3. The so-called Butler-Hope amendment which repeals the authority to establish slaughtering quotas.

As regards the Capehart amendment, its provisions are so complex that we are unable at this time to appraise its effects exactly. However, it seems that it will result in a general increase of price ceilings for large sectors of the economy. The principle of this amendment, to permit individual sellers to arbitrarily pass on to the purchaser all cost increases in the 13 months since Korea, blocks the efforts of the Government to get pricing which will be both fair and equitable to the producer and reasonable for the consumer. Equally serious are the complications which this amendment introduces in price-control administration and enforcement. Among other things, an enormous burden of individual price adjustments may be thrown on the stabilization agencies, made particularly complex by the need for cost information which most businesses are not normally able to supply. At the same time, the requirements of the amendment will greatly hamper, if not preclude the important work of simplifying price regulations and establishing uniform dollars and cents ceiling prices, in appropriate

cases.

As for the Herlong amendment, it will, in many cases, require wholesale and retail price increases higher than the amount necessary to cover any increases in distributors' costs. In addition, it runs against the practice of many trades which do not customarily operate on percentage mark-ups. We fear that the result will be an unnecessary pyramiding of retail prices and will leave stabilization officials powerless to make adjustments where desirable.

As for the Butler-Hope amendment, we feel that some provision for slaughtering quotas is essential to the maintenance of meat price ceilings at reasonable levels and to their effective enforcement. Without provision for quotas, legitimate business is likely to be severely penalized and black marketeering may be encouraged.

It is the consensus of this Board at its meeting today, that the Congress should be asked to act at once on such amendments to this law as are necessary to prevent the serious consequences which we believe will result from these provisions.

We have noted with concern the recent action by the House of Representatives in sharply reducing the appropriations requested for the stabilization agencies. We feel strongly that if economic stabilization is to be effective, it must be backed up by adequate funds as well as sound legislation.

Signed by the National Advisory Board on Mobilization Policy. The CHAIRMAN. Read their names.

Mr. PARSONS (reading):

The following were present at the Board on the meeting on policy where the attached recommendations were unanimously approved:

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate Mr. Wilson asking the President to send this information to the committee. As to the attack on the Capehart amendment, that has been perfectly clarified from the Senator's point of view, I hope. With a subcommittee of six appointed, Senator Robertson wrote the language, I made the motion, and that is what we did in good faith.

Senator MOODY. Who wrote the amendment does not make so much difference.

Mr. Wilson this morning, and the representatives of business, agriculture, labor, and the public all feel that this is a dangerous proposition, and I do not think Congress should adjourn until we do something about that. I am delighted to know you have put into motion the idea we may do something about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I cannot say what we have to do. I can only speak for myself.

The amendment was agreed to in conference.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I am glad that that specific thing was brought up, because it seems to me that it should be crystal clear as the chairman has so vividly pointed out here that that amendment that was in there was a committee amendment, and that ought to settle once and for all this bantering around that it should fall on this side. I know that the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Capehart, can handle himself.

The CHAIRMAN. I only want to be fair, and I will try to be fair. The amendment was written by a subcommittee appointed by me on the recommendation of somebody, Senator Robertson, Senator Capehart, Congressman Wolcott, and so on. I just want to make it crystal clear if any fault lies with anybody, the same fault lies with me, and I am as willing to correct the fault that lies with me as is the Senator from Indiana, or Michigan.

Senator MOODY. That is clear, we all agree on that. The point we ought to consider is whether or not we should not do something about that law.

The CHAIRMAN. I asked Mr. Wilson, and we agreed before we recessed at 12 o'clock, that they would send up a memorandum or amendment by which we could clarify the situation.

As far as repealing the control law, if you repeal some portion others will want another, another, and another, to my way of thinking.

Senator MOODY. But this should be clarified.

The CHAIRMAN. That has got to go through the House and the Senate. After all, we are only the representatives of the Senate, and the House is not even in session.

Senator MOODY. It should be clarified to carry out the intention of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I thoroughly agree on that. We do not want to do anything to create inflation. That is the worst thing you can have. Mr. DiSalle, how long will your statement take, sir?

