1936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 10675 The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Michigan insist | eign Commerce, and I, as chairman of the subcommittee in upon his point of order? charge of this legislation, assured the Members of this House Mr. DONDERO. Not very strenuously. that so far as we were concerned the conferees would stand The SPEAKER. Will it satisfy the gentleman if the Chair by the House action on this important legislation when we can secure order in the Chamber? Mr. REECE. Mr. Speaker, if a quorum is not present during the consideration of legislation dealing with one of the largest industries in the country, one which vitally affects the lives of the people went into conference with the Senate conferees. There has not been full agreement between the Senate and House conferees. We did agree on everything except the advertising provisions, or perhaps I should say the section providing for the control of advertising. That was the only and the Senate, and the Senate has agreed to the House bill with certain and very few exceptions. The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman real controversial issue between the conferees of the House from Tennessee rise? Mr. REECE. In view of these facts, Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and fifty-three Members are present, a quorum. The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment. Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment. Mr. REECE. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. REECE. This is the same bill which was brought up yesterday under suspension of the rules and was sent to conference. The conferees have reached no agreement. I wish to know what is the status of the bill in the House at this time. The SPEAKER. In answer to the inquiry of the gentleman from Tennessee, the Chair will ask the Clerk to read the following message from the Senate in connection with this bill. The Clerk read as follows: IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, June 15 (calendar day June 20), 1936. Resolved, That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 5) to prevent the adulteration, misbranding, and false advertising of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics in interstate, foreign, and other commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of safeguarding the public health, preventing deceit upon the purchasing public, and for other purposes, with an amendment as follows. The SPEAKER. This is the way in which this motion comes before the House. Mr. REECE. Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. REECE. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this bill, coming in as a bill and not as a conference report, should be referred to the committee. Mr. BIERMANN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. BIERMANN. Under the regulations as they now exist, the Federal Trade Commission has to do with advertising in the newspapers, and a newspaper that circulates false advertising innocently is not held liable. The advertiser himself is held liable. If the control of this advertising is moved over to the Department of Agriculture, what assurance have we that the newspapers of this country, and particularly the little country newspapers that have no facilities for investigating advertisements, will not be held liable for inadvertently circulating some false advertisements? Mr. CHAPMAN. I may answer the gentleman by saying that my understanding is that the newspaper will not be held liable, but the man who pays for the advertisement will be. [Here the gavel fell.] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman additional minutes. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BIERMANN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BIERMANN. How does the gentleman expect us to vote for the bill when he does not answer any questions? Mr. CHAPMAN. The gentleman from Texas stated correctly that such a case as that to which the gentleman from Jowa refers is specifically excepted. Mr. BIERMANN. That was true when the advertising feature was under the Federal Trade Commission, but we moved it over to the Department of Agriculture, and nobody knows how they are going to handle it. Mr. MERRITT of New York. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. MERRITT of New York. Will the gentleman inform me if this is the original Copeland bill as introduced in the Mr. McCORMACK Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in- Senate? quiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CHAPMAN. If the gentleman had been present when I began my remarks he would have heard me say that this Mr. McCORMACK. Is a two-thirds vote necessary to bill bears no relationship to the original Tugwell bill, a consider this Senate amendment? The SPEAKER. It is not. Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CHAPMAN). Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is a measure which affects very vitally every man, woman, and child between the two oceans, because every man, woman, and child uses food, drugs, or cosmetics. hearing on which was never held by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Mr. MERRITT of New York. I did not say anything about Tugwell. I asked if this is the original Senator Copeland bill. Mr. CHAPMAN. I will say to my friend, the gentleman from New York, that in thirty-odd places the House committee rewrote the so-called Copeland bill. It is not the same bill. It is in most important particulars virtually a new bill. Mr. MERRITT of New York. Will the gentleman answer this question: What is the difference between the original Copeland bill and the bill that is pending before the House at the present time? Legislation on this subject came up in 1933 and was known at that time as the Tugwell bill. The bill was never accorded a hearing by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; but after that, recognizes the necessity for legislation for the protection of the American public, the committee did hold hearings on another bill dealing with the same subject matter. I declare to you tonight that this is not the socalled Tugwell bill and bears no kinship to the original Tug-permit me to proceed. well bill. We passed this bill yesterday under suspension of the rules. The distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN), chairman of the Committee on Interstate and For Mr. CHAPMAN. I will do that if the gentleman will There are certain differences. Amendments were added to the bill, some of which I favor and some of which I do not favor, but I am here tonight supporting the bill as it has come back to us from the Senate. 10676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE JUNE 20 Mr. COOPER of Ohio. If that is the case why did you accept the Senate amendment, if it was as good as we had it in the bill? One of the first changes in this bill made by the Senate | Federal Trade Commission it has now with reference to tonight is one which I deeply regret, because it affects a advertising. large proportion of the people of this country and also great industry in my own State. The Senate deleted the whisky provision from this bill, which I should like to have seen enacted into law, because I want to see my friends protected and want them to get good whisky if they drink it at all. (Laughter and applause.) I also want to see those who manufacture legitimate, honest whisky protected from the dishonest manufacturers. That is one thing the Senate took out of this bill as it passed the House, and as the conferees of House and Senate agreed upon it. I regret it, but think this bill ought to be passed anyhow. Mr. HOLMES. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. HOLMES. It is our understanding when this bill passed the House by unanimous consent yesterday that the conferees would sustain the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and insist on the House bill. Mr. STEFAN. Yes. Mr. HOLMES. I should like to ask how the gentleman stands on the question of advertising. Mr. CHAPMAN. I say to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the House conferees, and the chairman of the full committee was present, stood foursquare on that question, and sustained the House committee's action. Mr. HOLMES. How does the gentleman stand now on this amendment, which the Senate has submitted to the House? Mr. CHAPMAN. There was a disagreement reported by the conferees. Then the Senator from New York [Mr. COPELAND), in his individual capacity, offered an amendment on the control of advertising. It was his personal amendment. Mr. HOLMES. May I propound another question? [Here the gavel fell.] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes. Mr. HOLMES. Will the gentleman yield for a further question? Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. HOLMES. In view of the gentleman's statement to this House that he stands unequivocally and 100 percent back of the House bill, is it his recommendation to the House that we reject the Senate amendment? Mr. CHAPMAN. I will say to the gentleman that in conference I stood 100 percent for it although I do not think it is the best solution of the problem. In so doing I lived up to my agreements and kept the faith absolutely. To night I favor the adoption of the amendment to which the Senate has agreed and know that failure to adopt it will kill this much-needed remedial legislation. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. I think we might just as well understand this matter. The controversy in our committee hinged on whether the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Agriculture should have jurisdiction over advertising. We understood that the House conferees would stand by the House on that provision. Mr. RAYBURN. And they did. Mr. CHAPMAN. I just stated that. We kept the faith in letter and in spirit. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. If I understand this amendment correctly it gives to the Federal Trade Commission jurisdiction over commercial advertising, but gives the Department of Agriculture jurisdiction over all advertising of pure food and drugs. Mr. CHAPMAN. No; not exactly that. Mr. RAYBURN. I may say to the gentleman that the amendment offered does not take one thing away from the Mr. RAYBURN. I did not say anything about its being as good as the House amendment. I was telling the gentleman what it provided so the gentleman might understand me. [Here the gavel fell] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes. Mr. CHAPMAN. I cannot yield any further. Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? In case of seizures the House amendment permitted removal of the suit to a district adjacent to the claimant's principal place of business and the conferees changed this with the result that it may be removed to a point agreed upon by the parties. With respect to advertising control, which we have just ference your House conferees stood 100 percent in favor discussed briefly, we have made a division of that. In conof the action of the House. An amendment has come here, so that commercial advertising and advertising pertaining after the disagreement of the conferees, which divides it to trade practices will go to the Federal Trade Commission and advertising affecting the public health will go to the Food and Drug Administration and in this amendment I ask your concurrence. Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield now? Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes; I yield. could there be brought in question, except advertising perMr. HARLAN. Under this bill what kind of advertising taining to health? This is a food and drug bill and advertising with respect to food and drugs would be advertising affecting health. Mr. CHAPMAN. The functions of the Federal Trade Commission relate to trade practices in connection with commercial advertising, and not from the standpoint of consumer protection, which is the purpose of this legislation. If this bill had come up for consideration under a rule, I would have offered an amendment placing advertising control under the Food and Drug Administration. My views on that subject were made known in the statement of "Additional Views" attached to the committee report of the bill and signed by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MAPES), the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. MERRITT), and my self. When it came up under suspension of the rules, so that no amendment could be offered, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. RAYBURN] and I agreed to attempt in conference to sustain the House position. By that agreement we stood. After the conference committee reported a disagreement, the Senator from New York [Mr. COPELAND), not as a conferee but as an individual Senator, offered this amendment, which the Senate adopted. The conference is over. This comes to us as a new proposition. The amendment offers a fair compromise. The question is, Will we accept this amendment or will we strangle to death this important bill in the closing hours of this Congress? Will we stubbornly resist this reasonable compromise and thereby deny the consuming millions of American people the protection to which they are entitled? LApplause.] [Here the gavel fell.] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. REECE). 1936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE Mr. REECE. Mr. Speaker, there is on the desk a bill comprising some 75 pages by way of an amendment coming over from the Senate and dealing with a highly important subject: I dare say there is not one Member on this floor who knows what is in this amendment. There is not a member of the committee who knows what is in it. It has come over here from the Senate as a new bill. 10677 we heard the opinion and voice of the country, and I am one of those who honestly believe that the people of this country want the control of advertising in the Federal Trade Commission, and if you want it there, vote down this amendment, but decide to stay here until we get a good bill, because the country is anxiously waiting for it. [Applause.) Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the One of the more controversial issues involved, however, is gentleman from Maryland [Mr. CoLz). where the jurisdiction over advertising shall lie. The original Tugwell bill provided that the Department of Agriculture should have jurisdiction over advertising. The Copeland bill provided the same thing, and on yesterday, when a motion was made to suspend the rules and pass the bill and some Members asked me what was the difference between the Tugwell bill and the bill that was then being brought up under suspension, I said in reply that one of the main differences was the fact that the House bill provided that advertising should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, with the understanding that the House would stand by that provision of the bill. The rules were suspended and the bill was passed. Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SIROVICH. Does the gentleman realize that the most important thing upon which the health of the people of our Nation is dependent has been given over to the Department of Agriculture instead of being kept with the Federal Trade Commission, where it properly belongs? We have sacrificed everything for which we fought. Mr. REECE. Absolutely. The issue involved here now is, will Dr. Tugwell, of the Department of Agriculture, be given Jurisdiction over all the advertising involved in this amendment or shall it remain with the Federal Trade Commission, which has had jurisdiction over advertising since the Federal Trade Commission was established? There was no question but that the House was largely in favor of jurisdiction remaining in the Federal Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial body, and if orderly procedure in the consideration had been followed we would have had opportunity to vote upon that. Now, the only way that we can express ourselves on that question is to vote against the motion of the gentleman from Texas to recede and concur in the Senate amendment. If you want to place the advertising under Dr. Tugwell and give him a whip lash not only over business, but over the press of this country, vote for the motion made, but if you want to give it to the Federal Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial body, vote against it. [Applause.] Mr. COLE of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this bill possibly is the most important that this Congress has had before it, because of the very vital interest every man, woman, and child in the country has in its administration. Its provisions were the subject of long hearings before the Subcom mittee of the Interstate Commerce Committee. After that report, for 3 or 4 days we debated the bill in executive seasion. It is true, as my friends from Tennessee and New Jersey have said, we passed a House bill yesterday, and as one conferee I thought I went into the conference trying to get a food and drug bill, not tied to any particular provision of it as a