Слике страница


Mr. HART. Mr. President, a favorite weapon of opponents of the truth in packaging bill, S. 985, is a survey conducted by the Opinion Research Corp. at the request of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

It seems that that survey concluded than '75 to 85 percent of U.S. consumers are satisfied with present packaging practices and that only 8 to 22 percent wanted specific changes. This conclusion, the bill's opponents say, proves that truth in packaging is not needed.

Now surveys, as this body well knows, can be tested on many grounds—the most obvious being to measure the slant of the questions. And several proponents of S. 985 indeed have suggested that if they had drafted the questions the NAM survey results would have been different, but of equally doubtful value if in fact the questions were slanted.

This, of course, is a rather academic argument which could go on and on and on. But it seems to me that the president of the Maryland Consumers Council, Jack Besansky, has gone a step further and succeeded in putting the facts in perspective.

Writing in the August 11, 1965, issue of Co-op Newsletter, published by Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc., he comments first on the phrasing on the survey’s questions.

Then, while not subscribing to the manner in which the survey questions actually were phrased, he turns to evaluating the results.

Commenting on the fact that even in this disputed survey 22 percent of consumers were adjudged to want some changes in packaging, the writer made an interesting point:

To find anything on which an absolute majority can agree and also take action is almost impossible. Consider, for instance, that when Lyndon Johnson was elected to the Presidency in 1964 with one of the greatest landslides in American history, he received only 37 percent of the votes of the 114 million persons eligible to vote.

Put in that light, Mr. President, the 8 to 22 percent of consumers—which translates to 15 to 41 million Americans—seems to amount almost to a consensus in favor of changes in today's packaging practices.

This comes as no surprise to me. But I wonder if it does not to the Opinion Research survey’s sponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article mentioned be printed in full at this point in the RECORD.

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

(By Jack Besansky)

Ever since Senator PHILIP A. HART introduced his bill to provide more effective regulation of packaging and labeling of consumer products, the grocery manufacturers and advertisers have been busily grinding out opinion surveys to prove that the average

housewife is perfectly satisfied with existing packaging practices and does not want Government interference in the retail store. One such example is the survey undertaken by an association called "Opinion Research Corporation," recently reported in the Silver Spring (Md.) Advertiser. I have been unable to identify this corporation or track down a copy of its survey although I have called the Advertiser for this information.


Actually, this particular report is unimportant. The manufacturers association could easily supply anyone with a dozen surveys purporting to show, as this one does, that from 75 to 85 percent of all consumers are satisfied with present practices and that only 8 to 22 percent call for specific changes. They would have you believe, therefore, that “the last thing consumers want is a czar who will tell them what they can and cannot have."

Such conclusions are ridiculous but, nevertheless, the reports do raise the more perplexing question, which is: “If there are so many consumers who really want truth-inpackaging laws enacted, where are they and why don’t they make themselves better heard?” The answer is that they are making themselves heard.


The publication “Consumer Reports" notes that interest in this subject is greater than that on any consumer issue during all its 31-year history. But let's not be trapped by our own statistics either. No doubt, readers of Consumer Reports are a biased sample of the consumer population by virtue of their existing interest in a magazine dedicated to a high order of consumer protection.

What then, are the fallacies, if any, in the opinion polls which the manufacturers trot out? The very first thing is that the small percentage of protests recorded does represent at least 10 million adult consumers, and that is not a negligible amount.

More to the point, however, the most common fault of opinion polls is that unless they are taken with the strictest regard for objectivity, the validity of their findings must be doubtful. It is not at all difficult to achieve the percentages you want by selecting, to fit a certain purpose, the people or the places at which you ask the questions, or, more simply, by the type of questions you ask.

For example, you might ask a person if he feels confused about package sizes or whether he feels confident that he can choose the better buy between competing brands. Chances are, 8 out of 10 times he will believe in his own competence to make independent judgments. On the other hand, ask him if he would prefer to see pancake syrup bottled in lOaA-ounce bottles or in full pint bottles, and the odds favoring the 10%-ounce bottle will lessen.

Most importantly, percentages are not a realistic way of looking at consumer interests. The entire population of this country consists of consumers. Their specific interests are infinitely varied in kind and intensity because of the wide range of wealth, food habits, ability to sound oil’, etc.


To find anything on which an absolute majority can agree and also take action is almost impossible. Consider, for instance. that when Lyndon Johnson was elected to the Presidency in 1964 with one of the greatest landslides in American history. he received only 3'7 percent of the votes of all 114 million persons eligible to vote.

