View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.




MARCH 11, 1953
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking and Currency



HOMER E. CAPEHART, Indiana, Chairman
BURNET R. MAYBANK, South Carolina
PRESCOTT BUSH, Connecticut
J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland
J. ALLEN FREAR, JR. Delaware

IRA DIXON, Chief Clerk
RAY S. DONALDSON, Staff Director


Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p. m., Senator Homer
E. Capehart (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Capehart, Bricker, Ives, Bush, Beall, Payne,
Goldwater, Maybank, Sparkman, Frear, Douglas, and Lehman.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. The
purpose of this open session is to consider the nomination of Mr.
Arthur F. Burns to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Mr. Burns is with us.
I think, Mr. Burns, we would like to have you make a statement,
if you care to. Do you have a statement you would care to make?

Mr. BURNS. I have not prepared any statement, Mr. Senator. I
will be glad to answer any questions.
The CHAIRMAN. DO you have any remarks you would care to
make before the Senators ask questions, if they care to?
Mr. BURNS. N O ; I do not feel that I do.
The CHAIRMAN. I might say I have before me a resume of Mr.
Burns' background. It is a biography, which I shall ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the record at this point.
(The material referred to follows:)

Mr. Burns was born in Stanislau, Austria, April 27, 1904. He was graduated
from Columbia University in 1925 and received his doctor's degree in economics
from the same institution in 1934. From 1927 to 1930 he served as instructor in
economics at Rutgers University. In 1930 he became an assistant professor of
economics at Columbia University. He was associate professor from 1933 to 1943
and full professor since 1944.
Mr. Burns has been research director of the National Bureau of Economic
Research since 1945. From 1930 to 1945 he was a member of the research staff
of the bureau. Mr. Burns is also a member of the council of research of the
Institute of World Affairs; a member of the board of directors of the National
Bureau of Economic Research; and a member of the administrative board of
Rutgers University.
He is a fellow of the American Statistical Association and a member of the
American Economic Association and the Academy of Political Science.
Mr. Burns is married and has two children. His family resides at 370 Central
Park West, New York City.



The CHAIRMAN. YOU may proceed in your own way, if you have
anything to say. I might say we have the 100 percent endorsements
of Senators Ives and Lehman from the home State of Mr. Burns. As
far as our records show in the committee, and in my office, there is no
opposition to confirmation.
Senator BRICKER. What do you teach at Columbia?
Mr. BURNS. I have been teaching current economic theory and
business cycles.
Senator BRICKER. Are you teaching now?
Mr. BURNS. I am. I have got to meet my classes tomorrow,
Senator BRICKER. Have you written any textbooks?
Mr. BURNS. N O ; I have written some books on economics but no
book that qualifies as a textbook.
Senator BRICKER. YOU have written books on economics?
Mr. BURNS. Yes.
Senator BRICKER. What are some?
Mr. BURNS. One is "Production Trends

in the United States Since
1870." Another is a volume that I wrote jointly with a former teacher
entitled "Measuring Business Cycles." Another is "Economic
Research and the Keynesian Thinking of Our Times," and other
publications of lesser significance.
Senator BRICKER. What articles have you prepared?
Mr. BURNS. I have written a good many over the years on various
subjects, on measurement of production, on the quantity theory of
money and price stabilization, on Keynes' economic thought on the
measurement of the velocity of money, and a variety of articles on the
different aspects of the subject of business cycles and stability of
consumer spending, economic forecasting and the like.
Senator BRICKER. HOW do you feel about consumer controls?
Mr. BURNS. By "consumer controls" I take it you mean credit
Senator BRICKER. Yes.
Mr. BURNS. This- is a new field of economic activity. We embarked
upon it in this country in approximately 1940 or 1941. I think that,
by and large, consumer credit controls, at certain times, can perform a
very useful function.
Senator BRICKER. What time?
Mr. BURNS. I should think that in a period when economic activity
is high and rising and prices seem to be moving upward. At a time
like that, I think it is desirable to look at the possibility of restraining
the purchase of consumer commodities by credit devices. But I
don't feel that credit controls, as such, should be used automatically,
lightly, or frequently.
Senator BRICKER. What do you think about the greater impact of
consumer controls upon the lower class of our people who must have
automobiles, who must have household furnishings, and who do not
have the money to make the down payment on them?
Mr. BURNS. I think that is something to consider. At the same
time the problem facing the Government at a time when inflationary
forces are running high is the maximum advantage to the Nation as
a whole. We have to give due weight to the needs of all groups of the



