But consumer demand is not the whole story. A direct stimulus to investment is also needed. While it is true that if a sufficiently strong increase in consumer demand is provided this will increase investment through "demand pull," it is equally true that a more dynamic and healthy expansion in investment will come from a combination of increasing consumer demand and direct investment incentives.

Characteristically, those who are critical of the inclusion of a corporate tax cut and reductions in the rates of those whose adjusted gross incomes exceed $10,000 per annum argue that business has plenty of cash and credit available today and there is no need for more direct investment incentives.

This prompts a closer examination of why it is desirable to provide direct incentives to investment through tax reductions in addition to those reductions which provide a significant increase in consumer demand. Let us consider for a moment the problem of an individual, a partnership, or a corporation deciding whether to make an investment in new plant or equipment or the provision of services.

Anyone facing an investment decision considers two things above all: First, the nature and period of risk involved in the investment; and second, the likelihood of a favorable return. The decision of a board of directors will not be determined merely by consideration of the extent to which total personal income next year is likely to exceed the current figure. Certainly demand will be important to them, for no one expects to invest in order to produce when there is no expectation of having a market for one's products. And certainly the effect of demand on the overall economic outlook is a matter which will be given serious consideration in making such a decision.

But one of the vital factors in any marginal investment decision is the rate of return the increase in after-tax income in return for a given outlay in investment. This is where the direct stimulus to investment provided in the current tax program will play an important part. In combination with last year's 7-percent investment credit and depreciation reform, the proposed reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52 to 48 percent, together with the liberalization of the credit, would increase the after-tax profitability of new investment in 10-year assets, for example, by an estimated 35 percent. That, I submit, is a fact which will weigh very heavily in any investment decision. These considerations apply not only to expansion of capacity to make standard products and new capacity to make new products, but also to the modernization of existing facilities to provide existing products on a more efficient basis.

In 1956 and 1957 business fixed investment averaged 11 percent of total output. Since that time it has fallen to roughly 9 percent. Since 1957 the rate of increase in our stock of business plant and equipment has risen by less than 2 percent a year, compared to 4 percent a year in the first postwar decade. Furthermore, there has been a disturbing rise in the proportion of our machinery and equipment which is more than 10 years old. Corporate profits and the ratio of expenditures on plant and equipment to gross national product have been below previous postwar levels. Our rich store of research and development has not been joined to capital and labor to produce the explosion of new products, services, and jobs of which the Nation is capable.

Moreover, critics of the tax bill on the score that it includes direct incentives for investment when business has adequate or more than adequate funds to finance new investment ignore several important points. The tax bill does not afford a cash flow increase to much of the corporate sector. Simultaneously with the rate reduction it requires

corporations with incomes in excess of $100,000 to initiate a tax payment schedule whereby they will be making their tax payments current by 1970. In the interim, although their tax liabilities will be reduced as a result of the corporate rate reduction, these larger companies will not have the benefit of an increased cash flow as a result of the corporate rate cut.

More significantly, the critics ignore the fact that despite the general availability of money in corporate treasuries and credit in the capital market for large companies for investment needs, many small firms simply are not in a position to take advantage of investment opportunities by borrowing. These smaller companies must finance their expansion and modernization for new ventures out of their own internal financial resources. They very much need the increased cash flow of the rate reduction for corporations.

Indeed, they need more than the mere reduction of the overall corporate rate from 52 to 48 percent provided by the bill. For that reason the new bill contains a provision providing immediate and substantial investment incentives to smaller corporations. For 1964 the present normal tax of 30 percent, applicable to the first $25,000 of taxable corporate income would drop to 22 percent. Thus an immediate tax reduction of almost 27 percent would be provided for 467,000 small corporations in the United States with earnings of less than $25,000 per year. The entire tax program including this change would provide a 17.9 percent reduction in an additional 54,000 corporations whose incomes were less than $50,000 and a 9.5 percent reduction for the 25,000 companies whose incomes were less than $100,000.

The critics of reductions in individual tax rates of those with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $10,000 should remember that of the 11 million businesses in the United States, 10 million are sole proprietorships or partnerships and many are established and operated by individuals in these higher brackets. These are the people who would be most likely to invest tax savings in the business or businesses which they are operating, which in turn might provide more jobs

or facilities.

A second major reason for direct investment incentives is the characteristic lag of indirect investment stimulus resulting from "demand pull." In other words, demand has to make itself felt in the economy and in the particular sector of the industry in question before it will significantly affect investment decisions. Then, there is the further delay for investment decisions to be translated into reality. If there were any possibility of inflation in the tax program reducing the stimulus to investment would greatly exaggerate it. Price increases are most likely to occur when demand outstrips production and the utilization of efficient capacity. If production and the quantity of efficient capacity expand to keep pace with demand, the danger of inflation is kept at a minimum.

