Mr. SALTONSTALL. Let me answer the statement of the Senator from Georgia.

As I tried to say, the regulations are based upon laws of the United States, enacted by Congress.

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator very patiently

Mr. SALTONSTALL. May I finish? Mr. GEORGE. The Senator said the contract should go to a textile mill which worked only two shifts. That is because me does not want a three-shift opThat is all there is to it. Unthe guise of a defense program we are undertaking to rewrite the labor laws and undertaking also to grant relief. We are doing it through a species of personal government, the most obnoxious form of government under which Americans have ever lived.

I am not a new convert to this doctrine. I have believed in it all my life. I am perfectly willing, if there are distressed areas, to accord them relief. I am perfectly willing, if there is to be a revamping of the labor laws, to consider any reasonable proposal which may be brought forth. But let us not bring it forth in a defense appropriation bill.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I have not brought it forth in a defense appropriation bill. It has been the law, and has been working for the past 2 or 3 years. It is based upon an act of 1947.

Mr. GEORGE. That was a production act, and it related primarily to problems which were pertinent, and should have been considered in connection with that act. Now we are considering a defense appropriation bill appropriating some $40 billion. What we are doing is undertaking to write the law with respect to labor and with respect to relief according to someone's concept of it.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I reply to the Senator from Georgia by saying that a great many of our laws are interpreted by means of regulations. Otherwise they could not be enforced. There is no personal law involved here. If a mill is already working less than 80 hours, or two 40-hour shifts, the purpose of the textiles regulation is to give some employment in such areas, whether they be in Georgia or Massachusetts. This is not done on a regional basis. It is based upon the situation which exists, wherever it may occur.

Mr. GEORGE. If I may be permitted to say so, it is based upon a political consideration and does not operate on a regional basis. It is purely political in its concept.

I deplore an effort of this kind to bring into a defense appropriation bill appropriating forty-billion-odd-dollars belonging to American taxpayers principles of this kind.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. As I pointed out before, I am speaking merely in my individual capacity as a Senator. I am sure that Senators will recognize that I am not speaking from a party standpoint. I wish to make that fact per

fectly clear, so that no one will misinterpret my views.

I fully agree with the distinguished Senator from Georgia. I believe that the committee amendment now in the bill should be sustained, and I think the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts to strike the language from the bill should be defeated.

The reason I entertain that view is that I consider such action to be contrary to the doctrines in which at least those of us on this side of the aisle have always believed. We have always believed in the free-enterprise system. What it is proposed to do is to say to the businessman, "Go out and sharpen your pencil and give to the Government in good faith the best bid you can on a Government contract." When, under the competitive system, he has sharpened his pencil, and finally put in a bid at a price which he believes will return to him a decent and fair profit under our competitive economic system, we then say to someone else in another area of the country, "Come in and take a peek at this bid, and if you can match it we will give you the contract."

This sort of procedure would bring about a completely regimented economy. We would be giving power into the hands of the Federal Government such as I believe no government should have, be it Democratic or Republican. This represents a vast grant of power which ultimately could lead to a completely controlled economy if the power were abused. I do not believe the power would be abused under this administration, but I would oppose such a proposal just as vigorously if the party across the aisle were to sponsor it.

The committee amendment went into the bill in the Appropriations Committee. It is true that it was agreed to by a divided vote

cited throughout the Nation, where, in order to give relief to a so-called distress area, a contract is taken from the place where it rightfully has gone under our bidding system, and given to another. It throws many people out of work and destroys small business.

If that makes sense, and if it is in keeping with our Republican doctrine of free enterprise, I will eat my hat.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. I merely wish to repeat what General Hollis said.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator from California has yielded to me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PAYNE in the chair). Did the Senator from Massachusetts yield the floor? The Chair inquires whether the Senator from Massachusetts yielded the floor. He had the floor, and he yielded to the Senator from California.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Chair. I had completed my remarks and was ready to yield the floor, unless Senators desired to ask questions of me. I was prepared to answer questions, when the Senator from California asked me to yield. I thought he was going to ask a question of me. He has made his remarks, instead. I have no further remarks to make.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from California was recognized. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. I merely wish to say that the Senator from California is eminently correct. eminently correct. The Army, Navy, and the Air Force appropriations bill is not a relief bill. The proposal is to give contracts to distressed areas and give

Mr. KNOWLAND. Let me finish.

