May 17, 1954: To hear Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization, on U.S. defense positions for metallurgical manganese ore in relation to proposed expansion of domestic purchase program and discussion of machine tool program. March 9, 1955: Organizational meeting. March 10, 1955: To hear Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, Director of Office of Defense Mobilization, on procurement of critical materials. May 15, 1956: To hear Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization, and Hon. Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, on nickel supply and programs for expansion. June 8, 1956: To hear Mr. Willard F. Rockwell and representatives from the Office of Defense Mobilization and Department of Commerce on nickel supply and distribution. February 8, 1957: Organizational meeting to elect a chairman and a vice chairman, and for the adoption of rules. February 20, 1958: To hear Mr. Gordon Gray. Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization, on the adequacy of mobilization plans and programs to meet nuclear attack as well as limited scale war, including plans for the continuity of production. February 21, 1958: A continuation of the testimony of Mr. Gordon Gray, Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization, on the adequacy of mobilization plans and programs to meet nuclear attack as well as limited scale war, including plans for the continuity of production. February 19, 1959: Organizational meeting to elect a chairman and a vice chairman, and for the adoption of rules. Discussion of proposed study of missile fuels and propellants. May 29, 1959: To hear the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization and the Administrator of the General Services Administration on Defense Production Act inventories and related matters. March 8, 1961: Organizational meeting to elect a chairman and a vice chairman, and for the adoption of rules. March 7, 1963: Organizational meeting to elect a chairman and a vice chairman, and for the adoption of rules. Senator SPARKMAN. Let me bring up this point: The work of the joint committee is of such a nature that it doesn't call for regular meetings. As a matter of fact, back when we had controls, price and rent controls and things of that kind, we met rather frequently. But all of those have been practically eliminated and it is only when some question comes up, for instance when the aluminum situation arose, we met several times. The CHAIRMAN. In the last 4 years there has been a problem of how can we get rid of the surpluses. We were buying at one time under some contracts we found we couldn't cancel, but I managed, when I was chairman, to get the aluminum companies to agree to our construction of the law and stop them from putting any more cheap Canada aluminum to us. (See press release on joint committee activities, p. 44.) But I will admit in the last several years, when the problem has been to get rid of it, the producers of minerals were opposed to getting rid of it, Congress was opposed to getting rid of it, the General Services Administration was opposed to telling us what they had, what they were buying. So what was the use of meeting? Senator DOUGLAS. I raise this question because I find I am a member of the Joint Committee on Defense Production. I think I have been a member on paper since Senator Fulbright became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and I moved up to No. 3 on this side. Now, let me frankly say that I have never attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Defense Production. I have a vague memory that once I was notified there was to be a meeting. But in the last 4 years my office, so far as I know, has a record of only one meeting. The CHAIRMAN. You have been notified every time there has been a meeting. Senator DOUGLAS. How many meetings have there been? The CHAIRMAN. You have been notified along with everybody else. Senator DOUGLAS. Well, how many meetings have there been? The CHAIRMAN. There haven't been any in the last year and a half. Senator DOUGLAS. And before that? The CHAIRMAN. Not very many, when we found out we couldn't get to first base with a Republican-controlled GSA that wouldn't give us essential facts, because they didn't like to put it out. Senator DOUGLAS. We all have to go before the "judgment seat." Now I voted against most of the legislative proposals to purchase additional quantities of minerals in order to maintain prices, against heavy pressure from my own State from zinc and lead interests. Now I find that I am a member of the Defense Production Committee, I was dimly aware of that, but I don't think I was summoned to meetings very often. And now some inquiring reporter, some citizen, will look at the tables on page 28 and will say, "Now, here is the first item, aluminum," the amount of aluminum in stockpile, in the two stockpiles, is 444 percent of the maximum set for national security, and about half of these purchases were made under the Defense Production Act. Or half of the total, two-thirds of the surplus have come in under the Defense Production Act and somebody will point the finger at me and say, "Now, Mr. Douglas, you were a member of this committee, you permitted this to take place, and what have you got to say for yourself," and all I can say is, "I never attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Defense Production," and then he will say, "Why didn't you?" And my reply will be, "I didn't think there were many, if any, meetings." Now, frankly, with all due deference to our good chairman—I like him very much and I mean that—I don't think we have cut a very glorious figure in our administration of the stockpiles, especially on aluminum. I would be glad to wash my hands of the stockpiling problem and surrender it to the Committee on Armed Services, both in order to get rid of it and also because I think the distinguished Senator from Missouri has more knowledge of this situation than any man in Congress, perhaps any man in the country. