were there. It was in that environment, in that atmosphere, that they voted, and they knew that when they walked in, the management were there and they knew how the management wanted them to vote. Every vote was a vote of fear and coercion. We hold that it was no election. It was not held under the supervision of the National Labor Relations Board. It was held under the ruling of Richberg and Johnson-minority ruling. Labor could get nothing out of it, no matter what the result of the election was. Labor could get nothing out of it. The Government is paying the expenses of that Board. As I understand it, it is costing the Government hundreds of thousands of dollars. Labor has repudiated it. It cannot function. It is not functioning. It never will function. Why finance a board that cannot function?

Mr. GREEN. The strange thing about it, Mr. Congressman, is that the automobile manufacturers praise that Board, praise it, and I wonder how you will look upon a board that they would praise.

They praise it, but the rubber manufacturers and the steel manufacturers denounce the Labor Relations Board. The thing about it is that the automobile industry got a board that they love, and that they want, and they are going to try to keep it, but they can't put it over on labor, and we won't have it.

Mr. LESINSKI. An analysis in the newspapers which was given out by the manufacturers some time ago stated that the A. F. of L. had less than 5 percent of the total number of employees in the automotive industry. Have you seen that, Mr. Green?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Mr. LESINSKI. And, Mr. Knutsen stated that over 40,000 people are employed in his industry who are over 40 years of age. Have you verified that statement or made any effort to verify it?

Mr. GREEN. I have examined the report of the impartial tribunal, the Henderson committee, that indicted the automobile industry. I accept their statement rather than the statement of a person like Mr. Knutsen.

Mr. LESINSKI. Right in that connection, I want to give you my opinion of the Henderson committee.

When I walked into the building where the hearings were being held, Mr. Henderson laid down rules, and they were very stringent, and I thought right at that moment, "Now, here is going to be an investigation that is nothing but a whitewash ", and Mr. Henderson did lay down some harsh rules. He would not allow any one to tell about section 7 (a), excepting to tell his own story, as it related to him. That is all he allowed, and yet, when the report came out, it was more wonderful than I ever expected to come out of that committee. In other words, that board was impartial.

Mr. GREEN. Oh, they found the facts, and they made known the facts, and their conclusions are based on facts.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schneider,

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I take it from President Green's testimony that section 7 (a), as at present interpreted, is absolutely of no benefit to labor in the National Recovery Administration. Now, in case that the Connery-Wagner Act is not enacted, or some similar legislation, should or should not the National Recovery Act, in your estimation, be repealed?

Mr. GREEN. No; I would not go so far as to say that, Congressman. I think that would play too much into the hands of the powerful employers of the country, for, even though section 7 (a) has failed along the lines that I have stated here this morning, nevertheless, there is a moral benefit to it, and, perhaps, we will find that when the circuit court of appeals, say, for instance, in Cincinnati, passes upon the application of the rubber manufacturers for a permanent injunction to restrain the National Labor Board from holding an election, that section 7 (a) might be given a new meaning. We are hoping that even the Supreme Court of the United States will interpret section 7 (a) much differently than this judge, Judge Neal, over in Delaware. We can't believe that that decision will stand. So that, it may be that when important judicial decisions are rendered that section 7 (a) will be made more real and more vital. We are hoping that it will, and if it is why, we will be benefited if it is continued as part of the National Recovery Act. Mr. SCHNEIDER. But, if it is not interpreted beneficially to fair play for labor, and it continues to be administered as in the automotive industry, wherein the employer employs an army of spies and uses ruthless and coercive methods to intimidate labor into slavery, and as the absolute dictator, where all of the conditions of the industry, then, of course, labor cannot have any hope of getting anything, nor can the public, out of the National Recovery Act.

Mr. GREEN. Well, so far as collective bargaining is concerned, no, but there are still some beneficial features in the National Recovery Act, such as the abolition of child labor, minimum rates of pay, and maximum hours. Those are benefits that I think should be continued.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, child labor is not a considerable factor in the automobile industry.