I say that this is a very dangerous power to give any administration. I believe that it actually violates our whole theory of contracting. It is said that this procedure would not cost the Federal Government anything. On the contrary, I believe that if the committee amendment were stricken out it would cost the Federal Government literally tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, for the very simple reason that we would discourage people from bidding if they know that if they put in an honest bid the business could be taken away from them and placed somewhere else. When that is done we discourage the competitive system and we discourage the fair bidding practice under our system of private enterprise. I do not believe the executive branch of the Government, under an Executive order, should be permitted to move the economy of the country from one place to another, and back again.

As the distinguished Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER] has pointed out, we had a very clear example of it in the case he mentioned, which was that of a parachute manufacturing company. believe hundreds of such cases could be

I

Senator from California, who, with his many duties as majority leader, perhaps is not familiar with it, what General Hollis said. I asked the General the question, and he said that it costs $557 for the Army to enter upon negotiations for a contract. That is on each contract. tract. In addition to that, they have to keep the books on the contracts afterward.

I can understand the situation of some of the towns in Massachusetts, where there is unemployment. But I am opposed to such a procedure on constitutional and other grounds.

Distressed areas will be able to take business from other areas. Such situations exist in California and in New Mexico. A little while ago I saw on the floor the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. CHAVEZ]. He knows very well that such situations exist in his State, where hundreds of people are out of work, as at Las Vegas, N. Mex., which has only one industry.

Mr. KNOWLAND. The Senator from South South Carolina is correct. Not only does it cost the Government money when it goes through contract negotiations, but we must not lose sight of the fact that it costs the businessman money to sharpen his pencil and put in his bid,

Mr. KNOWLAND. That is correct. If the businessman knows that time after time, and time after time, when he sharpens his pencil and makes a bid, the contract is taken away from him, we will not be able to get him to make a bid. He will be reminded of his experiences in filling out OPA forms or income-tax forms, or numerous other redtape documents with which a businessman is required to contend and which necessitate putting additional employees on his payroll.

If we make him fill out forms and then, on top of it all, after he makes bid in good faith when he has reason to believe that he is the low bidder and he will get the business, we snatch the business away from him, we are not going to get an honest competitive business in our country, but we will finally build up in Washington a tremendous power which can drag the business life of the Nation from one place to another, as that power may determine.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I do not believe that even the last administration would do it. I am sure it would have recognized its responsibility. However, I say to you, Mr. President, as the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia has stated, I believe it is too much power to place in the hands of the President. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from California stated that hundreds of millions of dollars might be involved in the program. The program has been in effect for 2 years and only about $50 million has been involved. In fact, slightly less than that has been let under the Defense Manpower Policy No. 4, accord-ing to the statement of Mr. Flemming. Under the program the Government places a contract at the lowest bid in an area which is cited by the Government to be a distress-labor area.

How can it cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars?

In addition, no contract which is subject to competitive bidding comes under the policy. It refers only to contracts that are negotiated in the first place.

Therefore I do not see how it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will be interested in what I believe to be a perfect example of the situation which is now under discussion. I refer to the Security Parachute Co. of San Leandro, Calif. It submitted a bid of $63.20 per parachute. Yet the company that finally got the major portion of the business submitted a bid of $67. That is a difference of $4 a parachute. Of course, the bids were not on 1 or 2 parachutes. The bids were made on

112,000 parachutes. The only reason why more than $50 million has not been involved so far is because the smart boys have not found out about it. The company that got the contract was among the first of the smart boys to get into it. Mr. President, the smart boys sit in New York City and decide where the critical areas are, and undercut the successful low bidder.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did the Senator say undercut?

Mr. GOLDWATER. They take the business away from the low bidder.

Mr. KENNEDY. But they have to meet the bid of the gentleman who would secure the business. It does not cost the Federal Government any more.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, I want to correct a statement. I want to read what the order provides.

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from California was recognized, and has the floor. He had yielded to the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], and then he was asked whether he would yield to the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] for a question.

Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield for 5 seconds?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, when the distinguished Senator from California spoke a few minutes ago, he said he was speaking merely as a United States Senspeaking merely as a United States Senator. I take exception to the word the word "merely." It is a minimizing word. I do not like that word. Let me say to the leader that when he speaks, he speaks with logic, understanding, and deep conviction. That is a true Bill Knowland speech. He should hold his head up and throw out his chest and say, "I am speaking as a United States Senator." He should not say that he is speaking merely as a Senator.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, I do not believe I ever stood on the floor so long before I was recognized and had an opportunity of saying something.

In view of the remarks which I have in mind to make I desire to associate myself, if I may, with the motion which my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] had made, to strike from the bill certain words on page 58. The words were read so long ago that I believe I should repeat them at this time. They are:

Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be available for expenditure under any contract without regard to the provisions of law relating to the making, performance, amendment, and modification of contracts, for the purpose of correcting or preventing economic dis

locations.