Thus, the important point about the truthin-packaging bill is not whether opinion polls indicate a particular percent of consumers are concerned or not, because if they are not concerned they should be. The fact is, that without some improved regulations, they are

powerless to exert their necessary influence on the production of what they want. An individual consumer can exert surprisingly little economic power in a transaction with an association of manufacturers.


More than economic power, manufacturers have greater information, greater training and greater experience regarding the transaction than the buyers. Furthermore, when refiecting on the expense of going to court versus the value of the product purchased. individual consumers may feel they cannot afford to assert their legal rights.

So it is clear that, by himself, the consumer does not dictate what the manufacturer will produce or how he will sell it. The protective mechanism of the truth-in-packaging regulation would provide a countervailing force in the market, not stripping the manufacturer of any of his power but forcing him to package his products so that contents could be easily compared with competing products.

This would truly permit the consumer to make a free choice of competing products on the basis of truthful and comparable labels and packages.

[graphic][merged small]

Mr. HART. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], on Tuesday, submitted a concurrent resolution—Senate Concurrent Resolution 55—relating to the diversion of surplus Arctic water. I congratulate the Senator for his energy in furthering discussion and consideration of this proposal.

A year ago last April I asked the Secretary of State to open discussions with the Canadians on the question of diversion of Canadian water into the Great Lakes. The Secretary, after receiving a go-ahead signal from the administration, did so and these discussions resulted in agreement on a joint United StatesCanadian referral to the International Joint Commission.

The referral involved primarily a study of Great Lakes levels, which is now underway. However, in the agreement made last fall between the two nations, the following sentence was included:

The two Governments have agreed that when the Commission's report is received they will consider whether any examination of further measures which might alleviate the problem should be carried out, including extending the scope of the present reference.

As I pointed out at the time, the only long-term solution that makes sense in terms of the needs of the Midwest is to seek to divert additional water into the Great Lakes Basin. In my judgment an economic and engineering feasibility study will indicate that such a resource development is as much to the advantage of the Canadians as to ourselves.

Certainly the signs are clear enough for all to read. We must get started, assessing the advantages and disadvantages of all proposals.

Assuming that the study which I initiated and which is already underway in the International Joint Commission will lead to an analysis of diversion possibilities in midcontinent, I am glad to join in sponsoring Senate Concurrent Resolution 55 so that we and the Canadians may have the benefit of exploration of all thoughtful approaches.


Mr. HART. Mr. President, on Thursday, August 26, the Senate passed for the second time legislation authorizing the establishment of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Hopefully, we will see final passage by both Houses in the present Congress.

As an indication of the growing support for this proposal in Michigan, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, House Concurrent Resolution 101 in which the Michigan Legislature memorializes Congress to take early action to save this area for enjoyment of future generations.

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


Concurrent resolution memorializing the Congress relative to the establishment of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation Area

Whereas a survey of the vanishing Great Lakes shoreline was made by the U.S. Department of Interior during 1957 and 1958; and

Whereas this survey revealed three outstanding areas_ all of them in Michigan, worthy of incorporation in the national park system; and

Whereas one of these areas and the one nearest our population centers is at Sleeping Bear Dunes in Leelanau and Benzie Counties: and

Whereas this beautiful area is deserving of national recognition and preservation; and

Whereas legislation to this effect, modified to safeguard the property rights of homeowners, has been introduced in the Congress by the Senators from the State of Michigan; and

Whereas early action to save this area for enjoyment of future generations has been recognized as desirable by the President of the United States, the Michigan Conservation Commission, the Michigan Tourist Council, and numerous nongovernmental organizations and. individuals; and

Whereas such action would clearly be in the interest of the State of Michigan, its citizens and its economy: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the house of representatives (the senate concurring), That the Congress is hereby respectfully urged to authorize the establishment of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation Area in Michigan; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each Member of the Michigan delegation to the Congress.

Adopted by the House June 16, 1965.

Adopted by the Senate July 29, 1965.

NORMAN E. PHILLEO, Clerk of the House of Representatives.


Secretary of the Senate.

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

and to the former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Arthur Goldberg, for having the willingness to step aside so that he might fill the place so ably filled by our late friend, Adlai Stevenson. Many tributes were reported in the pages of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

Mr. President, following the occasion on which those tributes were given, I came across a very warm and very personal tribute which I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. HART. Mr. President, the article to which I refer is a column written by an old and good friend of Arthur Gold— berg’s. The writer is Msgr. George Higgins, whom so many of us know.

Monsignor Higgins is the director of the social action department of the Na— tional Catholic Welfare Conference. The article is very simple for many, and I expect for others it is a very meaningful word of tribute. It expresses a prayer which we all share that the cause of peace will indeed be served well by Ambassador Goldberg.

