I cannot finish my answer without remarking that in the case of President Hoover and President Roosevelt both, there was not in existence at that time any orderly method of bringing the entire picture to the Executive nor any orderly method of presenting that entire picture to the Congress.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I have no disposition to continue my questions except to say that the purpose of asking the questions was to show that President Hoover and President Roosevelt had exactly the facilities that are provided in this bill, and that was not enough, in my judgment.

Mr. VOORHIS. I agree with you. But they were not required to make a coordinated report to Congress, nor was there at that time any statement to the effect that the Congress should take orderly action in regard to it.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will say, finally, that I think it is a mistake to require of the President in 1947, or each President, as far as that is concerned, upon the convening of Congress, to submit such a report or budget, because, frankly, it would not fit in. We would have a new President, and he ought to be permitted to submit it whenever he reaches his conclusion.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Voorhis, you have stated that you realize there is an impression abroad in some minds that this bill somehow does guarantee full employment.

Mr. VOORHIS. I said that I thought there had been representation made that it guaranteed specific employment to individuals.

Mr. JUDD. You think that is unfortunate?

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. JUDD. You think that it would be most unfortunate for people to imagine that it did, and then to find out that it did not?

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. Therefore, is it not advisable for us, without weakening the bill, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, to make an effort to clarify it?

Mr. VOORHIS. I have done it.

Mr. JUDD. Do you think that one of the most potent factors in creating that possible misunderstanding is the very title of it, the "Full Employment Act"? Do you think it might be better to call it, for example, the "Maximum Employment Act," because every witness we have had has said that it will not guarantee full employment.

Mr. VOORHIS. I would not argue too hard on that, Mr. Judd. Mr. JUDD. Do you think perhaps the difficulty comes in the word "assure," and that we should interpret or change the word “assure"? Mr. VOORHIS. To tell you the honest truth, what I really think is that that has been an interpretation put upon it by the enemies of the bill, and I do not know whether you can change the bill enough to avoid that.

Mr. JUDD. Would you object to the changing of the word "assure" to "promote"? A bill to promote employment?

Mr. VOORHIS. I would rather do it in another way, by saying, "to assure a national condition in which it will be possible for men able and ready and willing to work to find employment."

Mr. JUDD. But you recognize that, being human, mistakes might be made which would not accomplish that?

Mr. VOORHIS. Of course.

Mr. JUDD. Do you regard the bill as a moral commitment, a pledge to achieve that end?

Mr. VOORHIS. No, but I regard it as a pledge to do the very best we can in a democracy to reach that goal.

Mr. JUDD. Would you object to such language as this: "It is the policy of the United States to do its utmost to assure the existence at all times," etc.?

Do you think that is a little more honest than to say it is the policy to assure the existence at all times, when we cannot honestly guarantee that? All we can honestly promise is that we are going to do the best we can. Would you object to that change?

Mr. VOORHIS. I do not believe I would. I would not like, in fact, to answer that question categorically right now. I will settle for "our utmost," I will say to the gentleman. All I am afraid of is that we will not do our utmost.

Mr. JUDD. Of course, we could not do more than our utmost, even if we did not say it that way?

Mr. VOORHIS. No.

Mr. JUDD. So, do you not think that this is really being more candid and fair with both the employee, the public, and the taxpayer? Subsection (e) of section 2 provides that—

To the extent that continuing full employment cannot otherwise be achieved, it is the further responsibility of the Federal Government to provide such volume of Federal investment and expenditure as may be needed to assure continuing full employment.

It does not say what may be needed in relation to what we are able to provide; it just says, whatever is needed. All through life do we not have to balance our needs with our capacity or our resources?

Mr. VOORIIIS. That is a deeper question, I think, because on that question you get down to the decision as to whether or not you save money by permitting a depression, which I think is a very real question. Are you going to save money over all in the United States by permitting a downward spiral of depression to take place, or will you save more over the long pull by preventing the depression in the first place?

