« 이전계속 »
Mr. PATMAN. That is right. He had a large integrated operation there. You see, size is sometimes a burden and a responsibility, as well as a benefit and an advantage. Mr. CochRAN. Mr. Patman, this bill lays down a policy which commits the Government to bring about full employment. Now, analyzing the bill, it is to prevent what you might say is another depression, if possible, by cooperating with industry, agriculture, and so forth, and if such a condition exists or develops, and this bill becomes law, the Government will be able to step into the picture to some extent to prevent a depression. So that if it is necessary for the Government to do something to bring about employment, this bill, in effect, would be an authorization for that; would it not? Mr. PATMAN. Yes, sir; that is one of the objects of it. Mr. CochRAN. And we would have a plan developed whereby, if it was necessary, for us to spend some money to assist both business, agriculture, labor, and so forth to provide employment, and an appropriation was brought in for that purpose it would not be subject to a point of order, if this bill is passed. Is that correct? Mr. PATMAN. Yes. Mr. CochRAN. This bill would be an authorization. The CHAIRMAN. You think it would be subject to a point of order? Mr. PATMAN. If there was no authorization. Mr. CochRAN. If this bill were passed, wouldn't this bill serve as an authorization for that? Mr. PATMAN. Yes, sir; that is my opinion of it. Mr. CochRAN. That was my understanding, and I wanted that definitely stated. The CHAIRMAN. That is what a lot of people have stated, that this does not authorize an appropriation. But I understand that if somebody introduced a bill on the floor to build a bridge across Lost Creek it would not be subject to a point of order. Mr. PATMAN. It has to be enacted. The CHAIRMAN. But if this bill becomes law, would it? Mr. PATMAN. I think there would have to be some program designed to assist the Nation, a program to relieve general unemployment. The CHAIRMAN. In that particular area there might be unemployment in the factories, by reason of their being shut down, and the rest of the Nation might have full employment. In this particular area where the bridge is to be built they might have serious unemployment and you want to guarantee employment in that particular locality. Mr. forwas, May I say Mr. CHURCH. Will you follow that through? Mr. PATMAN. That is a specific instance. Mr. CHURCH. You don't think this would constitute an authorization, then? Mr. PATMAN. No; I don’t think this constitutes an individual authorization. I think this would have to be based on national welfare. Mr. CHURCH. It constitutes an authorization for what kind of legislation? Mr. PATMAN. It constitutes an authorization for legislation to relieve a general situation over the Nation. Mr. CHURCH. Like the WPA appropriation?
Mr. PATMAN. Something to eliminate a WPA, to obviate the necessity for it.
Yi. CHURCH. I shouldn't say, perhaps, WPA, but for putting people to work.
Mr. PATMAN. That will affect the national economy.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if we pass this bill under that theory, we can offer an amendment on the floor of the House to start a billion and a half dollar road program without going to the House Committee on Public Roads for an authorization. That certainly would affect employment.
Mr. HoFFMAN. Is that right?
Mr. PATMAN. I couldn't say.
Mr. CochRAN. I notice here, on page 20, paragraph (c)—
Nothing contained herein shall be construed as directing or authorizing any change in the existing procedures on appropriations.
Mr. PATMAN. I am not in position to testify about that, because I don't know.
The CHAIRMAN. That is one of the things that has disturbed me about this bill.
Mr. PATMAN. We will get somebody to testify on that.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have an expert parliamentarian testify on that. I think that is a very important factor.
A. PATMAN. The best expert in the United States is Mr. Deschler, 01 COurse.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Deschler would not give an opinion without knowing the facts.
Mr. PATMAN. He would want to see the facts.
The CHAIRMAN. He is like a court; he doesn’t give a preview of what he will decide.
Mr. PATMAN. I want to state some of the things this bill does not do, to correct erorneous impressions around the country. There is no bill that has been more misrepresented and more misunderstood than this particular bill. I want to tell you some of the things this bill does not do.
This bill does not authorize the operation of plants, factories, or other productive facilities by the Federal Government.
o; does not guarantee o jobs to specific workers.
The bill does not authorize th to jobs.
The bill does not authorize changes in existing procedures on appropriations. That is the part Mr. Cochran .. our attention to just now. That is section 8 (c).
The bill does not provide Government guaranties of individual markets or prices, or profits.
The bill does not authorize Government determination of prices or WageS.
#. bill does not authorize Government determination of total output or of production quotas. . The bill does not authorize a disclosure of trade secrets or other information the publication of which might be harmful or have a harmful effect upon the firm or person supplying such information.
e compulsory assignment of workers
I think that is the only difference between the House bill and the Senate bill. We added on to our bill, H. R. 2202, a provision, which is subsection (e) of H, which says:
The disclosure of trade secrets or other information, the publication of which might have a harmful effect upon the firm or persons supplying such information shall not be called for or authorized.
The CHAIRMAN. That provision is not in the Senate bill?
Mr. PATMAN. That provision is not in the Senate bill, no; but we felt people should not be required to disclose trade secrets or information involving their business unless they were protected.
The CHAIRMAN. If the Senate bill were to become law, if the investigators who were making up this budget to present to the President, would find I had some trade secret that gave me an advantage over my competitors, under the Senate bill that would be made public?
Mr. PATMAN. It would not necessarily be made public, but there is no prohibition against it. But the House bill carries that prohibition to protect business. I think it is a wise provision. That was the only difference we had when we met with the Senators to agree on a bill. That was the only thing we put in our bill that was not contained in the Senate bill. I think it is a very helpful provision.
Mr. Judd. Mr. Patman, you just quoted from some document. What is it?
Mr. PATMAN. I quoted from the unrevised hearings before the Senate, part I, page 75.
Mr. JUDr. And when you said this bill doesn't do certain things, you mean the Senate bill?
Mr. PATMAN. I meant the House bill. This is part of my testimony before the Senate committee. I was just reading it because I had it in summary form. And I want to invite your attention, gentlemen, if you please, to the hearings before the Senate. I have some charts here, but I have no one to help me handle them so I will not attempt to show them.
Mr. Judd. May we get a copy of these hearings for our benefit? Mr. PATMAN. There are none now available.
The CHAIRMAN. We called the Senate committee and they haven't printed the revised hearings. They just printed them from day to day.
Mr. PATMAN. And you couldn't get one anywhere. They are not available. There were a thousand copies printed and I had two copies and I let one of them go. We tried to get it replaced and were not able to do so. I have just this one copy, which has all these charts in it, and I invite your attention especially to the testimony of Senator O'Mahoney. Of course, the testimony of the other Senators is there, and I don't mean to say their testimony isn't good, but Senator O'Mahoney happened to have some very impressive charts in his testimony that I want to invite to your attention especially.
Mr. Judd. You are inviting our attention to something you cannot furnish, you say.
Mr. PATMAN. You will get it.
Mr. PATMAN. In one of these charts it shows from 1929 to 1941, that by reason of this depression the sales loss amounted to $355,000,000,000. That is the amount of the sales loss.