The CHAIRMAN. Let the record note the presence of a quorum. The committee will come to order. You may proceed. Mr. HOFFMAN. May I proceed? The CHAIRMAN. During the discussion while the hearing was suspended, I believe, Mr. Hoffman, that you said you withdraw your objection. So you clarify that so there will be no misunderstanding about it. Mr. HOFFMAN. I will say that I am withdrawing my objection to the admission of this statement in this instance but I will also say that any testimony that will not stand the test of cross-examination is not worth the paper it is written on and under the rules of procedure in any court of the land in any State, the court would refuse a statement when the right of cross-examination is denied, if a witness has testified and then dies before cross-examination, his testimony is not evidence. If Philip Murray, president of the CIO, is not willing to come here some time in the next month and speak again in connection with this testimony, I say he is taking a very weak position. Mr. GOSSETT. You do not think that we are going to be here for a month, do you? Mr. ELLIOTT. You don't think it will be that long? Mr. HOFFMAN. I believe that my statement has clarified my position in regard to the matter. Mr. COWAN. I believe I can assure the Congressman that Mr. Murray will be glad to do that. Mr. HOFFMAN. I assume that he would. I have no doubt of it, that he will appear if he has faith in his position. The CHAIRMAN. Then do you withdraw your objection? Mr. HOFFMAN. I withdraw the objection. Mr. Rich, I believe, asked for unanimous consent, and as to that I said nothing. I just want the record clear in that regard. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cowan, you may proceed. Mr. COWAN. American unity has suffered an alarming deterioration during the past 6 weeks-in spite of the very good message of President Truman to Congress on September 6. Fear grips the people. When I appeared on August 22 before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee hearings on this bill, cut-backs following VJ-day had just begun. Mr. RICH. Will the gentleman yield for a question? The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Rich. Mr. R.CH. That is in the Senate committee hearing? Mr. COWAN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Then if you will just hand that to me. It does not need to be included in the record. Mr. HOFFMAN. You are saying "I" all the time; whenever you say "I" I presume you mean Mr. Murray, because you are reading his statement? Mr. CowAN. That is correct. Mr. HOFFMAN. You are not testifying in your own behalf, but on behalf of Mr. Murray? Mr. COWAN. That is correct. Now, in the second week in October-I hand the committee herewith a copy of my August 22 testimony before the Senate committee. The CHAIRMAN. You may just hand that to me. Mr. CowAN. Certainly. Now, in the second week in October, reactionary elements in Congress are becoming bolder by the day, war agencies are being dismantled without regard to the need for an orderly transition from war to peace, and a Nation-wide campaign is under way to pit one group of Americans against another-and to make organized labor a scapegoat. This is a device to turn the clock back-to undo the whole accomplishment of the Roosevelt administration in peace and in war. Both parties in their 1944 platforms subscribed to these gains. I call upon all elements in Congress, without regard to party politics, to halt this ebbing tide. I urge them to really begin the proposals in the message of President Truman. This message embodies our heritage from the late President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. If enacted into law it will plant our feet in the path to post war abundance and security. The bill now before your committee is a cornerstone of this postwar program. It embodies the pledges of full employment made to the American people in the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Parties. On August 22, about 2 months ago, there were already millions unemployed. Those millions have grown, and it has been predicted by the Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion that the number will reach 8,000,000 this winter and remain at that level throughout 1946. Think what that means in the lives of American men, women, and children. Think, too, what that will mean for all Americans if the present tide is not rapidly reversed. Passage of this bill without weakening amendment will give assurance to the American people that Congress and the President are dedicated to a program of postwar abundance and security. It will set in motion the backflow of this tide. To be sure, it cannot come into full effect before next June 30, 1946. But its effects will be nonetheless immediate. We can then expect that the President and Congress will at once set about the passage of legislation to implement this bill in many particulars. We can all agree, I am sure, that this bill is not the last word, but the first. It is, in fact, an embodiment in new legislation of the American radition of meeting problems as they come--marking the realization by members of both m jor porties that the American people expect Congress and the