Service, but since that time the Public Health Service has pointed out to us, and I think very satisfactorily, that they would be unable to perform certain necessary services of reviewing locally sponsored Public Health projects, such as community-sanitation projects, mine sealing, and so forth, and they requested that $36,000 be added to the $540,000 for the use of the Public Health Service. On the basis of their representations to us, I am willing to recommend that that addition of $36,COO be made to section 6 (a).

Senator HAYDEN. All you have to do is to change the figure?

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir; and strike out the words "within the jurisdiction of such agencies" at the end of the section.

AMENDMENT ADOPTED ON HOUSE FLOOR RELATIVE TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE

Now, there is a new amendment introduced in the House, not by the committee, but on the floor by Mr. Edmiston, and this amendment provides

Senator HOLMAN (interposing). Will you please give the page?

Mr. HUNTER. It is on page 16, Senator. This amendment provides that if the monthly income of a veteran from all sources is less than the monthly earnings that he would receive as a project worker on the W. P. A., the veteran shall be certified as in need of W. P. A. employment but shall not be permitted to earn in any month an amount in excess of the difference between his other monthly income and the W. P. A. monthly earnings.

I am thoroughly in accord with the idea of veterans' preference and should like to point out that the effect of my recommendation_on this section would have given first preference to veterans, once they were determined to be in need. However, I believe that the House amendment is undesirable and involves many complications in operation. At the present time the standard of need governing certification for W. P. A. employment is the same for all applicants and I believe it is impossible to maintain this single standard. The House amendment would set up a dual standard of need for veterans and nonveterans, which seems to me to be inconsistent with the relative need provisions which the House refused to eliminate. Furthermore, I do not believe it is justifiable in view of the provisions already made for the relief of veterans in the programs established solely for their benefit.

The provision that employment shall be provided to veterans in an amount sufficient to make up the difference between their other income and the security wage would make it necessary for us to set up a staggered work schedule which would be extremely costly to control and unsatisfactory in operation. Three years ago the W. P. A. was under severe criticism because of the confusion that resulted from just such staggered schedules as would be required by this amendment. This criticism was eliminated when the uniform schedule of hours of work was adopted. I believe that this uniform schedule should be continued and that we should not take the backward step that would be involved in this amendment. For this reason, I strongly recommend that the House amendment be eliminated.

ELIMINATION OF 18-MONTH LAY-OFF PROVISION

Senator HAYDEN. On that same page, paragraph (b), is the language stricken out on the floor of the House, which relatesMr. HUNTER. That is the so-called 18-month provision.

Senator HAYDEN. That was recommended, as I understand, by the W. P. A.?

Mr. HUNTER. That was recommended in the President's message and included in the W. P. A. and Budget Bureau's draft; yes, sir. Senator HAYDEN. When we had this matter under consideration in former years, my recollection is that the Senate did not sponsor this drastic 18-month rule.

Mr. HUNTER. That is correct.

Senator HAYDEN. The Senate tried to modify it by a discretionary provision.

Mr. HUNTER. That is correct; yes, sir.

Senator HAYDEN. An effort was made to provide that where a worker had been employed continuously on W. P. A. for 18 months and there were no other workers to take his place, he could not be disturbed, but, on the other hand, where another person equally entitled to relief had been unable to obtain it, there might be then some reasonable rotation.

Mr. HUNTER. That is right. I remember that.

Senator HAYDEN. How could a plan like that be worked out in reason and in proper discretion? As it is now, under the House bill, once a man is on the rolls, why, he is on

Senator HOLMAN (interposing). That is what I like about the 18month provision. After 18 months, break the connection, and let him reestablish himself.

Senator HAYDEN. There is sound reason, as urged by those of the W. P. A. in authority, that that was a drastic rule and in many cases it merely meant putting a man off for 30 or 60 days and nobody took his place, which subjected him to hardship that was unnecessary. On the other hand, the equity of the plan I am talking about now is that here is another person equally entitled to work relief but denied it, so long as this man is on. What about some rotation? What can we do about that, Mr. Hunter?

Mr. HUNTER. I have tried to think for 3 years as to language on the principle of rotation that would provide a discretionary element and that would not make life impossible for a State administrator who had to apply it and I have not satisfied myself that there is any such language. I know this does several things besides work hardships on certain people. For instance, in an extreme case such as a W P. A. music project; a small orchestra, we will say. The 18-month man, who is an oboe player, goes for 18 months and is laid off. For all practical purposes, it breaks up the orchestra and they will all go off. Senator HOLMAN. You mean for 18 months continuously? Mr. HUNTER. That is right.

Senator HOLMAN. Many of them will never get off if you do not put a break to it.

Mr. HUNTER. The turn-over in the W. P. A. office during the period since the 18-month amendment was adopted is as high as it has been

at any time, except for a 2-month period when it was first installed and we fired them in great numbers.

(Discussion off the record.)

PROVISION PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY SENATE

Senator ADAMS. Here is the provision that the Senate put in originally (reading):

Employable persons who have been certified as in need of employment for a period of 3 months or more and who have not in that period been given employment on work projects, shall have preference in employment over the persons who have been in an active employment status on such work projects for a period of 18 months or more.

Mr. HUNTER. I think that would be satisfactory. I thought so at the time when it was suggested in the Senate.

Senator ADAMS. At that time, Colonel Harrington, I rather think, was the source of that provision.

Senator BROOKS. I think that pretty nearly carries out your idea. Senator HAYDEN. I had a recollection, but the chairman has brought us the exact situation. As usual, he is more accurate than I am about these matters.

Senator ADAMS. I wish you would prove it on me.

