TABLE 1B.-Combined shipments, 14 steel companies, and United States Steel Corp. shipments of selected carbon steel products, by geographic areas, 1940 and 1947—Continued

1 Eastern territory: (a) Atlantic: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York City, Philadelphia, Rhode Island, Virginia, District of Columbia; (b) Inland: Kentucky, New York (except New York City), Pennsylvania (except Philadelphia), Ohio, Vermont, West Virginia.

Midwest territory: (a) Central West: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin; (b) West and Mountain: Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming.

Southern territory: (a) Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; (b) Southwest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas.

Pacific Western territory: Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington.

Percent of 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 85.2 percent, 1948, 87.9 percent. Total United States production: 1940, 11,706,000; 1947, 16,450,800. Percent United States Steel production: 1940, 21.8 percent; 1947, 20.5 percent.

Percent 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 86.6 percent; 1948, 94.9 percent. Total United States production: 1940, 3,630,500; 1947, 6,463,400. Percent United States Steel production: 1940, 15.8 percent; 1947, 13.3 percent.

Percent 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 77.9 percent; 1948, 77 percent. Total United States production: Merchant bars, 1940, 6,459,300; 1947, 9,314,800; concrete reinforcement bars, 1940, 1,426,000; 1947, 1,466,800. Percent, United States Steel production: Merchant bars, 1940, 18.8; 1947, 22.2; concrete reinforcement bars, 1940, 26.5; 1947, 20.2.

Percent 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 66.7 percent; 1948, 69.0 percent. Total United States production: 1940, 1,374,500; 1947, 1,863,600. Percent United States Steel production: 1940, 22.1 percent; 1947, 18.1 percent.

Percent 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 71.8; 1948, 73.4. Total United States production: 1940, 1,960,300; 1947, 2,894,800. Percent United States Steel production: 1940, 49.3; 1947, 43.7.

NOTE.-When metropolitan areas are included, as above, they include such counties as designated in S. Rept. 44, Feb. 10, 1949. Data used here are from Form I and do not include shipments to affiliated fabricating companies and divisions of the reporting company.

Source: Combined Shipments From the Special Report of the Special Committee To Study Problems of American Small Business, U. S. Senate, 80th Cong., 2d sess., pursuant to S. Res. 20, S. Rep. No. 44, Feb. 10, 1949. (See appendix A.) U. S. Steel Corp. shipment data provided by U. S. Steel Corp. on the same basis.

The CHAIRMAN. That will conclude your testimony, Mr. Honeywell. However, on the basis of whatever additional information and data and memoranda we have, we may want to recall you. I don't know when. It may not be necessary but you will hold yourself on call, will you not?

Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, sir, it is only fair, I believe, to advise the committee that I have a speaking engagement next Wednesday.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we will make it at your convenience. Mr. HONEYWELL. I have a long-time standing responsibility to go aboard next Saturday a week. I am going to the atomic energy meeting in Geneva.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be done after you come back from abroad and entirely at your convenience.

Mr. HONEYWELL. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearings will now adjourn until someday next week, when we shall hear at their convenience the head of the United States Civil Service Commission and Judge Barnes of the Antitrust Division and one or two other witnesses. An announcement will be forthcoming later as to when they will appear.

Thank you very much, Mr. Honeywell.

(Whereupon at 12:50 p. m. the committee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chairman.)

WOC'S AND GOVERNMENT ADVISORY GROUPS

THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1955

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m., in room 346, Old House Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Celler (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Celler, Rodino, Rogers, and Scott.

Also present: Herbert N. Maletz, chief counsel, Kenneth R. Harkins, cocounsel, and Jerrold Walden, associate counsel, of the subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We have before us this morning Judge Barnes, who is the head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, and his very able assistant, Mr. Robert Bicks.

I want to say for the record that I have been in Washington many years and have followed the activities of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice most assiduously. I know of no one who has given so much of his effort and so effectively to the work of that Department as Judge Barnes.

We are very happy to have you with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. STANLEY N. BARNES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT BICKS, LEGAL ASSISTANT
TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE

Mr. BARNES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to make a statement?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, I have a statement to make, and I might say that we had hoped to have copies here. They are coming up from my office and they should arrive any moment. As soon as they do, I shall be glad to see that they are distributed. I presume that I should start apart from that.

At your request, Mr. Chairman, I appear today to outline Antitrust Division policy regarding Government employees who serve without compensation, primarily under the Defense Production Act, to "carry out the provisions of this act." Section 2160 (b) authorizes the President to "employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation," and further "to provide by regulation for the

exemption of such persons" from certain conflict of interest provisions.