I, for one, can't take for granted as a public policy to extend liberal
credit at all times to all sections of the population and let the money
increase and let prices move as they will.
Senator BRICKER. What do you feel about the present time?
Mr. BURNS. Senator, I hate to answer that question, not because
I wish to be cautious, but because I have not studied the current
situation with sufficient care to be able to answer your question
Senator BRICKER. YOU are presumed to advise the President on
his economic policy. I would like to have your thinking on whether
there is a need for consumer price control at the present time, credit
Mr. BURNS. Before I would give the President any advice, I would
want to study the question at hand with the utmost care and then
speak only on the basis of such evidence that I could assemble, informing the President in as few words as I could what basis I have for the
advice that I give him.
Senator BRICKER. YOU wouldn't want to jump to a conclusion on
Mr. BURNS. NO; I would not.
Senator Bricker. You have mentioned you have written on Keynes'
theories. What is your impression about that?
Mr. BURNS. That is a large subject.
Senator BRICKER. We grant that.
Mr. BURNS. I think Keynes is a very stimulating economic thinker.
Many of his ideas are sound and many of his ideas are unsound.
If you throw specific questions to me, I will be glad to talk about
Keynes' theories.
Senator BRICKER. Could you briefly tell us the ones that you
think are sound and those that are unsound?
Mr. BURNS. In a sketchy way; yes. I think that Keynes has performed an important service to economic thinking in directing our
attention to the importance of maintaining a high level of employment practically all the time.
Senator BRICKER. DO you think the Government ought to guarantee that?
Mr. BURNS. NO; I don't think the Government ought to guarantee
it. I doubt if it could make good on the guarantee. It is easy enough
to put everybody on the payroll and keep a stable number of names on
the payroll, but to maintain employment at a stable level in a genuine
sense, I think, is a difficult undertaking.
Senator BRICKER. Just how does Keynes' theory of money lend
itself to full employment?
Mr. BURNS. The way Keynes went about the problem, briefly, is
as follows: Keynes started out with the basic proposition that the
national income consists of two main branches of expenditures. First,
there is the expenditure on consumer goods; and, second, the expenditure on investment goods. Then Keynes went on to argue that
expenditure on consumer goods is determined by the size of the
national income, consumer spending being a passive response, a passive
mechanical response to the national income. Investment expenditure,
on the other hand, he regarded as a free, dynamic variable, controlled
by the vagaries of the human mind. Keynes felt that investment
expenditure dominated or controlled the size of the national income,



and that investment expenditure in the hands of private business firms
was not a quantity on which our society could depend, since businessmen, so Keynes argued, are swayed by their emotions, being one day
optimistic and another day extremely pessimistic. Therefore, he
proceeded to argue that it is the function of government to socialize
to a considerable extent the investment process.
That was the broad part of his thinking. He would socialize the
investment process, first, by keeping the interest rate low. If we got
into a boom, the way to maintain the boom, Keynes argued, was to
make the interest rate lower still. Well, that might not be enough.
And therefore, Keynes felt it was important for the Government to
take over an increasing proportion of private industry, so that a
large part of investment expenditures would be under the direct control of governmental authority.
Senator BRICKER. DO you agree with that theory?
Mr. BURNS. I do not.
Senator BRICKER. Which

