the funds provided, and upon the certification of the Chairman of the Panel, shall make such other disbursements as are necessary to effectuate this order. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. THE WHITE HOUSE, May 22, 1942. EXECUTIVE ORDER 9299, PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO WAGE AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, and more particularly by the act of October 2, 1942 (Public Law 729, 77th Congress), it is hereby ordered: 1. No increases in the wage rates or salary of any employee subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, whether granted as a result of voluntary agreement, collective bargaining, conciliation, arbitration, or otherwise, and no decreases in such wage rates or salary, shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of this order; provided, however, that nothing contained in this order or Executive Order No. 9250 shall be construed as affecting the procedure or limiting the jurisdiction of either the National Mediation Board, as defined in the Railway Labor Act, or the National Railway Labor Panel, as defined in Executive Order No. 9172, except as herein specifically set forth. 2. No carrier shall make any change in wage rates, except such changes as by general order of the National War Labor Board, or by regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, are permitted to be made without the specific approval of the Board or the Commissioner, as the case may be, unless notice of such proposed change shall have been filed with the Chairman of the National Railway Labor Panel, created by Executive Order No. 9172, and shall have been permitted to become effective as hereinafter provided. Notwithstanding section 4001.2 of the Regulations of the Economic Stabilization Director, for the purpose of determining what wage and salary adjustments may be made without any specific approval, the general orders of the National War Labor Board shall be applicable to all employees subject to the Railway Labor Act, except those receiving salaries at the rate of $5,000 or more per annum in regard to whom the regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall apply. But any adjustment of salary under $5,000 heretofore approved by the Commissioner shall not be affected by this order. 3. If the chairman of the National Railway Labor Panel has reason to believe that the proposed change, in wage rates or salary, may not conform to the standards prescribed in Executive Order No. 9250, or to the general stabilization program made effective thereunder, or to the directives on policy issued by the Economic Stabilization Director thereunder and the proposed change is not modified to conform to such standards, program, and directives, he shall designate three members of the Panel as an Emergency Board to investigate the proposed change and to report to the President. Otherwise, the Chairman of the Panel may permit the proposed change to become effective. 4. Emergency Boards, whether designated pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, Executive Order No. 9172, or section 3 of this order, in reporting to the President shall certify that their recommendations in regard to any proposed change affecting wage and salary payments conform with the standards prescribed in Executive Order No. 9250, the general stabilization program made effective thereunder, and with the directives on policy issued by the Economic Stabilization Director thereunder. 5. Copies of the report with recommendations made to the President by any Emergency Board under section 4 of this order shall be filed by the Board forthwith with the Economic Stabilization Director, the National War Labor Board and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Economic Stabilization Director may on behalf of himself or other departments and agencies concerned, report to the President the effect of the recommendations on the general stabilization program. Unless and except to the extent that the Economic Stabilization Director shall otherwise direct, the recommendations of the Emergency Board in regard to proposed changes affecting wages and salary payments shall, upon the expiration of thirty days after the report is filed with the President, become effective. 6. The National War Labor Board and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall either rule on any application for approval of wage and salary adjustments now before the Board and the Commissioner or transfer it to the Chairman of the National Railway Labor Panel. The Board and the Commissioner shall not rule on any application hereafter made. THE WHITE HOUSE, February 4, 1943. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. The CHAIRMAN. Have you submitted these suggestions to Mr. Johnston? Mr. LEIGHTY. We are discussing this problem with Mr. Johnston at this time, and the indications are, from all they have said, that they believe the railroad industry should be treated separately. In other words, to have a separate panel, or board, and I would say that there remain merely the details to work out. But we do feel that to have the authority in the law is most desirable. Mr. GAMBLE. Have you discussed this matter with Secretary Tobin, Mr. Leighty? This is the first suggestion that has been made along these lines. Mr. LEIGHTY. We have discussed this general principle with Secretary Tobin, and he, too, is in accord with it. Mr. GAMBLE. If you get an agreement before we finally finish writing this bill, I think it would be helpful if you would let us know just what the situation is so that the chairman will be advised as to their desires in the matter. Mr. LEIGHTY. Very well, I will be glad to contact both of them. The CHAIRMAN. Expeditious consideration of the matter is very important because we are going into executive session next week and hope to get the bill out at that time. Mr. LEIGHTY. I will attempt to get that information for you, gentlemen, and present it to you before you go into executive session. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions? Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Multer. Mr. MULTER. Mr. Leighty, we appreciate, of course, that you have expressed interest in the precise problem that you have presented to us, but what about the over-all problem of general controls and the extension of the Defense Production Act, and strengthening it so far as price controls are concerned. Mr. LEIGHTY. We believe it should be strengthened with respect to price controls, and if we have price controls, we certainly do not object to wage controls. Mr. MULTER. That is the position of each of the organizations that you represent here today? Mr. LEIGHTY. That is true. We felt that that subject had been covered so thoroughly by other organization witnesses that had appeared before you that we just didn't want to give you a lot of repetition. Mr. MULTER. Do you know of any members of any of your organizations who will dissent from that program? Mr. LEIGHTY. I do not. Mr. MULTER. So it is safe for us to tell the Congress, without being flooded by mail from all of your members in all of your organizations, that that is their position? Mr. LEIGHTY. That is right. Mr. MULTER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Leighty, some men in Congress are saying that if its people wanted this bill extended they would be writing us. The CHAIRMAN. I think railway labor organizations generally are recognized as going along with the Government in its objectives. Mr. LEIGHTY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Call the next witness. Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, may I have Mr. Powers introduce his statement at this time? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Mr. COLE. This is Edward Powers, of Kansas City, Kans. He would like to read his statement. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Mr. Powers' statement may be read into the record. STATEMENT OF EDWARD H. POWERS, REPRESENTING THE KANSAS STATE REAL ESTATE BOARD This is a statement of Edward H. Powers, 1811 Quindaro Boulevard, Kansas City, Kans., and is made with reference to the rent-control portion of the Defense Production Act. In making this statement I wish to state to the committee that I represent the Kansas State Real Estate Board and am authorized to speak for the governing bodies of the cities in Kansas which will be hereinafter mentioned. The 1951 session of the Kansas Legislature passed an act, under the provisions of the present Federal Housing and Rent Control Act, which in substance abolished Federal rent control in the State of Kansas with the exception of a few of the smaller counties of the State, and in addition set up a system whereby in the event of a housing emergency in any city of the State that the governing body of the city, on approval of the Governor of the State, might establish local control of rents for the duration of such housing emergency, and could remove such control upon the cessation of the emergency, also upon the approval of the Governor. It was the opinion of the sponsors of this bill, and the legislature in its passage, that this act would accomplish the simple purpose of making rent control possible where it was needed and would eliminate it where it was not needed. It was the further opinion of the sponsors and the legislature that the act would encourage the construction of rental units. This has also happened. The first effect of this act was to eliminate rent control in Leavenworth, Kans., the home of Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation; Junction City, Kans., where Fort Riley is located; and Kansas City, Kans., a small city with a population of approximately 150,000, which is basically a workers' town. The results in Kansas City, Kans., have been startling. Many rental units which had been previously decontrolled under the operation of the Housing and Rent Act by reason of conversions or other conditions of the act had been rented at extremely high rentals and usually were inferior accommodations. Upon the cessation of controls in Kansas City, Kans., 500 additional units immediately went on the market. The rents on the previously decontrolled units immediately went down because people moved from them into better accommodations put on the market because of the abolition of rent control. In many instances rents have been decreased as much as 30 percent, and, frankly, rents in substantial units which had been subject to control increased at rates varying from 10 to 30 percent, but the net result has been that people began to get their money's worth in housing. There are at the present time 350 vacant rental units in Kansas City, Kans., and more are being put on the market daily. Mayor Clark E. Tucker, of Kansas City, Kans., states that since the elimination of controls in that city he has received four complaints, two in writing and two orally by telephone-both of the written complaints being anonymous. He states that there is no housing emergency in Kansas City, Kans., and the results of decontrol have been of advantage to both the landlord and the tenant. He further states that for the first time in years many landlords are beginning to rent accommodations to families with children. Mr. Monty Jones, city