Mr. CAREY. Labor is insisting. Mr. CRAMER. You sure aren't getting very far. Mr. CAREY. But I cannot understand, Congressman, why you are reluctant to give the President the additional powers and the additional tools, if you criticize our President because he is reluctant to use those he already possesses. Mr. CRAMER. That Congress has already given him. Yes. Mr. CAREY. That is right. We do have to have a balance in this proposition if what you term "fiscal responsibilty" is to be brought into the area of Federal expenditures. Mr. CRAMER. So what is the answer? Should we appropriate more money, instead of using money already appropriated? Mr. CAREY. No, sir. I think that the President ought to be more responsive to the insistent demands that labor makes upon him, just as I think you and other Members of Congress should too; but you understand we have only persuasive powers, so we ask you and the other members of this committee to join in anticipating the needs of the people of this country, and we also ask that you give a sharp look to the immediate needs. I am not suggesting and that is why I criticized the administration bill, about the triggering mechanism. The administration recommendation was not as good as the bill proposed by Congressman Blatnik in that regard. Mr. CRAMER. All the President has to do if he wants to trigger additional spending in any public works field now authorized by Congress is to present a message to Congress saying, "We have a serious unemployment problem and need more money in housing, and the areas you mentioned, in hospitals, in home construction, in public facilities and community facilities, and loans to community facilities that we are planning, and we need more money in public works on the Federal level for post offices and public buildings. We have an emergency situation. Give us more money." And he would get it. But this authority he is asking for now is saying, "We want this power to spend on the executive level rather than coming to Congress to get it." There is a difference there, and a difference of opinion. Mr. CAREY. Congressman, we found that the President was in complete agreement with statement you just made, and I don't doubt that he will provide recommendations, and I do hope he gets that kind of encouragement and the bills get enacted, and I will say that the immediate enactment or recommendation of this committee to the Congress would be an encouragement in that direction. We think we need to have an immediate public works program. It is in the interests of the future of our country. It is not just a question to be batted around by people who hold somebody else responsible. I would contend, sir, that we all have a responsibility, and I do have confidence that the President recognizes the urgent need of the people of this country, especially in the area of that problem of unemploy ment. I do think that together a better job can be done than was done in the past. Congress has enacted legislation in the past. In 1947, the Full Employment Act. If that were put into effect and actually implemented and applied as a team in this Government, it represents the concepts we have in mind when we support the principles contained in these two pieces of legislation. Mr. CRAMER. I do not have any objection at all, I might say to you, Mr. Carey, to having standby inventories ready to be put to work immediately on the request of the President, to trigger them immediately on some formula-the soundest formula we can find—to show and to indicate that there is unemployment. However, when it comes to deciding who is going to put the money into it, and how much money, and in what areas, the President should recommend to the Congress we should appropriate the money and make the final decision, and we will do so expeditiously. There is the difference between the two. Mr. MCVEY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. McVEY. Mr. Carey, you said that you felt everybody had a responsibility here. Personally I do not feel many labor leaders are meeting this responsibility. I mean, it seems to me that there should be an attack on the direct cause of these unemployment periods. I don't think that this bill, whether we pass it or not, that this public action alone is going to solve this problem. To be specific, I do not think we can continue in the face of our foreign competition to have labor in this country simply strike for more wages and shorter hours. It seems to me there should be some give and take. Would you like to comment on that? Mr. CAREY. Yes, Congressman. I would like to join you in your criticism of the labor movement in this country. We have not been aggressive enough. We have allowed our production to outstrip our ability to buy back the goods we can produce in such abundance. I don't think the labor movement has been militant enough. It has permitted practices in industry that are harmful to our economy; and I must say in my own industry itself, despite our best efforts we had our biggest companies conspiring against the Government and actually engaging in violations of the law, and finally, after considerable effort on my part personally, and on the part of others, we called them to terms to try to make them fully understand the harm they were doing. You mentioned