Senator HALE. How do you reach those figures?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, we reach those figures first from reports coming through the Social Security Board, and of course, we check those figures using our own information.

Senator HALE. Well, obviously, the authorities in the States who are taking care of these people on direct relief would like to turn as many of them over to you as possible, would they not?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well

Senator HALE. And these figures are based on what you have found out after taking the other matter into consideration?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; that is right.

Senator RUSSELL. Mr. Williams, I am very much concerned about that last statement of 250,000 destitute people in areas where there are not any relief offices.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Or where relief resources are exhausted.

Senator RUSSELL. Then how in the name of Heaven will you reach those people?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We set up our own arrangements for certification where such facilities do not exist. We have to do that in certain places and we have done it, but there is no place in America today where there is not some arrangement for certification of needy per

sons.

Senator MCKELLAR. Where are those places?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The situation might be like that in Birmingham, Ala. They do not give relief there to any able-bodied person. All of the money is used for the sick, the infirm and dependent children families. But they will investigate the need of employable families, and certify them for W. P. A. employment.

There are several places where that is true, and in addition there are other places where there is just no relief at all. There isn't any relief

money.

Senator HALE. Does the Farm Security Administration deal with such cases in urban districts at all?

Mr. WILLIAMS. They give direct relief and grants to persons in need, Mr. Alexander is here

Senator RUSSELL. In urban districts?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No; not in urban districts. I thought he was speaking of the open country.

Senator HALE. They do not in urban districts?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No.

Senator RUSSELL. If you do not mind addressing it right now, I wish you would tell the committee how you propose to set up machinery to reach the people who have no relief offices at the present time. Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Senator, I would be very glad to do that. We found last year there were places in America where there was no relief machinery.

Senator MCKELLAR. Would you mind telling where those places are? Would there be any objection?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Where there was no machinery to give direct relief?

Senator HALE. Do you mean that the localities had nothing for relief?

Mr. WILLIAMS. In some places they ran out of funds. There weren't any funds and there were no direct relief agencies.

Senator HALE. You mean they let them starve?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is what it would amount to.

Senator HALE. Do you know of any cases where they have let people starve?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Senator, we know of places where if it had not been for the Federal Government people would have starved. I am not willing to say that I know actually of anyone starving.

Senator HALE. In all probability, in those cases, if they had not known that they could get help from the Federal Government, would not the local agencies have taken care of them?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Perhaps I can expedite that Mr. Williams, by putting the question this way: You do propose, in event that this appropriation passes or whether it does not pass, to see that the people in all sections of the country have equal opportunities to secure work relief based on need and that there will be no discrimination due to the fact that local communities are not providing any direct relief? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, Senator, I am happy to tell you and the committee that we have already taken steps to see that that happens. There are no counties in America today or no cities where we do not have certification arrangements. We have certification arrangements in every county in America either furnished by the localities or furnished by ourselves.

Senator RUSSELL. As you went along with your statement and as you were going on with the reports in the cities and the need of the cities, I was a bit apprehensive that perhaps they had not paid enough attention to the cases of dire need in towns of two or three or four thousand people where industrial plants are closed down.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am glad you brought that out, Senator, because our record is very good on that. We have opened offices everywhere. Senator GLASS. Mr. Williams, when communities and private charity are mixed to take care of these unfortunate people, is it or is it not logical, due to the fact that they think the Federal Government is going to do it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Senator Glass, the records show that the local communities are today doing more in the way of public assistance than they have ever done before, so it wouldn't seem that the presence of the Federal Government has caused them to slacken their efforts, but rather the facts do show that it has increased their efforts. I have some figures which I am going to read shortly on that.

Senator HAYDEN. My recollection is that there are about 3,100 counties in the United States. Now, in how many counties in the country was it necessary for you to go in to set up your own organization?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I couldn't give you that exact figure; not a great many.

Senator HAYDEN. As many as a hundred?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; probably more than that, but we didn't set them up on an individual county basis. We set them up for regions to be sure that the whole region was covered.

Senator BYRNES. If the State did not supply the organization, then you stepped in and supplied it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right.

Senator RUSSELL. Could you for the information of the committee break those down and bring them into the committee so we would have all that for our information?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would rather put it on the basis of those States where we have made special allocations for that purpose.

Senator RUSSELL. States, if you desire, but I think if it were confined to counties it would be more enlightening.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The only difficulty would be that I would have to write to our State administrators and ask them in what counties this was done. I can give you the States where we have allocated funds for

that purpose.

