Senate committee. If I can just read this very briefly, he was asked' the question about bias and Mr. Hoover said: I do not think any reasonable employer would have prejudices on that account. In any event, I do not see any difference which will arise in the administration of a bureau wherever it is. I do not believe that an employer ought to have any less confidence in the objectivity of the Labor Department than the Federal Security Agency. If there is such criticism, the employer ought to realize that these bureaus placed in the Labor Department will be under the more vivid searchlight of public opinion than if in the Federal Security Agency, whose major purposes are not related to the subject. Mr. LOVRE. Do you think this reorganization plan will instill more public confidence in labor-management relations? Mr. RowE. I frankly am not qualified to answer that question. Mr. Rowe. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that I think it would probably be just above the same or a little more. I am speaking from the administrative point of view. Certainly there would be better administration. I would not fear the other. Mr. HOFFMAN. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hoover has not had actual experience in employment in industry for the last 20 years, has he? Mr. Rowe. I am not sufficiently aware of his career since he left the Presidency to answer that intelligently. I guess probably not. Mr. HOFFMAN. You personally do not know of any experience he has had in the employment of groups of men? Mr. RowE. No. Mr. HOFFMAN. Do you know whether or not these witness who testified there were twenty-odd in 1947 and 29 or 30 in 1949-had actual experience in employment and also in the matter of administering compensation-unemployment compensation? Mr. Rowe. I know nothing about the witnesses in 1947 or 1948. Mr. Rowe. No, sir; I do not. Mr. HOFFMAN. This plan leaves out some seven recommendations of the Hoover Commission, does it not? Mr. Rowe. I am not exactly sure as to the precise number. A number of the recommendations that we made have not been carried out in this particular plan, which I do not regard as particularly significant. Mr. Hoover has said-and I quite agree that this is a step in the right direction. The attitude of the Commission was simply that the Labor Department should be built into a manpower depart ment. Mr. HOFFMAN. You know Mr. Hoover pretty well, do you not? Mr. HOFFMAN. From this contact in this Commission? Mr. Rowe. Yes. Mr. HOFFMAN. He is a very trusting individual, is he not, and very honest and very conscientious and very sincere? Mr. Rowe. He certainly is. I agree with all that. Mr. HOFFMAN. There is no question in his mind as to whether or not he would serve the public interest if he had the administration of any act for that matter? Mr. Rowe. I think he would be an excellent administrator, anyway. Mr. HOFFMAN. I guess there is no question about that, but he also goes along with the thought that, being himself conscientious and honest and sincere, he thinks everybody else is, or at least he is going to give them the benefit of the doubt, anyway. Mr. RowE. I think that is a fair statement. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Of course, we frequently fall into the error of giving all credit or all blame to Mr. Hoover. I think it should be pointed out that there were 12 men on the Commission. Some of them were present employers, largely employers of labor. Mr. RowE. Mr. Mead, I suppose Mr. Kennedy would be an employer. Mr. HOLIFIELD. There was a unanimous report of the Commission on this? Mr. Rowe. Yes. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The question of bias was taken up and considered by the Commission before it made its report and Mr. Mead, for example, was aware of the question of possible bias before he voted with the rest of the members of the Commission? Mr. Rowe. I do not want to speak for Mr. Mead but I would say for the members of the Commission probably the most experienced man in labor-management relations on the Commission was Mr. Mead himself. He has had considerable private and public experience. The CHAIRMAN. I have just one question I would like to ask you. There has been some talk here that this is the one recommendation that did not have the recommendation of a task force. What would be your comment on that? Mr. RowE. That is not quite correct, Mr. Chairman. On the Labor Department, Dr. George Taylor made a general memorandum available to us in which he suggested that we do not do anything about the Labor Department in certain labor functions. He mentioned specifically the Conciliation Service. The Commission in that case followed his judgment. In this particular field, however, of the Employment Service and unemployment compensation it was studied by the Brookings Institution in the Welfare Report and it was studied, I may say, quite thoroughly because they were quite lengthy in their entire study of these functions. I remember on page 400 or 440 of that report they discussed this particular problem. They also discussed it in the early part of the report around page 40. This particular function was very thoroughly studied. Some of the other labor functions were not. The CHAIRMAN. From your own knowledge Brookings Institution did make a study of the subject and a recommendation? Mr. Rowe. They did not make a recommendation because the particular of their report was not in the form of a recommendation. They did not go down and discuss it and then say, "This is the recommendation." However, I think even the most casual reading of the task force report would indicate very clearly that this is a labor function from the Brookings Institution's point of view. Mr. HOLIFIELD. They made it very plain that such a transfer would be on the grounds of legislative and executive judgment. Mr. Rowe. Yes, and I think they also emphasized the same thing the Commission did, the major purpose of putting functions together. Mr. HOFFMAN. Is it not a fact that the Brookings Institution did not make a recommendation, that they said it was a matter for the legislative department? Is that not what they said? Mr. Rowe. Yes. Mr. HOFFMAN. We do not want to have any misunderstanding, at least I do not want to have any misunderstanding on my part. I do not want to go away with the thought in mind that this witness testified that the Brookings Institution made a recommendation. Mr. Rowe. I did not say they made a recommendation. The CHAIRMAN. Our committee will stand adjourned. We do not have other witnesses. We will meet next in executive session at the call of the chair. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m. the committee recessed to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1949 THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1949 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a. m. in room 1501, New House Office Building, Hon. William L. Dawson, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. At our last meeting we adjourned to assemble at the call of the chairman. I did that because we had no other witnesses for the afternoon and I did not know whether other witnesses would appear during the afternoon. So I did not call the committee back together. This morning I was under the impression that a witness would be available, so I called you together in order that we might have that witness and, if possible, bring our hearings on this subject matter to a close for the reason that the law provides a certain number of days within which we must report the action which we have taken. I have a communication addressed to me as chairman which reads as follows: Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, AUGUST 3, 1949. Chairman, House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, 1510 House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. DAWSON: Notwithstanding any former telegrams, letters, or communications of any kind between Mr. Herschel Atkinson, of Columbus, Ohio, and you or any other member of the committee, or any member of the committee's staff or clerical force, I am asking now that Mr. Atkinson be given an opportunity to testify before the committee in connection with the hearing on the resolution introduced to reject Reorganization Plan No. 2. Respectfully, CLARE E. HOFFMAN. I want to say that on August 1, I had a telegram from Mr. Atkinson, Columbus, Ohio, in which he stated as follows: Would appreciate opportunity to file with your committee as chairman of social-security committee statement on behalf Council of State Chambers of Commerce representing 33 State and regional organizations. This will consist principally of edited revision of my testimony before Senate Expenditures Committee Thursday, July 28. HERSCHEL C. ATKINSON, Executive Vice President, Ohio Chamber of Commerce. We got that on the 2d and we immediately wired him: Forward statement on behalf of Council of State Chambers of Commerce. During the hearing on Monday, if I am right and I think I am right, a Mr. Rector contacted the clerk of the committee saying that Mr. Atkinson had expressed a desire to testify in person. The clerk • brought that information to me. I directed her to inform Mr. Rector |