I am struck particularly by the emphasis that the monsignor places on the family life of Ambassador Goldberg. I am reminded of the magnificent night of the Seder that Mrs. Hart and I were privileged to spend with the Goldbergs.

Mr. President, many more eloquent voices have applauded the appointment and commended the loyalty of Ambassador Goldberg, and I should like to see this very thoughtful and pleasant column by Monsignor Higgins added to the list.

(By Msgr. George G. Higgins)

Perhaps the most laudatory of the hundreds of editorials and columns written in praise of Justice Goldberg on the occasion of his appointment came from the pen of Msgr, Salvatore Adamo, editor of the Catholic Star Herald, newspaper of the Diocese of Camden. "Whereas Stevenson went to the UN. after failing to win the Presidency of the United States," Monsignor Adamo wrote, “I am confident that Ambassador Goldberg will succeed so handsomely at the UN. that he will one day go on to win the Presidency."

Time alone will tell whether Monsignor Adamo is a reliable prophet. But there must be many who agree that Ambassador Goldberg's “unique record of public service is preparing him to reach the pinnacle of duty and honor in America” and who share his hope that the Ambassador will live to be the first American of the Jewish faith to occupy the White House.

Why has Ambassador Goldberg's appointment to the UN, been so enthusiastically alcclaimed by people of all faiths and from all walks of life‘? More specifically, why do some of his admirers predict and others, like the present writer, at least entertain the hope that he will one day be elected President of the United States?

Presumably the editors of the Reporter asked the present writer to tackle these questions because they felt that even the most laudatory profiles of the Ambassador have not adequately answered them. Readers of the Reporter are warned in advance that, in trying to do so, I will be writing as a devoted personal friend of the new Ambassador and his family and not as a coldly analytical commentator.

It will not be necessary in this brief piece to recount, in detail, the story of the Ambassador's career, up to this point, as a brilliant and resourceful labor lawyer and labor negotiator, as Secretary of Labor, and, more recently, as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. That story has been told so often and so exhaustively in recent weeks that there is really nothing I could add to it. I would prefer, instead, to single out a few of the Ambassador's qualities which, in my judgment, help to account for his extraordinary success and, more importantly, help to explain why his friends, whose name is iegion, have such profound respect for him as a human being.

It would tell very little about Ambassador Goldberg to say that he is intellectually brilliant. He is that, to be sure, but so are many other lawyers of my acquaintance. A large part of the secret of the Ambassador's phenomenal success is to be found in the fact that his acknowledged intellectual gifts are balanced, not only by comparable qualities of the heart--a profound understanding of and compassion for the frailities of human nature—but also by an uncanny sense of practical judgment and political know-how, in the best and broadest sense of the adjective as well as the noun. I have seldom met a man in whom all of these qualities of mind and heart are so integrally balanced.

Secondly, it would tell us very little about the Ambassador to say that he is a man of extraordinary self-confidence in the face of staggering problems which would frighten or bewilder men of lesser stature. He is that. again. But what has endeared him to his many friends more than almost anything else is the fact that, for all his self-confidence, he is also a modest person who sincerely respects the other man's opinion and, unlike so many self-made men in private as well as in public life, will go out of his way very unobtrusively to help and to counsel with younger men and with less accomplished friends and professional associates.

Thirdly, Ambassador Goldberg has a wholesome sense of humor. Of all the men I have encountered in positions of honor and public trust, he is the least stuffy or pompous. It is this quality, I suspect, which has made it possible for him, over the years, to retain the close personal friendship of people from all walks of life—rank-and-file trade unionists, corporation executives, clergymen of all faiths, artists and intellectuals, political leaders of both parties and of every rank.

His sense of humor also helps to account why, while he can be as tough and tenacious a negotiator as the situation requires— whether at the collective bargaining table or in the councils of government—he knows how and when to bend in the interest of resolving problems or controversies constructively and equitably. The press has described him as a “liberal.” That he is, in the best sense of the word, but his "liberalism” is pragmatic—again in the best sense of the word—and is never doctrinaire. He can see too many sides of every question and is too conscious of human weakness and fallibility to push his own genuinely liberal principles to unrealistic or utopian conclusions.