of his theories do you agree with, remembering my question to you first was, in what way would his theory
enhance employment?
Mr. BURNS. I think at certain times an increase in governmental
spending might be a desirable way of increasing employment.
Senator BRICKER. Sort of pump-priming process?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, a pump-priming process describes it, I think.
Senator BRICKER. Maybe that is a short cut to explaining your
Mr. BURNS. It means, of course, many, many things to different
minds. I think a process like pump-priming expenditures should be
examined in a specific context.
Senator BRICKER. AS you said in the beginning, Keynes' theory is
all-expansive and covers the waterfront. What part of it do you agree
Mr. BURNS. I agree, Senator, that there are times when the Government cannot stand by and let the course of economic activity run
its own way. I would accept that broad proposition. I also find
much of what Keynes has to say about the volatility of the investment
process a solid analysis of what goes on in our economy. I find much
of his thinking about consumer spending stimulating.
The trouble with Keynes is, as I see it, that he is full of brilliant
flashes but nothing is worked out very solidly and fully. It is fundamentally, I believe, a polemic for expanding the sphere of government
and for changing the character of our society. For example, Keynes
was in favor of a very high income tax and a very high inheritance tax,
not because they would yield revenue but because they would redistribute income in our society. I find it a little difficult to go along
with that idea, in the way in which Keynes formulated it.
Senator BRICKER. In what way would you go along with it?
Mr. BURNS. Well, Senator, I think that when we consider our
scheme of taxation, it is desirable to keep in mind not only the revenue
needs of the Government, but also the effects that our taxing machinery has on our economy. That broad proposition I would go along
Senator BRICKER. It might have the same effect, the same purpose,
as the philosophy in back of it.



Mr. BURNS. I will say this for Keynes. He was explicit. He was
broadly an egalitarian. That was his broad philosophy. He felt
that the sort of income distribution that we have, in his own country,
and in ours—and very much he was thinking of ours, rather than his
own—was undesirable, even immoral.
Senator BRICKER. What about the relative value of direct controls
and price fixing, and the like, where the credit controls portion is contrasted with indirect controls by the Government, Federal Reserve
open-market purchases, requirements, and interest rates?
Mr. BURNS. YOU wish toknow my views rather than Keynes7?
Senator BRICKER. We have to interpret what is sent down here
from the administration and the views may respond to your attitude
toward these problems.
Mr. BURNS. Certainly. My feeling is that the people of this
country believe, and genuinely believe, in a free economic society.
That, I share fully. Therefore, I am disposed to favor indirect general
controls. However, I would not exclude direct controls under all
circumstances. In a time of grave national emergency, direct controls
might be desirable.
Senator BRICKER. It might be necessary?
Mr. BURNS. Yes.

mentioned here you were in charge as
research director of the National Bureau of Economic Research since
1945. What research programs did you carry out there, or what
problems did you attempt to solve?
Mr. BURNS. We worked very extensively on the measurement of
the national income and its distribution among different groups in our
society, also according to size. We worked on the problem of business
cycles, trying to determine as accurately as we could, what the nature
and empirical characteristics of business cycles have been.
We have worked a good deal on the measurement and interpretation
of the changes that have occurred in this country in the sphere of
industrial productivity. We have worked a good deal on problems
in the area of banking and finance, including at the present time a
rather fascinating program on Federal lending agencies and their
economic impact.
Senator BRICKER. YOU mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Burns, that
businessmen are up today, down tomorrow, optimistic now and pessimistic then. What would be the Government's responsibility in a
situation of that kind? Do you think the Government ought to move
into and level off those emotional reactions?
Mr. BURNS. Senator, I think that would be an extremely hazardous
undertaking for the Government. These psychological swings on the
part of the business community, I think, can also be exaggerated.
By and large, I think the businessmen of this country, speaking historically, have had great confidence in the growth of our economy and
in the future of our country.
There have been times, and I believe the year 1932 was one, when a
mood of despondency settled upon the business community; and those
were very difficult times, as you so well know.
Senator BRICKER. The attitudes of businessmen are just about as
unpredictable and as hard to control as the buying habits of people?
Mr. BURNS. Precisely. I think one of the shortcomings of recent
economic thinking stemming from Keynes has been that economists



have gotten into the habit of thinking of two groups of human beings:
On the one hand, consumers whose behavior is mechanical and passive;
on the other hand, that business investors and their policies of thinking
are unpredictable. People, I think, are pretty much the same in all
walks of life.
These shifts in expectations that the Keynes' school ascribes to
the business community apply, also, to ordinary consumers, as we
discovered in 1950.
Senator BRICKER. May I ask you, then, of your theory or attitude
toward the responsibility of government in this field of finance is
that we should do everything possible consistent with the highest
level of freedom on the part of the individual who wants to buy and
sell, and on the part of business, that wants to produce for selling, to
level off the peaks of inflation and to fill in the valleys? As you go
up, somebody is hurt, and as you come down, somebody is hurt.
Would it be your thought that the Government position or responsibility would be to minimize that to a large extent without completely
changing our whole economic structure?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, and keeping in mind all the time the importance
of economic growth. I think we sometimes talk too much about
Senator BRICKER. That is right. You can't have economic growth
unless you have some ups and some downs.
Mr. BURNS. Certainly, as long as you have ups and downs in
individual traits.
Senator BRICKER. In as relatively or highly free an economy as
you can have?
Mr. BURNS. Yes.

