The CHAIRMAN. I might say that we have had literally hundreds of requests by letter and by phone to be heard. Of course, it would be impossible to hear everyone who desires to be heard, but the committee voted unanimously to permit anyone who might not have an opportunity to be heard to file briefs, provided those briefs were filed by the 21st of March. The committee has limited those to be heard to national organizations and Members of Congress who have introduced amendments.

The question of rent control has come up. It was the committee's decision at its last meeting that, since the present rent control law was a State matter, left to communities, unless it was declared a critical area by the Defense Department or the Office of Defense Mobilization, it would not hear any witnesses on rent control because there were so many other segments of industry that had to be heard. The committee believed we would dispense with the necessity of having long hearings with Mr. Woods and others who have only local complaints.

Senator Capehart called the chairman's attention to the fact that there had been some complaints about the manner in which the law is being handled in certain sections; and, if it is agreeable to the committee, I suggest that we hear witnesses with complaints only, no changes in the law, since the committee had already decided that. If that is satisfactory, we will do that.

Senator CAPEHART. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we hear those affected by rent control for a reasonable period of time, and permit them to file all the statements they wish to on the administration of the existing law.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, then, that will be done, and anyone who wants to file a statement on rent control, or any other

statement

Senator CAPEHART. And some may appear.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, on complaints about the administration of the law.

Senator CAPEHART. Then we will leave the selection of the witnesses up to the chairman, if that is agreeable.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would rather the people who want to complain get together and pick their own witnesses out. We will give them 2 hours. I think that would cover it.

I don't think there is anything else to discuss on the schedule. I would, however, like to insert in the record at this point a letter I received from retiring Price Director DiSalle on February 20 and a copy of my reply to him.

(The letters referred to follow :)

Hon. BURNET R. MAYBANK,

OFFICE OF PRICE STABILIZATION,

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Washington, February 19, 1952.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Please permit me to express my thanks for your very fine cooperation during the period in which I served as Director of Price Stabilization. Although we have had disagreements on methods, disagreements as to what the law should be, yet these disagreements have not interfered with a very complete and logical discussion as to what would best serve our country.

I have enjoyed immensely the appearances before your committee, and I want to thank the members of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee for their courtesy and for the very splendid manner in which they received me. I also

want to use your kind office to express my thanks to the Members of the Senate, who in great majority in dealing with our Office have expressed their personal appreciation of the way in which their various requests were handled. The past year has been a grand experience in Government and one that I leave with a great many pleasant memories.

Your kindness, as evidenced by your attendance at the farewell dinner the other evening, has contributed immeasurably to a very pleasant tenure of office. Thanking you, I am, with every best personal wish

Sincerely,

MIKE.

FEBRUARY 20, 1952.

Hon. MICHAEL V. DISALLE,

Security Building, Toledo, Ohio.

DEAR MIKE: I wholly agree with the statements in your February 19 letter. While we have disagreed on some matters during your administration of OPS, we have always been able to discuss our differences of opinion openly. Democracy lives through the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of our Government. While we have disagreed, it has always been a pleasure to work with you because of your direct and honest approach to problems requiring action by the executive and legislative branches for their solution. That is the way our Government can function best. Even those who vigorously opposed your views commend the frank way in which you explained them.

I am going to insert your letter in the hearings on the extension of the Defense Production Act, which will start soon. I hope it will serve as a guide to desirable working relationships between the legislative and the executive departments. You have the personal satisfaction of having tackled a difficult job successfully.

With best wishes for continued success,
Sincerely yours,

BURNET R. MAYBANK, Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you here, Mr. Wilson, as a witness. If you will proceed in your own way, sir, we will be happy to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. WILSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF DEFENSE MOBILIZATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MANLY FLEISCHMANN, DEFENSE PRODUCTION ADMINISTRATOR, AND RODOLFO A. CORREA, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF DEFENSE MOBILIZATION

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am appearing before you to urge the enactment of S. 2645 to extend and strengthen the Defense Production Act for the 2-year period ending June 30, 1954.

There is no need for me to review in detail for this committee the full history of the mobilization program in which we are engaged. you have followed the progress of the program closely through the hearings and studies of the joint committee and through the various reports which have been submitted to you.

During the past few weeks, there has been much speculation about new developments in the materials outlook. I want to recognize this at the outset and to indicate generally my position on the matter.

Since the second-quarter allotments were made-allotments which most claimants said were far too low-we have had contradictory claims, and some evidence, that many of the tickets we did issue are not being cashed. Some producers tell us that they have enough open space on their order boards to indicate that the legally-permitted demand for some materials is easing off.

It is clear there has been some easing. What is not yet clear is its extent and duration. Those concerned with administering controls are trying now to get a true picture of this situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson, the statement that I got from the military, in the Appropriations Committee last week, was that there were $54,000,000,000 appropriated for the military last year that have not as yet been spent, except on letting of contracts which haven't been taken up.

What is your judgment as to the effect, as those contracts come into effect, of the $54,000,000,000 appropriated, forgetting what we will appropriate this year, what effect will that have on the easing in the second quarter that you are talking about now?

Mr. WILSON. That is to a degree unknown, Senator, but undoubtedly it is going to have considerable effect, because, as those obligations are made, it is going to increase the demand for materials.

The CHAIRMAN. And the $54,000,000,000 is practically, from what testimony Mr. Lovett and others gave, all heavy goods. Is that your understanding?

Mr. WILSON. Fifty percent of it, practically, is for airplanes.

The CHAIRMAN. A large part of it has been contracted for, but the money has not been spent, the materials have not been bought in some instances, as I understand, and in some instances won't be bought until 1953, is that right?

Mr. WILSON. That is correct.

