Mr. NOLEN. No, sir. The Commission set up these projects as being the extent to which it considered funds were urgently necessary next year. The Commission has been conservative in this program. It could have set up a larger item, and, I believe, justified it; but these represent the most urgent of those items.

Mr. SETTLE. I think I can clear that up a little more in this way: This Capper-Cramton Act was passed with the idea that several million dollars would be appropriated at one time to buy the land while it was relatively cheap, to be repaid by the District at the rate of a million dollars a year. So the first year after the act was passed Congress appropriated $5,000,000 and said, "As soon as you spend that economically, come back and we will give you another lump sum." That was the whole theory-"Go out and buy this land while you can get it relatively cheap"-the whole $16,000,000 worth. And so we began.. Then, before we could get some more money, as you know, the financial crisis struck us, and therefore these appropriations have lagged; and so we have not asked you for what we felt we needed at all, but what we felt we could get to take care of most pressing situations-$800,000 at one time, and $200,000 at another. Now we come back, under improved financial conditions, facing building developments all through the city, and the necessity for saving these properties now. We could spend not only the $893,700 we are asking for, but we would and should really spend 2 or 3 million if the President should give it to us, and that would be in full keeping with the purpose of this act. So it is not because we spent so little in previous years, but we have culled out what we need most, the things that we feel are most urgent.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Does your experience indicate that the piecemeal acquisition, so to speak-a little for one project and a little for another project-results in a material increase in the price of the land which you have to acquire subsequently?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir. Very frequently when we buy into a section and it is not completed it does not make it very desirable residentially or commercially, because it is a sort of no man's land.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Would it not be more helpful to clean up one project before starting on another one from the financial angle? Mr. BROWN. Not particularly; no, sir.

Mr. SETTLE. We have had no alternative in recent years with our limited funds.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Has the District of Columbia, in fact, made reimbursements?

any

Mr. SETTLE. Yes, sir. Every District of Columbia appropriation act has carried a reimbursement.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. At the rate of $100,000?

Mr. SETTLE. The original act carried reimbursement of $1,000,000 a year. A few years ago a public works act was passed allowing the District to borrow several million dollars, and the reimbursement was cut down to $300,000 a year. These public works will be paid back not later than 1940; then the reimbursement will return to $1,000,000

a year.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Have you any additional funds, other than have come through this committee, for the purpose of this land acquisition?

114681-37-12

Mr. SETTLE. We have had $50,000 from the State of Virginia and citizens.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. But not from Federal sources?

Mr. SETTLE. No, sir. This is the only way we get any money, and we are the only park and playground land acquisition agency under the Government at this time for the District of Columbia.

BUILDING PERMITS

Mr. NOLEN. May we submit some figures on building permits which Mr. Brown has?

Mr. WOODRUM. Yes.

Mr. NOLEN. Briefly, they show a 50-percent increase in building permits last year over the preceding year; and Washington today, according to the Census Bureau estimates, is the fastest-growing city in the United States, having increased 27 percent in population since 1930.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

BUILDING PERMITS

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 7, 1936.

Fiscal year 1935, $19,273,468.
Fiscal year 1936, $29,522,856.

Number of permits 1935, 6,322.

Number of permits 1936, 8,240.

There has been an increase in valuation of building permits every month since July 1936 in present fiscal year:

November 1936, permits, $2,760,000.

November 1935, permits, $1,763,000.

ADMINISTRATION STAFF

Mr. WOODRUM. About the administrative staff: Is that the same as it was in 1937?

Mr. SETTLE. Yes; practically the same.

Mr. WOODRUM. Any change in salary grades or rates?

Mr. SETTLE. No, sir; there are no salary changes.

MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. WOODRUM. You propose to trade in two old cars and buy one new one?

Mr. SETTLE. Yes; and pay the difference.

Mr. WOODRUM. You are estimating $750 for the new car, and you are going to pay

Mr. SETTLE. Whatever the difference is. The net cost is estimated at $500.

Mr. WOODRUM. The cost of the new car not to be over $500. How many cars will that give you?