Third, direct tax incentives will affect favorably our balance of payments. To the extent they encourage modernization and new products they enhance our ability to compete at home and in the export market and thereby maintain or expand our trade surplus. It is equally important to our balance of payments to increase the attractiveness of investment opportunities in the United States. These are important because capital outflows for long-term private investment abroad represent a significant part of our balance-of-payments deficit.

Finally, one of the most overlooked aspects of creating a sustained economic expansion is the need to utilize the fruits of new technology in the form of new products or the adaptation of existing products to

new markets. Increasing the profitability of new investment is the most effective way to make more attractive the investment decisions which are not being taken today. It is the most effective way to make the submarginal project of today the supermarginal project of tomorrow. It is the most effective way to maximize the benefits of the tremendous technological, educational, and human resources of the United States. As new techniques and new products are developed and as new markets are opened up new demand will be created, new investment will be fostered, and new jobs will be available that would never have been available otherwise.

This then is the crux of the situation. We must have a stimulus to expansion that is continuing, self-sustaining, and self-reinforcing. Neither direct investment incentives nor increased consumer demand will do the job alone as well as the two joined together. A combination of the two will interact in such a fashion as to foster an acceleration of economic activity, which should continue for years to come to produce jobs and raise output more effectively than the same amount of tax reduction devoted solely to either investment or consumer demand.

III

This brings us to the third issue-whether the early enactment of the tax program is likely to be more beneficial to the national economy than a later one next year.

Many favoring tax reduction in the abstract feel that it should be enacted only in the context of fiscal responsibility, and deferred until there is convincing evidence of accomplishment in the control of the increase in Federal expenditures and the reduction of deficit financing.

In fact an effective program of expenditure control is well underway and convincing evidence of accomplishment is already at hand:

1. According to the Director of the Budget, the need for continuing expenditure increases for defense has just about ended and will soon taper off on space programs, which together with interest on the debt, have accounted for more than 70 percent of the budgetary increase from fiscal 1961 through

fiscal 1964.

2. Since proposing the tax program in January the fiscal 1963 deficit has declined from an estimated $8.8 billion to an actual $6.2 billion-and two-thirds of that decline resulted from lower expenditures.

3. In proposing the tax program last January, the President budgeted less for the civilian sector of the 1964 budget (excluding defense, space and interest) than in the previous year-only the third time that has been attempted in 12 years, during a period in which population has increased and State and local government spending has grown at a rate averaging more than 15 percent a year. 4. Fiscal 1964 expenditures are currently estimated at $1 billion below last January's estimate. In the first 3 months of the fiscal year 1964 (July through September) expenditures in the civilian sector of the Federal budget were $107 million less than the same quarter last year.

5. This September there were 242 less regular civilian Federal employees on the payroll in the executive branch than in September last year.

6. Chairman CANNON, of the House Appropriations Committee, has observed that new appropriations may aggregate less than last year's total-the first time that will have been done in some years.

7. As for the fiscal year 1965 and following years, the President has assured the Congress that he intends to maintain a tight rein on expenditures and that a substantial part of the tax revenues from economic expansion will be used to reduce the budgetary deficit until balance is reached.

8. On this basis-and barring an unforeseen slowdown of the economy or international contingency-the President expects to submit a budget for fiscal 1965 with a deficit less than presently forecast for fiscal 1964, despite the fact that the second stage of the tax reduction will have gone into effect and that the revenue loss from tax reduction in 1965-before feedback-will be $5 billion greater than in 1964.

9. The House of Representatives has emphasized these factors by specifically including in the bill as section 1 a declaration of policy which reads as follows: "It is the sense of Congress that the tax reduction provided by this act through stimulation of the economy, will after a brief transitional period, raise (rather than lower) revenues and that such revenue increases should first be used to eliminate the deficits in the administrative budgets and then to reduce the public debt."

The President endorsed this statement before the vote.

These facts, plus the even more fundamental one, that expenditures can never exceed the amounts actually appropriated by the Congress-which controls the Nation's purse strings-makes it difficult to justify postponement of a final Senate vote on the tax bill for an alleged lack of evidence of an expenditure control policy.

This is particularly true in the light of the cogent reasons for an early and prompt disposition of this particular piece of legislative business.

The economy is still expanding, but there is still a large gap of unused manpower and capacity. The economic climate is good. In this setting the enactment of the tax program now would maximize its effectiveness in achieving its initial purpose-to move the economy to full employment and a more effective utilization of all our resourcesparticularly our increasing human resources.

To wait until some later time and risk joining the tax cut to a receding or leveling economy is to put it to its appointed task under adverse circumstances. The overriding purpose of the tax program is not to arrest a recession but to move an advancing economy into a scale and pace commensurate with its responsibilities and our national needs.

If the tax program is an effort to remedy the withdrawal from the private economy of too much of the Nation's substance in the form of taxes, to lift the tax drag, and to restore some needed incentives for jobcreating investment, the sooner the remedy is applied the better.

