In providing training for adversely affected workers, the Department of Labor through State agencies utilizes existing training opportunities under provisions of other laws, such as the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. When prime sponsors under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act do not have sufficient resources to provide training, the costs of training may be funded from a reserve of the Secretary's discretionary funds appropriated under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. Training funds are requested by State agencies on a need basis. Through March 24, 1976, a total of $2,500,000 in Federal monies has been approved for training.

Since April 3, 1975, the States with the highest incidence of import-related dislocations, as measured by the estimated number of workers certified to apply for trade adjustment assistance, are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, Virginia, New York, Maryland, California, and Massachusetts. The metropolitan areas with the highest incidence of import-related dislocations, measured in the same way, are Detroit, Michigan; Portsmouth, Virginia; Fenton, Missouri; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; and Chula Vista, California.

PROGRAM COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AUTOMOTIVE IMPORTS

Under the TEA program four certifications were issued in cases involving automotive products. To date $3.8 million has been paid to approximately 2,071 workers. Three of the cases, involving about $2.9 million in expenditures and about 1,800 workers, related to imports from Canada. The fourth case did not. Under the APTA program, $3.8 million was paid to 1,943 workers. All the ases involved Canadian automotive imports.

Under the Trade Act program to date benefits associated with automotive mports amounted to approximately $15.8 million paid to 14,286 workers. The 15.8 million is, of course, supplemental to whatever unemployment insurance as received by the workers. Most, but not all of the benefits were associated ith Canadian imports.

I have excluded administrative costs from the above; in general such costs ould add an additional 10 to 15 percent to the benefit costs. Also, training costs ave not been included although there is some likelihood that some workers may have received training benefits or will receive such benefits in the future. o date, however, such expenditures appear significant only for the current

Togram.

This concludes my statement. I am submitting for the record five tables proding additional detail. I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

TABLE 2-TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR WORKERS AS OF FEB. 29, 1976

Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (expired Apr. 2, 1975).

Trade Act of 1974 (became effective Apr. 3, 1975. Chapter 2 of the "Act," adjustment assistance for workers, tertes on Sect. 30, 1982).

includes the 52 affirmative findings and the 43 evenly divided findings by the International Trade Commission plus the 15 certications under industry escape clause actions. Certifications plus denials for the trade adjustment assistance Pogram under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 do not therefore add up to the petitions submitted.

TABLE 3-ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE TO WORKERS IN THE AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS INDUSTRY AS OF FEB. 29, 1976

Automotive Products Trade Act of 1965 (expired June 30, 1968). ade Expansion Act of 1962 (expired Apr. 2, 1975).

*Trade Act of 1974 (became effective Apr. 3, 1975, ch. 2 of the "Act", adjustment assistance for workers, terminates on Sept. 30, 1582).

Source: U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of International Labor Affairs-Employment and Training Administration. TABLE 4.-TRADE EXPANSION ACT OF 1962

Mr. SEGALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me introduce the two people at the table with me. On my left is Mrs. Coyle of the Office of Foreign Economic Po an economist.

On my right is Mr. Fooks, Director of the Office of Trade Adj ment Assistance.

Mr. Chairman, your invitation to provide testimony on the t adjustment assistance program asked us to review the backgro of the program in the Department of Labor and in the States, costs, especially as related to Canadian imports, the number of wor benefiting, applications, denials, approvals, average benefits, graphical areas of significance, relationship to State unemploym compensation programs, costs borne by the States, the future of program and the degree of auto industry participation.

That is a large order and I have taken the liberty of submitting some statistical material which will provide the details that are not covered in this testimony.

There have been three adjustment assistance programs to date. Congress provided for the first program in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and intended the program benefits to be available only to workers whose displacement was clearly caused by changes in U.S. tariffs and by increased import competition.

Mr. DENT. May I ask you at this point, is it true that you only award compensation to the last man on the production line? In other words, when you find that a worker has lost his job because of imports, you award him compensation. What do you do with the supporting workers down in the coal mine who starts the whole process? Do you consider supporting workers-I don't know how many of them have lost their jobs.

Mr. SEGALL. Sir, the law requires that the U.S. product in question be directly competitive with the imports. The implication of that is that we don't touch the people in the mines..

Mr. DENT. I know. That was one of the points I made in the debate. There are employees down the line. We can't even make a pencil with only one man, unless he digs up the minerals to begin with, cuts the timber down and fashions the tools to make the pencil. So you see it isn't truly a compensation that reflects the number of persons who have in fact lose their jobs because of imports. Would you agree with that?

Mr. SEGALL. I think there is another string to that. That is, the people in the mines produce output for other industries in addition to the automobile industry.

Mr. DENT. But they need to produce coal for all industries to have a total employment in their mines. So if one industry is affected and that industry no longer uses the amount of coal, then someone loses a job, When someone doesn't use the auto end product, some coal miner loses his job.

Mr. SEGALL. I was talking about the first program of adjustment assistance under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Under that program increased imports had to be caused in major part by a concession under the trade agreements program and increased imports had to be the major factor causing injury to the workers.

The second program was provided for in the Automotive Products Trade Act of 1965 and existed concurrently with the TEA program. Congress provided the APTA program mainly because of the special Situation created by the U.S.-Canadian Auto Agreement. APTA tandards for adjustment assistance were clearly related to changes in U.S. trade policy, just as in the TEA program, and to changes in evels of exports and imports, but the required link to import comtition was substantially lessened. The operation of the auto agreeent had to be the primary factor causing dislocation of workers. The third adjustment assistance program is the current one that is rovided under the Trade Act of 1974. Congress, after reviewing the experience under the TEA program, wanted to assure easier access to adjustment assistance and substantially reduced the standards workers were required to meet. The link to U.S. trade agreement concessions was eliminated and the increase in imports need only contribute importantly to the total or partial separation of workers.