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is perfectly all right with me for all of the members of this committee to vote to give up all of our jurisdiction over the Defense Production Act, but when the distinguished Senator from Illinois said we haven't cut a very illustrious figure-he admits he hasn't attended a meeting Senator DOUGLAS. How many meetings have there been in the last 4 or 5 years? The CHAIRMAN. We will get the record to show it. But I would say in recent years we found it was futile to have them. We would ask for figures and the agencies would say they are classified and the executive department will not release them. And you know when they say they will not be released you can't do anything about it. Senator DOUGLAS. I understand. I am not blaming the chairman. 26 DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT INVENTORIES The CHAIRMAN. But we did what we could. We couldn't get out of the contract for nickel in Cuba; we got stung on nickel; we couldn't get out of all of the manganese contracts. As a matter of fact, Congress kept voting to buy manganese when manganese was running out of our ears. Now here is manganese, $541 million worth of manganese Senator DOUGLAS. I voted against that, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I did, too, but the Congress kept buying it. Now you say we didn't cut an illustrious figure. What could you expect us to do? Senator BENNETT. Congress didn't buy it, Mr. Chairman. Congress had nothing to say about the purchase. The CHAIRMAN. When you talk about illustrious figures, you must realize it is because Congress doesn't want to do it, that is the reason we haven't done it. (The following letters were submitted for the record :) SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Hon. PAUL H. DOUGLAS, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1964. DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: In order to comply with your request that I furnish you with information about the meetings of the Joint Committee on Defense Production since you became a member of that committee, I have consulted the files of the Banking and Currency Committee and the staff of the joint committee. You were appointed as a member of the Joint Committee on Defense Production by the chairman of the committee, in accordance with section 12 of the Defense Production Act, by letter dated February 28, 1961, a copy of which is attached. A notice of your appointment as a member was placed in the Congressional Record on the same date and appears at page 2838 of the permanent Record for that date. The organization meeting of the joint committee for the 87th Congress was held on March 8, 1961. The records of the joint committee show that all Senators who were members of the joint committee were present except you (the transcript of the meeting indicates that you were at a Finance Committee meeting at the time). No further meetings of the joint committee were held during the 87th Congress. The organization meeting of the Joint Committee on Defense Production for the 88th Congress was held on March 7, 1963. Senators Robertson, Bennett, and Tower were present. Congressman Patman was elected chairman, and Senator Robertson was elected vice chairman. No further meetings have been held by the joint committee during the 88th Congress. The joint committee has issued annual reports each year, including extensive reports from each of the delegate agencies. I enclose a copy of the 10th annual report, dated January 9, 1961, which does not include your name among the Senatorial members of the committee, and copies of the 11th annual report, dated January 23, 1962, the 12th annual report, dated January 22, 1963, and the 13th annual report, dated January 13, 1964, which lists your name as a member of the joint committee. Sincerely yours, MATTHEW HALE, Chief of Staff. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: I have received a letter from Mr. Hale containing some of the information that I had requested during the stockpiling hearings on July 24, in regard to the number of meetings that the Joint Committee on S. 2272 I stated that my records indicated that the joint committee had met only once in the last 31⁄2 years. On the basis of the information that I have now received I am happy to correct the record. The joint committee has met twice in the last 31⁄2 years. In both cases these were organizational meetings. Apparently there have been no meetings in the last 3 years for the purpose of carrying out the joint committee's primary responsibility; that is, exercising legislative oversight in regard to the Defense Production Act. Therefore, I still feel that my earlier contention that the Joint Committee on Defense Production had not adequately performed its oversight function is still valid. Finally, during the hearings I had requested information on the number of meetings of the Joint Committee on Defense Production during the last 5 years. I hope that the additional information on committee meetings during 1959 and 1960 will be included in the record of the hearings. I believe it would be appropriate if both this letter and Mr. Hale's letter to me of July 28 were made a part of the record of the hearings. With best wishes. Faithfully, Hon. PAUL H. DOUGLAS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. PAUL H. DOUGLAS. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., August 4, 1964. DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: I have received your letter of July 31 on the subject of the meetings of the Joint Committee on Defense Production, reiterating your request that information as to the number of meetings of the Joint Committee on Defense Production during the last 5 years be included in the record of the recent Banking and Currency Committee hearing on the subject of Defense Production Act inventories. The following meetings have been held by the Joint Committee on Defense Production since January 1, 1959: February 19, 1959: Organizational meeting. May 29, 1959: Executive session to hear the Director of OCDM and the Director of GSA on the subject of the disposal of Government materials. August 18, 1959: Public hearing to hear the Director of OCDM and the Director of BDSA on the mobilization programs of those agencies (progress report No. 44). March 8, 1961: Organizational meeting. March 7, 1963: Organizational meeting. In your letter you take the position that, inasmuch as the only meetings of the joint committee during the last 31⁄2 years, since your appointment as a member of the joint committee on February 28, 1961, have been the two organizational meetings on March 8, 1961 and March 7, 1963, the joint committee has not adequately performed its primary responsibility to exercise legislative oversight in regard to the Defense Production Act. I do not consider that the oversight function of the joint committee can only be carried on through hearings and executive sessions. For example, the saving of some $90 million effected by persuading Alcoa and Kaiser not to exercise what they considered to be their contractual rights to put Canadian aluminum to the Government was not accomplished through hearings or executive sessions. It was accomplished by alert and imaginative staff work, followed up by communications between myself, as chairman of the joint committee, and the executive agencies involved. The same is true with respect to the review of the accounting procedures followed by GSA in connection with the Hanna Smelting Co. contract, described at page 22 of the committee's 13th annual report and page 9 of the committee's 12th annual report. The joint committee's recent annual reports, copies of which have been furnished you, show the activities of the joint committee and its staff and are, in my judgment, a more accurate reflection of the work and accomplishments of the joint committee than a tabulation of hearings and executive sessions. The activities of the executive agencies under the Defense Production Act have been the subject of hearings before the Banking and Currency Committee in connection with legislative proposals referred to the committee. For example, on June 5 and 6, 1962, the committee held hearings on S. 3203, which became Public Law 87-505, extending the act from June 30. 1962 to June 30, 1964. Further hearings were held on July 17, 1962, on S. 3436, 87th Congress, which would have amended the disposal provisions of the Defense Production Act. Again, on June 24, 1964, the committee held hearings on H.R. 10000, which became Public Law 88-343 and extended the Defense Production Act to June 30, 1966, and amended its disposal provisions so as to facilitate sales from the Defense Production Act inventory. The annual reports of the joint committee have been used extensively in connection with these hearings on the extension and amendment of the Defense Production Act, and the staff of the joint committee has assisted in the consideration of these proposals. The record makes it clear that the activities of the Joint Committee on Defense Production and its staff have been of great value to the Committee on Banking and Currency and the Senate and to the U.S. Government and the public. In addition to the economies they have brought about, the joint committee and its staff have assisted greatly in carrying out the preparedness and mobilization activities of agencies operating under the Defense Production Act. In accordance with your request, your letter of July 31, and Mr. Hale's letter of July 28, together with this letter, will be made a part of the record of the recent hearings on Defense Production Act inventories. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours, A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman. Senator SYMINGTON. There is no desire on the part of the Armed Services Committee to take over anything. Recently the Congress has been very cooperative with respect to stockpile sales. Only 2 weeks ago we passed four separate bills on four separate materials: bills for tin, molybdemum, lead, and zinc. A few weeks before that we went through the same rigamarole to pass a bill for cadmium. I would, if my friend the able and distinguished chairman of this committee would allow me, ask him a question. The CHAIRMAN. Before you do that, I just want to continue for a moment on what blocked this. We have great industrial interests, some of them are mining interests, others are manufacturing interests, but they are all concerned that the prices of these major items: aluminum, lead, manganese, chrome, copper, rubber, tin, tungsten, and zinc, they are the 10 or 12 big items, what is their position? They want congressional control, and they want sales at not less than the domestic market price. Now, these are some of the things we are up against. And don't anybody imagine that that opposition won't still be voiced before we are finished with this. We are, I assume, with the Senator from Missouri, in desiring to do something to get rid of unnecessary surplus. We thought we could do it without taking from us all of the little jurisdiction we have over a minor part of the stockpile. But if this committee wants to give up that jurisdiction, I have said as far as the patronage is concerned, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans to me. Now I think I will let you ask a question and then I think I ought to recognize the Senator from Utah, because he has some questions. Senator SYMINGTON. Inasmuch as method of disposal is far more complicated under the national stockpile than under the DPA, and inasmuch as the national stockpile is billions of dollars larger in content than the two other stockpiles, why is it we can operate our stockpile without a single member in the way of staff? We haven't one. Each one of these matters is handled, as Mr. Darden would confirm, without any additional member to the staff. We don't need any staff. |