Mr. KRAWCZYK. Mr. Chairman, I submitted an official map of the regional offices, the 10 regional offices, before the Senate committee and it is in the record there.

The CHAIRMAN. If it were shown to you that they did have 10 regional offices now functioning in various part of the country, would that change your opinion?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. No, sir; for the simple reason that there would have to be an expansion of activities there and additional personnel added. The CHAIRMAN. If additional personnel were taken bodily out of the Federal Security set-up and put into these 10 regional offices, would that change your answer as to the necessity for additional personnel? Mr. KRAWCZYK. If there were an equal number, sir, it might. I am of the opinion, however, based on my experience, that the employment office does not operate that way, and please do not misunderstand me now when I make that statement that I intend any criticism along that line of the employment service.

The CHAIRMAN. If Mr. Hoover differs with you on the question of eliminating duplication, and promoting efficiency and economy in this way, would you still be of the same opinion?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. I would still be opposed to the Hoover recommendations.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. As for the second point in my statement, from the standpoint of impartial administration, the Department of Labor is no more an appropriate agency for administering the employment and unemployment compensation services than is the Department of Commerce.

I can speak with authority there because the State of Wisconsin was the first State that adopted the unemployment compensation law in this country.

The Unemployment Compensation Act was envisioned to be a program for the benefit of the general public.

Congress decided that it should be administered by a neutral agency and, therefore, created the Social Security Board which is now known as the Federal Security Agency. The nature of this program has not changed, and there is no reason now to hand it over to a protagonist for any particular group, either the Department of Commerce or the Department of Labor.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you then consider that your sources of information and investigations to be superior to those of the Hoover Commission on this point?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. I would not want to say I was quite that qualified but I would like to say, however, upon examination of the Hoover Commission report you will note there that the Task Force, particularly on this particular item, made no recommendation but made a very strong recommendation as to other portions that should have been transferred to the Labor Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any adverse recommendation or opinion by any member of the Hoover Commission or from any task force? The Brookings Institution was involved in this.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. They recommended to the Commission nothing on this particular subject. I heard a witness from the Hoover Commission testify before the Senate committee and he said that the Hoover Commission desired this particular service in the Labor Department

but then when questioned as to details he was unable to supply them and was rather unsatisfactory in his replies to the questions.

Mr. McCORMACK. Do you think you ought to express your opinion about some other witness' testimony?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. What I mean is that the over-all recommendation of the Hoover Commission on the transfer of this particular service was apparently a consideration of something else.

Mr. HOFFMAN. In view of what Mr. McCormack has said, let me call your attention to the fact that I have raised the same point here repeatedly and I am happy to find myself in accord with the gentleman from Massachusetts on a very sound position that it is not proper for any witness to express his own opinion as to the testimony or weight of the testimony of another witness. But I call attention to the fact that this witness was asked by the chairman as to whether he thought he knew more about it than the Hoover Commission task force.

Mr. MCCORMACK. He was asked whether his sources of information were better.

The CHAIRMAN. We ought to know the sources of his information when he makes a statement as broad as that which differs with the Hoover Commission report that he has endorsed. He says his association has endorsed it in toto but yet they differ. The organizations that he represents have endorsed it in toto.

You may proceed with your statement, Mr. Krawczyk.
Mr. KRAWCZYK. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McCORMACK. You approve of the Hoover Commission report in the over-all?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. In its entirety.

Mr. McCORMACK. You realize the fact that the very proponents of the Hoover Commission report are likely to bring about by objections, technical or otherwise, to this or that plan, a break-down of the effectiveness of the over-all report and prevent it from being effectively adopted. You realize that, do you not? In other words, if you approve of the Hoover Commission recommendations, it is pretty inadvisable to start differentiating here and there because it starts into operation a chain of events which gives impetus to others, breaking down the approval of other plans coming in which you might approve. Mr. KRAWCZYK. Along that line in my statement before the Senate committee may I point out something that I have said there? This is not going to take any more than just a moment.

Mr. McCORMACK. That was just an observation for future thought more than anything else. I can see next year we are going to have some very hard fights. This really has only started.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. I do not think, sir, that the Hoover Commission report should be so ripped apart by Congress that it will destroy the $3,000,000,000 or $4,000,000,000 that eventually is going to be saved.

Mr. LANHAM. You are making the first rift in it. You want to make the first break in the dike and then every other organization that is not satisfied by the report will follow your lead. The bankers want to break into it, you want to break into it, friends of the Army engineers want to break into it, and various other groups.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. May I answer you, Mr. Congressman, that so far as the departure from the Hoover Commission report on this particu

lar matter is concerned, this thing has been of concern to employers and to employee organizations for some time.

Mr. LANHAM. Let me ask you this because of the statement you made a moment ago that all of your organizations have endorsed the Hoover Commission report in toto: when they did that they knew that that report contained this recommendation?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. That is right, sir, but they did not know that when the President submitted the seven plans to Congress that they did not fully represent the Hoover Commission recommendations.

Mr. LANHAM. Of course. You certainly have intelligence enough to know that the President cannot do it all at one time or in one plan. Mr. KRAWCZYK. If you will please excuse me, I am not referring now to the entire Hoover Commission report. I mean on the seven plans.

Mr. LANHAM. The President could not include all of the recommendations of the Hoover Commission report in the seven plans.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. I mean the seven plans which the Commission has recommended. The President has not fully followed the Commission's report.

Mr. LANHAM. He did not include some of the things that he will include in a later report, no doubt.

Mr. HARDY. Do I understand you to mean that this plan is not consistent with the Hoover Commission report?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. That is right, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. In what respect?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. In the respect that items which were to be transferred to the Labor Department according to the Hoover Commission, and for which strong arguments had been made, have not been recommended.

