1938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Committee amendment. The Committee amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. MAPES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill? Mr. MAPES. I am with paragraph 7 of section (f) in it. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. MAPES moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to that committee to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment: Strike out paragraph (f) of section 701, beginning on page 83, line 20, and insert the following: (f) In a case of actual controversy as to the validity of any order under subsection (e), any person who will be adversely affected by such order if placed in effect, may obtain a review of such order in the circuit court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit where such person resides or carries on business, by Aling in the court within 60 days from the date of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Secretary be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the Secretary, and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and fle in the court a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, including all the evidence taken and the report and order of the Secretary. Upon such filing of the petition and transcript the court shall have jurisdiction of the procceding and of the question determined therein, and shall have power to make and enter upon the pleadings, evidence, and proceedings set forth in such transcript, a decree amrming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the Secretary. The findings of the Secretary as to the facts, supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Secretary, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary and to be adduced upon the hearings in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may seem proper. The Secretary may modify his findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive, and his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari, as provided in section 240 of the Judicial Code." Mr. MAPES (interrupting the reading of the motion). Mr. Speaker, with the statement that this is the amendment which I offered in the Committee of the Whole and that it is the provision of the law as applied to the Federal Trade Commission adapted to the food-and-drug bill I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the motion be dispensed with and that it be printed in the RECORD. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. LEA) there were-ayes 27, noes 59. So the motion to recommit was rejected. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill. The bill was passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The title was amended so as to read: "An act to prohibit the movement in interstate commerce of adulterated and misbranded food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, and for other purposes." Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair calls the gentleman's attention to the fact that there are some special orders heretofore entered that must be disposed of before the gentleman can be recognized. 7903 Mr. PHILLIPS. I thank the Chair for calling it to my attention. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks and to include therein a letter which I have received from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, and an opinion by the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, and an analysis of the opinion. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection it is so ordered. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. St. Claire, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 10140) entitled "An act to amend the Federal Aid Road Act, approved July 11, 1916, as amended and supplemented, and for other purposes." MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1939—CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. SNYDER of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Appropriations, presented a conference report and statement on the bill (H. R. 9995) making appropriations for the Military Establishment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, and for other purposes, for printing under the rule. WAR DEPARTMENT CIVIL FUNCTIONS APPROPRIATION BILL, 1939CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. SNYDER of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (H. R. 10291) making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes, for printing under the rule. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. MEAD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks concerning the services of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. DEMUTH). The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. RAMSAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on Friday next after the completion of the legislative program for the day I may be permitted to address the House for 30 minutes. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia? There was no objection. Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on next Friday, following the special order just granted to the gentleman from West Virginia, I may be permitted to address the House for 20 minutes. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which enhances the purchasing power of the masses and augments the circulation medium of exchange, brings with it renewed life to everyday business in every line. We speak freely today of maintaining the system of profits in industry. Profits in industry come from the sale of commodities, but remember that fundamentally a man's labor is not a commodity. The laborer's energy is a part of his life, not to be bartered or sold but to be maintained and nurtured as the Nation would maintain and nurture its whole existence. In the effort being made in the Senate to write this amendment into law there is no thought of personal aggrandizement, but there is an everlasting and abiding determination that the wage structure of this country shall not be torn down and that the American standard of living, fought for and maintained by the tolling masses of this country, shall continue. The McCarran amendment will permit the President to carry out his plan of a limited monthly aggregate of earning for one who is taken off the dole and placed in work relief, and at the same time the amendment will carry out the whole