Burns, I presume you feel your first responsibility is to advise the President, and that in every instance he ought
to pass on to the American people that information rather than you
passing it in to them yourself?
Mr. BURNS. I do very definitely.
The CHAIRMAN. YOU feel your responsibility is to the President, and
that you should pass on your opinions based on your research and the
efforts of your work to the President and he can do with it as he sees
Mr. BURNS. Precisely. I feel that my function and that of the
council should be in the fullest sense of the word nonpolitical.
The CHAIRMAN. Simply to advise the President and give him the
benefit of your research and your opinions and your statistics, and
then he to pass it on to the public and do with it as he sees fit?
Mr. BURNS. By all means.
Senator BRICKER. I have just one more question. We have before
us at the present time a consideration of standby direct controls.
What is your feeling about the need for that?
Mr. BURNS. Well, Senator, I haven't read the Capehart bill. I
don't know anything about its provisions. All I can say is this:
Within the last dozen years our Government has found it necessary,
or desirable—it is not for me to pass judgment on that—to impose
price and wage controls. We are living in a time of great uncertainty. There is no way of telling at which moment of time new
international trouble may break out.
For that reason I should be inclined to think that standby controls
in some sense might be helpful, merely to save time. How to cariy



out that idea in practice is something that I have not given anythought to, haven't studied, and I don't know the Senator's bill.
Senator BRICKER. DO you feel that Congress should abdicate its
responsibility of determining policy at the time when it happens and
leave to the Executive, who is the administrator, to carry out the will
of the Congress, to put into effect a complete control of the American
economy sometime in the future?
Mr. BURNS. Senator, you make my problem in some ways very
easy and in some ways very difficult. I don't think the Congress
should abdicate its authority at any time. You can't take the time
to go into all of this, of course. I am so sorry that I am so poorly
informed on this important piece of legislation that your committee
is considering at the present time. If you did inform me of the specific provisions of the bill, I might possibly be presumptuous enough to
speak tentatively my thoughts about it.
The CHAIRMAN. May I say this, Mr. Burns. I think we will give
you the opportunity to come back and testify maybe in a couple of
weeks on this. I gather that you much prefer to do that, rather than
talk on it today.
Senator SPARKMAN. May I suggest that he confirmed that he will
not be back to testify. I think he has just stated that a little while
ago in answer to Senator Bricker's question, that his duty would be
to advise the President and not Congress.
Senator BRICKER. His predecessor was down here often enough.
The CHAIRMAN. I see no relationship between the head of the Council of Economic Advisers giving information to the President and to
testifying before this committee. I do not believe there is too much
relationship between the two.
If you want to answer the question, it is all right. We have two
types of bills, here. One is to set up a standby control organization,
and then give the President the right to freeze prices and wages and
rents for 90 days, with much of the legislation under which the controls would operate already written and spelled out.
The other is a straight, simple 90-day freeze which will give the
President of the United States the authority to freeze all prices, wages,
and rents for 90 days, at which time the Congress would take action,
and so forth. It might be that by concurrent resolution, the second
day after the President put it into effect, the Congress would say we
would not want it, or pass permanent or temporary legislation to put
it into effect, or it might not, which means at the end of 90 days the
freeze would be completely lifted.
The Congress might, during the 90-day period, decide that the
matter could best be handled by indirect controls entirely. It might
decide it would take both indirect controls, as well as direct controls,
in which event, during the 90-day period, the Congress would decide
the question entirely as to what should or should not be done.
The purpose of it, I do not need to tell you, is that if we do get a
big emergency quickly, the economy of the Nation would remain in
status quo until such time as the Congress took action. The Congress would have to take action in not to exceed 90 days; otherwise,
the freeze would be 100 percent off.
Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Senator.
Senator SPARKMAN. Did you expect him to answer?
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bricker asked the question, and if he
wants to



