Mr. SCHRAMM. I think that is implicit in the bill, and in the history of the Nation.

Mr. JUDD. Would you object to making it explicit?

Mr. SCHRAMM. If necessary, I wouldn't. I think if you say you will do your utmost, that will be all right. I have said already that I think the Government can do anything.

Mr. JUDD. You don't feel there is any Member of Congress who doesn't want to do his utmost?

Mr. SCHRAMM. I can't believe there is.

Mr. JUDD. Surely, you don't expect us to make a pledge that we can do such and such a thing which is at the moment unpredictable. We don't know what the situation will be. We don't know what our fiscal capacity will be. To do our utmost-yes; I can go that far. I can't say that I will provide, because maybe I won't be able to.

Mr. SCHRAMM. I would be willing to say, myself, that the Government will provide, but if you feel you have to soften it to that minor degree that you will do the best you can, I have confidence that the Congress can and will do what is necessary. So I won't object

on that. I don't think it is necessary, but it is O. K.
Mr. JUDD. We are in a position where we have to deliver.
Mr. SCHRAMM. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. We have to deliver on a promise. You wouldn't object, then, to some such language as that, that we make clear that this bill states for all the world to see that it is this Government's policy to do its utmost to assure continuing employment, and insofar as private industry and non-Federal expenditures are inadequate the Government will do its utmost to provide expenditures and investment to make up the deficit?

Mr. SCHRAMM. I would take your word on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you accept an amendment on page 3, line 11, after the word "expenditure" add the words "within its current revenues"? In other words, section (e) would read:

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

Mr. SCHRAMM. No; I wouldn't.

The CHAIRMAN. You would favor a continuance of deficit spending? Mr. SCHRAMM. If necessary. I do it in my business all the time. I wouldn't hesitate to do it in the Government, if necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, in your business you don't obligate yourself to any indebtedness that would be 10 times over your current revenues, do you ?

Mr. SCHRAMM. No; we haven't so far.

The CHAIRMAN. You couldn't last very long if you did that, could you?

Mr. SCHRAMM. We might be able to.

The CHAIRMAN. You think, in other words, the Federal Government, already owing $265,000,000,000, if we were to spend $30,000,000,000 a year to insure full employment, over and above our normal expenditures for War, Navy, agriculture, veterans, and so forth, we could continue to survive and pay off our war debt?

Mr. SCHRAMM. I don't know, and I wouldn't be willing to say that any specific amount the Government could afford at any given time.

But I believe, when the time comes-if the time comes, and I hope it won't-and I think it is not necessarily upon us, I think this legislation will help prevent it--but if the time came when it was necessary to have further deficit spending by Government, if that were necessary, Congress would be able to decide that a certain amount of deficit spending is desirable and preferable to widespread unemployment. The CHAIRMAN. You do, however, think that business could give more employment if their taxes were reduced, they could make some plant expansion?

Mr. SCHRAMM. I am not sure about that.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you don't think the size of the Federal debt has any effect on business?

Mr. SCHRAMM. Sure it has, but I don't know that a large Federal debt of its own prevents full employment.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Are there any other questions? If not, we thank you very much, Colonel, and the committee stands adjourned until Tuesday at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon at 12: 10 p. m. the committee adjourned to 10 a. m. Tuesday, October 2, 1945.)

FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1945

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1945

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES

IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS,

Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Carter Manasco, chairman, presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We have this morning as a witness Dr. Carleton R. Ball, member of the legislative committee of the Council for Social Action, Congregational Christian Churches. Dr. Ball, will you sit by the reporter, please?

STATEMENT OF DR. CARLETON R. BALL, MEMBER, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL ACTION, CONGREGATIONAL CHRISTIAN CHURCHES

Dr. BALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may I say in preface that I have come through a series of depressions which I have not yet forgotten. I worked my way through college in the depression which occured in the middle nineties, which some of you gentleman may remember. There was a pretty heavy agricultural depression in the 1920's when we could have done some things that we did not do. We all know about the depression from 1929 on. So this thing to me is a really serious personal problem.

Now, for the Council for Social Action of the Congregational Christian Churches, I wish to read what they stated in June 1944 in anticipation of the problems that we have now confronting us [reading]:

We shall work for plans which provide for full employment both in private industry and in socially useful Government projects and reiterate the principle that every person capable of doing so has an obligation to give useful service to society.

Then I wish to read a statement which I prepared with reference to some of the principles lying behind the type of action which you are considering today, some of which principles, it seems to me, have not been fully appreciated yet in America, which is part of our trouble. The statement is headed "The right to employment."

First. There are certain truths fundamental to all social and economic legislation which are not yet generally understood and accepted in America. They must be repeated and emphasized continually in order to counteract much opposition before it can do harm.

