Mr. Goss. What I mean is this: Agriculture can never adjust its production so that we have just enough and not too much. If we are going to have abundance, we are going to have surplus. Mr. HOFFMAN. I see. Mr. Goss. And under our system of marketing those surpluses have driven our prices down to ruinous levels, and it may be a surplus of only a very small percent. What I aim to point out is that because we have supported an economy of abundance, that we ought not be penalized for it. I know what you are going to say. You are going to say, "How about killing off pigs?" Mr. HOFFMAN. No, no. I was thinking of that when Wallace was talking the other day, but they wiped it out. Mr. Goss. Our particular organization has not supported that type of agricultural program. We believe in an economy of abundance, but we believe in taking care of that surplus so that it doesn't bust us. Mr. HOFFMAN. I was going to ask you about subsidies right there. Mr. Goss. We are opposed to subsidies. Direct subsidies, we think, are iniquitous from every angle. You opened up a big subject, Mr. Hoffman. Mr. HOFFMAN. I don't want to go along with it. Mr. Goss. When we start on that, I don't know when to stop. One of the gravest dangers of subsidies is, once they start, they are awfully hard to get rid of, and I think that is true of public works; once you start using public works, unnecessarily, it is very easy to keep them going. Mr. HOFFMAN. Did you see the editorial in yesterday's Saturday Evening Post? Mr. Goss. No. Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, the writer there makes this argument, I would like to know what you think about it. He says that when you start a public work it doesn't end the unemployment situation, it merely tides the thing over, and perhaps it leads some of the workers there to be less anxious to get new jobs than they would have been if they hadn't had this temporary employment. Mr. Goss. I tried to point out that there is a grave danger in it, that public works are only justifiable to meet an emergency. Mr. HOFFMAN. And only that. Mr. Goss. And only that. Mr. HOFFMAN. And they are not a cure. Mr. Goss. Unless they are what a healthy economy can afford. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Goss, I am very appreciative of your statement. I think it is helpful and constructive, and I hesitate to ask you questions, because the other members of the committee and I personally feel it is well for the junior members of the committee first to ask the questions rather than the senior members. While you are here, having high regard for your views, I think we ought to develop one side of it and I read your statement before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, and heard your statement this morning. I am bothered about the so-called budget reporting in this bill, and I am bothered about it because my view is that that budget is based upon section 2, which you suggested be eliminated, and that that budget overlooks the primary causes of these periods of depression, economic de pression or economic disturbance, and while I think the President should make reports, I am not altogether sure whether that budget would be helpful. For instance, I have in mind that it requires a report on the people at work, a report on the total amount of private expenditure. I think it is a lot more easy to make a forecast of public expenditures than it is private expenditures, because private expenditures are governed by the market in many, many cases, as both you and I know, being interested in agriculture, so that my view is that this so-called budget is almost impossible if not too restrictive. And I have the further thought that in addition to the advisory committee, that there should be established a permanent committee, say of four or seven members, to advise the President as to economic trends, as to employment, as to the causes of the temporary or permanent dislocations, and that the President would have the benefit of this permarent agency, nonpolitical, to advise him as to the maladjustment, as to the readjustments, public and private, as well as the amount of public works temporarily required; and that that permanent committee would not only be at the service of the President in regard to the formulation of what I would call his report, but would be at the disposition of this joint congressional committee. I would like you to think of that a little further, and if you have any supplementary suggestions, I would like to have them. I think the budget is entirely too restrictive and does not go to the root of the trouble. Mr. Goss. I think if it is too restrictive, it ought to be broadened, because the purpose of the budget is clear. If the set-up is not such that it carries out that purpose, the set-up ought to be changed. Mr. WHITTINGTON. It only has to do with the planning without correcting the cause. That is one of my great objections. Mr. Goss. I would agree with you, Mr. Whittington, that the budget preparation should be such as to get at the causes. Mr. WHITTINGTON. We should have that in mind. Mr. Goss. I would be very much in sympathy with that. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I would like you to think about that, because frankly, that bothers me about this bill. I yield to Mr. Resa for the purpose of questioning. I think you have made a worth-while and constructive suggestion by striking section 2 and making a substitute for it. I think that is along the lines of our evident thinking. I think section 3 ought to be a report of the President, and if you call it budget, it ought to be enlarged so that it includes not only recommendations for spending but to correct the dislocations that causes the necessity for the temporary spending. Mr. Goss. I don't like that word "budget" very well, because I think that gives you a little wrong slant on it. Mr. WHITTINGTON. And then in the fourth place, as I see it now, unless there is a better recommendation, I favor a permanent board or permanent commission, composed of economists, experts, people who represent the people generally, to advise the President and this congressional committee as to the causes, so there will be a correction of the causes of this temporary spending. Mr. Goss. That sounds good, offhand. Mr. WHITTINGTON. You think about it, and if you have any further suggestions, make them. Mr. Goss. I think Congress ought to have its own source of advice under its own control. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I can see your viewpoint, but I don't believe it would be a bad idea for the President to submit his report and the reports of this committee to the Congress so that we can take a look at the reports made to him. In other words, the criticism now is that we have deficit spending because we don't know who is advising the administration about it. Let us come out in the open and let Congress have the benefit of all the information the Executive had when he asked us to make deficit spending. If you have any further suggestions along that line, I would be glad to have them. Mr. RESA. I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goss, in paragraph 16, on page 2 of your statement you say: Our great criticism is that the bill bases its whole program on jobs for workingmen and in its practical application ignores America's largest industry, that of agriculture. What do you think ought to be done for agriculture in a bill of this kind? Mr. Goss. I think that the President ought to include in this so-called budget his recommendations with reference to agriculture as well as to industry and labor. Mr. RESA. What do you think those recommendations ought to be? Mr. Goss. I wouldn't try to define them any more than defining industry and labor. The point is that the bill tells the President to make his recommendations for industry and labor. It doesn't tell him to make it for agriculture. We want him to make it for agriculture, too, because we don't think you can have a sound economy and leave agriculture out. Mr. RESA. Essentially agriculture is engaged in two things is it not-raising food for those who do not raise their own food and producing materials used in manufacturing? Mr. Goss. That is right. Mr. RESA. If all the people in this country who do not raise their own food are fully employed, what other economic circumstance would be necessary for the prosperity of agriculture? Mr. Goss. I think that can be illustrated by what happened in the 1920's Mr. RESA. Pardon me. I have very little time, and I don't care for illustrations. I am asking you for a simple direct statement on what other circumstance would be necessary for the prosperity of agriculture. Mr. Goss. You would need some sort of legislation to take care of surpluses which might exist for one thing. Mr. RESA. What would that be? Mr. Goss. It might be one of eight or a dozen different things, depending upon the commodity in which the surplus existed. Mr. RESA. Don't you think that it is the responsibility of agriculture to gage its operations so that these surpluses which constitute a burden on the governmental machinery and the Treasury of the United States could be avoided? Mr. Goss. I don't think that is possible. We planted exactly the same acreage of potatoes this year as we did last year and we get 70,000,000 more bushels. That 70,000,000 bushels, if we don't have legislative help, could drive the price down to where it would cost. every man who raised potatoes more than he got out of his potatoes. Mr. RESA. What would be the legislative help that you would suggest in that situation? Mr. Goss. In the case of potatoes I think our Marketing Agreements Act should be extended to the case of potatoes, but that wouldn't apply to eggs, it wouldn't apply to some other things. There are various helps that would be dependent Mr. RESA. Specifically what should be done to cure the situation arising in agriculture from the fact that it has produced too many. potatoes? Mr. Goss. I think that we will have to have a Marketing Agreement Act, and we probably would have to have some assistance for taking care of the surplus Mr. RESA. What would be the nature of that assistance? Mr. Goss. I think probably a matter of credit. You are asking a rather concentrated question, when we have got a good many thousand crops that all require different treatment. It is a very complicated question which cannot be answered in just a few words. Mr. RESA. Do you think the Government could adopt a policy of going to the rescue of agriculture in the case of a surplus, by any of the measures which you have in mind, without coming just as close to statism as you suggest it comes by this bill? Mr. Goss. Yes; I think it could be done and keep private enterprise in complete control. Mr. RESA. How would that be done? Mr. Goss. I can't see any approach to statism in the Marketing Agreements Act. I can't see any approach to statism in the equalization fee. I can't see any approach to statism in entering into a commodity wheat agreement with other nations to prevent the market being destroyed for producers of wheat all over the world. Mr. RESA. Then, Mr. Goss, I assume that I am to infer your definition of statism from the fact that you see no statism in the things you have mentioned? Mr. Goss. In the marketing agreements, and so forth? Mr. RESA. That is all. The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee adjourned to Monday, November 5, 1945, at 10 a. m.) FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1945 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1945 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable Carter Manasco, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, before we start; Last week the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hoffman, referred to an article by Thomas L. Stokes, and I was much impressed by what he said. That very evening Mr. Stokes had another article in the Washington News in which he analyzed his finding on his trip from the New England States to Chicago. If there is no objection, I would like to have that article included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it may be so included. (The article referred to and submitted by Mr. Cochran is as follows:) PIECES DON'T FIT (By Thomas L. Stokes) CHICAGO, November 1.-A first-hand check on reconversion and related problems in our major industrial area from New England to this Midwest center offers convincing evidence that this country is up against a major task in fitting the pieces back together if there is to be anything approaching full employment. It is going to take real planning, not only by the Government but by the local community and by the individual business, as well as some original thinking and fresh ideas. For it is not a simple problem. It is complicated by a new concept-the goal of "full employment" which we have set for the first time. That has perhaps a deeper meaning than is realized. Its full significance strikes you when you see the army of unemployed already piling up, recognize the capacities of many of them, look at the jobs available, and consider, additionally, the swelling flood of released war veterans, about 80 percent of whom did not have regular jobs before. In the past, even in times we thought of as highly prosperous, there always was much marginal unemployment. There were people, sometimes in substantial numbers, who did not fit into the existing business and industrial pattern, or did not seek employment. In the war practically everybody who could work was employed. Because we got full employment then, in almost the exact sense of that phrase, we determined to do that in peace. It's not nearly so easy. Many people, of course, have left or will leave the labor market. This includes many women, many older people, and many youngsters. There is no way of telling how many this will be. But it is also indicated that many who might normally be counted as extra, but were drawn into the labor market by the war, are going to stay. This is true among women. It is also true of men over 45, some of whom had been out of work for a long time. Thus far reemployment is getting back into the old pattern in respect to these two groups. They are, in short, being rejected. |