mental precepts or any attempt to force industry to locate in unnatural surroundings either through special inducements of one kind or another by the Federal, State or local government, or through outright subsidy on the part of the Federal Government being proposed in this measure under considerationignores these basic laws of economics. The result will be either financial failure of the industry or a continuation of the subsidy to keep the industry alive and operating. In our considered opinion, the type of legislation under consideration is dangerous in that the Federal Government is getting out of its field and into competition with private enterprise when it attempts to further schemes or direct attempts to promote industrial growth of selected areas or towns. This leads to discrimination between areas, communities and even States, penalizing one community or area which has had enough initiative and determination to solve its own problems in favor of another which perennially looks to and depends upon a paternalistic Federal Government for the solution of problems which should be solved locally. The will to live and to grow and prosper is still paramount among people and communities. In my opinion there is, at the present time, sufficient public and private aid and assistance available to communities in their desire and effort to attract industry providing there exists such a local will-and providing that the community has the qualifications, and is ready to receive and assimilate such new industry. Superb examples of community initiative and of local solution, actually pulling the community up by its own bootstraps, can be found in the recent successes which have been reported by such "distressed" areas as Erie, Duluth, Scranton, Toledo, Woonsocket, Wilkes-Barre and Lawrence-and hundreds of others that have not been fortunate enough to be so deservedly publicized. These measures will bring about a condition in which industry in one area will be taxed to support its competition in another area-a case which could lead to the old fable of "killing the goose that lays the golden egg." When our Nation was new, we were predominately agricultural in nature. We depended largely upon the products of the farms for our necessities. As we grew, and demands or markets increased, such products as were not imported were made in the kitchens of the farmers and householders-or in small shops. With the growth of population, demands and markets grew and industries expanded in size and numbers to produce these articles. Industry in turn, through research and private initiative, created new products and new methods for their production-all readily accepted by the public. This growth required new plants, new facilities-in fact this expansion has continued to a point which today has made us the greatest productive Nation on earth. This growth still is continuing and should be allowed to continue without these strange efforts to distort the natural laws of economics. We have every reason to believe that with our expanding population and the resultant expanding economy that industry will continue to grow and place new manufacturing or distributing operations in the areas economically entitled to receive such operations. Public support continues to grow for the Government's policy of unfettering business, allowing it to follow normal channels and operate with reduced Government competition and interference. This measure runs counter to that trend. Even though it calls for what some consider only a "small" budget for its initial operation, once "the foot gets in the door," it is inevitable that funds for this operation will be expanded. You men who serve in the Congress know this better than any one else. In our considered opinion, any such program and resultant appropriation by the Federal Government is unnecessary and unwarranted. It should be denied especially since this activity is being done soundly by private capital where local conditions admit such development. This unfettered private system is the very core of our present thrilling growth and expansion. We respectfully recommend that this committee in its august deliberation on these bills-which affect the very fundamental precepts upon which our great Nation was founded-recognize the fact that the problems of industrial development should be considered as a local problem and not as a national problem, and that the entrance of the Federal Government into this field be denied. Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, Washington, D. C., April 2, 1957. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CLARK: I am taking this means of urging a special provision in the legislation on housing to provide for a program of research in functional, long-lasting, and usable farm buildings-residences and service buildings-and in well-planned rural communities. Democratic government, we believe, is closely tied to widespread ownership of farmland and decent housing by the farm families of the Nation. We believe also that well-designed functional farm homes, well-planned rural communities, and low-cost service buildings can be a positive force for keeping farm families on the land, thereby making stronger the growth and development of familytype agriculture. We do not view farm housing research, farm housing credit, or better planned rural communities as the panacea to the farm problem. Realistically, we realize that good farm homes and service buildings and well-planned rural communities cost money which, no matter how liberal credit may be or how much the research, is available only through increased farm income. We have been and are intensely interested, however, in upgrading the quality, design, and livability of farm homes through a program of research and education. We are also cognizant of the need for research with respect to farm service buildings. In comparison to urban and city standards, building methods, building materials, and design are outdated in rural areas. We are of the opinion that research is needed in the whole area of rural community development. In keeping with our interests in improving rural architecture, we have conferred with a practicing architect, Mr. Eugene Sternberg, 2364 East Third Avenue, Denver, Colo., whose work has been almost exclusively in rural areas. Because I am convinced that Mr. Sternberg's approach to the matter of research in farm housing and in community development is sound, I am quoting directly from a statement he has sent me : "1. Within the Housing and Home Finance Agency, it seems that a new division should be established, which would have as its concern housing and planning in farm areas and rural communities. This division's task would be threefold: Educational, which could be through traveling exhibitions of good work accomplished in different parts of the country, lectures, seminars and conferences in different regions, by qualified men whose heart and interest lies in the rural areas; the second aspect would be the establishment of mobile architectural and planning clinics in rural areas available at nominal cost to individual farmers, groups, and small communities. These clinics would be staffed with technical and financial experts. The third aspect would be the building of experimental units in different parts of the country, completely furnished and available for exhibition. The division would also sponsor the preparation of complete architectural and engineering drawings of different types of housing for different regions, with such complete and simplified details that farmers could build all or part themselves with little experience. "The whole subject is a vastly neglected one: A field in which very few people with vision and experience are engaged. There are so many possibilities for improvement-e. g., the establishment of just one outstanding school of rural architecture and rural planning would be a good beginning and give status to this aspect of architectural practice. If $500,000 would be available every year to a school of that kind, a great deal could be accomplished. The graduates of such a school would be drawn from many rural areas, and would, I am sure, go back to their own regions to establish themselves as leaders in the field of housing and planning. "2. We have been in correspondence with almost all the agricultural experiment stations throughout the country. We found the most constructive results of the very extensive research they have undertaken have been published in 1956, by the University of Illinois Press under the title of 'Contemporary Farmhouses: Flexiplan 71204.' This is the only example we have found so far which presents a beginning of modern thinking as applied to rural buildings. "Almost all the hundreds of pamphlets we have received from the other colleges present no new thinking-merely very practical and accepted ways to construct usable but unimaginative buildings of all types needed on the farm. Too much time and energy have been spent surveying the minutest details of what people think they need in the way of space for various activities and tasks. To finance more of the same kind of research, without creative and imaginative direction, would be of little value. “3. As very, very few of the competent architects, engineers, and city planners are working in rural areas, one of the important requirements for effective education and research in farm housing is the attraction of some really first class personnel to undertake future projects, if they are to be channeled through the land-grant colleges. "4. Additional research is needed to determine the functional requirements of each type of building, to find means of reducing construction labor, and to test structures and materials to meet new and higher standards. All this to obtain more buildings for less money. We feel that what is needed is to create in different regions of the country an architecture which fits into the environment, has some character and uniqueness, with an intimate and truly contem porary feeling. This cannot be achieved thrrough the local lumber yards or through an inadequately staffed agricultural college. In most small communities it is very difficult to achieve with the existing patern of financing." The Secretary of Agriculture is making only restricted use of the funds available for title V, rural housing loans under the Housing Act of 1949. Only $12.3 million have been loaned as of March 22, 1957, with only 3 months left in the fiscal year. In order to liberalize the eligibility requirements for these loans, with the objective being to step up activity under the program, I urge amending the Housing Act of 1949 as follows: "The Housing Act of 