Mr. President, I draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that striking the proviso from the bill is not changing the existing law. The proviso changing the existing law. The proviso puts something into the labor laws that is not now there.

As previously stated, the amendment has been included as a rider to section 643 of the Department of Defense appropriation bill. The rider was proposed by

the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MAYBANK]; and it was agreed to in the committee by a divided vote. For that reason, objection to the amendment has now been made. As a result, various Senators have risen to support the amendment.

I wish to put myself on record as firmly subscribing to the principles and objectives which underlie Defense Manpower Policy No. 4, as issued by the Office of Defense Mobilization. As I have previously stated, this bill is not the place to change that order. The purposes of Defense Manpower Policy No. 4 are wholly consistent with the fundamental aims of our mobilization program. This policy provides that government procurement through negotiated contracts and purchases with responsible firms shall be directed to areas of current or imminent labor surplus when the public interest so dictates. It seeks to maintain productive facilities and to assure timely delivery of required goods and services by locating procurement where needed manpower and facilities are fully available. It is designed to preserve employee skills necessary to the fulfillment of government contracts and purchases, and to provide for an orderly conversion from civilian to military production, while minimizing the strains and dislocations attributable to such conversion.

I know, Mr. President, you will agree with me that we must take all reasonable steps necessary for the defense of our Nation. Basic to our national security is the efficient use of all of our resources-our production plants and equipment and our manpower. I wish to stress, Mr. President, that all of the procurement directed to labor surplus areas under Defense Manpower Policy No. 4 has been at prices no higher than for similar goods purchased in other areas. This policy merely provides that financially responsible and technically competent firms, located in labor-surplus areas, shail be permitted to have an opportunity to meet the low bid and thus be eligible for contract awards. The Comptroller General has ruled that this policy in no way violates the language and the intent of the Armed Services Procurement Act. At the same time it provides some assistance to local areas confronted with serious problems of idle manpower, plants and tools, and permits them to participate in the mobilization program. This policy avoids the manpower problems and high costs which arise in congested communities where production facilities are already overloaded and where shortages of manpower exist.

I speak on this subject from first-hand knowledge of the situation which exists in my own State of Rhode Island. Reference has already been made to it by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]. We are blessed with a competent and skilled work force. The proportion of skilled craftsmen and production workers in my State as compared to our total work force, is about 50 percent higher than that for the Nation as a whole. We have old and well-established business enterprises with a high degree of executive

know-how. We have plant buildings and equipment, without the need of resorting to new construction in order to provide many of the goods the Government buys. Nevertheless, unemployment in my State is about twice that of the national average. In 1952-a year of high employment generally, when the country was enjoying prosperity-we paid out about $16.5 million in unemployment benefits throughout the year, to an average of 15,500 Rhode Island workers who were able and willing to work, but had no jobs. When we consider the costs of procurement to the taxpayers, it seems to me that we cannot ignore the costs of unemployment. During the last 15 months about $54 million in defense contracts were awarded to Rhode Island firms. Less than 10 percent of this amount was due to Manpower Policy No. 4. Even that small amount, however, was a help to our economy.

I believe, Mr. President, that Government procurement should be distributed with careful consideration of available manpower. Whenever economic and security considerations permit, it seems to me that production facilities, contracts, and important subcontracts should be located at the sources of labor supply, in preference to moving the labor supply. It is economically efficient and socially desirable to bring the work to where the workers are and where the plant facilities exist rather than to encourage movements of people, with all they imply in the uprooting of families, homes, and other social relationships. For these reasons, Mr. President, I support Defense Manpower Policy No. 4, and strongly urge all my colleagues to recognize that this policy is not one of sectional interest, but, rather, one which goes to the very heart of the national public interest.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has referred to the fact that the committee was not unanimous in regard to the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MAYBANK]. Of course it was not unanimous. The amendment of the Senator from South Carolina endeavored to correct an injustice being done to the West and the South, for the benefit of New England. Naturally the members of the committee who come from New England preferred to preserve the status quo, and voted against the amendment.

The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island fell into error when he stated that the policy to which he has referred does not involve letting contracts at higher prices. The situation is that, under the policy program, a contract can be taken from one man and given to another, provided the pirce for which the second man will perform the contract is not above the general average nor more than 20 percent higher than the low price. point out that the criterion in that respect is the average price, not the contract price.

I

For instance, the Air Force wished to purchase parachutes, and there was available labor at Phoenix, Ariz. So the contract was let to a man in Phoenix,

who assembled there 250 seamstresses to make the parachutes.