If, in addition to its long-term objective, the enactment of the tax program is viewed as antirecession insurance, the time is ripe for taking out that insurance. The patient is well and insurable, but he is moving into a vulnerable period of his life. By next April 1, it will have been 37 months since the end of the last recession. If the economy is still advancing, it will be the longest peacetime recovery in the century with the exception of the 1933-37 pullout from the great depression.

So on either premise that the economy will continue to expand or begin to contract-the earlier the enactment of the tax program the better.

Another time factor is the need to achieve, as soon as possible, an equilibrium in our international balance of payments. Continued deficits in our payments situation, with their potential drain on our gold supply and threat to the role of the dollar as the principal reserve currency, provide a compelling reason for prompt action on the tax program. The net outflow of long-term investment ($2.5 billion) in 1962 was the single biggest source of disequilibrium. A rapidly expanding economy, sustained by a tax cut, would attract investment dollars from domestic and foreign sources, sharpen

our competitive edge and opportunity for an increasing trade surplus, and free up our monetary tools for use in event interest rate differentials trigger further outflows.

Delay in the passing of the tax bill may mean more than missed opportunities; it may do positive harm. The tax program has become the leading psychological factor in the world of business and finance. It is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the touchstone for progress and the element of promise for the long-term future. Business expansion and consumer buying in a large measure reflect confidence in the future. Expectations of the enactment of the tax program have become a built-in factor in the hopes and aspirations of the business and financial world. To frustrate those expectations by delay and doubts as to the future passage of the bill entail serious risks that may ensue from

spending is compelling the administration to make some choices, however painful that may be, on which programs are really essential to the Nation's security and welfare and which are expendable.

The holddown will force the administration to restudy and cut back programs that may have some vote-catching virtue but no other; it may force officials to run desirable programs more efficiently; and it will compel the administration to rethink certain programs that have run on inertia-as in the case of foreign military and economic programs though international circumstances have changed profoundly since the programs were launched.

diminished confidence.

Yes, the national interest would be served by the enactment of a law substantially reducing the rates of Federal income taxes.

Yes, this rate reduction should be a balanced one designed to increase both consumer purchasing power and direct investment incentives.

And, yes, the national economy is far more likely to be benefited by an early enactment of the tax program than by a later one next year.

You may well have anticipated these conclusions. To me, they seem to be compelled by the fact that tax rates are too high, by the logic of the economic situation, by the need for expansion and long-term growth to meet the needs of our people, by our fiscal circumstances with budgetary deficits resulting from inadequate economic performance, by our determination to control Federal expenditures, and by the discipline of our balance-of-payments deficit. I trust that you will be persuaded by this logic of events and circumstances that has moved the administration to these conclusions and that you will agree.

[From Business Week magazine,
Nov. 2, 1963]

SPENDING CONTROL AND THE TAX CUT Four months of fiscal 1964 have already gone by, and Congress still hasn't finished work on this year's budget. Meanwhile, the administration is deep in the toils of working out the fiscal 1965 budget, which the President must submit in January.

In order to increase congressional support for its program to cut taxes, the administration has committed itself to a course of intensive expenditure control. But a number of key Senators insist that they want to wait to see the actual numbers in the administration's fiscal 1965 budget, before they will consent to go along with the $11.1 billion tax cut bill (to take effect over a 2-year period) that has already cleared the House.

To the administration's credit, it should be said that it is making a genuine effort to hold a tight lid on expenditure increases. The current, fiscal 1964 budget will probably wind up with expenditures totaling some $97.7 billion, more than $1 billion lower than was estimated last January. The fiscal 1965 budget-which Treasury Secretary Dillon had estimated only a couple of months ago would reach $102 billion-now promises to be a couple of billion dollars lower.

This new emphasis on economy in the Government is thoroughly healthy. It is high time the administration got serious about checking the growth of Federal spending and recognized that big annual boosts in Government outlays may be inimical to the national interest rather than synonymous with it. The holddown in Government

prospect for the coming year.

There should be no mistake about one thing, however: The good intentions of the administration (and of Congress) on expenditure control cannot survive unless Congress passes the bill to reduce taxes. Secretary Dillon has been perfectly frankand correct-in explaining why: If this country begins to slide down into a recession, the political pressures upon the Government to do something about high unemployment will compel Congress and the administration to increase expenditure programs. Inevitably some considerable part of these increases will become permanent fixtures in the budget. It is pointless to say this is a hypothetical argument; exactly that has happened time and again, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

THE REAL CHOICE

It has been difficult for Secretary Dillon to make this point without seeming to forecast an imminent recession, which he has not done. His critics keep making what they think is a bright point. "Do you want this tax cut for growth or do you want it to stop a recession?" they ask. This is not so smart as it sounds. There is no either-or about wanting the tax cut both to stimulate more rapid economic growth, and as protection against frequent recessions. Any reading of our recent economy history will show that growth has been too slow (hence we have had chronic unemployment) and our progress has been broken by too frequent business dips.

