Senator ROBERTSON. Let us take up that matter of the proportions. In the fall of 1950 you got a 1512-cent-an-hour increase.

Mr. BRUBAKER. Sixteen.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Wilson was in error. It was 16 cents.

Senator ROBERTSON. Do you claim now that you, at this time, because of the Korean war and increased costs of living resulting therefrom, are entitled to more increase than the cost of living, and if so, why?

The CHAIRMAN. He testified on that this morning for an hour. Senator ROBERTSON. If you put all that in the record this morning

The CHAIRMAN. When you left for your committee.

Senator ROBERTSON. You do claim more than the cost of living? Mr. BRUBAKER. No; we do not. The cost of living, as I said this morning, has gone up enough since our last contract was negotiated to entitle us to a wage increase of 16 cents per hour. We ask for a general increase of 15 cents. We ask for certain other things, but in terms of wages, we were asking only for a 15-cent direct wage increase plus 32 cents for adjustment of increments.

Senator ROBERTSON. If it is coming out of the same pocket, how do you distinguish between a dollar that is paid in wages and a dollar that is paid to you and called something other than wages? If it comes out of the pocket and is paid to you in dollars, the same pocket.

Senator BENTON. He testified at length on that, too, Mr. Chairman. Senator ROBERTSON. That is a very simple thing. He does not have to testify at length on it.

Mr. BRUBAKER. What is the question, Senator?

Senator ROBERTSON. I want to distinguish between the dollars that they have to pay out that go into cost of production as to whatever you call it, hourly wages, or pensions, or paid vacations, or what not, are you not getting more? Why do you call part of it wages and part of it something else if it all comes out of the same pocket and paid in the same kind of dollars?

Mr. Wilson said this package would cost the steel company, in dolJars, 30 cents an hour.

Mr. BRUBAKER. I think he was somewhat mistaken. I hope that I can disagree with him as to the accuracy of his figures. He took the company's figures wholesale. I have told you a lot of the things that were wrong with them. The difference between the 26-cent and 30-cent company figure is even more open to question than the question I raised with reference to their Sunday overtime cost figures this morning.

I do not quarrel with you that they are not all costs to the company. Of course they are all costs to the company. Many of them do not, however, result in higher wages for many of our people. We have a lot of our people, for instance, who do not work on the second or third shift. Those people do not get any increase in the shift premium even though the shift premium is written into this package as costing 1.2 cents per hour. Those people we said are entitled to at least hold their own cost-of-living-wise.

The cost of living went up for them just as much as it did for the other people. They ought to get a cost-of-living increase.

Senator ROBERTSON. If you get the package, whether it be 26 cents as you claim or 30 cents as Mr. Wilson claims, what industry will be drawing more in total dollar benefits than the steel industry?

Mr. BRUBAKER. There are quite a number of industries that will be drawing more in hourly rates, more in

Senator ROBERTSON. I mean some other industry.

Mr. MILLER. Do you mean the automobile industry, sir?

Mr. BRUBAKER. I would be glad to have you look at this [indicating]. I would suggest, to save time, since you have people waiting

Senator ROBERTSON. I do not want you to repeat testimony that you have given this morning. If you have given testimony showing that you will not be the highest one in the whole outfit, then you need not repeat it. If you have not given that testimony, I would like to have some information on it.

Mr. BRUBAKER. Just looking at some of the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last issue of Hours and Earnings in manufacturing and mining industries and a few others in the United States, I could run down quite a list for you. Here is lead and zinc mining, presently receiving a higher hourly rate than steel. And anthracite coal mining, bituminous coal mining, crude petroleum, and natural gas production, contract construction

Senator ROBERTSON. Just a second. I mean after you get this 26

or 30 cents.

Mr. BRUBAKER. That is right. I can go through a long list. I have looked through this myself. There must be 40 or 50.