It is this quality of enlightened, compassionate, and nondoctrinaire liberalism which helps to explain why he has been one of the most successful troubleshooters in the history of American labor-management relations. This same quality will stand him in good stead as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and may well have been one of the principal qualities which recommended him to President Johnson for this crucially important post. In this connection, I would confidently predict that the fears of those who have hinted—sometimes rather crudely—that his Jewish faith and Jewish loyalties will make it difiicult for him to deal objectively with the Israeli-Arab controversy will prove to have been completely unfounded. I am confident, in other words, that the same qualities of fairness, principled flexibility, persistence, and creative imagination which have won for him the reputation of being something of a genius in working out honorable and constructive compromises in the field of labor-management and intergovernmental relations will serve him equally well if and when he is called upon to get involved. as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in the Israeli-Arab controversy. Indeed, I can think of no American who is better equipped to make a constructive contribution to the solution of this unfortunate controversy.

I am reluctant, in conclusion, to say anything about Ambassador Goldberg's family life or about his religious beliefs and practices. These are matters which are almost too personal and too sacred to be written about in the press. On the other hand, even a brief profile of the Ambassador would be incomplete and would really miss the point if it failed to note, if only in passing, that he is loyally and unashamedly devoted to the Jewish faith and to the ancient religious traditions of that faith, and is also, in the finest of these traditions, a devoted family man, first, last, and always. As a Catholic priest, I count it a singular blessing and a great privilege to have been permitted to observe this side of the man at close range over a period of many years. With apologies for closing on such a personal note, I would say that there are few other men in my own circle of friends for whose family loyalty I have greater respect and few whose sympathetic interest in the religious beliefs and traditions of other men, combined with a profound loyalty to his own traditions, has impressed me more.

Ambassador Goldberg is a worthy successor of his friend of long standing, Adlai Stevenson. The fact that he was willing to resign from the Supreme Court to take up where Stevenson left off at the United Nations has caused a certain amount of wonderment among people who have never met him. To those who know him personally, however, it came as no surprise that he was willing to answer the demanding call of duty so promptly and so cheerfully, however difllcult it must have been for him to step down from the highest court of the land. That's the kind of man he is—a devoted and selfless public servant of the highest quality, ready at all times to do everything within his power, at whatever personal cost, to advance the well-being of his own country and to promote the cause of world peace, “inch by agonizing inch," as he put it so characteristically when he took the oath of ofilce just a few weeks ago in the rose garden of the White House.

[graphic][merged small]

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday, September 1, marked the 26th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis. Since that time, a new generation, to whom this event is only history, has been born and reached maturity. Even those of us who were alive at the time have let the passage of years dull our memories and deaden our once strong feelings of indignation; and the lessons we learned or should have learned, have, at least in part, been forgotten.

The first lesson we should have learned is that appeasement never pays off and that in the long run it makes war more likely, not less likely.

The second lesson we should have learned is that of the essential moral

identity of Nazi and Communist totalitarianism. In speaking of the Nazi invasion of Poland, let us not forget that it was the Nazi-Soviet pact which made this invasion possible.

Let us not forget that while the heroic Polish Army was desperately resisting the Nazi panzer divisions, the Red army, in one of the most glorious military actions in history, struck the embattled Polish Army from the rear.

And let us not forget Molotov’s boast over the prostrate body of Poland:

One blow from the German Army, and one blow from the mighty Red army—and this ugly duckling of Versailles ceased to exist.

Unfortunately, the Polish people, unlike some of the Western European countries occupied by the Nazis, were not to enjoy the freedom from oppression which was anticipated upon the defeat of the Germans. Agreements were reached between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers that ostensibly guaranteed to the Polish people and to the other peoples of Central Europe the right to select governments of their own choosing. These agreements were from the first violated by the Soviet Union, which used the presence of the Red army in Poland and in the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe to impose regimes that were as completely Communist as they were without popular support.

Mr. President, I hope that all Americans will reflect on the crime committed against the human race by the Nazis and by their Soviet accomplices 25 years ago.

I hope that all freedom-loving men and women will steel themselves to preclude a repetition of such aggression as the rape of Poland and its continued occupation.

I hope that we shall find it possible to dedicate ourselves to the task of bringing freedom to all enslaved peoples of the world.

Because of the particular bond of friendship which has always existed between ourselves and the people of Poland, I hope that we will not forget nor forsake our Polish friends and neighbors but that we will remember them in our prayers and by our deeds until they too are as free as we are.

And in the appointment as U.S. Ambassador to Poland of John A. Gronouski, a leader in the Polish-American community, a man fluent in Polish and well known and highly respected as a public figure, I hope the Polish people will recognize our desire to nourish our bond of friendship with them.

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

and workers in medical and related fields. In spite of this fact, however, Congress has failed to carry on the wise policy set in our earlier GI bills.

I, like Mr. Dalton, find it to be a national disgrace to allow the talents and ambitions of those who have served our country to be disregarded and allowed to ggidto waste through a lack of financial a .

