Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. MILLER. There may be some items of inadequacy in general. That is correct, is it not, Mr. Stephens?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes; that is right.

Mr. HARE. Any other question on this item?

PRINTING AND BINDING, FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

If not, the next item is on page 437, "Printing and binding." This page will be inserted in the record at this point.

Printing and binding, Federal Security Agency

Regular appropriation, 1945 act.
Supplemental appropriations for 1945.

Total appropriations, 1945_

Base for 1946___.

$938,000

6,000

[blocks in formation]

944,000 944, 000

Increase (+) or decrease (-) from base

-$2,081

16, 200

16, 200

16, 200

67, 259

67, 259

115,000

+47,741

167, 260

167, 260

176, 200

+8.940

679,800

679, 800

630, 400

-49,400

6,000

6,000

-6,000

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HARE. Now, the increase for printing and binding for the Office of Education, Public Health Service, and the Food and Drug Administration have already been justified.

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. THOMAS. Well, those two increases are based on what, Office of Education, their expanded plan, and the other is the Office of Rehabilitation? Those are the two sizable increases. Mr. MILLER. That is right. Both are being expanded.

PRINTING AND BINDING, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. HARE. And we will insert page 439 in the record also.

Printing and binding, Office of the Administrator, Federal Security Agency

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. HARE. The next item is page 442, "Cost of handling penalty mail."

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HARE. I see you are requesting an increase of $121,500 for this

purpose.

The Office of Education today requested $60,740; Public Health Service, an increase of $40,231; Social Security Board, $19,489. There will be one for the Administrator's office of $340.

Is that the one in which we are interested?

Mr. MILLER. That is the one.

Mr. HARE. These particular items have been justified by the agencies enumerated?

Mr. MILLER. Correct.

Mr. HARE. And you think you are going to need $340 more next year than you had this year?

Mr. MILLER. Well, it was the best estimate we could make at this time.

Mr. HARE. Well, it has been some time ago. Have you been able to change your mind on it?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I think we could go along very nicely without the $340.

Mr. HARE. A good admission. A good way to settle a hearing.
I want to say off the record-

(Discussion off the record.)

SALARIES OF SCHOOL TEACHERS IN THE SEVERAL STATES

Mr. THOMAS. I was advised this morning, Mr. Miller, by some Texas school teachers who were interested in this educational bill, to the effect that in Texas, where the school teachers' pay is far too low and has been all the time, the vocational schools in Texas, which receive contributions from the Federal Government, pay their teaching personnel considerably more than is paid in the public school system of Texas.

If that is true, why, I am very much in favor of it, but what I would like to have you do is to contact Dr. Studebaker and insert in the record some information showing the pay scale in Texas of the vocational teachers, and then compare that with the salaries paid in Texas in the regular school system.

Mr. HARE. Why not include in the same table, or in an adjoining table, informational salaries in the several States?

Mr. THOMAS. I amend my request to have it include all of the States.

Mr. MILLER. All right.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

Salaries paid high school teachers in 1942-43

[blocks in formation]

NOTE. The facts herein presented are taken from a study made by the National Education Association and they are for only a few of the cities over 100,000 in population. Comparisons are not available for the other cities of this class nor for several thousand towns and cities under 100,000 in population.

Generally speaking, so-called regular teachers have been in the teaching profession more years than the Vocational teachers and have invested much more time and money in college training.

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1945.

GRANTS TO STATES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT-COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENTS OF BEN T. HUIET, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, STATE OF GEORGIA; STEPHEN C. CROMWELL, PRESIDENT, INTERSTATE CONFERENCE, MARYLAND; JIM GRAHAM, DIRECTOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT; FRANK T. JUDGE, DIRECTOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION, STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND W. F. SEARLE, DIRECTOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION, STATE OF OHIO

Mr. HARE. Gentlemen, we have with us this morning, at the request of Judge Tarver, a member of this committee, representatives of the several State unemployment-compensation administrations. We regret very much that Judge Tarver, on account of an engagement which he has with his own Committee on Appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, is not able to be with us.