79103-45- -16

Second. America is not yet universally agreed that there is a right to employment. We must continue to emphasize that fact until it is generally accepted.

Third. An influential part of our commercial and industrial world still insists that successive booms and depressions, the so-called business cycle, are inevitable. Our Congregational Christian Council for Social Action holds that this belief is an insult to the intelligence of America and an affront to the Christian conscience. We must continue to insist that depressions can be prevented until that belief gains acceptance.

4. Strong opposition still exists to what is loosely called "Government in business," as not being the American way. Let us remember that the founding fathers, still held to be good Americans, wrote into their new Constitution of 1787 the provisions that two business enterprises, the postal service and the highways (post roads) should be governmental and not private enterprises. If the other great monopoly utilities had existed in 1787, it is certain that they also would have been made Government enterprises. Let us teach the facts of American history until our people are informed and cannot be misled by selfish interests.

5. This question of governmental operation is minor to the full employment bill but is being used as a scarecrow by the opponents. 6. Many of the opponents of this and other social and economic legislation object strenuously to economic and social planning in general and governmental planning in particular. Governments, Federal, State, and local, are the creatures and servants of the people, created to serve the interests of all the people. What other agencies can possibly have a greater duty to plan for the general welfare? History shows that our speculative booms and succeeding depressions are the direct results of lack of planning and controls. We must emphasize these facts till all know them.

7. Some are opposed to this bill because it is not perfect, in their opinion. Probably there never has been a piece of perfect legislation. But there must be a start. An imperfect act can be amended but nothing can be done until some act is passed. Senator Hatch emphasized this fact in one of our social-action meetings when he said: “It is possible to insist on perfection and get nothing."

8. The Council of Social Action of the Congregational Christian Churches believes that we should make the start now, that this bill is a good start and should be enacted now, and that depressions, unemployment, and wholesale misery can and must be prevented.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. COCHRAN. You understand, Doctor, that this bill simply lays down a policy?

Dr. BALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. COCHRAN. And it emphasizes that private capital is not to be interfered with in doing the job, but that if it develops later that private capital needs assistance in order to provide employment for those who want to work, then the Government and States, by advance planning, might have a program, if the situation requires, to come in and assist?

Dr. BALL. Yes, sir. That is the point I emphasized-the necessity for planning, that we should be ready when the time comes.

Mr. COCHRAN. You know that in laying down the policy the provisions of the bill are such that the President is requested to submit a budget, and then a joint committee of the Congress is to analyze that budget, and within a certain number of days make a report to Congress. Do you feel that if we had had an act of this character prior to the depression, seeing the depression coming along, we would have had advance planning that would have enabled up to help those that could not secure employment by securing some class of work that would have resulted in lasting improvements and we would not have been required to start the WPA by asking hundreds of thousands of men who were previously classified as white-collar workers to be raking leaves, and so forth?

Dr. BALL. I believe that this bill, or any bill of this type, has two real effects-one psychological and the other actual. If we had had a psychological effect to restore and to maintain confidence we would not have had that other depression, at least on anything like the scale we had. If you maintain confidence you have less need for governmental action or any other kind of official action.

Mr. COCHRAN. As time went along in the last depression and we set up the WPA and the PWA we engaged the unemployed to work on certain projects which proved to be lasting, but at the outset we gave them work, and the type of work was such that the purpose of it, as I understood it at the time, was to make the men feel that they were not on a dole but were actually earning what they received.

Dr. BALL. And rendering useful service. Preventing forest fires, for instance, and soil erosion.

Mr. COCHRAN. The bill as a whole, you say, meets with your approval?

Dr. BALL. I did not get your question.

Mr. COCHRAN. Do you say that the bill as a whole meets with your approval?

Dr. BALL. The bill, in its purposes, and what I think it will do, meets with the approval of our legislative committee and the council. As I said very distinctly here, no legislation is perfect. We do not think this is perfect. Some of us might think it is less perfect than it was when it started. I am not arguing that now. But we do think it is a good start.

Mr. COCHRAN. And you understand fully that it does not provide Federal aid for the operation of plants, factories, and so forth? Dr. BALL. That is my understanding.

Mr. COCHRAN. And you further understand that it does not change the existing procedures in appropriations; that the existing procedures in appropriations are not to be affected by the passage of this legislation?

Dr. BALL. That is my understanding; that this requires special action.

Mr. COCHRAN. And you further understand that it is not an authorization bill other than planning; that if the joint committee makes a recommendation to the Congress that something should be done along a certain line, then the legislative committee must consider that and bring in a bill to authorize an appropriation before an appropriation can be made. You understand that, do you?