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Dalton’s entire letter printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Rsconn, as follows:

‘,From the Washington (D.C.) Post,
Aug. 29, 1965]

I am a married cold war veteran who served on active duty in the U.S. Navy for 5 years. After I was released from service, I realized the value and the necessity of obtaining an education and I enrolled in the University of Maryland as a full-time student. However, I have found that it is becoming increasingly difficult to continue as a student due to the many financial barriers I have encountered. There are many other veterans in similar situations.

I think it is a national waste to allow their talents and ambitions to be disregarded through lack Of financial aid. The present National Defense Education Assistance Act is not enough. In order for these millions of needy and worthy Americans to help themselves and. their country, they need direct financial assistance, such as the type proposed in the cold war GI bill which has recently been passed by the Senate and is now under consideration by the House.

Following World War II and the Korean war. both Congress and the administration swiftly enacted legislation to aid the veterans of those conflicts. Not the least of this legislation were the GI bills. These two bills enabled 11 million exservlcemen to obtain education and training which assisted them in competing adequately in the labor market, depress unemployment, and to be an even greater asset to their country than the framers of these measures had imagined.

These GI bills have given our Nation 625,000 engineers, 375,000 teachers, 165,000 natural and physical scientists, 220,000 workers in medical and related fields, and scores of thousands of people in many other professional fields.

A cold war GI bill is desperately needed by our veterans and by the Nation. A measure of this sort can only help in the war against poverty, the battles with unemployment, and in obtaining the much-sought-after Great Society by helping to raise our standard of living through higher education.



[graphic][merged small]

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, the economy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is remarkably healthy today as the result of the amazing recovery it has experienced in the last 3 years. This recovery has been spurred in large part by the aggressive efforts of the Commonwealth’s government, under the leadership of Gov. William W. Scranton, to promote industrial development. The growth of the new Pennsylvania was recently described in a series of articles appearing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:


(By Marvin E. Miller)

On an average day in 1962, a total of 368,000 able-bodied Pennsylvanians got out of bed faced with the prospect of not being able to earn a cent that day. They didn't have a

ob. 1 Today that jobless total has been reduced to 173,000.

The jobless insurance fund to which the 368,000 could look to for weekly benefits in 1962 was also $52 million in the red and threatened with bankruptcy.

Today the jobless insurance fund is $289.2 million in the black.

State government itself in 1962 was in the midst of a fiscal year that would see it go $14.5 million in the hole.

Today the State has a record surplus of over $130 million.

Efforts to create jobs in Pennsylvania in 1961—62 attracted 1,426 industrial development jobs with a planned employment of 55,845 persons.

Since 1962 there have been 1,972 industrial development projects with a planned employment of 91,370 persons; increases of 38 and 45 percent respectively.

The above figures show that Pennsylvania is doing considerably better during the second half of a 4-year upturn in the national economy than it did during the first half.

In the past 29 months there has been a rebirth of economic life in Pennsylvania that is certified by every available measure of prosperity.

The men who keep their thumbs on Pennsylvania’s economic pulse, Bell Telephone Co. economists, were inspired to describe the State's rebirth this way:

"In the Nation—a boom.

“In Pennsylvania—a boomlet."

Today every sector of Pennsylvania is enjoying a boom within a boom that is confirmed by every available indicator of economic activity.

The indicators show that the people of Pennsylvania from the steel counties to the coal regions and from the normally prosperous southeastern counties to the northern tier have:

More jobs, lower jobless rates.

More money to spend.

Are saving more money.

Are buying more new cars and new trucks.

Are getting oil’ the relief rolls in larger numbers and onto the payrolls.

Are able to buy more things on time because as jobholders they are better credit risks than 2 years ago.

Joblessness has been cut from 9.4 percent of the State labor force to 3.8 percent. The reduction sliced joblessness better than in half and put it at an alltime low.

Other indicators of Pennsylvania's comeback are shown in material accompanying this article.

The vibrant State economy today is a paradox to the Pennsylvania of 2% years ago. Despite a 21-month upturn in the national economy, Pennsylvania in 1962 was mentioned in the same breath as thoroughly distressed West Virginia.

Economists talked of Pennsylvania in terms of "surplus labor markets," "chronic high unemployment," "depressed areas," and as being "economically distressed."

While some recovery was made in the 24 months between March 1961 and March 1963, Pennsylvania's economy remained sufiiciently shaky and uncertain to make it the chief political issue of the 1962 election for Governor.

The State whose industrial might had fired the forges and blast furnaces that furnished

the production muscle for war efforts from the tidewaters of Yorktown to desolate bills of Korea, had the image of a tired old champion.