Senator ROBERTSON. Can you tell us that after you get this new package, if you get it, the coal miners will be getting more than you? Mr. BRUBAKER. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator ROBERTSON. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The committee will go into executive session.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Before we close the record, Mr. Chairman, I have one observation. I have not indulged myself too much on the record. I have been interested in this catch-up of wages on the part of the steelworkers and all the rest of them. I notice oil has gone outthe oil workers. That is a catch-up proposition. What is going to happen to the great agricultural labor and the folks in the agricultural industry who pretty definitely are shown to be the poorest-paid people? I wonder how they are going to catch up and what would happen, if they sit down, to the kids in Korea.

Senator ROBERTSON. I can tell you what will happen if they ever do catch up. We will sing a new version of the 1918 song: "Since bacon has been selling at $1 a pound, they have been eating jack rabbits and hopping around."

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Harris and gentlemen. You will be excused and the committee will go into executive session.

The committee has before it a motion by Senator Moody to have open hearings of a panel nature. What is the wish of the committee? Senator BRICKER. I made a motion to lay that on the table until after we heard the industry representatives.

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I have been in Congress 19 years. I had read the Congressional Record for years before that because I hoped to get here. There has been no precedent in all of that period of 35 years of observation of congressional work in which

any committee has publicly confessed its inability to examine witnesses and get the essential facts on the bill and has to depend on a joint debate, for one witness to challenge the other witness and ask him questions and back and forth.

I would feel like a nitwit if that went on, if we admitted we could not examine the steel witnesses, the Government witnesses, and the labor witnesses, and get the essential facts.

As a matter of fact we are not settling the steel issue, if that is what anybody thinks. That is just a fringe. We are so disturbed over this that most of us are not willing to go forward with a general Defense Production Act unless we know what is going to be done.

We are not settling the steel issue. To me it will put us in the most absurd light before the public if we should say, "We just do not know enough about this after examining witnesses so we are going to have a panel and let them come in here and argue with each other and challenge what each other said, have a joint debate."

Senator DIRKSEN. The motion to table is not debatable.

Senator BRICKER. I withdraw that.

Senator MOODY. I would like to comment on what Senator Robertson said. I did not have any intention that the three representatives would debate with each other. My intention was

The CHAIRMAN. There has been nothing but confusion in this. Judge Pine has handed down his decision. I have not yet read the decision in detail. I do not believe it would be a wise thing to start all this controversy again now.

Senator MOODY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this point if I may: There have been certain ex parte statements made. I do not doubt that the committee will need to analyze the statements. There are certain statements of fact that have been made categorically by all concerned. I think that if the three people were here together we could question them, members of the committee could question them, not that they would question each other, and we could bring the facts out.

The CHAIRMAN. I would not ask this committee to go by what the Government said, because that is not what this Government should do. Senator MOODY. I did not hear you.

The CHAIRMAN. I said I would not ask this committee to bow to the Government position, because it is our business to do what we feel is right.

Senator MOODY. I would like to bring the facts out. I think Governor Arnall could give us the facts.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. We could have him here. If they do not want to come they will have to come, and we would have nothing but confusion.

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this observation. If we cannot take this testimony and analyze it and decide what we think is the proper status of these disputed facts, we can just forget about the executive hearings and have an open hearing, first the Government witnesses, then the steel witnesses, then the labor witnesses, or vice versa, and they can all hear each other, but they will testify as in normal hearings, in an open committee hearing, if that is what we want.

We decided we were not going to try to settle the steel issue. We thought there might be some little confidential facts from the Government witnesses if we got them here in executive session.

Senator CAPEHART. Vote.

Senator IVES. Vote.

Senator DOUGLAS. As I see it, these hearings fulfill two purposes. First, to inform the committee, and second to inform the public.

That is the value of the public hearing. In the absence of public hearing what tends to happen is that the crowd that has the most money can place the most advertisements, hire the best press agents and so forth, to get out its version of facts.

The CHAIRMAN. There would be public hearings, too.

