and APTA programs. The States when they enter into an agreement with the department agree not to deny or reduce unemployment insurance.

Under the TEA program, which was in effect for over 12 years, approximately 54,000 workers covered in 110 petitions were certified by the Department of Labor as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance. Of these, 39,000 workers' claims were processed and approved resulting in 1,350,000 weeks of trade adjustment assistance and a total of $82.2 million paid in weekly benefit allowances to the eligible workers.

Under the APTA program, which was in effect for about 21⁄2 years, approximately 2,500 workers covered in 14 petitions were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance. Of these, about 2,000 workers received weekly benefit allowances amounting to $3.8 million. Under the Trade Act of 1974, which has been in effect for about a year, approximately 67,000 workers covered in 211 petitions were certified as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance. By February 29, 1976, 35,000 workers' claims had been processed and approved resulting in 800,000 weeks of trade adjustment assistance and a total of $37 million paid in weekly benefit allowances over and above nemployment benefits. On the basis of current caseloads it is likely Chat 100,000 to 150,000 workers may be certified by the end of the scal year.

As for future caseloads, we can make only rough estimates. During he next fiscal year as the economy recovery continues, two opposing orces will be influencing the caseload. Economic recovery will reduce nemployment levels and consequently will tend to reduce the numer of workers that might petition for adjustment assistance. But conomic recovery will also result in rising incomes which tend to aise the level of imports and tend to generate more adjustment ssistance petitions.

We estimate that the caseload in the next fiscal year will be about he same as our estimate for this year, about 100,000 to 150,000 ertified workers. The Federal cost of this program, for cash allownces, training, job search grants and relocation assistance, could each about $300 million per 100,000 workers depending on the duraion of unemployment, the average wage, the other services they eceive and several other factors. Administrative costs could add 10 15 percent. Ample budgetary resources are available to meet nticipated requirements.

Under the Trade Act of 1974 the difference between an individual's nemployment insurance payment and the higher amount of his ade readjustment allowance entitlement is federally financed. The erage weekly benefit amount currently being paid by the Federal overnment under the trade adjustment assistance program is $46. hat is the difference between the average unemployment insurance enefit and the average entitlement to trade adjustment assistance. Mr. DENT. Would you say then that a State that has a $140-a-week employment compensation ceiling, the worker will get a $186-aeek total because the Federal Treasury contributes $46 to his payent? Is that right?

Mr. SEGALL. That is right. It is added to the unemployment inrance payment.

72-532-763

Mr. DENT. It is added to the full unemployment compen being paid.

Mr. SEGALL. That is right.

Mr. DENT. Thank you.

Mr. SEGALL. Funds for the unemployment insurance paid versely affected workers come from the unemployment trust which derives its revenues from Federal and State taxes on empl Based on a State unemployment insurance average bene $70 a week, we estimate that the 35,000 recipients of the $37 mill Federal payments also received unemployment insurance payme approximately $51 million. Under the Trade Expansion Act of such amounts of unemployment insurance would have been bursed to the States.

In providing training for adversely affected workers the Depart of Labor through State agencies utilizes existing training opportu under provisions of other laws, such as the Comprehensive Em ment and Training Act. When prime sponsors under the Co hensive Employment and Training Act do not have sufficier sources to provide training, the costs of training may be funded fi reserve of the Secretary's discretionary funds appropriated unde Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. Training fund requested by State agencies on a need basis. Through March 24, a total of $2,500,000 in Federal moneys has been approved for trai Since April 3, 1975, the States with the highest incidence of im related dislocations, as measured by the estimated number of wo certified to apply for trade adjustment assistance are Pennsylv Michigan, Missouri, Virginia, New York, Maryland, California, Massachusetts. The metropolitan areas with the highest inciden import-related dislocations, measured in the same way, are De Mich.; Portsmouth, Va.; Fenton, Mo.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Baltin Md.; and Chula Vista, Calif.

Under the TEA program four certifications were issued in ( involving automotive products. To date $3.8 million has been pai approximately 2,071 workers. Three of the cases, involving a $2.9 million in expenditures and about 1,800 workers, relate imports from Canada. The fourth case did not.

