A194 and haul and to confuse the public about the great issues confronting the world, there is little chance for the citizen to participate with any degree of satisfaction or confidence in helping to decide great international questions. All of these problems are of primary importance and they are political. m The reorganization of our conduct of fore eign affairs is only part and parcel, however, of the much larger problem of adapting our whole democratic structure to the increased needs of the time. “We need,” as John Gaus pute it effectively, “a theory of Government functions and one of the classification, re- cruitment, and education of the personnel to administer them that are reflective of the conditions of big democracy.” I have not yet recovered, in fact I am not sure that I ever will, from the shock I received when I recently observed and scrutinized from an unequaled vantage point the whole vast, sprawling edifice of the Federal Government, It takes a man of great hardaihood to look at, Jet alone understand, the budget of the United States with its thousand-odd pages. But the experience of being regaled for 2 years with all of the facts and figures relating to the organization and functioning of the huge Federal structure which spreads all over this country and all over the world, has natu- rally left on me some lasting impressions which I still find difficult to express. Despite unprecedented achievements in reorganizing the Federal Government, much remains to be done, One trouble, of course, ts that so much more than government in the formal sense is involved in Government reorganization. (tf someone, more states- maniike than the average, is seminal and vital and penetrating in his proposals, he immediately encounters the entrenched and the selfish interests which consider them- selves to be adversely affected by these rec- ommendations. The great extravaganza which ts staged every year in Congress, an extravaganza which the late Will Rogers one time referred to as “Rivers and Harbors” or “I'l) Get Mine,” is a case in point. Here again it is the politics of the problem, and not merely its administration, which must be solved. Even when it is essentially a bureaucratic responsibility and opportunity, much push- ing by citizens is necessary. I still catch my breath when I reflect on how the Presi- dent, not merely President Truman, but any President, must decide great questions. Even the very emart Budget Bureau does not know, or finds it politic not to inquire, who 4a doing what and when and how in the Pres- jdent’s office. The idea of a career staff secre- tary such as was recently recommended by our Commission after a careful, and if I may say 80, highly realistic consideration of the problem under our constitutional system, apparently does not appeal to those imme- diately around the President. Like staff reductions, such proposals must often be pressed from outside the bureaucracy. The importance of pressure-group opposi- tion and bureaucratic neglect should not be minimized, as I will presently indicate. But it is very important to realize that the Fed- eral Government has become so big and awkward that it ia, in effect, out of control. Bo difficult is it to secure the cooperation of numerous officials and agencies involved in any program, and in al) programs, that at any given time no one ‘s on top of the heap. Bureau or departmental autonomy, statutory restrictions, overlapping jurisdic- tion, absence of coordination, poor staff services, and just plain bigness add up to @ condition of lack of control—one might aay free wheeling—which 1s the opposite of that responsible democracy which we seek to have. No political sctentist has devel- oped hydramatic control for Government machines, or if he has, it has not yet been adopted. It fe still a source of amazement to me that otherwise sensitive and intelligent men should continue to pile billion upon billion and bureau upon bureau without much thought of the administrative and political consequences. It is hard for me to believe that any thoughtful person could still think that it was posstble for any one agency to attempt to write or even approve the posi- tion classifications in the entire Federal service. Or that the Congress of the United States should be so perverse and unlearned in the principles of financial administra- tion as to continue to insist upon a system which runs counter to the almost unani- mous views of those who have studied the question. It is disheartening and discour- aging to find that even hospitals are bandied about with the same kind of financial and public abandon that characterizes the con- struction of » dam on Tombigbee Creek or the dredging of the Clatskanie. Even when the political scientist considers himself to be a sort of political pathologist and tries to view the whole scene with that scientific reserve and calm Judgment which befits any- one whose appellation is scientist, he still feels like remarking with Ostrogorski that “God takes care of drunkards, of little chil- dren, and of the United States.” Perhaps as Herbert Emmerich remarks: “Our governmental institutions are better than we tend to think.” But we must not forget that they are now assailed by new enemies and by reinforced old ones. At a time of national crisis we should not be tol- erant of inefficiency, nor neglectful of popu- lar control. A new compulsion ia now pres- ent which should drive the Congress and the President to move with all speed in the direction of implementing