The old champ's legs, steel and coal, were left wobbly and unsteady by three recessions. Its reflexes in replacing over 400,000 lost jobs were too slow.

Time after time, State after State beat Pennsylvania to the punch in landing new industry or plant expansions; the best efl'orts of the Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority notwithstanding.

What was wrong with Pennsylvania?

The vice president of an out-of-State machinery firm who helped to make a decision not to expand in Pennsylvania put it this way:

“State government had a ‘the h--- with industry attitude'.”

Bethlehem Steel executive J. L. Shearer said Pennsylvania had a bad business climate “which helped to retard the State's industrial and economic development."

He further said the climate prejudiced companies within Pennsylvania who sought to be competitive in business with firms in other States.

A major climatic hindrance was the jobless insurance fund; $52 million in the red and threatened with bankruptcy for the third time in 5 years.

Industry had poured a record $252 million into the fund in 1962. But continued jobless payments and $192 million in Federal loans when it went bankrupt twice previously left in in a perilously weak condition.

Many major industrial firms put Pennsylvania on the blacklist when it came time to consider expansions or new locations.

An industrialist said:

"Nobody wants to go into partnership with a bankrupt."

Corporate executives, whose job it is to turn a profit, were making decisions to create jobs elsewhere.

Up in hard-pressed Hazleton, where 11 percent of the work force was idle, a food processing plant that would give work to 2,000 persons looked things over and went to New York.

Reason? Victor Diehm, president of Hazleton Broadcasting Co. who worked hard to sell the firm on Hazleton said simply: "Taxes, particularly unemployment compensation."

York County was bidding for Aluminum Extrusion Co. of a division of Studebaker Corp. which wanted to expand its Youngstown, Ohio, holdings farther east. York lost to Hagerstown. Md.

A chainstore firm that wanted to open a series of stores looked at Pennsylvania and then headed south. Gustave C. Amsterdam, an official of Bankers Security Corp., Philadelphia, said it was a case where the unstable jobless fund "had a very decisive impact on a decision.”

Lancaster County, too, was affected by the climate. Chrysler Corp. was looking for an eastern assembly plant and spare parts depot. Lancaster sought it strongly, but it went to Newark, Del., and with it went 1,500 jobs.

Delaware also beat Stroudsburg to a new plant location by International Latex.

J, Huber Denn, the man whose job it was to woo industry for Delaware, said "every time Delaware beat Pennsylvania one of the factors on which we had considerable advantage was the unemployment compensation tax picture.”

The picture has changed in the past 29 months, as has the entire economic climate of Pennsylvania.

The average number of jobless persons in the State shows this downward trend: 1962 jobless, 368,000 persons; 1963 jobless, 332,000 persons; 1964 jobless, 267,000 persons; May, 1965, jobless, 173,000 persons.

Unemployment has been more than cut in half across the State. There are more people at work in every major labor market from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, from Lancaster to Altoona.

Here is how the jobless work force has been reduced in percentage relation to the total work force in the State's 12 major labor markets:


[In percent]
Janu- May Job-
ary 1965 less
Market area 1963 {ob- re-

{ob- ess duc

ess tion Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton- 8. 1 2. 4 5. 7 Altoona __________________________ __ 14. 2 5. 8 8.4 Erie ______________________________ _ _ 9. 7 4. 0 5. 7 Harrisburg _______________________ _ _ 5. 9 2. 4 3. 5 Johnstown _______________________ __ 15.4 4. 4 ll. 0 Lancaster _________________________ __ 4. 2 l. 3 2. 9 Philadelphia _____________________ __ 7. 7 3. 9 3. 8 Pittsburgh _______________________ __ ll. 3 2. 9 8. 4 Reading __________________________ __ 5. 9 2. 6 3. 3 Scranton _________________________ _ _ 13.9 6. 6 7. 3 Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton _______ _- 13.7 5. 6 8.1 'ork _____________________________ _ _ 6. 7 2. 5 4. 2


Both the pace and the face of the State's labor force are undergoing a change.

The economy is not only stepped up, it is more diversified. The four-county steel area near Pittsburgh shows dramatic evidence of both factors at work.

Between the first quarter of 1963 and the first quarter of 1964, claims for Federal jobless insurance benefits dropped by 44 percent.

There were 39,200 claims in 1963 and in 1964 there were 21,900 claims.

At the same time Pittsburgh is emerging as an industrial materials research center that now offers over 15,000 such jobs.

Columbia County also offers a profile in the change of pace and face of its economy. Oriented to coal, 13.1 percent of the labor force was jobless in February 1963. In April of this year unemployment dropped to 4.5 percent of the labor force.