mandate from the House. I approached the conference committee with Senator COPELAND, Senator VANDENBERG, Senator BAILEY, Senator CARAWAY, and Senator CLARK, and we were there from 9 o'clock this morning until 7 o'clock tonight. We found it totally impossible to bring back to this House, as the other conferees know, a food and drug bill upon which all conferees could agree. We agreed in conference, as I think these gentlemen will concede, to every disagreement between us except one. There were 36 amendments to this bill inserted by the House committee. The Senate conferees, in my opinion, have been most generous in conceding many of the changes we made in this bill. Now, we come to the point at this late hour in the session quibbling about whether this bill shall be buried because advertising might go here or might go there, as though that is the vital and crucial part of this bill. We have confidence enough in the Food and Drug Department of this Government to let it determine branding and say what is misbranding or labeling and all of the other provisions. Yet we want to say we will not pass the bill because we do not have the same confidence in that department to administer fairly that part of the advertising which pertains to health, and health alone. Mr. O'CONNOR. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'CONNOR. The question has been raised as to voting down this amendment and sending it back to the Senate. If Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to this amendment is voted down, there will be no bill, because the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. KENNEY). Mr. KENNEY. Mr. Speaker, we have to have a food and drug bill before we adjourn tonight. It is very important. The people of this country are looking for it. It affects the health of the country and the well-being of the citizens of the entire land. We ought to decide to turn back these clocks, and give plenty of time for the Senate to act with due deliberation on this amendment. The Senate passed the bill originally, giving jurisdiction over advertising to the Drug Administration. In the House here only yesterday we decided we wanted to place it with the Federal Trade Commission. We went into conference to carry out your mandate. We strove to obtain your will in that conference, The amendment was supposed to come in here by way of a compromise, giving part to the Federal Trade and part to Drug Administration. In my mind it is no compromise. It gives everything by way of health to the Drug Administration and everything else to the Federal Trade, and there is nothing else, in my opinion. Oh, yes, you can work out a hypothetical case where they might take it up, but it will be minor in importance, and it is my opinion Federal Trade Commission would never exercise any jurisdiction over this matter. Let me warn you again. We ought to pass a bill, but do we want this drug administration to be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? The country has spoken often throughout the hearings. In 1933, the original hearings were held. Last August our subcommittee started hearings, and -674 I am reliably informed after investigation that the Senate will surely have adjourned before 12 o'clock tonight. Mr. COLE of Maryland. I am glad the gentleman from New York asked that question, because when we disagreed in conference this afternoon it was very frankly and freely discussed in our meeting. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. REECE] said no one knows what is in this amendment, when every man on this conference saw the very amendment which is on the Speaker's desk on the table where we have been all day. That amendment is nothing except a verbatim copy of the House bill with the changes we agreed upon, and one change pertains to advertising upon which we could not agree. It was understood then, it being a Senate bill, that Senator COPELAND would take it back to the Senate, important as the bill is, and submit the whole matter by way of amendment, and the Senate approved that. The Senate approved the unanimous recommendation of the Senate conferees, as I say, a fair and able group of gentlemen, who sat with us today. As Senator BAILEY expressed it, "Why quibble over this little provision or that little provision?" We want a pure food and drug bill as the people of this country are demanding. I have in my possession a letter which came to us from almost every woman's organization in this country petitioning the conferees to get together on this bill because of its great importance. As I said yesterday on the floor, the commerce committee of the American Bar Association recommends this bill. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE n Dickinson, Deputy Attorney General, who prose- AYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the AYBURN. Will the gentleman yield? yield. JUNE 20 But they say if we do not agree to his amendment they will kill the bill. Are you not getting tired of the Senate saying to this House, "If you do not agree to what we say you shall not pass a bill"? (Applause.] I say, gentlemen, it is time to stand up and demand your rights. Let us send it back to them and say: "If you do not agree with our amendment, you kill the bill.” Mr. HANCOCK of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McREYNOLDS. I yield. Mr. HANCOCK of North Carolina. Does the gentleman think this is a pure food and drug act or a Copeland act? Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McREYNOLDS. Gladly. Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I may say this: That the House committee brought in an entirely new bill, and every man on the Senate committee of conference and every man on the House committee of conference agreed to the bill as it was read there at the desk, with the exception of this one amendment, and they agreed to it today. Mr. McREYNOLDS. They say that amendment merely affects advertisements as to health. I ask you what is there in pure foods that does not affect health? And does not that give to the Department of Agriculture full jurisdiction? Am I not correct? Think about it, gentlemen, whether you want them to have it. I leave it to you. [Applause.] [Here the gavel fell] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON). Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Speaker, ever since the food and drug bill has been passed, the producers of fruits and vegetables have used a spray, and they have made an effort LAYBURN. The House conferees did stand, and to have written into that measure a provision that they about a disagreement on that very point. OOPER of Ohio. Let me ask the gentleman a ques- AYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the in from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS). CREYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, how many of the Memthis. House know anything about this bill or have opportunity to examine it? How many times has it d in this House tonight? No one could understand s in it. times has it been read in this House to you, and no was it passed here on yesterday or the day before Members of the House, what are you going to do might have a day in court with reference to the reasonableness of regulations which vitally affect them. This can put them out of business. This bill is sent over from the Senate, and it gives them no day in court. I appeal to every Member of the House who represents fruit interests, or who represents vegetable interests, to vote against the Senate amendment. [Applause.] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. STEFAN). Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Speaker, section (m) which was deleted from this bill, referred to by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CHAPMAN), as the whisky section, and it is really the cereal grain section, represents a sell-out to the. blackstrap molasses people in foreign countries, Cuba, for instance, and a sell-out of millions of bushels of grain belonging to the American farmer. Mr. CHAPMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEFAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. CHAPMAN. There can be no whisky made out of anything except cereal grain. Mr. STEFAN. I understood the gentleman to say that section was deleted. Mr. CHAPMAN. That is what all connoisseurs say whisky is made out of. Mr. STEFAN. Did I understand the gentleman to say that section was deleted? Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes. Mr. STEFAN. If it has been deleted, we have lost 15,000,000 bushels of corn for the American farmer every year. [Here the gavel fell.] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. BIERMANN). Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House have received hundreds of letters from country newspapers protesting against a certain feature of this Copeland bill. That feature is exactly the amendment we are asked to adopt tonight. The newspapers protest against turning over to the Department of Agriculture the control of advertising, and the reason is that the Department of Agriculture is not particularly well qualified to pass upon advertising. The bill that we approved yesterday gave the control of advertising to the Federal Trade Commission, which has 1936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 10679 built up some precedent under which the newspapers are | Agriculture. I challenge anybody to decide which is which given a fair shake, and a series of precedents that amount in connection with an advertisement of a cosmetic, medicine, to something that is somewhere near justice to the news or a food. papers. If this amendment is adopted there is not a country newspaper in your district that will be free to accept advertising that deals with anything having to do with human consumption without being subjected to the harrassment may be commercial, advertising the price of the prodment and the uncertainty of some regulations that may be passed by the Department of Agriculture. Mr. McCORMACK. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BIERMANN. I yield to the gentleman from chusetts. Who is to decide, under this proposed amendment, where the jurisdiction of the advertising in question shall go? Where is the line of demarcation? A part of the advertise uct, and the rest of the advertisement may relate to its curative features. Shall it be split in two, and what officer of the Government shall decide who has jurisdiction. ObMassa-viously, we must put the jurisdiction in one place. Mr. BUCHANAN. No; half and half. Mr. McCORMACK. Has the gentleman ever known of the Federal Trade Commission receiving the criticism of the Supreme Court for any arbitrariness of action on its part? Mr. BIERMANN. No. Mr. McCORMACK. The Supreme Court criticized the Department of Agriculture for failing to give a fair trial and hearing to party litigants in matters pending before that Department. [Here the gavel fell.] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say, in reply to the gentleman from Iowa, it is my distinct understanding the proposition to which he refers is omitted from this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HOLMES). Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to approach action on this amendment with a great deal of care. We all know the value of the Federal Trade Commission. We know of its great service to industry and how industry has relied upon it many, many times for its sound judgment and cooperation. When this bill was passed yesterday we had the assurance of the House conferees that they would stand by the House amendment and keep all advertisement under the control of the Federal Trade Commission. If we adopt this amendment we are going to make the Federal Trade Commission Dr. Tugwell's rubber stamp. That is what we are going to do if we adopt this amendment. As far as I know there has been nothing but harmonious cooperation between the Pure Food Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. The Pure Food Administration has approved labels and many other forms of advertising in the past, but the responsibility for carrying out and enforcing those provisions has been left to the Federal Trade Commission because that Commission is of a quasi-judicial nature. You are now turning this over to a board that has nothing but a police power-it is a policing division-to police the pure food and drug laws that we have enacted. They have no power of judicial determination. What are you going to do with all the work that the Federal Trade Commission has done in the past 20 years? [Here the gavel fell] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. WADSWORTH). Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in 3 minutes it is not going to be possible to go into this thing in detail. The suggestion has been made this evening if we do not do something pretty quick something is going to happen, because the Senate will say it shall not happen. If you take it from me confidentially and will not let it go further, do not take the Senate seriously all the time. [Laughter.) I have known the Senate to surrender and do the right thing when it is told how to do it. May I say something about the amendment which we are asked to concur in this evening? I have not had a chance to read it, but I am told upon reliable authority that it provides in effect in relation to advertising that that portion or character of advertising which has to do with business or commercial products is to be left under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, and that portion or character of advertising which has to do with public health or relates to health is to go to the Department of Mr. WADSWORTH. We will get that later. [Laughter.) As a matter of fact, may I say to the Members of the House that the Federal Trade Commission, as you all know, is a semijudicial body. It has had jurisdiction over advertisements, with respect to unfair-trade practices, for years and years. It has a staff that has been trained for almost a generation to look at these things and weigh and balance them, and it has been fortified by a series of court decisions very numerous decisions and I understand that out of a very, very large number of decisions the Federal Trade * Commission has been supported in all but two cases. Leave the jurisdiction with the Commission. [Applause.] Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Speaker, in five minutes, of course, it is going to be impossible for me, as it would be for the members of the subcommittee who are for this motion, to clear away the fog that is here and the dust that has been kicked up. Let us understand one thing. The amendment, concurrence in which I have asked, takes not one thing away from the Federal Trade Commission that it ever had, but this bill, in its present form, leaves more of the control of advertising in the Federal Trade Commission than it ever had before. The only thing that this amendment does is to leave every particle of advertising control in the Federal Trade Commission it ever had and more, and then it gives to the Department of Agriculture or the Bureau in the Department of Agriculture control only over advertising that relates to health. You can say what you please about the Senate. Something has been said about the conferees. I was not a member of the subcommittee that considered this bill, and I have not been a member of the conference committee, although I sat with them for more than an hour this afternoon, believing and knowing that the millions of people throughout the land want a law revised that has not been touched in more than 30-years and brought up to date and made so it will protect the health of the children, as well as the grown-ups of this country, and the issue is clear here tonight. Do not be deceived by this little smoke screen with respect to the issue between the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Trade Commission. This is the smallest part of the bill. It amounts to practically nothing when we consider the important provisions of this bill that are necessary to the health, yes, to the very life of the people of the United States, and yet we hesitate, yet we applaud men who get up here and want to throw this whole matter on the scrap heap simply because somebody has heard the word "Tugwell" used in a not very generous fashion. There might be a little lobbying around here by some people, but there is nobody who has lobbied around this Capitol on any bill in the 23 years I have been in Congress more than the members of the Federal Trade Commission have lobbied on this bill, and I love the Federal Trade Commission. I was a member of the subcommittee that wrote the Federal Trade Commission Act and I have been a Member of the Congress that has brought into existence every commission of the Government except the Interstate Commerce Commission. I like them. I want them to stay in their proper sphere to operate and carry out the law, and when they want to step over and do a thing when the jurisdiction should better lie in another place, in spite of my love for them I am going to stand up and say that the question |