the recommenda- tions of the last few years which would put our house in order for any emergency. I cannot hope in a few brief moments to summarize Bll of my deep reflections about executive organization and of the relation of Congress to it. But I do want to demon- strate how political considerations are of primary importance and to say that we have only started along the road of integrating our economy, our defense, and our resources. Despite the reorganization of Congress and the progress which has been made toward executive reorganization, there still remains a vast area of inefficiency, duplication, and lack of control which continues to be a men- ace to our free institutions. The great prob- lem of executive-legislative relationships cannot be effectively tackled until both the executive and legislative branches are in such reasonable state of organization that one can think of having them work together successfully. As long as Congress falls to equip itself with adequate, nonpartisan staffs, and as long as it relies almost entirely upon seniority to select its leadership, and as long as the executive branch continues to con- sist of a congeries of unrelated services, de- pendent upon and limited by a nineteenth- century set of personnel regulations, Just 50 long will the pattern of our Federal politics be one of oscillation between executive bu- reaucracy and congressional oligarchy. With the pedagogs now rushing to Washington for Federal aid to education, I suppose it will not be too long until Wash- ington, not content with generous grants to farmers and veterans, will be Allied with strange new ideas of educational organiza- tion and expenditure, and one of the last fields left to the States and the localities will be dumped willy-nilly upon the over- loaded shoulders of the Federal Government. Decentralization and deconcentration which seem to be our only salvation, will then be- come nothing but empty words. This would be fatal indeed to our democracy. As Charles Beard one time pointed out; “Uniess our ad- ministrative system is so constructed and operated as to keep alive local and individual responsibilities, 1t ‘a likely to destroy the basic welleprings of activity, hope, and en- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD thustasm necessary to popular government and to the following of a democratic civilization.” There igs not much use worrying about intergovernmental relations unless some ef- fective limit is placed upon the power and activity of the Federal Government. No one can say with any assurance what the optimum load of the Federal Government can be. But it is my opinion, for whatever it may be worth, that we are now attempting in Washington and through the Federal Government much more tran can be effi- ciently administered or popularly controlled. I might suggest that we already have in the Federal Government unsolved problems of sufficient seriousness that we do not need to take on any more. For instance, in the very criticai period ahead when national security will demand a large military budget, our time-honored devices for sub- ordinating the military to civilian control, to say the least, are likely to prove to be inadequate. This whole field of civil-mill- tary relationships deserves the closest study and scrutiny. To involve the Federal Gov-~ ernment in further new problems at a time when a question like this, so fraught with grave consequences for the future of our Republic, is pending and unsolved, would seem to be utterly foolhardy and irresponsi- ble. Progress in coordinating diplomatic and military planning, at least at the top, could easily be shattered if Congress at- tempts to rely merely upon its control of the purse strings without insisting stmultane- ously upon what is necessary to develop firm lines of authority and accountability within the executive branch. I cannot conclude my discussion of the labyrinth which is the executive branch, or the confusion in the Congress, without re- ferring to the real menace of pressure-group politics as it operates in the Capital City. Harold Lasswell has not exaggerated when he wrote: “National policy increasingly becomes & matter of deals made between national pres- sure group officials and the bureaucracy of executive departments and agencies. What the pressure organization is able to ‘deliver,’ more than ever depends upon what the of- fictals of a centralizing government find it expedient to give.” It is deeply discouraging to the average citizen, as it is depressing to the trained observer, to find the public so frequently pushed around in favor of combinations of interest groups. “Aggression of groups and agencies against the people as a whole,” as Mr. Hoover puts it, “is not a process of free men. Special privilege either to business or groups is not liberty.” The unusual and plutocratic and extravagant atmosphere of Washington is 1n no small measure due to the unlimited resources of lobbies and spe- cial interests which find their outlet in some portion of the District of Columbia. This problem, although seriously affecting the whole functioning of the Federal structure of government, must be remedied elsewhere than in Washington. Thus I come to the next point of my discourse. Iv One of the major problems of our democ- racy, after all, 1s how to strengthen and im- prove our political parties. We cannot exalt and enthrone the citizen without at the same time utilizing the politician. Under our form of government the politician operates within the framework of the two-party sys- tem, which, over the generations, has ace quired a peculiar form and certain peculiar habits. The special form and spirit of our party system has determined the whole character of our government. Party politics ig therefore of central importance. Sooner or later in every discussion of government and politics in this country, one must come back to the organization and functioning of our politics! parties. Party organization by