Mr. SETTLE. That will give us two. We use one regularly, and in case we sent a party out we use another.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1936.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

STATEMENTS OF J. W. MADDEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD; EDWIN S. SMITH, A MEMBER OF THE BOARD; CHARLES FAHY, GENERAL COUNSEL; BENEDICT WOLF, SECRETARY; AND MRS. B. M. STERN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Mr. WOODRUM. We will take up first this afternoon the estimate for the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. Madden, the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Smith, a member of the Board, and several of their assistants are present. Your item, on page 147 of the committee print of the bill, reads as follows:

Salaries and expenses: For three Board members, and for all other authorized and necessary expenditures of the National Labor Relations Board in performing the duties imposed by law or in pursuance of law, including rent and personal services in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; repairs and alterations; communications; contract stenographic reporting services, and not to exceed $300 for law books; books of reference; newspapers; periodicals; operation, maintenance, and repair of one automobile, $750,000: Provided, That the Board may procure supplies and services without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. C., title 41, sec. 5) when the aggregate amount involved does not exceed $50.

JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES

Mr. Madden, do you desire to have your justification made a part of your statement?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes; I would like to have that as a part of my state

ment.

Mr. WOODRUM. We will insert it in the record at this point.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer for the record the following justification of the estimates for the National Labor Relations Board:

JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

The organization consists of a departmental service comprising an executive office, legal division, trial examiners' division, economic research division, division of publications, and an administrative division. The field service consists of 21 regional offices each staffed by a regional director, a regional attorney, and in some cases an examiner, and the necessary stenographic and clerical help, which in no case exceeds three per office, even in the busiest regions.

The present National Labor Relations Board was appointed effective August 27. 1935. By the terms of the act creating it, the staff of the old National Labor Relations Board was transferred to the new Board. It was, however, a skeleton force, and in view of the numerous new duties and obligations imposed by the National Labor Relations Act, the Board found it necessary not only to fill vacancies which had occurred during the summer of 1935, but to augment the staff to handle the new requirements for administration and for litigation.

The Board received from the old Board the sum of $304.000 which remained from total allocations of $1,350,000 made by the Public Works Emergency Administration in 1933 and 1934. A budget estimate for the fiscal year 1936 was presented to the Bureau of the Budget at its request prior to the appointment of the present Board. This estimate was therefore made in advance of formulation of policy and methods of procedure under the new act by the new Board, or reorganization of the staff, etc. The President's recommenda

tion to Congress for this appropriation was not adopted by Congress owing to the failure of passage of H. R. 9215, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session. Consequently, the Board took office with inadequate funds and without knowledge or certainty as to the attitude of the Bureau of the Budget or Congress on its plans for reorganization and operation. Needless to say, this caused a serious delay in the appointment of an adequate staff, provision for proper equipment, etc. Not until February 11, 1936, was the first supplemental appropriation in the amount of $275,000 with $15,000 for printing, made available to the Board. The appropriation was not adequate for the Board's needs and a further supplemental appropriation was granted by the first deficiency appropriation act of the Seventy-fourth Congress in the amount of $65,000. The passage of this act was in doubt until the latter days of the session, and the money was not made available until June 22, 1936, too late for the Board to use it for appointing additional staff and providing facilities therefor. It was available, however, for discharging the deficit which had been incurred during the fiscal year, despite the fact that the Board had not carried to completion its plan of organization.

It should be noted here that the estimates of the 1937 appropriation were submitted, considered by the Bureau of the Budget, and passed by Congress within the first 2 or 3 months of the Board's operation at the same time that the question of an appropriation for the year 1936 was being considered. This was most unfortunate from the Board's point of view, since the attitude of the administrative agency responsible for recommending to Congress the Budget estimate and the attitude of the Congress itself was determined by the consideration that the new Board had had no experience on which to predicate its estimates. The experience of predecessor boards, although brought forward by the new Board, was not accepted as a proper base.

The average monthly estimate for salaries and other expenses allowed the Board by the Bureau of the Budget and by the Congress during the early months of 1936 for the remaining 10 months of 1936 was approximately $57,900, and for the year 1937 was $58,333. The fact that the additional supplemental appropriation approved on June 22, 1936, recognized the necessity for an average monthly expenditure of $64,400 for the Board's activities has not been reflected by any similar action for the Board's appropriation for the fiscal year 1937, which still remains at a monthly figure which is $6,000 below that recognized as legitimate and necessary for the fiscal year 1936.

It is clearly indicated that had not certain circumstances been encountered the Board would have had to request a deficiency appropriation for the current fiscal year, despite its desire to cooperate with the administration's policy of reduction of operation costs. As will be described more fully in the following paragraphs, the administrative activities of the Board have been somewhat reduced in scope by the wave of injunction suits which have been filed against it. While this situation will not persist indefinitely, the Board is, as will be noted in the Budget estimates covering delays in filling positions, furloughs, and lapses, not refilling certain vacancies until the settlement of the injunction question generally has rendered it possible for the Board to proceed uninterruptedly with its administrative action.