There then appears a note in my statement referring to the appropriate section of the United States Code and the Executive orders issued in accordance therewith.

Finally, section 2151 (b) (11) authorizes business advisory committees "for purposes of consultation in the formulation of rules, regulation, or orders *** usual under authority of this act."

Effectuating these provisions, the act prescribes certain duties for the Attorney General. First was section 2258 (b)'s power to exempt voluntary agreements or programs is delegated, the law requires said delegatees to "consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission" and to "obtain the approval of the Attorney General to any request thereunder."

More broadly, section 2158 (e) directs the Attorney General to

make

surveys for the purpose of determining any factors which may tend to eliminate competition, create or strengthen monopolies, injure small business, or otherwise promote undue concentration of economic power in the course of the administration of this act.

Such reports, that section prescribes, he "shall submit to the Congress and the President."

I note here at this time that the Defense Production Act has been extended and amended, and that there are certain new conditions governing the employment of WOC's. The conference report explained that they essentially incorporate into law provisions now contained in Executive Order No. 10182 with certain modifications and additions. And, of course, the requirement is now upon the Attorney General to make such survey, not from time to time, but "at least once every 3 months."

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, I trust that when it becomes necessary for the Antitrust Division to seek a larger financial assistance, at the next session of Congress, in view of these additional responsibilities, that we shall have the cooperation in endeavoring to obtain this because several acts, with which you are very familiar, will require additional manpower, so far as antitrust is concerned. I refer particularly to the recent amendment to our antitrust laws giving the Government the right to sue.

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to take it upon myself to see my distinguished colleague, Mr. Rooney. Perhaps he can give us some help on that.

Mr. BARNES. Thank you.

Of course, the interstate oil compact also requires our supervision and to a degree and manner that has not been contemplated before. [Continuing with statement:]

From these two provisions, it seems clear, a large measure of the Attorney General's responsibility regarding WOC's is derived. To discharge this responsibility, we have formulated certain policies regarding employment of WOC's as officials under exempt voluntary agreement and as Government representatives on industry advisory committees.

First, the Attorney General's responsibility regarding WOC's as officials under agreements exempt from antitrust. That act requires,

I have explained approval by the Attorney General. In granting approval the Antitrust Division suggests generally incorporation of certain procedures in an attempt to insure that defense needs are accomplished with the least possible damage to competition. Such procedures, for example, may require the combining firms to meet only upon the order of a Government official; to consider only those topics prescribed by that official; and to have meetings presided over by a Government man who in turn is charged with reporting on the committee's operation. Should participants violate such requirements, the Attorney General may and does withdraw his approval, and this terminates any antitrust exemption.

The CHAIRMAN. We have been hearing about meetings held in New York hotels, the Waldorf-Astoria, et cetera, without a Government official present.

Mr. BARNES. I think those are industry advisory committees, rather than committees coming under section 708.

The CHAIRMAN. There were others besides.

Mr. BARNES. There were? Well, I think I have read all of the testimony that has been given here in the last week or so, but I missed that. The simplest way for us to determine whether requirements are met is via reports from the supervising Government officials. In one sense, then, such officials are in effect our antitrust enforcement representatives.

With this in mind, the Antitrust Division recently undertook a survey of those Government officials charged with primary responsibilities under exempt agreements or programs. As a result of this study we have already discovered that, under one exempt program, the voluntary agreement relating to foreign petroleum supplies, the director was a WOC on leave from a company owned by participants in the exempt agreement. As soon as we discovered this fact, we insisted then, in accord with our division policy, he be replaced by a full-time, salaried Government representative. This has been done. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask when that was done?

Mr. BARNES. Monday of this week.

The CHAIRMAN. Just recently?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That was done after an investigation by your own Department?

Mr. BARNES. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. It was not done by anybody in the other department where he served?

Mr. BARNES. Well, that is a question who does it. Of course, we have no jurisdiction over other departments or agencies.

The CHAIRMAN. Did the other agency object to the action that you took?

Mr. BARNES. I beg your pardon?

The CHAIRMAN. Did the other agency object in any way to your investigation?

Mr. BARNES. No, sir. I was out of town, but I was in close touch with the situation by telephone and I understand that in this particular area that the Under Secretary who handled it-and I might as well be frank, it is the Under Secretary of the Interior Department, Mr. Clarence Davis, was entirely cooperative and very helpful in bringing about this termination of this situation.