We are trying to preserve as stable a position as we can and we cannot base official action on the whole gamut of speculation. This easing may mean that we can give out more of some materials and still meet our needs. The adjustments we are able to make are not large. For example, in the second quarter we find it possible to distribute to the civilian economy nearly 1.5 percent more of the supply of copper and approximately 3 percent more of the supply of aluminum.

You know my position-I have always opposed controls unless they were absolutely necessary. As far as this situation is concerned, any regulation that can come off without hurting the defense effort, will be taken off.

The CHAIRMAN. Would that be soft goods regulation?
Mr. WILSON. Any regulation.

The CHAIRMAN. I have two amendments here I am preparing and will introduce, one on a percentage basis, and the other a straight-out suspension where goods are in excess supply, like furniture and various things that are in the doldrums. Do you find that the fact, also? Mr. WILSON. I do on soft goods. I am not sure about the furniture situation.

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed in the Wall Street Journal this morning, and I talked to a friend from Brussels yesterday who told me conditions are terrible in the textile industry there, just as they are in this country.

Senator IVES. Senator, while we are on this subject, might I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator IVES. I would like to ask Mr. Wilson whether it would be practical or advisable to have a provision in the Defense Production Act, or any extension of it, which automatically would require that

controls, where prices are concerned, be dropped when those prices after being at a certain level for a given period of time are below the ceiling for those particular items?

It would have to be understood, of course, that if that were done, later on, if the prices again go above the ceiling, recontrol would be automatically required. Is there any merit in a thought of that kind?

Mr. WILSON. I think it is certainly worthy of careful consideration, Senator Ives. As you probably know, OPS has appointed a group to make a study of the possibilities of something along that line, and that study is now being conducted.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you brought that up, Senator, because there has been some discussion in the papers about a recommendation for decontrolling. I don't think OPS has been considering that, and certainly I never had that intention in anything I said. I always thought they might be suspended, so if things changed right away we wouldn't have to go through hearings to put controls back on. That was the trouble after Korea.

Senator IVES. In effect, that is what my suggestion amounts to. I said automatically decontrol, without having them recontrolled, if they did not hold down.

Is there any way, Mr. Wilson, by which this red tape, which is confounding business generally, and bedeviling everything connected with it, in the matter of reports and checks, and heaven knows what that have to be made, could be somewhat reduced or eliminated entirely where decontrols are permitted? I think it is the red tape in these reports that everybody has to make that is causing trouble. I do not think it is a question of controls at all, fundamentally.

Mr. WILSON. That is part of the study that is being made, Senator Ives, to see to what extent the red tape can be eliminated in the reporting. I can understand it. I have spoken very feelingly in the past on this subject of red tape reports. We are going to see what we can do. Senator CAPEHART. We understand you do have a committee now studying the advisability of decontrolling certain items.

Mr. WILSON. The suspending of controls, rather.

Senator CAPEHART. In other words, suspending price control on certain specific items.

Mr. WILSON. We are looking into the possibilities and dangers. Senator CAPEHART. You have a committee studying that at the moment?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Senator CAPEHART. Of course, the results of that study will be made available to this committee?

Mr. WILSON. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART. Evidently you feel that study must be made, and there are possibly some prices or some controls at the moment that ought to be eliminated.

Mr. WILSON. I will not know that until I get the report, but there is plenty of evidence that there are lines of goods where the prices are under the ceilings considerably, and we are taking a look at it for that reason.

Senator CAPEHART. I want to congratulate you for doing that, but I think there are many prices that are far below the ceiling. I think

your study will be interesting, and you say you will make the results of the study available to the committee?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Wilson, you know last year I introduced an amendment to do that and it was defeated on the floor. You probably know that.

I had a talk this morning with Mr. Arnall, and he has asked that or he suggested that it would make it more difficult to administer if it were put into the law. They are studying it, as you said, and they are sympathetic with the idea, and would like to try it on an experimental basis, the same or similar provisions to those which I introduced last year, which were defeated. I confess that it is usually better to administer it under administrative regulations so as to retain some flexibility than it is to try to write into the law. Then you usually get into grave difficulties."

Mr. WILSON. I hope you don't write it in the law.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I already said as far as I was concerned I would rather you instituted such a regulation, and try to achieve the purpose of that amendment rather than putting it into the law. Mr. Arnall says that is the purpose now if they can find a workable administrative procedure.

Mr. WILSON. I hope that is the basis upon which you will decide to do it, Senator.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Speaking for myself, with the assurance that they are seriously going forward with it, I did not propose to reintroduce the same amendment I did last year.

Mr. WILSON. I think that would be helpful.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Mr. Wilson, have you suspended any of these price regulations at all yet?

Mr. WILSON. Nothing on important lines yet, a number of minor items; that is all.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. How long do you think this committee is going to study this in view of the fact that some items have been under the price ceilings by big percentages for as long as 5 or 6 months?

Mr. WILSON. I think it will take another month for them to come up with some answers that would be satisfying.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Robertson?

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Wilson, the chairman of our committee has scheduled Government witnesses for today and for a part of Thursday, and I assume that he does not plan to hear Government witnesses beyond that point.

I understood the chairman to say that he had two amendments to propose about decontrol, one relating to textiles

The CHAIRMAN. No; one related on a percentage basis, and the other one not on a percentage basis, on agricultural and manufactured goods that are way below ceilings.

Senator ROBERTSON. I have gotten letters from a good many different people representing various industries who think they ought to be decontrolled. I was just wondering what your idea would be about the most appropriate approach to this problem. Should this committee hear everybody that thinks they ought to be decontrolled, and then make out a list of those to be decontrolled on a percentage or some other basis? Or should we let representatives of the Government