Mr. RICH. And in my opinion, that thing is growing so fast that I am fearful the President might have to take over all business in order to give people jobs. That is just what they are working toward, and we have to be careful that it don't happen.

Mr. COCHRAN. In the first instance, you said the Communists were trying to close up all business; then you ask the question, “Do you know anybody in this country that doesn't want full employment?" If the Communist wants to close down all business, then certainly they don't want full employment.

Mr. RICH. In asking that question I was speaking about good, sensible men. I don't believe Communists are sensible people.

Mr. COCHRAN. That doesn't prove your contention that these strikes out there are the result solely of communistic activity. That doesn't seem sound, in my opinion.

Mr. PATMAN. Since Congressman Rich brought up that point, I think one of the greatest tests, one of the greatest challenges to the democracies, is that of keeping people from looking at exceptions and saying that that is the general rule, and selling others on the theory that the whole country has gone to the dogs and everything is rotten, just because of certain exceptions. You can take any church, or lodge, or the finest institution in this country, and you can pick out a few fellows in there who are not deserving; and yet you cannot, because of them, condemn the whole thing. We could do that with our own Congress, because sometimes some of these fellows will say something on the floor of the House that they haven't given full consideration to; and if the people judge the whole Congress by what the individuals said, they would have a bad opinion of the whole Congress. So, in a democracy, I think it is necessary that we should keep our eye on the ball and not look at the exceptions, but at the general rule, and I think the general rule in our country has been that it is mighty fine. There are certain things that are irritating, annoying, and that we don't like, but generally this democracy is getting along fine. It is the best Government on earth, and we want to keep it that way. And this bill is in that direction.

The CHAIRMAN. You referred a few minutes ago to creating a suitable climate for employment and emphasized the fact that this climate should be healthy for private enterprise. I am just wondering, if we do undertake to guarantee and insure full employment for everybody, if it wouldn't be necessary for the Federal Government, in order to prevent dislocation in employment, to place a ceiling on production in certain industries? We hear a lot of talk about the machine age now. Of course, everybody knows you could produce enough automobiles in 2 or 212 years to glut the market. Then, as we have thousands of people out of work, wouldn't it be necessary, in order to insure employment, full employment all the time, to have a ceiling on production?

Mr. PATMAN. I don't think so. I think we should have full production; and if we were to get to the point you mentioned, I would think shortening the hours of labor would be more desirable than cutting down production.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you are still going to have some discrimination between employees, because the farmer can't shorten his hours. very much.

Mr. PATMAN. He can shorten them with machines.

The CHAIRMAN. But the old cow has to be fed early in the morning and late at night.

Mr. PATMAN. Yes; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. So you would have the fellow on the assembly line

Mr. PATMAN. One of the objects of this bill is to give the farmer a fair price for what he does.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. But take our cotton-we are producing more cotton now than our domestic economy will consume, and it is having to fight for its life against the synthetics-rayon and the like.

Mr. PATMAN. Cotton isn't whipped.

The CHAIRMAN. If we continue to produce cotton at the rate we have been producing it over the last 10 years and expect the Federal Government to buy all the surplus and store it in the warehouse, we are going to run into a pretty serious problem, aren't we?

Mr. PATMAN. We would have to have a rather stagnant mind, from the national viewpoint, to permit that to be done. There are too many uses for cotton. I can invite your attention to one that is not so very old, and yet it isn't new-insulation for houses. Cotton makes the finest insulation in the world, and I predict that in time to come they will use millions of bales of cotton for that purpose alone-the insulation of houses. That is one of the new uses that has been developed. Mr. RICH. Do they make mineral wool out of cotton?

Mr. PATMAN. I don't know whether they do or not. But cotton is a commodity that never deteriorates. You know they found cotton in King Tut's tomb.

Mr. RICH. Will we have to subsidize it in order to keep on growing it, if they continue to find substitutes for it?

Mr. PATMAN. I don't think that is contemplated now. I don't see any reason why the development of new uses should be so slow as that. The CHAIRMAN. I brought cotton into the discussion for the reason that we have tried to curb the production of cotton in this country by placing a ceiling on the number of bales to be produced by the farmers.

Mr. PATMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I was thinking, if we had to do that to protect the economy of the farmer, wouldn't it be necessary to place a ceiling on the amount of coal produced, and the amount of automobiles and washing machines?

Mr. PATMAN. I don't think so. Of course, if they produce too many, the price will go down, and the manufacturers themselves probably will not be anxious to overproduce for that reason.

The CHAIRMAN. If the price goes down, then we would have to cut wages, so that it just goes around in a vicious circle.

Mr. PATMAN. Ford didn't cut wages when his prices went down. The CHAIRMAN. I say, it would go around in a vicious circle.

Mr. RICH. What did Ford have to do during the last week because he couldn't get wheels on account of the Kelsey-Hayes wheel strike? He had to close his plant practically down and throw 80,000 employees

out of work.

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. PATMAN. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. PATMAN. The best expert in the United States is Mr. Deschler, of 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.

The bill does not guarantee specific jobs to specific workers.

The bill does not authorize the compulsory assignment of workers to jobs.

The bill does not authorize changes in existing procedures on appropriations. That is the part Mr. Cochran called 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.

The 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.

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. JUDD. 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.

The CHAIRMAN. They are printing the complete record.

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.