Mr. CURTIS. I do not want to put any carrots out, but if we have had pretty good results, maybe with a little understanding we can get that done. I am just going to mention one other thing because I have written letters to the Department on this thing. This is in regard to the blind. I have been disturbed for years that the Department has attempted to eliminate the two programs that I felt were geared toward rehabilitation of the blind, in Missouri and Pennsylvania. Missouri had its program long before the Federal Government ever got into the area. Attempts of the Department were made to actually force those two Sta.es to conform to the Federal program, which in my judgment at any rate, is not as well geared toward rehabilitation.

I had hoped that actually the law would be amended to allow innovation, ilke Missouri and Pennsylvania, in this field of the blind, particularly if it really did provide a better rehabilitation program, getting the blind back into, and keeping them in as best we could, the labor market.

That is one reason, I might say, that I worry very much about HEW getting more into the welfare field when I see this kind of restrictiveness that is imposed and resistance to innovation.

Secretary RIBICOFF. I would say this: There is no resistance to innovation on my part on anything.

Mr. CURTIS. I believe that.

Secretary RIBICOFF. Your point has been called to my attention. The law that you talk about expires in 1964.

Mr. CURTIS. That is right.

Secretary RIBICOFF. I have asked the Department to study this to come up with a recommendation and a good look at this long before that law expires, so we can see where we are going on it.

Mr. CURTIS. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, what I have tried to ask you I asked of my own administration. This was my own administration that I had my troubles with. I wanted them to evaluate it from this standpoint: does the Missouri program do a better job on rehabilitation? I think it does, and I think that the Federal program is restrictive in the field of rehabilitation.

I have never had the evaluation made.

Secretary RIBICOFF. You will have my assurance that that evaluation will be made.

Mr. CURTIS. I said if it turned out that Missouri's program did do a better job we ought to turn the Federal program around rather than the way we have been trying to do it. Each year we have to force that temporary extension through.

One thing for the record, Mr. Chairman. On page 18 you give us a lump sum of the programs, of the $98 million and the $93 million, and I wonder for the record if you would break it down into aid to dependent children, and then aid to the blind, and so forth?

Secretary RIBICOFF. We will be pleased to do that. We will break down the entire $93 million and its allocation.

Mr. CURTIS. And the $98 million?

Secretary RIBICOFF. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection this additional material for the record will be included.

(The material referred to above follows:)

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Mr. Knox? Mr. KNOX. Mr. Secretary, in following the interrogation by Mr. Curtis on page 14 of your statement which has reference to the work relief program, this has been instituted, I understand, in many of our cities throughout the country. Your statement reads:

We believe that if the Federal Government is to participate in such payments there must be conditions in the State's plan which assure that the prevailing wage will be paid.

Also then you mention that you believe health and safety standards should be observed. In the bill which has been introduced, H.R. 10032, does this bill provide that unless the States adopt all of the Federal standards the States will not be able to receive Federal funds?

Secretary RIBICOFF. That is correct. You have now-and you might be interested-13 States that have extended their aid to dependent children programs to include families in need because the parent is unemployed have worked relief programs. There are in these States 268 local agencies. That would include a county or city that has a work relief program.

As of September 1961, the number of people assigned to these projects was 11,270. I believe in people working for what they get. I think that there could be nothing more tragic than a person who wants to work not being able to work. One of the things that has held back work programs in the States and the communities is a failure of the Federal Government to participate in payments to welfare recipients, because work programs now are all local or State money, so consequently if you had a relief check of $100 and the person did not work, then the Federal Government, let us say, would contribute $50-let's make it simple-and the State would contribute $50.

However, if the State carried out a work program the State would pay the whole $100. Many of these work programs that the States have carried out are not projects that the State could not get along without and they would rather receive the Federal contribution.

Philosophically, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Knox, I would much prefer the Federal Government paying $50 toward useful work than to pay $50 to a man who sits on the back porch staring vacantly into space, and we estimate that this will not cost any additional

money.

I mean this is one part of the program for which we have not budgeted any extra funds because what we anticipate will be happening is that the States and localities will be substituting work relief programs for the equivalent sums that are being paid for relief without requiring any extra Federal dollars.

I think that we should encourage getting people off of relief doing nothing and to the fullest extent possible having them do some useful work, learning a trade or a vocation, and I have been a strong advocate of this type of program.

Mr. KNOX. I completely agree that if the recipients of welfare are able to work, then they certainly should be required to work if the work is available for them to do. It is this question about the Federal standards. What about State standards? Are we going to ignore State standards as far as safety, and wage scales, and so on are con

80118 0-62-20

cerned, or what are we going to do with them? Are we going to recognize them as a part of the overall program?

Secretary RIBICOFF. Mr. Knox, we do not say that they are all Federal standards. On page 28 of the bill it reads:

provisions which, in the judgment of the Secretary, provide reasonable assurance that

(A) appropriate standards for health and safety and other conditions of work of such relatives performing such work are established and maintained;

Not Federal standards. I do not intend to tell every community and every State what Federal health standards they shall have.

I will be more than pleased to accept the health standards that prevail in the local community. Then the bill says:

(B) payments for such work are at rates not less than the minimum rate (if any) provided by or under State law and not less than the rates prevailing on similar work in the community.

I was very careful to have that put in because I do not intend if there is no minimum standard of wages in the State that the Federal Government is going to enforce a minimum wage standard, but if a State has a minimum wage standard, I think it ought to be at the minimum State standard.

I have tried in almost everything I have presented to this committee and the Congress that comes out of this Department to carefully scrutinize and completely protect what I consider State's rights because I believe in the Federal Government encroaching as little as possible upon our States, and to the extent that I help devise some of these programs or consult with this committee in working them out. I think you will always find me most zealous in protecting States' rights and State standards.

Mr. KNOX. I might say, Mr. Secretary, that we are most happy that we have your statement on the record. One year ago I was approached relative to Federal payments to the Michigan State Welfare Department's participation in Federal funds and it was caused mostly by conflict of State law and your administrative rulings, and the information that came to me was that your Department had informed the welfare department of the State of Michigan that unless they conformed there would be no further Federal matching funds available to the State of Michigan.

Does this entire proposal which is recommended by your Department, the bill which we will have under consideration, put into effect the approximate statement which I have made in regard to all of the provisions of this bill, that they must conform or you are going to cut the funds off?

Secretary RIBICOFF. I would say when you say they must conform, you make the law, and if the law is enacted the failure to conform would make the State open to having its funds cut off.

I am recalling the incident of Michigan. This was a similar situation that took place in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, and Virginia. You may recall that my predecessor, Secretary Flemming, in January before I took office, handed down a ruling on the "suitable home" provision in which he held. arising out of a Louisiana situation, that a State which failed to make adequate provision and cut off assistance to any one family would place all their funds in jeopardy.