crease in the cost of living, General Motors has had an increase of 27 cents, and Ford has had an increase of 28 cents, and you add 4 cents to those figures for what is going to happen. That is the base date. Senator CAPEHART. We are talking about June of 1950.

Mr. PUTNAM. That would make no difference.

Mr. FEINSINGER. It is 25 cents, if you take June and 27 if you take January. There was a drop in the cost of living.

Senator CAPEHART. The steelworkers have had 20.9.

Senator DOUGLAS. Those are hourly earnings.

Mr. PUTNAM. That is not wage rates.

Senator CAPEHART. I am trying to find out if you agree with that chart.

Mr. FEINSINGER. I agree with it for what it is but it is irrelevant. It deals with hourly earnings instead of rates of pay.

Senator FULBRIGHT. What are the average hours worked by steelworkers as compared with those in the automotive industry? Do you have that?

Mr. FEINSINGER. I don't have it at the present because no Government agency uses hourly earnings as a criterion for determining

wage movements.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I thought it would clarify what is bothering him.

Could you guess at it?

Mr. FEINSINGER. I think they have had a 48-hour week lately. Senator FULBRIGHT. As against 40 hours for automobiles?

Mr. FEINSINGER. It is varied in automobiles, you know. They have had lay-offs and shut-downs.

Earnings are a very misleading criteria. If we were going to use the textile industry, the hosiery industry and industries like that would be entitled to a terrific increase.

Senator DOUGLAS. Primarily true on weekly earnings, but it is also true on hourly earnings.

Senator CAPEHART. If you are comparing these five industries in the same manner which you are, then I think this chart possibly speaks for itself.

Mr. FEINSINGER. You can't possibly compare wage rate adjustments, Senator, from any base date, you know, by using an hourly earnings index instead of a wage rate index.

Senator BENTON. Mr. Chairman, these gentlemen have answered that question about five times.

Senator CAPEHART. I would like to place into the record this document entitled: "These Are the Facts in the Steel Controversy." Senator FULBRIGHT (presiding). Without objection that will be done.

(The document referred to will be found in the appendix, p. 2428.) Senator MOODY. I would like to put in the record the table from the hearings of the Wage Stabilization Board indicating comparative wage increases in various industries since January 1950.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Very well.

(The table referred to follows:)

Mr. FEINSINGER. My figures go to the whole wage stabilization program, World War II, pre-Korea or any comparison you use. The action of our Board is better than any other in keeping wage rates under control.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you have any further questions, Senator Capehart?

Are there any further questions of Mr. Putnam?

Senator BENTON. What does Mr. Sawyer have to do with this problem of steel prices?

If Mr. Sawyer wants to raise steel prices 5 dollars a ton as announced in the paper in the last day or two, what does he do?

Mr. PUTNAM. I do not understand that he has the power to raise prices.

Senator BENTON. Could you shed any light on the newspaper story where Secretary Sawyer is quoted as saying steel prices are going up $5 a ton?

Mr. PUTNAM. I read the newspaper story, and I couldn't say that Secretary Sawyer said he was going to do that, but rather that the newspaper writers thought that was what he was going to do.

I don't think he can do it outside of stabilization, and price control. That is my understanding, and I think that is also his.

Mr. ARNALL. Who has to do with prices?

Mr. PUTNAM. Governor Arnall.

Mr. ARNALL. I wanted everybody to hear that.

Senator BENTON. That is my understanding also, and I thought it was important to clarify it.

Don't you, Mr. Putnam, buy certain quantities of steel for your own company?

Mr. PUTNAM. I do; but I have tried to divorce myself from my company as much as I can. I didn't even know the wage rates, as

I pointed out earlier.

Senator BENTON. Knowing the steel industry as you do, how do you account for the fact that not one of these 49 companies has so far come in under the Capehart amendment and asked for the price increase to which it is entitled?

Mr. PUTNAM. I am not sure, Senator, that I ought to answer this this way; but I will say this.

I think they have a conscience, and I believe they have a feeling that they are really making so much money now they have no right to ask for more. I know of no other explanation, sir.

Senator BENTON. Do you think all 49 of the companies might have gotten together and exchanged consciences?

Mr. PUTNAM. I wouldn't want to accuse anybody of that.

Senator CAPEHART. Now, why don't you be perfectly honest and say that the reason they didn't do it was that you did not issue the regulations until last December after this steel controversy started, and that they had no opportunity to do it and couldn't have done it if they wanted to.

Mr. PUTNAM. I think we should have the record perfectly straight. They had not asked us to issue a regulation. They finally did suggest it; we got it prepared part way, and they have asked us to hold it up repeatedly.

Senator CAPEHART. My point is that they couldn't have done it until you issued the regulation.