Mr. JUDD. We all would hope that the second is true. But if we had to borrow until there began to be doubt as to the soundness of our bonds, at that point would we still have to go ahead and borrow, or would there be a tapering off or an adjustment in Government "investment and expenditure"?

Mr. VOORHIS. Of course, if I did not have the very definite view that a great deal of the borrowing for that purpose is unnecessary and is called national debt when it ought not to be called national debt, I might be much more deeply concerned about the gentleman's question than I am. But I do not believe that that is, after all, additional national debt. I think that portion of it where you exceed the flow of actual production is properly debt, but the portion where you merely monetize as purchasing power your potential increase in production ought not to be debt.

Mr. JUDD. I do not want to go into that. You know that the majority of Congress, as at present constituted, does not go along with that theory.

Mr. VOORHIS. I think, because they do not quite grasp the situation.
Mr. JUDD. I have to agree with you on that.

Do you think that the Senate bill, as amended at this point by putting in the consistency clause, is an improvement of the bill or a weakening of it?

Mr. VOORHIS. I do not object to the Senate amendments. I would like very much to have the words "program of taxation" in the Senate bill, on page 5, changed to read "a monetary and fiscal program." That would include taxation, but it is broader language than just taxation. I do not think you can consider taxation by itself. I think you have got to consider it in connection with the whole field of monetary and fiscal policy.

Mr. JUDD. You mean line 9, page 5?

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. Strike out "program taxation" and put in "monetary and fiscal program"?

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes. But the rest of the language, with that change, I do not object to.

Mr. JUDD. Do you not think that if we made such a change it would greatly assist in avoiding any misunderstanding, either by the opponenets or the advocates of the bill, as to what it actually does? Mr. VOORHIS. I think it might.

Mr. JUDD. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Voorhis, I am very desirous of doing everything I can during my term of office to promote full employment. I was in hopes that we could have some legislation that would be drawn in such form that I could support it. There have been two charges leveled against this bill which impress me and bother me. The Congressman from Minnesota, Mr. Judd, has touched on one. the charges leveled against this bill is that it should not be called the Full Employment Act, because it does mislead people into the belief that the mere passage of this bill will create full-time employment to everyone seeking a job. That is not true.

One of

Would you have any objection if the title of this bill were changed to something like "The Federal Economic Planning Act"? Mr. VOORHIS. I do not think it ought to be changed to that. Mr. HENRY. What would you suggest?

Mr. VOORHIS. I do not think it is important to change the title of the bill. I think the important thing is to try to do an educational job as to what the substance of the bill really provides for. I do not think we can avoid that in any event.

Mr. HENRY. For my own part, I cannot support any legislation that deceives the public into believing that it does something that it does not do.

Mr. VOORHIS. Of course you cannot. Neither can anybody else. But I do not believe that this legislation does deceive the public. If I did, I would not be for it. I do not think it does. If the gentleman has some suggestions for the title of the bill I would be glad to consider them, especially if they were a condition of getting the rest of the bill passed. I would not object to what the title was. As the gentleman knows, the title of a bill does not have the force of law; and I could name him instance after instance where we have passed legislation with titles which were farther from the mark than this. I am not altogether certain of this, but it is my impression that

the bills we have passed to raise the debt limit have carried a title with the clause in it "to preserve the credit of the United States." Mr. HENRY. And I think that was wrong.

Mr. VOORHIS. It probably was. But I just cite that as an example. I do not think you can stop people calling this the full employment bill no matter what the title is.

Mr. HENRY. Do you not think that the very title is what has led them to believe that it provides full employment?

Mr. VOORHIS. I think we have got to have a policy of maintaining full employment.

Mr. HENRY. So do I.

