Another amendment some persons have in mind, would abolish the exclusive jurisdiction of the Emergency Court of Appeals in suits to test the legality of O. P. A. regulations. It has been argued that persons should be permitted to bring such actions in any Federal district court and, further, that the courts should be permitted to issue restraining orders, under their usual equity procedure, staying the application of O. P. A. regulations until a decision has been reached. It should be obvious that if such actions were permitted in each of the 93 Federal district courts inflation would be upon us while we were disposing of the many actions that would be filed. The O. P. A. would become completely ineffective in its effort to control prices by reason of the necessity to expend its whole energy in defending its regulations before the courts. There would be no uniformity in the decisions and before such uniformity could be established regarding each regulation, the war would be over and inflation would have been upon us.

Railway labor is required to deal with one agency, the Mediation Board, located here in Washington and to come from the four corners of the country for the purpose of presenting their cases. The same is true of the National Railroad Adjustment Board located in Chicago.

I want to digress there and say with reference to the Mediation Board that we would not have to come here in every instance. They usually send out mediators, but usually, we have three or four cases involving the law relative to the carriers those particular railroads and the organizations involved come before the board, but otherwise we have to go to Chicago, and they do not come out to see us though we have to undergo those inconveniences. We have done it now for a great many years. We have not objected and I don't think the people object to this other.

The CHAIRMAN. Except the Emergency Court of Appeals does go around the country.

Mr. LUHRSEN. Yes; they will.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LUHRSEN. Generally speaking, they have been meeting in Chicago, however, and gather there, gather all the groups together, to meet there.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the Emergency Court of Appeals, but you are talking now of the railroad board.

Mr. LUHRSEN. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the Emergency Court of Appeals goes around the country.

Senator HAWKES. The first year they didn't do it. Now, they have modified that plan and I was very much interested to learn that they do that now.

Mr. LUHRSEN. I understand they do that now. If they do so now it is all well and good.

The CHAIRMAN. They have not any too many cases.

Mr. LUHRSEN. The grievances of all railroad employees in the Nation, not settled on the property with the management, are handled to a conclusion before the Adjustment Board. Of course, this is inconvenient, but it is an inconvenience that it is necessary to be suffered in the interests of efficient operations. These are the normal procedures followed in the disposition of railroad-labor matters even in peacetime. Is it too much to ask of business that it, in time of war and in the interests of the stabilization of our economy, handle its affairs with respect to price control with one court located in Washington? And, as you say, they will go out. I don't believe that is too great a sacrifice to be imposed upon industry during the emergency, especially when any other procedure would mean the collapse of the stabilization program of the Government.

S. 1764 now before your committee merely proposes to extend the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended by the act of October 2, 1942, for 1 year beyond its present expiration date-until June 30, 1945. We believe the act should be extended for a longer period of time. There is little prospect that this war will be over, both in Europe and in the Pacific, by June 30, 1945, and I trust I am entirely wrong, and it is almost a foregone conclusion that Congress will again be called upon to extend the life of the Price Control Act if it is extended for only 1 year.

Senator HAWKES. May I interrupt there and ask you, what is the objection to Congress being called upon and extending again? I am one person who believes we should go forward and the Congress is well able and if the people don't like what their representatives are doing here, they ought to get rid of them and take the thing up from time to time as the whole picture presents itself.

Mr. LUHRSEN. Senator, my experience is based upon what I learned in other fields. I am not going to object to what you say, I think it is all right. We have, for the last 2 years, especially during the war, been confronted with railroad abandonments galore, especially branch lines. These men who lose their positions by abandonments have no definite protection under the law; under consolidations the commission does have the authority to afford protection. The commission has generally retained jurisdiction for protection under abandonments for the employees for a period of 2 years. But if the railroad asks for deferment of its abandonment for a period of 1 year and the commission does not extend it also to the employees then these men have only 1 year's protection, since the decision of the commission becomes effective from the date of their order. This influenced me to ask for 2 years' extension. I am not going to object, but I think we might as well do it in one lump sum if we can, but I doubt very much if we will be as successful as we first anticipated in our emergency period. I hope I am entirely wrong.