The proposed tax cut is not a one-shot antirecession needle. On the contrary, it constitutes an important reform of our fiscal structure. The trouble with that structure-as economists as politically diverse as Walter W. Heller and Arthur F. Burns agreeis that it siphons off too much money to the Federal Government as business expands, tending to check and slow down the growth (of cause abortive recessions) before we achieve full employment.

The tax structure and the expenditure side of the budget must be weighed together. Changing the tax structure in its relation to that level of Federal spending that the Nation really needs will remove hobbles from growth and simultaneously lessen the likelihood of recessions. The tax bill should be passed before Congress adjourns, lest it get fouled up in election-year politics next session-and lest (this does remain a possibility) it come to late to forestall the next recession.

At the same time, Congress should get busy and complete its action on the expenditure side of the budget. It cannot solve the expenditure control problem by Fabian tactics of delay or by passing the buck back to the administration. If Congress will simply use its head-and make up its mind— the United States can have the budget and

fiscal program it needs for a sustained run of prosperity. This means both expenditure control and a tax cut.

IMPORTANCE OF THE UNITED

NATIONS

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I wish to refer briefly to an article on the United Nations which was published today in the Washington Post. The article was written by Roscoe Drummond.

Many Senators have received antiUnited Nations letters. The sentiment in my State is far from unanimous in support of the United Nations.

In the article, Mr. Drummond has pointed out that the Soviet Union has been far from winning one victory after another in the United Nations. I quote briefly from this fine article:

Bear this fact in mind above all others: The United States has never been on the losing side of a single substantive U.N. resolution except when the Soviet Union and the United States were voting the same way. The Soviets have lost most of the time.

On the United States and world leadership-no successful American political leader suggests that the United States can retreat into isolationism and let the world go hang. They know we'd hang with it. Nor can the United States pull out of the U.N. and expect to pull down the U.N. with it. This would do nobody any good except the Communists.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

OPPOSITION TO THE U.N.: SOME FACTS ARE OVERLOOKED

(By Roscoe Drummond) MINNEAPOLIS.-There is a bright British musical revue playing in New York with the wistful title: "Stop the World, I Want to Get Off."

Quite an attractive idea, if it would work. During the past 10 days I have been talking to and with a number of different audiences in the Midwest and it is evident that quite a few Americans would like to stop the United Nations so that the United States could get off. Or, to put it another way, would like to see the United States get out of the United Nations in the hope that this action would bring the U.N. to a stop.

I am not suggesting that most Americans want to see the United States leave the United Nations or want the U.N. to leave the United States. But there are enough questions which suggest approval of the the idea to make it useful to look at

the premises on which the question is based. The premises appear to be these:

That the personnel of the U.N. is dominated by Communists.

That the Communist nations are able to use the U.N. for their purposes far more effectively than we can use it for our purposes.

That the United States could do better if we quit and left the U.N. to its own devices. What are the facts?

On personnel-The authority of the Secretary General in carrying out the voted decisions of the U.N. is decisive. No subordinate official can veto his actions. The only Communist official at a high level of the U.N. is the Under Secretary for Security Council Affairs, Mikhail Suslov. The Under Secretary for Political Affairs is is Ralph Bunche, an American. Each of the big powers has a veto over any Security Council affairs.

The Communist nations actually have fewer nationals in U.N. civil service than their representation justifies because they do not offer qualified people to fill them. The Birchites, for example, circulate a memorandum showing the number of Communists working for UNESCO, but overlook the factif they know it-that the Communists have half the number to which they are numerically entitled-for fewer than the United States or Britian.

On U.N. policy-from the the U.N. defense of South Korea to the latest resolution on Angola and Portugal, the Soviet Union has continuously failed to mold U.N. policy to suit the Kremlin.

It opposed the election of Dag Hammarskjold as Secretary General-and lost. Initially it opposed the election of U Thant. When it finally had to accept Mr. Thant, Premier Khrushchev sought to impose a Soviet troika-veto on the independence of the Secretary General—and lost.

Many times the Soviet Union has sought to take over the leadership of the African nations at the U.N. in order to use them for Kremlin purposes-and has lost.

Bear this fact in mind above all others: The United States has never been on the losing side of a single substantive U.N. resolution except when the Soviet Union and the United States were voting the same way. The Soviets have lost most of the time.

On the United States and world leadership-no successful American political leader suggests that the United States can retreat into isolationism and let the world go hang. They know we'd hang with it. Nor can the United States pull out of the U.N. and expect to pull down the U.N. with it. This would do nobody any good except the Communists.

The United States would lose much of its influence nearly everywhere in the world, including the nations which have received their independence since the end of the war. We would simply be throwing many of them into the arms of the Kremlin.

DANGER OF AID TO RUSSIA

Mr.

