reinstituted by the Department of Labor. He was a competent person, quite well-known, and very able to handle the press conferences.

The difficulty that began developing with the press was that, in practically all departments of Government, deputy officers, deputy commissioners, deputy assistant secretaries, are political officers, like their chiefs. Secretary Mitchell, to his credit, had changed that in the Department of Labor. It was a fact that every one of our deputy assistant secretaries was not a political officer, but a career employee, as was Seymour Wolfbein.

But the outside public did not always understand this. And whenever questions began to be raised about the figures, there were murmurs such as, why isn't the Bureau of Labor Statistics issuing these reports? Why is it being done by a representative of the Department of Labor?

Then came the famous "eating of the hat." And that occurred in the election year of 1960. I suffered through this, so I can speak feelingly about it. We had no fixed date for releasing the monthly figures at that time. We released them when we were ready. And that took some time. We in BLS would have the figures in our hands, and of course in the Bureau of Census, because census tabulated them and sent them over to us. Furthermore, we reported them to the Secretary of Labor. And they were given to the Council of Economic Advisers. Of course they were sent to the White House. You could not have the President caught unawares about a figure that might have a serious bearing on his policies.

That meant, however, that the figures were in storage for 2, 3, or 4 days, pending our 11 o'clock release on the day we chose.

In June of 1960, when the youngsters out of school brought the unemployment figure very high, Secretary Mitchell wanted to show the public and this was a perfectly legitimate objective-that the figure would be much better later on, that the June peak was purely seasonal, that it had nothing to do with a recession, that there was no recession and there was not. So he bet Mr. Meany of the AFLCIO a hat that that figure, whatever it was, in June-it was 4.2 million-would be below 3 million in October. He based his guess on the seasonal variations. October is often the lowest unemployment month of the year. So Secretary Mitchell bet Mr. Meany that in October unemployment would be down to 3 million.

As soon as that happened, I started agitating with the Secretary of Labor, and with Under Secretary O'Connell, who was the finest administrator under whom I ever worked. I said:

We will be in trouble in November, because the normal time of issuing this release will be around Thursday, November the 9th. That will be our usual time. But if we want to get that figure out in time for the election on Tuesday, we will have to start working on Friday and work all weekend. Our staff will have to be assembled for that purpose, so that we can rush it out on Monday.

Well, they could not make up their minds. They did not know which way to do it. They said, we had better wait and see.

Well, we waited and we saw. We even hoped that Census would not get the figures to us early. They were not cooperative on that occasion, and produced them on Friday. There we were on Friday with no plan, with the data in hand, with no release until the following Thursday.

Somebody leaked the fact that the figures were available. So beginning on Saturday and continuing Sunday and Monday, telegrams began arriving-Mr. Meany issued a challenge: Why don't they let the Bureau of Labor Statistics release those figures; they have them. Of course we had them. The argument got hotter and hotter. It was literally a disaster, because the figures did not actually come out until Thursday. In fact, they were not too bad-3.5 million. Secretary Mitchell missed by about half a million.

If the figures had come out in advance, my guess is that they would have had less effect than they actually did on the election. It is even conceivable that there might have been quite a difference in the results, because the unknown always looms large in people's minds.

One result of that experience was that, when Secretary Goldberg came in with the next administration, the first thing he did-and we in the Bureau of Labor Statistics cooperated with him, we believed in that was to arrange that those dates would be fixed for a year in advance, that we would release the data exactly on the date that we pledged. The public would know that on a certain date in each month this index would come out. And incidentally, we tried to see if we could not get it out before the election.

That last is very difficult, because that election day in November gravitates back and forth, sometimes early, sometimes late. It is a difficult situation for the BLS at that time every election year.

We met the deadlines. For the next 4 years I recall only once when we had to delay it 1 day, because of a machine breakdown. We made those dates, we worked overtime, we did everything we could to make those dates effective. On that basis, then, we put an end to the issue of the dates of release. And I have not heard of any problem about that since.

