the camps in the new installations like the atomic energy and the like. Outside of that, it seems to me that it is purely a local problem unless you do give the property owners who rent the property-and most of them are small owners, 82 percent have four apartments or four rental units, or less-the advantage of the inflation that has taken place up to the present time and put them on a comparable basis with agriculture, with labor, and with industry.

Mr. BERGSON. As you pointed out at the start of your question, Senator, Mr. Woods will probably be able to give you a lot more specific information on that point than we are able to do, but I would like to point this out, that those areas, theoretically now, and I do not know enough of the facts to want to argue with you on specifics, but theoretically those areas which are presently under control are those areas where controls are needed. There is provision in this act for adjustment there. For areas which are not presently under control, and which it is determined that controls are subsequently, or may subsequently be needed, the requirement is that due consideration must be given to the May 24-June 24, 1950, period, which is the same requirement that you have in your pricing regulations. So that if new controls are imposed in areas which are presently decontrolled or never have been controlled, the considerations you mentioned will be mandatory.

Senator BRICKER. That would apply even to the areas that have been continually controlled throughout the whole period. Those are the ones I am concerned with.

Mr. BERGSON. Those are the ones, of course

Senator BRICKER. Those are the ones that have suffered, those are the ones that have carried too much of the burden of the reconstruction program.

Mr. BERGSON. Those are the ones it is assumed will have required the continuation of controls. As I said, I do not know the specific details about that, but Mr. Woods will know.

Senator BRICKER. I am not concerned with the big-property owners, with the big-apartment-house owners, they have the money and the power and the influence and the contacts to take care of their needs, but the others have not, and they will be punished and punished terribly. In many instances it has been for political considerations only, and we have determined that to my satisfaction on the record. It has been determined also by contacts on the outside. There are instances I personally know about, and we do not want a continuation of a political institution of this kind that will penalize one segment of a society just because there are more votes on the other side. That is one thing I definitely rebel against.

One more question, Mr. Wilson: You mention here the control of commodity speculation, you state the amount of speculation in commodities, the increase in 1951 over 1950, and the small speculator coming in, and then the need for the hedging right.

Have you any evidence that commodity speculation really affects ultimately the price of commodities? The reason I ask you that is there was a report of the Committee on the Economic Report that indicated that it does not. We had that up, Mr. Chairman, at the time we enacted the first bill.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Senator BRICKER. I was just wondering—

The CHAIRMAN. I was thinking when you said that about the wheat markets that there is probably more speculation in the wheat markets, because you had a ceiling price on cotton, so the ones that used to speculate in the cotton market went over to the wheat market. Did not that happen?

Mr. WILSON. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. I should imagine so, because in the market in May and July when Mr. DiSalle put the price freeze on, there was no trading in the market for months. So if people did trade, I would judge from what I have seen they just moved over to the wheat market. Senator BRICKER. What I am getting at is the evidence we have or that you have at hand, of the effect that commodity trading has upon the price of the commodity.

Mr. WILSON. Well, we will ask Mr. Brannan to bring over the specific data on it, Senator. I am not sure myself of the effect it has on it. Senator BRICKER. If it has any effect upon the price, that is what we are driving at.

Mr. WILSON. All I know is that on a certain commodity the farmer got a certain price, we will call it a dollar, and those goods were sold to the user which happens to be the mills of the country, at $1.50, a 50-percent mark-up, and it was alleged to have been brought about to a considerable degree, not altogether, of course, by speculation in that particular commodity. Well, if there is that sort of a lush practice that runs the price of it up 50 percent, and if it is brought about purely by speculation-I think one of two things ought to happen: The American people should not have to pay that big bill to the speculators, and we ought to find a way of minimizing the speculation or, if the speculation goes on, we ought to find a way of grabbing the profit.