PROXMIRE. Mr. President, there was published this morning in the Washington Post an interesting article by the distinguished columnist Joseph Alsop. The article is entitled "The Big Non-Events." In the article, Mr. Alsop points out that it was anticipated, on the basis of many statements and developments, that this year in Russia there would be a curtailment of the use of resources for military purposes, combined with a release of resources for investment in the economy, particularly in agriculture; but he points out that these events have not occurred, and that, quite the contrary has occurred. He points out that the heating up of the situation in regard to Berlin is about the last thing Russia would do if she were about to curtail her armed forces budget.

Therefore, I believe the officials of our Government should think long and hard about the wisdom of selling American products at subsidy prices to the Soviet Union-whether they be wheat or dairy products.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE BIG NON-EVENTS

(By Joseph Alsop)

What has not happened in Moscow is suddenly being discussed with mounting inter

est in the small community of professional students of the Soviet Union.

The point is that last summer, for once in a way, the immediate direction of Soviet development seemed to be quite easily predictable. A great though still obscure political crisis in the Kremlin, undoubtedly marked by challenges to Nikita S. Khrushchev's authority, had ended in the spring with Khrushchev more firmly in the saddle than ever before.

Khrushchev had then used his authority to enforce acceptance of a nuclear test ban, on terms the Soviets had always before refused with loud indignation. His primary motive, beyond doubt, had been to create an atmosphere of relaxing tension, and thus to prepare the way for the revision of investment priorities-less resources for the armed forces and more for agriculture, for instance-which had been one of the subjects of dispute in the winter crisis.

Hence two kinds of development were being forecast last summer with much more confidence than usual. First, changes in the Soviet Defense Ministry, perhaps even including the dismissal of the Defense Minister, Marshal Rodion Malinovsky, were considered as all but inevitable.

Malinovsky was known to have been one of those who challenged Khrushchev in the winter crisis. In the Soviet Union, unsuccessful challenges of this type have their almost automatic penalty. And the need was obvious, too, for Khrushchev to bring the military heirarchy under more absolute control, in order to prepare for the second widely forecast development.

This was the radical revision of investment priorities, which the Soviet leaders so obviously need to make, in order to improve the declining Soviet rate of economic growth and "get Russia moving again." The main bottleneck being agriculture, the massive release of resources for investment in agriculture was the obvious first step. And no such release was possible, except at the expense of the armed forces.

During the summer Khrushchev himself virtually spoke of the revision of investment priorities as an accomplished fact. He posiwas withdrawing tively boasted that he from the race to put men on the moon. More important, he talked quite openly of his intention to increase Russian artificial fertilizer output from the present level of about 16 million tons per annum to the staggering total of 35 million tons per an

num.

By now, however, these crucially significant, universally expected developments were beginning to look like the big nonevents of 1963. Some time ago, dates were actually being given in Moscow for a special plenum of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, to discuss the fertilizer program, and for a second plenum to discuss the general problems of Soviet agriculture.

Dates are no longer being given, however, and there are no signs to indicate that the first plenum will surely be held, as originally suggested, at the end of November. Concurrently, there are no signs of the kind of preliminary reductions in Soviet defense spending, which might be expected prior to a sharp shift in the investment pattern.

Indeed, the recent incidents on the approaches to Berlin point in another direction. You do not heat up the political climate again, as the Soviets have now done, if you are just about to cut your defense budget rather massively. Nor do you talk about the altered political climate in the bellicose terms Khrushchev recently used when he received an American business group in Moscow.

All this means, rather plainly, that the decisions which seemed to have been. firmly taken last summer are instead still under discussion—and probably under quite bitter

discussion-in the Kremlin. It may be that the discussion will be abruptly terminated, and the Central Committee plenum will take place as originally scheduled before November ends.

Yet the mere fact that the debate is apparently continuing is significant in itself. It highlights the extreme painfulness of the

choice the masters of the Soviet Union could no longer avoid. On the one hand, in order to achieve an adequate rate of economic growth and to solve their food problem, they must break decisively with the sacred tradition of absolute first priority for the armed forces.

On the other hand, if they put the sacred tradition ahead of their practical needs, they must prepare for a gradual return to conditions resembling those that prevailed in the time of Stalin.

SUPPORT OF DAIRY LEGISLATION Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the Wisconsin Agriculturalist & Farmerone of the finest agricultural publications in the country, and it has a national circulation, and is widely read by agricultural experts-enthusiastically supports the dairy bill which was passed by the Senator, and also supports the McCarthy amendment to that bill, which I hope will be adopted.

I ask unanimous consent that an editorial entitled "We Support These Dairy Bills," which was published in the Wisconsin Agriculturist of September 7, 1963, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WE SUPPORT THESE DAIRY BILLS

Two dairy bills in the Senate deserve careful study. The dairymen's excess base plan would apply to Federal market order areas. The bill was introduced by Senator WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Democrat, of Wisconsin.

The program would work like this. A majority of producers in a milk order area would have to approve the plan. proved, each producer would get a base.

