Senator BRICKER. At the top of page 11, the first full paragraph, you ask for the authority to import agricultural commodities for purposes other than stockpiling or industrial uses. What other purposes do you have in mind there, Mr. Wilson? Senator BRICKER. What commodities do you have in mind? Mr. WILSON. Senator, would you excuse me from answering that question, please? If I answered that, the price will go up tomorrow. Senator BRICKER. We certainly do not want to do that. That is not the purpose of this hearing. It is just the reverse. On pages 11 and 12 you talk about subsidies to agriculture for processing purposes. This, of course, would keep prices up, would it not? Mr. WILSON. I do not think it would, sir. If we gave a subsidy, for example, to a meat processor who happened to be, for any one of a variety of reasons, a higher-cost processor than the average of the industry, in order to keep him in business, and if we got the benefit of his volume and the volume of all these people to whom the subsidy was given, to go around to 150 million Americans, it would seem to me this would have the effect of keeping the price stable rather than having a tendency to send the price up. Senator BRICKER. Then that is sort of a marginal application of the Brannan plan, is it not? Mr. WILSON. It is in an emergency and a temporary thing, and just so there will be no question on it, generally speaking, I do not like it. Senator BRICKER. I think the American public is a little bit skeptical about it. Mr. WILSON. I do not mean the Brannan plan, I mean this process we are suggesting here. I do not know of any better way to do it in an emergency, that is all. Senator BRICKER. It is, of course, a version of the Brannan plan in a limited application. On pages 13 and 14 you talk about the defense plants. Has there been any hesitancy on the part of private industry-could you just give us some examples-to go into the building of plants in the war program that would make necessary the Government building of plants. Mr. WILSON. No. On the whole they have done very, very well, sir. As a matter of fact, they have just reacted to our requests and the requests of the Defense Department in fine style. But you get to a point-well, I may as well mention it because this has nothing to do with farm prices. Take high octane gasoline, or take synthetic rubber. Suppose we determine that we ought to have a couple more high octane plants as stand-by in case of an all-out war, or we ought to have a stand-by plant in case of all-out war to implement our present production or our projected production of synthetic. Now, we may well get to a point where these companies that are today willing to go ahead, and they have Senator BRICKER. There has been a real eagerness to go ahead? Mr. WILSON. Oh, they have gone right ahead. We have not had much trouble at all, and on a pretty good basis on the whole, too, as far as tax amortization is concerned. Senator BRICKER. That has been a real inducement, there is no question about that. Mr. WILSON. And up to a certain point I think it is inducement enough, but you take it to a point, and I believe we will, where it would look like a pretty poor economic risk to go ahead and build, let us say, another rubber plant. I can see that coming, and yet it maye be in the national interest to have it. Then in that case I think we ought to step in and do it and have that plant as an insurance policy that would be pretty cheap. Senator BRICKER. Do you anticipate the present rubber plants are adequate to take care of our anticipated needs? I know you use that only as an example, but that is a basic point. Mr. WILSON. I think they are. Senator BRICKER. Do you look to getting more of the world supply of rubber in the months that are ahead? Mr. WILSON. I think we can get more. Senator BRICKER. Do you think the shipment of rubber to the potential enemy and the real enemy today has been largely curbed? Mr. WILSON. No, sir. Senator BRICKER. It has not been? Mr. WILSON. No, sir. Senator BRICKER. If it could be there would be a greater supply of available rubber? Mr. WILSON. Yes. I do not think it has been largely curbed. They have been getting a great deal, and I have the figures on what they got, and it is a little bit upsetting. One other thing, Senator, I forgot to mention was what we may well want to do in one of these Government-owned plants, maybe more than one, would be if we get a new process. Maybe it is a competing process with one that industry has. Senator BRICKER. Take cold rubber, for instance. Mr. WILSON. Yes; that is a very good example. Suppose we had a new process of making some new rubber. Well, it might not look good enough to industry operating with the present type, but it might be in the national interest for us to go ahead and make sure it would work, if it appears it might give results. That is the kind of a plant we might spend the money on. Senator BRICKER. As far as the present need is concerned and the present development is concerned, it is really as a stand-by. Mr. WILSON. That is all, sir. So far industry has gone along with us in magnificent shape. We do not badly need it now. Senator BRICKER. Turning now, then, to page 18. I do want a little bit later to discuss this revolving fund and direct appropriations and the desirability of it, but I will not do it at this time. On page 18 you mention the public-utilities program. What ones are not now subject to Government regulation? They are very limited, are they not? Mr. WILSON. I will have