this doctor, I can only come back to my own feelings. I do not know what I would dread more in a few years, and it will only be a few, until I pass 65, and I cannot think of anything that would be more devastating to my state of mind than to know that I had to resort to some sort of charity medicine or my sustenance coming from such

a source.

I would be unhappy. Getting back to this name calling, who started it, who has been best at it. I think the record would show that the commencement of intemperate language started with advertisements, and so forth, in connection with this bill. I do not think. there is any doubt as to who started the row. The fact that you in the labor movement are returning in your own way an attack is under-1 standable, I think. It makes me think of years ago when, in the boxing profession, using the best description of that enterprise, we had in California for a few years what was called a battle royal. We put four or five men in the ring and the one who was on his feet last won. It did not last long, which I am thankful for, because my interest in the game was pretty well submerged in viewing my first battle royal, but among the participants it was known who the most dangerous man was and it was perfectly natural to expect the other three or four to get rid of him first and bring things down to where it was equal. And during the course of the testimony on the matter of intimidating and coercing members of the medical profession, if they would dare join with this group or advocate this theory or philos ophy, it made me think of old Galileo in the Middle Ages when he was brought before the Inquisition and the demand was made of him that he recant his belief in teaching that the sun did not stand still or the earth did not, whatever it was he was advocating, but I was impressed because in the schoolbook they had it illustrated. It showed the old gent on his knees. The report was that he did recant as was provided to avoid further punishment, but upon arising he said what I believe is true for all of us. I do not think any of this really contributes much.

I think it is well known in many cases where doctors have been punished and they are matters of record. Many of them have taken it into courts and before hearing examiners, but it does not offer much one way or another with respect to this proposal. Whether it is called socialism or would lead to complete, total medical care in the country, all of that means nothing. It was interesting, however, the day before yesterday not once in a long 90-page presentation of the American Medical Association was socialism used once, and yet through advertising throughout the country it was used over and over again, and that really makes little difference.

If people can be deceived, there will be efforts to deceive them. If we here in the Congress can be fooled, well, there have been instances where we have been. I have. However, such things wear themselves out in time. We have gone for a long time without medical care under the social security plan. I do not think the country is going to be ruined if we go for some time off in the future without it being enacted, but such tactics are not new. I think that we have agencies of the Government which have found fine, old firms in this country have resorted to tactics that have been determined to be deceitful, unfair to their competitors. It is a bad thing.

The only reason I have to be happy about is having lived long enough to note things like that pass away. They are overdone as a rule and their effectiveness is lost and we get back to commonsense again or start over. I do not know when the turning point will come. I know I have discussed with one or two members of this very committee some of the advertising tactics that are almost revolting. You would not want to be purchasing the products in some cases. You would not want to have them found in your home for fear visitors would think that the only reason you had them there was because you succumbed to the tactics that are used to sell some of these things.

Mr. SWIRE. Mr. King, too often these tactics do divert enough people for a period of years so that when you ought to be planning constructive action they cannot do it. I am not thinking only in connection with your bill. I am thinking also in connection with the fight we have against the Communists.

In our union, with Carey and Reuther, we have been pretty much involved in the fight against the Communists. I think the U.S. Government could not be far wrong if it used men like Walter Reuther and Jim Carey in some of the propaganda fights against the Communists. We have had certain small groups in this country who have so beclouded the issue that it has been impossible for many of our people to do solid thinking on how to meet the Communist threat. We have not done really solid thinking in that because of the smear efforts that have been made. I think we have hurt ourselves internationally because a certain segment who do not know what a Communist is calls everybody they do not like a Communist, and I think we have hurt ourselves in this field, too, because the word "socialist" has been used to mean everything they don't like.

Let me say that most of us go through life without being thanked or made to feel proud by many people for the good that we have tried to do.