spirit and intent of established American policy. The amendment would permit the President to limit the aggregate monthly earning of a worker on a work-relief project so that the worker will be more inclined to go to private industry, where his aggregate monthly earnings may be more-with this policy there is no controversy. To put it in a homely way we say, "Yes; limit the aggregate monthly earnings on work-relief projects, but maintain the prevailing wage scale by hour, or by day, or by week, so that private industry will do likewise, and that private industry, by doing likewise, will thus entice the relief worker from relief-work rolls, where his aggregate monthly earnings are limited, into employment in private industry, where his aggregate monthly earnings will be, by reason of the maintained wage scale, augmented to a proper amount in keeping with the proper American standard of living." My position in advocating this amendment is that American institutions shall go on to lead the world, and that by adopting this amendment a great administration, headed by a great President, will write history into the statutes of the country, serving notice to the world that the principles of Jefferson and the words of Lincoln were more than mere expressions, and that whatever crises may come upon us this Government, after all, listens to the heartbeats of humanity and is a government of and for and by the people. The Pending Food and Drug Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN M. COFFEE OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 1, 1938 Mr. COFFEE of Washington. Mr. Speaker, numerous organizations which for the past 5 years have been working for the passage of a new and adequate food and drugs bill have condemned S. 5 as it has been reported to the House by the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Commission. They have pointed out that court review of regulations as provided for in S. 5 would so hamper enforcement that those sections of the bill most vital to public welfare would be virtually nullified. It cannot be emphasized too much that so long as the provision for court review of regulations remains in S. 5, the protection which Federal authorities could give to the public were the bill to be enacted under S. 5 would be far less than that extended under the existing law. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that even were the provisions for court review of regulations deleted, S. 5 would still be pitifully inadequate. In several respects it is even weaker than the existing law. In addition, it fails to contain those provisions for which consumers have fought hardest in the past 5 years and which are basic to real protection of the consumer in the field of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Entirely apart from the court review of regulations, S. 5 is weaker than the present law in two important respects: First. S. 5 curtails the power of the Food and Drug Administration to make multiple seizures. The authority to make multiple seizures has been one of the Administration's 2279 most potent weapons against offending manufacturers. It should in no way be limited. Second. S. 5 is weaker than the law now in force in respect to mandatory definitions and standards of drugs. It recognizes definitions and standards established by the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States and supplements to it and to the United States Pharmacopeia and the National Formulary. None of these are now recognized as authorities. In at least two ways, then, S. 5 is weaker than even the present law. In addition it fails to incorporate numerous measures essential to consumer protection. S. 5 does not provide sufficient protection against the repetition of such tragedies as that which occurred last fall, when a so-called elixir of sulfanilamide, a new and untried product, killed almost 100 people in the course of a few weeks. Almost everyone is acquainted with the wholesale poisoning of men, women, and children caused by this product which was rushed on the market by a manufacturer so eager for profits that he did not trouble to carry out the few animal experiments needed to show the lethal properties of his "remedy." At the time of this tragedy Secretary Wallace made excellent recommendations as to the minimum requirements of legislation which should be enacted to prevent the public thus becoming the prey of criminally careless or ignorant manufacturers. These recommendations have been followed but in part. For example, he recommended that license control should be established not only over drugs which might be classified as new in the strictest definition of the term but also combinations of well-known drugs which have not become generally recognized as safe, and well-known drug substances and drug combinations, the labels of which recommend doses larger or more frequent or over a longer period than has become generally recognized as safe. Secretary Wallace stated the case for licensing the manufacturers of potentially harmful drugs briefly and well: "In the interest of safety, society has required that physicians be licensed to practice the healing art. Pharmacists are licensed to compound and dispense drugs. Electricians, plumbers, and steam engineers pursue their respective trades under license. But there is no such control to prevent incompetent drug manufacturers from marketing any kind of lethal potion." But despite the great need for licensing at least those manufacturers of the type of preparations designated by the Secretary, no such control is provided by S. 5. S. 5 does provide licensing control of a sort for those drugs which can be termed new in the strictest sense of the word, but the licensing provision has serious defects. The Food and Drug Administration recommended that a bureau of experts should be provided to advise the Secretary on the safety of new drugs. According to S. 5, however, ordinarily a decision regarding the safety or danger of any new drug is to be based not on original investigation by the Secretary of Agriculture but on data submitted by the applicant. Furthermore, the Secretary must reject an application within 180 days from its filing, if he rejects it at all, and if he does not it becomes effective. Six months may at first thought seem sufficient time in which to determine whether a drug is safe. Actually it is not. Take, for example, sulfanilamide (the drug itself, not the so-called "elixir," which owed its toxic property to the solvent useddiethylene glycol). Sulfanilamide has been used rather extensively by the medical profession for well over a year and medical opinion is as yet divided as to its possible harmful effects. There are many other similar examples. The harmful effects of drugs are often not recognized until they have been in use over a long period. No limitations should be placed upon the Secretary of Agriculture as to the length of time available to him to investigate the safety of new drugs. 