Senator DOUGLAS. I do not know if we could run a three-ring circus here. But if we could, with a series of selected questions which they would all have to answer, that is, a common list of questions to which they each would be made to reply, I think it would be very valuable. The CHAIRMAN. As far as publicity is concerned, these transcripts are made available to the press. All magazine and radio people get them, every newspaper, and the wire services.

Senator MOODY. This is not just the same thing.

Senator ROBERTSON. I would not object to these hearings running until June 30.

Senator SPARKMAN. I think Senator Douglas threw out a very good suggestion. First of all let me say the last year and then this year we had a round-table discussion on the question of housing and home financing and so on and so forth which proved very helpful. I realize that there is an element of difficulty here because of the tension. It seems to me that if we could bring in a limited number from each group, seat them at separate.tables, and let the staff prepare a set of questions that would be propounded to all of them and let them make orderly, diginfied statements, answering those questions in public, it might serve a useful purpose.

Senator IVES. What happens when they get into a conflict in their answers?

The CHAIRMAN. Are these 13 Senators going to sit around and let the staff ask the questions? I say that with respect to every member of the staff.

Senator SPARKMAN. When they get in conflict the chairman can ask each table what they think of it and dismiss it.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Why would it not serve that purpose if we prepared these questions, submitted them to them and got their answers in writing?

Senator SPARKMAN. That might be all right. Certainly they ought to be asked to answer these common questions in the presence of each other with the press and the radio picking it up.

Senator MOODY. That is absolutely right. I see no reason why we should be behind closed doors in the first place.

Senator IVES. Vote.

Senator CAPEHART. Vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Those in favor of the motion signify by saying

aye.

Senator DOUGLAS. What is the motion?

The CHAIRMAN. The motion by Senator Moody is to have open hear ings commencing tomorrow.

Senator SPARKMAN. I would support an amendment to defer it 2 or 3 days, to make it the first of next week.

The CHAIRMAN. Then why not have a vote?

Senator FULBRIGHT. May I amend that motion--
Senator MOODY. I will accept the amendment.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I suggest we defer voting finally until the staff has had a chance to analyze this material, see where the conflicts are, what they are, and see if we can pin point it, and then decide if we want such a hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion as amended by Senator Fulbright is that after

Senator ROBERTSON. We do not vote on Senator's Moody's motion until after that. We just vote now on the staff investigation? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator MOODY. What is it?

Senator SPARKMAN. Let the staff analyze the differences.
The CHAIRMAN. And then take it up.

Senator MoODY. When?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know. It will take a week at least, I imagine.

Senator DOUGLAS. Would you accept that, that the staff do that within 2 days?

Senator MOODY. If the staff cannot do that in 2 days there is something wrong with the staff.

The CHAIRMAN. The staff could not even read the testimony and analyze it in 2 days, much less prepare the questions.

Senator ROBERTSON. The staff should have all the time they want. The CHAIRMAN. They cannot do a thorough job in 2 days. This has been going on for days and days.

Senator MOODY. It is a very good suggestion, Mr. Chairman, but I think in the first place these hearings should not have been in executive session. There is no reason why we should close these hearings without having a public session. I think Senator Sparkman's suggestion and Senator Fulbright's and Senator Douglas' are all good.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not closing the hearing. We are recessing the hearing until after the staff has completed its work. We are having hearings next week on housing, and the week after that we have agreed to write up the control bill. We will be here every day.

Senator DOUGLAS. Could we not agree that after the staff has analyzed the material and prepared a common list of questions that we have open hearings in which all three parties be present?

Senator MOODY. Let us vote on that today, that the staff prepare the questions with the approval of the chairman of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. And when are you going to have the hearings? Senator MOODY. Friday of this week.

The CHAIRMAN. That is ridiculous. We have so much to do. We cannot have it.

Senator MOCDY. There is no reason why we cannot do it tomorrow. Senator BRICKER. I move we lay the motion of the Senator from Michigan on the table.

Senator CAPEHART. The motion has been made to lay it on the table. The CHAIRMAN. All in favor of the motion by Senator Bricker, raise your hands?