LITIGATION

In the 12 months of its operation, 82 injunction suits have been filed against the Board and its agents. Of these, 48 have been decided by district courts in favor of the Board, 22 against it, and the remainder are pending or have otherwise been disposed of. A total of 44 have been carried to circuit courts of appeals. In 16 such cases decisions favorable to the Board's contentions have been handed down, with one adverse decision. The Bradley Lumber Co., denied injunctive relief by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, petitioned the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, which was denied. In addition to this fact, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied injunctive relief in nine cases on appeal before it from a decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia. Thus, the question of equity jurisdiction is being resolved, and the Board will soon be free to pursue its full administrative function.

The practical effect of these injunction suits has been not only to postpone or prevent administrative hearings and determination of facts in the cases in which they were filed, but also to restrict the Board's opportunity to hear complaints in certain regions where the district courts were unfailingly unfavorable

to the act and the Board. Fortunately this condition prevailed in but a few regions of the United States, but its effect on the volume of cases handled in these regions was material, and the effect of stays pending appeals in some cases has been the same. Thus the Board's administrative hearings have been

temporarily diminished.

That the activities of the Board's general counsel, his associate and staff of 11 litigation attorneys have been unduly heavy and highly successful, cannot be doubted on this showing which, after all, is but a partial statement of the litigation activities of the staff. The other major field for litigation under the act is provided by the terms of section 10, paragraphs (e) and (f) of the National Labor Relations Act, which provide for the enforcement of the Board's order by petition and hearing before an appropriate circuit court of appeals, and for review of action by petition of an aggrieved party in an appropriate circuit court of appeals. In this type of litigation 21 actions have so far been brought, 12 by the Board and 9 by respondents in cases before the Board. Eight cases have been decided, five against the Board on a question of specific jurisdiction without reference in any case to general questions of constitutionality of the act, and three favorably to the Board both on the question of constitutionality of the act, and specific jurisdiction. It is anticipated that decisions in other pending cases, argued before the current vacation term, will be rendered shortly, since the circuit courts have convened for the fall session. It is anticipated that in several or all of these cases action will be carried through to the Supreme Court.

The

The potential volume of further litigation under section 10 is great. Board has issued decisions in 104 cases. Because of legal points involved, jurisdictional questions, etc., the Board would normally have petitioned for enforcement of its orders in many more cases than it has, but its litigation staff was too small to bear the burden which such action would place upon it. It is feared that failure to present all sides of the numerous questions arising under the act to the circuit courts for proper litigation may have resulted in some cases in prejudicing the courts in reviewing the act and in considering the problems raised by it.

DEPARTMENTAL PERSONNEL

The budget estimate recommended by the administration for the Board for 1938 is estimated to cover only the personnel estimated for in 1937 despite the fact that there are fewer employees in all classes than the actual experience in 1936 demonstrated to be necessary. It will be noted that there is a reduced estimate for lapses and furloughs for 1938. It is certain that court action will by that time have stabilized the Board's operations so that the savings in salaries in 1936, due to the delay in organizing under the act, and in 1937 because of intereference with the Board's work through injunction proceedings, will no longer be possible.

Twelve litigation attorneys, together with the General Counsel and the Associate General Counsel, have been provided for in the budget estimates of 1937 and 1938. The above discussion of the litigation problems of the Board would seem to render it unnecessary to justify further such, a small litigation staff. In the budget estimate for 1937 and 1938, one associate industrial econemist, grade P-4, and two additional junior economists, grade P-1, have been provided for. These additions to an economics staff which in 1936 comprised a chief, one junior economist, two clerks, one grade 4 associate economist, and a grade P-3 associate, are demanded by the necessity for presentation of economic data bearing on questions of industrial relations as they are encountered in the Board's cases. This staff is the minimum which will suffice. In fact, the Board has found it necessary to enlist the cooperation for the preparation of economic data for its Supreme Court briefs and arguments of a group of 43 economists, statisticians, and others working under a W. P. A. project and not on its own pay roll. In addition, the departmental staff has been augmented by two economists borrowed from other governmental departments. Departmental office attorneys are called upon to review the voluminous records in cases which have been heard, to make preliminary draft decisions under direction of the Board, and to draft specific findings of facts established by each record for the assistance of the Board. There were fifteen such attorneys in grades P-2, P-3, and P-4 in 1936. In 1937, 13 are provided for. The reduction rendered necessary by inadequate funds, renders the work of the Board more difficult and delays decisions. For 1938, the recommended number remains the same.