Mr. PUTNAM. They have never asked it. We don't go around offering people price increases.

Senator CAPEHART. I don't think it is material to what we are discussing.

Mr. PUTNAM. Could I comment on one other thing?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Let us have a little order; the Senator from Connecticut has the floor.

Mr. PUTNAM. He spoke of 49 companies getting together. I just want to say a word about something that disturbs me somewhat; if I should be setting out to try and wreck the whole stabilization program I don't think I could have gone at it any better than have those 49 people. I don't want to accuse them of it. I don't know whether it is true or not, but the fact is that they said the thing would be settled in Washington, in speeches back in November. The fact that they made no offer of any kind to the union as a counteroffer until after the recommendation of the Wage Stabilization Board, only about 4 days before the fourth strike deadline, makes me wonder. Senator BENTON. If Mr. Putnam is not coming back this afternoon, I would like further to get the benefit of his particularized experience with the steel industry, as a businessman and manufacturer who has dealt with the industry.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Proceed.

Senator BENTON. Don't you think that these 49 companies, or men, as you called them, because I suppose each concern necessarily is controlled by some man who is the leader-don't you think that they have in their publicity, speeches, advertising and so on, failed to add clarity and light to this subject, and have in fact helped to generate confusion and misunderstanding?

Mr. PUTNAM. I have high regard for them. I own a little steel stock, too, as does Governor Arnall. I think the steel company executives are very good workers for their stockholders. I think that is what they are being paid to do. I don't want to have any personal quarrels with any of them, but I think in this particular case they have added a great deal of heat to the controversy rather than light. I think there has been more heat added than light. I think this committee has been extremely wise in waiting for 2 or 3 weeks until some of the dust settled down. I think it has been extremely wise. I think most of us are now down on calm, collected ground-I hope.

Senator BENTON. You have put the answer in a more gentlemanly way than I expressed the question, and I am glad to rephrase my question, and merely ask whether more heat than light had been shed by this advertising.

I saw an advertisement last week that seemed to imply to any casual reader that the increase in wages recommended by the Board would wipe out the profits of the steel industry. This advertisement, signed by the steel companies, seemed to a quick reader at least, to conceal the fact that the recommended wage increase which necessarily came before taxes, would come largely out of moneys that otherwise would go to the Government in taxes.

Mr. PUTNAM. They claim that our standard should work after taxes instead of before, but in their statements they seem to give the impression the wage rate increases would be deducted from profits

after taxes. They don't do that in their bookkeeping or when they make their tax returns.

Senator BENTON. That is exactly the point. We have had, all of us, a long telegram from Admiral Moreell that the only way you can talk about profits is after taxes, but this advertisement gives the impression that wages are to be deducted after taxes.

Mr. PUTNAM. I know they do not make their tax returns out that way, I feel quite certain.

Senator BENTON. What is the trade association that speaks for the industry?

Mr. PUTNAM. American Iron and Steel Institute, I think. But these advertisements are signed by a new group. As I remember, the signature says it is "the steel companies in the wage case." Some of the members of the American Iron and Steel Institute are not in this thing. Some of the companies have settled with the union.

Senator BENTON. Where is the control of United States Steel and Bethlehem? Who is the actual control group behind the two companies? Am I not right in saying they do about 50 percent of the steel business between them?

Mr. PUTNAM. I think that is true.

Senator BENTON. Is it not true that these greatly inflated profits are accruing to the steel industry largely out of the defense effort? That is the explanation of this $20 per ton operating profit?

Mr. PUTNAM. The size of their excess profits taxes shows pretty clearly what the defense effort is doing for the steel people. I think that is true.

Senator BENTON. Do you want to comment, or do you think it is too speculative, on my question as to where the control of these companies rests?

Mr. PUTNAM. I would not know, Senator. I could guess, but I would have no foundation for the guess. I have always assumed that it was not so very far from a short street in New York, but I do not have any facts on it.

Senator BENTON. Not so very far from a very famous church in New York.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I want to give Senator Moody a chance to question before we quit.

Senator BENTON. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Senator MOODY?

Senator MOODY. Is it not true, Mr. Putnam, that the industry standard referred to earlier by Governor Arnall applies only to industries as a whole so that an individual company in a hardship position could apply for a price increase even though his industry was in an excess profits position?

Mr. PUTNAM. I am very glad you brought that out. You are quite right. The industry standard applies to an industry as a whole, but an individual company losing money can come in and get relief as an individual, but that is another reason why

Senator MOODY. They have to be losing money to do that?

Mr. PUTNAM. Generally they have to be losing money to get individual treatment as distinct from the industry. On the other hand, if an industry itself is in an excess profits tax bracket, and some company is losing money, that shows it must be fairly inefficient and we