Mr. VOORHIS. And I think we can. I do not think it can work without a certain amount of friction in a democracy. I do not think you can possibly set up a system, nor do I think that the working men. would want us to set up a system, where we arranged things so that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the country was entitled to useful, remunerative, full-time employment every hour of the day, every day of the week, and every month of the year. What we really mean is an opportunity for people to make a living. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. HENRY. Another point which bothers me is paragraph (e), on page 3, which I interpret to mean an absolute promise on the part of the Federal Government to provide Federal investment and expenditures in an unlimited amount. There is no limit placed upon the obligation of the Federal Government whatsoever in that paragraph, as I understand it.

Mr. VOORHIS. Excepting the limitation that the bill elsewhere carries the provision that Congress shall take action in other fields. besides this.

Mr. HENRY. Is this paragraph not a pledge on the part of the Federal Government?

Mr. VOORHIS. It might come pretty close to that. But certainly the pledge is given on the assumption that you will have a field in other directions. But I do not think you need it in other directions. Mr. HENRY. But in the case where private initiative fails to provide full employment, that is when the Government has to step in? Mr. VOORHIS. I will tell you what I would agree to. I would certainly agree to putting in there the words "to provide such volume of Federal investment and expenditure or to take such other measures as may be needed." I would certainly agree to that.

Mr. HENRY. Referring to the comparable section in S. 380, will you tell me whether you like that wording better?

Mr. VOORHIS. In what section is that?

Mr. RESA. It is on page 4.

Mr. VOORHIS. The Senate bill approaches it from a little different point of view. It approaches it a little bit more in accordance with the suggestion which I just made, although they use more words about it.

Mr. HENRY. You think the Senate version is a little bit more honest?

Mr. VOORHIS. I had said before that I had no objections to the Senate amendments. I do not.

Mr. HENRY. That is all.

Mr. RESA. I have no questions.

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

CLINTON P. ANDERSON

Secretary ANDERSON. At the very beginning of my statement, let me make it clear that I endorsed the purposes and principle of the proposed Full Employment Act of 1945. This bill is of vital and farreaching significance to all segments of our economy, including agriculture. The future of our democratic form of government may depend in large measure on our ability to maintain full employment. The right to a job, which this bill proposes to make a basic policy of our Government, is as important to the preservation and sound functioning of democracy as are the time-honored rights of free speech, a free press, and freedom of religion.

If we are to have full employment, as I believe we must have, the Federal Government will have to assume the responsibility for maintaining it. This bill, S. 380, recognizes this fact. There is no one segment of our economy which can provide the necessary guaranties. Yet all of us, farmers, businessmen, laborers-producers and consumers alike can together, through the instrumentality of our democratic government, assure the maintenance of full production and, hence, full employment.

Every reasonable encouragement must be given to private enterprise to produce as many goods and services, and employ as many workers, as possible. Moreover, much can be done that has not been done in the past to encourage private initiative and business activity. The proposed legislation recognizes this, and puts the responsibility on the President and the Congress to review the general economic situation at least once each year, and to take steps necessary to encourage private enterprise to operate at such levels of production as to assure full employment of the working force. Only if private enterprise is unable to maintain full employment, will the Government step into the picture with investment and expenditure programs necessary to do the job. The assurance that Government is committed to a policy of maintaining full employment, within the framework of our free enterprise system, is one of the greatest encouragements that Government can give to individual producers. They will know that with a fully employed labor force there will be a market for their particular products.

The bill provides for a straightforward, businesslike way of approaching the problem: It requires the President to set before Congress each year a national production and employment budget. This budget will indicate, on one hand, the estimated volume of goods and services that will be produced in the ensuing year if the labor force is fully employed; and, on the other hand, the total volume of expenditures necessary to provide market outlets for this full-employment volume of production. If the prospective expenditures are not great enough to afford outlets for the full employment volume of production-in other words, if there is a deficit in the production and employment budget-the President is required to recommend a general program for encouraging private investment and expenditure. In the event that the total volume of private investment and expenditure, together with the expenditure of State and local governments, is not likely to be great enough to provide outlets for the total volume of goods and services which a fully employed labor force will produce,