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ateelf ts of crucial importance and although American political scientists are probably in advance of those 1n all other countries of the world in their understanding and analysis of party processes, nevertheless in the last decade we have tended to emphasize—some might say overemphasize—other aspects of our discipline. We now have it on the best of authority that ‘in democracy all social classes, all economic interests, all expertise, planning, and power are subordinated to politics.” Until recently some enthusiasts had almost convinced us that there was nothing outside the administrative frame- work, It requires little argument to demonstrate that effective popular government rests upon & proper functioning of the party system. In the United States, a basic prerequisite not merely to good administration, but to active citizen participation and control is a re- sponsible two-party system. We know, how- ever, particularly since the growth and change of the Federal Government in the last 25 ycars, that our parties and our poli- tics huve gradually become more and more confusing and frustrating, not merely to stu- dents of government but also to the sovereign. citizens themselves. Alert to the great aig- nificance of this subject, our association sev- eral years ago created a special committoe on political parties. That committee under the chairmanship of Professor Schatt- schneider has now, after the most commend- able study of the problem, presented to us and to the country a keen analysis and a series of important recommendations. I com- mend this report to you and to the country, and express my deep gratification that it should have been completed and presented at this important turning point in our political development. I might add that hav- ing just come through, or one might say hav~ ing Just survived, another national election, we should be more than ever instilled with the strong desire of raising the level and im- proving the quality of party action. How to relate public action and pubile decisions to the legislative and administrative processes must ever remain before us as subjects re- quiring the most thorough and complete and constant study. In this connection it is well to remember that graft, corruption, improper influence, excessive campaign expenditures, still con- stitute the Achilles heel of democracy. In the political arena as well as in the legisla- tive and executive branches, we must be ever on the alert to detect and to ferret out in- fluences and practices which Interfere with the true expression of the popular will. The present investigation of the interrelation of gambling and politics conducted by one of our distinguished Members, Senator Kxr- FAUVER, is an encouraging case in point. In public elections today more than ever is at stake, and as students of politics we must be more than ever active and alert to detect, understand, and explain to our fellow eiti- zens the true import of political develop- ments. Yes, politics is primary; everything elee is supplementary and secondary. Al- though American political fe 1s at times quite disorderly and confusing, it is still un: ise and ineffectual to attempt to solve legislative and executive and administrative problems as if they were separate and dis- tinct from the party process, v I have now presented a series of observa- tions about government and politics in the United States which are deemed worthy of particular attention at this time. I come next to » discussion of the place of the politi- cal scientists in our new political and gov- ernmental setting. As I remarked earlier, our present situa- tion has been aptly referred to as the “twi- light of warlike peace.” What we used to refer to aa crisis government has become chronic. Emergency conditions have be- come the regular and normal thing. We, as political scientists, would be derelict in- deed if we did not throw the light on our- selves and on our collective work to see if we are now doing as significant work as ts required, or a8 we are capable of doing. “Have the scales fallen from our eyes and has the lead gone from our feet?” I have spoken earlier of Aristotle’s refer- ence to politics as “the master acience.” But are we working today in relation to all the social sciences as if we were the master, the coordinating, the integrating discipline? I think not. I believe that we are not as vital and active and significant as we should be, and I want to express my own view as to the reasons for the academic restraint and reserve which up to this time have char- acterized our activities. Our contributions are urgently needed, and although political scientists as individuals are now active and important in the various levels of our politi- cal and governmental life, I strongly hope for greater and wider activity by our asso- ciation, Why are we so restrained? Perhaps our recent specialization and compartmentallza- tion has weakened the significance of our work. Perhaps we, as a discipline, have a separation-of-powers