2280 APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD A second major defeat of S. 5 is that patent medicincs need not be labeled with a statement of their ingredients if the formula has been disclosed to the Secretary of Agriculture. The need for formula disclosure of patent medicines is obvious. Intelligent self-treatment of even minor ailments depends upon knowing what you are taking. Secretary Wallace included among his recommendations for legislation the Prohibition of secret remedies by requiring that labels disclose fully the composition of drugs. According to him Many foreign countries now impose this requirement. Many drugs manufactured in the United States are exported to such countries under labels bearing such disclosure. The same drugs are sold to our citizens under labels that give no hint of their composition. In a recent editorial, the Journal of the American Medical Association points out that many cases of poisoning occur from adults taking a dose from the wrong bottle or from bottles left within the reach of small children. In such cases, whether or not the formula of the preparation is given on the label may be a matter of life or death, for, without such information, the proper antidote cannot be administered. Many people do not know that a seemingly innocuous remedy such as a laxative, may contain as deadly a poison as strychnine. A third important weakness of S. 5 is that proprietary foods are also exempt from formula disclosure if the ingredients have been disclosed to the Secretary and if a statement of the ingredients "would give to competitors information they could not otherwise obtain." Manufacturers can be expected to make full use of the excuse thus provided for not telling the public what their products contain. The increasing number of prepared foods on the market, pie fillers, cake mixes, puddings, dessert mixtures of every type, all sorts of powders from which to make beverages, and so forth, makes it imperative that a housewife be able to know what she is purchasing if she is to protect the health of her family as well as her pocketbook. Some people are sensitive or allergic to even minute quantities of certain foods. Thus it is quite possible that a pudding preparation containing an amount of dried egg so small as to be insignificant nutritionally night be sufficient to precipitate a violent attack of asthma in an individual predisposed to asthma and allergic to eggs. No woman can judge the nutritional value of the proprietary foods she buys. She cannot tell whether they represent a wise expenditure of money; she cannot select intelligently from among the many different brands unless she knows what she is purchasing. Mixed feeds for livestock are labeled with their composition. But although it is recognized that a farmer has a right to know what he feeds his pigs, S. 5 does not recognize that women are entitled to as much information about the foods they give their children. Furthermore, the phrase which authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations limiting the quantity of poison permitted is evasive. He is charged to limit the quantity "to such extent as he finds necessary for the protection of public health." Public health is a vague term. It might be difficult to prove that the amount of lead arsenate found on apples is harmful to such an ambiguous entity as the "public health." It would be an entirely different malter considered in relation to the health of children who are especially susceptible to lead and who, incidentally, are large consumers of apples. Still another weakness of S. 5 is that it does not provide for grade labeling of canned goods. Innumerable tests of canned fruits and vegetables have shown that neither brand name nor price is any criterion of quality. During the days of the N. R. A., a long list of women's organizations appeared at the hearings on the canning code and endorsed the grade labeling of canned goods. These organizations included the American Home Economics Association, the National League of Women Voters, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the National Council of Women, and the American Association of University Women. But S. 5 has no provision for quality standards for canned goods and under it, as under the old law, women would have to continue to buy canned goods on guess. The need for adequate regulation of cosmetics has been so urgent that it has constituted one of the main reasons for the concerted consumer drive for a new food and drugs law. S. 5 does provide for regulation of cosmetics, but only regulation of an ineffective sort. S. 5 does not require that cosmetics be labeled with a statement of their ingredients. As was pointed out in relation to the need for formula disclosure of drugs and proprietary foods, a woman must know what she is buying if she is to protect her health and her pocketbook. Certain women are allergic to substances used in some face powders, creams, lipsticks, and other cosmetics. Cosmetics which can be used with impunity by the majority may cause marked distress for them. Medical treatment over a long period is sometimes required in order to discover the offending substance, and frequently expensive laboratory tests must be made in order to determine the composition of the cosmetics being used. Sensitivity to certain substances used in cosmetics is sumciently widespread that the American Medical Association refuses to recognize the claim of any cosmetic that it is nonallergic. Women are obviously entitled to the health protection afforded by requiring cosmetics to bear a statement of their ingredients. That they are in need of similar protection for thetr pocketbooks is evident from a knowledge of some of the products on the market. For example, Murine is a preparation advertised as having special merit for the proper care of the eyes. The