Under the APTA program, $3.8 million was paid to 1,943 worl All the cases involved Canadian automotive imports.

Under the Trade Act program to date benefits associated 1 automotive imports amounted to approximately $15.8 million to 14,286 workers. The $15.8 million is, of course, supplementa whatever unemployment insurance was received by the work Most, but not all, of the benefits were associated with Cana imports.

I have excluded administrative costs from the above. In gen such costs could add an additional 10 to 15 percent to the ben costs. Also, training costs have not been included although ther some likelihood that some workers may have received training bene or will receive such benefits in the future. To date, however, s expenditures appear significant only for the current program.

This concludes my statement. I am submitting for the record 1 tables providing additional detail. I will be pleased to answer questions you might have, if you can think of a question I can answ

Mr. DENT. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Segall.

I am sorry if I interrupted your testimony to try to make some points. You notice Chula Vista is the site of the plant that moved cross the border into Mexico.

Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. I don't have any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Simon?

Mr. SIMON. I am just curious. Just one question. That is, beside the igures of how many claims have been approved, I am just wondering that the numbers are of those that have been denied. What perentage would it be?

Mr. SEGALL. In terms of petitions, sir, as of March 31, 239 petitions were certified; 186 petitions denied. That is on the order of 60 percent ertified and 40 percent denied.

Mr. SIMON. You make a determination for denial in what way?

Mr. SEGALL. If you are talking about the mechanics, we perform field investigation, and an industry study, which start simulaneously. We call on the firm, the workers and if the union is inolved, the union. We have hearings, if requested, and a recomendation as to whether or not this petition meets the eligibility equirements stipulated in the law.

Then there is a certifying officer who will either certify or deny the etition.

We have provision for appeal from that decision. We will in almost ay circumstance reopen the case even after the decision if new idence is offered.

Mr. SIMON. And your feeling is that the present procedure gives dequate protection to the employees faced with this kind problem?

Mr. SEGALL. Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. SIMON. No other questions.
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Simon.

Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. Yes, I have a question having to do with the arbitrary anner and unrealistic manner in which some of these benefits have en handled. I call your attention particularly to the case of the ower Roller Bearing Division of Federal-Mogul Corporation, hich had, as you probably recall, two adjacent plants but one niority list. So when the first plant closed down the higher seniority ployees were permitted to bump people at the second plant. The cond plant closed down too. But the determination said that only e closing of the first plant, only the people who were unemployed by e closing of the first plant, were eligible for benefits.

So we ended up with a crazy kind of situation. In one extreme case ere was a fellow that worked his last 12 hours at Bower after bumpg someone at the second plant and was denied benefits. That inlved some of my constitutents. It is a case I have been aware of w for several years. It has been dragging on. UAW has its legal partment representing the workers and so forth. I really do feel at some of the distinctions made in that case certainly are not sistent with the interpretation you give us in your testimony about atributing importantly and the difference that contributing imporatly is from the earlier determinations, "major factor" or "primary tor."

Mr. SEGALL. May I ask Mr. Fooks of the Office of Trade A ment Assistance to respond.

Mr. Fooкs. That case, Mr. O'Hara, is one we have been wr with. The provisions in the Trade Expansion Act applied, sin case was certified under the earlier law, although the situation the Trade Act hasn't changed with respect to the problem t posed by Federal-Mogul. The same problem exists. The dif was that the injury finding that was made by the Tariff Comm at that time was made on a particular product which was pro in one of the plants but not in the other plant. Consequently on workers in the plant that was producing the adversely af product were covered. The law does not recognize the coll bargaining arrangements that exist. This is a weakness in the It results in a lot of inequity. But there is no legal way we c about extending coverage to the workers who obviously took th by exercising seniority. However, the job extended several m and almost a year in some cases.

What we did was to clarify the provision which allowed wo subject to multiple bumps who had become unemployed to re

benefits.

Mr. O'HARA. I am reminded of Mr. Bumble's comment. "If is what the law says, then the law is an ass." I don't think wel it that way.

