Senator JAVITS. But, Mr. Lundborg, didn't you tell us this morning that we have no alternative now, that we have got to fight for peace just as vigorously and just as daringly.

Mr. LUNDBORG. Right.

Senator JAVITS. And just as excitingly as we fight war. You said that yourself, correct?

Mr. LUNDBORG. I did; I did.

Senator JAVITS. That is your conclusion?

Mr. LUNDBORG. Right.

Senator JAVITS. And we have got to be just as bold and just as risk-taking?

ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIES TO REDUCE INFLATION IMPACT

Mr. LUNDBORG. Right. I would go back to one other thing I said this morning also and that is it is a matter of priority. I think we can accomplish what you are talking about without the inflationary danger. I say this is inflationary danger and I would recognize that. I think we should recognize it. I think if we will put first things first we may find that this can be done without the inflationary impact, and that it should be done without any question at all.

We have needs at home, as I tried to say also, we have some tremendous domestic needs. There are the overseas things. If we can put them in proper scale and proper priority, and if we can eliminate the completely wasteful-I think it was Senator Symington_earlier who referred to our having put so much of our money into Europe. The difference between what we put into Europe in the last quarter century and what we have been putting into Vietnam is what we put into Europe was helping to build something, helping to create a base for a viable economy and what is going into Vietnam is totally destructive and destroyed and producing nothing.

If we can scale down our completely self-destroying, wasting military expenditure, what you are talking about can be completely financed without the inflationary impact, and it should be done.

Senator JAVITS. Especially as so much of it would go abroad where it would not have a buildup of demand against limited productive capacity.

Mr. LUNDBORG. Right.

BUSINESS LEADERSHIP FOR NEW U.S. POLICY RECOMMENDED

Senator JAVITS. Just one last point. Don't you think more business leaders ought to espouse this cause, that this is uniquely the function of business leadership in this country?

Mr. LUNDBORG. Very much so.

Senator JAVITS. And I would hope very much that your example would inspire there are some who do already-but I would hope that your example would inspire more to do it.

Mr. LUNDBORG. I would hope so. I hope they don't all run for cover because they see the inadequacy of my own testimony here.

NEW U.S. POLICY WOULD PROMOTE WORLD INVOLVEMENT

Senator JAVITS. Well, Mr. Lundborg, what appeals to me so strongly is this: There has been much sentiment, much feeling, that those of us as I think you have already suspected that there is some form of neoisolationism, some form of retirement from the world, some renunciation of the role of high moral conviction and human care for one's brother on the part of our country which we are counseling. What I had hoped to bring out through you and, perhaps we have gotten certainly some indications of, is that, on the contrary, that this is a summons to a very different kind of struggle but one just as exciting, just as dramatic, and far more likely to produce results than our engagement in war.

Mr. LUNDBORG. Very much so. I would certainly say amen to that, and say we should do it, although as a member of the commonwealth of nations and not as a self-appointed Messiah or policeman or anything of the kind, but recognize we should be working in partnership with other people and not as a dictator to them.

URGENCY OF U.S. POLICY SHIFT

Senator JAVITS. Won't you agree also, because I won't take the committee's time to go into special drawing rights and national, Federal reserves and trade and many other things that we could discussbut would you agree also that we are under a tremendous time urgency. If we are going to make a major shift in policy of this character that the time bomb of revolution, overturn, dissatisfaction, destruction in the world is running against us very fast, and that if we are going to move our policy on a different level-as present policy has failedwe have to do it under very forced draft.

Mr. LUNDBORG. I agree completely.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Javits.

U.S. FINANCIAL DATA

I have a table of bond yields and interest rates, among others, Mr. Reporter. I want to put them all into the record.

(The tables follow.)

(FROM MARCH 1970 ECONOMIC INDICATORS)

BOND YIELDS AND INTEREST RATES

Most interest rates, after reaching new highs in January, declined somewhat in February and early March.

1 Rate on new issues within.

2 Selected note and bond issues.

3 April 1953 to date, bonds due or callable 10 years and after.

4 Weekly data are Wednesday figures.

Data for first of the month, based on the maximum permissible interest rate (8 percent beginning Jan. 5, 1970) and 30-year mortgages paid in 15 years.

• Not charted.

Sources: Treasury Department, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Housing Administration Standard & Poor's Corp., and Moody's Investors Service.

FEDERAL BUDGET RECEIPTS, EXPENDITURES, AND NET LENDING

For fiscal 1970 and 1971, there are projected surpluses of $1.5 billion and $1.3 billion respectively. In the first 7 months of fiscal 1970 there was a deficit of $8.2 billion; a year earlier, the deficit was $10.2 billion.

FEDERAL BUDGET RECEIPTS BY SOURCE AND OUTLAYS BY FUNCTION

In fiscal year 1970, receipts are estimated to be $11.6 billion over a year earlier while outlays are expected to be $13.3 billion higher. In fiscal year 1971, the estimated increases are $2.7 billion for receipts and $2.9 billion for outlays. In the first 7 months of fiscal 1970, receipts were up $8.4 billion over a year earlier and outlays were up $6.4 billion.