1949 as amended, is amended as follows: "In subsection 501 (c) strike out the words 'upon terms and conditions which he could reasonably be expected to fulfill' and insert in lieu thereof 'at an interest rate not in excess of the rate authorized under section 502 (a) of this title.'" Possibly this amendment will provide the leverage farm families need to obtain the kind of administration of the title V housing loan program which Congress envisioned when it passed the Housing Act of 1949 and when they appropriated $450 million in 1956 for use in making farm housing loans through June 30, 1951. Please accept my personal thanks for the interest and support you have given the title V housing loan program in the Senate Subcommittee on Housing. I appreciate deeply the support given last year by members of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to the $450 million appropriation for farm housing loans under title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Sincerely, JAMES G. PATTON, President. STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. BELL, PRESIDENT, COMMITTEE FOR A NATIONAL TRADE POLICY Since the creation of this committee in September of 1953, it has steadfastly supported the Trade Agreements program and proposed legislation for the development of a constructive, liberalized trade policy in the national interest. However, we have always recognized that occasionally some industry could suffer injury from imports of competitive products, if tariffs on such products were lowered to any great extent. We believe, nevertheless, that there are many instances when it would be in the overall national interest to maintain such lower tariffs, although the domestic industry might be threatened with injury. When such cases arise, we have publicly recommended that the industry so affected should be given relief by making a readjustment in shifting to the production of some other commodity or commodities, rather than by resorting to the imposition of higher tariff protection. Increases in the rates of tariffs in effect amount to a continuing and more or less permanent subsidy which is paid by the consumers of the products involved in the form of higher prices. If the clear overall national interest calls for the continuing of an existing tariff, we believe the relief proffered by the Federal Government should be participation with State and local authorities in providing practical assistance in converting or readjusting the plant or plants affected, thus avoiding the imposition of a continuing burden on all consumers. If the threat of injury is clearly proved to be due to imports, the Federal Government therefore becomes responsible because it alone has the power of determining tariff rates. There are literally hundreds of instances where companies have been faced with great difficulties, even in some cases complete shutdowns, by reason of technological changes or the disappearance of demand for a product, due to no mismanagement or fault of their own. In a great many such cases State, county, and city development boards have aided in bringing about moves of the plants to other localities or converting the existing plant to production of other commodities. It therefore seems logical that when the Federal Government, by its action in refusing to impose higher tariffs, contributes to the injury it should cooperate with local governments in such rehabilitation work. One of the members of the so-called Randall Commission, in the Commission's report in 1954, recommended such readjustment assistance by the Federal Government-and other members indicated sympathy with the idea of stating that the possibility of such action should be continually studied. In fact, within the past 3 years, a number of bills have been introduced in the Congress endorsing such a policy, and proposing different types of governmental machinery and procedures for giving such relief. None of these bills have been reported out of committee, but there still exists strong support for some such measure. When bills similar to the ones before your committee were introduced in past sessions of the Congress to provide for relief in generally depressed areas, our committee concluded that it would be logical to incorporate in such a bill this proposal for Federal assistance or relief in cases of industries depressed by reason of competition from imports. Such a procedure would avoid setting up a separate governmental agency to handle the infrequent cases of distress by reason of import competition. In fact, Mr. Charles P. Taft, general counsel for this committee, appeared at the hearings last year on those bills and proposed that such a section 'should be added to the bill. We still believe in the principles I have briefly summarized, and that the carrying out of such a plan should be in the hands of whatever agency might be designated by the Congress to administer assistance in generally depressed areas. However, since it is so late in this session of the Congress, it would be difficult to work out the details necessary in adding such a section to a bill, and we are not proposing action now on this matter by your committee. But we do want to go on record as believing that if a bill is enacted into law by the Congress, consideration of the proposal contained herein as an amendment be initiated in the next