Mr. GREEN. No; but it is generally throughout the Nation.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Generally?

Mr. GREEN. I think, of course, that is a great achievement, abolition of child labor, as we have brought it about under the National Recovery Act, and there are those benefits that we must keep constantly in mind, and the minimum rates of pay established under these industrial codes and fair practices have benefited millions of poor, submerged, underpaid workers that nobody could help. That has done that much for those people.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. But, do you not find it very difficult to reopen these codes at the present time?

Mr. GREEN. Terribly difficult.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The minimum is established and the maximum is coming down and wages are being brought down, and there has been a reduction in wages in many of these industries. Now, unless labor can enforce the reopening of these codes and increase these minimums so that they will be increased in accordance with the increased cost of living, labor is going to be enslaved until, and unless they have collective bargaining, and we are finally going to get down to a flat minimum wage applying to all of the workers in industry. That, certainly, is not going to be conducive to an orderly and peaceful condition in industry.

Mr. GREEN. No.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. However, the codes, to a certain extent, do hold the worker on the job and prevent him from his right of joining unions and collective bargaining. Here in the automobile industry is a monstrous bureaucracy built up that is absolutely in control of those who control the industry, who dictate the prices of the products the consumer buys; they set those prices, and they also set the prices of wages, they dictate the wages. It is machinery that smacks of Fascism.

Mr. GREEN. Congressman, my attitude towards the National Recovery Act is this, that the whole measure should be carefully examined, and that which is good should be retained, and that which is bad should be eliminated, and that the administration of the National Recovery Act should be improved so as to meet modern requirements. Our complaint is largely because of the administration. For instance, when the automobile code expired, we appealed for a public hearing so that we could present our recommendations for changes and improvements, but the Automobile Code was renewed without any public hearing. We complained to them bitterly, we complained about that bitterly, and that is true of most all of the industrial codes of fair practices, except in those industries where the workers are organized and are strong enough to make a deep impression.

However, these evils, to which you call my attention, exist, and they must be corrected, but the good features of the act I think should be retained.

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentlemen will yield right there, I have a perfect example of what you said. A hearing on the Boot and Shoe Code was announced after they put up a fight and holler. The mayors from New England towns came up here, and went down to the hearing, and we all went down and voiced our protests at the terrible conditions in the shoe industry, and they decided to open the code up again, and then the code authorities, those from the employers, refused to open the code up again.

In other words, they are bigger than the N. R. A. itself. They had a meeting yesterday or the day before yesterday, that is, the N. R. A. had a meeting, to decide whether or not they would open the code, and they did not decide anything. I am now waiting to see what they do, and then I am going to protest directly to the President if they do not open the code.

In that connection, we reported a bill out of this committee last week, the Connery bill for equal labor representation on all Government boards and codes having to do with the betterment of the workers, and if we do not get any action on that bill, and that bill has been reported favorably by this committee to Congress-if we do not get any action on this bill, then when the Ways and Means Committee brings in the N. R. A., I will offer the provisions of this bill as an amendment to the N. R. A. to provide for equal labor representation on the code authorities.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. How long have you been trying to get that code reopened?

The CHAIRMAN. Over a year. Mr. Dunn, of Mississippi.

Mr. DUNN. Fundamentally, Mr. Green, the A. F. of L. is not opposed to the N. R. A. basically?

Mr. GREEN. No.

Mr. DUNN. But simply to the administrative clauses in it? Mr. GREEN. We complain about the errors in administration, and we complain bitterly because labor has not been accorded its place in the administration of the National Recovery Act. We insist that labor be represented upon administrative boards and upon Code Authorities. If we were on that code authority we probably would be able to do something.

The CHAIRMAN. We would try to do something anyway.

Mr. GREEN. But it has kept us out of the picture in that respect. We are in accord with the fundamental provisions of the National Recovery Act.