administration to set our course toward a full-employment economy. We in the CIO regard the Murray-Patman bill as minimum legislation. We consider the language of the bill as sent by the Senate to the House to have been seriously weakened in several important respects. The draft as reported by the Senate subcommittee to the full committee was in many ways the best. I hand the committee herewith the observations I made on the text of S. 380 when I appeared on August 22. The CHAIRMAN. You may hand that to me. That need not be placed in the record. Mr. HOFFMAN. May I have a copy of that, please? Mr. CowAN. Yes; and the previous one that you had. The CHAIRMAN. That is the same statement that you referred to on the first page? Mr. CowAN. Yes; that is correct. Mr. HOFFMAN. It is hard to find some of these things in 15 volumes of Senate hearings. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Mr. CowAN. The hearings before the subcommittee resulted in some important improvements in the original text. In the bill as originally introduced the language reads: All Americans able to work and seeking work have the right to useful, remunerative, regular, and full-time emplo, ment, and it is the policy of the United States to assure the existance at all times of suflicient employment opportunities to enable all Americans freely to exercise this right. * We do not see why Congress should be unwilling to state this as a right, and why it is afraid to declare the policy of the United States to assure the existence at all times of suficient employment opportunities to enable these Americans freely to exercise this right. Efforts to weaken this language are bound at the same time to weaken the confidence of the American people in the intentions of Congress and the administration. We hear a great deal about "business confidence," well, I submit that confidence is not made by a few people in counting houses. If the whole American population, with the possible exception of a few leaders of business have confidence in the future, certainly that should guarantee American postwar progress. The debate in the Senate would indicate that many of those who profess to be the best friends of private enterprise have least confidence in its ability to attain and maintain full employment. Mr. RICH. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. COWAN. I beg your pardon. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rich. Mr. RICH. Mr. Cowan, referring to those people in that sense, do you know who those people were that made that statement that they did not have confidence in private enterprise to attain and maintain full employment? Mr. CowAN. I do not know who Mr. Murray has reference to there. Mr. RICH. Would that be in the Senate hearings? Mr. CowAN. In all probability it is in the Senate hearings. Mr. RICH. I just wanted to know what you could tell us about that, if you knew as a certainty. Mr. COWAN. I cannot be sure about that. I am not certain. The language of the bill passed by the Senate which says that all Americans able to work and desiring to work are "entitled to an opportunity for useful, remunerative, regular, and full-time employment" seems to us intentionally confusing. In section 2 (d) (4) the proviso written as an amendment into the Senate bill may prove to be either very reactionary or very progressive in its implications, although its authors may not have intended the latter. We have never heretofore had a program of taxation covering a period comprising the year in question and a reasonable number of years thereafter for any purpose. To link taxation to the goal of full employment is of course highly desirable and a long step in the right direction. However, the bill even as originally drawn places so much emphasis upon making up a deficiency of employment after free enterprise has failed that it seems foolish to stipulate a tax program which prevents any net increase in the national debt. If Congress wishes to prevent an increase in the national debt, it should concentrate upon maximizing our gross national production and our national income, in which case taxes will be more than ample to take care of the national debt and foreseeable current expenses. I cite this because it is another example of the ostrich-like policy of "deficiency" economics fostered by the so-called friends of private enterprise. Once more I speak in favor of joint responsibility of industry, labor, agriculture, and Government for maximizing national production. My third major criticism of the Senate bill as passed has to do with section 5 (b) (3) which has been amended so as to remove the language requiring the joint committee on the national budget to prepare and report a joint resolution setting forth for the ensuing fiscal year its summary recommendations concerning the national budget. It is not sufficient to have this committee file a report with the Senate and the House of Representatives. The filing of this report should be accompanied by a joint resolution on which the members of each House should have an opportunity to conduct a debate and take a vote. Only by this means will the American people and Congress be able to explore the issues involved in the