equal to 70 percent of the national average annual wage in covered. employment adjusted to the nearest multiple of $300. That was never in any bill. It was simply a recommendation which the Ways and Means Committee promptly rejected. Senator HARTKE. Most certainly that is an extension beyond that which is called for in the House bill, is that not true? Mr. HILL. Not immediately, No. This is about what the House bill would produce immediately, but you will notice this is on an escalator and the House rejected the escalator. Senator HARTKE. That is right. Mr. HILL. Yes. Senator HARTKE. In other words, the House bill is a watered down vesrion of this provision. Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Not for the next few years, sir. Senator HARTKE. It is not for the next few years, it does not make any difference how you are going to figure it out. Considering total House bill, it is no more than the House bill in the immediate, is that not true? Mr. HILL. Yes, that is true. Mr. BROWN. Senator, as far as calling it watered down Senator HARTKE. I did not use the words "watered down." This is your statement. I did not use the statement "watered down." I am using your words. Mr. BROWN. You just said it. Senator HARTKE. I said it and I attributed it to its source. Mr. BROWN. Well, all right. The issue at stake in the House really was that the House decided that a tax law should be related to an absolute value, that was the issue, and that they resolved. They were going to tax absolute values. They were not going to go on unknowns. This was the real issue. The amount of money raised by the $3,900 base, plus the forthcoming $4,200 base, plus the increase from fourtenths to six-tenths in the surtax will produce the same kind of revenue we were trying to get with an escalator unknown. Senator HARTKE. But the point I am coming back to, what I am trying to find out, is if a majority of the States now have changed their mind since the time this poll was taken until this date, or have you merely given them a Hobson's choice of presenting to them a neat little package tied up with a blue ribbon and said, "Here you are, here is your birthday present. Do you want to take it, or do you want to reject it?" Mr. BROWN. The State administrators know that this wage base and tax will produce the kind of revenue we were after. Senator HARTKE. How do you know that they would approve of it if you took a poll in the first instance and did not go back there in the second instance and submit basically the substantive questions rather than the package question? Mr. BROWN. But they know what this will do. Senator HARTKE. How do they know. How do I know that they approve of your statement? Did you take a poll? Mr. BROWN. They are knowledgeable people. They know what this means. Senator HARTKE. Did you take a poll? Mr. BROWN. We did not have to take a poll. Senator HARTKE. What did you take a poll for in the first place then? Mr. BROWN. Well, when you talk about a first place poll, actually we had a meeting and we voted on each issue at this meeting. Senator HARTKE. Let me ask you a question: Is this poll supposed to mean anything, or is it just a piece of paper upon which you are going to pass judgment as to what it means? Mr. BROWN. Well, we think it means something. Senator HARTKE. Well, if it means something, why does it not mean something today as it did before? Mr. BROWN. It does. Senator HARTKE. It means that you have not given the people a real chance. In other words, you come here today as their representative but you have not given them a chance to reverse their position. I am not saying that this is not the opinion of the State administrators, but you gave them a Hobson's choice, take the package or do not take the package. That is all the last question shows according to your questionnaire. If you conducted an individualized, personalized poll on that, we will be glad to listen to that. I will at least. Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Mr. Chairman. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Raushenbush. Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. One brief comment, if I may. At our Phoenix meeting I told the whole group Congress will probably not accept this escalator, they will probably name specific amounts, so they were all on notice of this possibility. Senator HARTKE. Who did you talk to on the U.S. Senate committee who gave you that opinion? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. I was talking about a meeting in Phoenix where all State administrators were on notice. Senator HARTKE. Yes, you said Congress would not accept this proposal, right. Who did you talk to in the Senate Finance Committee who gave you that opinion to express to those people? Mr. RAUSHENBUSHI. I was merely making a pretty good guess. It turned out that way in the House, did it not? Senator HARTKE. I am not asking what it turned out to be in the House. I am not in the House of Representatives. I happen to be in the U.S. Senate. I want to know did you talk to me? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. No, sir. Senator HARTKE. Did you talk to any member of this committee about their opinion on this matter? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. No, sir. Senator HARTKE. But you still gave an opinion on that based upon what you surmised, is that right? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. It is still a free country. I can give that opinion. Senator HARTKE. I am not saying that. I do think that in a representative capacity, in all good conscience, that before you make such a statement, you ought to give the basis upon which your statement is ascertained. Mr. HARDING. Mr. Chairman Senator HARTKE. Well, is it the opinion of the interstate conference that the Senate should not exercise its judgment on the House-passed bill. Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. They are bound to do so. Senator HARTKE. No, I did not ask whether they were bound to. I just asked you is it the opinion. It is a free country. You can express this opinion and nobody is going to visit you in the middle of the night. Is it the opinion of the international conference that the Senate should not exercise its judgment on the House-passed bill? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. They certainly should exercise it, and we have been trying our best to persuade them that when they exercise it, they will be doing a good job of judgment and public policy by adopting the House version because it makes substantial progress and avoids some of the pitfalls we had been opposing. Senator HARTKE. Is it your opinion that these hearings are unnecessary or unimportant? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. No, sir. Senator HARTKE. Is it your opinion that the Senate should merely proceed to acquiesce in the House action? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Well, that is your form of word. You might endorse it. Senator HARTKE. I did not ask you that. I mean if you do not want to answer the question, you do not have to. It is a free country. Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Maybe I did not understand it. Senator HARTKE. You did not understand that? I will ask it again. Is it your opinion that the Senate should merely acquiesce in the House-passed version? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Not unless it is convinced that this is the right thing to do. Senator HARTKE. All right. That is exactly what I am going to ask you. Do you think that the House-passed version has all the provisions which are necessary and proper and just at this moment? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. And desirable. Senator HARTKE. You think they have all of them. Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Well, I think they have done a very good job, and I am afraid that no legislation at all may result. Senator HARTKE. All right. Let me ask you then what I think is the real crux of the question: It it now the position of the conference that the 50-50 standard is right and just, or is it the position of the conference that the House provision is right and just? Mr. HILL. Well, the position of the conference as I interpret the poll is that the House bill is proper as it is, and should be passed as it is. Senator HARTKE. All right. When did this change occur in regard to the 50-50 statewide average? Mr. HILL. When the poll was received. Senator HARTKE. Pardon me? Mr. HILL. When the poll was received. Senator HARTKE. A poll in which the question was simply whether they approved of the House bill, or not, is that correct? Mr. HILL. Correct. Senator HARTKE. Is this true also of the wider coverage provision of small employers and nonprofit employers? Mr. HILL. Correct. Senator HARTKE. In other words, they changed their position on that, too, right? Mr. HILL. This is true of all of it. Senator HARTKE. Yes. Mr. HILL. Let me call your attention Senator HARTKE. It is also true about the taxable wage base, that they changed their position on that, too? Mr. HILL. Yes. Let me call your attention Senator HARTKE. Is there any reason for changing the effective date, which originally was adopted 38 to 6 for the calendar year effective 1967, and now changing that to the effective date of 1969? Mr. HILL. Well, Senator Senator HARTKE. Is that a change? Mr. HILL. We are changing all of it to correspond to what the House bill has in it. But let me call you attention, if I may, that 3 States out of the 41, 3 States, indicated very clearly as a footnote to their "yes" answer that they did not necessarily indicate that some amendments to this bill would not be either agreeable or in their case may have been something they wanted in the bill. Senator DOUGLAS. That is very significant because I had understood from the drift of the previous testimony that you wanted the House bill without amendments. Senator HARTKE. That is right. Mr. HILL. There were 3 States out of the 41 that answered yes, and this is in my testimony originally and in the record already; there are 3 States, and I now want to refer to them, because this is given. They indicated in response to the poll that they did not want their yes vote to be interpreted necessarily as indicating that they were opposed to some change in this bill. Senator DOUGLAS. What were those States? Mr. HILL. I do not know. You see, they-there is no way I can tell you that because the votes on these are secret. All we know is how many States and what percent of covered workers. Now, that can be given to you. Senator HARTKE. I point out to the chairman, that I cannot conceive maybe these groups can explain to me how you can know the percentage of covered workers and just what the percentage of covered workers is, if they have a secret ballot and if you have a numercial vote. Mr. HILL. Well, it is very simple. We have an executive secretary of the conference who is an employee of the U.S. Department of Labor, and he serves as the executive secretary, and the poll is taken through him, and all the responses go back to him, and he knows and he calculates. Senator DOUGLAS. What is his name? Mr. Foster, I wonder if you would come forward. Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, at this point for the record I would like to object to the committee using its power to break down the regulations of this association and the relation between the State administrators and the Federal Government by seeking to force a man who is pledged to secrecy to reveal his secrets for our curiosity. I would just like that in the record. Senator DOUGLAS. May I ask if the pledge to secrecy is a Federal pledge or a pledge which you took on becoming secretary of this association? Mr. FOSTER. It is an understanding I had, Senator Douglas, when I became secretary of the association. Senator DOUGLAS. Who told you that? Mr. FOSTER. This is in our conference constitution and code, sir. Senator DOUGLAS. "Our," when you say "our," do you mean the Department of Labor or the association? Mr. FOSTER. I mean in conference constitution and code. Senator DOUGLAS. Who pays your salary? Mr. FOSTER. The Department of Labor, the Bureau of Employment Security. Senator DOUGLAS. To whom do you owe allegiance, to the Department of Labor and hence the people of the United States, or to the conference? Mr. FOSTER. Senator Douglas, I work as an employee of the Department of Labor, the Bureau of Employment Security. I work as a special assistant to the Administrator of the Bureau of Employment Security, but I am assigned, with the full consent of the Department, as the secretary of the Interstate Conference. A great portion of my work is in connection with their affairs. I also advise the Administrator of the Bureau of Employment Security with respect to State reactions, to various programs, policies, and procedures that the Bureau has under consideration. Senator DOUGLAS. Senator Hartke, do you wish to ask any questions? Senator HARTKE. Do you feel that you could not in good conscience tell us the information which I have been asking for here in regard to the breakdowns on what States voted in which fashion? Mr. FOSTER. I could not in good conscience reveal that information, Senator Hartke. Senator HARTKE. I am not interested in breaking good conscience. I do raise another serious question here as to whether or not a Federal employee, paid by the Federal Government, using taxpayers' money, by not invoking the executive privilege can still invoke a nongovernmental privilege. I am not interested in trying to break down relations, because I do not think there is at this moment enough that I would want you to divulge making you violate your own personal conscience, but I would think that you might have a little bit of a conscience stricken thought as to whether or not you have been serving the taxpayers in your agreement in the original instance, or whether this was one in which you could not in good conscience answer without serious reservations. Mr. FOSTER. Senator Hartke, the secretary of the conference has been provided by the Department of Labor since the existence of the conference. Senator HARTKE. I am not saying anything Mr. FOSTER. For 30 odd years. Senator HARTKE. I did not raise that question. I raised the question as to whether or not you are going to take your orders from the conference or whether you are going to take them from the Federal Gov ernment. |