You will recall that the greatest degree of inflation occurred in the 2-year period after World War I. Since the pressures on prices by reason of scarcity of goods is greater during this war than during the last, there is little prospect that the inflationary tendencies will be less following this war than they were following the last war. On that basis alone, it is reasonable to expect that the Government will continue its price-control effort for the period of scarcity after this war.

Since prices of basic farm crops are protected by the amendment of October 2, 1942, to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, against possible collapse, stabilization during the readjustment period should be fully guaranteed by giving similar protection against post-war inflation for the same period and in the same terms, namely, and I quote from the bill:

until the expiration of the two-year period beginning with the first day of January immediately following the date upon which the President by proclamation or the Congress by concurrent resolution declares that hostilities in the present war have been terminated.

If the Price Control Act were extended in accordance with this suggestion, the consumers of the Nation would be guaranteed ceilings on prices for the same period of time that agricultural producers are guaranteed a floor under their prices. That is, I believe, a reasonable request, and I urge its consideration upon your committee. That is another that meets your question.

Grade labeling for purposes of establishing ceiling prices was prohibited by an amendment to the Price Control Act which was enacted by the Commodity Credit Corporation Act (Public Law 151, 78th Cong., 1st sess., July 16, 1943). That prohibition should be repealed and, by amendment to the law, O. P. A. should be directed to establish its price ceilings on the basis of quality grades or standards. It should require quality grades to be stated on invoices and labels for all commodities on which Government grades or standards are available, or on which, in the absence of Government standards, trade grades have been described, generally agreed upon, and have been put

to use.

The results of the inability of O. P. A. the past 2 years to require a label showing the grade or standard of the commodity, has resulted in extreme quality deterioration and up-grading in the commodities. purchased by the consumers.

This has resulted in hidden price increases with which O. P. A. has found it difficult to cope. The sale of low-grade canned goods at topgrade prices, and the deterioration of the quality of women's and children's garments are two examples within knowledge of every housewife. Unless the ceiling price is attached to a specific quality of commodity and both the price and quality shown on the label for the benefit of the purchaser at retail, we cannot have the kind of price control that the consumers of the Nation have a right to expect, and price increases will be suffered despite the best efforts of the O. Р. А.

In the National War Agencies Appropriation Act, 1944 (Public Law No. 139, 78th Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 1943), there was a provision forbidding O. P. A. to use any part of the appropriation directly or indirectly for the payment of a salary or expenses of any person who directs the formulation of any price policy, maximum price or price ceiling with respect to any article or commodity unless in the judgment of the Administrator such person shall be qualified by experience in in business, industry, or commerce. As a result of that amendment, many competent persons are disqualified for employment with O. P. A. in policy-making positions. That provision is no more reasonable than would be a constitutional provision prohibiting anyone from serving in the Congress unless he has had previous legislative experience.

While I appreciate that the provision was a rider on the 1944 National War Agencies Appropriation Act and not an amendment to the law, it has had the same effect as if the law itself had been amended in that respect. I should, therefore, like to propose that the provision be repealed. If it is not repealed, then I should like to urge that it be amended to provide

96739-44-54

that no person employed in accordance with its provisions shall be permitted to formulate policies, or fix price ceilings for any commodity, business, or industry in which he now has, or within 2 years prior to holding such position has had, a direct interest.

In closing, may I state, that while we are in no way satisfied that price control has been as successful as it might have been, we do feel that it has been of great assistance in preventing runaway prices. We therefore urge your committee to make a favorable recommendation to the Senate on the extension of the act.

That concludes my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Except as you have referred to there you have no amendments to propose, have you Mr. Luhrsen?

Mr. LUHRSEN. In the first instance, I suggest-I don't know whether

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I mean outside of that?

Mr. LUHRSEN. NO.

The CHAIRMAN. You haven't any others?

Mr. LUHRSEN. No. There are, I understand, three amendments

offered on the Senate side and 23 already on the House.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LUHRSEN. I have them in my office, I have not reviewed all of them. I think I know what they cover, in general.