I do know this: that there are millions of older folks-they don't talk much and they don't write too many letters-who feel deep down in their hearts very thankful to you, and Mr. Anderson, and to Mr. Forand, and to all the people who have tried to make their life a little bit better. Every letter we get and every time we talk, you would be surprised at their gratitude for the mental and physical help, and I want to thank you for what you have done. We appreciate it. Mr. KING. Mr. Alger.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Swire, I do not think I will ask any more questions, but I cannot let the opportunity pass to make this statement, and I do want to call to the attention of my colleague from California that in his absence in the following the testimony of the AMA, I pointed out that, contrary to his view, the AMA used the word "socialism" in the 90 pages at least six times. I do not have the statement with me, but it was on page 39 and page 41, and on the final page, as I recall. It was indicated that the AMA had somehow backed down and changed their viewpoint, which I did not find at all in the testimony. I must treat your statement, for the purpose of lack of time for questions, much as Mr. Reuther's. I would not suggest you apologize to the doctors but on page 4 in three instances, Mr. Swire, I think you went too far.

At one place you accused them, and I can quote these, of course, as can you, of jeopardizing the health of our people; secondly, conduct that might cause Hippocrates to violate his oath; and, thirdly, that the AMA is responsible for the failure of medical care.

In those instances, and I know how you used those phrases, you went too far as I see it. I have all this documented here by page of quotations. I want to mention just these things for the record and any answer from you I welcome. These are things I take issue with you categorically.

Starting on page 2 you said that the United States ought to defer to others in the world in its humanitarian concern. I say no, Mr. Swire. The United States does not defer to anybody in humanitarianism and we take better care of our people than any nation in the world. You say that we should learn from Western civilization, Britain, Sweden, Denmark. I say no.

They can learn from us. You speak about the British health program, and that has been covered. I say to you categorically that everybody that discusses it considers it to be socialism. Whatever : tag we want to put on the King bill is something else. When you talk about England, as you did on page 3, being older than us and we can benefit from their knowledge, that is the same country we ran away from, and they can all take lessons from us now, as I see it.

Then, on page 5, when you say that you speak with authority about communism, and we all take our hats off to any man who fights communism, I commend you for it, I simply say maybe we should just as quickly speak with some authority about private enterprise and our deep conviction about personal freedom, and this does relate to the King bill.

On page 6 again you use Dr. Fishbein as an AMA spokesman, and I tell you categorically, and this record is open to contradict me if I am wrong, that Dr. Fishbein is not the spokesman for the AMA and the statements that he made are not their viewpoints at this time, and i has not been for many, many years, although you feel free to use them as you like. I think you are on unsound ground. If I am wrong you can correct me.

Then on page 8 you say the Kerr-Mills bill has failed. It is true I opposed the Kerr-Mills bill because it did not take into account certain gaps of knowledge, as for example, those areas where we do not have Federal money, as in the case of the county that I represent. I think you are being unfair by saying that the Kerr-Mills bill will not work. It has been in effect too short a time to know. It is only several months old, and yet, many States have already implemented it. I think we need more time to see if it will work. Then you close with something that I want to take extreme issue with you, Mr. Swire, and this is not the place probably for you and I to debate although I would love to some time at a time when it is appropriate. When you speak about the Judeo-Christian society that believes in-how was that?

Mr. SWIRE. Brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God. Mr. ALGER. I shall read it and I want to be exact :

Among them are many older people who could, if this legislation is enacted, get some measure of care which they deserve for their declining years and which civilized sentiment dictates is their due in a Judao-Christian society that prides itself on believing in the brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God.

I simply take issue with you, sir. I agree with part of this, but some of us do not believe that charity is the function of the Federal Government and when you add Federal Government compulsion you haey changed the whole philosophy as this individual understands it, and if I have a different viewpoint from you then you and I, of course, have a right each to his own view.

Mr. SWIRE. I appreciate your reading the statement so carefully. Mr. ALGER. Let me finally say, and I will conclude and await your statement, you stated that social security is the ideal mechanism. You later amended that under questioning to agree that it was a taxation mechanism, an insurance mechanism. Social security, as I see it, Mr. Swire, to give you a little interesting comparison, is not insurance. Even the Supreme Court allows it only as a gratuity and not insurance, and since any Congress can vote it out, I think it is a rather dangerous thing to indicate there is a contract based on humanitarianism when actually, it is a political measure that can be removed. It is not like a private insurance contract and I think that social security insurance, and this is a good debate, by the very wording is self-contradictory in its expression. Those are just some of the things, Mr. Swire, and in the interest of time, obviously, I cannot delineate more than this. You are certainly welcome to respond and unless you say something that does open up debate more, I thank you for appearing, because, through your testifying I am much surer now of my views.