Jobless miners are now jobholders in diversified noncoal industries. A similar situation exists in Lackawanna County where king coal is now a comparatively small employer.

Jobless'ness had dropped from 16.4 percent down to 8.3 percent of the labor force. Men who once dug coal are now making shoes, house trailers, and metal goods.

Although Lackawanna's unemployment rate is still high by comparison, it has made one of the greatest industrial rebirths of any chronically depressed area in the Nation.

Pennsylvania's recovery statewide has been so dramatic that the normally cautious economists were moved to superlatives in describing it.

Bell Telephone’s 1964 year end economic review used such terms as:

The Pennsylvania index of general business activity rose a whopping 6 percent.

Employment—the bright star.

Steel production—surging.

Personal income—everything's rosy.


The following measurable indicators of prosperity show the extent of Pennsylvania's economic rebirth since 1963:

Jobless workers cut by 194,800.

Jobless insurance fund up 341.2 million.

Consumer and business taxes yielding record State surplus of over $130 million.

State banks report Pennsylvanians have $1.006 billion more in time deposits and savings accounts.

US. Treasury says Pennsylvanians have invested $60.8 million more in US. savings bonds.

State residents qualified for $2.1 billion more in loans from State banks.

Over 4.3 million State residents have jobs, the largest jobholding force since 1957.

Industrial expansions and new industry projects totaled 1,972 as compared to 1,426 projects in 1961-62.

There were 91,730 new jobs created as compared to 55,845 new jobs in 1961—62.

State per capita income was highest in history, 62.575 in 1964.

Manufacturing jobs hits a record weekly average wage of $105.71.

Over 25,000 workers whose job skills became obsolete have been retrained and put on new jobs.

Purchases of life insurance, a form of savings, is up 11.4 percent.

A total of 50,000 more State residents are driving new cars; 12,000 more have new trucks.

Department store sales rose from a yearly index of 110 up to 124.

The general business index rose from a yearly level of 109 up to 122. In May it was at 130 and higher above the expected trend than ever recorded.

Bank resources set a record increase of $626 million in 1963, the biggest yearly gain except for the 1944—45 war years.

Bank net earnings set an alltime record in 1964 of $116.7 million.

Total bank deposits set a record in 1963 and 1964 of 619.3 and $21.5 billion respectively. So did total bank resources.

The electrical power required to feed a growing economy increased in 1963 by 4.2 million kilowatt hours over 1962.

The Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority set records in 1964 for new projects, an even 100; that created 11,824 new jobs.

Building construction went over the $1 billion mark for the first time ever in 1963 and 1964. In May of 1965 it was running 14 percent ahead of 1963 and 9 percent ahead of 1964.

Traflic on the Pennsylvania Turnpike has generated an additional $4.6 million in fare revenue.

Liquor stores sales are up by $23.1 million. 'I'hey’re drinking better stuff, too. Higher priced, import sales are up by 4 percent.

Business failures have steadily declined from 820 in 1962 down to 790 the following year; to 695 during 1964.

Tourism, the State's newest industry, hit a record $2 billion in 1964. It is going even better this year.

Revenue of major utilities, prime gages of economic activity, in 1963 alone rose by $88 million. The gas, electric, telephone, and water utilities also increased payrolls by $17 million.

Exports at Delaware River ports totaled 1.8 million tons more in 1963 than in 1962. Plane cargo tons went up by 2,599; passengers increased by 163,033.

Public welfare rolls dropped below 400,000 in May, the earliest point in any year since 1960 because of early seasonal employment demands. There were nearly 31,000 less on relief than a year ago.

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

Pennsylvania's economic growth rate has caught up to and overtaken that of the United States and of 11 other 1eading.industrial States.

After a slow start during the 1961—62 years of the national economic upturn, Pennsylvania hit full stride in 1963—64 that has seen it:

Place a higher percentage of its work force in jobs at a rate 3.6 percent faster than the United States.

Reduce the number of jobless persons in its labor force at a rate faster than 11 other major industrial States.

End a 33-year record as the second worst unemployment rate State in the Nation.

Since 1931, Pennsylvania had the second highest rate of unemployed workers in the Nation. Only West Virginia was worse.

By 1964 Pennsylvania advanced to 18th in the Nation in unemployment. The advance is continuing. Thus far economy is firmly entwined this year.

Everyone agrees that Pennsylvania has made one of the most dramatic economic recoveries in modern history. They disagree as to why or what caused it.

Attempts to place credit for Pennsylvania's new found productivity and prosperity become complicated by what could be termed the Siamese twins of the American enterprise system—the bodies politic and economic.