American Medical Association has reported it to be essentially a water solution of borax containing a trace of berberine or some goldenseal preparation. A saturated solution of boric acid is equally good, if not superior, as an eyewash. One-half ounce of Murine sells for 60 cents. The amount of boric-acid solution that could be made for 60 cents would have to be measured by the gallons. Such examples could be multiplied many times. The right of consumers to know what fabrics they purchase has been recognized in the recent rules promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission, which require all garments made of rayon or part rayon to be identified as to fabric. It is absurd that women should be denied as complete information regarding the cosmetics they buy and use. Senate bill 5 fails to set a minimum penalty for violations. Those who have followed the notices of judgment issued under the existing law are fully aware of the need for setting minimum fines. The fines are frequently so small-often no more than $5 or $10-that they act as little or no deterrent. It is imperative that minimum as well as maximum fines be set by law rather than left to the discretion of the court. Furthermore, under Senate bill 5 the administration can start no criminal proceedings until the offender has been given an opportunity to present his views with regard to the contemplated proceedings (sec. 305, p. 56). Any such requirement tends to delay action against offenders and to weaken enforcement. It is not the practice in other cases of far less significance to public welfare. Equally weak are the provisions regarding publicity. It should be part of the administration's protective work to disseminate warnings to consumers regarding foods, drugs, and cosmetics which may be hazardous. Except in cases of court actions Senate bill 5 provides that the Secretary may disseminate such information only APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The more progressive and forthright members of even the food and patent-medicine industries have admitted that the existing law does not provide the consuming public adequate protection. To replace it with a law which is even weaker in many important respects, with a law which fails to incorporate most of the measures for which consumers and consumer groups have been fighting for the past 5 years, is unthinkable. It would represent a gross betrayal of consumer interests--a betrayal which the citizens of this Nation would not soon forget. All public-minded Members of Congress should cast their votes against S. 5 and pledge themselves to support a food and drugs bill such as H. R. 5286, the Consumers' Union bill, introduced by myself, which would give the public the protection it so urgently needs. S. 5 would but perpetuate the vicious situation now existing under the present bill, which penalizes manufacturers of harmful preparations after injury, often of an irreparable nature, has been done; and frequently does nothing to interfere with their further sale. A licensing system for proprietary preparations such as that set up by H. R. 5286 would prevent harmful products from ever reaching the market. It would simplify the whole procedure of enforcement and would place the burden of the cost, not upon consumers, but upon those manufacturers whose ruthlessness has made it necessary to safeguard the public. Memorial Day Address EXTENSION OF REMARKS OP HON. D. LANE POWERS OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADDRESS OF HON. D. LANE POWERS AT THE BEVERLY Mr. POWERS. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following address delivered by me at the Beverly National Cemetery, New Jersey, on Memorial Day: Mayor Keeler, honored guests, and friends, we are met here today on an occasion that is not only solemn and sacred, but joyous and thankful. At the close of these stirring ceremonies to commemorate Decoration Day and to dedicate the improvements to our national cemetery, we are impressed with the solemnity and sanctity of the occasion. However, let us each and every one feel at this time a sublime joy and a sense of true thanksgiving. We are here to honor those who have lived and died in the service of their country-our country. From that source emanates the sacredness of our purpose in holding these ceremonies, in dedicating the addition to this revered and hallowed ground. But from the lives and deaths of those men whom we are honoring, we, the living, should obtain a new source of inspiration, a new desire to serve our Nation and our countrymen. In the graves that dot this cemetery lie the sanctifed remains of our glorious dead. In our hearts, the knowledge of what those remains exemplify should spur us to emulate their service and their purpose, to dedicate ourselves again to the high ideals which typified their existences. We are met to honor the soldiers and sailors of all wars. We are honoring those who died in the heat of conflict, or those who survived the catastrophe of battle to pass peacefully to their rewards surrounded by their families and their friends. But whether taken by the toll of strife or gathered to their Maker in the quietude of ther own homes, these men have left us a mighty heritage, an inalienable duty. That heritage is the love of liberty, that duty the sacred obligation to defend, with our lives if need be the liberty they have cherished for us through the centuries. From the examples of our honorable dead we should obtain the joy and thankfulness we are experiencing today. That joy comes from the knowledge of their sacrifice, that thankfulness from realization of their stewardship. Each of us derives from the Divine an independent spirit. By law and franchise we have blossomed that spirit into a legal freedom, a liberty which is our most cherished individual and 2281 collective possession. Judging our national history from the larger viewpoint we can be proud to assert that our armies and navies have never gone to war except in the one cause the cause of liberty. In the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 we fought to liberate our country from bondage of another power. In the Civil War we fought to liberate the Negroes from the bondage of slavery. In the Spanish-American War we fought to free our island neighbors from the tyranny of Spain. In the World War we sent our men and our money overseas to preserve the light of liberty for the