foreign competition. Well, we can produce the turbogenerators in this country at far less than the price that these companies in their conspiracies charge the U.S. Government. It is a shocking thing that it took 10 years of effort to try to get that practice abandoned that has stifled our growth as a Nation and reduced our ability to defend ourselves, and has resulted in a great, broad unemployment. Our economy is not growing fast enough, and the labor movement has a responsibility to see to it that we insist to our Representatives and to our Congress and to other public officials that more be done to meet the urgent needs of these people. Sir, I won't go along with you in the idea that perhaps you may entertain a notion that high wages are bad for our economy. I don't agree. I know that we have the most productive people in the world in our plants. Mr. McVEY. But you are already sitting here telling us there are a lot of people unemployed in spite of that, and I say that there are other causes than one or two companies conspiring against the Govern ment. What about members of your union who might strike on a missile base? Isn't that a conspiracy against the Government? Mr. CAREY. No, sir, you picked the wrong witness, because I happen to be the president of a union that has people working on the missile bases, and not a single solitary member of our organization has been involved in a strike on a missile base. Now, sir, is that not a correct statement? Mr. McVEY. Well, I presume so, and I will answer that statement, but just the same, people have struck on missile bases. Mr. CAREY. Don't you think that is a perfect record, Congressman? Mr. McVEY. And all I am trying to say is, there is an equal responsibility on behalf of labor as well as business or management, if you wish to call it that, with the Congress. I think it is an equal responsibility. I think there is more than one way to get at it. You talk here about some of the legitimate objections to this bill. I notice you fail to mention the biggest objection, which is patronage. Don't you know that if a President starts a public works project within 6 months of election the chances are he is going to pick up a lot of votes, and therefore any President is going to have a tendency at least to strengthen his political position through public works? Don't you consider that an objection? Mr. CAREY. I consider anything that is done for the good of the people of this Nation, and its future, deserves votes. I do believe that, as I did mention in my testimony, there are criticisms of public works programs. Sometimes they are criticized because they are hard to get started, but once they do get started they are hard to stop, and I contended that is a legitimate criticism; but I also went on to assure you that the program as set forth in this legislation is a program that should be engaged immediately, or upon a triggering mechanism that is sound, and a formula that should be contained in legislation to guide the President and to guide the rest of the people in its operation. I am not against people voting for Congressmen who are aware of the needs of the people, or our President, and I think in this legislation here now pending that there are a lot of votes. Mr. MCVEY. But are you then in support of the President's controlling the people through patronage, or the placement of jobs? Mr. CAREY. Sir, I control one vote-my own-and I attempt to deal on the basis of the issues before us. I am subject to election too, and I have been elected and reelected to office in the union representing people, and I like to suggest that as we render service and as we are right in our approach to these questions we will gain support; and if we are wrong then we ought to be removed, or at least not reelected. I think there is good in this for everybody, especially those that vigorously support the legislation; but I am not standing on a soapbox denouncing my Government, or my President, or anyone else, but I am just attempting to strengthen the economy of the United States in a very chaotic world. I do think these things ought to be measured on the basis of, are they good for the people of America, and if so then the question of patronage does not come into the picture as directly as that. Mr. McVEY. Sir, in your statement today you say you are here representing 6 million industrial workers and their families. If you can control them that is certainly a potent political force. Mr. CAREY. I promise you, sir, I make no effort to try to control them. I make efforts to try to inform them, and if you come out as a champion of the things that are needed by the people of this country, your report card ought to be reviewed by your constituents, just as mine is. Congressman Cramer and I debated this issue. Mr. CRAMER. And mine was reviewed too. Right thereafter. Mr. CAREY. Congressman, I never realized that we had so many strong supporters among your constituents except as to see them. And I appreciate the fact that you and I discussed a different point of view right before your constitutents. I think it has added immeasurably to both of us. Mr. CRAMER. It helped me. Mr. DOOLEY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLATNIK. If the gentleman is through we will recognize