The base would be the producer's historical average percent of the class I (bottle milk) market. The last 3 years average is being talked about now. Newer milk order

areas would have to be based on fewer

years.

A producer could sell any amount of milk. He would be paid class I price for his class I base. There would be no more blend price.

The producer would get a lower price for milk in excess of his base. At present this would be at about support level.

WOULD DISCOURAGE EXCESS MILK

Purpose behind the program is to discourage excess production. At first producers who have been expanding rapidly might get a little less total for their milk than now. But as the plan discouraged excess production, it should soon mean bigger milk checks

for all dairymen.

There's another big advantage to the program. It wouldn't add any additional tax load to taxpayers.

The plan deserves full support; we're for it. The second bill was introduced by Senator

EUGENE MCCARTHY, Democrat, of Minnesota.

The McCarthy bill would also set class I milk bases for each producer in Federal market orders. Then the Secretary of Agriculture would set a quota for each producer. The quota might be more than the class I base for producers in order areas. It couldn't

be less.

Compliance would be voluntary. If a producer kept to his quota, he would receive 50 cents a hundred Government payment. If

he reduced production below his quota, a producer would get $2.50 for each hundred pounds he reduced his sales.

MCCARTHY says that his dairy bill would cut the surplus in half, save $37 million in taxes to support milk prices and raise farm income $150 million.

No question that most dairymen would be better off taking the $2.50 and reducing production.

The McCarthy bill uses much the same idea as the present feed grain program. It is a sound approach.

The two Senate programs are not opposed to each other. They could work hand in

hand. The first would put milk pricing on a more realistic basis. It would give price discouragement for overproduction.

Paying dairymen to cut back production has a great deal of merit. It could help dairymen outside of the milk order areas as much as those in order areas. And it would

give dairy producers a great incentive to get milk production in line with demand.

COMBINE DIRECT PAYMENTS, NEW PRICING A dairy bill has been introduced in the House by Representative LESTER JOHNSON, Democrat, of Wisconsin. JOHNSON'S bill would combine a direct payment plan somewhat like MCCARTHY's program-with

new Federal order pricing.

If approved by dairymen in an order area, producers would be given allotments based on market requirements and reserve needs. They would be paid a higher price for needed milk. They would get a lower price for surplus milk.

This part of JOHNSON'S program would work similar to the Proxmire bill.

Congress should approve the dairymen's excess base plan for milk marketing order areas. And there should be a program that would pay dairymen to cut back production, both in and out of milk order areas.

CITES

AGRICULTURE YEARBOOK SENATOR LAUSCHE'S BRILLIANT OHIO CONSERVATION RECORD Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, it is probable that many Senators have noted the excellent contribution of Mr. H. P. Quadland, well-known conservationist, to the Yearbook of Agriculture for 1963.

For the benefit of those who may not have seen this item, I call attention to the article, "Let the Country Sing With Beauty," beginning on page 552 in which Mr. Quadland points to the great progress made throughout our country in reforestation and city and countryside beautification through organized tree and shrub planting programs. He specifically cites examples of outstandingly successful programs in 15 different States.

I call particular attention to the author's reference to a highly successful statewide campaign as a part of Ohio's Sesquicentennial in 1953, headed by our colleague, the senior Senator from Ohio FRANK J. LAUSCHE, who then was Governor of that State. The program initiated by Senator LAUSCHE in 1953 was continued in 1954, 1955, and 1956 with great success. In each year, more than 20 million seedlings were planted.

Mr. President, I feel that this particular article is very pertinent and of wide public interest, in that it should lend more encouragement to the citizenry of our Nation in keeping America beautiful.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the body of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

LET THE COUNTRY SING WITH BEAUTY (By H. P. Quadland) Nature, if left alone, probably would make most land beautiful in time. Man largely is responsible for making land ugly.

But

man also can make land sing with beauty, if he wishes to help it flower-whether it is a tiny yard, a street, suburban plot, a farm on the plains, a cutover area in need of rebe synonymous. forestation. Ugliness and growth need not

planting and beautifying the land. Sound conservation practices cannot end at the city or town line without helping to foster slums and endangering the future of the Nation.

Economic and social benefits come from

I believe that love of our land is necessary for our survival. We will not love our land unless we care for it, and a growing popula

tion, which inevitably becomes further re

moved from the land, tends to turn aside from natural beauty toward the vulgarities of life.

In cities and suburbs, beautifully planted spaces are needed if urban renewal programs are not to run into the same trouble in the

future that cities have run into in the past. One of the biggest threats to the permanency of completed urban renewal projects is the failure of communities to provide for planted and beautified space.

of the long-range improvement of cities It is preferable if the plantings become part rather than temporary expedients. Urban renewal presents a great opportunity for planted, open space that is a vital need in many cities.

I see no reason why we should ruin the land in order to build the houses in a subdivision. Often trees that have taken years to grow are destroyed by bulldozers in a day. Emphasis in housing by lending authorities has been on the house; the lot may be ignored.