session of the Congress. In such case we intend to present the proposal in detail. Senator DOUGLAS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. RICHMOND, IND., April 11, 1957. DEAR SIR: The thousands of unemployed workers of his city are 100 percent in support of your position to debate the need of Federal aid to relieve economic distress in this area. Unemployed job seekers of this city are being forced to sell their homes at a great sacrifice and migrate to other cities in an attempt to find employment. We need new manufacturing in Richmond now before Richmond becomes a ghost town International Harvester who employed 1,400 workers will be down for all time in about 1 month and the buildings are being offered for sale. Crosley Corp. of Avco are operating with very few employees and once employed 3,500 workers. It is true that Bucyrus Erie Co. will somewhat relieve a minor part of the tragic situation existing in this area. But this project being a year and half away does nothing to relieve the immediate problems being faced by the unemployed workers today. The unemployed workers of this city feel that Cincinnati, Dayton, and Indianapolis have their own unemployment problems and a vast majority of workers own their own homes in Richmond and do not wish to be forced to leave this area in order to secure employment. The unemployed workers of this city will be very grateful for anything you can do to relieve the unemployment and hardships that now exist in this area and we hope that Senator Capehart and Congressman Harvey will give you all the assistance necessary to accomplish this humanitarian deed in service to the people of this community. EXECUTIVE BOARD, LOCAL 1318, UAW-CIO, 1509 North E Street, Richmond, Ind. ANTIGO, WIS., March 8, 1957. Hon. JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MCCARTHY: We, the undersigned city of Antigo, Wis., aldermen and members of the common council industrial committee, wish to submit the following statement relating to the hearings that are to be held shortly on bills for assistance to "unemployment distressed areas." It is our opinion that the city of Antigo cannot be called an unemployed distress area even though we do have our share of unemployed people, especially since the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad shops and roundhouse have been discontinued. However, we do feel that every sincere and favorable consideration should be given to every bill which deals conservatively with unemployment in our country's distressed and unemployed areas as designated by our Government. Sincerely, Alderman RUSSELL Ross, Alderman MARK W. STODDARD, Alderman RUBEN A. KRAUSE, Chairman of City Council Industrial Committee. KENOSHA, Wis., March 13, 1957. Senator JOSEPH MCCARTHY, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MCCARTHY: Thank you for your cooperation in response to my wire of January 24 regarding our local retail business slump, occasioned by the severe drop in employment, chiefly at American Motors Corp. (Nash). December Labor Market statistics showed in Kenosha in a class D condition: 1. Job seekers in excess of job openings; expected to continue over next 4 months. 2. Ratio of unemployment 6.0 to 8.9 percent. (I personally doubt this low figure). 3. Agricultural declining employment levels next 2 to 4 months. 4. Current or anticipated labor surplus not due primarily to seasonal factors. Unfortunately, we in Kenosha have been in a surplus area not only in 1956 but also in 1954, at which time I contacted you similarly by wire. Only in 1955 did we enjoy a breathing spell. The Milwaukee Journal of March 7 reported that although general State conditions in January were up to 1.5 percent, Kenosha conditions: "Production workers, 11,500, down 5.3 percent from December and off 38.7 percent from January 1956. "Unemployment benefit check in January was 111,718. This represented an increase of 45.9 percent over December and 30.8 percent over January 1956. Another recent Kenosha Evening News article referred to Government purchases, a situation that would aid Kenosha via American Motors Corp. Congressman Reuss, Milwaukee, told the House Appropriations Committee that the present limit of $1,350 should be raised to at least $1,550 to give independent auto manufacturers like American Motors a fair chance to bid for Government business. Ford and General Motors have been practically the only bidders. Romney of American Motors stated price limitation was the important factor preventing us from obtaining a greater share of Government business. Locally, we are searching for additional industry. Bong Airfield promises to aid materially when its gets under way. We are also trying to get Carthage College to relocate here and we are progressing with our harbor plans to get some industry moving through our port. The 1957 State legislature passed the bill which we started at the Federal level to remove our Pike Creek and put it into the hands of the city for a parking development project. We are awaiting the Governor's signature. That would make a good Federal project (possibly urban rehabilitation). Bills S. 1433, S. 964, and S. 104, all for aid to areas that are suffering surplus unemployment, appear to be assistance in the right direction, but of course what we need are Government orders that can proceed here in Kenosha by |