COMPARISON OF BUREAU REQUESTS WITH DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL AND BUREAU OF BUDGET ACTION

Bureau of Employment Security: Salaries and expenses.

. Labor-Management Services Administration.

Wage and Hour Division.

Bureau of Labor Standards..

Women's Bureau..

Bureau of Employees' Compensation:

Salaries and expenses.

Compensation fund.

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

1 Excludes any 1966 carryover balances.

PAST SECRETARIES OF LABOR

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Secretary, I have read your statement as well as listening to it today. This is one of the best statements I have heard delivered by a Secretary of Labor since I have been on the committee, since January 1947.

Mrs. Perkins was one of the finest women I ever met in my life. I thought she was one of the best Secretaries of Labor we ever had. Secretary WIRTZ. She was grand.

Mr. FOGARTY. I remember earlier than that, in the days of 1944, 1945, and 1946, when I was serving on the Naval Affairs Committee, and she was called to task before the Naval Affairs Committee by Mr. Vinson and others, on the problem of absenteeism in employment. At that time many members of the committee said, "Wait until we get Mrs. Perkins before us and we will tell her what we are going to do," and she gave the best presentation I think I ever heard in my life against this antiabsenteeism bill which was presented by Mr. Vinson, who was then the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs. At that time all antilabor legislation was being diverted to the Committee on Naval Affairs because Mrs. Norton was chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor at that time. Every antilabor bill was referred to the Vinson committee. I happened to be on it. He did not want me on it, but I was on it anyway. I thought she did a wonderful job.

Then came Schwellenbach, is that right?

Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct.

Mr. FOGARTY. From Washington?

Secretary WIRTZ. The State of Washington.

Mr. FOGARTY. We thought he was a really good man.

Secretary WIRTZ. He was a grand man.

Mr. FOGARTY. Something happened during his regime as Secretary. We had a battle royal at that time between the Republicans and the Democrats. Mr. Keefe was chairman of the committee at that time, a Republican but a good friend of mine. But he had no use for the Labor Department at all. As far as health and education, he was wonderful.

Mr. Schwellenbach I thought was a real high-class person and did a real job. Then who followed Schwellenbach?

Secretary WIRTZ. Tobin.

Mr. FOGARTY. I thought Maurice Tobin, former mayor of Boston and Governor of Massachusetts, was one of the finest men I knew in my area, in the northeastern section. Then who followed Tobin? Secretary WIRTZ. Durkin for a matter of several months.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Durkin was president of the plumbers union. I thought he was one of the greatest men we had. After a deal was made with the administration at that time on the Taft-Hartley bill, when they reneged on that, Mr. Durkin quit. I gave him all the credit in the world. I thought Mr. Durkin was one of the greatest guys we ever had as Secretary of Labor. He was a really fine person. Who followed Durkin ?

Secretary WIRTZ. Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Mitchell in the Eisenhower administration. I thought Mr. Mitchell was a really fine person. He was one of the real highlights of that administration, and I said at the time in these hear

ings that I thought Mr. Mitchell was a great Secretary of Labor. He went right down the line. He fought big business when he thought they were wrong. He did what he thought was good for the average

person.

Who followed Mr. Mitchell?

Secretary WIRTZ. Arthur Goldberg.

He

Mr. FOGARTY. Well, we all know where Mr. Goldberg went. was a good man, too. Mr. Secretary, even the Republicans on this committee said at that time that Mr. Goldberg was a really good Secretary. When he left and you were appointed, I heard them saying on this committee that you were even better than Goldberg was. I think you have done a really good job.

A year ago I gave you a kind of a bad time here before the committee. I did not know until the day was over that you had been up all night on this shipping strike and you had not had any sleep for over 24 hours. I did not think you were doing a very good job testifying at that hearing, and I told you so. I did not know until the day was over that you had not had any sleep. But I think it is the consensus of the thinking of both the Democrats and the Republicans on this committee that you are a good Secretary of Labor. Secretary WIRTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

REORGANIZATION

Mr. FOGARTY. At the time of last year's hearings there was a lot of talk about a major reorganization of your Department. You remember we had that discussion. Do you currently have any plans for reorganization?

Secretary WIRTZ. None at all.

NEW FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

Mr. FOGARTY. You have a new foreign currency program which you mention in your statement, but it is a direct authorization to use these currencies, rather than the appropriation of dollars to buy them.

Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct.

Mr. FOGARTY. Why is yours handled differently from the Department of HEW?

Secretary WIRTZ. I would have to inquire, Mr. Chairman. I do not know.

Mr. FOGARTY. Does anybody else know?

Mr. WERTS. My understanding is that each agency presents its program to the Department of State, and the Department of State approves it, and then it authorizes it.