The CHAIRMAN. Some of them are pretty destructive, I think.
Mr. LUHRSEN. Yes; some of them are very destructive.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Luhrsen. Are there any questions of Mr. Luhrsen?

Senator HAWKES. I was going to ask this question: Do you see improvement in the administration of the Price Control Act in the last few months?

Mr. LUHRSEN. I can answer that very positively; not only the last few months, but I will go back since we have had the present Administrator, there has been a vast improvement. That may be a bouquet for Mr. Bowles, but I like the man and he is doing a good job.

Senator HAWKES. That seems to be the consensus of opinion.

Mr. LUHRSEN. I am a member of the Labor Policy Committee of the Office of Price Administration and have been since its inception, under Henderson, Brown, and Bowles. We have had a better understanding now and worked together and accomplished results.

Senator HAWKES. Of course, it is only fair to say to the others that we learn by mistakes. Mr. LUHRSEN. That's right.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE P. CONSER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. CONSER. Mr. Chairman, I am Eugene P. Conser, executive vice president, National Apartment Owners' Association. Our interest is in discussing the rent-control features of the bill. As I have mentioned, we have a prepared statement which we will file, and if I might discuss the points briefly

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF EUGENE P. CONSER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL APARTMENT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

MAJOR CHANGES NEEDED IN THE RENT-CONTROL PROGRAM

1. Require local review and correction of major individual injustices, inequities, and hardships on a fair and equitable basis.

2. Provide a basis for local action to initiate review of conditions in areas where rents were frozen abnormally low.

3. Provide for localized and independent review of rent directors' orders or for appeal to the Federal courts.

4. Make adjustment orders retroactive to date of petition or date of agreement between the parties (whichever is later).

5. Permit direct court action in eviction of obnoxious and destructive persons and prohibit the Office of Price Administration prejudging certain types of actions.

6. Stop racketeering by preventing application of the penalty clause to successive rent payments.

7. Provide for local action to initiate withdrawal of controls from areas where no longer needed.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Eugene P. Conser. I am the executive vice president of the National Apartment Owners Association. I wish to express to the committee my appreciation for the opportunity to present this statement in connection with proposals for changes in the rent-control provisions of the Price Control and Stabilization Acts.

In submitting this statement it is our purpose to be helpful to you in determining whether the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, and as administered by the Office of Price Administration, are effectuating the purposes of the act.

We believe there are deficiencies, both in the act and in its administration, which should be corrected by the Congress in such manner as to require the Administrator to carry out the purposes and intent of the Congress.

In some respects the act and the Stabilization Act of October 2, 1942, have achieved their purposes in stabilizing prices, wages, and rents and restricting inflationary trends. It is a basic fault of the act and of the interpretation made of it by the O. P. A. that this stabilization has not even approached uniformity in its application to prices, wages, and rents. It is our purpose to outline to you the gross inequities which persist between price, wage, and rent ceilings after 2 years of administrative effort.

The National Apartment Owners Association favors extending the act, with certain modifications, for another year to end June 30, 1945. It is unthinkable, under war conditions, that our economy could continue to operate without antiinflationary restrictions. Under existing conditions the lifting of price control would be an invitation to a few landlords to indulge in speculative practices which would result in public condemnation of the many for the sins of the few. While favoring extension of the act, we believe that the Congress should retain the obligation to review each year its administration and determine whether new conditions or administrative irregularities warrant further modification. This is a safeguard against abuse of the extraordinary administrative powers granted to the executive department which are so foreign to our democratic processes under normal conditions; it is not a threat of premature withdrawal of the controls.

We do not agree, however, that conditions now require the continuance of obvious inequities that exist or the continuance of administrative policies which are wholly unfair and unnecessary in the administration of the rent provisions of the act. We find that in the imposition of economic controls in other fields, administrative agencies have admitted and have provided for the elimination of the kind of inequities which exist in control of rents and which the administrator in our case has consistently refused to acknowledge or to correct.

After more than a year of effort, trying to secure relief from the office of the Administrator, we now ask that the Congress take such corrective action as is necessary to provide equity and justice in the act and in its administration.