Mr. HUNTER. Off the record, if I might argue

(Discussion off the record.)

CONDITION THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 18-MONTH PROVISION

Senator ADAMS. As you know, the condition that was responsible for the 18-month provision was the disclosure of the fact that in one city in the United States, one of our very large cities, people had been on relief rolls from the very inception of the W. P. A. and had been on it for 3 years, or more continuously, and that a very large percentI think the percentage ran above 50 percent-of those on the rollMr. HUNTER (interrupting). It was far ahead of the rest of the country.

Senator HOLMAN. It takes them on permanently forever and a day, just spoils them, and takes the initiative out of them to go and do something for themselves.

PREFERENCE IN ASSIGNMENT

Senator ADAMS. You have, Senator Holman, a question of two people-one who is on the relief rolls and has been on for 18 months, and one who has been trying to get on, both having equal needs. Now, the question is whether or not you are going to keep the man who has been on 18 months-he meets all the requirements, but there is not room for both of them-or are you going to ask him to step aside and put the man who has not only been on his own but has tried for 3 or 6 months to get on? We have to make the preference between the two. Mr. HUNTER. This thing is true. I want to say that the people who have been discharged on account of the 18-month rule-we have made spot studies of those ever since the rule was adopted. Very few of

them do get private jobs. I think the reason for that is that the turnover on the W. P. A. is quite large and that the people who do not stay on for 18 months leave because they get jobs, and the people who do stay on 18 months-the very fact that they stay on indicates that they have not got much chance to get a job.

Senator HOLMAN. They have chances but they do not make the most of their opportunities.

Senator ADAMS. You can have someone on for 18 months who is a marginal case and who barely makes out the case, and someone who has not gotten on as a minimum requirement. It is a very distressing situation, but under normal conditions you cannot put the marginal fellow off, because he meets your requirements, even though younger people are trying to get on who have greater need. We are trying to do the most just thing that can be done.

Mr. HUNTER. We are faced always with the situation where we have to decide between applicants, both broke and both starving, as to which one is going to get on the W. P. A. Actually, the project determines it in a great many cases, because if we have a construction job-building, let us assume-and one applicant is a man and the other a woman, obviously the man gets the job.

AMENDMENT ADOPTED ON HOUSE FLOOR RELATIVE TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE

Are there any questions on that amendment for veterans, because I think that is very important?

Senator BROOKS. What does it provide now?

Senator HAYDEN. Page 16.

Mr. HUNTER. It makes a very difficult thing to administer, to start with.

Senator BROOKS. Go ahead and read it.

Senator OVERTON. You would have to conduct an inquiry as to the amount of income of each veteran.

Mr. HUNTER. It is very complicated, and a staggered work schedule would be necessary.

Senator OVERTON. Some veteran would be eligible for $2 worth of work, or some such very small sum.

Mr. HUNTER. Which would make the administrative expense of handling him about four times what it would cost for anybody else. They get preference now if they are in need, you understand. Senator OVERTON. That is all right.

CERTIFICATION FOR WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYMENT

Mr. HUNTER. The next item is also on page 17. It starts at the bottom of page 16-the so-called certification amendment.

In discussing the matter of certification for W. P. A. employment with the House committee, I recommended that the language covering this matter be revised to clarify the responsibilities of the local publicwelfare agencies with respect to the determination of need of applicants for W. P. A. employment.

The House retained the language of the current act, which say thatno relief worker shall be employed on such project until after his need for employment has been certified by (a) a local public certifying agency or (b)

the Work Projects Administration where no such agency exists or where the Work Projects Administration certifies by reason of its refusal to accept certification by local agencies.

I recommended that this language be used to clarify this:

That no person shall be employed on the projects of the Work Projects Administration as a certified employee shall be so employed until after the public agency approved by the Works Progress Administration has determined his need and has referred him to the W. P. A., and until after the W. P. A. has certified as to his eligibility for such employment.

To clarify that, the situation in some States is that by the use of the language, "certified by the local public agency," some States or counties insist that when they certify a man to us, we haven't anything more to say about it. We have to take it. And my proposal is that the local agencies be required all over the country to certify as to the man's need or refer him to us, and then we certify as to whether he is employable or not and whether we can employ him on a project.

Senator ADAMS. I was wondering if this language of yours could not be clarified a little, too.

Mr. HUNTER. It might be. The present situation is that if we do not have the privilege of reviewing these referrals, we run into many local, county, and occasionally a State public-welfare agency whose certification of the person to us is in our opinion not a very good certification.

Senator ADAMS. I would put all the burden on you.

Mr. HUNTER. That has been discussed for several years as to whether we shouldn't do it all.

Senator ADAMS. I know that you gentlemen are not enthused about that.

Mr. HUNTER. I am inclined to say that that is the only way you can get a completely uniform standard. On the other hand, I know of the terrific complications, political and otherwise, in having Federal agencies certifying local people as to whether they are in need or not. This recommendation is not an important one, except from the point of view of administering the program. We have difficulties in many places now in refusing to accept certification of local agencies. We are willing to accept their certification as to need, but not as to the certification for employability.

BARRIER TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS

The next section is the barrier to the employment of aliens, section 10 (e). There is no change in the act as it stands now which continues to ban against the employment of aliens. The recommendation I made to the House committee was that this barrier be removed and the right to employment be extended to those aliens who were otherwise eligible under the various provisions of the act. I think the fact that a person is an alien does not necessarily mean that he is disloyal to the United States. Many of our aliens come from countries with whom we are working closely in our defense effort, and I believe that my recommendation is in line with the many other moves that are being made today to achieve national unity.