On the basis of all of the information available to it, the committee determined that the following commodities met the standards, and recommended suspension action:

The full consideration of mohair led to the conclusion that suspension could not be recommended at this time.

The committee is continuing its study of raw cotton with a view to making a report and recommendation in the near future. It was held desirable to delay this report until the committee also had an opportunity to explore the suspension of textiles and apparel which are the next items on its agenda.

In each case, the committee's recommendations included specific conditions under which suspension would be terminated. These conditions involve both the movement of average price levels for the whole commodity area and movements of particular major grades or types. Recontrol of some commodities is made dependent upon recontrol of a related commodity. The difference between ceiling prices and recontrol points is not the same for each commodity group. The reasons for these variations include the volatility of prices, the availability of current price information, the extent to which prices of various grades move together, and other relevant factors.

In some cases, recontrol points were fixed rather close to current ceilings. In the case of fats and oils, for example, the difference between the recontrol prices and the suspended ceilings is less than two days trading limit on the commodity exchange. But for these commodities, prices are available on a daily, or even an hourly basis. Where information is less readily available, or where there is greater variety of price movements among the various types or grades of the commodity, recontrol points were set rather lower relative to ceilings. We must avoid a situation in which the ceiling level would be breached before recontrol could be instituted, requiring rollbacks, and the cutting across of contracts for future delivery.

It should be noted that all of the primary commodities covered by the first set of actions have a record of sharp price volatility. Recontrol points must therefore be set somewhat further below ceilings than, under otherwise similar circumstances, may be the case for commodities which are less volatile.

PENDING MATTERS

As has been indicated, the preliminary standards set forth above were developed primarily for the consideration of commodities at the primary-producer level, where dollars-and-cents ceilings were in effect. The committee is now in the process of studying certain "pilot" areas at other levels of production and distribution. As these studies progress, the committee will determine what modifications and refinements of the preliminary standards or what alternative standards are appropriate. Account will have to be taken of the substantially harder problems of precise definition of an "area," the wider diversity of price movements within the area, the greater difficulty in obtaining good current price information, the absence of uniform ceilings, and numerous other complexities.

The committee is making substantial progress, and will make further recommendations.

In this further study, the committee is including the development of standards and procedures for the relaxation or elimination of record-keeping and reporting requirements where suspension is not appropriate. One member of the staff of the committee is now spending full time in a review of our existing reporting and record-keeping requirements.

It is hoped that the committee will soon be able to develop detailed operating instructions which will permit the processing of suspension actions to be turned over to the individual commodity branches and divisions.

COLE-IVES RATIO

I should like to call your attention to a difficulty involving ceiling prices to producers of fluid milk. For Federal milk marketing areas, section 402 (d) (3) prevents OPS from interfering in any way with minimum prices to producers of fluid milk, as determined by the Department of Agriculture, in accordance with standards laid down in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. Ceiling prices to producers of fluid milk in other areas, which might be called non-Federal areas, cannot under section 402 (d, (3) be fixed below a ratio, commonly referred to as the Cole-Ives ratio, with a proviso that whenever the Secretary of Agriculture finds that the prices so fixed are not reasonable in view of certain enumerated standards he shall fix such prices as he finds will reflect the enumerated standards. These standards are the same as those governing the establishment of minimum prices payable to producers in Federal areas in accordance with the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937.

The question is whether the Secretary may lower a price computed pursuant to the Cole-Ives ratio. The legislative history of the Defense Production Act of 1950 clearly shows that it was the intent of Congress to assure equal treatment of producers of milk in Federal and non-Federal areas. It would seem, therefore, that just as the Secretary may raise or lower prices in Federal areas in accordance with the standards therein prescribed, he should also be authorized to raise or lower prices in non-Federal areas, since the standards for his determination in such non-Federal areas are expressed in the very words in which they are expressed in the Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. We think the act says this. However, in order to make it perfectly clear we would appreciate it, if the intent of Congress were more clearly stated by the insertion of a paragraph in the report on the bill your committee is considering.

(Reference to the following will be found on p. 2006.)

These are the facts in the

steel controversy

FACTS

MISLEADING
STATEMENTS

STEEL COMPANIES IN THE WAGE CASE

Room 5401, 350 Fifth Avenue, New York 1, N. Y.

STEEL PLANTS SEIZED...

President Truman on April 8th described his action in the steel controversy as follows:

"Therefore, I am taking two actions tonight.

"First, I am directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of the steel mills, and to keep them operating.

"Second, I am directing the Acting Director of Defense Mobilization to get the representatives of the steel companies and the steel workers down here to Washington at the earliest possible date in a renewed effort to get them to settle their dispute."

He then declared:

"The fact of the matter is that the settlement proposed by the board is fair to both parties and to the public interest."

...CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

Clarence Randall, president, Inland Steel Company, on April 9th
responded to the President and REMINDED HIS AUDIENCE WHAT
THE CONTROVERSY MEANS TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IN
HIS SUMMARY as follows:

"I present this forthright reply to the President only be-
cause I believe deeply in the truth of what I have said. I
should feel derelict in my duty as a citizen if I did not to-
night call upon Americans everywhere to take up the chal-
lenge the President threw down last night. This is America
at the crossroads. To the housewife this means that the
whole giddy spiral of inflation starts again. To freedom
loving people it means the closed shop and compulsory
unionism. To the businessman it is the threat of national-
ization. A sad chapter has been written in American history,
which must be erased."