Some housing developments have become slums in a decade because little thought is given to yards and streets. Other developments, well landscaped, remain livable indefinitely.

An example is the plant America program, sponsored by the American Association of Nurserymen. It offers a pattern for making our land more productive, beautiful, and

livable.

The program was launched on January 5, 1950, in New York by representatives of national organizations.

An outline of the original plant America program, offered in 1950, is applicable today. I quote parts of it:

ise that the land is our most precious "The program is predicated on the premheritage. It is believed that the objective of the program in its entirety can only be accomplished by replanting our forests, our farms, our cities, our roadsides, our church and school, or home and factory grounds wherever the need lies.

"For the first time in history our farm population generally is prosperous. But much still needs to be accomplished for a

more fruitful and abundant farm home life. Landscaping and improved design of farm homesteads, farm home fruit gardens, landscaping and planting of grange halls, rural

schools and rural communities in general are needed.

"Most of our cities and towns have

blighted areas that can be made green and beautiful by planting trees, shrubs, and flowers. Much has been accomplished by civic authorities, civic planning groups, park executives, and garden clubs. But here, too, we are just awakening to the task ahead.

A consciousness of the fact that the land is our most precious heritage is sorely needed by the general public * * * for its own good. Open spaces, beautifully planted,

seriously are needed in all metropolitan areas for recreational as well as conservational purposes; in fact, just for us all to look at, in order to fill our souls with beauty.

"Safety, conservation, beauty as well as happier motoring and recreation enter into the proper development of our roadsides. Despite the great achievements of highway officials and others, general public awakening is needed to prepare for and provide the most efficient use of these roadside facilities for all.

"Beautiful church and school gardens are rare rather than commonplace. Churches

and schools can be made more beautiful and inspiring cultural centers through cooperation of educational groups, community improvement groups, garden clubs, parentteacher associations, etc., in landscaping. This work easily can be accomplished at small expense if public consciousness is awakened to the task.

"Changes are developing in home landscaping and planting. Plantings are more natural, for better living. Outdoor living rooms, indoor-outdoor living on the home property, home fruit and rose gardens, climate control by planting to increase both inside and outside home comfort, are coming to the fore to enable a more enjoyable family home life. There is practical therapy in green growing things-pleasure and health combined. Plant America requires individual as well as group and community cooperation. We need to develop all our land for living, not just the house alone.

"Landscaped and planted industrial sites are important from the viewpoints both of community and employee relations, as well as increased value of the land.

"Plant America-for more natural living will help to conserve the land and the wellbeing and health of people. By instilling in the public mind a consciousness of the fact that 'the land is our most precious heritage' and by action in planting in accordance with both need and the proper design not only will plant America give Americans greater satisfaction in living, but it will make them more proud of their homes, their factories, their communities, and their country."

What has been accomplished?

Governors in 39 States have issued proclamations calling for more planting in their States.

The first was issued by Chester Bowles, then Governor of Connecticut.

It stated: "Land in the past has been abundant. Man in those days was able to ravage the land and move on to virgin territory. This lead to abuse. *** Most of these blighted and barren areas can be made green and beautiful if all citizens fully realize their moral obligations to others in the ownership of private, civic, or State land. *** Much of the future progress of our State and its rare natural beauty rests upon the extent to which we replant and care for all the land. Our State can produce more if we strive to make and keep it beautiful. Everyone will benefit in equal measure."

A highly sucessful State campaign was conducted in Ohio, as part of the State's sesquicentennial activity. Some 22 million forest seedlings and more than 3 million ornamental trees and shrubs were planted in a year by homeowners and organized groups.

The sesquicentennial's "greatest tribute to the past," Gov. FRANK J. LAUSCHE pointed out, "would be wise planning for the future." He added: "In this connection, tree planting for reforestation, beautification, and recreation, is of vital importance. The program encourages farmers to plant waste land; homeowners to plant ornamental and shade trees; municipalities to plant trees and shrubs; establishment of school forests, as well as other local programs featuring the plant Ohio project."

The program in Ohio was efficiently organized. All State departments and 65 pri

vate organizations were represented on the plant Ohio committee, under the direction of an executive committee, which was headed by the Governor and comprised representatives of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the State chamber of commerce, Ohio Nurserymen's Association, forestry associations, garden clubs, the Agricultural Extension Service, and the federation of soil conservation districts. County and local committees were formed to work on publicity, school and community forests, beautification of factory sites, planting of trees and shrubs around homes, public plantings, industrial reforestation, rural reforestation, and sources of planting materials.

Many community plantings grew out of the effort in Ohio. A plant Columbus program was a forerunner for that city's establishment of a large municipal rose garden.

In a natural course of events, the plant America program expanded into plant (State, county, and city or town) programs. The plant America program includes the dissemination of information that will help homeowners upgrade the values of their properties by landscaping and beautifying them. It includes standards for nursery stock and a guide for home landscaping. A movie was produced, "Basic Technique for Home Landscaping." Materials on the pleasures and values of garden living are made available for use in newspapers, magazines, radio, and television.