Senator BRICKER. I do not care to pursue it.
Senator SPARKMAN. Did I wrongly interpret your statement a
little while ago? Is it your feeling that you should testify before
congressional committees, or will you keep yourself aloof from congressional committees?
Mr. BURNS. Senator Sparkman, it is perfectly plain to me that the
Congress has the full right to call upon any citizen within or outside
the Government to testify at any time.
Senator SPARKMAN. Not if he is part of the President's office, I
don't suppose.
Mr. BURNS. I know so little yet about governmental machinery.
Senator SPARKMAN. I don't want to embarrass you in any way.
If there is any reason for not answering it
Mr. BURNS. Not in the slightest.
Senator SPARKMAN. We have had that question up. It has been a
controversial one at different times.
Mr. BURNS. I know. I think you are entitled to know what is on
my mind. My own personal feeling or my inclination would be to
stay out of the limelight, make my recommendations to the President,
indicate to him what the basis for the recommendation is and do that
in the light of the national interest as I, after consulting with very
many people, many of them abler than I, can discover, and then
having done that, to remain eternally quiet.
Senator SPARKMAN. What would be your attitude toward you or
your staff cooperating with the Joint Committee on the Economic
Report of Congress?
Mr. BURNS. Well, it is clear to me that cooperation, intimate
cooperation, is necessary under the law. What specific form cooperation might take is a matter that I will be wrestling with, if you do me
the honor of confirming me, over the next few weeks.
Senator SPARKMAN. YOU do feel there ought to be a close association between the Economic Council, or the Council of Economic
Advisers, and the Joint Committee on the Economic Report.
Mr. BURNS. Yes.

Mr. Burns, let me ask you this: There has
been considerable confusion and some consternation down in the
Economic Council because of the fact that the appropriations carried
in last year's bill were just for 9 months. That 9 months is about
used up. In fact, I believe all of the employees—I think there are
only 2 dozen or so—have been given termination notices. That
time is about to run out.
Mr. BURNS. It is.
Senator SPARKMAN. I am sure you are familiar with that situation.
Mr. BURNS. Yes; it is a sad one.
Senator SPARKMAN. It is my understanding that practically all of

those employees, most of them, were appointed at the time Dr.
Nourse was Chairman of the Council.
Mr. BURNS. Well, there has been a good deal of turnover.
Senator SPARKMAN. Some turnover. Certainly, as far as I know
there were no politics involved. What would be your attitude
toward making some kind of an adjustment so that you would get
the benefit, at least, of the best ones in there, as you might determine, in order to give continuity?



Mr. BURNS. Well, I will tell you what I have been doing. I have
no powers, as you understand. But I have spent the last 2 days
consulting with the members of the staft. I have examined their
individual records. I have talked to them individually. I say the
"staff." I haven't as yet spoken to the secretariat, but I have talked
to every professional person on the staft. I haven't reached any
final decision. But my whole feeling is that a fairly large proportion
of those individuals are good scholars and should be retained, if
I want to examine the publications of some of these men. I have
indicated that to them, and will try, if confirmed, to let them know
very promptly what my own intentions would be.
From the point of view of governmental efficiency, as well as
human decency, I think it would be desirable to retain as many as
possible of those people.
Senator SPARKMAN. That will be one of the first things you will
deal with?
Mr. BURNS. I have already begun dealing with it.
Senator SPARKMAN. I am sure you realize the difficulty of getting
good people in the Government?
Mr. BURNS. I do.