Mr. DISALLE. It will not take too long.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to be questioned in between, or get through with it and let everybody question you then?

Mr. DISALLE. I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, to complete the statement, because many questions that might be asked may be answered in the statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may make your statement, and then we will allow each Senator to question you for 10 minutes. Senator CAPEHART. We will do our best not to interrupt.

The CHAIRMAN. There will be no questions asked.

Will those who agree that no questions should be asked please signify by raising their hands?

Senator MOODY. I agree.

The CHAIRMAN. It is unfair to the people in the lower echelon, if I might say so, with my appreciation of them, to take the time. Everybody ought to have 10 minutes, and then start back again.

Senator CAPEHART. I disagree with that very, very much, because there may be things that are said as he goes along that would be more pertinent, more helpful to the committee to take up at that time.

If you permit him to read this entire statement, by the time he gets through here, an hour and a half from now, something he said at the beginning has completely slipped the memory——

The CHAIRMAN. The people

Senator CAPEHART. My point is I do not think we ought to sit here for an hour and a half and listen, and then try to go back and ask questions on something that happened an hour and a half ago. The CHAIRMAN. If you start interrupting, we will never get through. Senator ROBERTSON. I agree, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to be fair.

Senator ROBERTSON. One of the toughest committees in the whole. Congress is the Ways and Means Committee of the House, 25 members, and everybody would have questions to ask, everybody wanted to talk. We had an inflexible rule that if the witness wanted to present his statement, we permitted him to do it. Then the chairman rotated by seniority from right to left, and if anybody yielded, he lost the floor.

Senator CAPEHART. Then, Mr. Chairman, I move that we dismiss the witness for 15 minutes until each member of the committee can have a chance to read the statement and digest it, and then call Mr. DiSalle back for questions on his own statement.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Mr. Chairman, speaking to that motion, the point I wanted to make was this: Here is a statement that we have seen for the first time, at least the first time the Senator from Kansas has had the opportunity to look at it. This is the first time I have had an opportunity even to see this statement. It is 33 pages long, and it will have to be read sometime, and the witness is here to read it. There is one thing, I think, in the interest of fariness that ought to be accorded the committee, namely, that Mr. DiSalle be requested, if he can appear before the committee at some later date, to answer questions with reference to this statement. I do not know what is in this statement. There may be some questions I know I have some questions I want to ask, but just a casual reading of it is not going to be quite fair, I think, to me or to the witness, either.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not suggest that, Senator. I suggested since Mr. DiSalle said he would like to read it, I imagine he could read it within a reasonable time. I must say that is one trouble with the OPS, the orders are too long.

I suggested merely this, that we question him for 10 minutes each, from right to left, and then come back again. I understand we are going to be here until 11 o'clock tonight in the Senate, and I am perfectly willing to sit here until 11 o'clock if the witness does not wear

out.

Senator CAPEHART. It is 35 pages, Mr. Chairman, and if Mr. DiSalle reads it it would take-I would say the best he could do would be one straight hour.

Now, I have no objection to the procedure you have outlined other than the fact that if, in the opinion of any individual Senator as he goes along, the witness makes any statements that could better be handled at that time and discussed at that time, we ought to have the right to ask questions at that particular time.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us get this straight.

We will go from right to left to ask questions.

Senator ROBERTSON. I think the witness should have summarized the 35 pages in less than an hour, but if he wants to present it this way, I do not think he has such an illuminating grasp of the situation that he can present to us something I never heard of before, I do not imagine he can. I may not agree with all he says. I think we are reasonably familiar with everything he discusses here, and I think I can ask all the questions I want to ask when he has finished, and as he goes along I can mark the pages here.

Senator CAPEHART. I can ask one question right now: if we give you what you want, will you guarantee to reduce prices and hold them? If you will, then I would say we ought to give you what you want, if you will guarantee to reduce prices and hold them.

Mr. DISALLE. I would like to make my statement, Mr. Chairman. Senator BRICKER. Before we ask questions

The CHAIRMAN. If you want to recess, that is all right.