Mr. DUNN. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I want to direct this statement to you: I hope you hurry this bill through, myself. I hope that we can get through with it just as quick as possible and get it into executive session and get it out of here, get it reported out favorably.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We expect to conclude our hearings a week from Friday. The reason for that is that Miss Perkins could not come in until a week from Friday. Mr. Emery will be in a week from Thursday. Miss Perkins will close the hearings on Friday of next week. Then, whatever the committee sees fit to do, we will do at that time. Mr. Marcantonio.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. I am in favor of this bill, and I believe practically every member of this committee is. However, as a practical proposition, Mr. Green, you are undoubtedly familiar with the conditions that exist on various Government projects that are being operated in this country. I understand on some of these Government projects that the workers owed the commissary money at the end of the month, rather than having any money coming to them. What good are these laws going to be to labor in general if you are going to have the Government competing with private employers at rates of wages which are practically reducing the American worker to the status of a coolie? What is the attitude of labor on the Government projects, and what is labor going to do to see to it that the hundreds of thousands of workers who are being enslaved on these various Government projects are protected? What protection are those workers going to get?

Mr. GREEN. Congressman, we have that very situation in mind. First of all, we want to make it possible for these workers to organize, and then, if necessary, bargain collectively with a representative of the Government.

Now, that is the first thing. At the present time they are working as individuals. They can only be heard as individuals, and I know that there are a great many wrongs existing in these Government situations and on these Government projects that ought to be righted. Now, consequently, that was just exactly what we had in mind when we made our fight here last week or ten days ago for the prevailing rate of pay in the Public Works relief bill.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Pardon me right there, Mr. Green. Do you believe if the Russell amendment, which was adopted, cures the evil of which organized labor complains, or do you think that the Russell amendment was just camouflage?

Mr. GREEN. That means nothing to us, and that is the reason we opposed it. It still provides that the rates of pay for all of these

millions of workers who may be employed, outside of a small percentage on building construction, where permanent buildings are erected for the departments of the Government, will be paid the rates of pay fixed, irrevocably fixed by someone.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no break-down in the bill at all in reference to trades, and there is no allocation given in that bill in reference to any appropriation for building, so that the amendment means nothing.

Mr. GREEN. Only permanent buildings erected by departments of the Government, and then the Bacon-Davis Act will apply to those buildings, to building construction carried on by other activities, emergency boards, and organization of the Government, and cities, towns, villages, and communities throughout the land will be subject to security wage, whatever that might mean.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I was on the committee 3 or 4 years ago when we were holding hearings, and at that time Mr. Green's organization presented affidavits here before the committee, I think some six or seven of them, and there was an affidavit from one of the Government employees who worked for $1.20 an hour on public works, and at the end of 10 days he owed the contractor $1.75.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I migh suggest to him further that today with the Davis-Bacon Act and the prevailing wage features of it on Government buidlings, as long as we have our present system of subcontractors, they will do as they have done.

For example, when they were building the veterans' hospital at Marion, they were paying some of the workers 75 cents an hour when the prevailing rate for that work was $1.20 an hour. Painters were doing work for as low as 40 cents an hour. They will continue to do it just as long as you do not do something to cure that.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. In that connection, on the Mount Carey project now there is no labor on the project that does not owe the commissary money at the end of the month. My point is even if labor does attempt to bargain collectively on these Government projects, the point is even if we pass the $4,000,000 bill, giving the President authority, some person whom he delegates with authority to fix a wage, fixes that wage, and that wage is fixed by law and has the sanctity of law.

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will yield there, I may say this: That we had up what is known as the "Metcalf-Connery bill ", which covered all public works of the Government. It was vetoed by President Hoover, but it passed the House and the Senate. The next step finally was that some of the building trades said they did not want a predetermined rate of wage, that they were afraid of it, and afraid of its consequences. As a result of that the bill was vetoed. Now, we might suggest to the Federation that we might try something on that line, or something akin to it. The defeat of the McCarran amendment and the measure which I offered in the House, and which Mr. Wood took care of in the late hours, and the citizenship preference, and all of that, will handicap us greatly in getting any measure like that through the House, for the reason that they will say we defeated that in the McCarran amendment, but I was going to say, Mr. Green, that it might be a good idea if the Federa