Then another problem arose, Mr. Chairman-you will be familiar with this, because you got into the act at that time. That was the difficulty that arose in 1961. When the new administration came in they were still following the practice of having the press conferences with Seymour Wolfbein, Deputy Assistant Secretary. I would sometimes be there, and sometimes not. Our staff were always there, in case any questions needed to be answered technically.

But now Secretary Goldberg, in the new administration, was pressing for legislation. So he arranged for press conferences, at which he would release the figures. I would be sitting there, and other members of our staff to support him if necessary. The Secretary would go on to discuss the new legislation which he had devised to take care of the unemployment problem. That type of conference merged the policy decisions that were going to be made with the statistics that were being announced.

I began to get murmurs about this as early as April or May. And I made representations at that time to the Secretary that this was not a good idea, that while the TV lights and TV cameras were very spectacular, and undoubtedly had an effect on the legislation, it was having a bad effect on the statistics.

That was the situation which gave rise to the criticism that was expressed through the Reader's Digest. I want to say, on behalf of the Reader's Digest, that I can understand why a journalist who was

looking at that performance would raise the question, are these policies being based on the right figures? So the criticism was made that we in BLS were juggling the figures in the interest of the Secretary's policies.

That was the trigger that established the Gordon Committee, so called. When the story broke, the President was deeply concerned. A decision was finally made that a committee of experts, well-known national experts, be appointed to review the whole situation, not only in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but all the other statistics as well, and report on what needed to be done to improve them and to guarantee their nonpartisanship and accuracy.

The Gordon Committee reported a year later. And that Gordon Committee report has been a timetable for the improvement of the data. As a matter of fact, on the basis of the Gordon Committee report plans for revision of the sample were undertaken immediately and carried through in the following 3 years.

In the meantime, your committee, Mr. Chairman, became active. You called us down to testify in November of 1961, as I recall it, and to report how we were making out and what the true situation was. Our staff appeared before your committee at that time. Those hearings are well known.

And your committee gave us a clean bill of health as a result of the hearings. So that put an end to that situation. I think, then, that carries me down

Chairman PROXMIRE. What was that date?

Mr. CLAGUE. That was November 1961, sometime in November. I think, Mr. Chairman, that I used too much time-I really never intended to talk this long. It shows what an old man will do when you get him to reminiscing.

But I think I should say one more word in closing. We did have difficulties from time to time--I do not want to lend the impression that it was a bed of roses, holding a press conference with a score of reporters there, some of whom are willing to trip you up if you stumble, and some of whom are going to ask questions that are difficult to answer. In fact, I think I will close by mentioning one that occurred in my case.

President Truman was in the White House. He had made some statement a day or two before. I do not remember what it was, but it had something to do with employment and unemployment. I had noted it at the time, fortunately. In the press conference, I was giving my little spiel and showing our charts. One of the press representatives said to me, "Could you reconcile what you are saying now with what President Truman said at the White House the day before yesterday?" I thought for a minute, and finally I said, "Do you want to get me fired?"

The whole group burst into laughter, and nobody made an issue of it, so it died.

Now, if I had been pressed, I would have had to deal with it, and I would have had a difficult problem. Fortunately, I knew what the President had said. The point is that it is difficult when a career officer comes into contact with the political officers, the policymaking officials we may call them, who are interested in policy and who are endeavoring to make a case for their policies.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Thank you very much, Mr. Clague, for not only an interesting but also a delightful résumé of the whole background and history of this.

I would just like to ask, because I would like to sharpen it-I think you may have answered this already-I would like to know as briefly and simply as you can state it, how long has the Commissioner of Labor Statistics' press conference been going on, on the basis of replying to the press on a monthly basis and answering questions relating to the unemployment figures?

Mr. CLAGUE. I would say since 1959, since the responsibility passed from the joint Commerce-Labor relationship to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It has been continuous since 1959.

Chairman PROXMIRE. When Secretary Goldberg came into that situation to discuss legislation as you explained it to us, what effect did that have on the opportunities for the press to ask questions of the Commissioner, or the Commissioner to respond? Did that interfere with it in any way?