Senator BRICKER. I have no objection to proceeding any way you desire, but let me call to your attention that we passed a rule in this committee that presentations should be given to the committee in writing so that we would have a chance to go over them before the witness appeared. The worst offender against that rule is the Government itself, and this department is the worst in the Government.

Now, it is unfair to the committee, and if that rule had any purpose, if we believed in it, it should be complied with.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator is correct. We passed that rule for the OPS hearings, but there was no motion that it be continued when it was decided to hold hearings Thursday and Friday. There was no suggestion made to comply with that. If it is the desire of the Senators to recess for 15 minutes to give them an opportunity to read the statement, the chairman will entertain such a motion. On any detailed legislation, you can understand this, we are going to hold further hearings.

Senator BRICKER. The Reorganization Act requires it. I do not know that it is in the committee's province. We are violating the law when we do not do it.

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I can understand how Senator Capehart feels about having a 35-page statement, criticizing everything he stood for on this bill, given to the press with no chance to challenge anything, so I will recall my objection, and ask that as we go along if he thinks it is sticking him too deep in the back, we can stop there and he can make his comment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will go from right to left. Senator CAPEHART. I want the right to ask a question at any time I want to, and I want you to give the same right to any other Senator, that is all I want.

Senator MOODY. I wonder if it may not be that Mr. DiSalle has written part of his statement for the record, and may be able to summarize some of it and not read it all? That may be as he pleases, but I think perhaps it might be possible to brief it a little bit.

Mr. DISALLE. Mr. Chairman, this whole statement was filed with the committee this morning, just as soon as it was ready.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no criticism of the filing of your statement. When we met here the other day, it was a hurried-up meeting because of some amendments that had been introduced in the Senate, and some amendments that had been pending, and we did not require, as rec

ommended by the Reorganization Act the filing of statements some 24 hours in advance. It was not filed that way, and I have no criticism of you whatsoever in sending it this morning, because you did not know until the other day what amendments were going to be introduced. It was determined in this room last week that any amendments that were filed up to last night, Wednesday night, would be the subject of discussion today, so the adoption of that resolution, I think introduced by Senator Douglas, that any amendments that were filed by Wednesday night would be the topic of conversation today.. Naturally in this instance you could not follow the reorganization law. I have no criticism whatsoever of your not filing something until you were sure. Senator Dirksen, only last evening, filed an amendment and I thought a lot more would file them.

Senator ROBERTSON. He said he gave this statement to the committee this morning. Why did we not get it?

Senator MOODY. We did get it. We had 3 hours between 12 and 3 o'clock to read it. I do not see any sense of adjourning for 15 minutes to read it.

Senator ROBERTSON. Who was it given to? I sat there until we adjourned, and I did not even know he had filed it.

Senator BRICKER. I just had it handed to me now.
Senator MOODY. It was in the committee all morning.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. The Senator from Kansas did not get it until just now, and I think I attended the meeting this morning. Senator MOODY. I had one this morning.

Senator BRICKER. Should we go around and find them? Is that the committee practice?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. If they go to the committee, they should be at least directed to the members of the committee in their respective offices.

Senator ROBERTSON. Did you have copies for us?

Mr. PARSONS. They were distributed this morning, sir. When they are delivered the day of the hearing, we usually do not hand them out to the Senators until the witness comes up. We have put them out in the past, and by the time the witness comes up in a case like this they would have been gone, and you would not have had one this afternoon.

Senator BRICKER. What is the purpose of delivering them?

Senator MOODY. I asked Mr. DiSalle for his statement. He said. he had given them to the committee. I asked the clerk for a copy, and he gave me one at the opening of the hearing this morning.

Senator BRICKER. I think you can trust these statements to the individual Senators, if that is what they are given to the committee

for.

Senator IVES. Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me whatever the situation. may be, Mr. DiSalle is not at fault.

The CHAIRMAN. I never suggested he was, except it is too long; like his orders, it is too long.

Senator BRICKER. I hope it is more intelligible than his orders. The CHAIRMAN. It is understood that Mr. DiSalle will read his statement, and at any time any Senator desires to interrupt him, he may do so with the understanding that any other Senator might follow the interruption from right to left. Is that agreed to? Senator CAPEHART. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Mr. DiSalle.