think we would expect OCDM to implement it, rather than us follow it.

You see, this appropriation that we are talking about is directly to the President, and any directive would come to us normally through OCDM.

That has been established over many years.

Senator BIBLE. What if we made a directive to OCDM to continue this program in existence, through you, would OCDM then follow that directive or would you say we were wrong?

AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATION

Mr. HUGHES. No, sir. This is a legal question, as you well know, I am sure, and I think if the bill-the Congress would have to pass, as I understand it and I am not a lawyer, but Congress would have to appropriate this money with some kind of statutory authority over and beyond the Defense Production Act, or the Stockpile Act so that we would then be directed in effect by law to go ahead and do this. Senator BIBLE. You have that authority now, do you not?

Mr. HUGHES. Only if we can determine that it is necessary for defense needs, and we cannot do that.

Senator BIBLE. Your position is that we can only override your determination as to the adequacy of the defense needs by an independent legislative act? Is that OCDM's position? Mr. HUGHES. I will defer to the lawyers.

DOMESTIC MINERALS PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT

Mr. PIKE. In connection with this same program, the original program was due to expire by its own limitation but Congress passed the Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act, which extended the program for 2 years.

If Congress is going to further extend or to enlarge this program, it should do so in a similar fashion by the passage of another statute in order to give us substantive authority to act. Otherwise, the determination would merely be put up to the agency of the Government that is already required to make the determination, that is, OCDM. If they cannot make the determination within the existing statutory authority, then there would be no substantive authority for GSA to take the action desired.

Senator BIBLE. What you are saying is, assuming this amount of money is appropriated, it would be meaningless unless there is an independent statute to implement it. Is that correct?

Mr. PIKE. That is correct.

Senator BIBLE. I have one further statement, Mr. Floete.

TOTAL SMALL PRODUCERS INVOLVED

How many small producers have you purchased from in the course of the last year? How many are involved in the program?

Mr. FLOETE. Mr. Holtz is in direct charge of that.

Mr. HOLTZ. Actually, there are outstanding 1,978 certified producers who have the right to put manganese to us under this program. As of July 20, 366 participants have shipped to the program, of which 121 could be considered active.

Senator BIBLE. 366 actively participating in the program, for the past year?

Mr. HOLTZ. Yes, sir, 366 have shipped during the program, but only 121 could be considered active.

Senator BIBLE. Would you have any idea how many people are engaged by these 366?

Mr. HOLTZ. I would not know Senator. Some of these are small operations and others are large. It is all limited by the individual annual 10,000 tons certificate, but I would not like to hazard a guess on how many people are involved. We only know how many active certificates are in operation now.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you.

Chairman HAYDEN. I have one other question I want to clear up.

ACQUISITION BY BARTER

If there is no necessity for the purchase of this material from producers in the United States, is there any justification of obtaining it. from abroad by barter? Is it on the theory that you are getting it for nothing?

Mr. HUGHES. Senator, the bartering program is set up under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act and we, in connection with other Government agencies, advise on a list of materials which the Secretary of Agriculture submits to the President to authorize for barter under that act.

Now there are a number of materials on that list, which were authorized in recent months by the President, including manganese. I think all of them, except possibly one, on the list, are in the position that we do not have any defense need to be met by barter or otherwise. This is amesite asbestos for which we have not yet filled our defense needs, and there may be possibly one other. However, the practical problem, as I understand it, is that the Secretary of Agriculture has large quantities of surplus agricultural commodities which are expensive to store, and which deteriorate; so the policy is that we should barter for things cheaper to store, and which do not deteriorate.

Manganese and lead and other items on the list fall into that category of course.

Chairman HAYDEN. Then we are acquiring manganese in exchange for surplus agricultural products which we refuse to buy from our own people which we say we do not need but we do buy because it is not a perishable commodity?

Mr. HUGHES. By barter. As I say, practically everything on the barter list is in the same category. We have our defense needs in the stockpile, but still we are better off with some lead or manganese, which you can put out in the backyard without any cost of storing, than to have to pay high storage costs for deteriorating agricultural commodities.

AMOUNT OF MANGANESE OBTAINED BY BARTER

Chairman HAYDEN. Would it be proper to include in this record the amount of manganese which has been obtained for the stockpile by barter in recent years?

Mr. HUGHES. Under the current barter program, since the act was amended last year, I am informed that while manganese is on the list there have been no contracts executed.

Mr. HOLTZ. Yes, there has been one commitment that has been entered into since the law was passed. The material on that one has not been delivered yet, but there is that one commitment. Chairman HAYDEN. Have you made any new ones?

Mr. HOLTZ. This is the only one that has been made in the last year.

Chairman HAYDEN. In what amount?

Mr. HOLTZ. 40,000 long dry tons.

Chairman HAYDEN. That was an exchange for so many pounds of butter, we shall say?

We are

Mr. HOLTZ. I do not know what the commodity was. not the contracting agents. We only store the strategic material when it comes to us.

Chairman HAYDEN. When you find out what the facts are, put them in the record, because the committee would like to know what particular commodity we gave them in exchange for the manganese. Mr. HOLTZ. All right.

(The information referred to follows:)

MATERIALS WHICH MAY BE ACQUIRED FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL STOCK PILE THROUGH BARTER OR EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 303 OF THE AGRICULTURAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

OTHER MATERIALS UNDER BARTER PROGRAM

Senator DwORSHAK. Could we also have the record show what other materials were under a barter program?

Mr. HOLTZ. Yes.

(The information referred to follows:)

The following agriculture commodities were exchanged for manganese ore acquired under barter contracts:

TRUE PERSPECTIVE OF BARTER PROGRAM

Senator DwORSHAK. Currently, is there any exchange under that program or has it been terminated with this one exception?

Mr. HUGHES. We could give you a list of the things on the list which Agriculture has, the authorized list.

Senator DwORSHAK. I am not concerned with what is on the list. If you have had a barter program for the last 2 or 3 years I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be interesting and informative to this committee to have a list of the materials which have been procured by the Government in exchange for surplus commodities under the barter program, because I think if we are going to consider manganese I am interested in cobalt and the many other minerals, and if we are going to get a true perspective of this barter program, whether it is beneficial or detrimental to our domestic minerals industry, then certainly we ought to deal with other materials than exclusively manganese.

Senator ROBERTSON. I think you ought to bear in mind that none of these materials that are exchanged for wheat, cotton, and corn, go into the national stockpile. That is what I think we call a supplemental stockpile and we are just swapping excess wheat, for instance, that we do not need, for manganese that we do not need, but the one, the manganese, will keep better or cheaper than the other.

Mr. HOLTZ. That is right.

Mr. FLOETE. We have here, Senator, a list of the items that are now in our inventory of barter items. It is a quite long list which I will be glad to submit for the record.

Senator DwORSHAK. I am more concerned with the current and future planning under the barter program than what has actually happened in the past.

Now, if the chairman wants that inserted in the record, that is fine; but I should like to know just what is being contemplated under a barter program if one is currently operating?

Chairman HAYDEN. Well, we could possibly judge from the past, and if we could have that information in the record it might be helpful. Mr. FLOETE. All right, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)