whole world. In his inspiring address on the shambles that was Gettysburg's battlefield, our President Lincoln gave utterance also to the primary purpose of our Nation and its peoples-the purpose of liberty. He said: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." Through the years that have flowed swiftly into eternity since President Lincoln made his historic address, the prediction of his prophecy has proven entirely true. The Civil War was a test of our conception in liberty. Every day since then has put that same conception to a test. Our present troublous times, our national unrest and disturbance are each and every one of them a test of our democracy and our liberty. To students of world affairs one of the most surprising and disconcerting exhibitions today in the international picture is the willingness of the peoples of foreign nations to surrender their liberty, to submit their necks to the yokes of dictatorship, whether in the form of fascism or nazi-ism, military domination, or communism. We of this country are made of sterner stuff. Where these foreigners have experienced only for a short period the joys of democracy, or a semidemocracy, we in the United States have lived for years under the benefices of a full democracy. Where these foreigners are ready to lay down their arms and surrender their liberty for the doubtful protection of a dictatorial tyrant, we in America are ready and willing to fight-yes, tomorrow, if need be for the preservation of our liberty. Our democracy is being tested every day economically, socially, governmentally. Were we to have a clear-cut issue of liberty for which to fight, you would and every man in this Nation in arms and ready and eager for the fray. Unfortunately, the enemies of our democratic form of government are more subtle than we; are more experienced in the niceties of surreptitious propaganda. It is for us, then, for us who are living in this day and age of governmental and economic change, to remain constantly on the alert against all subversive influences, against the propagandist who misleads the press, against the subsidized orators whose golden tongues utter promises neither he nor his masters have any thought of keeping. We must guard against the enemy within the gates, the traitor who bores from within. By their stealthy maneuverings, by their hidden intent, these betrayers in high places are the vampires of our country, living of the lifeblood they can leech from our desire for liberty, which is the heart of our democracy. To those of us here today who have had the honor of defending our Nation, Memorial Day brings a special significance. We are here, inspired by the unforgettable remembrances of our service to keep fresh and green the memory of those with whom we shared the privations and endured the hardships of the trenches, the terrible chaos of the conflict. We are thinking of those by whose side we stood while the bedlam of the battlefeld dinned in our ears, deafening us, bewildering us. frightening us, but at the same time imbuing us with an unquenchable determination to carry the torch of liberty before the peoples of the world. We are reminded of those who tasted with us the bitter gall of defeat, and of those who joined with us in the ecstatic ovation with which, in November of 1918, we welcomed the signing of the armistice. We are reminded today of the veterans of the Spanish-American War, who braved the fevers of the jungle, the dangers of the sniper's bullet, to carry liberty's torch to our unfortunate island neighbors. We are especially reminded of the once strong line of blue, now thinned to a revered handful, which fought with General Grant to preserve our concept of liberty, and to liberate the Negro from his bondage. A constant memory to us are these graves, so beautifully tended, above which waves the flag of the Republic. They mark the resting place of many men who died not as mortals usually die but as sacrifices upon the altar of liberty. These sleepers here were patriot citizens. They were not men who thirsted for strife and blood. They were not adventurers who, from restlessness and curiosity, challenged peril and death. They were not hirelings who sold themselves as instruments of ambition. They were patriots who, in the hour of our country's trial, volunteered for the defense of American Union and American liberty. Shall we who are here today make all their sacrifices into nothingness? Shall we supinely surrender the land they won for us with their blood to the doubtful mercies of oppressors? Or shall we today consecrate ourselves to the task which Lincoln gave us to the policy of testing our democracy by orderly and statutory change 1938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE employers, but many of the "Independents" thus far investigated by the Board have been found to be company-inspired and dominated. Of 55 such company-dominated "independents," found in decisions of the Board between December 21, 1935, and April 21, 1938. all but 7 were in decisions of the Board following the Supreme Court's validation of the act. Effective functioning of the National Labor Relations Act has been confined almost entirely to the last year. Bitterly opposed before it was passed by Congress, it has been no less bitterly resisted since it was upheld by the highest court in the land. Enmeshed in about 100 injunction suits (all save a current one later dismissed) the Board nevertheless proceeded upon the important task of protecting labor organization and collective-bargaining rights. Opponents of the act might well look to the history of legislative aid in stabilizing labor relations in the railroad industry. Over the past 20 years in this industry the country has seen a gradual diminution of strikes and an increased orderly conduct of labor relations. The past years' activities of the National Labor Relations Board afford a basis for the expectation that in other industries an important step has been taken tóward the businesslike handling of labor relations. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Chaffee, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 5) to prevent the adulteration, misbranding, and false advertisement 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 amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the Vice President: S. 1585. An act for the relief of Sallie S. Twilley; and H. R. 10140. An act to ainend the Federal Aid Road Act, approved July 11, 1916, as amended and supplemented, and for other purposes. RELIEF AND WORK-RELIEF APPROPRIATIONS The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 679) making appropriations for work relief, relief, and otherwise to increase employment by providing loans and grants for public-works projects. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the first committee amendment passed over. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 19, line 23, it is proposed to change the number of the section, so as to read: SEC. 24. This title may be cited as the "Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1938." Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, that amendment went over at my request. I have no objection to it. The amendment on the next page also went over at my request. I do not care to debate it. The amendment on page 19, line 23, is a formal amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. That is a pro forma amendment, changing the number of a section. Mr. NORRIS. I do not care to be heard on it, and the same statement applies to the amendment on line 14 on the next page, page 20, which went over at my request. I do not care to discuss that. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks other Senators may desire to discuss that amendment. Without objection, the pro forma amendment on page 19, line 23, proposing to strike out "23" and to insert "24" is agreed to. The clerk will state the next amendment passed over. The next amendment passed over was, in title II, section 201 (a), page 20, at the beginning of line 14, to strike out "$965,000,000" and insert "$865,000,000", so as to make the paragraph read: SEC. 201. (a) In order to increase employment by providing for useful public works projects of the kind and character which the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works (herein called the "Administrator") has heretofore financed or aided in financing, pursuant to title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, the 7919 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1936, or the Public Works Administration Extension Act of 1937, there is bereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to remain available until June 30, 1940, the sum of $865,000.000, to be expended by such Administrator, subject to the approval of the President, for (1) the making of allotments to finance Federal projects, or (2) the making of loans or grants, or both, to States, Territories, possessions, political subdivisions, or other public bodies (herein called public agencies), or (8) the construction and leasing of projects, with or without the privilege of purchase, to any such public agencies. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, after very careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that the committee amendment should not be adopted. Nine hundred and sixtyfive million dollars is the amount of money estimated by the Bureau of the Budget for the Public Works Administration. If the Congress should reduce that amount by $100,000,000, it would give an excuse to the Public Works Administration for saying, "We asked for a sum of money adequate to do the job, and the Congress denied it to us." The President, in submitting this Budget estimate, asked for $965,000,000 to carry on the public-works program, which is all set up and ready to go, and that is the sum which should be allowed. In the second place, the Senate has adopted an amendment increasing the amount for public projects from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 to come out of this $965,000,000. It was the judgment of the Committee on Appropriations that it is wiser to expend money wholly on Federal projects than it is to give away 45 percent of the money in the form of grants. To expedite the construction of Federal projects means an ultimate saving to the Treasury. For example, if there is a certain amount of construction to be done on any kind of a Federal project, like a public building or housing for an Army post, if it is work that is going to be done anyway as a part of a recognized program, to the extent that such work is done with emergency funds, the amount of money that must be regularly appropriated in future fiscal years will be diminished. There is a net saving which will aid in Budget balancing in the future by doing work on strictly Federal projects rather than on loan and grant projects. There is another feature to be considered. Out of the sum of $965,000,000 it was originally proposed, on page 23, to place $500,000,000 in a revolving fund. A revolving fund means that on loan and grant projects, when a municipality or other public body submits its bonds and they are accepted, the bonds may be sold and the money again used at a later date for loans and grants. The President, very wisely I think, in a letter published in the newspapers, addressed to the chairman of the subcommittee, has suggested that what should be done is to do something now, and to do it as quickly as possible. The great objective is to stop the downward spiral of depression. What may be done next year or the year afterward cannot have any immediate effect on the business situation as it exists today. The things that can be accomplished with the revolving fund are something that will be done at the later end of this construction program. I am told that with the original set-up of $965,000,000 it is not expected that more than a quarter of a million dollars could be used in the revolving fund in the time fixed in this joint resolution, which is about a year and a half. So the revolving-fund item could be very safely reduced $100,000,000 if the Senate so desired; but certainly we ought not to cut down below the amount of money requested by the President in his Budget estimate for public works, and I therefore hope the committee amendment will be rejected. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, of course this reduction in the amount appropriated under title II was made by reason of increases in other places; that is, we increased the amount carried by the joint resolution $212,000,000 for farm payments and yesterday we restored the House figures on rural electrification. I am always most reluctant to disagree with the very persuasive Senator from Arizona; but from my own personal standpoint this amendment is one of the best amendments |