AMOUNT REQUESTED

Secretary MITCHELL. The appropriation requested for 1956 for all purposes totals $514,816,000, including the annual indefinite estimate for the employees' compensation fund, and provide for 4,871 positions in the Department. A breakdown of this total shows 9 percent for Federal employee compensation benefit payments, 29 percent for unemployment compensation benefit payments to veterans, 7 percent for unemployment compensation benefit payments to Federal workers, 49 percent for grants to State employment security agencies, and only 6 percent for regular Federal program operations. This 6 percent accounts for $29,836,000.

STATISTICS PROGRAM

The largest increase in this $29 million amount is $1,495,000, and that is for the expansion and improvement of the statistics program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is part of a general program for improving the Federal economic statistical program not only of the Department of Labor, but also several other agencies of Government, including Labor, Agriculture, and Commerce. Some increases have been requested for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Federal Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission.

It is well to recognize, I believe, that a sound and balanced statistical system is a necessary basis for sound administrative policy. The statistical programs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the data from the Bureau of Employment Security may play a major role in developing and guiding administrative policy, concerned with the economic condition of the country. There is certainly a wealth of value in these statistics. The biggest problem we have is that there is not enough.

The statistical information relating to employment and unemployment, for example, to do the most good must be in sufficient detail to supply information sufficient for making the proper decisions. We do not know enough, for example, about the characteristics of the unemployment, such as the major types of unemployed who make up the unemployed force: Are they full-time workers, part-time workers; are they heads of families; are they supplementary wage earners; how old are they; what percentage of them were over 45; how long do they stay unemployed-for 3 weeks, 3 months, 12 weeks, 15 weeks? None of that do we know.

It seems to us that in order to attack the unemployment situation we need to know more about the characteristics of the unemployed. Also we need to have factual information concerning labor turnover by States and areas, which provide information on hirings and layoffs in industry. We need more information on wages for additional labor-market areas.

Also we need additional information in industries experiencing sharp technological changes, which will bring about changes in manpower needs, training needs, and skill needs. Likewise, our statistics in the field of housing and public construction need to be strengthened by having available up-to-date estimating factors for estimating labor requirements for current and future construction programs.

We should also know more about the characteristics of housing, the size of the house, the type of construction, the proposed selling price and so forth. We need also to expand our work injury statistics to provide more effective detail by State in type of industry and size of plants. We need to know more about accident cause. This field of accident prevention, I think is one of the fields in which I think the Government, both Federal and State, needs to take a greater interest in order to prevent not only the waste of manpower but the human suffering that is caused by accidents.

And in the field of workmen's compensation there is a tremendous need for improving and publishing statistical data relating to workmen's compensation, its causes and costs, and its effects on the economy. We hope to work with the States in bringing this improvement about.

MANPOWER MOBILIZATION, CIVIL DEFENSE, AND OLDER WORKERS

Another major item in our request was for a new appropriation to be entitled "Manpower mobilization, civil defense, and older workers." The House has approved our request for $473,000 in the amount of $160,000 and restricted that appropriation for the older worker part of the request, and it disallowed the $300,000 for carrying out designated civil defense and manpower mobilization activities.

I gather from reading the House report that it did not criticize the program as such but disapproved of the method of asking for the funds. And in view of this position it has been decided by the Bureau of the Budget that the agency so affected--and the Labor Department is not the only one-should request the funds they need through the responsible defense agency involved. Therefore, we are not requesting this committee to restore the $300,000 reduction made by the House. I would like to talk a little bit about the Department's programs and organization, if I may.

PROGRAMS AND ORGANIZATION

Shortly after taking office, we initiated a project to evaluate the Department's programs and organizations, and our budget, this budget which we are requesting here, represents the needs for the Department taking into account knowledge gained from this evaluation and a review of the effects in detail by the Evaluation Committee, which I Chair.

I believe that our budget request is sound both economically and financially to meet the needs for the 1956 year as we see it.

It is my understanding that it is the practice to have the Bureau chiefs appear and justify in detail the needs for Bureau programs. However, I would like to say this in connection with the funds requested for the Office of the Secretary. First I would like you to understand that this title always appeared to me to be somewhat misleading in that it provides funds not only for administrative work in great detail but also for some major programs, such as the International Labor Program and the centralized services to all the Bureaus of the Department.

One of the weaknesses in the time that I have been there, that I have discovered with respect to the top staff available, was that we hadn't the staff to provide leadership in labor policy formulation and

program direction. I feel that the one position requested to assist in the development of legislation and special assistant and clerk for the Assistant Secretary for Standards and Statistics are very necessary. Senator HILL. Did the House allow them, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary MITCHELL. They disallowed them.

Senator HILL. Did they give any particular reason for disallowing them?

EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES

Secretary MITCHELL. No, sir, they did not.

I have requested, and the House has allowed, $40,000 for a new program affecting the skills of the work force. We have given considerable time and attention in the Department to this problem. We believe that maintaining a strong, growing economy and effective preparedness for national defense will depend largely upon the skill and versatility of our work force. Increased productivity, resulting from technological progress, including introduction of automatic processes, commonly referred to as automation, will certainly increase the requirements for skilled workers.

And this $40,000 which we have requested is for the purpose of establishing a small staff, I believe of 5 or 6 people, competent to study the whole problem and determine what the effects of these technological changes may be on our work force in the future, and to develop, through research and study, and make public some of the trends that may take place. We consider it to be an extremely important project. Senator POTTER. Mr. Secretary, will that be a part of your apprentice program or coordinated with that program?