Senator BRICKER. I agree with you entirely on that. The only question I have in mind, and I have it only because of the report of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, is what influence the commodity exchange has upon the price of the product ultimately to the consumer? That is what we are trying to protect against, the inflationary practice. We have no interest in protecting a gambler one way or the other, but if it has any effect upon the price, that is what we want, the basic proof of what effect it has. I have no objection to regulation of the extreme, if it is raising unjustly the price of the commodity and the profit is going into the pockets of those who are dealing on the exchanges. Certainly that all ought to be regulated,

as you say.

Mr. WILSON. That is all I am trying to do.

Senator BRICKER. Or the profits taken by the Government through some way, by taxation or another way.

On page 22 you mention that these changes involved the antihoarding provisions of title I. Have you anything in addition to what we talked about a minute ago as to the penalties in regard to those antihoarding provisions?

Mr. BERGSON. The only change we are recommending there, Senator, is a provision that would permit the President, by regulation, to permit some storing, rather than the word "hoarding," in materials where there is an antihoarding designation. For example, it may be desirable to induce importers to keep more than their normal stocks on hand so that we could have a supply available in this country even

though there is a general antihoarding order in effect. This would permit the President, by regulation, to say that in some areas, despite the antihoarding order, you can keep more on hand than is necessary for your normal course of business operations.

The National Production Authority has found some difficulty under the present law in that area, and I am sure Mr. Fleishmann will have a lot of detail for you on that point.

Senator BRICKER. In order to keep the flow of material coming in? Mr. BERGSON. Right; and not having the man who was responsible for the flow coming in subjected to criminal penalty for hoarding, because the commodity is under an antihoarding order.

Mr. WILSON. Where it would be to our own interest to take measures against these items, those who are speculating in these items where the prices are being rigged against them.

Senator BRICKER. I understand that. Your suggestion, Mr. Bergson, is the provision permitting the holding of them rather than forcing them out?

Mr. BERGSON. Right.

Senator BRICKER. Of course, the Government does not have to prosecute that.

Mr. BERGSON. Except the man would like to know whether he is going to be prosecuted or not.

Senator BRICKER. He does not want to take a chance on that.

I think that is all, Mr. Chairman, that I have.

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Wilson, thanks to the progressiveness of our distinguished chairman, we now have a committee room in which we can both see and hear the witness.

Mr. WILSON. It is wonderful.

Senator ROBERTSON. I hope you do not object to the press writing down some things behind your back.

In a 24-page statement you have discussed many of the details of S. 1397. Is there anything in that bill that you have not discussed? Mr. WILSON. I think not.

Senator ROBERTSON. S. 1397 was introduced by our distinguished chairman by request, indicating that he did not write it and is not endorsing it, perhaps, everything that is in it.

Are all the changes proposed in the Defense Production Act your original recommendations?

Mr. WILSON. They are the recommendations of all the agencies, the various agencies that constitute the mobilization program. They all had their hand in it and gave us their recommendations.

Senator ROBERTSON. That is what I assumed. For instance, in answering the question of the distinguished Senator from Ohio about why are we now going to regulate common carriers and public utilities when we did not do it in the last war, you did not seem to be too familiar with that provision, and referred it to a staff member. I assume you did not write all these provisions.

Mr. WILSON. I personally? I should say not.

Senator ROBERTSON. Did you originate all these suggestions?

Mr. WILSON. I did not. We had a great deal of skull practice on this subject from a great variety of the agencies, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. Would you mind indicating to us the specific provisions of S. 1397 that you personally originated. We have a lot

of confidence in you, Mr. Wilson, and it would help us to know the things that you brought out and then we will inquire who raised the rest of them.

Mr. BERGSON. Senator, may I rehearse

Senator ROBERTSON. Wait a minute, we will let you testify a little later. I would rather Mr. Wilson answer my question.

Mr. WILSON. Well, just wait until I find a list of them. I can tell you right off the reel, the commodity speculation was mine, and I was for that.

I asked the agency to get into the antihoarding provision, to give their views on what changes we needed on the antihoarding, because I believe that we need the relief there in certain cases.

Senator ROBERTSON. You mean stiffer penalties?