In any event, I know we want to get on to our next witness & won't take anymore time. But I didn't want to appear in the without bringing up my dissatisfaction and unhappiness and dis about the way the Federal-Mogul case has worked out for so mai those workers who have been without work now for a long, long I insist on thinking that the law must operate in a more reason fashion than that and there must be some way to make it work be Thank you.

Mr. DENT. Thank you. We are waiting for the next witness. Congressman Ford of Michigan just entered the room.

I might ask you a question until our next witness gets here was supposed to have been here a half-hour ago. He probably used to the traffic in this area.

I notice you point out the States that are most heavily impac Can you name the industries that are most heavily impacted?

Mr. SEGALL. Yes. That would be transportation, apparel, lea and leather products, electrical and electronic machinery, and tr portation equipment. Those are the industries where we have most of the activity.

Mr. DENT. Transportation of course would include the sub matter we are discussing today, the auto pact between the Un States and Canada.

Do you have the figures on the unemployment rates in th industries?

Mr. SEGALL. I have some data on unemployment in the automo industry. In March the unemployment rate-this is not season adjusted-was 6.9 percent. That may be compared with a rat year ago in March 1975 of 22.2 percent. If we adjust them season the unemployment rate in March of 1976 was 4.5 percent.

Mr. DENT. Isn't it true that you don't take into consideration th who were unemployed a year ago and have since dropped out of labor market?

Mr. SEGALL. That is right, sir.

Mr. DENT. So then really they haven't found jobs. But they are till unemployed. They have dropped out of the active labor market. Mr. SEGALL. They would not be included.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Maybe they retired.

Mr. DENT. Thank you very kindly.

The next witness is Leonard Woodcock, president, United Auto Vorkers.

Leonard, do you have anyone with you?

TATEMENT OF LEONARD WOODCOCK, PRESIDENT, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY DICK WARDEN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AND DR. HELEN KRAMER, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT

[Prepared statement of Leonard Woodcock follows:]

REPARED STATEMENT OF LEONARD WOODCOCK, PRESIDENT UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA

My name is Leonard Woodcock. I am President of the International Union, nited Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AW. We represent 1,405,000 UAW members in the United States and Canada. I welcome this opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on the impact of Canadian-U.S. auto agreement and to bring to your attention some of the blems UAW members have experienced in the administration of trade adjustnt assistance.

The Canadian-U.S. auto agreement had its origins in the efforts of the Canadian vernment to stimulate the growth of the Canadian auto industry and redress imbalance in automotive trade with the United States. Canada's introduction duty remission plan in 1963 threatened to trigger an economic confrontation h the United States, which could have responded by imposing countervailing ies. The auto agreement was negotiated by the two governments during the half of 1964 as a positive alternative to further restrictive action. Congress fied the agreement in October 1965.

Understandably, the U.S. Big 4 auto producers supported the agreement from outset, but the UAW's support was conditional upon the inclusion of adjustat assistance provisions for workers. Because of the deplorable record of ustment assistance under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (TEA). the UAW sted that the eligibility criteria be liberalized and that certification of workers ass the Tariff Commission. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, stated that we would refuse to support the Automotive Products Trade (APTA) if the only forms of relief available for adjustment assistance were e stipulated in the TEA. It was our union's experience that those illusory isions afforded our members no protection at all.

plementation of the auto agreement was expected to involve substantial s in the location of production. Canada was expected to produce larger numof a more limited range of models and the U.S. was expected to increase its s production for shipment to Canada for assembly. Achievement of economics arge scale was to lower costs and prices in both countries, but especially in ada, where production was inefficient owing to short production runs. rationalization of production took place, it was anticipated that a number of plants in the U.S. would be shut down or reorganized. While overall employt in the auto industry might increase, some workers would become unemployed ould have to be relocated.

has long been the UAW's position that if liberal trade policies benefit the naas a whole, workers adversely affected by trade should be fully compensated eir losses. This is an ideal that has not even been approached under either the ous or existing adjustment assistance program.

e security of an American worker's family is far more dependent upon his job is the case for workers in other industrialized countries. In the face of per