Page images
PDF
EPUB

that we would be happy to hear Mr. Atkinson and to kindly have him available. Mr. Rector this morning told me that message had been given him at the time.

So after I received this letter, I immediately called you together in order that we might hear Mr. Atkinson. I have learned since then that Mr. Atkinson is in Ohio still and is not here available as a witness for the hearing. So we find ourselves in that position.

I also would like to read from our law on reorganization. I am reading from section 203:

SEC. 203. A resolution with respect to a reorganization plan shall be referred to a committee (and all resolutions with respect to the same plan shall be referred to the same committee) by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be.

SEC. 204. (a) If the committee to which has been referred a resolution with respect to a reorganization plan has not reported it before the expiration of 10' calendar days after its introduction, it shall then (but not before) be in order to move either to discharge the commitee from further consideration of such resolution, or to discharge the committee from further consideration of any other resolution with respect to such reorganization plan which has been re ferred to the committee.

So we find ourselves as a committee in a position where we are limited by time in acting upon this resolution of rejection or we will be subject to the embarrassment of having a motion made to discharge us as a committee and so forth and so on. I am calling that to your attention because I believe that time is of the essence if we are to act as a committee because the House may adjourn at any time.

Now, gentlemen, that is the situation in which we find ourselves as we sit here now.

Mr. RICH. Did I understand you to read that you have to have a resolution to reject the proposal 10 days after its receipt?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we must act on the plan within 10 days.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. We must take action.

Mr. RICH. The 10 days have passed.

The CHAIRMAN. No; not since the rejection resolution was filed. You know the state of the Congress, they are liable to adjourn at any time.

Mr. RICH. Let us hope you are right on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us hope that the procedure necessary can be done by this committee in order to comply with the law. I believe that it is such that we ought to go into executive session, since the witness is not available and we cannot hear him. I suggest we go into executive session in order to discuss this resolution.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Before you take that up, let me add to your statement. There is no question but what there has been some serious misunderstanding about the appearance of this witness. I do not know the witness and my only interest in the matter is in giving everyone who wants to appear an opportunity to appear.

Now there were some other conditions attached to this notification that he might appear, that is, from his standpoint, but to my mind they are immaterial, so I will not recite them. But yesterday I received this wire from him:

I would appreciate your assistance in securing opportunity for being heard before House Expenditures Committee on plan No. 2. Although on Monday I wired request to file statement, subsequently I thought personal appearance better and through personal representative asked for time to appear. The matter of

the previous wire fully explained. Permission granted and confirmation made to Washington representative to appear Thursday. Have just been informed— and this wire is dated 4: 26 p. m.

that hearings closed Wednesday noon. I feel my 5 years' experience as Ohio administrator of unemployment security program would assist committee. Would appreciate anything you may do.

I wrote Mr. Dawson and he very kindly, as he states, called this meeting this morning.

This morning I learned that this man's wife had been seriously ill and due to this misunderstanding he did not take a plane. I told him flatly that if he were coming we wanted a definite statement. The reply was that he would be here this afternoon by plane. He is leaving Columbus, Ohio. He will be here at 3:30.

I have not the slightest criticism of what has gone on before. I have no objection whatever to going into executive session and voting on this resolution, if you wish. I am under no illusions as to the effect which his testimony might have, but I do think in fairness to the witness and to avoid criticism, that some of us could meet here and give this man an opportunity to submit his statement. We have met many times here with just three or four present.

That is the only request I have.

The CHAIRMAN. His statement will be incorporated in the record. Mr. HOFFMAN. I request that he be permitted to testify. I do not like statements myself where the witness is not subject to cross-examination, and I think we cannot do less. He is a man who represents a large group. His testimony should not take more than half an hour. It does not require a quorum of the committee to be present.

The CHAIRMAN. I would not say it would not require a quorum to be present. We had to stop yesterday because a quorum was not present. I am not sure that would not be the order at this time.

I was inofrmed by his personal representative here that he was awaiting a telegram from him as to whether to come or not.

Mr. HOFFMAN. He is on his way, I say. He is on his way here. He has taken a plane from Ohio. If you do not want to hear him, that is all right with me.

I made the point yesterday that no quorum was present because of the manner of examination and I shall put it in the Congressional Record.

The CHAIRMAN. I know why you made it then and we all know that. If anything does not suit you, you take advantage of every little technicality you can in order to carry your point.

Mr. HOFFMAN. If that is a criticism, go ahead and make it. It does not mean anything. I am not subject to being lectured by you.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not subject to lecture; you are privileged to state anything you want to state, but if anybody takes exception you want to say it is personal, and it is never personal with me.

Mr. HOFFMAN. All I do is take advantage of whatever the rules permit me to take advantage of.

Mr. RICH. If he had telephoned yesterday, he could have gotten all the information and the arrangements could have been made. He could have taken a plane after 4 o'clock yesterday and be here.

The CHAIRMAN. He could have been here Monday. His personal representative was told he could be here.

Mr. HUBER. Inasmuch as I am personally acquainted with Mr. Atkinson, may I say for the record that I am sorry that any misunderstanding has occurred and I am willing to abide by the wishes of the committee in the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Since there is no witness to testify, I suggest that we go into executive session.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Am I to understand that the committee refuses to hear Mr. Atkinson?

Mr. McCORMACK. I think under the circumstances the committee regrets very much that Mr. Atkinson cannot be heard. I would not construe it to be a refusal but certainly we have to give consideration to the committee.

Mr. HALLECK. I wonder, Mr. McCormack, if this would be in order. Normally you hear witnesses before you vote on a matter. On the other hand, if I understand Mr. Hoffman correctly, he wants, if possible, to have this gentleman's testimony in the record as part of the record. Now unless there is something improper or out of line about it, as far as I am concerned I would just as soon go into executive session and vote on this matter and then for the purposes of the record and what may subsequently happen, if some member of the committee could be here this afternoon to hear him it would seem to me perhaps that would be a happy solution.