Mr. KARSTEN. You would say that it follows the Hoover recommendations as far as it goes but it does not go perhaps as far as you would like to see it go?

Mr. LANHAM. If that is your only objection to it, I think you ought to state that.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. That is not the only objection.

Mr. LANHAM. Why is it your organizations approved it in toto, knowing that the Hoover Commission had made these recommendations?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. I do not know, sir, whether the members of the organizations which I represent here had before them the President's reorganization plan. I rather doubt that.

Mr. LANHAM. You do not mean they went off half-cocked?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. Excuse me, maybe I am not making myself clear here. At least it is clear in my mind and I am not able to get it over to you. I mean at the time the three organizations considered the Hoover Commission report and endorsed it in toto I am not certain whether or not they had the seven President's reorganization plans before them.

Mr. LANHAM. But they did know that the Hoover Commission had recommended that these functions be transferred to the Labor Department?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. That is right, but in that transfer also were other divisions? I think, as Mr. Findley stated before the Senate committee, if all of the recommendations were out on the table and we

could see exactly what we were getting, probably our attitude on this matter would be entirely different.

Mr. BONNER. You want them submitted all at one time?

Mr. LANHAM. If that is your only objection, it is very weak.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. It might be weak so far as you are concerned. Mr. KARSTEN. You take the position that this plan does not go far enough in strengthening the Labor Department? You would want to strengthen it still further?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. That is not my position entirely. If I can get through with this statement and tell you why I do not think it ought to be in the Labor Department, then you might be able to see why I feel that way.

Mr. LANHAM. But you say that your organizations have stated it ought to be in the Labor Department because they approve the Hoover Commission report.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. Sir, I have not come to the point where I want to dwell on this subject. If I could have your permission, I would like to do so.

Mr. HOLIFIELD (presiding). The witness will proceed.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. Our objection is based upon the fact that the primary function of the Department of Labor would make impossible the objective impartiality which should be the attitude of a governmental agency having control of the important welfare operation in question, namely, unemployment compensation and the Welfare Department.

Mr. LANHAM. Your organizations knew that at the time they approved the Hoover Commission report in its entirety?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. I do not know what was in their minds, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. It was an old proposition with them. They knew all that when they approved the Hoover Commission report and they knew that this was recommended in the report. Is that not true?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. I assume that they read the entire Hoover Commission report, sir.

Mr. KARSTEN. But maybe they did not.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. Let us not indulge in speculation here because I do not know.

Mr. LANHAM. After they had approved the Hoover Commission report in its entirety, did they ever have a meeting? Did the boards of directors of any of these organizations ever have a meeting and retract their approval?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. Yes, sir. The Wisconsin Manufacturers' Association executive secretary had polled the members of the board of directors of that organization. The State chamber of commerce had done likewise. I believe-I am not certain, however-that the Milwaukee Association of Commerce had called their board of directors together for this particular purpose. But at any rate I was authorized to appear by that organization.

Mr. LANHAM. By whom in the organization.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. The executive vice president, sir.

It is not only natural but generally accepted as proper that the Department of Labor, with its primary purpose and with a staff composed largely of union leaders, should function with a union bias.

The experience of the Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. in its strike in 1946 and 1947 affords proof positive that the Department of Labor

cannot be expected to function with the required objective impartiality in the administration of the Employment and Unemployment Compensation Services were union opinion is involved.

This proof is clearly set forth in the company's joint statement made before the House Committee on Education and Labor on February 24, 1947, which is attached, and this is the exhibit which I would like to have accepted in the record.

Mr. McCORMACK. This is for the information of the members of the committee?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. This is for the information of the members of the committee in the determination of which way this is going to go.

Let me get back and point out something else. I gathered from the hearings held before the Senate Committee on Expenditures that there were two real problems. No. 1 was the economy to be effected, if any, and No. 2 was the fear on the part of the employers that if this goes into the Department of Labor, that the entire unemployment-compensation program will fall, based upon the statements made by labor leaders as to disqualifications and so forth. Now some people at that particular hearing said that employers appeared merely to be apprehensive that their statements before the committee were purely speculative and one reference was made that it was purely propaganda. That is why, gentlemen, I submitted the supplemental statement to the Senate committee and why I am incorporating this supplemental statement that I made before the Senate committee into the statement that I am presenting this morning.

Mr. MCCORMACK. I was not raising that.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. I just wanted to clear that so you will know why I brought this particular point in. This is a substantiation, at least one of the substantiations, of the bias of the Labor Department.

Mr. LANHAM. Is that not available in a document for all members of the committee without having to reprint all of this in the record?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. You do not have to reprint all of it. If you will look in section VI, all you need to take in are the red lines. That is on page 19. That is pointed out in red lines all the way throughout. It goes through 19 and 20 and then if you will turn to page 75 you will find section VII and you will find likewise marked off in red pencil the items which you need to concern yourselves with.

Mr. HUBER. Do I understand that parts of this are to be printed in the hearings?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The gentleman has requested that the parts outlined in red pencil be accepted as part of his testimony.

Mr. HUBER. It appears to me personally that we could take official notice of any testimony given before another committee but let each committee stand on its own.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think his request is a reasonable request, and I see no reason why this small amount should not be printed. I do not think it is wise to print the whole book.

Mr. KRAWCZYK. That is the reason we red-penciled this thing so as to just call some specific items to your attention.

Mr. KARSTEN. Does this have anything to do with unemployment compensation, unemployment benefits, and unemployment?

Mr. KRAWCZYK. No.

Mr. KARSTEN. Does it have anything material to do with the subject matter under discussion?