committee report and the previous report of the President, as these issues relate to pending legislative action by various congressional committees. In short, as over against the final Senate bill the CIO favors the passage of the original Murray-Patman bill as reported by the Senate committee following a month of extensive hearings. Mr. CHURCH. Pardon me for interrupting you there, but I think this is important. I notice when you read that you said "as reported by the Senate committee," and as a matter of fact, I think it should be "as reported by the Senate subcommittee." Mr. CowAN. Did I say "committee" instead of "subcommittee"? Mr. CHURCH. That is the way I understood it. The CHAIRMAN. I believe that is right. Mr. CowAN. Let me repeat that. In short, as over against the final Senate bill the CIO favors the passage of the original Murray-Patman bill as reported by the Senate subcommittee following a month of extensive hearings. We commend the more than 100 Members of the House of Representatives who are pledged to seek the passage of this constructive legislation. Mr. RICH. If I may interrupt again, your trend of thought. Mr. RICH. Are those 100 members reported? Mr. CowAN. I believe they are reported, 120 or something like that. Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Patman can answer that, they meet once a week, as I understand it. Mr. RICH. I just wanted to know who they were. The CHAIRMAN. There was a statement placed in the record giving the names of about 115. You may proceed, Mr. Cowan. Mr. CowAN. In praising this bill, however, I do not wish to do so without stating what the CIO considers shortcomings even in the original Murray-Patman bill. We feel that the approach of the authors of this bill is too narrow. There does not seem to us to be sufficient emphasis upon the advisory role of labor, industry, and agriculture in the attainment and maintenance of full production and full employment. The authors, in deference to what they seem to consider the prevailing sentiment in Congress, have written into the bill emphasis on Federal supplementation to offset a deficiency of employment. They presuppose that private industry will be unable to provide the basis for full employment. And they are probably right, if we proceed down the road we have taken since VE-day. To convert the United States economy to peace is as big a job as the war. The time has come for all Americans to realize that. Right now there is no sign of such realization. Judge Vinson caught a glimpse of it when he, as Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion, in his July 1, 1945, report, then said: In 1939, our national output hit its highest peacetime level, higher than in 1929, higher than in any previous year in our history-$89,000,000,000. Five years later that record figure was dwarfed by a new record output of $200.000,000,000 succeeded in piling our new wartime economy on top of a peacetime economy; in achieving feats of production no one believed possible. In so doing, we opened a totally new vista of what the future can hold as far as our national economy is concerned it would be disastrous to go back. for we would be going back to the misery of mass unemployment. After the war, the American economy must be dynamic, with expanding business, expanding markets, expanding employment, and opportunity. The American people are in the pleasant predicament of having to learn to live 50 percent better than they have ever lived before. Only the defeatist can scoff at this inescapable fact that we must build our economy on that basis. This expansion must be brought about by positive policies on the part of business, agriculture, labor, and local, State, and Federal Governments. But we have seen no major program emerge from the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion for setting the United States on the path to such an economy. Instead, there is a widespread effort in Congress, in the administration, in the press, and in industry to imitate the lazy housekeeper-to sweep the dust under the sofa. After this war, as after the last, the ancient cry is "Back to normalcy." On this week's edition of the United States News, for example says: Dominant White House and Congress urge is to get back to “normalcy," to lease everybody, to hope that everything will work out for the best. To try to make everybody happy in this postwar period * ** * There can be no movement "back to normaley." Normaley for 1939 meant at least 8,500,000 unemployed. In 1940 more than one-third of the Nation's families had incomes of less than $1,000 per year. Another 10,000,000 families had annual incomes of only $1.000 to $2,000 per year. Thus less than one-third of all American families had sufficient incomes to provide a mass market for any quantity of the consumer durable goods for which the United States is famous. Most American families were below an American standard of health and decency. Since 1939 our productivity has increased greatly, and so has the number coming of employable age. Back in 1943 the Department of Commerce pointed out that in 1916 we could produce the same amount of goods that we produced in 1940 and still have 19,000,000 workers unemployed. |