Mr. WILSON. No, on the antihoarding provision, that we may have flexibility when we want to make it possible to store, so that we are not rooked by those who were running the prices up. That was one.

I think, Senator, that those are the only two items I can say originated in my office. The rest were requested by the agencies and sent in their recommendations.

The CHAIRMAN. Might I interject and ask a question here?

Several Senators have important engagements. Senator Schoeppel had to leave, and Senator Dirksen asked me about this afternoon. We will have Mr. Sawyer here at 3:15. Would it be possible for you to come back at 2 o'clock?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. I did not assume that you put in this provision that, if a man built a house after 1947 and sold it and made the title in fee simple, Congress would then come along and pass a law in violation of section 10 of the Constitution and the fifth amendment about the sanctity of contracts and not taking property thereto except by due process of law and say he could not sell that house to anybody except a veteran. You did not originate that, perhaps?

Mr. WILSON. No.

Senator ROBERTSON. I notice on page 18 of your statement you say in effect that if a farmer got parity for his farm product that is enough.

Mr. WILSON. That is enough.

Senator ROBERTSON. But your prepared statement and your bill also provides that on the items that are below parity-and all of them, I believe, are still below parity except beef, wool, soybeans, lamb-you would freeze the price at the commencement of a selling period. Mr. WILSON. Not if it is below parity.

Senator ROBERTSON. Then I misunderstood your recommendation. Mr. WILSON. I am sorry, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. When would you freeze it?

Mr. WILSON. We would freeze it if it had reached parity. Then the freeze goes on, when and if it reached parity at that point, the beginning of the marketing season.

Senator ROBERTSON. Is there anything in this bill that provides for a roll-back of those things that are above parity?

Mr. WILSON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You say there is nothing in this bill to roll back prices if they are above parity?

Mr. WILSON. No; nothing that would roll them back if they are above parity.

The CHAIRMAN. You can roll them back under the law even as amended by this bill to parity prices on the May-June level of last

year.

Mr. BERGSON. It is in the present law, but there is no change in that respect.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but a lot of water has gone over the dam since last May and June.

Mr. WILSON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be the danger in renewing this law, in my judgment, as it is.

Excuse me, Senator.

Senator ROBERTSON. This S. 1397 provides for the construction and operation of Government plants and the Government to put machinery in someone else's plant and operate it. You explained to Chairman Maybank that it was your intention that that provision would be exercised only in something like atomic energy, or something extreme where it was not practical at all for private enterprise to do the job. Mr. WILSON. Generally speaking, that is right, sir. Not in the case of equipping plants-we are quite generally using Government facilities, like machine tools, where we have them and turning them over into certain private industries if we have them in excess.

Senator ROBERTSON. I just thought of the possibility that you might leave us before this emergency is over, and somebody might take your place and would not construe this language like you do.

I just got a letter this morning that said 2 years ago Congress provided that laundries should not be under the wage-and-hour law, but it says the new Administrator has put us under it, and please do something about it.

It is a fact that the language in this bill is broad enough for the Government to go into competition with private industry if it wanted to: is it not?

Mr. WILSON. I do not know. I questioned that myself. This, as I understand it, is a temporary measure; and, after all, you would not give us the money, I take it, I hope, if it was to start the Government in competition with private industry. Therefore, if anybody had that idea, I hope you would squelch it.

Senator ROBERTSON. We will try to.

Mr. WILSON. I think you would.

Senator ROBERTSON. Although this bill, if it is enacted, as introduced, runs for 2 more years, does it not?

Mr. WILSON. Yes. It is an emergency proposition, and that is the way I have regarded it.

Senator ROBERTSON. If I recall, we did not have in the last war controls on commercial rent, on the resale of privately owned property, on control of commodity exchanges, or control of common carriers and utilities.

Are there other provisions in S. 1397 that go beyond the control program of World War II?

Mr. WILSON. I do not know that I can answer that, Senator.

Mr. BERGSON. Senator, if I may answer that, everything that is in this bill has either been discussed specifically or generally in this state