Mr. ENGEL. He is sitting with the conference committee?

Mr. HARE. Yes.

Mr. ENGEL. On the agricultural bill. I think that ought to appear in the record.

Mr. HARE. Yes.

We are pleased to recognized at this time Mr. Huiet, commissioner of labor for the State of Georgia, and also administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Commission for the State of Georgia.

Mr. HUIET. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, at this time I would like to withhold my remarks and present to you Stephen C. Cromwell, of Maryland, who is president of the interstate conference.

Mr. HARE. Of course, you understand that the committee will be glad to give you ample time to present your statement, briefly and succinctly, but we have quite a schedule of witnesses, and we hope to complete this part of the hearing by 11 o'clock.

Mr. CROMWELL. We hope to take not more than an hour, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARE. You may proceed.

Mr. CROMWELL. We want to express to your committee our very deep appreciation for granting us permission to be heard by your committee, because we have a particular interest in this phase of your activities, and we believe that this appropriation is probably more unusual than any other that you will pass upon in the course of your hearings. It is unusual in that it is prepared by a Federal agency which has nothing to do with the final expenditure of the money, and the Budget requests are prepared without the knowledge or the cooperation, you might say, of the agencies that spend the funds; namely, the State unemployment-compensation agencies, and the justification for the requests which are usually made by the same Federal office, the Social Security Board, also have nothing to do with the actual expenditure of these funds.

So that the interested parties really are the State administrators, the administrators of these State agencies, and consequently we do feel deeply grateful for the opportunity to present to you what we believe is the best basis for consideration of the estimate.

I want to call to your attention the fact that this appropriation request is in the amount of $32,000,000 and was predicated upon the assumption that both wars would be continued throughout the next fiscal year. That assumption was in accordance with instructions issued by the Bureau of the Budget to all Federal agencies, to make their requests based upon the assumption that both wars would continue during the next fiscal year.

It seems highly improbable that the war with Germany will continue through this fiscal year to say nothing of the next fiscal year, and it is certainly beyond the realm of possibility that it will continue until June 30, 1946.

When this VE-day occurs in Europe there will certainly be a large amount of reconversion or contract cancelation, at least a relatively large amount. That is going first to add an additional load on the State unemployment-compensation agencies. As a matter of fact, one of the more important contracts involves that of Willow Run plant-Congressman Engel would be familiar with it-where they expect to begin terminating the operation and production at that plant beginning May 1, which will probably throw out of employment from 32,000 to 34,000 employees.

Now perhaps the majority of those people may be placed in other work, but at least they would be entitled to file claims for benefits and have those claims processed, even though later on they might obtain other employment. That necessarily will cause additional burden and additional expense to the State agency.

We have been advised that in the State of California there are at the present time some 25,000 claims filed for the benefits under the act each week, which is a large number in excess of those that have been filed during the immediate past.

Mr. HARE. Would you pardon an interruption?
Mr. CROMWELL. Certainly.

METHOD OF MAKING ALLOTMENTS TO STATES

Mr. HARE. Are the amounts allotted to each State furnished at the beginning of each fiscal year, or are they allotted quarterly or semiannually?

Mr. CROMWELL. The budgets are presented for the full fiscal year. and the funds are given to each State in the form of quarterly amounts. For the sake of argument, for instance, if there be $400,000 to be allotted to a State for the entire year, $100,000 is made available each 3 months.

Mr. HARE. Just one more question to get the point clear in my mind. Suppose it develops during this quarter, for which you have granted $100,0000, that they need more than $100,000 next quarter; would an additional balance be allocated for that purpose, which might consume the $100,000 for the third quarter, so that in that way the $400,000 would be consumed or utilized before the end of the year: or do you permit an allocation so that each quarter's allotment can be consumed only within the quarter?

« ÎnapoiContinuă »