doctrine which prevents us from cooperative work with brother politi- cal and social scientists. I realize, of course, the vastness of the subjects with which we deal and the natural modesty of political scientists to avoid the sweeping generaliza- tions—and errors—which make some politi- clans and even members of other disciplines objects of pity or derision. But after all, the political scientist is and must be a generalist. Just like the politician, as Paul Appleby puts !t, ‘Is tho preeminent, practicing governmental generalist,” so must the political ecientist who studies, and who we know is called upon to udvise the politi- cian, be a person who trains himself to deal with large, complicated problems, Acquaint- ance with all allied diaciplinés is necessary, for one can hardly be a gencralist unless he is able to generalize from something— namely, the facts, procedures, and processes outside as well as inside his own profession. Even more necessary is the ability to take a set of facta and recommend a sound policy out of them. John Gaus recently referred to economic and social policies which are “yally—or grimly—urged today with almost no refiec- tion” of administrative experience, and re- calied how Margaret Cole frankly confessed to the neglect of political factors by a group of which she was an active member. “Gaily or grimly” is good, but with what grave con- sequences to our welfare. Government has more and more become so complicated that policy must be formulated, not by a spe- clalist but by a generalist if we are not to become, even more than at present, a loose confederation of modern feudal interests. What we need is a political scientist who in the words of Sir Edward Bridges in his rede lecture “will be a good adviser in any fleld because he or she knows how and where to go to find reliable knowledge, can assess the expertise of others at its true worth, can spot the strong and weak points in any situation at short notice, and can advise how t) handle a complex situation.” Of course, we must not expect the best thought and the best men in our profession to be automatically transferred to the posts in government where they could do the most good. Unfortunately in these days of impoverished research, inadequate travel, heavy teaching loads, and impecunioua liv- ing, we must not expect too much. In fact, it is one of our most urgent problems to release the abilities of our most mature scholars to work on the new and the difi- cult and the enormous problems which beset our world. We must not send a boy to do a man's work. Neither must we kill off the great minds we have already developed, in A1% commuting between Washington and our seats of learning. It seems that both uni- versities and governments have neither the heart nor any proper realization of what is necessary to assure the availability and full contribution of leading minds to the proc- esses of government. Herbert Emmerich has pointed out how we must recognize “that no one of the seri~ ous problems of today and tomorrow can be answered by the specialized approach. The big questions of today and tomorrow are not just matters of public administration, or of international relations, or of adminis- trative law, or of public opinion, or of political theory. They do not belong exclu- sively to any of the specialists in these sub- divisions of our field. All the insights of the political-science disciplines must be focused on these questions with a view to getting complete, not partial, answers—and in time to have some effect on action. We must break down the jurisdictional boundaries which divide us within our own field, and the jurisdicttonal jealousies, and work at these problems as complete scientists.” T cannot agree with my dear friend, Charles Merriam, when he writes that “the weal or woe of mankind in the coming years rests very largely with administration and administrators.” I think it rests with politics and politicians in the broadest sense of these terms. My belief is that any nar- row specialization is inimical to the primacy of our subject and to the success of govern- ment in a tree society. It is the complete political sctentist skilled in the art and science of politics—not just in theory, in law, in administration, but in politice— whom I espouse, and on whom so much depends, One of our colleagues, who is in a position to know, pointed out to me how most every- thing in government might be considered an economic problem. “Yet,” he added, “when economists in Government get 10- gether to develop a new policy, what they really talk about and what they really think about 1s politics. There is nothing wrong with this,” he concluded, “because they must develop polictes that are possible; and politics is, above all, the art of the possible. The only trouble ts the tendency to approach essentially political problems in an ama- teurish way because of a failure to recognize their political character.” One of my distinguished colleagues who will remain anonymous, has asked me, “Why the other social sciences with their glamorous new vocabularies are playing so vigorously in our own backyards, including those of sample polling and political theory?” The answer in part is that we have not sufficiently utilized the materials and techniques avall- able to us in related disciplines. We have been somewhat deterred, it is true, by the horrible gobbiedegook, particularly of the soctal psychologist, and we have had no desire to subordinate the substance to the technique. No