Mr. McCORMACK. Let us explore that. I think we would leave ourselves open to severe criticism. I know what you have in mind but I think we would be subject to severe criticism.

Mr. HOFFMAN. You would be voting before you heard all the evidence.

Mr. McCORMACK. I can see your distinction but honest men can draw pretty fine distinctions. We are all here and I would like to have the man heard but we have to act on this.

Inquiry is made of me when Congress is going to get through, and all those things are involved.

Now he can put his statement in the record.

Mr. HALLECK. Did he submit a statement as was suggested in the earlier correspondence?

The CHAIRMAN. I think so. If not, we will see that his statement is in the record.

Mr. HALLECK. As I understand, he had testified before the Senate committee and he had said his statement would be principally a revision of his statement before the Senate committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be happy to incorporate his statement along with the other statements, and there are many, sir; from labor and all sides of it.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Of course, today is the final day. We have all day to report. I have no objection if the members want to vote by telephone or some other way. All I am asking is that this man, who has apparently misunderstood the situation, be permitted to appear and testify. I do not care whether he appears before a whole committee or less than a quorum. I made no objection yesterday. I have made none at any time and have not tried to delay the proceedings at any time.

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest, Congressman, that an objection to this committee sitting during the sessions of Congress while it is in session, while it is in recess, would not be valid because under the rules

setting up this committee we are authorized to set either when Congress is in session or when Congress is adjourned, and between sessions we are authorized to sit as a committee and carry on the work of the committee.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I understand the rule. I drafted that phase of it. Mr. Priest came around and asked consent before he made his request, so there you are.

The CHAIRMAN. We do that because we want the Congress to know where we are and so they will not think the membership of this committee is just holding out. We do that as a matter of courtesy and as a matter of procedure.

I suggest, if there is no witness here, it is better to go into executive session and discuss the matter.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I understand this man will not be heard this afternoon by yourself or whoever is here?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I move that we go into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a. m. the committee proceeded into executive session.)

THOMAS A. KENNEDY,

PHILADELPHIA, PA., Aug. 1, 1949.

General Counsel, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Department, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

Dr. Taylor is engaged on a railroad case in New York City and regrets that he cannot attend the committee hearing on August 3 to testify regarding the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

JANET HALL, Secretary.

BOSTON, MASs., August 3, 1949.

Chairman, House Committee on Expenditures in Executive Department,

United States Congress, Washington, D. C.:

The State advisory council of Massachusetts division of employment security, a body created by statute and comprised of following membership: Joseph A. Dunn and Stephen V. Duffy, employers; Daniel J. McCarthy and Jacob Prager, labor; Francis J. Carreiro and Herman J. Dumas. The public, at its meeting on July 27, unanimously voted its approval of the President's reorganization plan No. 2 of 1949 wherein it recommends transfer of employment service and unemployment compensation functions to the Department of Labor. The council unanimously urges you to support the President's plan.

FRANCIS J. CARREIRO,

Chairman, State Advisory Council Division of Employment Security.

BOSTON, MASS., August 3, 1949.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, House Committee on Expenditures in

Executive Departments, Washington, D. C.:

I strongly urge approval of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1949 transferring the Bureau of Employment Security to the Department of Labor. Placing the Bureau of Employment Security in the Federal agency handling other labor functions would increase the effectiveness of the Bureau's operations.

ANTONIO ENGLAND,

Director, Massachusetts Division of Employment Security.
Department of Labor and Industries, Boston, Mass.

WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

DETROIT, MICH., August 4, 1949.

Chairman, House Committee on Expenditures in Executive Department,

House Office Building:

In my capacity as manufacturer, attorney, farmer, and now as director of the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, I urge that you give favorable consideration to the recommendation of the Hoover Commission for plan No. 2 that the Bureau of Employment Security be moved to the Department of Labor. HARRY C. MARKLE, Executive Director.

WASHINGTON, D. C., August 4, 1949.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, House Committee on Erpenditures in the
Executive Departmens, New House Office Building:

The Railway Labor Executives' Association desires to record its support of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 which would transfer the Bureau of Employment Security from the Federal Security Agency to the Department of Labor. While railway workers are not directly affected we believe in the general public interest the proposed reorganization should be made.

A. E. LYON,

Executive Secretary, Railway Labor Executives Association.

WASHINGTON, D. C., August 4, 1949.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the

Executive Departments, House Office Building:

Regret I was absent from city during hearings by your committee on President's Reorganization Plan No. 2. Please inform committee members American Federation of Labor wholeheartedly in support this plan transferring Bureau Employment Security to Labor Department. Statement setting forth our reasons for this position in full follows by letter.

WILLIAM GREEN,

President, American Federation of Labor.

Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,

House Office Building:

The Maryland Employment Security Board and its advisory council requests your support in retaining the unemployment and employment security programs under the Federal Security Agency and to oppose the President's plan to transfer these programs to the Department of Labor as outlined in Reorganization Plan No. 2.

WILLIAM H. MAHANEY, Chairman.

Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Annapolis, Md., August 2, 1949.

House of Representatives, House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Regarding Reorganization Plan No. 2, proposing a transfer of Unemployment Security from the Federal Security Agency to the Labor Department, I feel it would be more desirable to retain all Federal programs of this type under a single agency. There are, as you well know, a number of related social security programs such as old-age and survivors insurance, old-age assistance, and so forth. I believe the clear responsibility of one agency for all these programs would be more efficient and would enable Congress better to obtain an over-all picture of proper policies and costs from the standpoint of basic State and National economy.

« PreviousContinue »