Mr. FOGARTY. There must be some reason for this difference. See if you can't find what the reason is and place a statement in the record. (The requested statement follows:)

EXCESS FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

Under title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (Public Law 480), the President is authorized to enter into agreements for the sale abroad of American surplus agricultural commodities for foreign currencies. An amendment of June 30, 1958, added a subsection (k) to section 104, title I, of Public Law 480, permitting agencies, when such funds were appro

priated by Congress "to collect, collate, translate, abstract, and disseminate scientific and technological information and to conduct and support scientific activities overseas."

The sale of agricultural commodities resulted in the development of significant balances in various countries which under procedures of the Bureau of the Budget and the Treasury Department were found to be excess to normal U.S. needs. Both the executive branch and the Congress were concerned about this development. The congressional concern was reflected in an amendment to chapter 1 of part 3 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, amending section 612 relating to the use of foreign currencies. The amendment commonly referred to as the "Moss amendment" provides that any act of the Congress for appropriations to carry out programs under the Foreign Assistance Act or any other for U.S. operations abroad is authorized to provide for the utilization of U.S.-owned excess foreign currencies to carry out such operations. It further provides that the President shall take appropriate steps to assure that, to the maximum extent possible, U.S.-owned excess foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars.

Responsive to the action of Congress, the Bureau of the Budget requested that the Department of State assemble proposals from concerned agencies. The decision was reached by the administration that each agency having proposals would submit and defend their separate proposals to the Congress. For fiscal year 1967, the Department of Labor is one of seven agencies requesting authorization for the use of excess foreign currencies for programs abroad of benefit to the United States.

Special analysis L of the President's budget (p. 153) contains further explanations of these items. The basic difference between the Department of Labor proposal and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare "special foreign currency programs" appropriations is different in two respects: first they are stated in foreign currency units while the appropriations are in U.S. dollars; and second, they do not affect expenditures or receipts.

CIVIL RIGHTS REQUEST

Mr. FOGARTY. You have several places in your budget where increases are being asked for civil rights work. Do you know how much in total is budgeted for civil rights, and how much of an increase it is over 1966 ?

Secretary WIRTZ. There are two places it comes up. One would be in the administration of title 6.

Mr. FOGARTY. What is title 6?

Secretary WIRTZ. Of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It involves the matter of civil rights, alleged violations in connection with the programs we work out with the State. Illustrative is if the State employment service office made a discriminatory referral, it would be a violation.

In addition we are asking for $527,000 for a total of 34 positions. And in connection with the enforcement of Executive Order 11246 of last September, we are asking for a total of $689,000.

Those are the two items and the only ones I can think of that would have civil rights implications.

CENTRALIZING CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVITIES

Mr. FOGARTY. Eight or ten years ago when we were considering the civil defense program we decided all these matters ought to be under one committee, Independent Offices. We got rid of it where it was financed by parts of other appropriations in Labor, HEW, and everywhere else. Why do we have to have programs on civil rights in various parts of the Labor Department and HEW? Why can we not

59-316-66-pt. 1-11

have it all together so we can find out how much we are spending and for what purposes? Maybe this could not be done but for the civil defense program it certainly has worked out better than having it scattered all over Government. Why could it not all be in one place, such as the Justice Department?

Secretary WIRTZ. I would think the situation is a good deal more orderly now than it used to be. One explanation is the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The first item here is simply that part of the Civil Rights Act we have to do in connection with our own program. There is that factor.

Then, of course, that 1964 legislation did go a long way in the direction you are suggesting because it set up the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This perhaps eventually will move to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and I have said that is where it should go. In the meantime we are taking this transitional step.

Mr. FOGARTY. Do you remember that, Mr. Michel? That is what we did with civil defense and I think that is going in the right direction. Do you agree?

Mr. MICHEL. Yes.

PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER INTERESTS

Mr. FOGARTY. The President's Committee on Consumer Interests, that is something new, is it not?

Secretary WIRTZ. It is entirely new.

Mr. FOGARTY. Is this your idea?

Secretary WIRTZ. No; it is not, but I subscribe to it completely. Mr. FOGARTY. I would suspect you would.

Secretary WIRTZ. It is in our budget simply as a housekeeping

matter.

Mr. FOGARTY. What does it mean, anyway, "President's Committee on Consumer Interests"?

Secretary WIRTZ. I would defer almost entirely to Mrs. Peterson on this because this does not involve any extension of administrative responsibility so far as the Secretary of Labor is concerned except just so far as the housekeeping aspects are concerned. The personnel involved remains the same.

Mr. FOGARTY. Is this primarily for the protection of laboring men and their families or for all consumers?

Secretary WIRTZ. I think what is involved here is basically a question of whether it is a good thing to have a lot of independent agencies in the Government financing the operation. I would say a great deal is gained by bringing as much of the financing of White House Committees as possible into one agency budget would be preferable. I think to have Presidential Committees financed this way is a good thing.

As to whether this is a matter of representing the interest of wage earners, which is the stautory language of the Labor Department, I think it is clear they have the largest single stake in it and the wage earners represent a larger group of consumers than any other

group.

Mr. FOGARTY. What is the dividing line between wage earners and consumers?