doubt the other social eciences can help us. But the almost over- whelming problems of the modern world can only be solved by our most mature minds, and political science is the integrating and synthesizing discipline. The pulling to- gether must be under our auspices. Eco- nomio and social problems occur in their most vital form in the political-legislative- administrative processes, and we must use other social sciences and accept a definite leadership in our relationships to them. It was, I believe, our own Charles Merriam who provided the inspiration and leadership for social-science integration in this country. The first president of the Social Science Research Council, Robert Crane, was also a political scientist, and his present successor, Pendleton Herring, is aleo one of the stars in our political-science firmament. It 1s in no narrow disciplinary way that I would insist on the primacy of politics in determin- ing public policy. I have seen something of
A196 the mistakes which are made because too specialized minds are at times on top, and pecause a broad political judgment was ab-« sent, It is the task of the political scientist to synthesize everything which goes into the formulation and implementation of public policy. I am not interested in jurisdictional con- flict, and I believe in drawing more fully pon the anthropological, psychological, so- ciological contributions which are avallable to us on & basis of interdisciplinary exchange. But I would be less than frank with you if I did not assert that foreign and military policy is hardly the task of the nuclear physi- cist, and that power and bureaucracy and other similar concepts are being manhan- dled by the psychologists. Why? Partly be- cause political scientists have not sufficiently used the other social sciences and partly because we are focusing too much attention on small problems without developing frontal attacks on large, significant ones. Nevertheless, there are more practical and mundane reasons. The mere bigness of a problem, like legislative-executive relation- ships, for instance, is almost beyond the fa- cilities of political scientists, unaided and unsupported, to handle. Without the gen- erous support of the Carnegie corporation it would not have been possible to produce our recent report on political parties and the party process. With the Federal Govern- ment devoting & billion dollars a year to re- search, mostly in the physical and biological aciences, 1t is only occasionally that funds are available for those really seminal and significant investigations into our vast gove ernmental and political structure which pres- ent conditions require. Political scientists and soctal scientists generally may, therefore, quite legitimately excuse themselves because of lack of adequate equipment and resources, The terrific and overweening development of science and technology has necessarily pushed us aside for the time being, but it will not be for long. An active committee in our association, headed by one of our greatly reapected cxpresidents, Arthur Hol. combe, will soon make our judgment and influence felt. Perhaps the most favorable development of our times in its effect on human welfare is the activation of the policy and program of the Ford Foundation. The work of its study committee on which our president-elect served, has been correctly evaluated by Henry Ford IT as “one of the moat thorough, pains- taking, and significant inquiries ever made into the whole broad question of public wel- fare and human needs.” Their work and recommendations, which every member of this association should read, were accepted unanimously by the trustees, and there is therefore now in existence what never ex- isted before in such ampie form, financial support for large and significant research by political and other social sciences. No longer can we complain that resources are not avail. able. The Ford Foundation can now redress the balance in favor of the social scientists. I am tremendously impressed with the impact of this report upon our profession, It may well become the greatest boon to fruitful and constructive research and action in the political fleld we have ever had. As the president of this association, I salute this significant developmrent and express our deep satisfaction that now for the first time in our history we have the possibility, if we are good enough, to assume our rightful place in making significant contributions to worla peace, in the strengthening of democracy, and in the other areas for the advancement of human welfare. In what I have said about the place of political scientists, and in the expreasion of my hopes and desires for a greater future for our profession, I would not have anyone think that we are not now playing a sig- nificant role through our leading members and in our research and teaching everywhere. Our vice president today is Ralph Bunche, recently winner of the Nobel Prize, and there are meny others who are indispensable as advisers and participants in the decision of public questions at ali levels of government. But I still think that we must step up the significance of our work. Political theory, for instance, could do much today in the de- velopment of a more adequate concept and understanding of the democratic way. We have not contributed as much as we should to the practical solution of international affairs—perhaps in the latter case because we have gotten away from solid foundations in comparative government and international