Secretary ICKES. Yes. Mr. COOPER. Now, in all fairness, that is not entirely due to the Bituminous Coal Act, is it? Secretary ICKES. I think that is a matter of opinion. There probably are other factors that enter; and there may be additional factors in the future. But I do think that if we carried out our duties under the law, of making it possible for the cost of production to be returned to the coal industry, that basically it is due to the administration of this act. Mr. COOPER. Well, now, with the enormous defense program now under way, and with the improvement in business conditions throughout the country, isn't it natural that more coal would be consumed? Secretary ICKES. Oh, certainly. Mr. COOPER. Whether we had this act or not. Secretary ICKES. Certainly. There might be such a demand for coal that without the power to control prices under this act you might be paying $20 for coal 6 months hence. I wouldn't claim credit for that. I wouldn't think that reflected upon our administration. In 1929, according to figures, the industry lost $11,822,033. Mr. COOPER. The prices were fixed on October 1, 1940, I believe. Secretary ICKES. Yes. Mr. COOPER. For how long a period of time do those prices stand as they were fixed? Secretary ICKES. They will stand until there is some reason to believe that they should be readjusted. Mr. COOPER. There isn't anything definite as to how long they may stand? Secretary ICKES. No; not as of today. Mr. COOPER. Could they stand any longer than this act remained in existence? Secretary ICKES. I don't see how they could stand if the act were not in existence, because no one would have the power to see that they were maintained. Mr. COOPER. I believe that is all. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Treadway. Mr. TREADWAY. Mr. Secretary, yesterday you were kind enough to say you would provide us with information as to the number of cases handled by Consumers' Counsel. Secretary ICKES. Yes. Mr. TREADWAY. Has that been prepared? Secretary ICKES. As of March 5, 1941, original petitions under section 4 II (d) of the act filed by the Consumers' Counsel Division, numbered 24; additional price-adjustment cases in which the Consumers' Counsel Division has filed written appearances numbered 143. Mr. TREADWAY. Does that 143 represent original applications from the Consumers' Counsel Division? Secretary ICKES. I believe not. They filed their written appearance and participated in the cases. Mr. TREADWAY. Who does the filing? Secretary ICKES. The Consumers' Counsel. Mr. TREADWAY. Who files the cases, or applications? Secretary ICKES. The Consumers' Counsel filed petitions in 24 cases and written notices of appearance in 143 other price-adjustment cases. Mr. TREADWAY. The original application must have come from— Secretary ICKES. He filed 24 original applications. He filed his appearance in cases instituted by others in 143 cases. Mr. TREADWAY. Who would make the application? Secretary ICKES. The Consumers' Counsel in the 24 cases; in the others mostly producers. Mr. TREADWAY. One other question, as a result of the statement you made yesterday that there had only been an increase of 1 percent in the cost of production. Secretary ICKES. In the price of domestic coal. Mr. TREADWAY. That had nothing to do with the industrial side. of it. Secretary ICKES. No. Mr. TREADWAY. Did I understand you to say, in answer to Mr. Cooper, that you had no record as to the quantity used? Secretary ICKES. That I had no personal knowledge. Mr. Disney stated yesterday that the domestic consumption was 20 percent, which would leave 80 percent for industrial. Mr. TREADWAY. That is as near as you have detailed information? Secretary ICKES. Mr. Fortas tells me we have very elaborate figures on that, which we will be glad to supply. Mr. TREADWAY. I think it would be very valuable to know the difference in amounts, or percentages. Secretary ICKES. Yes. (A statement of proportions of consumption of coal by use groups appears in the appendix.) Mr. TREADWAY. Just one other inquiry, Mr. Secretary. I noticed in this morning's paper an Associated Press story that refers to a meeting between the operators and the mine union in New York City. Secretary ICKES. So did I. Mr. TREADWAY. Wherein the miners asked for an increase of a dollar a day for each individual. Secretary ICKES. Yes. Mr. TREADWAY. If that is granted, what would be the effect on prices to the consumers? Secretary ICKES. That would have to be studied. The price would go up an amount sufficient to pay the additional dollar a day Mr. TREADWAY. Would it go up that much Secretary ICKES. Provided, of course, it were not offset by a decrease due to improved methods of mining or other reductions in cost of production. We would have to inquire into that. Mr. TREADWAY. But I do see reference in, I think, Mr. Lewis's statement, to the fact that the profits of the operators had been sufficient to absorb a considerable part of this dollar-a-day increase. Secretary ICKES. I read only the headline and the lead. My impression was, and this is subject to correction, because I really haven't read it carefully, my impression was he asked for a dollar a day for the miners, and based that demand upon the general upturn in business, and not necessarily the upturn in the coal business. I may be incorrect in that. Mr. TREADWAY. The statement in the Associated Press story was that he would insist upon a wage increase on the grounds the demand was not excessive; that the operators, with production rapidly increasing, were able to pay. Secretary ICKES. I suppose, Mr. Treadway, it is fair to say that every negotiation on a wage scale starts with some such statement as that. In other words, they ask more wages, and they justify the demand by the assertion that the industry is able to pay more. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't have any basis on which to negotiate. Mr. TREADWAY. There is quite a difference between whether there is margin enough to pay it or whether it is coming out of the consumer. Secretary ICKES. That is a question of fact, and necessarily we haven't got those facts, because we haven't held an inquiry to deter mine them. Mr. TREADWAY. It is a little too soon then to form any conclusion as to the result of those negotiations. Secretary ICKES. I would think so. Mr. TREADWAY. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, at the top of page 14 of your prepared statement of yesterday, I read as follows: Even the brief experience which we have had under minimum prices has disclosed the desirability of various amendments to the act. This act has been in effect since July 1939 has it not? Secretary ICKES. Yes; but we were referring to October 1, 1940, when the prices went into effect. The CHAIRMAN. And it has been about 2 years, since July 1939 that it has been in your department. Secretary ICKES. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. During those 2 years, isn't it reasonable to suppose that the experience of this act would have also suggested the necessity for some amendments? Secretary ICKES. I think not, because, after all, our experience and any reason we might have for suggesting amendments would be based upon how these minimum prices had worked out. And, as a matter of fact, they have been in effect only since October 1, last. The CHAIRMAN. But it is a fact that the administration of the act was very unsatisfactory until it was placed in your department. Conditions were intolerable, if not downright disgraceful, if reports were true relative to the administration of this act. Millions of dollars were being spent and nothing being accomplished, and the administration of the act was supposed to be in the hands of promotors of the legislation. So it would seem reasonable that during that time some experience would have been gained which would enable those in charge of its administration to come forward and recommend changes to perfect the act. You say further in your statement; "After consultation with the various elements in the industry and with consumers and distributors, we shall hereafter suggest various amendments to the Congress." What surprises me is that these consultations have not been held. You are here asking for an extension of the act and are not in a position to recommend changes to perfect it. Secretary ICKES. I think I can answer that series of questions. The first 2 years disclosed that the one thing necessary to make this a workable act was to abolish the seven-man commission. That was done by the President's Executive order. There never had been a fair trial of the act itself. It had broken down not from any verbiage in the act; it had broken down administratively. The CHAIRMAN. Right there; who is to blame for that? Secretary ICKES. Well, I think it was inherently destined to break down. The CHAIRMAN. Why was that inherently necessary; was it the fault of those in charge of it? Secretary ICKES. I think it was both. my predecessors, but I think it was both. I don't like to criticize The CHAIRMAN. We are trying to get the truth here. Secretary ICKES. I don't think you can do an effective administrative job through a debating society consisting of seven members. The CHAIRMAN. There are nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, and yet you wouldn't term that a debating society. Secretary ICKES. That is not an executive job; that is judicial. Secretary ICKES. It is an executive job in my view, but the Supreme Court is not executive. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is judicial. Secretary ICKES. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. It should be perfectly easy to find the facts and declare the truth. Secretary ICKES. That is what we have done, or tried to do. So far as presenting amendments now is concerned, as I said yesterday, I think that would be unfortunate. The essential thing is to extend the act and take up amendments later if they become necessary. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you right there; admitting there are defects, and that you are going to recommend amendments, and I assume that such a suggestion would not be in your prepared statement unless you felt that the act contains some defects. Secretary ICKES. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. This committee cannot devote all of its time to, and be at the disposal of, any department of the Government. Neither this committee nor the Congress may be able to get around to this in 12 months, with the tax legislation and other things to be considered. Secretary ICKES. That is very true. The CHAIRMAN. If defects exist, it seems to me, in coming here asking for an extension of this act, that before it is extended there ought to be some recommendations made. They are clamoring for amendments to the Social Security Act. We have not been able to get to it. There is tax legislation needed. Don't you think it is reasonable to suggest your amendments now, so that if the act is extended the defects can be eliminated? Secretary ICKES. I haven't said there were defects in the act, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. That is your own language here. Secretary ICKES. I didn't say that. The CHAIRMAN (reading): After conferences and consultations with the various elements in the industry, and with consumers and distributors, we shall hereafter suggest various amendments to the Congress. Those are positive statements. disclosed to the Secretary. Those defects have already been Secretary ICKES. Our position is that this is a workable act. It doesn't need amendments, so far as we are now aware, and we could hardly be expected to come in here and offer amendments, the desirability of which we are not convinced. The CHAIRMAN. If you are satisfied that no amendments are necessary why is that language included in your statement? Secretary ICKES. I can only answer that by saying we have no amendments to suggest. The CHAIRMAN. I can't reconcile those two statements. If you will read that yourself Secretary ICKES. It doesn't mean that to me, and it was not intended to mean that. The CHAIRMAN. Well, what does it mean? Secretary ICKES. The desirability of future amendment is not an admission of present defect. The CHAIRMAN. You say you will suggest amendments later. Secretary ICKES. We shall if we are convinced that any particular amendment is needed. But we are not convinced today. The CHAIRMAN. If you had put that explanatory clause in your statement, I wouldn't be asking these questions. But it is plain to me from this language that you have discovered defects in the law. Secretary ICKES. If I had, I would have said so before this, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Coming back to the question of prices, does the minimum price become the controlling price? Secretary ICKES. As a matter of marketing operation, it generally does. But they can charge more if they can find a consumer who will pay it. The CHAIRMAN. But they can't charge less, can they? Secretary ICKES. No. The CHAIRMAN. What do you say about the desirability of a maximum price to protect the consumer, if you have a minimum price to protect the miners, the producers, and the workers in the mines? Secretary ICKES. We have such power, if the occasion should arise. The CHAIRMAN. I asked you what you thought about the desirability of setting a maximum price. Secretary ICKES. I don't see any occasion for it now. If prices should run away, or show symptoms of running away, then we would be confronted with the necessity of fixing a maximum price. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, you say the minimum price does not necessarily control the price. That market conditions permit a situation where the minimum price may not be the maximum price. It may go higher. Secretary ICKES. It could go higher; yes. The CHAIRMAN. But you would not be in favor of a maximum price? Secretary ICKES. Today? The CHAIRMAN. Any day. Secretary ICKES. Oh, I wouldn't say that. I might be in favor of one next week or next month. I am not today. The CHAIRMAN. Now, as to the time for which this act shall be extended, Mr. Secretary. Yesterday you stated you thought it should be extended 2 years rather than 1 year, and in answer to a further question you stated that if it were not extended for 2 years it would |