In relation to cities, schools, highways, and factories, the program attempts to do much the same within the limits of a small budget.

An industrial landscaping competition is conducted with awards for "achievement in industrial and institutional landscaping and beautification contributing to employee and civic pride in our American heritage."

Among the 200-odd winners of awards are the Reader's Digest, Pleasantville, N.Y.; General Motors Corp.; the Washington Water Power Co. in Spokane; the Board of Water Supply, Honolulu; church groups; the little St. Cyprian School in River Grove, Ill.; the Shelburne Museum in Shelburne, Vt.; and the Boscobel restoration, Garrison, N.Y.

Some striking benefits of industrial landscaping have come to light.

A cement company found that trees and shrubs helped to hold down dust and reduced absenteeism.

Some restaurants have reported that good landscaping increases patronage. Banks, department stores, and shopping centers use landscaping to attract and win the approval

of customers.

The plant America movement took cognizance in 1950 of the need for roadside landscaping. Meetings were arranged with landscape authorities and engineers to find economical methods for functional landscaping. The outgrowth was an illustrated booklet, which outlined 10 purposes of highway landscaping:

To screen out, where necessary, blinding headlight glare of cars in opposing traffic lanes; stop fast-moving cars with little or no damage to their occupants at dangerous intersections; relieve monotony and lessen fatigue; delineate curves and serve as directional traffic guides; restore natural beauty; reduce traffic roar and serve as buffers to adjacent residential areas; screen off unsightly, distracting views; serve as natural snow fencing; control erosion on slopes; and make rest areas.

One development seems particularly interesting. In Tuscaloosa County, Ala., all home grounds bordering on a highway were landscaped to enhance the beauty of the route. The plan has possibilities in improving and beautifying secondary and rural roads after the manner of azalea trails, dogwood trails, and other trails, which attract tourists.

When the plant America program first was visualized, contact was made with the National Education Association. A great

deal of attention is devoted to instruction in planting.

The American Association of School Administrators advises sound recommendations for landscaping and planting school grounds. Annual Arbor Day tree plantings are performed on some school grounds. There is

great need, however, for more widespread planting and landscaping of school grounds. It is incongruous that students are taught principles of land conservation and planting, while many of their school grounds and athletic fields are bare, eroded, and ugly.

The planned planting of school grounds affords a basis for practical instruction in the conservation of land and in plantlife. Well-landscaped and planted schools encourage school pride among pupils and teachers. Beautiful school grounds encourage community pride and greater support for education. Landscaped and planted schools afford a more pleasing recreational environment and are a facility for recreation in themselves.

Landscaping and planting should be a requirement along with the construction of all new schools, as recommended by educational administrators. Where this has not been done, it should be accomplished by local cooperation, along with education by teachers of the reasons behind caring for the land by planting and conserving it.

The Chicago Community Trust gave $10,000 to the Chicago Horticultural Society to encourage schoolchildren to take up gardening: "We think gardening will make a good long-range hobby that the children will benefit from all their lives. More immediately, we think it will curb vandalism. People who learn to grow things are less likely to destroy trees and flowers or other people's property."

The first community planting project under the plant America banner was carried out in Grandby, Conn., in August 1951, during Plant Connecticut Week. All public grounds in the town were landscaped and planted, including schools, churches, and the firehouse. Local groups cooperated to serve luncheon to the planters and the nurseryman who supplied the plants. Since this project was completed, the nurserymen each year have landscaped and planted grounds of a public building to commemorate a Plant Connecticut Week.

Another planting project, in Stow Village, Mass., was sponsored by community groups, a garden club, the extension service, and New England nurserymen. The grounds of three churches, two schools, the town hall, and the library were landscaped.

Some of the subsequent activities include the planting of dogwood trees given to Morgantown, W. Va., to start a planting project; a tourist arboretum in Tennessee; sample highway plantings in many States; the establishment of municipal rose gardens; and 71 planting projects in Iowa towns through the cooperation of garden clubs, 4-H, Future Farmers of America, Boy Scouts, and others. Los Angeles planted 296 trees in a 10-block area in downtown streets in 1962. The Textile Association of Los Angeles has a goal to plant 300 trees in the garment area. Living flowers in containers also add color to the area.

New York City's Salute to the Seasons program, in which thousands of trees, shrubs, and bulbs have been donated by business firms, is another example.

The New York City Commerce Department issued a booklet that said: "Massed plantings along major thoroughfares *** are intended to alleviate this hunger (for green growing things) by bringing greater beauty to our city *** to make New York a pleasanter place in which to live and work * * * a more attractive place to visit.” Along Lincoln Boulevard in Miami and in Kalamazoo, Mich., where a central mall has been planted, and in other cities, the results of such plantings have been strik