law. I also feel that we should not shy away from proposing remedial action once we have made our analyses. Our training of political scientists leaves much to be desired. We should rethink and recast our graduate training programs so as to develop generalists who are acquainted with the other social sciences as well as with the emerging and pulsating political life around them. The new generation of politi- cal scientists must have a stronger sense of their important mission, they must be better equipped to understand and handle the procedures of other related disciplines, and they must be trained in the evaluation of large situations and in the solution of big problems. Perhaps I should say with Plato “that is the pattern according to which they are to order the state and the lives of individuals * * * making philosophy their chief pursuit, but when their turn comes, toiling also at politics and ruling for the public good.” Nor have we included in our profession many who are interested and active in public affairs, those whose research contributes materially to the knowledge of political life, but who are not academicians, and those who teach citizenship to the large mass of our people who never attend a college or a uni- versity. If our research is to have the prac-~ ticality which it requires, and if the results of that research are to have maximum appli- cation, it is indeed time that we associate these groups more closely With our profes- sion. Now that we have been able to establish an executive office here in Washington, it is up to the membership to consolidate our gains, coordinate our research, broaden our avenues of influence, enrich our teaching, and enlarge the participation of our pro- fessional membership. We have a deep re- sponsibility as well as a unique opportunity in this troubled world. If we will recon- sider our whole field and make such profes- sional reorganizations as are required to bring us abreast of our new responsibilities, we can say with Henry Stimson: “Let them learn from our adventures what they can. Let them charge us with our fall- ures and do better in thelr turn. But let them not turn aside from what they have to do, nor think that criticlsm excuses iInac- tion. Let them have hope, and virtue, and let them believe in mankind and its future, for there is good as well as evil, and the man who tries to work for the good, believing in its eventual victory, while he may suffer setback and even disaster, will never know Gefeat.” otameenmeesnmneemememenel Atlantic Union EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANK CARLSON Or KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, January 16 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, yes- terday the distinguished junior Senator APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from Tennessee [Mr. Kuravver] intro- duced Senate Concurrent Resolution 4 on behalf of himself and other Members of the Senate. As one of the cosponsors of the reso- lution, I have prepared a statement ex- pressing some of my own views on it, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Appendix of the Rrec- ORD. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: At a time when the nations of the globe are beginning an armament race it may be too late to propose a Senate resolution which seeks to explore the possibilities of a common meeting ground that would promote stability and unity of the democracies of the New World and the Old Worla. There are many great developments—such as Russia’s spread of communism over Asia— a continuing cold war in Europe—a United Nations that has developed into . debating society when positive action is needed, and here at home a defense budget that will virtually make of this Nation a military dic- tatorship, reduce our standard of living, and make it difficult to ever regain the freedoms and liberties we now enjoy. Surely there must be some alternative toa war of extermination or a program of more and bigger armaments. In this present situation we must explore every avenue for a comprehensive solution of our security and economic problems. The most desperate necessity of our time is for the United States to assert the moral leader- ship of which she is undoubtedly capable, but which she has not yet fully laid hold on. Our Nation fs now going ahead with its superarmament program because, in self- defense, it must; nonetheless we stand committed to peace and the survival of man. There are those that contend that this pro- posal would require a world government—a government where nations would lose their identity—this I deny and am opposed to. We can have a federation of governments based on principles by which people can unite without impairing their local autonomy. The resolution does not commit the United States to joining a union of Atlantic democ- racies. All it does is give the United States opportunity to show the leadership expected of us in the struggle to safeguard freedom. This is an exploratory move. It may be too late. I believe that those of us respon- sible for the welfare of the American people can do no less. The State of the Union EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, January 16 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, a radio dis- cussion on January 7 between the junior Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER- son] and the junior Senator from Ne- braska (Mr. WHeERrRy]. This admirable discussion on the state of the Union took place on the American Forum of the Air, the famous radio program under the direction of the talented Mr. Theodore