Then a firm in Brooklyn, N. Y., that had heard about the parachute contract said to the Air Force, in effect, "If you will give us that contract at a little higher price than the price you are paying to have the work done at Phoenix, our manufacturer in Lowell, Mass., will make the parachutes." So that firm got the contract.

Our committee took the position that such contracts were not proper instrumentalities for affording relief throughout the Nation.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER] and also the remarks made by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. RoвERTSON].

I desire to compliment my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN], for trying to take care of the unemployment in New England and in his State of Rhode Island. However, there is also unemployment in my State.

As a result of the policy which seems to be prevailing at this time, 250 seamstresses in New Mexico were thrown out of work.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield to me?

Mr. CHAVEZ. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. I understood that that particular industry is the only one in the town of Las Vagas, N. Mex.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes, it is the only industry there. So 250 seamstresses were employed in New England, but 250 seamstresses in New Mexico were thrown out of employment.

Mr. MAYBANK. I wish it distinctly understood, since I had a little to do with the amendment, that I am not attempting to discriminate against New England. The people of New England are my friends. I simply do not think such a policy is constitutionally or legally correct.

Mr. CHAVEZ. And it is not morally correct.

Mr. MAYBANK. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Why should 250 widows in my State be thrown out of work, in order to give work to 250 widows in New England?

of work. The contract was sent to New England.

I want the Senator from Massachusetts to believe me when I say I wish there were not a single unemployed person in New England. But I do not think it fair, since we are supposed to represent the national interest, that in order to give employment elsewhere unemployment is created within my State.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. CHAVEZ. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. Am I correct that the incident to which the Senator referred occurred in Las Vegas, N. Mex.? Mr. CHAVEZ. That is correct.

Mr. MAYBANK. Do I correctly understand that the only industry within the town was completely closed up, and that no other industrial plant was left? Mr. CHAVEZ. That is correct. Mr. TOBEY. Senator yield?

Mr. President, will the

Mr. CHAVEZ. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. TOBEY. If there are 250 widows in the State of New Mexico, why do they not import 250 widowers to take care of the situation?

Mr. CHAVEZ. We might eventually invite the Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CHAVEZ. I yield.

Mr. KERR. The Senator from New Mexico does not think that that would carry out the objective to which the Senator from New Mexico referred, does he?

Mr. CHAVEZ. I may say I have too much respect and love for the Senator from New Hampshire even to venture a comment.

Mr. TOBEY. I dislike to see distressed womanhood anywhere.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Let me explain what happens. I shall endeavor to put certain factual information in the RECORD which was developed at the hearings. We heard a great deal last summer and fall about saving money for the Government, about taking care of the taxpayer's dollar, rather than wasting it. The head man of the Defense Mobilization Board is Mr. Flemming, whom we know well. He was formerly a member of the Civil Service Commission. The distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON], who is now presiding in the

Mr. CHAVEZ. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I would most respectfully call to the Senator's attention certain facts. I have checked up on the matter, because the Senator mentioned it to me recently. Does the Senator refer to Deming, N. Mex.?

Mr. CHAVEZ. No; it was Las Vegas. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Then there was another case at Deming, to which this provision of the law did not at all apply. provision of the law did not at all apply.

Mr. CHAVEZ. That is correct, but that involved the building of 20-milimeter shells for the Navy. I am talking now about a case in which a contract was given to a firm in New Mexico. When the people were about to go to work, then, all of a sudden, this provision was applied, putting them all out

the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Representative Riley, speaking about this program, asked: Taking the price lid off

That is what this is

it could conceivably cost a great many more millions of dollars for the defense effort, when it is already a burden to carry, isn't that true?

A fair question, a very fair question. Mr. Flemming's answer, as shown on page 918 of the report, reads:

The truth is that so far as the cost of the actual contract is concerned, it could cost more. But I would plead with the Members I have refererd, and also to consider the fact of Congress to consider the offices to which

that when a certification is made there can be inserted, and most probably will be inserted, a maximum price differential.

I invite Senators on both sides of the aisle, especially those who talk about economy, to listen to what Mr. Flemming says about the price differential:

It might be 5 percent or 10 percent, or whatever seemed to be appropriate.

Imagine the administrator of a Government agency, acting by way of regulation, administering law and even passing legislation.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. That is written into the order, to.

Mr. CHAVEZ. I know it is written into the order. That is the way the order reads. Those who take it for granted that some people want to save money for the Government, that they mean what they say when they say, "Let us not waste the Government's money," should at least observe what is going on in the Government right now.