Secretary MITCHELL. Senator, it will be coordinated with the apprentice training program. However, this is a study program. The apprentice training program is an action program. And I would hate to see the activities of the Bureau of Apprenticeship which are now directed toward the promotion and development of apprentice training programs throughout the country in any way vitiated or detracted from their major purpose.

Senator POTTER. It is an excellent program.

Secretary MITCHELL. Yes, sir. And we do not want to in any way weaken it. We believe that much of the material that the apprentice training program develops may be used by the small study group to help them in their studies.

The Bureau of Apprentice Training is, as I said, a Bureau that is operating. It is not a research and study group.

ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL

Senator HILL. This additional personnel, as I understand it, you want here in Washington for study purposes primarily?

Secretary MITCHELL. Yes, sir. It amounts to $40,000.

Senator HILL. How many posititions would that give you?

Secretary MITCHELL. Five, Senator.

Senator HILL. Did the House allow it?

Secretary MITCHELL. They allowed it. The House agreed with us and allowed this. I am just taking this occasion to emphasize the importance to be attached to this program.

INTERNATIONAL LABOR ACTIVITIES

Secretary MITCHELL. There is one other area where we are greatly disappointed in the House action. We are greatly disappointed that the House did not approve our requested increase for $100,000 for the international labor activities of the Department. These activities encompass the problems related to American representation on the ILO, the entire problem of international trade as it affects labor. It did not take into account either that Russia and its satellites were readmitted to the ILO, which makes our job that much more important and that much more difficult. It did not take into account the improvements required for the labor attaché program. They call for increasing the present staff of the Department engaged in international labor activities.

Our request is for an increase of 15 new positions. Assistant Secretary Wilkins is here and will be glad to go into as much detail as the committee desires.

TABER AMENDMENT

Secretary MITCHELL. There is one other area that I would like to talk about, one other action of the House. The House passed our legislation, with an amendment, commonly known as the Taber amendment, which provided that Federal workers who are now covered by the Federal unemployment-compensation program may not be paid their benefits. It prohibits payment of benefits to Federal workers in situations which we regard to be inequitable.

The amendment provides that a Federal worker who leaves his job for any reason would be denied benefits. We consider this amendment to be unsound for this reason: The Federal unemploymentcompensation benefit program, which you may recall, was passed by Congress last year, provided that the Federal workers should be governed by the rules of eligibility that applied in the States in which they were eligible, in the States in which they were working. In other words, the Federal Government, in relation to the State, was merely another employer, and whatever rule was applied to all private employees applied likewise to all Federal employees in that State. This amendment makes a new rule with relation to Federal employees, which is less favorable in most States than the rule that applies to private employees. We regard it as a movement away from the very sound principle which the Congress established, that the Federal employee should be treated no better and no worse, in the particular State in which he resided, than the private employees. For that reason we recommend very strongly that this committee might consider whether or not this amendment is sound. We believe that it will result in many injustices and many inequities as between Federal workers and workers employed by private employers.

STATE POLICY RULE

Senator HILL. The law today, the State statute is followed for the Federal employees just as it is for the private employees?

Secretary MITCHELL. Yes, sir.

Senator HILL. What this amendment would seek to do now would be to depart from the policy of letting these matters be determined

in each State by the State policy as set out in the State statute and set up a Federal policy here, which you feel would be inequitable and unfair in many instances to the Federal employee; it would be getting away from the State policy?

Secretary MITCHELL. The most important reason, Senator, is that we feel it is very sound policy to leave the decision as to the eligibility of all employees and the amount of benefits they will receive to the States, and that any movement away from that sound policy we believe to be unsound.

Senator HILL. Senator Stennis?

Senator STENNIS. I want to be certain I understand this. You would have the Federal government adopt the same rule that applies now to private employees in the various States; is that correct?

Secretary MITCHELL. May I say this: That the States determine the rules.

Senator STENNIS. I know they do. And you would adopt that in each State?

Secretary MITCHELL. We would adopt that rule in relation to Federal employees.

Senator STENNIS. But those rules the States determine are rules as between private employers and employees?

Secretary MITCHELL. That is correct, sir. However, the policy now in existence regards the Federal Government as another employer in the State.

Senator STENNIS. I like the idea of conforming to the State policy. At the same time it seems to me that an employee owes a high obligation to the Federal Government or to the State government, a higher obligation than he might owe to me as a private employer. I think there is a distinction there. I do not know whether or not the House had that in mind; but would you like to address yourself to that?

Secretary MITCHELL. This, sir, has nothing to do, as I see it, with regard to the loyalty owed by Federal and State employees to the government.

Senator STENNIS. I am talking about their obligation as employees; I am not talking about it as a citizen.

Secretary MITCHELL. Yes; their obligation as employees. I do not think this bears on that at all, however; this amendment that we are talking about has to do with unemployment compensation to be paid to Federal employees when they are laid off from their jobs.

Senator STENNIS. It goes to the point, as I understood it, as to whether or not they had grounds for leaving.

Secretary MITCHELL. The point to which I was addressing myself was that I consider it to be unsound policy, once having established what I consider to be a very proper Federal-State relationship, for the Federal Government to pass laws which negate that sound policy. Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator HILL. Senator Thye?

VOLUNTARY SEPARATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if an employee of the Federal Government finds reason to leave the Federal service he certainly should be given the same consideration as if his services were involuntarily terminated. And I think that is the purpose here,