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Granik, one of radio’s pioneers tn the field of forum and discussion programs, There being no objection, the broad- cast was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THe Srare or tre Union Moderator Granre. Tomorrow, the Senate and the House of the Eighty-second Con- will meet in joint session to hear the President of the United States deliver his annual message on the State of the Union. With the Nation in a state of emergency, President Truman will outline the program he deems necessary for our security. In 1951, hundreds of thousands of young Americans will be inducted into our Armed Forces. We on the home front will be called on to contribute more than ever before in self-sacrifice, higher taxes, and moral re- sponsibility, Just over the horizon are price controls on foods, ceilings on wages, and & decline in our standard of living. Today, on the eve of the President's ad- dress, the American Forum of the Air poses the vital question: “What 1s the State of the Union?” to two distinguished United States Senators, Senator Kexnnets S. Warrry, Re- publican, of Nebraska, minority leader of the Senate, and Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Democrat, of New Mexico, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and formerly Secretary of Agriculture. Senator WHerry, what would be the main theme of your message, if you were Presi- dent? Senator Wierry. President of the United States? Moderator Granix. That ig right. Senator Wuerry. Well, Ted, first, before I answer that, would you permit me to say that I deeply appreciate the invitation to appear again on this program as now spon~ sored by tie trucking men throughout the country. I know a lot of them, and I think it is a great program, and I am glad that they are sponsoring it. And if I have to debate a Democrat, Ted, I would rather debate with CLINTON ANDERSON than any man across the aisle. I respect him and have a deep regard for him and am glad to appear on this pro- gram with my good friend, Cuunton AN- DERSON. If I were President of the United States, and I were preparing s message to deliver to the people of the country tomorrow, and to the Congress, Ted, I would tell the American people about our foreign policy over there in Asia. I would mention the mistakes, the colossal faflure, and I would tell them what I intended to give them in the future. I would do the same thing about Europe. I would teke the American people into the confidence of the President of the United States relative to his program over there, Are we to commit foot soldiers to Europe? If we are, why not be frank about it? Why not tell the American people? Let us have @ propledged partnership about what we are going to do in the foreign policy so that we can get complete unity. Then I would tell them the plans that I might have. I believe the greatest contri- bution we can give to those countries that want to fight communism—aend, believe me, I think communism ts a threat; I don't agree with those who say it is not. whether they strike next week, or 2 months from now, or next year, or when, I do not know, but they have infiltrated into every country in the world, and they have infiltrated right here. And I would say, in the first place, to eradicate communism right within our own gates. { would prepare a great national security program armed to the teeth to de- fend America at home, and then I would extend that atd through mutual ald, through the air, and on the sea, to these free coun- tries of the world who want to fight to stop the expansion of communism and have @ free world. Moderator Granix. Senator ANDERSON? Senator Anpxasom. I think, Ted, that I would like to join right in Che beginning in congratulating this program on its new sponsor. Naturally, I would have to admit thet Kew and I are unusual in this respect, that when we say nice things about each other, we really mean it. Senator Weerrr. That is right. Senator AnNprzsom. Sometimes on the floor they refer to a distinguished Senator and they do not believe that he is eo distin« guished, but Kren and I have that fortunate and pleasant experience, we mean what we say. T think {ff I wera to be making a state« of-the-Union report, I would remind the peo- ple of America, first of all, that there are some hopeful signs and there are some dis- couraging signs. I think I would remind them about our banks that are bulging with money and our factories which are operating at top speed, that the steel mills are work- ing to capacity, and that in some areas of the country where steel has never been re- garded as a possibility for manufacturing, New England, they are now pressing for plants because they believe the future is so promising that these areas will be able to sustain theee mills for a long time to come, I would point out that the farmers have had unusually fine growing weather, to be sure, but they have also had an opportunity to market their crops under extremely fine circumstances for years and thet while they might encounter bad growing weather again, they have now the resources and ability to sustain them in temporary bad spells. I would point out that workers are en< joying their best wages and unemployment is extremely low. In other words, I would say that our domestic economy is in very fine shape. Then I would say, of course, that the only clouds that exist are clouds outside our Union; that there