States in which W. P. A. is solely responsible for investigation and certification (as of February 15, 1938): Maine, Vermont, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. States in which W. P. A. assists existing State agencies by employing additional workers (as of February 15, 1938): Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas.

Senator HALE. Do you take all of these people that have not been taken care of and put them on work relief or give them direct relief? Mr. WILLIAMS. We give no direct relief at all.

Senator HALE. In other words, the community that has not been taken care of gets the first crack at work relief ahead of the man that happens to be discharged from his job. You do not take care of all the unemployed?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No.

Senator HALE. So these people are put in a rather preferred position?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, frankly, direct relief tends rather to undermine a worker's strength and if he is kept idle long enough he simply loses his ability to work efficiently. The result is that finally he is not able to get a job in private industry.

Senator HALE. Regardless of that, these people have another way of being taken care of. You give them no direct relief. Therefore, you must employ them on work relief.

Mr. WILLIAMS. They may stay on the relief rolls of the local community.

Senator HALE. Yes; I am taking the case where the local community does nothing to help him. You say there are some

Mr. WILLIAMS. In that case, we would put him to work. But, Senator, after a man has stayed on relief for months and months with nothing to do, he may be no longer employable.

Senator HALE. How does he get on direct relief if the local people do not take care of him?

Mr. WILLIAMS. As I said, they may take care of certain kinds of needy but not able-bodied people.

Senator HALE. Then they do take care of those cases in certain localities?

Mr. WILLIAMS. In some.

Senator RUSSELL. In some cases it is limited to the surplus commodities and not altogether to the discredit of those people in some counties. In some cases they just have not got the funds available.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right, and proportionately they have spent more money than some other counties that are more wealthy.

Senator ÖVERTON. How do local communities, as a rule, extend relief to employables? Is it through direct relief or by giving them jobs?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Nearly all of it is direct relief.

Senator OVERTON. Direct relief?

Mr. WILLIAMS. There are some States that give work relief, but the great bulk of it is direct relief.

Senator OVERTON. Do you try to encourage direct relief on the part of the States or do you undertake to encourage their giving them jobs?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We furnish employment for as many needy persons as we can with available Federal funds. We don't get into the question of how the States and localities should administer their relief.

Senator HALE. Do the local communities contribute through sponsors' contributions to the general program?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Actually there is not very much of that kind of work relief. I know California tried it for a time; I believe that Rhode Island and Connecticut now have local work relief programs, and a few other States have a little. All together, local work programs are not extensive.

Senator RUSSELL. They contribute then through their sponsors contribution to the general program and that helps them to provide employment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; local communities in States are now contributing an average of 22.8 percent.

Senator BYRNES. Last year you told us, when we had the annual bill up for consideration, that the average for the country was about 13, was it not?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it was at that time, Senator.

Senator BYRNES. According to your statement now it is 22.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Can you also furnish for the record, Mr. Williams, a chart or table showing the percentage of contributions by States? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

(The material referred to follows.)

TABLE 3.-Expenditures on Works Progress Administration by States and by sources of funds, July 1 through Nov. 30, 1937

TABLE 3.-Expenditures on Works Progress Administration by States and by sources of funds July 1 through Nov. 30, 1937-Continued

3 In addition to amounts shown, New York City has made available to the Works Progress Administration approximately $150,000 in cash which had not been expended as of Nov. 30, 1937.

Senator RUSSELL. I would like very much to have that.

Senator BYRNES. One more question and then I am through with this. Last year the argument was made that the communities could not put up any more. How did you get them to increase from an average of 13 percent to 22 percent?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I think, Senator, that has come about through the communities' greater interest in projects that we were able to aid. That is one reason. The increased employment and the better business conditions in 1937 have put them in a better financial position. Senator BYRNES. The same cities that today claim they could not contribute any more are the cities that a year ago said they could not contribute any more than 13 percent, I think, are they not?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I wouldn't want to say yes or no as to that. Some cities have not been able to increase their share of project costs as much as others. As I remember our discussion last year, we agreed with you that we ought to get something approximating 20 to 25 percent, but we didn't feel that an arbitrary rule of that kind could be applied successfully to every one of the thousands of local agencies that sponsor our projects. Some sponsors could not contribute that much and others who are able to contribute more than a standard percentage would reduce the amount they were spending before the adoption of such a measuring stick. I remember that as Mr. Hopkins' general position.