Senator SPARKMAN. I suppose a great many of those leading staff
members are already searching around for other work?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, they have had a hard time living in uncertainty,
men with families. It is not an easy situation.
Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that
Mr. Burns has appeared before the Joint Economic Committee at
various times, usually as a member of a panel.
Mr. BURNS. Just once, as I recall.
Senator SPARKMAN. Speaking as one member of that committee, I
can testify to the very fine impression he made upon the committee.
By the way, Mr. Burns, four members of this committee are members
of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report. Senator Douglas,
as you know, is; Senator Fulbright, who is not here, is; and Senator
Senator GOLDWATER. I would like to ask Mr. Burns one question.
I haven't heard you elaborate on your Council. Do you intend to
have a three-man Council or are you going to be the Council?
Mr. BURNS. That is a question that I want to study and ponder
a little further. When I turned to this question, turned it over in
my mind for the first time a few weeks ago, it seemed very clear to
me then a three-man Council would be preferable. My principal
reason for that was that in writing law and studying up on these
situations it is desirable not to project individuals against the frailty
of their own nature. I can think of an economic adviser winning the
ear of a President and becoming a little careless, extemporizing,
voicing opinions, and not subjecting his thinking to the discipline
that the important questions to be dealt with deserve and require.
However, as I talked to other men, some of whom have studied
this problem over a long period, I have come to see that there are
disadvantages as well as advantages. One of the very first things
I want to do after the matter of staff is settled at the Council is to
turn to this very question and search out the best thinking of men



familiar with the processes of Government, and also of men who
have given some thought to this specific question.
I hope before very long to be able to present the recommendation
that I can conscientiously defend.
Senator GOLD WATER. Thank you.
Senator BRICKER. The present law requires three.
Mr. BURNS. Yes.
Senator FREAR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burns, are you
Mr. BURNS. Yes.
Senator FREAR. What is an economist?
Mr. BURNS. Well, Senator, I think that is a very

an economist?

fair question.
It is one I haven't been asked to answer for close to 30 years, but one
that I keep asking of my students. I think justice does catch up with
Turning to your question, Senator, I think an economist is a person
who has devoted himself seriously to the study of how goods and
services are produced, how income is distributed among the people,
what are the forces that make for changes in the volume and in the
specific content of economic activity.
Senator FREAR. It is purely a study?
Mr. BURNS. Well, I mention the study because that has been the
activity that I have been engaged in. I like to think of it as a branch
of knowledge that is approaching very slowly, very gradually, the
status of a science.
Senator FREAR. An ex&ct science? Have you conferred with the
President on your nomination?
Mr. BURNS. I had the privilege of speaking to the President.
Senator FREAR. That was previous to his sending your nomination
down, sir?
Mr. BURNS. Yes.
Senator FREAR. Did

you give him your views, your economic
views, or your theory on economics, sir?
Mr. BURNS. NO, I did not.
Senator FREAR. That is all.
Senator DOUGLAS. I don't want

to ask Mr. Burns any questions,
but I do want to make a statement for the record. I have known
Mr. Burns' work for over 20 years. He has a splendid reputation
as not only a competent but a distinguished scholar and that he is
unbiased. I think it is a fine appointment. I personally am going
to be very happy to vote for his confirmation.
Senator BRICKER. Are you a Republican or Democrat?
Mr. BURNS. I am registered as a Democrat, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?
Senator DOUGLAS. I may say I did not know that.
Senator BRICKER. I may say that the Senator's suggestion alerted
me to ask my question.
Senator IVES. HOW is it that your direction politically was Republican wise lately; how did it happen that you were a Republican
in the last election?
Mr. BURNS. Senator, let me answer that question by saying that
my thinking in the last election ran pretty much like the thinking of
the country.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, does anyone know any reason why we
should not at this point unanimously approve this nomination?



Senator DOUGLAS. I would like to make that motioD.
Senator BUSH. I second the motion.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been moved and seconded that the committee unanimously approve the nomination. We have the proxy of
Senator Maybank, and I have the proxy of
Senator SPARKMAN. I have the proxy of Senator Lehman.
The CHAIRMAN. I have not consulted with Senator Bennett or
Senator Fulbright. I understand Senator Bennett has phoned he is
in favor. Does anyone know of Senator Fulbright's thoughts?
We will put it this way: All present unanimously voted for the
confirmation, and then we will give Senator Fulbright, when we can
contact him, an opportunity to join with the full committee in voting
approval, unless he sees otherwise. As far as I know, he does not.
We thank you, Mr. Burns. We wish you good luck in your new job.
Senator MAYBANK. I want the record to show that I was not able
to be here because of the death of one of my colleagues. You had my
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, thank you, Senator Maybank.
(Whereupon, at 2:50 p. m. the committee went on to other business.)