are troubles in the world, and we are closely tied to that trou- bled world and that we cannot expect to escape at home the effects of warfare abroad. Moderator Grantx. What do you have to say to that, Senator Wurrry? Senator Wremrr. That is quite an opti- mistic statement. If Curwron would go on he would have to mention also that not only as a@ part of our economy are we confronted immediately with price controls and freezes of wages, but that we are also confronted with higher taxes and allocations, all of which goes on with this artificial economy that he has so eloquently and forcefully de- scribed. Moderator Granix. When can we expect the allocations and controls? Senator Wierry. Some of the allocations are already on. The President of the United States, as I understand ft, in his message— and, of course, this is what we expect in his meseage—will ask for price controls and ‘wage freezes, and I have heard from the other side of the cisle that as to taxes, we have just begun to tax. We have really got to have a tax program to stop inflation and help pay the costs of this great defense pro~ gram that is producing this artificial economy. Moderator Grawne. Senator Anderson? Senator Anprason. I would simply like to point out that I pioked up a copy of a great New York newspaper on last Tuesday and I clipped a number of the headlines out of it. One reads: “Labor and employers score greatest gains in history.” The next reads, “Steel industry set for greatest year.” “Gas reserves rise de~ spite wider use.” “Aluminum output geared fo expand.” “Handling devices are facing m.” They are going to do $2,500,000,C00 worth of business in 1951 against $1,000,000,000 in 1950. “Retail sales gain foreseen for 1951.” If that ls your artificial economy, I just want more of it. Senator Waxery. More cheap dollars, CLin~ TON; more taxes, more controls, more alloca. . A197 tions, it all goes hand in hand. And if we are to stop the expansion of communism and protect the free economy, and certainly if those powers are granted, those who op- erate the business with dictatorial powera and controls should not abuse that authority in this time of total mobilization to fasten upon the backs of the American people a con- trolled economy that cannot be eliminated whenever and if these emergencies cease to exist. Moderator Granrx. Do you think raising $60,000,000,000 tn taxes will hurt business in any way? Senator Warary. On the Appropriations Committee. we Lave adduced a lot of evi- dence. Some very, very high authorities in this country have stated, if I recall the Ag- ures, that you can only tax 40 percent of the national income. Others feel that all you can take away from the individual is 25 percent out of each and every dollar, I am not sure where the saturation point lies. But just as surely es we all here in America consider the future—and I believe that you have got to tax—I have been one who has believed in a balanced budget, but you can-~ not balance 8 $100,000,000,000 budget, on the taxes we receive now which are ap- proximately $40,000,000,000 a year. And grant that we tax as much as we can, you get to the place, Ted, of the law of diminish. ing returns, It creates such an impact upon business that instead of doing more business you will do less business, and if you do it with cheaper dollars all you do is handle more money and you do not handle more goods, and, after all, it ls production of goods that counts in total mobilization. Senator ANDERSON. Well, I am only re- minded of something that happened to me, and I think our experiences are sometimes helpful to us. When I went on the Appropriations Com- mittee of the House of Representatives, it was just when we were beginning in 1943 to have some terrific budgets. And a very eminent New York financier had just been down to Washington to assure everybody that if the national debt ever went beyond #50,000,000,000, you would close every bank in the country and every insurance company would go broke and our savings would be no good, and business would come to a stand- still. You can imagine my joy in being handed a copy of the budget and it ran @108,000,000,- 000. I saw the national debt at $200,000,- 000,000 and T saw it go to $260,000,000,000 and almost $300,000,900,000, and strangely not @ bank closed its doors; not an insurance company went broke. None of the things that this eminent financier had promised happened, and I wondered if we all know the answers. Frankly, I don't, because I have geen a nation that supposedly had gone broke two or throe times, still remain the most powerful economic pumping Mne anywhere in the world. Senator Wueray. Does the Senator feel that it is unnecessary to impose price con- trols at this time? Senator ANDERSON. I would keep price con- trols away aa long as I could. I am thinking particularly of 4 situation in the agricul- tural field which I know more about than I do about anything—if I know anything about anything. I know in the case of cot- ton we need 16,000,000 bales next year. If you put a price control on that at a low figure, with the shortage of insecticides and fertiliser, you are not going to have more than 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 bales of cotton and that would contribute more to infla- tion than perhaps turning it loose. Senator Wuersy. Does the Senator feel that selective controls will work? Senator ANDERSON. I never had much en- thusiasm for that. Senator Waerrr. If the Senator agrees with me on that, I think the Senator will agree