APPENDIX

TITLE II. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Administration

SEC. 201. (a) There is hereby created an Office of Price control, which shail be under the direction of a Price Administrator (in this Act called the "Administrator"). The Administrator shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at the rate of $10,000 per annum. The Administrator may, subject to the civilservice laws, appoint such employees as he deems necessary in order to carry out his functions and duties under this Act, and shall fix their compensation in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, as amended. The Administrator may utilize the services of Federal, State, and local agencies and may utilize and establish such regional, local, or other agencies, and utilize such voluntary and uncompensated services as may from time to time be needed. Attorneys appointed under this section may appear for and represent the Administrator in any case in any court. In the appointment, selection, classification, and promotion of officers and employees of the Office of Price Control, no political test or qualification shall be permitted or given consideration, but all such appointments and promotions shall be given and made on the basis of merit and efficiency.

(b) The principal office of the Administrator shall be in the District of Columbia, but he or any duly authorized representative may exercise any or all of his powers in any place.

(c) The Administrator shall have authority to make such expenditures (including expenditures for personal services and rent at the seat of government and elsewhere; for lawbooks and books of reference; and for paper, printing, and binding) as he may deem necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act. The provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes shall not apply to the purchase of supplies and services by the Administrator where the aggregate amount involved does not exceed $250.

(d) The Administrator may, from time to time, issue such regulations and orders as he may deem necessary or proper in order to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act.

SEC. 202. (a) The Administrator may make such studies and investigations, and obtain or require the furnishing of such information under oath or affirmation or otherwise, as he deems necessary or proper to assist him in prescribing any regulation or order under this Act, or in the administration and enforcement of this Act, and regulations and orders thereunder. For such purposes the Administrator may administer oaths and affirmations, may require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents at any designated place, may require persons to permit the inspection and copying of documents, the inspection of defense-area housing accommodations, and the inspection of inventories, and may, by regulation or order, require the making and keeping of records and other documents and the making of reports. No person shall be excused from complying with any requirements under this section because of his privilege against self-incrimination, but the immunity provisions of the Compulsory Testimony Act of February 11, 1893 (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 49, sec. 46), shall apply with respect to any individual who specifically claims such privilege.

(b) The Administrator shall not publish or disclose any information obtained under this Act that such Administrator deems confidential or with reference to which a request for confidential treatment is made by the person furnishing such information, unless he determines the withholding thereof is contrary to the interest of the national defense and security.

Procedure

SEC. 203. (a) Within a period of sixty days after the issuance of any regulation or order under section 2 any person subject to any provision thereof may, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Administrator, file a protest specifically setting forth objections to any such provision and affidavits or other written evidence in support of such objections. At any time after the expiration of such sixty days any person subject to any provision of any such regulation or order may file such a protest based solely on grounds arising after the

expiration of such sixty days. Statements in support of any such regulation or order may be received and incorporated in the transcript of the proceedings at such times and in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Administrator. Within a reasonable time after the filing of any protest under this subsection, but in no event more than thirty days after such filing or ninety days after the issuance of the regulation or order in respect of which the protest is filed, whichever occurs later, the Administrator shall either grant or deny such protest in whole or in part, notice such protest for hearing, or provide an opportunity to present further evidence in connection therewith.

(b) In the administration of this Act the Administrator may take official notice of economic and other facts, including facts found by him as a result of action taken under section 202. Any proceedings under this section may be limited to the filing of affidavits, or other written evidence, and the filing of briefs.

Review

SEC. 204. (a) Any protestant who is aggrieved by the denial or partial denial of his protest may, within thirty days after such denial, file a complaint with the Emergency Court of Appeals, created pursuant to subsection (c), specifying his objections and praying that the regulation or order protested be set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such complaint shall forthwith be served on the Adminis trator, who shall certify and file with such court a transcript of such portions of the proceedings in connection with the protest as are material under the complaint. Such transcript shall include a statement indicating the economic and other facts of which the Administrator has taken official notice. Upon the filing of such complaint the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm or set aside such regulation or order, in whole or in part, or to remand the proceeding: Provided, That the regulation or order may be modified or rescinded by the Administrator at any time notwithstanding the pendency of such complaint. No objection to such regulation or order, and no evidence in support of any objection thereto shall be considered by the court, unless such objection shall have been set forth by the complainant in the protest or such evidence shall be contained in the transcript. If application is made to the court by either party for lease to introduce additional evidence which was either offered to the Administrator and not admitted, or which could not reasonably have been offered to the Administrator or included by the Administrator in such proceedings, and the court determines that such evidence should be admitted, the court shall order the evidence to be presented to the Administrator. The Administrator shall promptly receive the same, and such other evidence as he deems necessary or proper, and thereupon he shall certify and file with the court a transcript thereof, and any modification made in the regulation or order as a result thereof, except that on request by the Administrator any such evidence shall be presented directly to the court.