you. Mr. Dooley. Mr. CAREY. Congressman, you have to understand that is a very nice thing Congressman Cramer just said-that we helped him. If I was of any help to Congressman Cramer, it was strictly unintentional. Mr. DOOLEY. A very knowledgeable witness testified previously, a few days ago, and indicated that historically a program such as this may serve as a retarding influence because the communities which have programs all arranged and planned hold them up until they get Government subsidies, and sometimes they are not the subsidies they are looking for. Do you have any comment on that viewpoint? Mr. CAREY. I just know that is not true. Mr. DOOLEY. It is not true? Mr. CAREY. That is correct. I think that the help they get from the Federal Government through the enactment of this legislation will be an encouragement, and it will give new life to some communities. I don't know of a single businessman that would object to increased opportunities on the part of business, and I must admit that although I am a labor leader, as Mr. McVey certainly knows, my father was the secretary of a chamber of commerce, and he was also paymaster of the Philadelphia Mint prior to that. He thought it would be good for the community in which he lived to have an expansion of activity. He was in favor of measures of social improvement, and so forth, and he has made, in my opinion, a good contribution, to my way of thinking. Mr. DOOLEY. We all think the objective is fine, but the approach and method of attaining that objective is what I am thinking of, and what may be the best way to do it. Mr. CAREY. Sir, we would consider any better way. I lend my support to this wholeheartedly, and without reservation. Mr. DOOLEY. I commend you on your statement. I think it is very forceful and logical and well thought out. Mr. CAREY. I don't see how anybody can be opposed to it, frankly. Mr. BLATNIK. Are there any questions on my right? Mr. EDMONDSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I had another committee hearing that prevented my being here and hearing Mr. Carey's testimony, but I have had his statement and it is a splendid statement, I think. 83015-62- -36 I would like to commend him for leadership that his union has shown in this matter of getting continuous production at the missile bases. I think you have had a remarkable record on the bases, from my own information about it, if that is accurate, and you are deserving of a great deal of personal credit for it. Mr. SCHERER. Do you agree with what he said about highways, in view of the record of this committee? Mr. EDMONDSON. I haven't read that particular point. What is the statement on highways you disagree with? Mr. SCHERER. We have discussed that already this morning at great length. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I agree with Mr. Carey in his statement about the highway program. I think I have pointed out the minute this program is finished they are going to start on a new program. We will have to in order to take care of the increasing traffic on our highways. Mr. SCHERER. Nobody will disagree with that. Mr. CLARK. I think everyone here will agree that in the next 10 years we are going to need at least four interstate highways running north and south in this great country of ours, and we are going to have at least two running east and west to take care of the traffic of this country. Personally I don't see a thing wrong with the statement about the highway construction program, but as just pointed out, the fact is that this is going to be an ever-increasing traffic problem in the United States, and we are going to have to do something about it continuously. Mr. SCHERER. I agree with you. Mr. EDMONDSON. Since the gentleman from Ohio addressed his question to me, I have had the opportunity to read the one sentence in the statement which deals with roads. I certainly concur wholeheartedly with the statement concerning roads. I think we are behind in our roadbuilding program and I do not think there is anything that was ever developed in this committee that said otherwise. I am amazed at the question in view of the statesmanship of my friend from Ohio. Mr. DOOLEY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDMONDSON. Yes. Mr. DOOLEY. I think the beneficent effect on our highways is not evident around cities like Los Angeles and Washington, Mr. Carey, and I agree with you that there is a need for more of it there. By the time they are built they are overcrowded. I noticed that in California and in Washington, as I have seen it, and there are long distances when you take trips across the country. Mr. BLATNIK. If there are no further questions Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, one further question. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Edmondson. Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like to say a word of personal appreciation of the witness this morning. There has been a lot of talk and comment by commentators and others about the problem of bad influences in the labor union movement. I think the gentleman before us here today is a man who personally has done more to establish the high level of leadership and responsibility in the labor union movement than any other man I know about, and I think he is a man who |