Mr. SWIRE. I am very thankful to you for going over it so carefully, Mr. Alger.

Let me say I think Jim Carey would love to debate with you.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Carey and I have done this.

Mr. SWIRE. I think he would love to do it again.

Mr. ALGER. Tell him I am available. Will you do that?

Mr. SWIRE. Yes. Let me make a note of that.

Mr. ALGER. I am available to Mr. Carey or Mr. Reuther, or you. Mr. SwIRE. I am not particularly important.

Mr. ALGER. I would be delighted to be invited.

By the way, in my home community in 7 years no labor organization has ever invited me to appear.

Mr. SWIRE. Why don't you invite yourself?

Mr. ALGER. I say this to them and they say, "Well, we would be glad to talk to you, Mr. Alger," and then another year passes and no invitation.

Mr. SWIRE. What you do then is say, "When is your next membership meeting? I will be down there." When you go out to get votes before election you grab the people and shake their hands, don't you? Mr. ALGER. Both my disposition and personal comfort and safety might even be involved.

Mr. SWIRE. I would be very happy to suggest to Jim that we do arrange some sort of public meeting.

Mr. ALGER. We can talk with all these people and not fall out. I will dig you all I can, though fairly. I may use statistics my way and you may take issue, but I have been around here long enough to know I am going to take a lot of lickings, not that I think I am wrong, and I look forward to matching wits with any of these men because if I can make my point before an impartial audience, I want to.

Back home the majority think the way I do. I am a fair reflection of the people in Dallas.

Mr. SwIRE. I do appreciate what you have said. This is listed as an insurance program and the King bill is not charity. We think the people are willing to set money aside for themselves so when they retire they can have benefits based on their contributions. We are not particularly worried about the compulsory aspect of it. We have compulsory taxes. If I try to get out of paying my taxes, I have a problem.

Some years, as did many others, I received a letter from President Roosevelt. It was an honor. But nevertheless, if I had been obtuse or decided I don't like that sort of honor, there was not much I could do about it. I would have been compelled to go in the service.

What I am saying is that any government like ours has elements of compulsion. I am not worrying that we apply an insurance program which has a slight compulsory aspect to it with regard to this. Let me say this: That with regard to free private enterprise, there is no difference between the position taken by the labor movement, taken by Carey, taken by myself, with the position you have taken.

Some years ago, if you go back to 1910, 1920, it was pretty rough in this country for lots of people. You had a radical American labor movement then. Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt, when Roosevelt proved that the capitalist society could produce better for our people, the labor movement in this country has been won over completely, so that our people believe in free, private enterprise.

We do not believe, as Mr. King did mention, in that sort of enterprise that some corporations recently have indulged in, which is not competitive. I find in negotiating with many companies, and this concerns foreign competition, that too often many of our companies do not really believe in competition. Competition is the lifeblood of the thing we are talking about today, as you mentioned, the exchange of ideas, that is also basic competition, which is wonderful. We go along with you 100 percent that this country will remain free as long as we have free, private enterprise and as long as we have competing economic groups. As long as we have free, private, competing groups, we are all right in this country.

Mr. ALGER. I think that is a fine statement, and I must tell you then I think that is part of the problem. In legislation that comes before us I find myself at odds with labor, and yet it appears that our goal is the same. There is a different point of view because labor says I am zero and I am one of the worst Members here, and yet I would like to feel as though I am just as much a humanitarian in trying to solve the problem in what I call a constitutional, American way, rather than borrowing these Socialist ideas from abroad. You say they are better. I do not.

I think that is the difference in our views.

Mr. SWIRE. We are not recommending we borrow socialism from abroad; I think Sweden is not a socialistic country particularly. They have a lot of Socialists. It is a cooperative country. I am not sure that their method of solving the problem is our method. I think we can look at it. I do not think we have the answers to all the prob lems of the world and neither to they. I think we can look everything else over and see what suits us best.