(b) No such regulation or order shall be set aside, in whole or in part, unless the complainant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the regulation or order is not in accordance with law, or is arbitrary or capricious. The effectiveness of a judgment of the court setting aside, in whole or in part, any such regulation or order shall be postponed until the expiration of thirty days from the entry thereof, except that if a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed with the Supreme Court under subsection (d) within such thirty days, the effectiveness of such judgment shall be postponed until an order of the Supreme Court denying such petition becomes final, or until other final disposition of the case by the Supreme Court.

(c) There is hereby created a court of the United States to be known as the Emergency Court of Appeals, which shall consist of three or more judges to be designated by the Chief Justice of the United States from judges of the United States district courts and circuit courts of appeals. The Chief Justice of the United States shall designate one of such judges as chief judge of the Emergency Court of Appeals, and may, from time to time, designate additional judges for such court and revoke previous designations. The chief judge may, from time to time, divide the court into divisions of three or more members, and any such division may render judgment as the judgment of the court. The court shall have the powers of a district court with respect to the jurisdiction conferred on it by this Act to affirm or set aside, in whole or in part, any regulation or order under section 2, or to remand the proceeding, except that it shall not have the jurisdiction to issue any order or decree staying the effectiveness of any such regulation or order. The court shall exercise its powers and prescribe rules governing its

procedure in such manner as to expedite the determination of cases of which it has jurisdiction under this Act. The court shall have a seal, hold sessions at such places as it may specify, and appoint a clerk and such other employees as it deems necessary or proper.

(d) Within thirty days after entry of a judgment or order, interlocutory or final, by the Emergency Court of Appeals, a petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States, and thereupon the judgment or order shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court in the same manner as a judgment of a circuit court of appeals as provided in section 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 28, sec. 347). The Supreme Court shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of all causes filed therein pursuant to this subsection. The Emergency Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, upon review of judgments and orders of the Emergency Court of Appeals, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of regulations and orders under section 2, and the validity of the provisions of this Act authorizing such regulations or orders. Except as provided in this section, no court, Federal, State, or Territorial, shall have jurisdiction or power to consider such validity, or to stay, restrain, enjoin, or set aside, in whole or in part, any such provision of this Act, or any provision of any such regulation or order, or to restrain or enjoin the enforcement of any such provision. Senator BROWN. All right, Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. SMITH W. BROOKHART, REPRESENTING THE LITTLE BUSINESSMEN'S LEAGUE OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. Chairman, I represent especially the Little Businessmen's League of America, which has 89,000 registered members. Its general attitude and policy are favorable with labor and with agriculture. I also always claim in presenting this farm question, to represent the unorganized farmers of the United States, 5,000,000 or more of those, and I do not feel that they have had adequate representation in these hearings.

I am an individual charter member of the Farm Bureau, do not speak for it, but I speak quite against some of the things the national president is saying and doing. I am an original member of the Farmers' Union, a life member, and have for the most part been in close accord with the leadership until recently; in fact, appeared with John Simpson before the Senate committee at the time the farm bill was passed. I am a member of the Potomac Grange, but can speak only individually there although I feel in quite close sympathy with the new national master of the Grange, much more so than with the old retiring master.

Now, that represents my position. Of course, since we are in war everybody wants to know something of the feeling on that. Well, I am already in this war. My oldest son is today a prisoner of war at a consulate in Shanghai, China. My youngest son is a pilot flyer, a pursuit pilot in the Army, ordered to the Pacific coast.

So I am not out to do anything to interfere with national defense, and it will be my claim that what I say for the farmers will be distinctly in the interest of national defense. I have been in sympathy with the President's foreign policy always since he wanted to quarantine the dictators of the world. So I am taking up this subject because I believe under the stress of war that it will help national defense, help everything, to do justice to the farmers of the United States, which has not been done under the New Deal. Now we are

discussing, I might say, one reason why it has not been. That is because the old A. A. A. policy was the Republican platform of 1932. I wrote the Democratic platform myself for that year. I took across the aisle a memorandum I made to Senator Cordell Hull. He read it over, said he was 100 percent for it and he would get its adoption in the convention if he could. And he did. And it is on the basis of that platform, which was not carried out, that I shall present facts to you today,

Mr. Chairman, I have some official documents here. They can be passed around to the various Senators. Why, I propose to back up facts I present with the official pronouncement of the Department of Agriculture itself.

