Excerpts from the Press Conference

THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry to be late, but I have had things thrown at me at the last minute. Somebody raised the question about continuing to give foreign relief. My feeling is that there are working on our side a good many Nations who need things for their civilian population, let us say, need warm clothing—haven't had wool for a long time—and that our present efforts to get things to them should be continued without any question. Of course that is merging almost automatically with what might be called luxuries for our own Army and Navy boys, things that they don't get in the regular handout from the Army and Navy in the way of warm clothing—sweaters and things like that. But we certainly ought not to cut off our help that we have given to other Nations at this time. In other words, it's all part of the common war effort, and we ought not to discriminate. I suppose there is just one word that describes the situation, and that is the word "give."

We have all got to "give." We have got to keep up our own domestic things like, for instance, the infantile paralysis drive, and a great many other drives—hospital drives, charity drives of all kinds. And, instead of cutting off anything, we have just got to "give" a little bit more. That includes these different organizations that are pretty well tied in together at the present time in cooperation with the Red Cross, and working through the Joe Davies' committee . . . .

Q. Does that apply particularly to the relief of occupied countries?

THE PRESIDENT: You can't say Yes or No on that. We can't get anything into most of the occupied countries.

Q. Mr. President, would that apply to Vichy—to unoccupied France?

THE PRESIDENT: Where we can get things in, and where we are sure of distribution. That is another thing that I will have to give you, as without attribution or anything else. I do know we have sent quite a lot of food to the children of France, on the assumption that it would be delivered through non-governmental sources like the Quakers, and the Red Cross.

And the experience has not been a hundred percent satisfactory. Some of the food that we have sent over there, most unfortunately has been put on a train in Marseilles. And the train started, ostensibly bound for an unoccupied part of France where they needed food for the children, and the train kept right on going into Germany.

So the thing has got to be awfully carefully checked. Now we certainly at this time cannot afford to send food to an enemy country. . . .

Q. Mr. President, did you have something more that you wanted to say to us?

THE PRESIDENT: I have got quite a lot of things.

I have just signed the Price Control bill. And Mr. Henderson says, in recommending that I sign it, that it makes an honest woman out of him. And when I signed it, I said to him it makes an honest woman out of me too. In other words, it's Congressional authorization for carrying out certain things which are inherent in a war situation. . . .

The framework of the bill is good, because it provides for responsibility in a single Administrator, and a workable set of administrative procedures. The enforcement provisions of the bill are good. The Administrator may license persons who are subject to the Act, and may if necessary secure compliance with the Act through criminal proceedings and injunctions. In addition to that, consumers themselves may bring suits for treble damages against sellers who violate the maximum price regulations. In other words the bill has got teeth in it.

Third, on the whole the rent provisions of the bill are good. If State or local authorities fail or refuse to stabilize rents, the Administrator may move in and establish a system of rent control similar to the system provided for the District of Columbia. That ought to be a definite help in stabilizing what might be called the cost of living.

Fourth, there is a useful and important power given to the Administrator, who may buy and sell commodities in order to obtain the maximum necessary production.

Fifth, the maximum price provisions of the bill, in relation to non-agricultural commodities, are good. In general, we do not make exceptions. In general, the price of commodities will be based on the levels that prevailed in the first half of October, 1941, adjusted for various factors of general applicability and effect.

In regard to the agricultural commodities, there are certain limitations which are not so good. There are a number of rather technical matters in the agricultural provisions, but the real danger lies in the provision that no price shall be established below 110 percent of parity. The objective, of course, of the Administration on that was after very, very many years to bring the price of agricultural commodities up to parity. We have been working at it for over eight years. We have not attained the goal, except in a minority of agricultural products such as meat. And we had hoped that the legislation would be in such form that we should seek an average of parity.

This provision of not less than 110 percent of parity is a very definite violation of an objective which had been sought for eight years by the agricultural population of this country as the goal they set. And, therefore, in regard to the cost of living, the 110 percent of parity provision is a threat to the cost of living, especially in view of the fact that parity, as you know, is not a fixed amount. It's a relationship of agricultural cost of living to the industrial and other cost of living. And, therefore, as the cost of living goes up, the extra 10 percent goes up; all of this makes for a tendency toward a rise in the cost of living, foodstuffs being a very important item in the average family.

And finally, the bill is certainly worth having. Perhaps it is the best we could get at this time. We will undoubtedly have to step on the toes of a lot of people, which is again an other inherent factor in wartime. We hope by vigorous administration to fill in the gaps in the legislation, and if necessary ask Congress for amendments which will become more clear with the actual operation of the bill. . . .

Q. Mr. President, you spoke about inherent powers. Could those carry price control beyond the provisions of the bill in any respect?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't thought of any. I haven't got any in mind. Well, for example, somebody gave me a memorandum here that somebody was going to ask me a question about moving non-defense people out of Washington. And it is a question of inherent powers. I suppose if we were to make it very uncomfortable for the—what shall I call them?parasites in Washington, the parasites would leave. There are a good many parasites in Washington today. We all know that. (Laughter) I don't know whether that is an exercise of an inherent power or not, but I am inclined to think they would get out. (More laughter)

Q. Mr. President, that statement is, I think, based on testimony that Mr. Palmer [Charles F. Palmer, Coordinator of Defense Housing] made before the Public Buildings Committee. He said that eighty to a hundred thousand people had come here, and 85,000 more were expected this year, and that you were evacuating about 12,000 Government clerks, and that there was a saturation point. This extra 73,000 people would themselves bring an impasse somewhere. And this town is considerably upset about it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I know what I would do. I would write a story with a headline in the Washington papers. The headline—very simple—go right in a box—right across the front page: "Are You a Parasite?" (Laughter) Now a lot of people in this town are going to say, "I wonder if I am a parasite or not?" (More laughter). . .