moderately expressed and are realistic in the light of renewed efforts to weaken services to all the people, but it does appear that the fiscal authorizations carried in the bills can gain approval in both Houses of the Congress.

It is reasonable to believe that the administration will not be opposed to a program approximately in line with that set forth in these bills. This seems to be the year to get action in the field of juvenile delinquency.

We support the purposes of the legislation now pending.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Riley, and I now recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, Mrs. Green.

Mrs. GREEN. First, Mr. Riley, may I say that I have long admired the legislative activities of the AFL-CIO for they have not only been concerned about labor legislation. I remember, back in the days of the fight for social security that the A.F. of L., and separately the CIO, took a very active part, and also the housing legislation, and certainly the school construction bill, and in so many other fields.

Mr. RILEY. It can certainly be said we are not selfish in trying to constrict this to our own personal benefits and membership. We have a broad base of interest in this land and day of ours, and we take the position that what is good for America is good for us.

Mrs. GREEN. With all of the labor bills that are before both the Senate and the House, I am delighted the AFL-CIO is concerning itself about the juvenile delinquency problem.

Now, a week or so ago, I received a letter from one of the people in the AFL-CIO in my own State, asking for me to give favorable consideration specifically to H.R. 3464, I think, anyhow, the Elliott bill. Do I infer from this the AFL-CIO has endorsed a specific piece of legislation?

Mr. RILEY. Well, it only came to my attention about a week or 10 days ago that there was an effort being made by an organization other than the AFL-CIO to induce our State and city central bodies to endorse one bill over the other, and when I received that inquiryand this happened to come from Pennsylvania, in this case, I got on the phone and I said, "I do not know of any disposition to endorse one bill over the other. We have many friends on the Labor Committee. We are certainly not going to be in the position of picking out a separate bill here and saying: "This is our bill."" That seemed to settle

that.

Now you tell me it comes from Oregon. What I am saying here is this and you may use it in any way you wish :

We are not endorsing anything but the purposes of the bills, as we see them here, and we know that this committee is well equipped to make its own decision on what it takes to come out with a good, strong, definitive bill, as strong structurally and financially as it can be under the circumstances, and in this year, when we know of the cold breezes coming from the north once more, and the economizers are on the march.

Mrs. GREEN. I also notice on this sheet put out by the American Parents' Committee they have Mr. Brophy, Community Services Committee of AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department, listed. This

again should not be interpreted that he, representing your organization, is officially also endorsing the recommendations of the American Parents' Committee.

Mr. RILEY. That is the first time I knew his name was on there. I thought I looked over the letterhead and the list and I just hadn't seen it.

I am sure Mr. Brophy is amply prepared or equipped to serve in any capacity he sees fit, as serves the general purposes and usefulness of the I.U.D.

Mrs. GREEN. But we could not interpret that he endorses any particular bill, representing your organization?

Mr. RILEY. I do not know what he has done. I am a member of the legislative department, and I have given you the action which has jelled at my level. I do not know what the I.U.D., as such, has done, and I might say there is no reason why any constituent group in the great broad framework of the AFL-CIO may not act as it so wishes, in any regard.

Mrs. GREEN. In supporting the general principles for legislation in the field of juvenile delinquency, do you feel that it would be desirable for the Federal Government to expend some sums for the training of additional personnel, such as probation workers, juvenile court judges, social workers, and so on?

Mr. RILEY. For the Federal Government to spend, to do this on its own, unilaterally? Is that what you mean? In what way?

Mrs. GREEN. No. I would interpret it as assisting established institutions simply in making it possible for more people to go to receive the training which will help them in combating juvenile delinquency.

Mr. RILEY. I do not know what we can say about dollar amounts. There again, whatever your committee feels is a realistic thing to do to get the results, that is fine. We hope it is good. There again I do not know how much air you have to take out of your tires to get under the bridge. I really do not know. We just hope that you find what is needed, and can get it through, and we are going to be right down front giving you big applause.

Mrs. GREEN. I want to refer, Mr. Riley, to the specific amount. The decision which this committee has to make is whether or not the bill should include Federal funds for only demonstration projects, or whether Federal funds should also be used for the training of personnel and for grants-in-aid to the States for programs that are already underway.

Mr. RILEY. I do not see much said of grants-in-aid to the States; as I read these bills here, it seems to be on the technical side, technical assistance. Since that seems to be the pattern, whatever is indicated as needed and useful and desirable in the technical field, I am sure we will go along with you 100 percent.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Daniels.

Mr. DANIELS. I have no questions.

Mrs. GREEN. Let me ask you one more. the Hill for quite a time.

You have been here on

Mr. RILEY. A quarter of a century in one form or another. Mrs. GREEN. You know the various groups that are lobbying with rather strong voices.

Mr. RILEY. Yes. I read about them.

Mrs. GREEN. Would it have been your experience that faint heart never won any sizable congressional appropriation?

Mr. RILEY. When you get on the appropriations side, you are here on the authorization side, and you get the customary fights to defend your position as you go along, from those who feel that they know better what is good for everybody than anyone else, but we will be there in the Appropriations Committee at the appointed time, and I hope that every organization here, or that has been here, or that will appear later, will do likewise. I hope that every organization that is mentioned in here by name in one or more of these bills will be here and do a great deal to be helpful, and I would say I will take our chances after that on the push that they give to it. Right now it does not seem to me that you can talk a great deal about money.

Whatever you are talking about here, we are going to have to go over to get the "check" cashed over there, we know. The climate is not good, but whatever it takes, we are going to fight for it, just as we fight for civil defense, handicapped persons, retraining, unemployment compensation, and everything that is involved.

Mrs. GREEN. That is all.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Daniels.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions of this witness; however, I wish to join my colleague in commending the AFL-CIO for their study of this subject, and for your coming here today and expressing your views and recommendations.

Mr. RILEY. Thank you very much. That is very gracious of you. I would like to add one more thing as a footnote to underscore what I have said here.

One or more bills seem to limit this selection of the membership of the advisory committee to those who have displayed leadership in certain fields.

It may be public welfare or specialized even beyond that. I am thinking that with 21 members on the Board, a board of such proportions, it could well take in those who are not specialized, as well. I think it is important not to pinpoint, right down to a fine focus, those who are going to be advisory, and to say that those are the ones we want to hear from and have the Secretary of HEW to listen to. There, again, we come back to the lobbying angle once more.

I think you could well select from nonspecialized, as well. I am not saying anything detrimental or biased against those who are specialized, obviously, but I think it is well worthwhile to give a little extra thought to those who have not displayed leadership. Let's give them a chance to display some. There is a limit to these times here, and if they do not display it I can assure you they can be displayed by others who will.

That is merely a technical suggestion and I hope it is good to the order, and I think it has some value in your thinking.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Riley.

Our next witness for today was to be Miss Selma Borchardt, of the American Federation of Teachers, but I understand she presently is not here. However, she was scheduled to appear yesterday and we did not have time to get to her, so I am going to, without objection, adjourn the committee until 10 o'clock Monday morning, with the understanding that Miss Selma Borchardt will be the first witness, if she comes up then.

The other witnesses for Monday will be Mrs. James Wyker, former president of the National Council of Churchwomen; Mrs. John Bailey Jones, Women's Society of Christian Service of the Methodist Church; Mrs. Paul Blanchard, Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice, Washington; Mr. P. A. McLendon, American Pediatric Association; and Mr. Richard Lennard, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the subcommittee recessed until 10 a.m. on Monday, March 23, 1959.)