Mr. CLAGUE. No, it did not. Because if Secretary Goldberg did not know the answer, he would turn to me. Or sometimes

Chairman PROXMIRE. Were they questioning him or were they questioning you?

Mr. CLAGUE. Well, they could question us directly also. They would say sometimes, "I want Commissioner Clague to answer, what has happened to such and such an industry, what do these figures show, in your opinion what does this mean?" And I would then answer accordingly.

Chairman PROXMIRE. So since 1959, there has been this regular press conference in which the Commissioner of Labor Statistics has been available to the press to explain the significance and the meaning as he saw it as a nonpartisan expert, nonpolitical expert, the meaning of the statistics; is that right?

Mr. CLAGUE. Yes.

I should have emphasized that when the Gordon Committee sized up the whole situation, including the background and the circumstances under which the problem had arisen, they recommended that the press conferences be returned from officials of the Department of Labor to the technical experts of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The committee felt that this was a cloudy area, the Secretary talking policy, or a Deputy Assistant Secretary giving a report on the statistics, and that it was not wise. So they recommended that it be changed. And Secretary Wirtz, when he read that recommendation, immediately issued an order and restored it to the Bureau of Labor Statistics staff, where it has been ever since.

Chairman PROXMIRE. That Gordon recommendation, then, was made effective in what vear?

Mr. CLAGUE. 1962. They took a year to report, they spent a year studying this situation, and made their recommendations. Their recommendations constitute, as you know, a fair-sized volume. They looked into the census figures, employment security figures, et cetera, et cetera. And they made a number of recommendations, which were carried out in the next succeeding years, and which greatly improved the figures. They made one interesting recommendation, which was that in 10 years they should be called back. But so far nobody has done that.

60-174-71-pt. 1- --2

Chairman PROXMIRE. Prior to 1959 there were periodic conferences by the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, is that right?

Mr. CLAGUE. There were press conferences on the cost of living, on the Consumer Price Index, but not on unemployment. I do not recall that we had any press conferences in those joint CommerceLabor years, because those were releases issued in the name of the Secretaries, the two Secretaries. The text read the same in both releases; they said what we wrote for them. There was no way of holding a press conference unless we gathered a large group of officials together. I do not recall that we had any. However, we were always available for dealing with the press, so that the press could come to us and ask about it. They could also go to the Census and ask questions. We were always available to the press.

Chairman PROXMIRE. I understand that is the situation which prevails now-I am not sure, but from the little I know, and from what I have read through the press, the Secretary of Labor has indicated that instead of the experts being available for questioning at the press conference they will be available to the press on an informal basis if they want to call the experts and ask their interpretation or their understanding?

Mr. CLAGUE. Yes.

Chairman PROXMIRE. That would return, then, to the pre-1959 situation when you had this kind of a situation, is that right?

Mr. CLAGUE. That is right.

Chairman PROXMIRE. At any time before 1959-you said there were periodic press conferences on the cost of living figures had there been any action taken by any officials to say that there would not be a press conference similar to the action taken by Secretary of Labor Hodgson?

Mr. CLAGUE. No. I want to emphasize that these press conferences were arranged with the Department of Labor. We took that into account in the release of the price index, which was not quite as dangerous a field as the unemployment figures. We never knew for sure until about 2 or 3 days in advance when we were going to make it for the price index. It ranged from the 20th of the month to much later in the month, depending on our computation problems. We would negotiate with the Department as to what day would be a good day to hold the conference. That was just commonsense. We did not want to hold a cost-of-living press conference on the day that the Secretary might be making a statement on the employment or unemployment situation, for example. So we selected what seemed like the best time to make the figures available, the time that would cause the least trouble.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Mr. Commissioner, we have five members of the committee here. I am sure some of them may want to question you. We have something of a problem, because at 11 o'clock, I understand, Mr. Moore will be available for questioning on the statistics just released. Of course, members of this committee do whatever they want, there is no restriction. We, of course, do not want to impose on you. But I understand you are not prepared to discuss the statistics which have just been released.

Mr. CLAGUE. I have not seen them.

Chairman PROXMIRE. And I would hope that members of the committee would question the following witness on that, because that is