페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

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 §. 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.

It is obvious, if we propose to utilize these people, our basic program must be expanded and liberalized. There is, at the outset, the natural and expected expansion of established industries. Inquiry reveals a large volume of such expansion planned, not only by plants, but by railroads and public utilities. Some already has begun. There is the utilization of war plants as another market for jobs. But where there is one example, as at Willow Run, there are many other plants still idle and without prospects. It is going to take some enterprise and ingenuity and daring to utilize these plants if we are to get full employment. Many cities are putting on campaigns to attract industry. In Massachusetts, Joseph P. Kennedy, one-time SEC chairman, is crusading up and down the State in behalf of getting new industries. But, if the unemployed are to be absorbed, such campaigns must create new industries, not just move old ones from here to there. It is a big job of readjustment, readjustment of ideas, readjustment of the whole approach in industry and labor. It won't be done by just hoping that everything will come out all right. Here and there some forward-looking people in industry and labor are conscious of the problem. But it will take more interest by more people. The old formulas won't work here. We have set ourselves a new goal. The CHAIRMAN. We have with us this morning our colleague, Hon. Jerry Voorhis, of California, who wants to make a statement on the

full-employment bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY VOORHIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Voorhis?

Mr. Voorhis. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I view this bill, first of all, as a statement of policy on the part of the United States. In the second place it seems to me that it is a general over-all framework of procedure whereby, that policy can be implemented with the final decisions being left obviously to specific congressional enactment in the future in accordance with the wisdom of whatever Congress happens to be serving at that particular time.

The central purpose of the bill, as I see it, is to state that it is the

licy of the Congress to pursue a policy in which there shall be in the K. opportunities for employment for those people who are ready and willing and able to work. I do not believe that we can afford, if we are concerned about the future of our country, to say less than that today.

*re has been a good deal of discussion about whether or not Con

ress should guarantee the right to employment. I have never unerstood the bill to carry any implication that it was guaranteeing to

any individual any right that he could demand in law from anyone, or any guaranty that any individual would have any particular job. If we go back to the Declaration of Independence we will find that in that document there is the statement that there are certain inalienable rights of men. It seems to me that this bill has the same general connotation as those great pronouncements that have been made in the past about what the obvious rights of men were; and in this day and age I think that one of the rights of men is the opportunity to earn a living.

I ould like to point out that as the world is constituted today the American system of life and government and economics finds itself

in the sharpest kind of competition with other systems. . We may well face that fact. We may well realize that ultimately the decision on the part of the peoples of the world as to whether they want to go in the direction .P freedom or whether they want to go in a direction opposite to that, will be determined by whether or not a free system can offer a reasonable enough degree of economic opportunity and security so that the choice will not lie between freedom with insecurity, on the one hand, or submission to governmental dictatorial control, on the other, as the only means of achieving security. . To my mind the central purpose of this bill is to try to take a step, and an important one, as I see it, along the line of establishing in America a system of life and government wherein there can be both freedom and security. I believe that returning servicemen are going: to be pretty pragmatic in their judgments and their attitudes. I believe they are going to judge our work largely by what actually happens to them; not by what we say, but by what their experiences actually turn out to be. Democracy, after all, is the child of hope; and dictatorship is the offspring of despair. By that I mean that democracy only flourishes in its full flower under conditions where the people of the Nation feel that there is hope for a brighter future. This bill does two things: First of all, it declares a policy. It declares it to be the policy of Congress to take such measures as may be necessary to maintain a national condition in which there will be opportunity to develop or find jobs by all who are willing and able to work. It provides for a national budget, which is, first, the best forecast that can be made and, second, the best outline that can be given to the scope of the problem in connection with the general national economic picture. That implies a certain responsibility on the part of Government for employment. By that I do not mean at all a responsibility necessarily for Government to give employment. I mean a responsibility on the part of Government to cooperate with all elements in the Nation in bringing about a condition in which employment will be available and possible. This national budget obviously is not going to be one that will be perfect. It cannot be. Nothing in a democracy is perfect. No probem in a democracy is ever solved perfectly. It will be the best estimate that the President can make in the picture by the forecast of future economic conditions; and thereafter the Joint Committee of Congress provided for in the bill would proceed to a consideration of that budget and to an appropriate consideration of the types of measures that that committee believes ought to be reported to the two Houses, or at least considered by the two Houses, as a means of meeting the situation. I am quite frank to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is my judgment that it is too much to expect that private industry can provide full employment for our people. I do not believe, in o: first place, that private industry is set up to do that kind of a job. In saying that I do not mean that I do not think that all the jobs could be given by private industry, because I think they might well all be given by private industry, and the closer we approximate that situation the better, in my judgment. But what I do mean is that to expect private industry in America to assume a responsibility for employing all the people who

« 이전계속 »