to turn to counsel to find out. Mr. BERGSON. There are a lot of intrastate transactions and intrastate sales, a lot of truckers, and so forth, that are not subject to regulation at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. Would you make a list of those for the record? * Regulates gas utilities: does not regulate ele utilities. T Polely owned and cooperatively owned electric utilities are subject to some destee of COLTT over rates and services 1 relatively few of the States. Less than one-third of the 41 State commissi ms rested with power to remate privately owned electric utilities have power to eating rates and service of publicly owned and cooperatively owned electric utilities. The following 12 are the only State commissions having power to regulate residential, commercial, and industrial rates charged by publicly owned electric utilities: Indiana Kansas Maine Maryland California Indiana Kansas The following nine are the only State commissions having power to regulate residential, commercial, and industrial rates charged by cooperatively owned electric utilities: California Indiana Kansas Indiana Maine Montana New York Missouri and Tennessee have no jurisdiction over sales by privately owned electric utilities to public authorities for resale. The Ohio and Tennessee commissions have no jurisdiction over sales by privately owned electric utilities to public authorities for public use. The following 11 are the only State commissions having jurisdiction over sales by publicly owned electric utilities to public authorities for resale : Kentucky Indiana Maine Maryland The following eight are the only State commissions having jurisdiction over rates charged by cooperatively owned electric utilities on sales to privately owned utilities for resale: Delaware_. Florida_. Iowa__ Montana Rhode Island Minnesota. Mississippi. South Dakota.... Texas (electric). Total___ Vermont Wyoming The following are the only State commissions having jurisdiction over sales by publicly owned electric utilities to privately owned electric utilities for resale: Virginia West Virginia Montana New York North Carolina West Virginia New Jersey Maryland Data derived from State Commission Jurisdiction and Regulation of Electric and Gas Utilities, 1948, Federal Power Commission. / NUMBER OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND COMMON CARRIERS NOT SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION West Virginia 1. Electric and Gas utilities in States Wholly Without Commission Regulation1 Public and private companies 14 56 187 168 51 43 82 601 1 Excludes REA co-op. Derived from Directory of Electric and Gas Utilities in the United States, Federal Power Commission, 1948. Attached memorandum describes various limitations and extent of regulations in other States. 2. Line Haul Carriers in States Exercising No Control Whatever1 Delaware... District of Columbia.. Iowa (established). New Jersey. Vermont____ Number of carriers 123 178 2, 165 1,200 514 731 29 157 Total______ 5,097 Figures not available for local and specialized haulers in these and other States. (Derived from A Review of Highway Transport and Transit Industries* issued by Office of Defense Transportation, Highway Transport Department, November 30, 1945.) Senator BRICKER. Senator Schoeppel asked if that is meant to be on a temporary basis, of course, to the duration of this law. Mr. BERGSON. Oh, yes; of course. Senator BRICKER. Both Senator Schoeppel and I have served on utility commissions of our own States and know something about those problems.. I believe it has been reasonably effective throughout the years as the Interstate Commerce Commission has been in the transportation rates. You said something about increasing penalties here for violation. Is there not sufficient penalty now for the large-scale violators? Would you suggest a peral sentence, in addition to the $10,000 fine, or how would you go about that! Mr. BERGSON. Senator, the only change we recommend there is that the present ceiling for civil violations be eliminated. Under the present law the average price violator would pay a civil penalty of treble damages to the person whom he "gouged." if we can use that term, but in the case of a large-scale violator where the violation, say, is over $10.000, the violator would pay merely $10,000 plus an additional $10,000 which would be $20.000. He would pay only twice if the court decided to impose a treble damage penalty. But with this proposed amendment, if the court determined that the violation was such that treble damages should be imposed on the large-scale violator, just as they could on the smaller violator, the court could do so. It just removes a present ceiling on civil penalties under the existing law. It is not a criminal penalty. Senator BRICKER Would you suggest a criminal penalty also! Mr. BERGSON. There is a criminal penalty also. This is just directed to take of the ceiling on civil penalties for large-scale violators. Serator BizCKER. I see. I had not read the provision of the law that you suggestei Mr. Binosox. This does not touch on the criminal provision at all, sir. Senator BROCKER. You think they are adequate, the provisions of the law that we passed are scient? Mr. Brassox. Yes, sir. I think the criminal penalties are adequate. Senator Exoka. One other question with regard to the attity situation. You recommend. Ik—and I do not know exactly where it is you recommend the Federal Goverment be permite pose in any rate trease or rate cases before the bodies! |