Of course I am interested in the city of Las Vegas, N. Mex. I am also interested in the class of work about which we are talking. Of course I am interested in every State of the Union. I would not want unemployment to exist anywhere in the Union. But it seems unfair that unemployment should be created in my State by large expenditures in another State. It is not right; it is not fair; and I do not think it is in keeping with what I consider to be the laudable ambitions of certain people to try to save money for the Government.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly on the amendment proposed by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I think the facts speak for themselves. In spite of what the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] has said, I do not think there could be a case under DMP No. 4 in which a bidder in a distressed area would bid 20 percent above another bid.

Mr. ROBERTSON. will the Senator yield?

Mr. President,

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Twenty percent above the general average could easily be 20 percent above a bid in Arizona or New Mexico.

Mr. KENNEDY. No; I think the Senator has been misinformed. I think the 20 percent merely permits one, if he comes within the range of price, to meet

the bid of the man who has been the lowest bidder. If he comes within 20

percent of the lowest bidder, then he is eligible to meet the bid of the lowest bidder. It does not mean that he can be awarded the contract if someone else bids 20 percent less.

Mr. ROBERTSON. A witness testified-and the Senator from New Mexico has just read the testimony-that it might be 10 percent, 5 percent, or whatever seemed to be appropriate.

Mr. KENNEDY. What are the facts, however? The situation has never prevailed that a man who bid 20 percent above the bid of another man could get a contract merely because he came from an area of surplus labor. What the present policy does mean is that if he is within 20 percent of the lowest bid he is then given an opportunity to meet the lowest bid. If he does not do so, he does not get the contract.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

DMP No. 4 does not apply to the textile industry.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. It applies to every industry.

Mr. KENNEDY. It does not apply to the textile industry.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. It applies to everything.

Mr. KENNEDY. It applies instead with respect to textile mills working less than an 80-hour week.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. There was a notification No. 38

Mr. KENNEDY. That had to do with 80 hours.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I am glad the Senator has brought that up. A great many cotton mills today are working 120 hours, in 3 shifts.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. If the Senator were getting rid of his cloth or goods and the Government were buying them, would he not throw out one shift in order to be able to compete? Mr. KENNEDY. I cannot believe that

Mr. MAYBANK. I have a great affection for the people of the great State of Massachusetts, but that is not the principal area that is being affected. As the

Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Arizona have said, it affects people of other sections.

There are no better Senators that I know of than the two distinguished Senators from Massachusetts. President, this thing is wrong. But, Mr.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I want to show the Senator where it might work disadvantageously to the Government. If the Senator were making a bid and knew that he might come within 20 percent of being the lowest lack about 10 percent. bidder, figuring all the costs in, he might

Mr. KENNEDY. That would be true only with respect to bids being received from distressed areas.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. The Government then would pay more

than it should.

Mr. KENNEDY. No; I repeat that that would be true only if all of the bidders were from distressed labor areas.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. It gives an unfair advantage over other bidders. Why do we find persons employed in the textile industry more in one section of the country than in another section?

Mr. KENNEDY. One reason is lower costs.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. That section has brought it on itself. I worked in a cotton mill for 10 years. Is worked in a cotton mill for 10 years. Is it not true that in operating a cotton mill one has to keep modern machinery? mill one has to keep modern machinery? I heard the Senator's speech a few weeks I heard the Senator's speech a few weeks ago when he made a statement to that effect.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is not giving me a chance to answer. In the first place, the standard procedure of

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. If he were considering what would be best for his industry and he wanted to get his goods sold and get them out of his warehouse. We are giving people employment in one place. What are we going to do with the people who are thrown out of employment. There will be just so many goods made and sold.

Mr. KENNEDY. But, statistically, as the Senator knows, other distress areas have not resulted. The textile industry is a soft industry nationally.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. We have heard of people who have been thrown out of work in Arizona, New Mexico, and other States.

Mr. KENNEDY. Not in the textile industry.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. But the principle is the same.

Mr. KENNEDY. I imagine the Senator from South Carolina is as much concerned as I am with unemployment in the country, no matter where it is located. We can meet the problem by permitting them to work on defense contracts; or we can do it by providing them with long-term unemployment or relief compensation, which has a more debilitating effect upon the economy of the country.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I think the Senator from Massachusetts believes, as I do, in free competitive enterprise throughout the United States. But the Senator's plan would not maintain competitive business.

Mr. KENNEDY. We are giving a preference to those in distressed areas seeking a chance to meet the lowest bidder. But we do that only because we have had substantial long-term chronic unemployment in those areas. It would be just as much a calamity if the Government should do something about marginal farms. There would be a national emergency if the Government did not pay support prices. In the case of a long-term unemployment area, it is only