In the first place, I challenge this provision of the law in reference to parity. I deny that it is parity, ever has been, or ever could be, and it is only a little fraction of parity, in fact. And on the basis of 100-percent parity or 110-percent parity you cannot do justice to the farmers of the United States.

Let us turn now to page 9, first, on this document that I have just handed to you.

Senator BROWN. Which one? The Farm Income Situation?

Mr. BROOKHART. Yes. Page 9. Now, this is the latest bulletin of the Department of Agriculture. Every word of it is official. The paragraph in the middle of this page [reading]:

The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has recently completed an analysis of historical data available on agricultural and national income and has made available for the first time a comparable series, from 1909 to date, of calendar-year estimates of the net income from agriculture per person on farms and the percapita income of persons not on farms. These series of estimates have been prepared to provide a comparison between the net income of persons on farms from farming and the income per person not on farms as required in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

And then:

This act specifies

and here is the provision of law that I particularly want to call to your attention

"Parity," as applied to income, shall be that per capita net income of individuals on farms from farming operations that bears to the per-capita net income of individuals not on farms the same relation as prevailed during the period from August 1909 to July 1914.

I noted Mr. Henderson drew some distinction between income and prices, but so far as concerns parity under the law as it stands there is not any difference, and parity of income is declared by this statute.

Now, then, what does parity mean? It comes, of course, from the word "par," and if the income of the farmers was on a par with the income of other people for like time, services, and capital investment, that would be an honest parity. Now, was that true in 1909 to 1914? No, it was not true, and I am going to show you by the official figures in this same document that it is not anywhere near true. There is one reason why a lot of people got it into their heads that the farmers were prosperous in those years, and that was this: If you remember, the homestead law started land off at $1.25 an acre, and from that low level values increased, and during these years there was an increase in farm-property values, in lands and in the improvements put on lands,

that amounted to about $8,000,000,000 during those years 1909 to 1914. But we show again in the official records that today land values are about $5,000,000,000 less than they were in 1914, away back there. So that element that made people think the farmers were prosperous in those years has been entirely eliminated, and was all the way through Coolidge prosperity and all the rest of the time.

Now, then, let us see. Parity is all I want for the farmer, but I want an honest and a genuine parity, and I deny that 1909 to 1914 is such a parity. Now, let us turn to page 20 of this same document. You will notice the second column. This is the income per farm, income per person on farms and not on farms, from 1910 clear down to date. This is the first time, as stated in the first paragraph I read to you, that we have had these exact figures. I knew there was something wrong about 1909-14 when I was before the Senate committee with John Simpson at the time A. A. A. was adopted to oppose it, but I did not know the specific figures and the specific measure of that discrimination. Now, we have it officially here.

Now look at 1910. Per capita income of the farmers of the United States was $139 that year. What was the per capita of the entire nonfarm population?

Senator BROWN. Well, that is "Net income from agriculture per person on farms." Does that include the farm laborer as well as the farmer?

Mr. BROOKHART. Yes; that is everything that is on the farm. There is an old bulletin, Senator, that includes more, that includes what farmers earned by going out here, particularly in the East, and working in the factories, but that is eliminated here, and there is nothing now in this income but what_they produce on the farm. And the section of the statute which I read to you in the beginning there required that it be done in that way.

Now, 1909 is not included in this table; I do not know why that is. When these figures were first published it was included, but I have an old bulletin here based on the income from farmers for what they received from the farm and also what they received when they went out and worked in factories. Well, that is a little different, a little higher than this, but 1909 was not quite an average of these other 5 years, 1910 to 1914.

Senator HUGHES. May I interrupt you a minute?

Mr. BROOKHART. Yes.

Senator HUGHES. On page 9 it seems that in the one paragraph you referred to there it says "from 1909 to date," so therefore the 1909 was left out. It started at the end of 1909.

Mr. BROOKHART. Well, perhaps you are right on that, Senator. The original statute said, and I think the first part-the original statute said beginning July 1909 and ending June 30, 1914, or something like that. So perhaps it is all right, but it would not make any material difference in my argument if 1909 were in. That is what I am explaining now, because 1909 under the old bulletin, which I have here officially, was slightly less than the average of these 5 years. So this is as good as or maybe a little better than it would be if 1909 were included.

Now, look at those figures. Take those 5 years. I have added them up in ink there so you can see what it amounts to.

Senator BROWN. Now, you are still in column 2?