manager of the city of Wichita, Kans., states that there is an influx of workers to that city for employment in the aircraft industry and that the housing situation has become tight. However, Mr. Jones states emphatically that they are willing to abide by the provisions of the State law recently passed and that all Wichita, Kans., needs is more houses, and under the State law they will be able to stabilize rents until the housing demand is met. He states further that contractors and builders have indicated that they will cooperate with the city in the construction of houses so long as there is no Federal rent control. Mr. Jones further stated that the last housing shortage which existed during the war was not met by new construction until rent controls were abolished by that city in 1949. Mayor Sexton and the governing body of Leavenworth, Kans., states that there is no housing shortage in that city and that there is no desire on the part of the city council for a reenactment of Federal rent control; that the city council feels confident that if a problem arises they will be able to deal with it under the provisions of the new Kansas law. It was anticipated that the activation of the Forbes Air Base at Topeka, Kans., would result in a housing crisis. Such has not been the case. Without the enactment of any control, even under the new State law, the cooperation of the city council, the real-estate board, and the landlord group has resulted in a stabilization of rents and the production of housing is increasing at an encouraging rate. The City Council of Topeka, Kans., does not desire a return of Federal rent control and feels that they can directly deal with the housing problem in that city themselves, with the cooperation of the Governor of the State. Junction City, Kans., the home of Fort Riley, has indicated no problem or emergency at the present time. The Governor of the State of Kansas was mainly responsible for the nature of the recent Kansas law. It was by his suggestion that the law was drafted so that cities might initiate action on rent control if the same was necessary, but at the same time keep said action within the knowledge and approval of the State administration. The Governor felt that housing was a local problem and that the governing body of the cities would be more immediately responsible to sentiment and necessity in the enactment of controls if controls were needed, but desired State approval, first, to preserve the legality of the measure, and second, to assist in stabilizing the control picture in the State. The undersigned has been working on the rent-control problem for several years. His theory was and is now that competition under the law of supply and demand could solve the housing problem as well as other problems in our economy. It was with some measure of anticipation that he assisted in the enactment of the recent Kansas law, hoping that his theories would prove out in practice after controls were eliminated. Such has actually been the case. Competition and the law of supply and demand have worked out to perfection in Kansas City, Kans., which is strictly a workers' town. The Wyandotte County Council (CIO) admits that the present Kansas law might be the answer to the rent-control problem. Before the elimination of control in that city there were no houses or apartments to rent. Since that time competition, the law of supply and demand, have not only provided places to live but leaves our town with vacancies. Housing is strictly a local problem. The governing bodies of the cities have more knowledge of such matters by direct contact than any other agency. The governing body of a city will react more quickly to an emergency than any other agency. Property has always been and will remain to be a right of the State and in this problem the State of Kansas, along with other States, has seen fit to meet its problem in a constitutional manner. Whatever consideration this committee gives to the future of rent control I earnestly recommend that when States and cities have seen fit to meet this problem themselves that at the least they be permitted to continue in this manner. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Call the next witness. Mr. HALLAHAN. Mr. William E. Russell, representing the Metropolitan Fair Rent Committee of New York. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Russell, we are glad to have you as a witness again. We usually call upon you for your views in times of stress, and we always apprediate what you have to say. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. RUSSELL, REPRESENTING THE Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GAMBLE. This is a time of stress, Mr. Russell. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Russell. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity of being heard before your committee under great pressure under which you are laboring today and we will try to refrain from trespassing too much upon your time. We would not be here, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, but for a provision in your bill that would seem to empower the recontrol of housing rents in the State of New York, which has enacted its own rent-control bill. We did not appear before your committee last year, although we had appeared every year since rent control was first clamped upon our economy in 1942. And perhaps you gentlemen of the committee will remember that my organization, representing as it does, the metropolitan area of New York-possibly 75 percent of all the apartments or multiplefamily buildings in that great area-are represented by our executive |