Movement by one affects the other to the extent that elections are won and lost on economic issues.

Pennsylvania's resurging economy is firmly entwined in national and State politics because:

The 4-year national recovery has taken place under the Democratic administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in Washington.

The administration of Pennsylvania during the national boom has been split—almost equally—between the Democratic administration of David L. Lawrence and the Republican administration of William W. Scranton.

The major issue of Pennsylvania's 1962 election for Governor was chronic high unemployment.

Today, Republicans say, primary credit for the State's improvement should go to Scranton administration policies and news laws that were enacted to aid the economy.

Democrats say that the primary credit belongs to a whirring national economy.

Scranton says the disagreement over which party should get credit “is a silly argument." Both his administration and the national economy are factors, he says.

For those who insist upon giving the credit to someone, Scranton suggests: “The first share and the largest share of the credit should go to the people of Pennsylvania. It is their work and their initiative that has made the difi‘erence.

"They are getting the kind of State government and the new way of doing things they voted for and are willing to pay for."

Two prominent economists were asked for their viewpoints on what happened to Pennsylvania's economy.

Both of them, one from eastern Pennsylvania. the other from western Pennsylvania, asked not to be quoted. They do not want to become embroiled in the obvious political overtones.

They each said the facts of the State's new economic life lie somewhere in between the highly partisan claims.

The eastern Pennsylvania economist said:

“Two forces are basically at work.

“One is the general national expansion.

“The other is the change in climate brought about by changes made in Harris— burg.

"Had the general national economy not responded, the State situation wouldn't look nearly so well as it does. The facts are that the national economy is favorable in the shorter run but the State is setting the stage for a longer term reversal.

“Pennsylvania is consolidating its past gains due to things that changed in Harrisburg."

What changed? The economist said:

1. “The State is now trying to make it possible for people within Pennsylvania who are in business to be profitable, to grow, and to employ more people.

2. "The State has done much to correct the image that Pennsylvania is over the hill. It is no longer looked upon as a decadent State with old industry."

The western Pennsylvania economist said:

“The Nation's economy has certainly given Pennsylvania the springboard it required. At the same time more recent internal changes have provided added momentum to the creation of employment opportunities."

He said, "it must be remembered that Pennsylvania at its best is only an average growth State. That it is exceeding its historic average is indicative of economic forces separate and distinct from those generated nationally."

Undergirding the changes emerging within Pennsylvania, he said, “are the national factors of increased auto production, increased steel production, and increased consumer spending encouraged by the tax cuts and a confidence in the economy."

The real test for Pennsylvania's economy, he said, will come “when it is called upon to sustain itself in the face of a letdown in the national economy.

“Indications are that the State may become diversified sufiiciently to better withstand a recession at the national level than it did previously," he said.

Both economists were inclined to give the Scranton administration credit for doing something apart from the national economy that resulted in increasing the pace of Pennsylvania’s prosperity.

What has been done?

The State has rid itself of an antibusiness image by the simple expedient of creating a tax and administrative structure that assures business and industry of making a fair profit.

Profits enable plants to expand and expansions create job opportunities anew.

Not to be overlooked in the political aspect of Pennsylvania's economic resurgence is the fact that Scranton, a millionaire about nine times, entered politics solely because he was concerned about joblessness.

He got a first hand view of chronic unemployment in his home Lackawanna County and ran for Congress in 1960 pledged to do something about it.

In March of 1962, shortly after he was tabbed for Governor, he told the Lancaster New Era during a Washington interview:

"With the proper climate, I believe that Pennsylvania's prominence in the national economy can be restored."

He was elected in 1962 and in the past 2% years there has emerged from Harrisburg a precise plan to get a larger share of national prosperity for Pennsylvania.

Generally the plan unfolded this way:

The business and industry community was asked what Government could do to restore investment confidence in the State.

The State's financial and administrative structure was stabilized.

Tax law changes were made to induce more industrial expansion and relocation within the State.

Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority liberalized loan policies to induce more investment in industry.

The unemployment compensation fund was stabilized by closing loopholes costing 335 million a year, and by asking industry to pay an additional $35 million into it.

Civil service was extended to State em— ployees in an effort to keep competent workers from the traditional political dismissal at a change of administrations.

The best technical minds in the State were enlisted to forecast what educational and technical skills should be available for today's and future labor forces.

State assets such as resources, geographic location, tourism, available work force, recreation opportunities, forestry, and agriculture was promoted by a comprehensive and vigorous advertising campaign.

A citizens group of 100,000 Pennsylvanians was enlisted to spread the news of the advantages of the State wherever they went.

« ПретходнаНастави »